Cherie Blair still makes the news
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8497365.stm
A secularist group has lodged an official complaint against Cherie Booth QC after she spared a man from prison because he was religious.
A secularist group has lodged an official complaint against Cherie Booth QC after she spared a man from prison because he was religious.
They ran a story on this on the PM Programme earlier. And referred to her throughout as Cherie Booth QC, and never once mentioned the Blair name whatsoever. Im 99.99 percent of the listners know Cherie Booth QC and Cherie Blair, wife of the former Prime Minister are one and the same, but it did seem a bit odd.
Magog said:
They ran a story on this on the PM Programme earlier. And referred to her throughout as Cherie Booth QC, and never once mentioned the Blair name whatsoever. Im 99.99 percent of the listners know Cherie Booth QC and Cherie Blair, wife of the former Prime Minister are one and the same, but it did seem a bit odd.
I think that if you refer to her using the B name, you have to pay her more.................."after she spared a man from prison because he was religious."
b
ks. I'm betting that his previously good nature and not being in trouble before, had far more to do with it. Being religious only adds to the perception that this bloke was a good man.
As usual though people don't bother to look beyond the headline. I wonder what sort of language provoked the thumping? Maybe the thumpee was a dirty little scrote with a string of convictions. Just the kind of person you all love on here.
b
ks. I'm betting that his previously good nature and not being in trouble before, had far more to do with it. Being religious only adds to the perception that this bloke was a good man.As usual though people don't bother to look beyond the headline. I wonder what sort of language provoked the thumping? Maybe the thumpee was a dirty little scrote with a string of convictions. Just the kind of person you all love on here.
Edited by Parrot of Doom on Thursday 4th February 21:39
King David said:
The Mash never fails to disappoint!!
I'm interested to know if the Daily Mail and co actually read the full judgment that was handed down, or indeed has read a copy of the latest guidelines from the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Soundbites are too easy to reproduce.
Judges have to treat defendants equally when considering the seriousness of the offence committed. However Judges are actively obliged to discriminate between defendants when judging their likelihood to reoffend, their dangerousness to society, and the suitability of a particular punishment to a particular individual.
For example,if an atheist were a member of a voluntary charity to help others less fortunate in the community, that would be a factor the judge would consider. It may, or may not be, the case that a religious man is a useful and cohesive member of the community, but it is certainly a factor to consider, and should certainly feature as part of the judgment.
We may not agree with it but if Blair was acting within the guidlines then maybe you should be starting a campaign to change the law, and revise the Sentencing Guidelines.
Judges have to treat defendants equally when considering the seriousness of the offence committed. However Judges are actively obliged to discriminate between defendants when judging their likelihood to reoffend, their dangerousness to society, and the suitability of a particular punishment to a particular individual.
For example,if an atheist were a member of a voluntary charity to help others less fortunate in the community, that would be a factor the judge would consider. It may, or may not be, the case that a religious man is a useful and cohesive member of the community, but it is certainly a factor to consider, and should certainly feature as part of the judgment.
We may not agree with it but if Blair was acting within the guidlines then maybe you should be starting a campaign to change the law, and revise the Sentencing Guidelines.
Edited by 5unny on Friday 5th February 12:02
5unny said:
I'm interested to know if the Daily Mail and co actually read the full judgment that was handed down, or indeed has read a copy of the latest guidelines from the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Soundbites are too easy to reproduce.
Judges have to treat defendants equally when considering the seriousness of the offence committed. However Judges are actively obliged to discriminate between defendants when judging their likelihood to reoffend, their dangerousness to society, and the suitability of a particular punishment to a particular individual.
If an aetheist were a member of a voluntary charity to help others less fortunate in the community, that would be a factor the judge would consider. It may, or may not be, the case that a religious man is a useful and cohesive member of the community, but it is certainly a factor to consider, and should certainly feature as part of the judgment.
We may not agree with it but if Blair was acting within the guidlines then maybe you should be starting a campaign to change the law, and revise the Sentencing Guidelines.
Well his religion didn't stop him offending the first time did it?Judges have to treat defendants equally when considering the seriousness of the offence committed. However Judges are actively obliged to discriminate between defendants when judging their likelihood to reoffend, their dangerousness to society, and the suitability of a particular punishment to a particular individual.
If an aetheist were a member of a voluntary charity to help others less fortunate in the community, that would be a factor the judge would consider. It may, or may not be, the case that a religious man is a useful and cohesive member of the community, but it is certainly a factor to consider, and should certainly feature as part of the judgment.
We may not agree with it but if Blair was acting within the guidlines then maybe you should be starting a campaign to change the law, and revise the Sentencing Guidelines.
Bing o said:
5unny said:
I'm interested to know if the Daily Mail and co actually read the full judgment that was handed down, or indeed has read a copy of the latest guidelines from the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Soundbites are too easy to reproduce.
Judges have to treat defendants equally when considering the seriousness of the offence committed. However Judges are actively obliged to discriminate between defendants when judging their likelihood to reoffend, their dangerousness to society, and the suitability of a particular punishment to a particular individual.
If an aetheist were a member of a voluntary charity to help others less fortunate in the community, that would be a factor the judge would consider. It may, or may not be, the case that a religious man is a useful and cohesive member of the community, but it is certainly a factor to consider, and should certainly feature as part of the judgment.
We may not agree with it but if Blair was acting within the guidlines then maybe you should be starting a campaign to change the law, and revise the Sentencing Guidelines.
Well his religion didn't stop him offending the first time did it?Judges have to treat defendants equally when considering the seriousness of the offence committed. However Judges are actively obliged to discriminate between defendants when judging their likelihood to reoffend, their dangerousness to society, and the suitability of a particular punishment to a particular individual.
If an aetheist were a member of a voluntary charity to help others less fortunate in the community, that would be a factor the judge would consider. It may, or may not be, the case that a religious man is a useful and cohesive member of the community, but it is certainly a factor to consider, and should certainly feature as part of the judgment.
We may not agree with it but if Blair was acting within the guidlines then maybe you should be starting a campaign to change the law, and revise the Sentencing Guidelines.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff