So now we all know 07:36 - Jan 11 with 2955 views | chicoazul | The courts are not in fact independent. Parliament can just decide people are innocent and quash their convictions. I wonder if they’ll ever decide whether people are guilty? | |
| | |
So now we all know on 08:24 - Jan 11 with 2133 views | DJR | With such a backlog in the criminal courts, maybe they will legislate to convict everyone currently awaiting trial. Or if not that, maybe they'll slip into the Bill a clause quashing the fixed penalty notice issued to Rishi Sunak for attending a party in No. 10. But seriously, what is proposed does strike me as a dangerous precedent rushed through because of public pressure. [Post edited 11 Jan 9:37]
| | | |
So now we all know on 08:33 - Jan 11 with 2093 views | Herbivore | Didn't you twig that when the government's response to the Supreme Court ruling Rwanda was an unsafe country was to introduce legislation saying that Rwanda is a safe country and must be considered as such by the courts? | |
| |
So now we all know on 09:11 - Jan 11 with 2000 views | chicoazul |
So now we all know on 08:33 - Jan 11 by Herbivore | Didn't you twig that when the government's response to the Supreme Court ruling Rwanda was an unsafe country was to introduce legislation saying that Rwanda is a safe country and must be considered as such by the courts? |
I don’t agree that that’s the same. This is parliament unilaterally pardoning convicted criminals. If they can do that, how long before they do the other thing? | |
| |
So now we all know on 09:18 - Jan 11 with 1957 views | Herbivore |
So now we all know on 09:11 - Jan 11 by chicoazul | I don’t agree that that’s the same. This is parliament unilaterally pardoning convicted criminals. If they can do that, how long before they do the other thing? |
It's entirely the same thing. It's the government bypassing the oversight and judgement of the judiciary through legislation. This example seems to make you feel more uncomfortable, but it's doing the same thing. | |
| |
So now we all know on 09:24 - Jan 11 with 1933 views | DanTheMan |
So now we all know on 09:18 - Jan 11 by Herbivore | It's entirely the same thing. It's the government bypassing the oversight and judgement of the judiciary through legislation. This example seems to make you feel more uncomfortable, but it's doing the same thing. |
Both seem bad, I do agree with Chico though that this one seems more direct. That's the best way I can describe it. We could just fund the appeals courts better and speed up the process of course but there's nothing like a quick fix. With that said, the various organisations actually involved don't seem too worried about it just yet. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/bill-to-exonerate-post-office-victims-an-excep | |
| |
So now we all know on 09:33 - Jan 11 with 1851 views | backwaywhen |
So now we all know on 09:11 - Jan 11 by chicoazul | I don’t agree that that’s the same. This is parliament unilaterally pardoning convicted criminals. If they can do that, how long before they do the other thing? |
This is pretty unique though , why these cases ever got to court is ridiculous, over 700 postmasters screwing the system ? 20/30 maybe and ok prosecute, but 700 , that smacks of alarm bells surely, can’t believe nobody within the post office high office could not see their system must be a t fault somewhere …….total incompetence on their part . | | | |
So now we all know on 09:35 - Jan 11 with 1834 views | ElderGrizzly | They can decide genocidal countries are safe too. All rather handy isn't it? | | | | Login to get fewer ads
So now we all know on 09:38 - Jan 11 with 1813 views | DarkBrandon |
So now we all know on 09:33 - Jan 11 by backwaywhen | This is pretty unique though , why these cases ever got to court is ridiculous, over 700 postmasters screwing the system ? 20/30 maybe and ok prosecute, but 700 , that smacks of alarm bells surely, can’t believe nobody within the post office high office could not see their system must be a t fault somewhere …….total incompetence on their part . |
True. I was astounded to discover in this process that the post office were able to initiate its own prosecutions . | | | |
So now we all know on 09:47 - Jan 11 with 1761 views | chicoazul |
So now we all know on 09:18 - Jan 11 by Herbivore | It's entirely the same thing. It's the government bypassing the oversight and judgement of the judiciary through legislation. This example seems to make you feel more uncomfortable, but it's doing the same thing. |
Nobody’s been sent to Rwanda; loads of people were convicted and went to jail. It’s not the same. | |
| |
So now we all know on 09:51 - Jan 11 with 1739 views | Keno |
So now we all know on 09:47 - Jan 11 by chicoazul | Nobody’s been sent to Rwanda; loads of people were convicted and went to jail. It’s not the same. |
maybe the solution is to send all the Senior Post Execs involved in this to Rwanda? | |
| |
So now we all know on 09:55 - Jan 11 with 1729 views | redrickstuhaart |
Hard cases make bad law. Of course, this process should have started years ago rather than just when rishi is embarrassed by a tv show. There is nothing new to create the sudden urgent action. | | | |
So now we all know on 10:00 - Jan 11 with 1704 views | Mookamoo | Are these all cases that were sought by the Post Office and not the CPS? My understanding is the main problem is the PO were able to investigate everything themselves and get the convictions. If they were they can probably get away with quashing all those on the basis the PO did a very poor job and those convictions were based on flawed evidence. That will leave the main justice system untouched. | | | |
So now we all know on 11:42 - Jan 11 with 1557 views | BloomBlue | To be fair it was the independent court/legal system which failed those people and resulted in innocent people found guilty. I'm glad the government has stepped in this time. Hopefully a few from the 'independent courts' will find themselves behind bars as a result of this scandal. Obviously they won't because the 'independent courts' are above the law | | | |
So now we all know on 13:09 - Jan 11 with 1475 views | GlasgowBlue |
So now we all know on 09:38 - Jan 11 by DarkBrandon | True. I was astounded to discover in this process that the post office were able to initiate its own prosecutions . |
The Post Office is an arm of the state. As other arms of the state have their own police and prosecutors. I heard somewhere that the Post Office is actually older then the Police Service. Obviously this is now very outdated and the power should be taken away. | |
| |
So now we all know on 13:17 - Jan 11 with 1441 views | redrickstuhaart |
So now we all know on 11:42 - Jan 11 by BloomBlue | To be fair it was the independent court/legal system which failed those people and resulted in innocent people found guilty. I'm glad the government has stepped in this time. Hopefully a few from the 'independent courts' will find themselves behind bars as a result of this scandal. Obviously they won't because the 'independent courts' are above the law |
That makes little sense. I imagine these were often jury trials. Either way they will have been decided honestly on the evidence before the court at the time. | | | |
So now we all know on 13:29 - Jan 11 with 1416 views | DanTheMan |
So now we all know on 13:09 - Jan 11 by GlasgowBlue | The Post Office is an arm of the state. As other arms of the state have their own police and prosecutors. I heard somewhere that the Post Office is actually older then the Police Service. Obviously this is now very outdated and the power should be taken away. |
It's the oldest police force in the world. | |
| |
So now we all know on 13:43 - Jan 11 with 1379 views | DJR |
So now we all know on 09:55 - Jan 11 by redrickstuhaart | Hard cases make bad law. Of course, this process should have started years ago rather than just when rishi is embarrassed by a tv show. There is nothing new to create the sudden urgent action. |
It also highlights a stark difference with the approach to the contaminated blood scandal which has been going on for much longer and where things are still dragging on. | | | |
So now we all know on 13:57 - Jan 11 with 1332 views | redrickstuhaart |
So now we all know on 13:43 - Jan 11 by DJR | It also highlights a stark difference with the approach to the contaminated blood scandal which has been going on for much longer and where things are still dragging on. |
Or cladding on tower blocks. Delay until it becomes the nextadministrations burden. | | | |
So now we all know on 14:04 - Jan 11 with 1305 views | DJR |
So now we all know on 13:57 - Jan 11 by redrickstuhaart | Or cladding on tower blocks. Delay until it becomes the nextadministrations burden. |
Absolutely. | | | |
So now we all know on 14:19 - Jan 11 with 1270 views | Cotty |
So now we all know on 13:57 - Jan 11 by redrickstuhaart | Or cladding on tower blocks. Delay until it becomes the nextadministrations burden. |
Maybe somebody should get ITV to make a drama about these too. | | | |
So now we all know on 14:23 - Jan 11 with 1235 views | eireblue |
So now we all know on 14:19 - Jan 11 by Cotty | Maybe somebody should get ITV to make a drama about these too. |
| | | |
So now we all know on 14:24 - Jan 11 with 1228 views | GeoffSentence |
So now we all know on 14:19 - Jan 11 by Cotty | Maybe somebody should get ITV to make a drama about these too. |
Yes indeed, ITV have taken their eye off the ball by not making a drama with Toby Jones in it about the cladding scandal.
| |
| |
So now we all know on 14:25 - Jan 11 with 1226 views | Cotty |
So now we all know on 14:23 - Jan 11 by eireblue |
|
Hehe, you do have to remind yourself it's a parody account at times | | | |
| |