View Full Version : Is Michael Howard a hypocrite?Now called Judicial Injustice
Michael Howard, the Tory leader has revealed that his Grandfather may have entered Britain illegally and may have lied on his application for UK citizenship. This comes hot on the heals of his proposed measures for a quota system to control immigration.
Is he a hypocrite?
Colin Manson
12-Feb-05, 21:09
Is he a hypocrite?
He is a politician, I think that answers your question :D
Did you mention politics?
poli = many
tics = blood sucking insects
What does local politics mean? :eyes
~~Tides~~
12-Feb-05, 21:20
So just because his grandad got into the country he should propose throwing the doors open just so he wouldnt be a hypocrite?
No; but he probably shouldn't be proposing slamming the doors shut behind him either.
He's a hypocrite for a great many reasons - this is just the most recent.
I think you could consider him a hypocrite if he himself had been an illegal immigrant, however I dont think his views/opinions/policy can be judged against the actions of his grandparents. I mean if we were to take todays labour government and judge them against the labout party of the time of our grandparents.........there could well be a case for hypocrisy.
That is a fair point scotsboy, so could a case of hypocrisy against the tories when they called for the downfall of Blunkett when I still have fresh memories of the sleazy activities of Aitken, Archer, Major, Currie, Parkinson, Mellor, Hamilton and many others...
I think Colin Manson answered the question earlier, politicians are by default hypocrites.
What about Policeman who "bend" the rules to secure convictions, what are they? I read a fantastic book recently entitled Shantaram, which as well as being a great read provided me with the basic requirements to decide whether ANYTHING is good or bad. I can therefore live with the Michael Howards and "bent" policeman of this World as long as they do the wrong things for the right reasons........read the book and you will understand :lol:
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 12:35
I think a far more important issue is the 'PM' of our country apologising to IRA members on our behalf, when the IRA have never apologised for killing hundreds of children and other innocent people for decades. He sickens me.
I think the point is that neither the Conlons or the McGuires were guilty as charged or members of the IRA..........I am not saying anything about Paul Hill :roll: As far as I am aware the apology was directed at those two families who were innocent, sloppy/bad Police work allowed that to happen. The McGuires had more loyalist than rebublican links.
I am a fierce critic of Tony Blair, but I actually think he got that one right.
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 12:56
Well, for what it's worth I think the police made a mess of it, but I still think they were guilty. That's just my opinion.
The point is a grovelling apology was not necessary. They were released. Other people get released from jail after being wrongly imprisoned yet the PM doesn't make public apologies.
Believe me I have studied this case and there is no substantiating evidence of their guilt (the Conlon's & McGuires), it was a total sham. I think the sheer emotion shown by Gerry Conlon is testimony to his innocence.
BTW I could not be considered a republican in any way shape or form ;)
As somebody who has lost a member of my family to an IRA sniper, I found it very hard to see the release of the Conlon and Maguires on TV whilst surrounded by Irish Tricolours.
If they were innocent, why were so many Irish nationalists out in force?
It gave me the impression that they just got off on a technicality.
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 13:51
My sentiments entirely Rheghead. It makes me sick.
The Pepsi Challenge
13-Feb-05, 16:56
Found this on another website. It's related to what's being discussed here. Does anyone think it adds anything to the topic?
"Let's walk in their shoes for a minute, and think how we'd feel if we were dragged from our beds, beaten, demonised, imprisoned and forgotten - whilst all awhile being innocent. Anyone who has read Gerry Conlon's autobiography will know the heartbreak he and his family suffered, and the similar fate that affected the families of Carole Richardson, Paul Hill, and Paddy Armstrong. How can you give someone back the 15 years of their life, that you erroneously took from them ? I would think a formal apology would be the least that Tony Blair (on behalf of the British government) could do.
Gerry Conlon was guilty of nothing more than being an errant youth, and for that he and his friends paid with 15 years of their lives. He was as outraged by anyone with the loss of life in the Guildford Bombings, but he still had to watch his father die in prison. The injustices of the Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six, The Maguire Family, and anyone unfortunate enough to have been friends with any of them in the early 70's, is as big an outrage as the incidents that caused the British State to pursue it's campaign of 'name and frame' in the first place.
These people deserved better, and they were failed badly by what is claimed by many to be 'the finest legal system in the world'. A wealth of credit must be given to The Guildford Four, for the way in which they've been able to survive. Personally, I doubt wether I'd have had their strength. Let's hope the events of today can give them the beginnings of some form of closure, on a set of circumstances that will live with them to the grave. A desperately sad occaision all round."
As somebody who has lost a member of my family to an IRA sniper, I found it very hard to see the release of the Conlon and Maguires on TV whilst surrounded by Irish Tricolours.
If they were innocent, why were so many Irish nationalists out in force?
Perhaps they were surrounded by Irish flags because they were locked up for no other reason than their being Irish?
I’m quite sure that if you were imprisoned for no other reason than your Scottishness you (and those who campaigned for your release) would wish to demonstrate your pride in your nationality upon your release… or is waving a flag, like professing your innocence, now a sure sign of guilt in Rheghead's Big Book of Policing?
And when you say ‘Irish nationalists’ were out in force, I assume you simply mean ‘people who are proud to be Irish’ and did not intend to make any suggestion that the people holding the flags were associated with terrorism?
Well, for what it's worth I think the police made a mess of it, but I still think they were guilty. That's just my opinion.
Why? Is it because you don’t believe that the police would make such a mistake, that they are Irish and therefore must be terrorists, or that you know something that nobody else does? It may only be your opinion, but it must be based on something…
Oh, and by the way… surely the hypocrisy in Blair’s apology wasn’t to do with who he was apologising to, but rather was to do with his apologising for the government wrongfully imprisoning people in the past whilst he is drawing up a bill to allow politicians to place people under indefinite house arrest without trial?
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 18:36
Blair is a snivelling pathetic apology for a PM. Friend of the criminal, friend of the terrorists. He's got plenty to say about terrorism worldwide, but is scared to speak out against the ones on his own doorstep.
Yes, but that doesn't quite explain why you hold the opinion that the Conlons and Maguires were guilty... :roll:
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 18:48
Read the post again jjc - I made it clear that was my PERSONAL opinion. There are many reasons why I think they were more involved than they claim, but I can't be bothered giving you an excuse to do your usual nonsense dissection of the words, without actually making any point. I've seen quite a few of your posts recently so I know in advance which side of any arguement you are going to take.
Read the post again jjc - I made it clear that was my PERSONAL opinion.
Oh, well that’s all right then… :roll:
There are many reasons why I think they were more involved than they claim, but I can't be bothered giving you an excuse to do your usual nonsense dissection of the words, without actually making any point.
If you don’t think that your reasons will stand up to scrutiny perhaps they aren’t as sound as perhaps they should be if you are going to use them to condemn people as terrorists?
I've seen quite a few of your posts recently so I know in advance which side of any arguement you are going to take.
Wow! I am impressed… any argument? Perhaps you could be the next Mystic Meg?
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 19:01
Thank you. That just about sums you up exactly as I thought.
:D
Whatever Doreen…
I just think it’s a shame that you have taken it upon yourself to tell us all that you believe four people are terrorists and are guilty of murder without having the moral fortitude to back up your statement with any kind of reasoning… for a hedgehog that’s more than a little spineless. [disgust]
The Pepsi Challenge
13-Feb-05, 19:09
No wonder you're called a hedgehog, doreen. You can be a bit prickily yourself.
It gave me the impression that they just got off on a technicality.
They weren't released on a technicality. Their convictions were quashed. They are innocent.
It occurs to me that one of the very reasons Tony Blair apologised after all this time is because there are still people muttering "Oh, there's no smoke without fire".
Let me say again, they're innocent. Do you want innocent people locked up because they've Irish accents and you want someone punished for the crime, regardless of evidence (or lack thereof)?
Drutt (Not the only one relieved that Rheghead is an ex-police constable).
I never said they were guilty, I said it appeared they got off on a technicality.
On the day of Conlon's release, they had 2 choices.
1) Walk out the gates incognito and be driven away to an address without stirring up unhelpful pro Irish jingoism and anti British sentiment.
2) Walk out to the World's media in full glare. amid all the Irish Tricolours and giving the murdering IRA a free propaganda show.
They chose the latter.
I never said they were guilty, I said it appeared they got off on a technicality.
Once – just once – it would be nice to see you have the courage of your convictions.
When you say that somebody “got off on a technicality” after they have been convicted it is commonly understood that you mean they are guilty but somebody messed up with a piece of paperwork/evidence/point of law…
And if you don’t believe they are guilty, why start a question with “If they were innocent…”?
On the day of Conlon's release, they had 2 choices… They chose the latter.
They chose not to quietly accept that policemen who didn’t understand the concept of innocent Irishmen (you know the type) had taken away 15 years of their lives. They also chose not to simply accept that, for the rest of their lives, narrow-minded individuals, who couldn’t see past their accents and surnames, would forever assume that they’d only been released on a technicality… and judging by a few of the posts here I can’t blame them! [disgust]
They did not have to walk out to an anti British media circus to express anger about a wrongful conviction.
I have seen 'In the name of the Father' and yes it is a travesty of justice.
The Pepsi Challenge
13-Feb-05, 20:40
Who set up the flag-waving 'party' for them when they came out?
They did not have to walk out to an anti British media circus to express anger about a wrongful conviction.
I have seen 'In the name of the Father' and yes it is a travesty of justice.
And if you were the victim of such a travesty would you sit quietly by and let your name be dragged through the mud time and time again by people who thought they knew the ‘truth’. or would you shout your grievances from the highest rooftops?
By the way – if it’s a travesty, why did you even need to ask if they were innocent men?
Who set up the flag-waving 'party' for them when they came out?
Family and friends who supported them and fought for their release for 15 years? Just a thought, but I reckon they'd probably want to celebrate the release of their loved ones...
Did you have somebody else in mind?
Conlon and co are not fools, as they are innocent citizens and upright decent people, why would they give the IRA a free propaganda show?
And if you were the victim of such a travesty would you sit quietly by and let your name be dragged through the mud time and time again by people who thought they knew the ‘truth’. or would you shout your grievances from the highest rooftops?
You are talking about revenge here, jjc.
Isn't revenge a best dish served cold?
i.e. on a compensation claim...
Conlon and co are not fools, as they are innocent citizens and upright decent people, why would they give the IRA a free propaganda show?
The 'propaganda show' was provided not by the Guildford Four, but by your ex-colleagues who took it upon themselves to demonstrate the contempt in which they held everybody with an Irish accent. You want to cast some blame about, I suggest you start there…
Anyway how did we get onto the Guildford four from Michael Howard? :eyes
looking back, it is Doreen's fault.
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 21:10
Sorry Rheghead - it was good fun though!
I didn't realise the whole thing was because of their accents! Good job we have jjc who knows everything!
Quite! Doreen :lol:
jjc remains the concience of the caithness.org forum. :eyes
You are talking about revenge here, jjc.
Isn't revenge a best dish served cold?
i.e. on a compensation claim...
No, I’m talking about neither revenge nor compensation - and how very sad that those are the only two reasons you could think of for their protests.
huh? explain.
Well, which do you think did more good for ‘the cause’; that these three innocent men celebrated their release and campaigned for justice, or that the policemen investigating the bombings thought it acceptable to pick up the first four Irishmen they came across and beat a confession out of them whilst the prosecution thought it fine to withhold vital evidence from the defence?
I didn't realise the whole thing was because of their accents! Good job we have jjc who knows everything!
Quite! Doreen :lol:
jjc remains the concience of the caithness.org forum. :eyes
Wow! And here I thought two heads were better than one! Looks like I was mistaken…
You are talking about revenge here, jjc.
Isn't revenge a best dish served cold?
i.e. on a compensation claim...
No, I’m talking about neither revenge nor compensation - and how very sad that those are the only two reasons you could think of for their protests.
huh? explain.
Well, which do you think did more good for ‘the cause’; that these three innocent men celebrated their release and campaigned for justice, or that the policemen investigating the bombings thought it acceptable to pick up the first four Irishmen they came across and beat a confession out of them whilst the prosecution thought it fine to withhold vital evidence from the defence?
So it was revenge then?
And yes it was the guildford 4 that arranged the anti British media circus?
So it was revenge then?
And yes it was the guildford 4 that arranged the anti British media circus?
Sorry Rheghead, you've just lost the plot now and you aren't making a whole lot of sense... come back when you've decided what your opinion is and maybe we'll talk then. :roll:
well you haven't explained yourself well at all
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 21:55
Any volunteers to take the hook out of jjc's mouth?
[lol] [lol] [lol]
Speak for yourself, Rheghers… at least the opinion I’m posting is my own and not whatever I think will be controversial. The trouble with playing Devil’s Advocate is that you have to have enough about you to keep track of your own argument… you, unfortunately, seem to be losing the thread of yours quite frequently here.
Oh, and when I said “I’m talking about neither revenge nor compensation,” which part of the sentence did you read as “Yes, I’m talking about revenge”??
my position on this issue has been quite consistent quite the whole way through.
There was no need to give the IRA a free propaganda show.
Any volunteers to take the hook out of jjc's mouth?
[lol] [lol] [lol]
You know Doreen; it was bad enough that you couldn’t argue your own opinion, without pretending to be in on Rheghead’s little wind-up…
For the record, I’m well aware that Rheghead doesn’t really believe what he’s posting (if he did he might be a little more coherent)… you, however, were partaking in no such game when you decided the Guildford Four were guilty as charged. [disgust]
am i such a clear pane of glass jjc? :lol:
my position on this issue has been quite consistent quite the whole way through.
There was no need to give the IRA a free propaganda show.
Well, that’s been your position since 6:54pm, when you thought it up.
Other opinions are:
12:44pm – You wondered if they were innocent and raised the suggestion that they got off on a technicality.
7:37pm – You agreed that the conviction was a travesty of justice (because – whoopee – you saw the film :roll:)
You’re right… a very ‘consistent’ opinion. :roll:
am i such a clear pane of glass jjc? :lol:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but yes. I figured if I just let you practice you might get better at it... not much progress so far. ;)
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 22:16
"at least the opinion I’m posting is my own"
Rubbish! As usual, it's whatever you can find on google.
You are right I was serious when I gave my opinion, but I still think you are the easiest wind-up ever!
my position on this issue has been quite consistent quite the whole way through.
There was no need to give the IRA a free propaganda show.
Well, that’s been your position since 6:54pm, when you thought it up.
Other opinions are:
12:44pm – You wondered if they were innocent and raised the suggestion that they got off on a technicality.
7:37pm – You agreed that the conviction was a travesty of justice (because – whoopee – you saw the film :roll:)
You’re right… a very ‘consistent’ opinion. :roll:
It is only human nature to second think the verdict of a court. I still have fresh memories of Jeffrey Archer and the miraculous recovery of the Guiness chap from Alzeimers disease!!
"at least the opinion I’m posting is my own"
Rubbish! As usual, it's whatever you can find on google.
Sorry Doreen, but some of us have a little bit more in our heads than that… Not only can we recall knowledge from our very own memories (I know, it’s shocking!); we also don’t consider it a weakness to actually check our facts before making statements…
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 22:37
"Sorry Doreen, but some of us have a little bit more in our heads than others"
That also is a matter of opinion! I think you just spout whatever you think a leftie pc type should! [lol] [lol] [lol]
That also is a matter of opinion! I think you just spout whatever you think a leftie pc type should!
It seems you've nothing sensible to add so I guess we're done... thanks for – ummm – no, wait, that’s right; it was Rheghead who did all the talking wasn’t it. Maybe next time? :lol:
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 22:54
"it was Rheghead who did all the talking wasn’t it"
Perhaps he's the only one that can be bothered arguing with your ego. I'm just having a bit of fun, can't be bothered with all the hours of research on google. Such a pity they never had hanging in the 70's though, don't you think?
[lol]
For the love of God, Doreen; Stop! It's getting embarrassing! :eek:
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 23:05
"Yes, I am a left-wing libertarian… what’s your point?"
No way?? The mighty one a leftie!!??
It's written on your soap box :D
Methinks Doreenhedgehog doth protest too much. Go on, admit it Doreen, he ate you alive!
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 23:10
Dr Szin, I never put any effort in. He's not worth it. As soon as I saw jjc on the post I made a decision not to start arguing about it, as it's pointless. He knows everything about everything in his own eyes. Better not to even give him the chance to start his silly little dissections and quotes etc. I'd happily argue with someone who has at some point admitted somebody elses opinion mattered but.....you know yourself what I am talking about!
Sorry Doreen, he ate you alive. He does it so effortlessly too.
Well he would have eaten you alive if you had stood and put up any form of defence.
I dare you to challenge him in a real debate. Go on, go head to head with him. Betcha daren't!
doreenhedgehog
13-Feb-05, 23:42
You're right, I daren't. Even when he's wrong he makes it look like he's right!
Everybody has opinions except jjc, who just has facts. He is a genius!
:D
The Guilford Four differ from the Birmingham Six I'll let you all do your own research inot why. Also I think the Blair apology was to the Conlons and the McGuires and not anyone else involved..........i.e. Paul Hill, who has a dubious past/present :roll:
The Guilford Four differ from the Birmingham Six I'll let you all do your own research inot why.
a) Guildford isn't Birmingham
b) Four is two fewer than six
How am I doing so far??
Dr Szin, I never put any effort in. He's not worth it. As soon as I saw jjc on the post I made a decision not to start arguing about it, as it's pointless.
Err,um, I think you just did!?
a) Guildford isn't Birmingham
b) Four is two fewer than six
How am I doing so far??
Expect no more from you JJC. I was of course talking about the legal aspects of their release.
Expect no more from you JJC. I was of course talking about the legal aspects of their release.
Okay, try this…
I think the Blair apology was to the Conlons and the McGuires and not anyone else involved..........i.e. Paul Hill, who has a dubious past/present :roll:
Blair's apology was to the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven… unless I am very much mistaken, Paul Hill was a member of the Guildford Four and, therefore, received a full and unequivocal apology from Blair.
The Guilford Four differ from the Birmingham Six I'll let you all do your own research inot why.
The Guildford Four had their convictions quashed after it was revealed that the confession on which the prosecution had built its case was fabricated. Roy Amlott QC said, "the Crown is now unable to say that the convictions of any of the four were safe or satisfactory."
The Birmingham Six had their convictions quashed after it was revealed that the confessions on which the prosecution had built its case were fabricated. Alan Green, the Director of Public Prosecution, announced that their convictions "could no longer be considered safe and satisfactory".
So, once again, Birmingham isn't Guildford and four is two fewer than six… if you believe that there are more significant differences regarding the legal aspects of their releases, perhaps you'd care to share them?
Alexander Rowe
14-Feb-05, 14:56
jjc, you have stated that you believe the guildford four are innocent, in your opinion do you believe the birmingham six were also ?
jjc, you have stated that you believe the guildford four are innocent, in your opinion do you believe the birmingham six were also ?
Ummmm... you get that all ten of the people you are referring to had their convictions quashed and, therefore, are innocent, don't you? :confused
Innocent in the eyes of the law.
The same law that judged them guilty.
The law is an ass, and the ability of lawyers to twist and mutilate the law is why. Guilty people walk free from courtrooms all the time so to say that someone is innocent based on the decision of a court is quite naive. The fact that it is possible to "get off" with a crime based on a technicality proves this fact to me.
Alexander Rowe
14-Feb-05, 15:42
jjc, you have stated that you believe the guildford four are innocent, in your opinion do you believe the birmingham six were also ?
Ummmm... you get that all ten of the people you are referring to had their convictions quashed and, therefore, are innocent, don't you? :confused
Yes I understand that in the eyes of the law they are innocent, but I was simply asking if you personally believe they are ? No axe to grind etc just a question.
Alexander Rowe
14-Feb-05, 15:44
Innocent in the eyes of the law.
The same law that judged them guilty.
The law is an ass, and the ability of lawyers to twist and mutilate the law is why. Guilty people walk free from courtrooms all the time so to say that someone is innocent based on the decision of a court is quite naive. The fact that it is possible to "get off" with a crime based on a technicality proves this fact to me.
OJ Simpson anyone ? It does happen.
Yes I understand that in the eyes of the law they are innocent, but I was simply asking if you personally believe they are ? No axe to grind etc just a question.
Despite what some around here think of me, I am not, and do not consider myself to be, all knowing. Unlike some, I don't consider my prejudices to be a more reliable judge of guilt or innocence than due legal process.
So do I 'personally' believe them to be innocent? How could I not? I have nothing on which to reach any other conclusion. :confused
...to say that someone is innocent based on the decision of a court is quite naive.
How else are we to judge guilt or innocence? Perhaps we should shave all suspects and look for the mark of the Devil?
No, wait... I've a better idea. Why don't we do away with the courts all together? We'll just have phone-polls on GMTV and Cheggers can deliver the verdict to the accused person's door!
[disgust]
Alexander Rowe
14-Feb-05, 17:01
...to say that someone is innocent based on the decision of a court is quite naive.
How else are we to judge guilt or innocence? Perhaps we should shave all suspects and look for the mark of the Devil?
No, wait... I've a better idea. Why don't we do away with the courts all together? We'll just have phone-polls on GMTV and Cheggers can deliver the verdict to the accused person's door!
[disgust]
It would certainly be more accurate than the British Legal System at the moment.
Birmingham six innocent [lol] [lol] :roll:
Birmingham six innocent [lol]
You laugh at the idea that the Birmingham Six are innocent. Why? On what do you base your opinion that they are guilty?
It would certainly be more accurate than the British Legal System at the moment.
Birmingham six innocent [lol] [lol] :roll:
Go on then, Alexander Rowe. Enthral us with your wisdom; explain why you know better than the British legal system. We're all ears.
Alexander Rowe
14-Feb-05, 18:50
IMHO I dont believe for a second the Birmingham six were innocent. Its just my opinion remember and it doesnt matter a damn.
Re The Birmingham Six, They were well known IRA supporters back in Ireland and by many in Birmingham. You've got 6 IRA supporters, 5 of which having just left to attend an IRA members funeral In Belfast. They are stopped two hours out of Birmingham, Heysham I think, just as the two bombs go off (enough time to get far enough away). Two of the six had tested positive for the Griess test for handling explosives and basically won their appeal on a technicallity.
Thats my view and thats why I think they were guilty, as I said it doesnt matter a hoot as they are free to do what they want now, but its just my opinion.
The trouble with quashed convictions is that it doesn't necessarily mean those exonerated are completely innocent of the crime they were originally done for.
Just to add - Re The Guildford four, from what I have read I believe they were completely innocent, but I can understand where there is doubt.
IMHO I dont believe for a second the Birmingham six were innocent. Its just my opinion remember and it doesnt matter a damn.
Well no, that’s not true. It stopped being ‘just your opinion’ when you decided to voice it publicly – at that point it became an accusation of terrorism and murder.
Re The Birmingham Six, They were well known IRA supporters back in Ireland and by many in Birmingham.
Yep – and that makes them guilty how? :confused
They are stopped two hours out of Birmingham, Heysham I think, just as the two bombs go off
Again, that makes them guilty because... ? :confused
Two of the six had tested positive for the Griess test for handling explosives and basically won their appeal on a technicallity.
The ‘technicality’ being that handling cigarettes can also provide a positive result under the test… hmm... I suppose you might consider that ‘getting off on a technicality'.
The trouble with quashed convictions is that it doesn't necessarily mean those exonerated are completely innocent of the crime they were originally done for.
No; that’s exactly what a quashed conviction means. :roll:
Highland Laddie
14-Feb-05, 22:19
If we doubt the legal system of the country,
then all has failed.
We must accept their conclusions.
Highlandladdie, I dare say you have forgotten the Jeffrey Archer libel case and the Giuness share dealing case?
Highlandladdie, I dare say you have forgotten the Jeffrey Archer libel case and the Giuness share dealing case?
Jeffrey Archer – convicted of perjury and forced to pay back more than £2.5m to the Daily Star.
Guinness Share scandal – Former Gunness Chairman, Ernest Saunders, jailed for two-and-a-half years for false accountancy, theft and conspiracy. Anthony Parnes (a stockbroker) and Gerald Ronson (of Henron) also jailed for their parts in the affair.
It seems to me like you’ve just given two examples of the legal system ensuring that the guilty are punished.
Quite, but you forget that I am a great believer in the system that we have.
Highland Laddie
14-Feb-05, 23:23
I just believe that we must have faith in the legal system of the country.
tell me of any other legal system in the world, that don't make mistakes.
There isn't one, so there is no point in having an ideological presumption that ours is perfect and believing a face value the verdict of a court.
Alexander Rowe
15-Feb-05, 00:24
exactly[/i] what a quashed conviction means. :roll:
na·ive or na·ïve (nī-ēv', nä-) also na·if or na·ïf (nī-ēf', nä-)
adj.
1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding.
2. Simple and guileless; artless:
3. Unsuspecting or credulous:
4. Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment.
You asked for my opinion and I gave it. Just going round in circles now so I'll agree to disagree. Last post on the subject from me.
There isn't one, so there is no point in having an ideological presumption that ours is perfect and believing a face value the verdict of a court.
Nobody here has said that our legal system is perfect; but there is a huge difference between a legal system that is constantly under review and a legal system that is simply cast aside whenever you don’t agree with its judgements.
You have probably hit it on the nail, I never casted it aside, I was merely reviewing its imperfections. :roll:
na•ive or na•ïve (nī-ēv', nä-) also na•if or na•ïf (nī-ēf', nä-)
adj.
1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding.
2. Simple and guileless; artless:
3. Unsuspecting or credulous:
4. Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment.
Quash:
- To annul, to make null or void (a law, decision, election, etc.); to throw out or reject (a writ, indictment, etc.) as invalid; to put an end to, stop completely (legal proceedings).
- To bring to nothing; to crush or destroy; to put down or suppress completely; to stifle (esp. a feeling, idea, scheme, undertaking, proceeding, etc.).
That you think there is room for ambiguity after a conviction has been quashed is more a reflection on your own lack of understanding of what ‘quashed’ means than it is a reflection of any naivety on my part.
Alexander Rowe
15-Feb-05, 01:12
You summed it up correctly when you said 'Nobody here has said that our legal system is perfect'.
Just because a conviction has been quashed doesnt mean its 100% correct.
Really is last post this time.
Just because a conviction has been quashed doesnt mean its 100% correct.
It’s a quirky little thing, I know; but in our society we hold that people are innocent until they are proven guilty. If a person’s conviction is quashed then they have not been proven to be guilty and are, therefore, innocent.
The only way you can continue to consider a person to be guilty after their conviction is overturned is to remove the right to the presumption of innocence. Is that truly the type of society you want to live in?
Alexander Rowe, he ate you alive too. Do we have any more lambs for slaughter?
The Birmingham Six were released as their convictions could not be considered safe and satisfactory - The Guilford Four had their convictions quashed.
I could be wrong JJC but on all the news bulletins and articles I have read the apologiy given by Blair was to the Conlon & McGuire families, not the Guiford Four.......the McGuires were not part of the Guilford Four.
Alexander Rowe
15-Feb-05, 09:20
Alexander Rowe, he ate you alive too. Do we have any more lambs for slaughter?
[lol] [lol] You call that eating someone alive? If anything he's starting to doubt what he's actually saying and he knows fine well im right, but as I said we're going round in circles.
Dr Szin you seem obsessed with him, did you send a valentines this year?
Get a room eh !!
Alexander Rowe
15-Feb-05, 09:46
Just cant leave this thread alone can I. [lol] Promise this is my last word on the subject.
Refer you to this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1298708.stm
In a perfect world there wouldnt be any "mix up's" but it happens. Goes both ways, im sure there are people in jail just now who shouldnt be.
Wow Folks
Im amazed.
Just a couple of points.
1. innocent til proven guilty
2. Fair Trial
People are entitled to this a technicality can mean that they didnt get a fair trial and what is society if we cant do this and if we get it wrong admit we made a mistake?
Better that guilty people go free than innocent people are put in jail for years for something they never did
The Birmingham Six were released as their convictions could not be considered safe and satisfactory - The Guilford Four had their convictions quashed.
You use the word 'released' here as if it somehow means less than that their convictions were quashed.
Look again; you'll find that both groups had their convictions quashed after none of the convictions was found to be safe or satisfactory.
I could be wrong JJC but on all the news bulletins and articles I have read the apologiy given by Blair was to the Conlon & McGuire families, not the Guiford Four
"There was a miscarriage of justice in the case of Gerard Conlon and all the Guildford Four, as well as Giuseppe Conlon and Annie Maguire and all of the Maguire Seven." – Tony Blair (09/02/05)
There's no "could be" about it.
If anything he's starting to doubt what he's actually saying and he knows fine well im right
[lol] Oh Alexander, you do amuse me!
I don't know where I have given you the impression that I don't believe what I am saying or that I believe you to be right, but I assure you that neither is the case.
Alexander Rowe
15-Feb-05, 15:10
jjc, when you said in an earlier post you dont believe the legal system to be perfect, what part of the legal system are you referring to?
My point, from the beginning, was that because a conviction has been quashed, does not mean the offender (cant call them that anymore incase it hurts their feelings) didnt do whatever they had been found guilty of. In a perfect world it would, and I would love to think that all reversed decisions were correct.
I think the forensic test used for the presence of explosives is also triggered positive by handling photographic equipment, I never heard of it triggered by cigarettes though, do you have a reference jjc?
Alexander Rowe
15-Feb-05, 21:53
I think the forensic test used for the presence of explosives is also triggered positive by handling photographic equipment, I never heard of it triggered by cigarettes though, do you have a reference jjc?
Very well, still doesnt change my opinion though.
I think the forensic test used for the presence of explosives is also triggered positive by handling photographic equipment, I never heard of it triggered by cigarettes though, do you have a reference jjc?
Scientists also admitted in court that forensic tests which were originally said to confirm two of the six had been handling explosives could have produced the same results from handling cigarettes. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/14/newsid_2543000/2543613.stm)
jjc, when you said in an earlier post you dont believe the legal system to be perfect, what part of the legal system are you referring to?
Oh, I’m not sure that there are any parts of the system that could be described as perfect…
My point, from the beginning, was that because a conviction has been quashed, does not mean the offender (cant call them that anymore incase it hurts their feelings) didnt do whatever they had been found guilty of.
But as our legal system is the only way our society has of determining a person’s guilt or innocence, if a verdict of guilty is overturned by the courts then we must consider them to be innocent.
Of course, f you have a better way of deciding somebody’s guilt or innocence then let’s hear it…
Of course, f you have a better way of deciding somebody’s guilt or innocence then let’s hear it…
Yes I have, how about having some of the aggrieved have a place in the jury. The rest being appointed by the prosecution. Then the previous criminal record be read before the trial begins (like you say it is helpful to draw on the character of the accused).
Then i think the aggrieved parties should be consulted for the sentencing though i dont think they should do the sentencing as I want a fair trial.
Also I think it would be helpful if we remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, I don't want liberal Euro-nambypambies interfering in our affairs when the appeal get filed.
To balance things up and make it completely fair, I suggest that the defence should only rely on the accused's own personal representation ie without a lawyer, we don't want the purity of his evidence to be manipulated by a self interested party.
JJC I dont need to look again at the information I am satidfied that there was a difference in the terms of the release of both the Guilford 4 and the Birmingham 6.
Any chance you could provide the reference for your Blair quote so I can check the full transcript, as all the quotes I have seen (which include the text you have quoted) then go on to say that he would like to apologise to the Conlon and McGuire families.
Alexander Rowe
16-Feb-05, 09:33
Oh, I’m not sure that there are any parts of the system that could be described as perfect…
I thank you.
But as our legal system is the only way our society has of determining a person’s guilt or innocence, if a verdict of guilty is overturned by the courts then we must consider them to be innocent.
Oh dear god Im slowly losing the will to live :~( Yes they will officially be considered innocent and as such we must consider them to be innocent but you know fine well there are people who SHOULD be locked up and through one way or another arent. OJ Simpson, albeit it in America, is a perfect example. But yes, through the eyes of the law he is innocent and his victims family and the rest have to live with that.
BTW Apparently I have to keep posting on this discussion as DrSzin has pointed out in a pm as soon as I stop it means you have eaten me alive [lol] [lol] . You couldnt make it up.
Some try porn or drugs, others maybe turn to crime to get their kicks, but for DrSzin you cant beat a good old jjc post.
Alexander Rowe
16-Feb-05, 09:38
Also I think it would be helpful if we remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, I don't want liberal Euro-nambypambies interfering in our affairs when the appeal get filed.
Hear Hear
BTW Apparently I have to keep posting on this discussion as DrSzin has pointed out in a pm as soon as I stop it means you have eaten me alive [lol] [lol] . You couldnt make it up.
Some try porn or drugs, others maybe turn to crime to get their kicks, but for DrSzin you cant beat a good old jjc post.
Nah, I just enjoy watching a good verbal scrap. If I had been a Roman I would have enjoyed watching Christians fighting with lions...
Oh dear god Im slowly losing the will to live
Do you promise?
Yes they will officially be considered innocent and as such we must consider them to be innocent but you know fine well there are people who SHOULD be locked up and through one way or another arent.
Yes…. But out with the legal system, how are we to judge who should and who should not fall into that category?
You say that the Birmingham Six shouldn't be considered 'innocent' – yet you based that, in part, on an assumption that tests showing that they handled explosives were infallible. When that was shown to be untrue - not once but twice – it made no difference to your assumption that they are guilty as (previously) charged.
So I ask you again – if you have a better way of determining guilt (and as you have second-guessed the legal system with regards the Birmingham Six I can only assume that you do) let's hear it.
Any chance you could provide the reference for your Blair quote so I can check the full transcript, as all the quotes I have seen (which include the text you have quoted) then go on to say that he would like to apologise to the Conlon and McGuire families.
It's amazing how lazy some people are... really amazing.
Try here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4249175.stm#). You can watch the video of his apology.
Let me make it even easier for you and complete the quote I started…
There was a miscarriage of justice in the case of Gerard Conlon and all the Guildford Four, as well as Giuseppe Conlon and Annie Maguire and all of the Maguire Seven.
And as with the others, I recognise the trauma that the conviction caused the Conlon and Maguire families and the stigma which wrongly attaches to them to this day. I’m very sorry that they were subject to such an ordeal and such an injustice. That’s why I am making this apology today. They deserve to be completely and publicy exonerated.
I’ve highlighted the part I think you might be interested in – we don’t want you having to do any actual work whilst educating yourself after all… :roll:
doreenhedgehog
17-Feb-05, 00:05
I’ve highlighted the part I think you might be interested in – we don’t want you having to do any actual work whilst educating yourself after all… :roll:
jjc if you were chocolate you would eat yourself.
jjc if you were chocolate you would eat yourself.
You’ve had since Sunday to come up with something sensible to say in this thread and that’s the best you could manage? I despair… :roll:
doreenhedgehog
17-Feb-05, 00:33
I'm happy with it :lol:
Also I think it would be helpful if we remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, I don't want liberal Euro-nambypambies interfering in our affairs when the appeal get filed.
Hear Hear
Alas, any attempt to keep our legal system independent is clearly futile...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/17/weu17.xml
How so? The article you reference clearly says that Britain had negotiated an agreement sufficient to "block the creation of a pan-European prosecutor". :confused
quite, but one can see where the tide of things are flowing...
So more 'possibly difficult' than 'clearly futile'??
whatever jjc, but it is obvious to me that the pan European influence will cover more things than just trade etc :lol:
http://members.aol.com/sabbytut/banghead.gif
http://members.aol.com/sabbytut/banghead.gif
Gets quite frustrating when people play Devil's Advocate for the sake of it, eh Rheggers? ;)
not really, I don't play DA all the time, but i do sometimes when it suits, like somebody else eh? :eek: :roll:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.