It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Oh, of course. You'd be surprised if there was any other outcome, wouldn't you?
With sharia implemented, of course. Hello, Birmingham as well?
All good points, but they were evidently granted leave to appeal on two separate occasions.
One thing I do know anecdotally is that Ashers Bakery taking this "principled stance" and fighting these three cases has resulted in their bread sales going through the roof. That may well be the ulterior motive here, although I'm rather cynical about business of course.
I'm of the opinion that religion and business do not go hand in hand. In other words, if you have any problems in following the law of the land as a business or a businessman or businesswoman then you should get out of it. Or, at the very least leave your so-called principles at the door. Moneygrabbing is not a Christian principle I believe.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0020-judgment.pdf
Judgment Summary (video):
https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2017-0020/judgment.html
Also the Press Summary:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0020-press-summary.pdf
https://mlaw.co.uk/james-bond-50-years-of-legal-issues/
Private international tribunal takes on our psychopathic overlords.
I've not seen that show as I don't have Netflix. I'm more old fashioned as I tend to prefer physical media such as boxsets or single DVDs and Blu-rays. Physical media. One thing I did notice last year was that in the otherwise excellent TV miniseries Des (2020) which starred David Tennant and detailed the 1983 arrest of the Scottish serial killer Dennis Nilsen, the court scenes at the Old Bailey lapsed into American legal drama territory. For example, there was the "Objection"/"Sustained" exchange between the barrister and the trial judge. That doesn't happen in UK courts. I found it disappointing that the writers decided they needed to lapse into American courtroom drama after being faithful up to that point. It rather took me out of the thing to be honest but I suspect these sorts of lapses or artistic licence are fairly common in British legal or police dramas. Still, I prefer accuracy over drama or theatrics just for the sake of it. A lot of people probably don't notice these small points but to Law graduates and those in the know they are rather annoying and tend to spoil the proceedings. Another common mistake in crime films, TV series and novels is the use of the gavel by British judges. This is another misconception about UK courts and again comes from the US judicial system.
The legislation referred to was the Road Safety Act 1967 which set the drink driving limit and which was introduced by the Labour Transport Minister Barbara Castle:
Shouldn t it be the other way around for alcoholics? They become wrecks when sober, so should always drink before driving.
I'm sure that's the way that alcoholics would see it subjectively but UK law often considers the objective test of what the reasonable man would consider reasonable in the circumstances. However, one of my Law lecturers said that the reasonable man was the boring man and that might apply in this case.
"Devout Christian" Jemma Mitchell got at least 34 years for decapitating her friend Mee Kuen Chong in a dispute about money. The strict rules state that only the judge can be filmed, after fears that it would put off potential jury members if the whole trial was televised as has been the case in the United States for many years. Sentencing in criminal trials has been televised in Scotland for several years.
He might be needed for jury service. You never know. It could happen.
Hiding in plain sight as they say.
I think that in some cases the law is too lenient and in others far too harsh. I also think some laws are draconian and there's a lack of understanding of what constitutes a suitable punishment which eventually gets in the way of rehabilitation. Taking a pee in public while drunk can potentially land you on a sex register with all kinds of unsavouries (rapists and paedophiles)! You have to disclose this if asked by a job and people will naturally assume the worst. And below I go into the implication of that.
Having worked with the prison system in the past via supporting private bids I've noticed there's considerable privatisation creep which I believe quite cynically drives the need for convictions up. Mind you I worked with private companies that deliver prison health and at the time I helped them develop a bit of a monopoly! So you can blame me for offenders receiving mental health care in prison... of which is a massive problem and a massive link to offending and subsequent reoffending (I also think lack of education, society as a whole, etc drives offences up but that's a sociology debate).
I also think that the police and cps are also so focused on hitting a target that once they've committed resources to something (time is money after all!) they'll do anything to justify and get it. They are not your friends. I've not personally been on the wrong side of the law but sadly know people that have and it seems we edge ever closer to erring on the side of guilty and having to prove innocence which is supposedly the opposite to how our law system works. They hang you out to dry and then can wait until the very day of court to withdraw charges - playing the long game in the hope of a changing of plea because they know they don't have enough evidence. Nevermind the fact that in the meantime that serves as a punishment in itself to the completely innocent person in question.
I believe there needs to be considerable prison and law reform. While offenders do need to be prosecuted we need to get to a point where they can reintegrate into society after they have served their sentence where it's easy to access a job, etc, in the way that they are able to otherwise they end up guilty for life and prison becomes a potential revolving door. But I agree there are other cases where sentencing should be far, far tougher.
Then there's media who report nearly every single little case that comes through a courts door. They splash names and addresses and pictures (without door numbers). It's allegedly in the public interest but has a damaging and devastating effect in that it hurts the offender's families who are completely innocent irreparably. What they think hurts the offender hurts their children who have to go to school or the wife who had no idea who now has to fight illegal discrimination in her job by "guilt by association" despite her current status to the offender! It shouldn't happen to them... but it bloody well does.
Sorry! I had to rant and get it off my chest. I'm deeply cynically about the system. I don't think it's fit for purpose. Argue with me if you like but it's more of a rant. I'm not really here to change people's minds!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-64500638
* https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/5-6/51/section/2
the Queen. Does this mean that his Majesty King Charles would be unprotected? Or is there a clause elsewhere to the effect the provisions referring to the Queen are to be construed as also including a King?
Yes, I noticed that myself. I think Victorian legislation was much more specific sometimes in its wording of sections. For example, there were often sections for very specific crimes like assaulting a seaman or a clergyman (such as in the partially still in use Offences Against the Person Act 1861). I assume that this is the same sort of thing here. Whether there was separate legislation protecting the King from such attacks I'm not sure but no doubt the magistrate or judges could read "monarch" or "King" into an Act which only mentioned the "Queen" if they wanted to. They've certainly read more into Acts when interpreting "the express will of Parliament" before! The use of "the monarch" by the draftsman of the 1842 Act would have avoided this ambiguity of course but presumably this legislation was passed in the wake of some attack on Queen Victoria herself?
Yes, I understand you have civil law derived more closely from Roman law on the European continent. In the UK (apart from Scotland) and Ireland we have the common law system based on judicial precedent. I wasn't familiar with this legislation before hearing of this case as we didn't study it in Criminal Law but the wording of the section definitely reminds me of that in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 which can be read here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents
It's her bed. Let her lie in it. Let her lie in it!
I have heard that her legal team (if ever there was proof that lawyers are scum...) might apply to the European Court. That will go down about as well as ordering a babysitter, only for Gary Glitter to turn up at your door. Post Brexit Britain really wants to be told by Strasbourg, that we MUST allow a terrorist back into the country.