Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
So in other words, you can't or won't answer the questions, and you have no alternative system to offer. You had a bad time and you conclude that the whole system doesn't work. You also consider yourself above the law. Cool!
Anyone already convicted of two acts of terrorism is of sufficiently bad character that nobody with any sense of moral duty could contenance representing them. I believe I already made that point before you attempted to hide behind a 100 questions. No?As an alternative system I'd propose that a fit & proper test needs to be applied to the legal system along with accountability. The CPS, like the rest of the public sector, have no real world accountability. It's almost impossible to f
k up badly enough to be fired. That must change.We need a public element of sentencing. Judges are too out of touch to be allowed to continue setting tariffs which are totally out of line with the harm caused by the crime.
First comes the crime, second comes the punishment, afterwards comes the rehabilitation. You can't punish and rehabilitate at the same time.
Time off for good behaviour doesn't work. Additional time added for poor behaviour would work a lot better.
Trials need to be streamlined and simplified. One trial, one appeal, the end.
Finally, salaries. Remove the money from the legal system and we'd lose the most of the incumbent vermin. Most people in the 'profession' are only there for the money - it stopped being about justice a very long time ago.
So now answer the questions I put to you:
You think Hamza should be defended adfinitum, so who would you decline to represent. Hindley? Shipman? Glitter?
Given that nobody considers the legal system to actually provide justice, what changes would you propose to make to realign it with its principal objective?
The simple fact is that the whole system doesn't work. If it ever did, it stopped doing so a very long time ago. The criminal justice system provides mainly protection for criminals from natural justice. I know you find it difficult to accept that the system you've spent your life working in and making money from doesn't work, but that don't change a damn thing.
Debate is assisted if you pay attention to what other people actually say, and not what you would like them to say.
I have made it clear that I think that Hamza's latest challenge was an abuse of process. I have also said that I don't practise criminal law, and I and others here have explained the cab rank rule, and why it is important.
If you look at Hamza's case you will see that the main delay was caused by delay at Strasbourg, and I and others here have argued for the UK to withdraw from the Strasbourg Court and rely on our own courts. On some points of detail, Hamza was convicted of and jailed for a group of offences in the UK, including possession of pro terrorist publications. You may be confusing him with Qatada, who has been convicted in Jordan.
You have not explained why the fact that someone was convicted and sentenced before makes him ineligible for due process in relation to some completely different charge. In your world, it appears that, if you once convict someone of something, that takes away his rights thereafter. You have not explained what you would do if falsely accused or convicted of a morally reprehensible offence.
To say that the whole system doesn't work is Daily Mail hyperbole. The system has many imperfections, but works in most cases. You cannot extrapolate from one bad experience that you had to say that the whole system is defective. Looking at the criminal justice system alone, it succeeds despite its flaws in convicting many criminals and sending many of them to prison. The costs of of the system are set, in the public sector (including the criminal justice system) by Government (in this sector earnings are generally lower than popularly supposed), and in the private sector (where earnings can be very high) by market forces. Many lawyers are just as motivated by earnings as anyone else, as few people go to work for their own amusement. Some lawyers do a great deal of work for free as well. Some lawyers are unethical, many others are ethical.
The populist media naturally reports abuses and excesses, as reporting on boring, ordinary cases in which sensible outcomes are achieved makes for poor copy, but relying on the distorted picture conveyed by the media to explain almost anything is not a good idea.
I have made it clear that I think that Hamza's latest challenge was an abuse of process. I have also said that I don't practise criminal law, and I and others here have explained the cab rank rule, and why it is important.
If you look at Hamza's case you will see that the main delay was caused by delay at Strasbourg, and I and others here have argued for the UK to withdraw from the Strasbourg Court and rely on our own courts. On some points of detail, Hamza was convicted of and jailed for a group of offences in the UK, including possession of pro terrorist publications. You may be confusing him with Qatada, who has been convicted in Jordan.
You have not explained why the fact that someone was convicted and sentenced before makes him ineligible for due process in relation to some completely different charge. In your world, it appears that, if you once convict someone of something, that takes away his rights thereafter. You have not explained what you would do if falsely accused or convicted of a morally reprehensible offence.
To say that the whole system doesn't work is Daily Mail hyperbole. The system has many imperfections, but works in most cases. You cannot extrapolate from one bad experience that you had to say that the whole system is defective. Looking at the criminal justice system alone, it succeeds despite its flaws in convicting many criminals and sending many of them to prison. The costs of of the system are set, in the public sector (including the criminal justice system) by Government (in this sector earnings are generally lower than popularly supposed), and in the private sector (where earnings can be very high) by market forces. Many lawyers are just as motivated by earnings as anyone else, as few people go to work for their own amusement. Some lawyers do a great deal of work for free as well. Some lawyers are unethical, many others are ethical.
The populist media naturally reports abuses and excesses, as reporting on boring, ordinary cases in which sensible outcomes are achieved makes for poor copy, but relying on the distorted picture conveyed by the media to explain almost anything is not a good idea.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 10th October 09:14
TopOnePercent said:
...
Some of the items you mention make sense. But you do yourself a disservice on others and I suspect should cancel your subscription to the Daily Mail 
Galling as it may seem, everyone deserves the right to be defended. Innocent until *proven* guilty is not something we should be looking to change. Not liking the cut of someone's jib is not sufficient reason to lock them away (sadly in some cases
). Similarly their previous record should only be brought to bear very carefully (I tend to disagree with ignoring it altogether though).Also, public sentencing. Looking at the trials by media that seem to be happening increasingly frequently I think we are proving that the public cannot be trusted to be objective.
Yes, I think there are some very strange sentences handed out at times, and (for example) I like your idea of added time for bad behaviour. But to think the general public will hand out "fairer" sentences is putting way too much faith in the general public!
On the money angle, I am totally against artificial interference with salaries. It will end in tears and put simply will not work. We live in a market economy. Let the market set the rate. Limit costs by implementing streamlined process (such as your good suggestion of one trial, one appeal).
Lost_BMW said:
According to Cameron it's all thanks to Theresa May we got rid of the turbulent priest. Apparently it's all her doing.
IIRC it was one of her cock ups that allowed him to stay longer than was necessary but never let that get in the way of a politician spinning.It also sounds like he is pointing the finger at her.
Islamic terrorist said "who deported our man"
CMD said [monthy python) " she did, her,"
Mr_B said:
Lost_BMW said:
According to Cameron it's all thanks to Theresa May we got rid of the turbulent priest. Apparently it's all her doing.
Who do you credit then ? Lost_BMW said:
Mr_B said:
Lost_BMW said:
According to Cameron it's all thanks to Theresa May we got rid of the turbulent priest. Apparently it's all her doing.
Who do you credit then ? Lost_BMW said:
Mr_B said:
Lost_BMW said:
According to Cameron it's all thanks to Theresa May we got rid of the turbulent priest. Apparently it's all her doing.
Who do you credit then ? She didn't do all that much. The process reached its end when the Strasbourg Court made its ruling earlier this year. The case was an autopilot from that point, so far as Ministerial roles are concerned. The final challenge required the Home Secretary to do little more than turn up by counsel and say "pull the other one". James Eadie QC did this with his customary vigour and aplomb, and it was "window or aisle, Sir".
greygoose said:
Lost_BMW said:
Mr_B said:
Lost_BMW said:
According to Cameron it's all thanks to Theresa May we got rid of the turbulent priest. Apparently it's all her doing.
Who do you credit then ? Most of the stuff-ups in the public sector are down to government employees at some point, they are just not up to the job of dealing with comercial stuff.
Mr_B said:
No idea. It would take a lot of inside information. You just seemed pretty sure it was nothing to do with her , despite the many years where nothing happened from those you listed. How do you know it wasn't her that didn't look again at this and force the issue where others had failed in the previous years ?
What nonsense...Edited by Lost_BMW on Wednesday 10th October 17:17
Breadvan72 said:
You have not explained why the fact that someone was convicted and sentenced before makes him ineligible for due process in relation to some completely different charge. In your world, it appears that, if you once convict someone of something, that takes away his rights thereafter. You have not explained what you would do if falsely accused or convicted of a morally reprehensible offence..
Due process only creates the right to a trial. It does not excuse unconnected persons of low moral standing from assisting with the defence.Trying to fasion a crutch to justify the abhorrent failure of the law out of ethics or duty isn't fooling anyone.
To deal with the rest of your points (quoting is difficult on my phone).
Almost everyone i know has been a victim of crime at some stage. Nobody i know feels that justice was done in their case. Nobody.
Only people in the pay of the legal system think it works at all.
There are fewer than 0.0001% of people convicted of terrorism, rape etc that are then falsely accused of further crimes. The number of repeat offenders hiding behind greedy immoral lawyers is rather greater.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff