The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3083562.stm
Technically it's Scottish Justice I suppose, but even so, just 5 years ? Insane. Can't really think of much more to say to be honest, thoughts anyone ?
Technically it's Scottish Justice I suppose, but even so, just 5 years ? Insane. Can't really think of much more to say to be honest, thoughts anyone ?
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Guess the sentence. No seriously, guess.
> --
>
> 12 press-ups and he had to eat 3 cream crackers with no water
Less than that.
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Guess the sentence. No seriously, guess.
> --
>
> 12 press-ups and he had to eat 3 cream crackers with no water
Less than that.
Belldandy wrote:
> surely Politicians have just as much freedom to comment as anyone
Did you read your own link? One of the points was that the judge had more evidence to look upon than anyone from outside the case, and that you have to "sentence the offender as well as the offence".
> surely Politicians have just as much freedom to comment as anyone
Did you read your own link? One of the points was that the judge had more evidence to look upon than anyone from outside the case, and that you have to "sentence the offender as well as the offence".
Goatboy wrote:
> I just felt it a salient point considering the predictable Mail-lite
> dirge that will follow from people that are not legally qualified in
> any way whatsoever nor were involved in the case.
Does anyone need to be legally qualified to judge that 5 years is ridiculour for someone found guilty of raping a baby, or imprisoning and torturing a 17 year old girl ?
I mean, come on, it's a total joke. And surely Politicians have just as much freedom to comment as anyone, and don't Politicians recommend changes to the law ? Where as a lawyer is paid, bascially, to get his or her client the least sentence possible if guilty, or prove innocence.
> I just felt it a salient point considering the predictable Mail-lite
> dirge that will follow from people that are not legally qualified in
> any way whatsoever nor were involved in the case.
Does anyone need to be legally qualified to judge that 5 years is ridiculour for someone found guilty of raping a baby, or imprisoning and torturing a 17 year old girl ?
I mean, come on, it's a total joke. And surely Politicians have just as much freedom to comment as anyone, and don't Politicians recommend changes to the law ? Where as a lawyer is paid, bascially, to get his or her client the least sentence possible if guilty, or prove innocence.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Guess the sentence. No seriously, guess.
--
12 press-ups and he had to eat 3 cream crackers with no water
> Guess the sentence. No seriously, guess.
--
12 press-ups and he had to eat 3 cream crackers with no water
Light wrote:
> When reporters for Sky and Fox lied, they were
> sacked immediately, for much lesser lies as well.
>
>
> Really? When? I never heard about that.
What happened to Bush's relative who announced that Bush had won before the votes had been counted? I'm pretty sure he wasn't sacked.
> When reporters for Sky and Fox lied, they were
> sacked immediately, for much lesser lies as well.
>
>
> Really? When? I never heard about that.
What happened to Bush's relative who announced that Bush had won before the votes had been counted? I'm pretty sure he wasn't sacked.
The justice system is a mess.
High court Glasgow, a guy is on trial for armed robery. 30 witnesses in total, around 15 of which were eyewitnesses, and CCTV footage, and some other evidence.
Guess the sentence. No seriously, guess.
High court Glasgow, a guy is on trial for armed robery. 30 witnesses in total, around 15 of which were eyewitnesses, and CCTV footage, and some other evidence.
Guess the sentence. No seriously, guess.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> On Iraq, I don't, if Gilligan can lie and get away with it then it
> shows lax controls.
So, hang on; if the BBC say something you agree with then they're not lying. But if they broadcast something you (well...I say you; I mean the government) disagree with, then they're lying? Have I got that right?
When reporters for Sky and Fox lied, they were
> sacked immediately, for much lesser lies as well.
Really? When? I never heard about that.
>
> On Iraq, I don't, if Gilligan can lie and get away with it then it
> shows lax controls.
So, hang on; if the BBC say something you agree with then they're not lying. But if they broadcast something you (well...I say you; I mean the government) disagree with, then they're lying? Have I got that right?
When reporters for Sky and Fox lied, they were
> sacked immediately, for much lesser lies as well.
Really? When? I never heard about that.
You trust the BBC here then Bell? Are you sure they're not giving biased reports in order to undermine the politicians who are commenting on the case? Or putting in the story to distract from Gilligan's Hutton evidence?
In all seriousness, I can see both sides here. The politicians have absolutely no business commenting on individual cases; judiciary and executive branches of government are kept separate for a reason, and that reason is to avoid corruption in government and the courts.
However...5 years?!? It doesn't seem long enough.
Final point: Scottish justice is entirely different to English justice; the former is magisterial and based on the Napoleonic code. The latter is adversarial and rooted in common law. They're completely different beasts.
In all seriousness, I can see both sides here. The politicians have absolutely no business commenting on individual cases; judiciary and executive branches of government are kept separate for a reason, and that reason is to avoid corruption in government and the courts.
However...5 years?!? It doesn't seem long enough.
Final point: Scottish justice is entirely different to English justice; the former is magisterial and based on the Napoleonic code. The latter is adversarial and rooted in common law. They're completely different beasts.
Belldandy wrote:
> Think you'll find that's the words of the lawyer ?
That's why the quotation was put in parentheses, to indicate I didn't say it.
I just felt it a salient point considering the predictable Mail-lite dirge that will follow from people that are not legally qualified in any way whatsoever nor were involved in the case.
Read the quote again.
> Think you'll find that's the words of the lawyer ?
That's why the quotation was put in parentheses, to indicate I didn't say it.
I just felt it a salient point considering the predictable Mail-lite dirge that will follow from people that are not legally qualified in any way whatsoever nor were involved in the case.
Read the quote again.
Goatboy wrote:
> "A lot of people will say 'that's a lot of nonsense, let's roast
> him [the accused] slowly over a fire for this' but we pay and train
> the judge to be independent of politicians, to be independent of the
> press and to coolly look at something after taking professional risk
> assessments."
>
> I thought you didn't like/trust the BBC?
Think you'll find that's the words of the lawyer ?
On Iraq, I don't, if Gilligan can lie and get away with it then it shows lax controls. When reporters for Sky and Fox lied, they were sacked immediately, for much lesser lies as well.
Besides, in this case, it's a crime, for which someone was found guilty.
In both these cases, the offender receives 5 years, for doing something which will probably live with his victims for their lives and change them.
> "A lot of people will say 'that's a lot of nonsense, let's roast
> him [the accused] slowly over a fire for this' but we pay and train
> the judge to be independent of politicians, to be independent of the
> press and to coolly look at something after taking professional risk
> assessments."
>
> I thought you didn't like/trust the BBC?
Think you'll find that's the words of the lawyer ?
On Iraq, I don't, if Gilligan can lie and get away with it then it shows lax controls. When reporters for Sky and Fox lied, they were sacked immediately, for much lesser lies as well.
Besides, in this case, it's a crime, for which someone was found guilty.
In both these cases, the offender receives 5 years, for doing something which will probably live with his victims for their lives and change them.
Page: