Pteranadon said:
Awol said:
Why is it that when injustices to victims are come to the attention of the public it's put down to scare-mongering of the 'right wing press'?
The short answer is because its generally true. The mob have always bayed for lynchings, preferably in public. The right wing press feed the mob and are paid by it. The Daily Mail supported Hitler and the Sun makes its mony from publishing prurient lurid details of people's sad lives. Its the job of the judicial system to ensure that the least popular members of society receive the same justice as anyone else. The HRA is to prevent minorities from being sujbect to the treatment they would receive if the right wing press ran the country.
The right wing press are no different than the left wing press in their approach. The Mirror for example is quite happy to print absolute shite and a few iffy pics that could and maybe even did, lead to British deaths in Iraq. They not only 'fed the mob', they also whipped it up without a second thought. When it comes to the red-top tabloids, they are all as bad as each other, more interested in celebrity shagstories and scandal than politics, the politics are incidental and at the risk of sounding like a right snob, probably over the heads of a large proportion of the readership.
The Mail and the Express are are not so obviously interested in James Blunt's pen1s size, and they concentrate more on the politics, but I repeat what I said earlier, just because they report it excitedly doesn't make it any less true. In fact, given the left wing bias at the BBC and in the establishment in general, they do need to shout to be heard. You may sneer at the Mail, but I challenge you to find proof that it has, apart from the odd isolated case, been shown to be wrong. From criminal asylum seekers being given priority over our OAP's, to hundreds of foreign prisoners being released instead of being deported, to paedophiles being housed next to playgrounds, the Mail has been proven to be right, time and time and time again. Which is why you hate it. There were also, at the time, the usual shouts of 'scaremongering' from the usual quarters. Shouts that strangely disappeared when the facts were proven as accurate.
Personally I'm a Telegraph man, but the Mail speaks for me, and literally millions of people like me every single day. It also sells more than the Mirror, the Guardian and the Independent
all added together. Which is another reason why you hate it of course. Not just that, but given the circulation figures of all the papers it could be argued that the right wing press you so despise speaks for the majority in this country. So, are the right wing papers fascist rags? Not unless we are a nation of fascists.
(Btw, the Hitler thing is a complete non-starter. Most of the world, including the British government, feted Adolf right up until the Polish border got squashed. In that respect the Mail was no different to the rest of the world. I've got magazines from August 1939 referring to him very respectfully as
Mr Hitler)
The judicial system is imperfect. It lets some guilty people go free and locks up some innocent people. Any cry to "rebalance the rights of the victims" is about locking up a few more innocent in the hope that you let fewer guilty ones go free. An innocent man in jail is another crime.
So tell me:-
1. What is an acceptable proportion of innocents in jail? One in a hundred? 10 in a hundred? If its one in a hundred is it OK to double the proportion ?
Yes, there is an acceptable proportion of innocents getting banged up. There always has been and there always will be. The only way to prevent it is to never prosecute anyone. So to put the question back to you....As any system will make mistakes, should we risk the jailing of an innocent man at all? Or should we let them all go to play safe?
2. What are the injustices to victims have been caused by the HRA as opposed to incompetent administration or application?
Huh?
3. What proportion of the British population is ik OK to lock up?
The bad ones. All of them. Simple.