Is our justice system broken??

nick.lidgett said:
There is a lot of red tape when handing out a punishent and a lot of pressure from the EU and our own government so i can see why judges hand out seemingly bizzare punishments sometimes.
Click to expand...

People would have much more confidence in the justice system if the read the Judge's full summing up report. The vast majority of the time they talk plenty of sense.

Magistrates on the other hand do make some bizarre decisions.
 
Zethor said:
Your justice system is probably in the top 5% world wide, if not better. From what I read, the judge went by the letter of the law.
Click to expand...

Depends on the yardstick you are using. In terms of convictions it's ok, in terms of getting results or providing any great benefit to the country it's next to useless.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
People would have much more confidence in the justice system if the read the Judge's full summing up report. The vast majority of the time they talk plenty of sense.

Magistrates on the other hand do make some bizarre decisions.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with that, between the 2 of us we have just nailed this thread closed :)
 
In the 80s when I was about 5 ish my dad told me that the toy I had was a "Golly" and this was the correct way to say it not the old fashioned and offensive full title. I took it that the word "***" was the offensive part. The Jam used to offer various Golly badges which we had several of after saving tokens (I am pretty sure the jars said Golly on them).

Years later, I had a conversation with someone about Enid Blyton’s use of the term. At that time and every time anyone has ever referred to the fictional Character, including on a Radio 4 programme earlier this year, they always used the full title and never the abbreviated title.

In my mind there is no reason to us the offensive full title for the Golly character and people should just know to refer to them by the abbreviated title. However, I think that I am wrong about that and that people don’t know they should not to use the full title. What really puzzles me, is where did my Dad get the idea from and why does nobody else know about it?
 
There has to be more then this? There is no way that can be classed as racist?

I can't believe it.!!!
 
so if i hold a g******** doll in public and say hey what is this? the first person to answer correctly is aracist?
 
JBod said:
Well to be fair, it is more dark brown and other varying shades.

What gets my goat is when a white person gets moaned at for including skin colour as part of a description "the black guy over there". I can't see that as anything different than saying "the ginger guy over there". Just a descriptive term.
Click to expand...

That's a reasonable point, it's ridiculous that you are supposed to think of some other identifying feature for "the" black guy however gollywog is clearly raysiss.
 
The correct argument is not that the context was non offensive although i do agree that it was not offensive. The argument is that you should be able to offend people without getting charged with a crime. The act of speaking something offensive should not be a criminal act because it is too subjective. Especially when there is no doubt that it was not a part of bullying or other abuse. Threatening some ones with violence of any kind i think should be more likely to have a charge, then just saying something offensive. It is just a part of the hate crime legislation that labour introduced. You can't say anything that attacks race, sexual preference but you can offend people in some other ways.
 
groen said:
The correct argument is not that the context was non offensive although i do agree that it was not offensive. The argument is that you should be able to offend people without getting charged with a crime. The act of speaking something offensive should not be a criminal act because it is too subjective. Especially when there is no doubt that it was not a part of bullying or other abuse. Threatening some ones with violence of any kind i think should be more likely to have a charge, then just saying something offensive. It is just a part of the hate crime legislation that labour introduced. You can't say anything that attacks race, sexual preference but you can offend people in some other ways.
Click to expand...

yeah i can call you; (**** denotes c word)


You fat ****
You stupid ****
You ****y ****
you worthless ****
you four eyed ****
you ugly ****
you smelly ****


and thats fine but if i say

you black ****

it's court time.
 
StevieP said:
Just read this story... :eek:

"Miss Lindsay lodged a formal grievance five months later"

I've got 2 young kids that will have to grow up in a world this bonkers....
Click to expand...

But the Court of Appeal’s decision may give little comfort to Miss Lindsay who was told she had lodged her complaint too late and that it would not be 'just and equitable' to allow her to continue with her compensation claim against the LSE.

Shaen Catherwood, for LSE, insisted that Mr McAleese's use of the word - spoken quietly and quickly - did not come anywhere close to racial harassment.

"I say it is unsatisfactory that somebody should be labelled with a finding of harassment on racial grounds when the actual context in which the word was used was innocent and inoffensive," he told the court.

The Appeal Court judges dismissed Miss Lindsay's challenge to the dismissal of her case on grounds of delay. Her other claims of race discrimination had earlier been rejected by the tribunal, although she still has a victimisation claim against the LSE extant.
Click to expand...

Did nobody read the link?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom