Rog Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Oh dear. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Rog wrote I have read your web page.It explains a great deal She interests you then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Oh dear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Ah, now that explains the skewer! Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Rog wrote I have read your web page.It explains a great deal She interests you then? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> From what I have read there not whilst there are dogs in the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 not whilst there are dogs in the street. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Woof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 From what I have read there not whilst there are dogs in the street. Says a lot about what little standards you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 From what I have read there not whilst there are dogs in the street. Says a lot about what little standards you have. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True, but then again it does show that I do have some. Look, this thread is about a woman who to all accounts is a genuine case of someone having been terribly badly dealt with by the Home Office and is now being refused any compensation as a result of weasel words. My only point is that there are other cases where people have been released under circumstances that simply indicate that the belief was that the conviction was not 'safe' and not that there was proof of innocence, simply the assumption and also that one bit of unsafe evidence taints the whole case. There was also massive political issues surrounding these cases that MUST have had an effect. The assumption of innocence is a fact in British law and maybe that is a mistake. Maybe the Scottish verdict of 'unproven' has much more to offer as cases where there is insufficient evidence to gain a conviction can at least be left ‘on the books’. Meantime that poor woman is at least to my mind being left out in the cold and again to my mind probably more for political reasons than anything else. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if she is awarded compensation a short time before the next General Election, possibly around the time the illegal combatants are returned from Giotmo to the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 The assumption of innocence is a fact in British law and maybe that is a mistake. Maybe the Scottish verdict of 'unproven' has much more to offer as cases where there is insufficient evidence to gain a conviction can at least be left ‘on the books’. There is a concerted campaign to get this verdict scrapped and with good reason. It is a legal blackhole which doesn't help anyone. It just means the victims and prosecution don't get the satisfaction of a conviction and the accused will just be seen as someone who 'got away with it'. It's a lazy, ambiguous verdict which does nothing to further justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Meantime that poor woman is at least to my mind being left out in the cold and again to my mind probably more for political reasons than anything else. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if she is awarded compensation a short time before the next General Election, possibly around the time the illegal combatants are returned from Giotmo to the UK. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This reminds me of Tom Paulin, the Irish poet who's often on that late night review programme. Whatever subject is under discussion, be it the latest Disney cartoon or some high-powered literary novel, Tom Paulin always seems to connect it back to the 'troubles' (i.e. the IRA) in some ludicrously tenuous way. Quite funny really. Like his brain is caught in a loop. Mmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.