By Hook or by.....

27 Sep 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

Soooo ....
1:CONVICTIONS ... (your capitals) those would be for crimes he has been tried for already then

I would presume so. I thought I made that rather clear. but you do tend to see only what YOU want to see.
And what I see is you missing the point ... these are spent convictions time served justice done and are only to be considered in any future SENTENCING not trial .. see that statue on top of the Old Bailey ??? it's got a blinfold on ; now what do you think this may signify ??

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
2:Unless you're serving on a jury trying him what he is or isn't guilty of in your eyes is irrelevant

Not irrelevant as such, just that when he gets to the USA, he will be tried by a jury, and I believe found guilty. He will get a fair and just trial but that is more than what he offered others on his orders ( apparently ). As until he is tried and convicted it is all accusations of course.
No 'as such' in it, your opinion and mine are irrelevant ... this is a matter of law both local and international and will be (hopefully) decided by the court in this country and then possibly the U.S., either way neither you or I will be playing any part in those descisions ... don't mix up the right to an opinion with the weight they don't carry

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
It's interesting that you talk about following orders in the context of extraditing someone to a country who's president has absolved it's soldiers and secret service of any moral culpability when 'carrying out orders.

Is that correct? I think the USA has to follow the same rules of engagement as we do in war?
Bradley Manning
Of course war is dirty and unjust but then again I do not know what it is like to be shot at, or to see comrades blown up next to you, and I would suspect neither do you. Things happen in war, terrible things, but I will not be detracted from the fact that people like Hamza are cruel violent people, but also cowards as they get others to do their dirty work.
All of this is irrelevant and is typical of the knee jerk unreasoned tabloid thinking so sadly prevalent in or society
He has been convicted of many things in this country,
See above
and he is wanted to stand trial for other serious crimes in a country we have extradition treaty with. I am sure though Staggers that you would want justice to be seen to be done? So I would then presume that to answer that justice he should be sent to the USA to answer those charges? But I would then expect your hatred of the USA to cloud your judgement, which then interferes with your own personnel feelings.
My personal feelings about anything don't come into it, He has a right to law in this country BEFORE any possible U.S. trial is an issue, if and when he has exhausted that right he is sent for trial in the U.S. then the crimes he is accused of are the issue; the issue NOW is whether or not this country should extradite him and he like anyone else has the right to challenge that extradition in court.
And just F.Y.I. my father spent many of his formative years in the U.S. and my grandfather was a naturalised U.S. citizen ...my opinion may not be quite as you assume

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
You do have an unerring knack of missing the point ... it looks almost deliberate

What YOUR point I take it you mean? Because I will never agree with your line of thinking on about 99% of things you say.

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
the real problem with this and other cases is the independance of the judiciary and how it is being increasingly threatened in this country and others in the name of 'security'

In the eyes of Staggers you mean? rolleyes

What the same threatening of our judiciary you mean in it taking ten years to get this man out of the UK to stand trial on other very serious crimes? Any other country in the civilised world would have got him on a plane by now. Even now a high court judge has granted the extradition on hold until it comes back into the high court...AGAIN. What that kind of injustice within our judiciary you mean Staggers? :doh:
The fact that you see the insitence by our legal system that anyone should be treated in a civilized manner and allowed to exercise their right to law as a weaknesss says more than I ever could
The fact that you chose to ignore that I have tried to widen the point says much; there is undeniable pressure in this country and others ,by politicians,the media, and the public to ignore the rights of certain individuals;it would appear that you believe this to be good thing .... you are wrong

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
but I really am expecting too much of you if I ask you to see the wider issue aren't I, the Daily Hate doesn't why on earth should you

The wider issue of what exactly? In your mind what should the UK have done with Hamza then? Keep him in prison? Release him back into the community? Prey tell us what you would do in the mad bad world of Staggers?
I would allow him recourse to the the law to it's fullest extent,as I would with anyone and everyone else

Your continued running down of the Daily Mail has what to do with this exactly? The vast majority of people want him gone from our shores. The vast majority of decent hard working British people are sick of this fiasco. The media want him gone, expect for a few other papers like the Gua...., I cannot even speak the name after some of the disgusting things they have written about this case.
See it's not the Mail per se it's the attitude engendered by it and it's cohort that rational thought and reason are irrelevant,that opinion and not fact are important,that blind ill considered knee jerk reaction is the civilized way to behave ... they are the lowest common denominator in the human condition and that they are invariably wrong
So what shall we do with this man then Staggers? I am intrigued to know your answer to this question.
We?? I personally have no intention of doing anything with him .... I don't care one way or another what happens to him, I care that whatever is done,is done correctly;I care that we uphold those values that so many of you purport our troops to be fighting for;I care that we do not discard thousands of years of social and political evolution in the rush to a witch hunt.

28 Sep 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I care that we do not discard thousands of years of social and political evolution in the rush to a witch hunt.

So you think that ten years is a rushed witch hunt???
Witch hunt... " An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views ".
Well we certainly know about your differing views Staggers eh? No wonder this country has taken this long, some of the people living in it and making decisions in it are nothing short of crackers.

28 Sep 2012

Seeing as you love the Daily Mail so much Staggers I thought just for you, that I would give you a nice link to it.

Take note of the judges comments regarding the Human rights laws that we now have signed up to. Not for thousands of years but just a few. The Judge wrote.
He pointed to the European Court of Human Rights as the institution most to blame for the delay in the extradition of the hook-handed cleric to the US.
He also said ‘I do not think, if you go through the processes, you will discover that the delays in that particular case, or in many like it, are actually to be levelled at the doors of the courts here,’ the Lord Chief Justice said.
This nonsense started in October 2000 by the then Labour Government under Tony Bliar. It is a useless piece of legislation, in that is protects the criminals over the victims in many cases. The act has been looked at many times and the new Tory Government under Cameron stated that they would look closely at the act as it was obvious it was being abused. Bloody right it has been and certainly in Hamzas case.
The Conservative Party went into the 2010 general election promising to abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a, "Bill of Rights for Britain." They feel that the Human Rights Act, among other things, prioritises the right of the criminal over the victim, claim that the government's ability to expel disruptive children from schools and deport dangerous criminals in seriously weakened by the act and that it has led to a whole world of expensive, pointless litigation.
So there you have it. British Judges having very little say in British courts, and often their decisions are over turned by European judges. Still Staggers we do not want to discard thousands of years of social and political evolution in the rush to a witch hunt, now do we? rolleyes

28 Sep 2012

Britain needs a constitution before it starts considering a bill of rights star
Maybe they could just copy the articles of the 5th Republique Française as a starting point...
bolt

Particularly the 2nd Article where it states 'the language of France is French'. This would translate quite well into an English Constitution and would go some way towards satisfying your needs about the use of non-English is British schools but you'd have a bit of a problem with the Welsh.....

28 Sep 2012

A British Human Rights Bill is simply smoke and mirrors.
Any new law causes delay simply because it's specifics have to be tested and applied in court. This is why the European legislation is slow as would be any other new law.
The politicians know this they simply rely on most of us to be too dumb to do so when they are spreading the usual bollix.

28 Sep 2012

Witch hunt .... the whole of you argument star and that of the media is based on the demonization of one man; who to a large extent is irrelevant ... there is a process of law being worked out, if it hadn't been Hamza it would have been someone else
Oh and F.Y.I. 'rush to a' and 'a rushed' aren't the same thing
plus ca change

28 Sep 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Witch hunt .... the whole of you argument star and that of the media is based on the demonization of one man; who to a large extent is irrelevant ... there is a process of law being worked out, if it hadn't been Hamza it would have been someone else
Oh and F.Y.I. 'rush to a' and 'a rushed' aren't the same thing
plus ca change

Plus ça change Alt+135 for the cedilla wink

28 Sep 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
This nonsense started in October 2000 by the then Labour Government under Tony Bliar. It is a useless piece of legislation, in that is protects the criminals over the victims in many cases. The act has been looked at many times and the new Tory Government under Cameron stated that they would look closely at the act as it was obvious it was being abused. Bloody right it has been and certainly in Hamzas case.

Jesus, how many more times? The 1998 HRA does not create any additional rights, or place any new powers in the hands of a foreign anything that have not existed these past 50 years. All it does is bring international treaties going back to the 1950 ECHR more properly into British law, so that in the main questions can be dealt with by British courts. The purpose of the HRA is to make the referral to the supra-national ECtHR as the final authority less necessary, not more, those referrals primarily being appeals against a UK court's ruling. That right of appeal existed before the HRA, it will exist if it's repealed. If, as you suggest the problem here with cases like Hamza's is the backlog of cases on the ECtHR's books then surely anything that streamlines the process sending them fewer cases in need of weighing is a good thing, no?
As for repealing the HRA and replacing it with a Bill Of Rights, it's a complete smoke-screen, and they know it. The reason the Tories have gone a bit quiet on it is cos they know damn well that you could repeal the HRA tomorrow and all rights existing under the ECHR would remain in full effect. Repeal would change very, very little, which perhaps explains why they seem to have decided massive changes to the constitution that don't actually deliver what's been suggested to everyone is maybe a bit of a pointless non-starter when you stop to think about it.
I can't help wondering that if, amid all the national disgrace, he's making fools of us, media shit-storm going on around them if some people forget that cases like these are vitally necessary to the ongoing defence of our individual, personal liberty. It's difficult cases like these that most put our core democratic, principles to the test. These are principles we profess ourselves to believe in and bind ourselves to, in law. In signing the treaties and conventions we have in the first place we are saying to the world that we are so confident that our principles, and procedures, and individual implementations of that procedure are sound that we're prepared to subject them to international scrutiny in a supra-national court and ask 'Is our particular application of the law as we understand it in this case rational, and legally sound.
It's cases like these probing where the law might be at it's weakest that most fully demonstrate that the safe-guards we deliberately put in place as nations to be the citizen's last refuge against an over-powerful state are still working as intended, and if there are any unintended consequences how might they be best resolved, just for future reference. That's why Govt's bear the cost of cases like these, no matter how long it takes, no matter how abhorrent to the court of popular opinion, because the case is intended to test that the UK Govt's commitment to the essential human freedoms of the citizens it is sworn to protect is all that could be reasonably expected of a liberal democracy governed by the rule of law. Whatever you might think of the man, the UK Govt owes him a duty of care, and must allow him to exhaust all possible appeal routes before they can in good conscience release him to the Americans, having done all that they could on his behalf. I have no problem with that, no matter how long it takes. I would expect nothing less, for him, or anyone else at all, including myself.

28 Sep 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
This nonsense started in October 2000 by the then Labour Government under Tony Bliar. It is a useless piece of legislation, in that is protects the criminals over the victims in many cases. The act has been looked at many times and the new Tory Government under Cameron stated that they would look closely at the act as it was obvious it was being abused. Bloody right it has been and certainly in Hamzas case.

Jesus, how many more times? The 1998 HRA does not create any additional rights, or place any new powers in the hands of a foreign anything that have not existed these past 50 years. All it does is bring international treaties going back to the 1950 ECHR more properly into British law, so that in the main questions can be dealt with by British courts. The purpose of the HRA is to make the referral to the supra-national ECtHR as the final authority less necessary, not more, those referrals primarily being appeals against a UK court's ruling. That right of appeal existed before the HRA, it will exist if it's repealed. If, as you suggest the problem here with cases like Hamza's is the backlog of cases on the ECtHR's books then surely anything that streamlines the process sending them fewer cases in need of weighing is a good thing, no?
As for repealing the HRA and replacing it with a Bill Of Rights, it's a complete smoke-screen, and they know it. The reason the Tories have gone a bit quiet on it is cos they know damn well that you could repeal the HRA tomorrow and all rights existing under the ECHR would remain in full effect. Repeal would change very, very little, which perhaps explains why they seem to have decided massive changes to the constitution that don't actually deliver what's been suggested to everyone is maybe a bit of a pointless non-starter when you stop to think about it.
I can't help wondering that if, amid all the national disgrace, he's making fools of us, media shit-storm going on around them if some people forget that cases like these are vitally necessary to the ongoing defence of our individual, personal liberty. It's difficult cases like these that most put our core democratic, principles to the test. These are principles we profess ourselves to believe in and bind ourselves to, in law. In signing the treaties and conventions we have in the first place we are saying to the world that we are so confident that our principles, and procedures, and individual implementations of that procedure are sound that we're prepared to subject them to international scrutiny in a supra-national court and ask 'Is our particular application of the law as we understand it in this case rational, and legally sound.
It's cases like these probing where the law might be at it's weakest that most fully demonstrate that the safe-guards we deliberately put in place as nations to be the citizen's last refuge against an over-powerful state are still working as intended, and if there are any unintended consequences how might they be best resolved, just for future reference. That's why Govt's bear the cost of cases like these, no matter how long it takes, no matter how abhorrent to the court of popular opinion, because the case is intended to test that the UK Govt's commitment to the essential human freedoms of the citizens it is sworn to protect is all that could be reasonably expected of a liberal democracy governed by the rule of law. Whatever you might think of the man, the UK Govt owes him a duty of care, and must allow him to exhaust all possible appeal routes before they can in good conscience release him to the Americans, having done all that they could on his behalf. I have no problem with that, no matter how long it takes. I would expect nothing less, for him, or anyone else at all, including myself.
in short does that mean they are due for an update bolt

28 Sep 2012

Why would it need it? The scope of any law that applies is subject to continual refinement over time anyways, as individual cases go on to set precedents for those that follow. The , , whatever all start from very broad principles in the simplest of terms that surely every single one of us would agree on. These are not controversial documents. It's individual cases that delineate the specific outlines of this treaty or that, and define where a law might apply, and where it doesn't. That's what I meant about cases like these being necessary, in terms of this process of refinement.
If major incompatibilities could be found that work against natural justice then perhaps a major reframing of the treaties would be in order but I'm not sure any such major incompatibilities exist. The Hamza case sure ain't one. Tinkering with the law or its application just to make future cases like Hamza's less irksome, or for the sake of short-term political expediency would risk throwing the baby out with the bath water. The protections offered are too valuable to let any Govt of whatever colour do that, assuming they could wriggle out of the treaties they're bound to that easily in the first place.

29 Sep 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Why would it need it?

Why indeed eh Neil, why indeed? banghead

You really think the human rights act was there to protect people from being extradited to another country, that has a legally binding treaty with the UK to face other terrorist accusations and then be allowed to flout that law for nearly ten years? Is that what the law intended Neil from the start?
You know it was not. It was to initially protect people from torture and inhuman acts from one man against another. This case has nothing at all to do with his human rights, but his lawyers belief and the money it brings in for them does.
Even Judges are confused by the law. It needs to be looked at or better still scrapped in it's current form. It is protecting the guilty over the innocent as we all know. From stopping this guy from being extradited, to stopping someone who has outstayed their visa in the Uk from being deported, as they have a cat and are entitled to a family life.
Cameron said he was going to stop this but as usual with him, all hot air and tiny testicles. The act itself in it's original form had many great points, but in it's current form it is a disaster. But people like your good self Neil obviously think the bill is perfectly ok as it is, in fact some might say it does not go far enough. Lets leave Hamza fighting his extradition for another ten years then eh?
For me I believe the bill should be scrapped, get away from Europe dictating to us over our laws, and take each individual cases on it's own merits. If that had been the case in Hamzas case, he would be in the USA by now, and that day cannot come soon enough for me. We do not want people like him in this country, or his fellow conspirators.

5 Oct 2012

A UK high court judge has just said Hamza can be extradited.
Get him on a plane today before another judge changes the original judges decision. There should now be no delays at all, and if any luck he should be in the air out of UK air space within 4 hours from now. The clock is ticking.
The home secretary , it is now over to you.
Hip hip :bounce::bounce::bounce:

5 Oct 2012

Don't speak to soon star... He's got to get through security wearing his hook first....
And then what do they do if he tells security someone put a bomb up his arse.

5 Oct 2012

Quote by GnV
Don't speak to soon star... He's got to get through security wearing his hook first....
And then what do they do if he tells security someone put a bomb up his arse.

Shove his hook up his arse and hope it doesn't detonate? wink

6 Oct 2012

Goodbye and good riddance.

6 Oct 2012

Seems Hooky has left the building, at this time almost due to land in the US. to face the most terrible of alleged crimes. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::happy::happy::happy:
As a taxpayer surely farces like this should never be allowed again. His lawyers have spent years holding up the legal process and using every trick in the book. We know it, they know it, and the courts and Government knows it. So why was he allowed to get away with it? Even at the end his lawyers were asking for MRI scans to determine his mental capabilities FGS.
How much this has cost US I can only guess at around 4 million pounds when all is said and done, and that is just for Hamze. That does not include the others, yet I thought this country has no money and that we had all these austerity measures brought in that affects what benefits the single Mother gets, to the little old lady collecting less pension money. Yet millions can be openly wasted on people that should have gone five years ago at least.
It is about time that there was a time limit on these things, and that the UK and the UK alone, are allowed to deal with it their way through the courts, with no interference from Europe in any shape or form. Maybe as they caused the hold up, that we should send the bill to them? Successive Governments have had their bums smacked hard by the courts and the European unelected Judges. This country must be a laughing stock throughout the world. At least this horid person has now gone, and hopefully never to return to the UK. But would any of us bet against that?
Bye. wave

:wave::wave::wave:

6 Oct 2012

byeeeeeeeee wave

:wave::wave:

6 Oct 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
Seems Hooky has left the building, at this time almost due to land in the US. to face the most terrible of alleged crimes. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::happy::happy::happy:
As a taxpayer surely farces like this should never be allowed again. His lawyers have spent years holding up the legal process and using every trick in the book. We know it, they know it, and the courts and Government knows it. So why was he allowed to get away with it? Even at the end his lawyers were asking for MRI scans to determine his mental capabilities FGS.

Neil, as per usual, put the valid and rational reason why the democratic process occurs, that it applies to everyone living here, why we do not have "one rule for one, one rule for another" and yet you continually choose to ignore the facts and spout your own rhetoric.

Quote by starlightcouple
How much this has cost US I can only guess at around 4 million pounds when all is said and done, and that is just for Hamze. That does not include the others, yet I thought this country has no money and that we had all these austerity measures brought in that affects what benefits the single Mother gets, to the little old lady collecting less pension money. Yet millions can be openly wasted on people that should have gone five years ago at least.

It has probably cost more than £4 million over the 8 years when everything is taken in to account. But democracy has a price and you fail to grasp that.
As an aside what austerity measures has this country implemented?

Quote by starlightcouple
It is about time that there was a time limit on these things, and that the UK and the UK alone, are allowed to deal with it their way through the courts, with no interference from Europe in any shape or form. Maybe as they caused the hold up, that we should send the bill to them? Successive Governments have had their bums smacked hard by the courts and the European unelected Judges. This country must be a laughing stock throughout the world. At least this horid person has now gone, and hopefully never to return to the UK. But would any of us bet against that?
Bye.:wave::wave::wave:

Due process has been done, the extradition is strong and can't be challenged any further. We do not want this failing do we?
I would prefer we took 10 years / 12 years etc what ever it takes to make sure it is right instead of knee jerk, whether he is guilty or not, lets make it right!
european unelected judges..?? didn't know we elected ours either..?

6 Oct 2012

Quote by Rogue_trader
Neil, as per usual, put the valid and rational reason why the democratic process occurs, that it applies to everyone living here, why we do not have "one rule for one, one rule for another" and yet you continually choose to ignore the facts and spout your own rhetoric.

We have our own laws and judicial process Rogue, but that is now not enough. Even when we go through our due process to extradite the man, we then have to satisfy the European courts as well. Then the Human rights judges on top of that. The whole process is a farce as anyone with an ounce of sensibility knows only too well. We no longer have the right to extradite anyone without the say so of Europe, and that is wrong on every level. Even past home secretary's are screaming that things have to change.

Quote by Rogue_trader
It has probably cost more than £4 million over the 8 years when everything is taken in to account. But democracy has a price and you fail to grasp that.

No legal aid seems to have no price. Taxpayers money being used to fund a hate preachers legal bill. I do not want that and I would suspect that most people and the Government do not either. The legal aid bill is changing, and my hope is that one day the legal aid bill will only be used for people who are desperate, not for people on 30 thousand a year salaries. Democracy is not a bottom less pit Rogue, and when was the last time this country was democratic?

Quote by Rogue_trader
As an aside what austerity measures has this country implemented?

I would also ask you to contact your local council or the benefit office, as over 4 million people have had their working tax credits reduced through the austerity measures Rogue. I shall let you do the searching after you have read the article. wink

Quote by Rogue_trader
Due process has been done, the extradition is strong and can't be challenged any further. We do not want this failing do we?

Sorry Rogue but we only have to look at your comment to understand why it has taken as long as it has, nobody can accuse the UK of failing Hamza that's for sure. But try explaining the waste in money to the other 30 odd million hard working tax payers.

Quote by Rogue_trader
I would prefer we took 10 years / 12 years etc what ever it takes to make sure it is right instead of knee jerk, whether he is guilty or not, lets make it right!

Yes lets give him a new house as well why we are at it. It's only taxpayers money after all. You do not care if he is guilty or not Rogue, just make it right? I am sure the people who have died because of this man and his followers, will be greatly relieved by your words. No wonder we are a laughing stock.

Quote by Rogue_trader
european unelected judges..?? didn't know we elected ours either..?

High court judges in this country are appointed by the Queen Rogue. Did you not know that? Or what about the Queens counsel Rogue? :doh: Bit of an own goal there.
Btw, European human rights Judges are elected by majority vote in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from the three candidates each contracting state nominates. Not what you know but who you know it seems.

6 Oct 2012

Not even that star. It's what you know about who you know.... :grin:

6 Oct 2012

You do not care if he is guilty or not Rogue, just make it right? I am sure the people who have died because of this man and his followers, will be greatly relieved by your words. No wonder we are a laughing stock.

No, I don't care if he's guilty or not. That's not a question we're being asked to consider, it's a matter for the U.S. courts to determine. What would you prefer? That we don't give him his day in court and extradite him, only for something to come up dismantling the whole thing cos of some neglect for due process thing that we could have taken care of first simply by allowing him the time to exhaust his legal avenues as far as challenging the extradition is concerned? I don't see what makes us a laughing stock about that either? Wouldn't most calmy rational and objective observers see that we've done all the things required of us in this case but it's now out of our hands and respect that? Admire the demonstration that we genuinely believe in these principles we espouse to others even? Why the determination to see us as laughing stocks? Who does that help?

6 Oct 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
You do not care if he is guilty or not Rogue, just make it right? I am sure the people who have died because of this man and his followers, will be greatly relieved by your words. No wonder we are a laughing stock.

No, I don't care if he's guilty or not. That's not a question we're being asked to consider, it's a matter for the U.S. courts to determine. What would you prefer? That we don't give him his day in court and extradite him, only for something to come up dismantling the whole thing cos of some neglect for due process thing that we could have taken care of first simply by allowing him the time to exhaust his legal avenues as far as challenging the extradition is concerned? I don't see what makes us a laughing stock about that either? Wouldn't most calmy rational and objective observers see that we've done all the things required of us in this case but it's now out of our hands and respect that? Admire the demonstration that we genuinely believe in these principles we espouse to others even? Why the determination to see us as laughing stocks? Who does that help?
No Neil my major problem here is a simple one. We should not be answerable to any European court, after our own judges have acted lawfully with the laws of this land.
To take him to the high court where our highest judges preside and then have their lawful decisions over ruled by unelected European judges is a farce. Of course I want the man to have his day in court and that is coming soon, but it wlll not be in some UK court where even if found guilty, his lawyers will then run to Europe trying to get the UK courts decision over turned. Once the US judges have made their decision there will be no European judges to run to. No legal aid lawyers screaming to the human rights courts, and that is a good thing I believe.
Our judicial system has been a joke for many a year, but is even worse now. Non stop meddling by Europe has delayed this, not the legal processes of UK law that you and me have to abide by. If this delay was down to the UK legal processes that would be one thing, but our legal system has on more than one occasion said he can be extradited, and he has used laws that me and you have not been allowed to vote on, to delay his departure from this great country of ours.
Give the voters of the UK a referendum on the due process of Europe and I think we would leave with 500 mile skid marks left behind will be our haste to get out of that madness that is Europe and it's interference in our laws.
God bless America.

6 Oct 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
Our judicial system has been a joke for many a year

Our judicial system is one of the finest in the world and is, in fact, the basis of most other judicial systems in the world (including that in the US).

Quote by starlightcouple
God bless America.

America has a system which is not all that dissimilar to ours. There are laws within each State (the equivalent of the law of each state within Europe) and then there is an overarching system of Federal law, which prevails over State law (the equivalent of our European law). There are obviously differences in that America is "the United States of", and we have not yet gone quite that far within Europe. There are also significant historical differences in the development of the legal and political systems across the two continents, and the idea of European law is relatively new. But, I just do not agree that the American system is "better" than ours, especially since there are so many similarities.
Given the amount of interstate activity in this day and age, it is simply impossible to avoid the development of various types of international law. It is an extremely complex subject, and I am busy getting ready to set off for a SH social, so I will leave it at that for now!! :-)

6 Oct 2012

Quote by Lilith
Our judicial system is one of the finest in the world and is, in fact, the basis of most other judicial systems in the world (including that in the US).

really ?? no really!!
you have got to be kidding our judicial is amoungst the poorest in the world when i comes to protecting the innocent or the victims rolleyes

sure you sobered up this morning bolt

6 Oct 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob

Our judicial system is one of the finest in the world and is, in fact, the basis of most other judicial systems in the world (including that in the US).

really ?? no really!!
you have got to be kidding our judicial is amoungst the poorest in the world when i comes to protecting the innocent or the victims rolleyes

sure you sobered up this morning bolt

I stand firmly by my comments!!! I didn't say our system was perfect, but I believe it is one of the finest in the world. So there. :-D

6 Oct 2012

Quote by Lilith

Our judicial system is one of the finest in the world and is, in fact, the basis of most other judicial systems in the world (including that in the US).

really ?? no really!!
you have got to be kidding our judicial is amoungst the poorest in the world when i comes to protecting the innocent or the victims rolleyes

sure you sobered up this morning bolt

I stand firmly by my comments!!! I didn't say our system was perfect, but I believe it is one of the finest in the world. So there. :-D
only took a nano second to find first up

6 Oct 2012

Quote by flower411
So now you are saying that judges are elected !! Make up your mind .

Do you deliberately go out of your way to miss points? You have a knack of scoring own goals. :doh:

6 Oct 2012

Thanks for that Flower. :eeek: