Jay Blades - justice delayed is justice denied

Werewolf said:
Lets put it this way, it takes years to train up lawyers, and then barristers take even longer and you need to have pay deals that actually cover their costs and encourage them to both take it up and stick with it.
Click to expand...

Again, what has Starmer actually done to rectify the situation?
 
VincentHanna said:
Baffled that people think you can somehow undo 14 years of harm in 13 months.
Click to expand...

They've managed to to more than 14 years of harm in 13 months. But that's not what this thread is about.

Back to topic, the HRA 1998, art 6 gives the right: "everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

Given the time already taken, to then add a 2 year wait for a trial, in my mind, breaches that right. It's not reasonable.
 
Quartz said:
Indeed, but has Starmer even made a start? Given the attempted deflections so far I'm guessing he hasn't done anything at all.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, but he’s got quite a lot on. I’m sure it’s on the list, it just might be quite a long way down.

I’m not sure why you’re upset with him, though, rather than with the tories who destroyed the system in the first place.
 
Resident said:
They've managed to to more than 14 years of harm in 13 months. But that's not what this thread is about.

Back to topic, the HRA 1998, art 6 gives the right: "everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

Given the time already taken, to then add a 2 year wait for a trial, in my mind, breaches that right. It's not reasonable.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t reasonable when the tories dismantled legal aid. Where was your whining then?
 
Vonhelmet said:
I’m not sure why you’re upset with him, though, rather than with the tories who destroyed the system in the first place.
Click to expand...

Remember that I live in Scotland which has it's own legal system so my knowledge of what has happened to England's courts is very small.

No matter how much damage the Tories did, Starmer has had more than enough time to at least start to fix things. If he has done nothing then that just goes to show what a complete waste of space he is.


But as I said upthead, I'd rather keep politics out of this thread.
 
Vonhelmet said:
The same way as anyone else with a pending trial. He applies to 1000 places in the hope that he finds someone who will employ him under those circumstances.

Or is it supposed to be different for him because he’s famous?
Click to expand...

It's going to be a lot more difficult for him on account of being famous and having his face and accusation plastered all over the media.

For your average non-famous person, a potential employer isn't going to know you've been charged with something (unless they specifically ask and you tell them the truth [which you should]).

For your average non-famous person, there's significantly less reputational risk for an employer to employ them, as they are unlikely to be recognised by customers - if you go into Costa and order your coffee from some random guy who was charged with rape, you're highly unlikely to recognise them, but if it's someone famous who's been all over the media, then there's a much higher likelihood that you will. Most employers aren't going to want that kind of negative association, so it's safer just to say no.
 
Quartz said:
Remember that I live in Scotland which has it's own legal system so my knowledge of what has happened to England's courts is very small.

No matter how much damage the Tories did, Starmer has had more than enough time to at least start to fix things. If he has done nothing then that just goes to show what a complete waste of space he is.


But as I said upthead, I'd rather keep politics out of this thread.
Click to expand...
13 months is not “more than enough time” but whatever.
 
Haggisman said:
It's going to be a lot more difficult for him on account of being famous and having his face and accusation plastered all over the media.

For your average non-famous person, a potential employer isn't going to know you've been charged with something (unless they specifically ask and you tell them the truth [which you should]).

For your average non-famous person, there's significantly less reputational risk for an employer to employ them, as they are unlikely to be recognised by customers - if you go into Costa and order your coffee from some random guy who was charged with rape, you're highly unlikely to recognise them, but if it's someone famous who's been all over the media, then there's a much higher likelihood that you will. Most employers aren't going to want that kind of negative association, so it's safer just to say no.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s hope for his sake that he had enough money put by to ride this out.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps he could open a shop to repair old furniture and other knick knacks as he seems quite proficient in that field.
 
Quartz said:
This case will not be tried until 2027. That's a very long time. How is he supposed to earn a living in the interim? Would you employ someone with a pending rape case?
Click to expand...
if he was hired directly by the bbc instead of through some limited company like he surely was then, I'd imagine they'd still be paying his wages the whole time, like seems to happen with police etc. they get suspended on full pay.

I'd imagine this doesnt happen if you have a crap job.
 
Ayahuasca said:
This is some hyperbole.

By the way, I'd absolutely love to see how you came to this conclusion. If you don't mind, could you enlighten us in the SC thread?
Click to expand...

Unemployment - UP

Taxes - UP

Crime - UP

Civil Unrest - UP

'Alleged' "22 billion blackhole" (proven by OBR not to be) - now sitting around £50 billion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom