Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2 ... 20 21
23 24 ... 29 30
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

Marf

22,907 posts

121 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
Hilts said:
Marf said:
Hilts said:
Breadvan72 said:
Er, was that the same Christopher Tappin who appealed and whinged like crazy and who is alleged to have helped sell weapons to Iran?
What weapons were these then?
Batteries. Heat seeking semi automatic thermonuclear batteries.
biggrin

Good save there.
wink

I'm not sure I agree with Breadvan's characterisation of Tappin as a whinger. He appealed the extradition in the UK courts, when that failed he handed himself in. He could probably have gone to the EHCR but didnt, unlike many others facing extradition to the US

Murph7355

10,162 posts

136 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
The EU is now subscribing to the ECHR, but the two institutions have been completely separate until recently. The ECHR is an instrument of the Council of Europe, which has many more members than the EU.

The ECHR was largely drafted by David Maxwell Fyfe, later Viscount Kilmuir, a British Conservative lawyer who cross examined Goering at Nuremberg, served as Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor in postwar Tory Governments, and signed the death warrants of Derek Bentley and others. The ECHR reflects 1000 years of English/Scottish Common law, and is not an alien code.

The Strasbourg Court is political and weak in quality nowadays. I would favour having our Supreme Court deciding with finality on all ECHR cases. I would favour an entrenched UK Bill of Rights.
Apologies on my earlier post - I meant ECHR rather than EU (though my feelings about the EU are no more positive).

I was aware that the convention drafting was largely done by a Brit (but the additional detail is - genuinely smile - interesting). I still do not believe we should have to bow in the slightest to the European Court, however.

Indeed, that the ECHR "reflects 1000 years of English/Scottish Common law, and is not an alien code" makes me feel even more strongly that appeals to it, after myriad appeals in the UK process, are simply a waste of everyone's time and money and that we should draw a line under them now - if Theresa May wants to avoid this sort of shenanigans in future as she purports, she can start there IMO.

Murph7355

10,162 posts

136 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
...We do not live in a McCarthyite or Stasi state in which any expression of dissent indicates disloyalty.
I would suggest quite strongly that supporting/preaching for the death of the citizens of the society you have freely chosen as your home very much indicates disloyalty.

I don't think anyone wants a McCarthyite/Stasi state. But by the same token this sort of unpleasantness really should not be welcomed under any circumstances in a peaceful (and civilised) society.

If he wants to preach an end to Western society, values and its citizens, he is perfectly within his rights to fk off to Iran or any other state that might accept such behaviour (and accept him and his family). Otherwise he should STFU and the law here should be well enough defined to prevent him spreading his malice without sanction.

Before anyone notes "but where do you stop and where do you decide where the line is drawn", the law does this all the time (speed limits, drinking age, shop opening hours FFS. I'm sure it would be possible to address preaching death to our citizens!).

Breadvan72

16,022 posts

43 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
You misunderstand me. I was commenting on a post above that took the line that anyone posting here a doubt as to the extradition of Ahmad "must have an agenda".

On the wider point, however, I think that our society is strong enough to tolerate people spouting rants against it. Positive incitement to commit crimes is criminalised, but general ranting , and hate speech generally, should be tolerated, I think. I would apply this to all forms of hate speech, including that of the BNP, holocaust denial, and other such nonsense.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 6th October 19:21

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

56 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
A serious question, based on the debate above...

If the UN/EU/Warsi do implement the mooted ban on blasphemy etc. - linking it to hate crimes - will the rabid preachings of anti kaffir extremists also be banned/criminalised?
Advertisement

D900SP

438 posts

63 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
So, a person who has a legally enforceable professional obligation to work for whichever client comes through the door is scum?

Does he become scum only when the client is convicted, or is it enough for the client to be accused of something bad?

What about a prison doctor who attends a sick prisoner? Is the doctor scum?
With so many one-sided views you are never going to win with that (correct) statement.

If any professional takes on a job, they are obliged to fully commit their resources.
I would have thought that entering any career that would entail dealing with people no-one else wants to would sometimes make that person unpopular with the public.
However, the public wants (needs) justice and equality.

Unfortunately, the person committing anything that leads to needing that help really doesn't give a thought to the public and their own responsibilities. Unlikely to change anytime soon.


Breadvan72

16,022 posts

43 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
Marf said:
Hilts said:
Marf said:
Hilts said:
Breadvan72 said:
Er, was that the same Christopher Tappin who appealed and whinged like crazy and who is alleged to have helped sell weapons to Iran?
What weapons were these then?
Batteries. Heat seeking semi automatic thermonuclear batteries.
biggrin

Good save there.
wink

I'm not sure I agree with Breadvan's characterisation of Tappin as a whinger. He appealed the extradition in the UK courts, when that failed he handed himself in. He could probably have gone to the EHCR but didnt, unlike many others facing extradition to the US
Missile batteries. Thats the charge. It may or may not be true. Maybe Mr Tappin was not responsible for the whingeing on his behalf, but the press was full of such whingeing.

Breadvan72

16,022 posts

43 months

[news] 
Saturday 6th October 2012 quote quote all
PS: I add that I do agree that Mr Tappin did not play the system in the way that Hamza did. His case didn't offer an ECHR route because there is no real question about fairness of trial, or about imprisonment in a supermax prison.

Borghetto

1,739 posts

63 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
Oh dear, it appears the Americans have removed his hook and his lawyer has asked for it back, so he can attend to his personal needs.

Borghetto

1,739 posts

63 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all

thinfourth2

28,610 posts

84 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
Don't know what the fuss is about

Now he is in America he's armless

Mermaid

15,731 posts

51 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
thinfourth2 said:
Now he is in America he's armless
smile

I reckon this thread will have a long life

Vipers

18,119 posts

108 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
Hopefully the American legal system wont pussy foot around like we did, and sort it quickly, unless he is totally innocent of all the alegations of course biggrin




smile

br d

3,174 posts

106 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
So, a person who has a legally enforceable professional obligation to work for whichever client comes through the door is scum?

Does he become scum only when the client is convicted, or is it enough for the client to be accused of something bad?

What about a prison doctor who attends a sick prisoner? Is the doctor scum?
This could fill a thousand threads and I find it fascinating.
Disregarding one ridiculous response you received BV, I think many of the general public do struggle with the concept of solicitors/barristers working hard to 'get scumbags off the hook'.

I certainly agree with you that any professional person must carry out their obligation to the best of their ability and you and the other PH legal bods have my respect but its not quite as cut and dried as that is it?

I have seen members of the legal profession state many times that they simply work with the information the client provides them and do not make judgements, but from my own experience (misspent youth!) a solicitor will definitely lead you and advise you on what to omit or include. I had a solicitor who was an ex police officer and he spent a good deal of time schooling me and my co-accused on the best way to dupe the court (all this was a very long time ago I will admit!).

So is that an exception? Maybe, but I think when the public see a person who has obviously murdered young children for instance, being represented by expensive briefs whos remit it is to 'get them off' they find it hard to believe that representative is acting purely through the blindfold and scales.

Not a dig at your work fella, in a civilised society what you do is vital, but its not as black and white as many in your profession would have us believe.

All just my humble, and possibly ignorant opinion of course.


Breadvan72

16,022 posts

43 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
I think that the professional ethics of lawyers vary. Some sail very close to the wind. Others are more rigorous in observing professional codes. I am lucky, as I don't do crime and so the only scumbags that I have to represent are HMG.

Laurel Green

17,026 posts

112 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
Vipers said:
Hopefully the American legal system wont pussy foot around like we did, and sort it quickly, unless he is totally innocent of all the alegations of course biggrin




smile
I'm sure, given a week or two, he will be found dead in his cell - verdict, self strangulation.

Breadvan72

16,022 posts

43 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
The US system is not notably quicker than ours, and there may be many stages before a verdict is reached, with potential for appeals thereafter, but this is no longer a problem for the UK.

Tony 1234

1,588 posts

107 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
I wonder who's paying his legal cost's? not us I hope!!

Breadvan72

16,022 posts

43 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
Hamza has Court-appointed lawyers, paid for by the US Government.

mybrainhurts

75,598 posts

135 months

[news] 
Sunday 7th October 2012 quote quote all
Borghetto said:
Oh dear, it appears the Americans have removed his hook and his lawyer has asked for it back, so he can attend to his personal needs.
He should be grateful...

No more accidental arse scratches.

1 2 ... 20 21
23 24 ... 29 30
Reply to Topic