Classic British Flight Sim

Right, thats it, I'm leaving this country today... :curse:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6219608.stm

Well don't emigrate to Denmark, as the same thing could easily happen here...... :redface:

And a link of that story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/camb ... 005112.stm

makes me wonder what planet the High Court judges live on.

Certainly not in touch with reality.

Yes, it is slightly idiotic, but at least it still proves that the law is working in this country and that the government is not able to ride roughshod over people's rights a la Guantanamo. :think:

The day that those basic human rights are ignored is the day we should all start to worry!

AndyG

The day that those basic human rights are ignored is the day we should all start to worry

Andy, yes - peoples' rights have to be protected however, under the circumstances I feel that any compensation awarded to him should be immediately be confiscated and the money given to the victim of his crime as a way of compensation to her ordeal that no doubt will leave her scarred mentally for a very very long time to come.

Why on earth should he be entitled to this money even though he may have had his human rights breached? What of the poor girl that he raped? He committed a horrendous offence and as such, regardless of his human rights having been breached, he should not received a penny for.

Rant over, but still angry!!!! :curse:

Gah. Just typed a big rant but thought better of posting it...
:curse:

Well said Nigel.

Thats half of the problem with the whole system. Peoples rights and the Human rights act, where, at this stage in society we are being pulled in all directions by diversity literally afraid to speak or talk to each other for fear of being sued, arrested or accused of being a racist.

This matter takes things to a whole new level where a person has committed one of the most dispicable and cowardly acts known to man (meaning mankind - so as not to cause offence! :roll: ) and ultimately is now 'entitled' to compensation over a breach in his human rights. :shock:

Up to £50,000 - for this animal ??

What would he get in his country? Probably his head chopped off.

Like Nigel said. What about the emotional and mental scarring of the poor child who was subject to this rape? I can guarantee they get nothing compared to the offender. But they carry this with them for the rest of their lives.

I feel sick :crying:

Vegas and others - you quite naturally feel outraged, but don't we need to examine the principle behind the decision? If the state could just detain people for as long as it liked, irrespective of what sentence had been passed by the Court, would you be happy with that? that was precisely the sort of thing which happened in Nazi Germany, and even more so in Soviet Russia. It has started to happen in the US with Guantanamo Bay. It is the road to totalitarianism .Do you really want us to go down that road ?

cstorey wrote:Vegas and others - you quite naturally feel outraged, but don't we need to examine the principle behind the decision? If the state could just detain people for as long as it liked, irrespective of what sentence had been passed by the Court, would you be happy with that? that was precisely the sort of thing which happened in Nazi Germany, and even more so in Soviet Russia. It has started to happen in the US with Guantanamo Bay. It is the road to totalitarianism .Do you really want us to go down that road ?

You miss my point. Completely.

This has nothing to do with Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia CS. This is clearly a decision based on the infringement of a persons human rights based on his detention whilst in custody.

Look at what this person has done to another. A terrible ordeal for anyone, let alone a child. A serious arrestable offence which carries a maximum of life imprisonment - which should exactly be that.

Eight years for commiting rape at knifepoint on a child is in my opinion - a gift. Twenty months on top of that is nothing compared to what perhaps he may have got twenty years ago.

The Human Rights should'nt really come into the equation.

I'll refrain from saying more as its not really very appropriate for me to do so.

If you would like to discuss further CS then PM me.

Vegas - I did not miss your point - the point I was making was that the sentence had expired and the prisoner had been released having served his sentence. The subsequent detention has been ruled to be unlawful not because the detention for purposes of deportation is unlawful per se, but because the deportation never took place and therefore the continued detention became arbitrary.

It is very frequent that the public regards sentences as inadequate; this is often because the public does not have access to all the information which is involved in sentencing. But whether you consider the sentence inadequate or not is irrelevant : the relevant point is it had been served in this case

Although this board is possibly not the place for policy discussions, I would like to add that although it is tempting to call for maximum sentences for every unpleasant crime, there is a good policy reason for not passing such sentences ; if one does so, then there is no incentive for the criminal to desist from even worse crimes e.g. murder , in the hope of avoiding detection