So…something interesting about pirates…ah how about “The Pirate Code”?.
No Parley?
Reply
Category Archives: Law
Equality.
The fifth.
and Pt 2 of course.
Touch
Ever worked in a shop or a bar? You know those people that don’t actually give you the money but put it on the counter? Doesn’t matter if it’s a note or someone determined to empty their penny jar it really annoys me. It’s like you are not worthy, that you are an untouchable, that you are there to serve and do their bidding. That’s why they count the money out so they don’t have to touch anything that you have had your filthy dirty disease-riddled necrotic fingers near.
Well it’s the same when someone sends an email which is full of junk but has no actual substance because it says “Read the attached”. IT USUALLY HAS A LOT OF CAPS IN IT. Oh, and it’s sometimes a .doc screenshot. What in hell is going on there then?
Really fucking irritating.
Break don't kill
In films – and probably real life – someone does something very bad (usually killing a someone) and a member of the bereaved family then kills the perpetrator. And that seems wrong to me.
It’s not the killing I have a problem with (I can understand that) and it’s not the desire for revenge (I can understand that too) it’s the thinking that this will teach them a lesson. It doesn’t does it? You can’t kill someone during “teaching them a lesson” – you can’t measure the success or failure of your chosen method. And all it really does is hurt the family which is okay because they hurt yours but they are not the prime target.. Any further vengeance will happen regardless of the death surely? So if you want to make them (the killer) pay, you want to teach him a lesson (and let him live to learn it), punish the family and generally make the other side genuinely regret everything that happened then the killer has to live.
So paralysing them would appear to be the way to go here. Full paraplegia could be tricky given the location of the necessary injuries – we don’t want to kill them after all – but breaking the spine halfway down has no real possibility of that (assuming no real collateral damage to other internal organes). You get the satisfaction of visiting pain and revenge on the person, you are teaching others that you should not be messed with and the original offender gets to live with the consequence of their action for the rest of their days.
Bonus points would seem to be in order simply because no-one actually died – but you did take a life.
Only the really bad guys get in
BBC: The Home Office said there was a blanket ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK under EU laws enabling member states to exclude someone whose presence could threaten public security.
My emphasis because wtf don’t they use these laws then?
Guantanamo people? Known terrorists? Known inciters of racial and religious hatred? They are okay? Must be. And Fitna? Find it and watch it.
Lock Glitter up.
Gary Glitter ?in fear of vigilantes? as court blocks attempt to protest innocence. Times
Oh.
Are we meant to give a damn?
Would we find anyone guilty of any offence committed against the paedophile? I’d certainly hope not.
And did you see his lawyer on TV? Either he can’t afford a better company or it’s been cast down to them as a ‘prove yourself’ case. I think this means he has crap representation but hey, do we care about that either?
Smoke-free Rampton?
High Court judges have ruled psychiatric patients should not be allowed to smoke at a high security mental hospital.
“There is very strong evidence that smoking causes disease and endangers the health of the smokers themselves and other people who live and work in their vicinity. BBC
You can’t argue with the danger to others, but:
The judge added the smoking ban was also justified by security difficulties posed by allowing inmates – many of whom have “dangerous, violent or criminal propensities” – to smoke outside in Rampton’s grounds.
This is garbage. Rampton wants, Rampton gets. They can completely afford the security needed. This is a complete non-excuse. Seriously it is that bad.
Go back here:
There is very strong evidence that smoking causes disease and endangers the health of the smokers themselves
Here are the side-effects of ONE drug that someone now denied the right to smoke will be forced by law to have if prescribed:
Mild hand tremor; mild thirst; temporary, mild nausea and general discomfort at the beginning of treatment. Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); blurred vision; confusion; diarrhea; drowsiness; excessive weight gain; fainting; giddiness; inability to control the bladder or bowels; increased thirst; increased or decreased urination; involuntary twitching or muscle movements; loss of consciousness; loss of coordination; muscle weakness; persistent headache; persistent or severe nausea; ringing in the ears; seizures; slow or irregular heartbeat; slurred speech; swelling of the ankles or wrists; unsteadiness; vision changes; vomiting. (There are a lot more) http://www.drugs.com/sfx/lithium-side-effects.html
There are many other drug cocktails the psychiatrists will be using in that hospital/prison
Have a smoke or take your Lithium – which would you rather?
I hope someone takes this to the Court of Human Rights. And I hope someone else forces all the staff and families there to stop smoking as that whole area of land is Health Service / Govt property. And don’t you just know that the person who actually started all this is one of those ex-smoker zealots?
Legal editor needs clue – send to Guardian Unlimited.
“Warning to abusive bloggers as judge tells site to reveal names” says the Guardian Unlimited.
Just one tiny problem – the article mentions 2 forums.
Forums are not blogs, forum posts are not blog posts, forum users are not bloggers.
I honestly thought the Guardian had more of a clue.
Court orders obliging websites to disclose the identity of users posting anonymous defamatory remarks began in 2001.
That may be true, but if we take this blog for instance I can reveal no more than you can see. Sure I have the email addresses but if you are really going to have a go at someone then you shouldn’t use your email. And even then it proves nothing because you can put anyone’s details there. There are a surprising amount that start comments@ blog@ wordpress@ and none are real. So as a blog owner who requires no registration – and therefore a verifiable address – for use I can’t see that I could be held accountable. I’m sure some lawyer somewhere would say that I am. “I” also being “us bloggers”.
But then abuse is the least of it – linking is illegal now.
Be nice to Judges.
Back in mid-2006 a nasty scrap of humanity was sentenced for abducting and sexually assaulting a toddler. Craig Sweeney was sentenced to 18 years but told he could possibly walk free after 5 years. Understandably, everyone outside the judiciary was angry at this, but the judge was – in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor – exactly right with the judgement. (This means that Lord Falconer agrees that a known predator of young children will be free to start all over again in less than 5 years from now.) At the time, the media reacted with the indignation felt by everyone other than Lord Falconer and his wig-wearing cronies.
Today there was a judgement about the way that other judgement was handled.
The media, particularly the tabloid press, was also criticised and was asked to restrain from attacking judges.
What? The media is meant to just agree? How can you attack a sentence and not attack the idiot who used his own judgement to arrive at it? Maybe the media should just be quiet and in doing so be seen to be in total agreement.
Judges are phenomenally well paid and are meant to be intelligent. They know exactly what they are getting themselves into and with the trappings of their career come the barbs. Cope with it.
In that same link above:
The constitution committee also looked at the creation of the Ministry of Justice when Mr Reid split the Home Office in May.
It said it had “significant constitutional implications” but that ministers had tried to dismiss it as simply a machinery of government change.
The government was criticised for “failing satisfactorily to consult the judiciary on the proposed changes”.
What this means is “Damn! More work!”. It also means “Politicians should not interfere with the judges but the judges can interfere with the politicians” (unless Cynthia Payne was in charge of course). So the judges want to have complete control and be protected from anyone saying anything bad, but in the meantime they will allow people out of jail who are known to harm children and can be absolutely guaranteed to do it again.
Does anyone not a judge agree with this? I seriously doubt it.
So we had the uncaring Judge John Griffith Williams who was joined by the incompetent Judge Francis Gilbert and this particular diabolic trinity was completed with the bleeding heart Judge Julian Hall. And if the Lord Chancellor had his way then the media would not report the public feelings on the matter, then the politicians would not try to enact new laws (which is NOT the remit of the judges) and the judges could continue in their strange world where they are the sole arbiters of good and bad.
But…… go back to 2005 and decisions were taken to increase the sentences handed out to men who kill their wives. Would this have happened if the media had been quiet? No, of course not.
There were more sentencing guidelines issued in 2006. Here are a few words from that report:
The guideline which was drawn up after a major consultation
Feeling let down / angry / sad or many other emotions is difficult to do in isolation. Ideas about what else could be done are also difficult to express as you only have your own experiences to go on. Which is where the media comes in. Parts of the media can and do accurately reflect the feelings people have over many things and if a judge thinks it’s okay for someone else to be attacked then they should expect equal treatment. But the media also functions as a megaphone and of course that will cause a louder and harsher voice – people like me saying that the likes of Sweeney should be executed. Does that mean it will happen? No – just like Sweeney’s mother probably thinking of her son as someone who would not harm anyone and should be freed will not happen (for 5 yrs anyway). So the media magnifies but in magnifying it also communicates other ways of dealing, other voices that can be more objective, other voices that urge change by process. Do not judges praise the media for their help in solving crimes? (so should they not be criticised for also causing it?). The media are a vital part of the judicial process. Without the media we have no review, no feedback, no change, no presentation of the people.
Judges, by their actions and inactions have a direct and profound impact on society. For that their every ruling should be put under public scrutiny and society has every right to praise, criticise and castigate as the public and media see fit.