I tend to the view that either both parties are anonymous or neither are. I don't like anonymity when it comes to justice (save in very exceptional cases e.g children or matters of national security) so I do feel that the anonymity rules should be looked at again.
Unless there is a need to gather further evidence or warn people, I don't see the advantage of publicising names of people accused of anything. If you buy a tabloid you discover that a George Smith of 17 Acacia Gardens has been accused of X. Either you know George or you don't. If you do, you probably know about the case anyway. If you don't, it does nobody any good at all, except give the reader a certain prurient interest ("hey, I drove by there only last month!"). But not only does it damage the defendant before conviction, it encourages false accusations and discourages true ones (because the complainant will be guessed at by people in the know, and in non-rape cases will actually be identified).
After conviction, obviously it's open season.
I disagree on this. I think that once someone is charged that should be made public. The trial process is a public proceeding so who has been charged and what the charges are should not be hidden. We have contempt of court laws which means that there should not be any further discussion of the matters until the trial (and any appeal has concluded).
The issue of how to enforce contempt of court laws is another matter but I do think the balance is right.
Part of the problems in recent years has been caused by the police/prosecution/judicial authorities not doing their job and therefore the discussion / evidence analysis which should have happened has moved to a more public/prurient/less controlled sphere with all the potential damage caused to both defendants and witnesses.
The answer is not more anonymity but for those involved in the justice system (including the lawyers) to do their job properly and efficiently and swiftly.
If you are to have a nuclear deterrent it must be an undetectable, always-at-sea, submarine threat that can launch from anywhere in the world.
Anything else opens up the possibility of mad nutter thinking they can co-ordinate the sabotage of the known locations of your nuclear launch sites and so they may have a go. (unless you go to America like levels of multiple launch sites which is not feasible for the UK).
Plane launched, Cruise missile launched, they're out - they are all non-starters for various reasons.
Just so. I used to toss around these ideas as though they were obvious, better and cheaper alternatives to Trident but they are not. If you think we should have nuclear weapons (and I do) then a continuously at sea system is the only sensible option (that I've heard of).
It's better to have no nukes than nukes which are temptingly first-strikeable or which require you to go through some visible ramp up (like the idea of having subs in port that only put to sea in a crisis).
I'm undecided on having a nuclear arsenal but I feel we really must get our own launch system otherwise the notion that we have an 'independent' system is a farce and we may as well rely on sheltering under the American nuclear umbrella.
I tend to the view that either both parties are anonymous or neither are. I don't like anonymity when it comes to justice (save in very exceptional cases e.g children or matters of national security) so I do feel that the anonymity rules should be looked at again.
Unless there is a need to gather further evidence or warn people, I don't see the advantage of publicising names of people accused of anything. If you buy a tabloid you discover that a George Smith of 17 Acacia Gardens has been accused of X. Either you know George or you don't. If you do, you probably know about the case anyway. If you don't, it does nobody any good at all, except give the reader a certain prurient interest ("hey, I drove by there only last month!"). But not only does it damage the defendant before conviction, it encourages false accusations and discourages true ones (because the complainant will be guessed at by people in the know, and in non-rape cases will actually be identified).
After conviction, obviously it's open season.
I disagree on this. I think that once someone is charged that should be made public. The trial process is a public proceeding so who has been charged and what the charges are should not be hidden. We have contempt of court laws which means that there should not be any further discussion of the matters until the trial (and any appeal has concluded).
The issue of how to enforce contempt of court laws is another matter but I do think the balance is right.
Part of the problems in recent years has been caused by the police/prosecution/judicial authorities not doing their job and therefore the discussion / evidence analysis which should have happened has moved to a more public/prurient/less controlled sphere with all the potential damage caused to both defendants and witnesses.
The answer is not more anonymity but for those involved in the justice system (including the lawyers) to do their job properly and efficiently and swiftly.
I think Corbyn's position would have been extremely strong if he was just against Trident but accept Britain staying nuclear. Then the "value for money" argument would come to the fore. Right now, it just sounds like a unilateralist pitch.
I see the Archbishop of Canterbury has said it was 'not for us to divide the body of Christ, it is not for us to divide the church' (lower case C on the BBC on Church).
...so, he wants to unify with the Catholics, Othordox, etc etc? Or are the divisions we already have OK?
That said, it's their church, they can keep whatever rules they want I guess.
The CofE believes that they are part of the universal Catholic church, just not the Roman Catholic church. There is a very active ecumenical movement, although it stalled under Pope Benedict.
Additionally the Anglican and Eastern Church Association works to build links and community between the Orthodox and Oriental (i.e. non-Orthodox Middle Eastern churches) while there are occasional attempts to build bridges between the Orthodox and the Romans as well.
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
I think we know enough about Thornberry to make a judgement that while she probably wasn't being serious she was trying to belittle the opponent's military career.
I think you have hit the nail on the head there.
If you have to boast about how important you are, even as a joke, you probably aren't.
BTW I haven't had any email. I know you said it might take a while, but if you have sent it it's gone astray - I'm not ignoring you
There are exactly two classes of US citizen: naturalised and natural born. You appear to be obsessed by trying to prove senior politicians are ineligible to be president by assigning to them membership of a non-existent third class.
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
I think we know enough about Thornberry to make a judgement that while she probably wasn't being serious she was trying to belittle the opponent's military career.
I think you have hit the nail on the head there.
If you have to boast about how important you are, even as a joke, you probably aren't.
BTW I haven't had any email. I know you said it might take a while, but if you have sent it it's gone astray - I'm not ignoring you
Hello: sorry - I have been so busy that I have not got round to it yet and I knew that you were stateside. I will send through shortly. Thank you.
I tend to the view that either both parties are anonymous or neither are. I don't like anonymity when it comes to justice (save in very exceptional cases e.g children or matters of national security) so I do feel that the anonymity rules should be looked at again.
Unless there is a need to gather further evidence or warn people, I don't see the advantage of publicising names of people accused of anything. If you buy a tabloid you discover that a George Smith of 17 Acacia Gardens has been accused of X. Either you know George or you don't. If you do, you probably know about the case anyway. If you don't, it does nobody any good at all, except give the reader a certain prurient interest ("hey, I drove by there only last month!"). But not only does it damage the defendant before conviction, it encourages false accusations and discourages true ones (because the complainant will be guessed at by people in the know, and in non-rape cases will actually be identified).
After conviction, obviously it's open season.
I agree. People who are charged but not convicted inevitably suffer a lot of harm (psychological and/or material) but we should do whatever we can to limit that and, realistically, that means anonymity before conviction.
Anonymous trials. Really?? Justice neither being seen nor heard. No, really no. On what possible basis can one overturn centuries of legal practice and principle?
The idea that the overriding principle should be to cause no harm or limit hard is, frankly, a childish one. There will always be costs and one should try as far as possible limit or mitigate those costs but most of the time we have to accept that there are far more important matters than ensuring that no-one ever suffers any upset or offence or bad effect ever. Life is tough: difficult things happen. We have to learn to live with them, get past them and get on with it. An open, transparent and, as far as possible, fair to the accused and all those involved and to the public justice system is really important. And, sorry, the hurt feelings of individuals are not a sufficient reason to tamper with that.
Trials in secret / anonymous defendants and witnesses and accusers are an abomination in a free and open society.
Haven't read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on this quickly:
Emily Thornberry ... tells a great story ... At a hustings she told the gobsmacked Major Brazier “I outrank you, you know”.
That's not a great story.
That's arrogant and unpleasant. And thoroughly disrespectful of someone, whether you agree with him or not, served our country.
I have never come across anyone, and I mean anyone, who has tried to pull rank on that basis.
What a nasty, petty person she must be
Depending on how it was delivered I can see it being an amusing thing to say, so long as one was clear that obviously honorary rank was not really equivalent to actual rank and service.
I think we know enough about Thornberry to make a judgement that while she probably wasn't being serious she was trying to belittle the opponent's military career.
I think you have hit the nail on the head there.
If you have to boast about how important you are, even as a joke, you probably aren't.
BTW I haven't had any email. I know you said it might take a while, but if you have sent it it's gone astray - I'm not ignoring you
Hello: sorry - I have been so busy that I have not got round to it yet and I knew that you were stateside. I will send through shortly. Thank you.
SR..Going to church is akin to going to a weekly convention of used care salesmen..except you might get a better deal and more truth out of the latter group..they just want your money..the others are just peddling total mythology...and want your soul
SR..Going to church is akin to going to a weekly convention of used care salesmen..except you might get a better deal and more truth out of the latter group..they just want your money..the others are just peddling total mythology...and want your soul
Again untrue, at least not in my church.. We need money of course, 1000 year old churches need upkeep, and funding a rector is not cheap... In my church I KNOW that my rector believes every single word he says to us and is undoubtedly a godly man.
You can go into any church and what you feel can be either a whole lot or nothing at all.
If Chris Bryant had been preaching to me , I doubt I would have lasted a single service. There are decent , honourable people in the Church of England , and there are awful people who have done much harm .. I judge by what I see.
For all that historic case law, the political facts remain as in the Reuters article. Namely,
- That no court is going to go near a case to exclude Cruz from a ballot, not least because until August, he won't be on a ballot for president as such, and even then only indirectly. There is no constitutional bar on anyone putting themselves forward for nominee.
- That the GOP isn't going to get into a debate about it because it'd make them look ridiculous and throw away their prime launchpad.
- That, if it comes to it, Congress has the right to determine the eligibility of Electoral College votes for Cruz or anyone else (the House, specifically, I think), and once it's done that, the SCotUS is unlikely to overturn a decision to ratify.
For all that historic case law, the political facts remain as in the Reuters article. Namely,
- That no court is going to go near a case to exclude Cruz from a ballot, not least because until August, he won't be on a ballot for president as such, and even then only indirectly. There is no constitutional bar on anyone putting themselves forward for nominee.
- That the GOP isn't going to get into a debate about it because it'd make them look ridiculous and throw away their prime launchpad.
- That, if it comes to it, Congress has the right to determine the eligibility of Electoral College votes for Cruz or anyone else (the House, specifically, I think), and once it's done that, the SCotUS is unlikely to overturn a decision to ratify.
Anonymous trials. Really?? Justice neither being seen nor heard. No, really no. On what possible basis can one overturn centuries of legal practice and principle?
The idea that the overriding principle should be to cause no harm or limit hard is, frankly, a childish one. There will always be costs and one should try as far as possible limit or mitigate those costs but most of the time we have to accept that there are far more important matters than ensuring that no-one ever suffers any upset or offence or bad effect ever. Life is tough: difficult things happen. We have to learn to live with them, get past them and get on with it. An open, transparent and, as far as possible, fair to the accused and all those involved and to the public justice system is really important. And, sorry, the hurt feelings of individuals are not a sufficient reason to tamper with that.
Trials in secret / anonymous defendants and witnesses and accusers are an abomination in a free and open society.
You make a good point about secret trials but this isn't just about protecting people from "upset or offence". If you are charged with certain offences, at present, your life is basically over regardless of the outcome. The harm I have in mind is not hurt feelings but a strong pressure on an innocent person to commit suicide.
This is something that needs a solution, not a sermon.
What do you think about anonymity pre-trial rather than all the way to conviction, so the trial would be public and could be reported but not the arrest or charge (unless an overriding greater good was served by breaking that rule)?
SF..iIf you want to swallow the bullshine your vicar spews out then that is fine..but it has the same importance to the real world as the latest Darts team results in Wakefield..so be it
Anonymous trials. Really?? Justice neither being seen nor heard. No, really no. On what possible basis can one overturn centuries of legal practice and principle?
The idea that the overriding principle should be to cause no harm or limit hard is, frankly, a childish one. There will always be costs and one should try as far as possible limit or mitigate those costs but most of the time we have to accept that there are far more important matters than ensuring that no-one ever suffers any upset or offence or bad effect ever. Life is tough: difficult things happen. We have to learn to live with them, get past them and get on with it. An open, transparent and, as far as possible, fair to the accused and all those involved and to the public justice system is really important. And, sorry, the hurt feelings of individuals are not a sufficient reason to tamper with that.
Trials in secret / anonymous defendants and witnesses and accusers are an abomination in a free and open society.
You make a good point about secret trials but this isn't just about protecting people from "upset or offence". If you are charged with certain offences, at present, your life is basically over regardless of the outcome. The harm I have in mind is not hurt feelings but a strong pressure on an innocent person to commit suicide.
This is something that needs a solution, not a sermon.
What do you think about anonymity pre-trial rather than all the way to conviction, so the trial would be public and could be reported but not the arrest or charge (unless an overriding greater good was served by breaking that rule)?
Certainly the arrest should be confidential (it is supposed to be at present, but too many police leak - I would hound them mercilessly). Once the charge occurs then it should be in the public domain: but the accuser should be named as well.
The issue you raise - that for certain charges even innocent people suffer serious damage - is a very reasonable one and I am not sure how you can address it. Monetary compensation may help, but doesn't solve the problem.
But the state should also stand behind people where possible. For instance, in the Vox post someone linked to earlier the individual (and I know she was the wife of the accused not the accused) was barred from the school she worked and then forced from her job. That is clearly wrong. Perhaps there could be similar protection for accused but proven innocent as whistleblowers get?
SF..iIf you want to swallow the bullshine your vicar spews out then that is fine..but it has the same importance to the real world as the latest Darts team results in Wakefield..so be it
It's a question of faith. Either you believe it or you don't.
Our local bishop always gives very thoughtful sermons (he borrows our church for his pulpit) which are interesting to meditate on, even if you disagree.
For all that historic case law, the political facts remain as in the Reuters article. Namely,
- That no court is going to go near a case to exclude Cruz from a ballot, not least because until August, he won't be on a ballot for president as such, and even then only indirectly. There is no constitutional bar on anyone putting themselves forward for nominee.
- That the GOP isn't going to get into a debate about it because it'd make them look ridiculous and throw away their prime launchpad.
- That, if it comes to it, Congress has the right to determine the eligibility of Electoral College votes for Cruz or anyone else (the House, specifically, I think), and once it's done that, the SCotUS is unlikely to overturn a decision to ratify.
There were loads of cases brought against Obama. They were all thrown out on the basis that the complainant did not have a sufficient interest in the case. I don't see why this would be different.
For all that historic case law, the political facts remain as in the Reuters article. Namely,
- That no court is going to go near a case to exclude Cruz from a ballot, not least because until August, he won't be on a ballot for president as such, and even then only indirectly. There is no constitutional bar on anyone putting themselves forward for nominee.
- That the GOP isn't going to get into a debate about it because it'd make them look ridiculous and throw away their prime launchpad.
- That, if it comes to it, Congress has the right to determine the eligibility of Electoral College votes for Cruz or anyone else (the House, specifically, I think), and once it's done that, the SCotUS is unlikely to overturn a decision to ratify.
There were loads of cases brought against Obama. They were all thrown out on the basis that the complainant did not have a sufficient interest in the case. I don't see why this would be different.
That's strange. I don't buy into this Birther nonsense at all but I am very surprised that a court would say that a US citizen didn't have sufficient interest (I presume that is a legally defined term) in whether or not the President is legally qualified to hold the post.
Ken Livingstone ousted from defence review in a 'Trident two-step' Labour said on Friday that Mr Livingstone, the ex-London mayor, will have no formal role in Labour's review of its defence policy.
Was Livingstones brief surge to power a flash in the pan? Oh those mixed metaphors!
[Snipped] What do you think about anonymity pre-trial rather than all the way to conviction, so the trial would be public and could be reported but not the arrest or charge (unless an overriding greater good was served by breaking that rule)?
I don't agree with your premise but never mind.
I think there is an issue with the police arresting people in a blaze of publicity and then leaving them hanging for months on end with no charge and with the press and others free to make their life a misery. I think that is wrong. The relationship between the police and the press has not been good on this and has caused real harm. Paul Gambaccini has talked quite movingly about the effect on him of just this sequence of events. That is cured not by anonymity.
There is very great harm caused to people - and to society at large - by secret arrests. Think about that for a moment if you don't want a "sermon" from me.
The problem is resolved - or very significantly mitigated - by controlling what the police say to the press (and enforcing this against the police, who have been pretty egregious sinners on this), by ensuring that arrests are not made prematurely and that once arrested the investigation is done as speedily as possible so that a decision on charges or not is made.
I don't agree that charges should be kept anonymous. Justice should be public. Secret charges are as dubious and harmful as secret arrests and secret trials.
It would be interesting to know how many people charged with certain types of offences e.g. child abuse / rape have committed suicide before the trial was concluded. I do appreciate that being charged with such crimes is pretty bloody horrible, especially if you consider yourself to be innocent. But being charged with any serious crime with the prospect of prison is pretty bloody horrible, especially if, say (as has happened to a number of people whose trial started this week) the time between being charged and the trial even starting is SIX years.
The answer is to make sure that the investigation and trial happen as fast as possible so that, one way or another, all concerned get a conclusion quickly. Justice denied.... and all that.
But that requires proper resources to be put into the criminal justice system. What do you think the chances of that happening any time soon are?
And at this point, I'm retiring from this because the sound of lawyers asking for more money for lawyers and investigators and policemen and judges will lead to a roasting. And as I still have work to do, I need to get on with it.
Comments
The issue of how to enforce contempt of court laws is another matter but I do think the balance is right.
Part of the problems in recent years has been caused by the police/prosecution/judicial authorities not doing their job and therefore the discussion / evidence analysis which should have happened has moved to a more public/prurient/less controlled sphere with all the potential damage caused to both defendants and witnesses.
The answer is not more anonymity but for those involved in the justice system (including the lawyers) to do their job properly and efficiently and swiftly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH9F-1guiyE
I think Corbyn's position would have been extremely strong if he was just against Trident but accept Britain staying nuclear. Then the "value for money" argument would come to the fore. Right now, it just sounds like a unilateralist pitch.
Additionally the Anglican and Eastern Church Association works to build links and community between the Orthodox and Oriental (i.e. non-Orthodox Middle Eastern churches) while there are occasional attempts to build bridges between the Orthodox and the Romans as well.
The idea that the overriding principle should be to cause no harm or limit hard is, frankly, a childish one. There will always be costs and one should try as far as possible limit or mitigate those costs but most of the time we have to accept that there are far more important matters than ensuring that no-one ever suffers any upset or offence or bad effect ever. Life is tough: difficult things happen. We have to learn to live with them, get past them and get on with it. An open, transparent and, as far as possible, fair to the accused and all those involved and to the public justice system is really important. And, sorry, the hurt feelings of individuals are not a sufficient reason to tamper with that.
Trials in secret / anonymous defendants and witnesses and accusers are an abomination in a free and open society.
It must have taken some doing to keep this secret until so close to release date.
Trailer released today for Cloverfield sequel. Release date March 11th
http://comicbook.com/2016/01/15/surprise-trailer-for-cloverfield-sequel-released-/
edit: or even bated...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc3OyvbJkj4
You can go into any church and what you feel can be either a whole lot or nothing at all.
If Chris Bryant had been preaching to me , I doubt I would have lasted a single service. There are decent , honourable people in the Church of England , and there are awful people who have done much harm .. I judge by what I see.
For all that historic case law, the political facts remain as in the Reuters article. Namely,
- That no court is going to go near a case to exclude Cruz from a ballot, not least because until August, he won't be on a ballot for president as such, and even then only indirectly. There is no constitutional bar on anyone putting themselves forward for nominee.
- That the GOP isn't going to get into a debate about it because it'd make them look ridiculous and throw away their prime launchpad.
- That, if it comes to it, Congress has the right to determine the eligibility of Electoral College votes for Cruz or anyone else (the House, specifically, I think), and once it's done that, the SCotUS is unlikely to overturn a decision to ratify.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/266039-attorney-files-birther-lawsuit-against-cruz#.VpkyuXplVpM.twitter
This is something that needs a solution, not a sermon.
What do you think about anonymity pre-trial rather than all the way to conviction, so the trial would be public and could be reported but not the arrest or charge (unless an overriding greater good was served by breaking that rule)?
The issue you raise - that for certain charges even innocent people suffer serious damage - is a very reasonable one and I am not sure how you can address it. Monetary compensation may help, but doesn't solve the problem.
But the state should also stand behind people where possible. For instance, in the Vox post someone linked to earlier the individual (and I know she was the wife of the accused not the accused) was barred from the school she worked and then forced from her job. That is clearly wrong. Perhaps there could be similar protection for accused but proven innocent as whistleblowers get?
Our local bishop always gives very thoughtful sermons (he borrows our church for his pulpit) which are interesting to meditate on, even if you disagree.
Ken Livingstone ousted from defence review in a 'Trident two-step'
Labour said on Friday that Mr Livingstone, the ex-London mayor, will have no formal role in Labour's review of its defence policy.
Was Livingstones brief surge to power a flash in the pan? Oh those mixed metaphors!
I think there is an issue with the police arresting people in a blaze of publicity and then leaving them hanging for months on end with no charge and with the press and others free to make their life a misery. I think that is wrong. The relationship between the police and the press has not been good on this and has caused real harm. Paul Gambaccini has talked quite movingly about the effect on him of just this sequence of events. That is cured not by anonymity.
There is very great harm caused to people - and to society at large - by secret arrests. Think about that for a moment if you don't want a "sermon" from me.
The problem is resolved - or very significantly mitigated - by controlling what the police say to the press (and enforcing this against the police, who have been pretty egregious sinners on this), by ensuring that arrests are not made prematurely and that once arrested the investigation is done as speedily as possible so that a decision on charges or not is made.
I don't agree that charges should be kept anonymous. Justice should be public. Secret charges are as dubious and harmful as secret arrests and secret trials.
It would be interesting to know how many people charged with certain types of offences e.g. child abuse / rape have committed suicide before the trial was concluded. I do appreciate that being charged with such crimes is pretty bloody horrible, especially if you consider yourself to be innocent. But being charged with any serious crime with the prospect of prison is pretty bloody horrible, especially if, say (as has happened to a number of people whose trial started this week) the time between being charged and the trial even starting is SIX years.
The answer is to make sure that the investigation and trial happen as fast as possible so that, one way or another, all concerned get a conclusion quickly. Justice denied.... and all that.
But that requires proper resources to be put into the criminal justice system. What do you think the chances of that happening any time soon are?
And at this point, I'm retiring from this because the sound of lawyers asking for more money for lawyers and investigators and policemen and judges will lead to a roasting. And as I still have work to do, I need to get on with it.