wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This kind of thing doesn't inspire much hope, to my way of thinking.
This kind of thing is, quite frankly, retarded thinking that panders
to the stupid. In order to fairly assess whether a person is suitable
for parole the assessors must have a no attachment to the case so it
can be judged on its own merits. Putting the victim in there fucks
that up.
What's next? Asking the victim/their next of kin what the sentence
should be in a court case? Hey, let's go the whole hog and get rid of
the legal system entirely - let the mob rule instead.
This government is incapable of governing, that is patently obvious.
Zoë
zak, 24 May 2006 06:15:54
I remember being horrified at this when Jack Straw first started wittering
about it a couple of years ago. At the core of the English legal system is
the concept that justice is impartial, not a matter of personal revenge -
and these fuckwits are prepared todismantle that....
Original Message:
-----------------
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 24 May 2006 06:15:54
Hi All,
This kind of thing doesn't inspire much hope, to my way of thinking.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5003192.stm
Does this government have ANY respect for pluralistic legal principles?
It's not hard to see how we got to where we are with the EP proposals; how
many times has Mrs Longhurst been allowed to see the Home Secretary?
T.
Author wrote:
> Anyone got any views on this and how it affects the campaign?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4975938.stm
> John Reid has always struck me as a bit of a bully-boy and he has maybe
got the job to do some trouble-shooting, but who knows how priorities may
shift under a change of watch. Presumably the junior ministers are usually
retained, so Gormless will still be on the scene?
> T.
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4849
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Paul C. Dickie, 24 May 2006 09:24:38
In message <3729480.1148256542539.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5003192.stm
>
>This kind of thing doesn't inspire much hope, to my way of thinking.
As it seems to be "government by sound-bite", it shouldn't inspire
anyone who is actually able to *think*.
>Does this government have ANY respect for pluralistic legal principles? It's not
>hard to see how we got to where we are with the EP proposals; how many times has
>Mrs Longhurst been allowed to see the Home Secretary?
As many times as the idiot supposed it would help him to keep his job.
But once would have been once too often, unless she was a constituent.
Why should Labour get away with kow-towing to various and sundry lobby
groups, when they condemned the Tories for doing much the same?
--
< Paul >
Graham Marsden, 24 May 2006 10:05:50
Hi there,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> This kind of thing doesn't inspire much hope, to my way of
> thinking. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5003192.stm
>
> Does this government have ANY respect for pluralistic legal
> principles? It's not hard to see how we got to where we are
> with the EP proposals; how many times has Mrs Longhurst been
> allowed to see the Home Secretary?
Whilst it's a matter for some concern, it's (possibly) not actually as
bad as it sounds if (big if!) we can take the Home Office at its word
that: "the Home Office said the victim of a particular crime would not
be sitting on the parole board hearing of that offender."
I think the problem is that there have been too many newspaper stories
about "XYZ released to offend again" and there's the impression that
everyone sitting on a parole board are either wooly-minded liberals,
do-gooder Christians or ivory tower intellectuals who have no idea what
is going on in the "real world".
But is it really credible that nobody sitting on a Parole Board has been
the victim of crime or, at least, doesn't know someone who has? I don't
think so.
Frankly, previous examples of Home Secretaries interfering with
sentencing and and arbitrarily changing the length of time someone
spends in prison because it will make them look good to the newspapers
are more of a concern to me.
Cheers,
Graham.
snowflake, 27 May 2006 15:13:13
On 23/05/06, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
> At the core of the English legal system is
> the concept that justice is impartial, not a matter of personal revenge -
> and these fuckwits are prepared todismantle that....
It's hardly surprising though, is it? This is the same government
we're talking about that's attempting to remove trial by jury and,
with the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill now entering its third
reading, is also attempting to remove both Peer Review in Parliament
and also Judicial Review from the process of lawmaking.
Zoë