There was an article in yesterdays Express about killers serving life sentences who will never be released - it mentioned this ghastly fella Victor Castigador ......burnt two security guards to death
http://en.allexperts.com/e/v/v/v%C3%...castigador.htm
Punisher by name Punisher by nature
Absit invidia
DISCLAIMER: The information hereinabove may or may not be entirely accurate, relevant, forthright, verifiable, or coherent. KeithAngel, who shall herein be refered to as the 'Shining Beacon of Light', reserves the right to neither confirm, deny, justify, explain, or otherwise acknowledge any inquiry in regards to the validity, genuinity, construction, intent, and/or motive of any statements, gestures, and/or actions whether real, imagined, or transdimensional in origin. Further, the 'Shining Beacon of Light' shall be absolved of any and all legal, moral, and financial responsibilities for damages to life, limb, character, reputation, property, and/or business resulting from the usage, assimilation, incorporation, replication, and/or distribution of said statements whether partial, complete, misquoted, or imagined. This disclaimer remains in effect despite any discrepancies or claims as to its legibility, comprehension, interpretation, subliminal suggestiveness, political affiliation, legality, visibility, and/or physical presence
even though the European Court of Human Rights later ruled that whole life tariffs were unlawful if passed by a politician rather than a member of the judiciary.
, some unelected European judge telling an elected British Home Secretary what to do
the judge should be thinking about what he did and keeping him locked up.
I suppose that there will be far more Brits in Philippine jails than the other way around...
only guilty onesOriginally Posted by aromulus
I suppose that there will be far more Brits in Philippine jails than the other way around...you dont hear about these judges helping any brits ?? seems to me its just a court of criminal rights
dom how many times have you read about the court of human rights over ruling the british gov after it has tried to deport illegal immigrants ?
the british are known for the fair play, unlike most countries
Yeah, where has it gone then...???
Where is my vote on the foxes gone...?
Where is my vote on Europe gone...?
Why am I watched by hundreds of cameras, every time I step out shopping...?
Why does it have to cost £5 extra to pay for your gas if you do it online by debit card, while it doesn't, if you sign up with direct debit...?
Why hang on to an innocent person's DNA for so many years...?
And so on, and on, and on...........And on..........
why should people have a vote on fox hunting ? what about badger baiting, cock and dog fighting etc ??Yeah, where has it gone then...???
Where is my vote on the foxes gone...?
Where is my vote on Europe gone...?
Why am I watched by hundreds of cameras, every time I step out shopping...?
Why does it have to cost £5 extra to pay for your gas if you do it online by debit card, while it doesn't, if you sign up with direct debit...?
Why hang on to an innocent person's DNA for so many years...?
And so on, and on, and on...........And on..........people think its ok in a civilised society
yes euro vote, where is mine
as for the camera's maybe you look shifty dom
it doesnt bother me if they hold my dna, i'm sure it will make some people think twice b4 committing a crime
That article raises a very interesting point with which I agree, "European Court of Human Rights later ruled that whole life tariffs were unlawful if passed by a politician rather than a member of the judiciary". The trouble is that we are let down by the judiciary who, because they are all drawn from such a narrow social class, don't seem to live in the same world as the rest of us.
This is how things went totally wrong with the sentencing in the James Bulger case. The presiding judge set an 8 years minimum tarrif, which was then increased by the Lord Chief Justice of the day to 10 years. Then the home secretary of the day Michael Howard (for purely populist reasons in my opinion) increased it to 15 years which left the door open for a challenge in the European court of human rights.
They were initially sentenced to be detained at her majesty's pleasure with a recommendation that they should be kept in custody for "very, very many years to come", with an 8 years, increased to 10 years minimum tarrif and if Michael Howard hadn't of interfered they would have served at least 10 years instead of getting out after only 8 years once the ECHR had become involved.
i would have thought that most people would want them to serve 15yrs minimum in prison and not 8yrs in some care home, for what they did to that little boy, imagine if it was your son ? 8yrs in a home , released back on the streets , and not serve one day in prison
yes the family of Bulger were let down by the justice system and the Court of human rights
I agree with you with regard to how long they should have served, but I think that politicians should make law, I don't think that politicians should interfere with the workings of the law as this can lead to decisions being made because of the popularity, or lack of it, of the government of the day or to further that particular politicians future ambitions.i would have thought that most people would want them to serve 15yrs minimum in prison and not 8yrs in some care home, for what they did to that little boy, imagine if it was your son ? 8yrs in a home , released back on the streets , and not serve one day in prison
yes the family of Bulger were let down by the justice system and the Court of human rights
I think that what is needed is a court panel made up of a wide range of people from different walks of life, along with maybe a couple of barristers and a judge to act in an advisory capacity only. Then if some judge from another planet passes down a ludicrously short sentence for a crime that most sensible people would have thought should have been much longer, or visa-versa, should have been shorter, then the case would be forwarded to this panel for a final ruling.
As I said, it's the judges that are at fault because they just don't live in the same world as the common man.
IMHO European Court of Human Rights should leave us to deal how we see fit with murdering scum. Wouldn't be up for debate if murderers swung upon conviction
sometimes the gov just ignores or delays taking action on their decision anyway
There's only 2 choices really now that were all signed up to the European Union, it's laws and conventions, we either go along with their rulings or we get the hell out, but I don't believe any government will ever give us the choice on whether we stay in or get out and that applies both to future conservative goverments as well as future labour governments.IMHO European Court of Human Rights should leave us to deal how we see fit with murdering scum. Wouldn't be up for debate if murderers swung upon conviction
I do not see that the practical solution is to jump from the frying pan, but rather to get the EU rules changed so that countries can opt out of the parts of EU policy/practice which they do not agree with.
I see no reason why any country should be controlled by the other countries in the EU when in comes to what happens in that country. The criminal law being one such area.
UK and Ireland amongst others opted out of the Schengen Agreement so why not do the same on other matters which the populace don't agree with?
I think the biggest problem is that hardly anyone in UK has or would challenge their MP on such matters and thus it all get by on the nod. If almost 100% of the electorate voiced their objection to a particular policy there is no doubt it would be changed.
But expecting most Brits to do anything but whinge, is a bridge too far!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
