Decision Expected Today on Right to Silence
Discussion
I hear on radio that European Court set to make decision today on the Idris Francis case. If this succeed - NIP law will have to change as he challenge the threats of "'fess up or else we take your bank account to dry cleaners or lock you up!"
He basically fighting for right to silence if accused of something or they have to provide conclusive proof other than a photo of back of driver's head rest
If we had police officers of course - then no dispute.
He basically fighting for right to silence if accused of something or they have to provide conclusive proof other than a photo of back of driver's head rest

If we had police officers of course - then no dispute.

To accompany the short news report on the ECHR verdict radio 5 live ran an interview with Cynthia Barlow of "Road Peace", who surmised her position that all motorists are child slaughtering, planet killing criminals and that she sincerely hoped that the verdict went the way of the government.
Nice to see yet another balanced report from the beeb again
Nice to see yet another balanced report from the beeb again

Cabinet Enforcer said:
To accompany the short news report on the ECHR verdict radio 5 live ran an interview with Cynthia Barlow of "Road Peace", who surmised her position that all motorists are child slaughtering, planet killing criminals and that she sincerely hoped that the verdict went the way of the government.
Nice to see yet another balanced report from the beeb again
Ahhh, but she made a very interesting gaffe.Nice to see yet another balanced report from the beeb again

The BBC interviewer asked if Barlow had never made a small mistake and crept up to 75 in a 70, and the beeb lady said she had. The response to this from Barlow was "have you ever killed anyone?"...
It's here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk/6251936.s...
No mention of the reasoning behind the decision though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk/6251936.s...
No mention of the reasoning behind the decision though.
Gilbertd said:
It's here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk/6251936.s...
No mention of the reasoning behind the decision though.
ECHR website has it in full.I am not clever enough to provide a link.http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk/6251936.s...
No mention of the reasoning behind the decision though.
It is similar to some of the arguments I was putting forward some time ago.
( no smugness intended)
Chrispy Porker said:
Gilbertd said:
It's here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk/6251936.s...
No mention of the reasoning behind the decision though.
ECHR website has it in full.I am not clever enough to provide a link.http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk/6251936.s...
No mention of the reasoning behind the decision though.
It is similar to some of the arguments I was putting forward some time ago.
( no smugness intended)
Start a post in PH, and right click and choose paste.
I'm not clever enough to navigate the ECHR website - it's awful!
lord summerisle said:
thought as much...
whitewash anyone?
Hardly.whitewash anyone?
The ECHR is no friend of the British Government.
I think the lawyers who confidently predicted victory for the appellants need to take a long hard look at themselves though.
I sense that people had false hopes built on a case that was never that strong in the first place.
Chrispy Porker said:
lord summerisle said:
thought as much...
whitewash anyone?
Hardly.whitewash anyone?
The ECHR is no friend of the British Government.
I think the lawyers who confidently predicted victory for the appellants need to take a long hard look at themselves though.
I sense that people had false hopes built on a case that was never that strong in the first place.
Personally I think the ECHR got this one wrong.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff





