1. The Police may be going to protest over cuts ... The Guardian 8th March ... Should they? See the earlier post - Peaceful Protest
2. Does this sex discrimination claim merit £70,000 in compensation? The Guardian 8th March. [NB: No liability was admitted]. See also Criminal Injuries Compensation
3. Did this man merit a greater fine? Man fined £50 for burning poppies .... The Court's judgment is here. See the Magistrates' Courts Sentencing Guidelines at page 88 - which the District Judge who passed sentence "must" work to. See further the earlier post - "Rights entail responsibiltiies"
4. Why is the government doing this? New Statesman. Here is a link to the draft convention.
5. Should these places be run by private enterprise? The Guardian 6th March. It may be the way of the future - "Breaking the Cycle ...."
In relation to many of these stories it is all too easy to "shoot from the hip." That is not "legal method". As always, the considered views of readers are welcome.
An entirely different matter - Mr Chris Jefferies has been released from Police bail - The Independent
Please see the earlier post Police Powers - Bail
4. Have you read the draft convention you referred to?
ReplyDeleteIt makes for pretty difficult reading. Do these people really mean what they say? Are they serious? What is the true purpose of the convention?
* It includes the new category of "economic violence", whatever that is. Really!
* It calls for the complete elimination of all violence against women and girls. If the COE have obtained the ability to eliminate entire categories of evil could they please start with murder and rape? This is "moon-on-a-stick" stuff.
Really, try reading it. It is jaw-droppingly imbecilic, asks for the impossible by means of the idiotic, is sexist and discriminatory on it's face, and with the monitoring requirements is I think an attempt to create a new gravy train via a power grab.
Why are we signing up to something so stupid at all?
Has nobody got the presence of mind to say "we all oppose violence against women (and men) but these proposals will not help". It would be a very easy case to make.
1. It is interesting that the Police consider a "protest" in relation to their own conditions. This shows the importance of protest in a democracy. On certain occasions, the Police have, regrettably, seemed hostile to the rights of others to protest. The Police may not strike but are permitted to use other forms of protest.
ReplyDelete2. There is no limit on the amount of compensation that can be awarded in sex discrim cases but a complainant will only be compensated for the damage which she can show was directly caused by the unlawful discrimination as found by the tribunal.
3. The poppy case was bound to result in huge publoc outrage given the commitment of our Forces to places such as Afghanistan. The man was charged under the Public Order Act 1986 s.5 and the District Judge who dealt with the case appears to have followed the sentencing guidelines. There might have been some scope for the fine to be somewhat higher but the means of the offender have to be considered. It is very rare in Magistrates' Courts that there is a full inverstigation into means - the court usually relies on a "means form" completed by the defendant. The Solicitor's Journal 7th March 2011 looked at the case - see Speech Recognition
4. On this, Ben has made entirely fair points. I don't know whey they are seeking to amend the draft but they are adopting a rather anti-Europe anti-Human rights stance at the present time.
5. This is entirely a political issue. Personally, I think it preferable for prisons to be run by a dedicated prison service. I am not sure what the government is saving if it has to provide the actual prison and pay the provider. See the Breaking the Cycle document for their views about making prisons places of work and rehabilitation.