http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8314032.stm

I'm just wondering, even though the five convicted people who had contested 
the case were refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, it could 
end up there?

One for Nick, I suspect.

tox

Toxic Waste wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8314032.stm
> 
> I'm just wondering, even though the five convicted people who had contested 
> the case were refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, it could 
> end up there?
> 
> One for Nick, I suspect.

Just for once Tox, I actually agree with this decision. I'm against
holding data on people who have not been convicted of anything, but if
they have been then the circumstances are different.

But, I have to say that there should be a graduated system where
offences lapse after various amounts of time depending on their
seriousness. I don't think it's right to condemn someone for ever for a
minor offence, but if they turn out to be a habitual offender then
they've made their bed and must lie in it.

-- 

Brian

Brian Morrison wrote:

>Toxic Waste wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8314032.stm
>> 
>> I'm just wondering, even though the five convicted people who had contested 
>> the case were refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, it could 
>> end up there?
>> 
>> One for Nick, I suspect.
>
>Just for once Tox, I actually agree with this decision. I'm against
>holding data on people who have not been convicted of anything, but if
>they have been then the circumstances are different.
>
>But, I have to say that there should be a graduated system where
>offences lapse after various amounts of time depending on their
>seriousness. I don't think it's right to condemn someone for ever for a
>minor offence, but if they turn out to be a habitual offender then
>they've made their bed and must lie in it.

Ah, yes, there were times when the justice system dispensed both
punishment and rehabilitation. These days, we seem only to have
punishment, and vindictive punishment at that. An unwise youth - and
we've all been there - accepting a 'police caution' in order to get
out of the police station and back to normality, doesn't realise he's
just admitted an offence that will blight the rest of his life.

When my kids reached the age when they were old enough to go out with
friends, I gave them the lecture about what to do if they wound up in
trouble with the police. It centred around no expectation of getting
out of the police station in the immediate future, and as there was no
hope whatsoever of the police being swayed by their story, to give
only name, age and address, and no matter how provoked, to say nothing
else at all. If offered a 'caution', reject it. At some point the
police would have to charge them or let them go. That is the point at
which one starts to put one's defence together, should it be needed.

I explained that if they do not incriminate themselves by the police
using their own words against them, the chances are that nothing more
would happen, but that if they spoke then the police could use their
words in any way that they saw fit. The plentiful supply of
reality-cop-TV shows provided ample examples of how to incriminate
oneself, and they were duly astonished.

I had every expectation that my kids would stay out of trouble, and
they did, but it's easy to be caught up in other people's grief. 

My son and his friend were crossing the road one night, when a police
car was involved in a collision right in front of them. One copper got
out and said "Did either of you see that?", to which my son answered
in a flash "Sorry, I didn't have my glasses on" - a masterstroke of
quick thinking, and just what self-preservation called for.

There's a couple of You Tube videos doing the rounds, one by a law
professor and one by a police officer, of this very topic. They should
be shown to every schoolkid (and adult, for that matter), but they
won't be. Note that of the five appellants in this case, at least two
were minors at the time. I hope they take this to the ECtHR, we have
too many cases of limited companies trying to control the lives of
others.

-- 
from
Aero Spike
Not a member of the RSGB for 50 years 1959 - 2009

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:ef4pd5tnhgtb7qrrfph63k4r30nkkignol@4ax.com...
>
> Brian Morrison wrote:
>
>>Toxic Waste wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8314032.stm
>>>
>>> I'm just wondering, even though the five convicted people who had contested
>>> the case were refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, it could
>>> end up there?
>>>
>>> One for Nick, I suspect.
>>
>>Just for once Tox, I actually agree with this decision. I'm against
>>holding data on people who have not been convicted of anything, but if
>>they have been then the circumstances are different.
>>
>>But, I have to say that there should be a graduated system where
>>offences lapse after various amounts of time depending on their
>>seriousness. I don't think it's right to condemn someone for ever for a
>>minor offence, but if they turn out to be a habitual offender then
>>they've made their bed and must lie in it.
>
> Ah, yes, there were times when the justice system dispensed both
> punishment and rehabilitation. These days, we seem only to have
> punishment, and vindictive punishment at that. An unwise youth - and
> we've all been there - accepting a 'police caution' in order to get
> out of the police station and back to normality, doesn't realise he's
> just admitted an offence that will blight the rest of his life.
>
> When my kids reached the age when they were old enough to go out with
> friends, I gave them the lecture about what to do if they wound up in
> trouble with the police. It centred around no expectation of getting
> out of the police station in the immediate future, and as there was no
> hope whatsoever of the police being swayed by their story, to give
> only name, age and address, and no matter how provoked, to say nothing
> else at all. If offered a 'caution', reject it. At some point the
> police would have to charge them or let them go. That is the point at
> which one starts to put one's defence together, should it be needed.
>
> I explained that if they do not incriminate themselves by the police
> using their own words against them, the chances are that nothing more
> would happen, but that if they spoke then the police could use their
> words in any way that they saw fit. The plentiful supply of
> reality-cop-TV shows provided ample examples of how to incriminate
> oneself, and they were duly astonished.
>
> I had every expectation that my kids would stay out of trouble, and
> they did, but it's easy to be caught up in other people's grief.
>
> My son and his friend were crossing the road one night, when a police
> car was involved in a collision right in front of them. One copper got
> out and said "Did either of you see that?", to which my son answered
> in a flash "Sorry, I didn't have my glasses on" - a masterstroke of
> quick thinking, and just what self-preservation called for.
>
> There's a couple of You Tube videos doing the rounds, one by a law
> professor and one by a police officer, of this very topic. They should
> be shown to every schoolkid (and adult, for that matter), but they
> won't be. Note that of the five appellants in this case, at least two
> were minors at the time. I hope they take this to the ECtHR, we have
> too many cases of limited companies trying to control the lives of
> others.
>
> -- 
> from
> Aero Spike
> Not a member of the RSGB for 50 years 1959 - 2009

Just have a look at the recent press about AvIVA

Some body had their house burned down , now that insurance company wants their 
money back

DieSea