"The Execution of Gary Glitter" .....

[R1Geezer]

I watched the Channel 4 film last night, a few points...
1) Were there legal obstacles to using an actual person in a film like this? How were they overcome?
2) Not withstanding 1) do you think it was necessary that this be a real person, could they not have had a fictional character do the same job?
3) They say in the film that poll after poll of the public shows a majority in favour of capital punishment and that the pressure on the governement made them act. Could this actually happen? would we have to leave the EU? in the film is says they "amended" the EHRA.
Please do not turn thjis into a pro/anti capital punishement row, thanks

[jake-the-peg]

It's pretty firmly embedded in European law - however there is the ability to "derogate" from European laws where a country can interpret a law with certain "flexibilty" due to special circumstances.

http://www.eurofound....itions/derogation.htm

Perhaps in theory we could attempt to derogate from it for special crimes

However that is a rather strained idea. Opposition to capital punishment runs deep in the UK and the rest of Europe and there would be a gigantic amount of pressure on the UK from inside and outside.

I can't see a Tory PM trying to do it. He'd almost certainly split his own party

[New Judge]

I have said before on AB that even if every person in the UK, including all the members of the Commons and the Lords, wanted to restore Capital Punishment in the UK, it could not be done.

Not, that is, unless we repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw as a signatory from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Since being a signatory to the ECHR is (more or less) necessary for membership of the EU, it would also mean leaving the EU.

The derogation process that jake mentions applies mainly to new directives. (An example is the “opt out” Britain achieved to the working time directive which allowed hospital doctors top continue working hours in excess of the directive). These are usually temporary arrangements provided for transition periods to allow individual states to make adjustments where there circumstances dictate.

Such derogation facilities are not available for provisions under the ECHR. You are either in or you are out. The ECHR (Protocol 6) requires signatories to restrict the use of the death penalty to times of war or imminent threats of war. I have not seen the film in question but if the makers say the ECHR was “amended” to accommodate an execution it is pure fiction.

The issue of Capital Punishment is fairly straightforward – it is forbidden, and in any case the UK abolished it in 1968 under domestic law. What is not quite so straightforward are some of the other provisions of the ECHR (and the 1998 HRA) which are deliberately vague and open to wide interpretation by the courts. It leads to situations where, for example, “travellers” find they are able to ignore UK planning law (to which the rest are subject) because to force them to comply with it would infringe their Human Rights.

[R1Geezer]

thanks, guys, any thoughts on 1 and 2?

[jake-the-peg]

Without having seen it I can only say I'd imagine the lawyers gave it a good going over to make certain that it was OK - but even then I think their chances of getting sued for defamation of character would be pretty miniscule wouldn't you?

As for 2 - would you have watched it without the famous name tag? - I rather suspect the viewing figures would have been a fraction of what they were without the name attached - So to make the points - yes it could have been ficticious , to get people to watch those points - probably essential

[jake-the-peg]

Oh I thought we were at war

- there seem to be a lot of soldiers killing people and coming back dead themselves.

This is why I said In theory we could perhaps derogate - in practice I think it would be almost impossible.

Which IMHO is a good thing