ChatterBank4 mins ago
Alexander Blackman Refused Bail.
For what reason would they refuse him bail, he not a risk to the general public.
Another case of out of touch judges.
Sgt Alexander Blackman refused bail pending new appeal
http://
Dave.
Another case of out of touch judges.
Sgt Alexander Blackman refused bail pending new appeal
http://
Dave.
Answers
//Not sure there is anything progressive about letting a convicted murder out on our streets// Gromit would never ever support such a Liberal action....in any circumstance
20:27 Wed 21st Dec 2016
Togo - ////That is exactly how the "law" has begun to be applied. Hence we have paedophiles and rapist on bail with soldiers victimised and hounded by the lawyers and judges//
Err you missed that bit ah. //
No, I didn't miss it, I ignored it because it is meaningless to compare disparate cases which are treated differently under the law.
If any paedophile or rapist is on bail, it is because the circumstances of their case under the law permits it, but I know of no convicted murderer waiting appeal who is out on bail - and that includes MS Blackman, because that is what the law decrees: unless under exceptional circumstances, bail will not be granted.
// ... with soldiers victimised and hounded by the lawyers and judges//
MS Blackman is not being 'victimised and hounded' by anyone - he is in prison serving a sentence for murder. That sentence is due to be reviewed under the appeals process, which will take place in due course. In the mean time, bail is not granted. There is no 'victimisation' or 'hounding' involved, and his status as a soldier is not relevant under the law being applied.
Err you missed that bit ah. //
No, I didn't miss it, I ignored it because it is meaningless to compare disparate cases which are treated differently under the law.
If any paedophile or rapist is on bail, it is because the circumstances of their case under the law permits it, but I know of no convicted murderer waiting appeal who is out on bail - and that includes MS Blackman, because that is what the law decrees: unless under exceptional circumstances, bail will not be granted.
// ... with soldiers victimised and hounded by the lawyers and judges//
MS Blackman is not being 'victimised and hounded' by anyone - he is in prison serving a sentence for murder. That sentence is due to be reviewed under the appeals process, which will take place in due course. In the mean time, bail is not granted. There is no 'victimisation' or 'hounding' involved, and his status as a soldier is not relevant under the law being applied.
Prisoners can be granted bail pending a review, or appeal, or pre sentencing even after conviction. As indeed rapists and paedophiles have been. In fact I am sure one Aaron Vize is at the moment on bail after conviction for offences against 11 or 12 year old children. Still, I suppose in our overcrowded jails we are better served locking up brave soldiers than hate mongers and deviants.
Togo - // Prisoners can be granted bail pending a review, or appeal, or pre sentencing even after conviction. As indeed rapists and paedophiles have been. In fact I am sure one Aaron Vize is at the moment on bail after conviction for offences against 11 or 12 year old children. Still, I suppose in our overcrowded jails we are better served locking up brave soldiers than hate mongers and deviants. //
I don't appear to be getting my point across.
MS Blackman is not more 'deserving' of bail because he is a soldier - brave or otherwise. Other criminals are not less able to receive bail based on the type or circumstance of their crime.
The law lays down criteria by which bail is authorised - if a prisoner meets the criteria, bail is granted, if the criteria is not bet, bail is not granted.
I appreciate you feel strongly about what you perceive to be an injustice, but justice and injustice are not governed by feelings, they are governed by law, and the law has been enacted in this case.
I don't appear to be getting my point across.
MS Blackman is not more 'deserving' of bail because he is a soldier - brave or otherwise. Other criminals are not less able to receive bail based on the type or circumstance of their crime.
The law lays down criteria by which bail is authorised - if a prisoner meets the criteria, bail is granted, if the criteria is not bet, bail is not granted.
I appreciate you feel strongly about what you perceive to be an injustice, but justice and injustice are not governed by feelings, they are governed by law, and the law has been enacted in this case.
^^ Yes, Bail for a murderer can ONLY be granted under the most unusual and exceptional circumstances. One example is if another person admits to and is proved to have committed the murder or there is PROOF that the convicted person could not have done it.
In that case bail can be granted while the process of quashing the conviction is in process.
This case does NOT come even near to meeting those criteria.
I assume people on here have been reading todays Daily Mail on this subject?
In that case bail can be granted while the process of quashing the conviction is in process.
This case does NOT come even near to meeting those criteria.
I assume people on here have been reading todays Daily Mail on this subject?
/// It doesn't. The court, and the judge presiding follows the law as it is laid down, and his own agenda is a figment of your vivid imagination. ///
Are you naive enough to believe that the interpretation of the law is a strict science?
Yes there are laws set down, but it is up to the judge who is just a human being to interpret certain matters according to their own agenda, don't you believe that like the rest of us humans, they have their own thoughts on matters?
How many times have most of us said "what is that stupid judge thinking of letting off that monster, the law is an ass", or words to that effect?
Are you naive enough to believe that the interpretation of the law is a strict science?
Yes there are laws set down, but it is up to the judge who is just a human being to interpret certain matters according to their own agenda, don't you believe that like the rest of us humans, they have their own thoughts on matters?
How many times have most of us said "what is that stupid judge thinking of letting off that monster, the law is an ass", or words to that effect?
AOG - //Are you naive enough to believe that the interpretation of the law is a strict science? //
No I am not.
I am also not naive enough to believe that judges do, or indeed should, allow their interpretation of the law to be coloured by emotion of the sort being posted on here, and in the media.
//Yes there are laws set down, but it is up to the judge who is just a human being to interpret certain matters according to their own agenda, don't you believe that like the rest of us humans, they have their own thoughts on matters? //
Yes they have their own thoughts, but by definition, they have proved themselves capable of leaving their own personal thoughts out of the issue, and making a choice based on the law as it is intended to be implemented.
// How many times have most of us said "what is that stupid judge thinking of letting off that monster, the law is an ass", or words to that effect? //
I tend to view the situation as one where I have far less than the facts, coupled with the expertise, that the judge(s) has/ have, and I trust them to make the right decision.
If judges were swayed by emotion, or indeed public opinion, then the legal system would collapse overnight.
No I am not.
I am also not naive enough to believe that judges do, or indeed should, allow their interpretation of the law to be coloured by emotion of the sort being posted on here, and in the media.
//Yes there are laws set down, but it is up to the judge who is just a human being to interpret certain matters according to their own agenda, don't you believe that like the rest of us humans, they have their own thoughts on matters? //
Yes they have their own thoughts, but by definition, they have proved themselves capable of leaving their own personal thoughts out of the issue, and making a choice based on the law as it is intended to be implemented.
// How many times have most of us said "what is that stupid judge thinking of letting off that monster, the law is an ass", or words to that effect? //
I tend to view the situation as one where I have far less than the facts, coupled with the expertise, that the judge(s) has/ have, and I trust them to make the right decision.
If judges were swayed by emotion, or indeed public opinion, then the legal system would collapse overnight.
The Daily Mail is funding Blackman's second appeal
http://
Which may explain why there is such an outcry.
Ummmm You do not need a qualification in law to find the conditions under which bail can be granted for a convicted murderer .
http://
Which may explain why there is such an outcry.
Ummmm You do not need a qualification in law to find the conditions under which bail can be granted for a convicted murderer .
The Mail is in pole position to run with its 'crusading' hat on here.
The paper has a long record of support for soldiers against what it perceives as an unfair system, and that view chimes with a large proportion of its readership.
If the appeal is successful, the Mail will make hay, carefully ignoring that fact that appeals succeed or fail on points of law, not on the identity of the backer. If the appeal fails, the Mail will make hay - underlining its support for 'our boys' and bemoaning a perceived miscarriage of justice.
Either way, the Mail will come out looking good to its readers.
The paper has a long record of support for soldiers against what it perceives as an unfair system, and that view chimes with a large proportion of its readership.
If the appeal is successful, the Mail will make hay, carefully ignoring that fact that appeals succeed or fail on points of law, not on the identity of the backer. If the appeal fails, the Mail will make hay - underlining its support for 'our boys' and bemoaning a perceived miscarriage of justice.
Either way, the Mail will come out looking good to its readers.
Apparently some judges are more lenient than others, with horrific consequences in these cases.
http://
http://
http://
http://
AOG - //Apparently some judges are more lenient than others, with horrific consequences in these cases. //
No argument there - but if the judge had made a bail decision based on a high-profile public outcry, rather than a considered legal process, what would have been the response then?
Comparing one case with another is an easy comparison to make, but it lacks a realistic attitude to how the legal process functions.
All cases are unique - comparisons are meaningless.
No argument there - but if the judge had made a bail decision based on a high-profile public outcry, rather than a considered legal process, what would have been the response then?
Comparing one case with another is an easy comparison to make, but it lacks a realistic attitude to how the legal process functions.
All cases are unique - comparisons are meaningless.
Latest Posts
Other Sports4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life14 mins ago
Technology27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.