CASH FOR CRACKHEADS

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by LARD, Nov 14, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. RANT ON ............

    News items about the lags getting circa £4k apiece for infringements of thir 'human rights'! WTF

    Just yet another example of us cow-towing to pinko, lefty, PC Do-gooders!

    Anyone who takes illegal drugs should burn in hell.

    This makes my blood boil :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

    Surely this monbey could have been better spent on more deserving causes?

    RANT OFF............

    Time to lay down matron?
     
  2. Ah P.B.!!

    Sorry about that. Stupid of me not to check that fellow Arrsers had collective fingers on pulse!

    Head hung in shame.

    Mortal coil about to be shuffled off.............
     
  3. This is an out of court settlement by the Home Office in respect of a case in which there was no certainty that the applicant's would have won.

    They were legally-aided. What happened was that the bean counting forensic accountants at the Home Office entered into a cost-benefit analysis and worked out that the cost of the case being fought in court outweighed the cost of compensating the claimants.

    The compensation arrived at was peanuts.

    Bear in mind that governments do nothing unless there is some political or financial benefit to them - preferably both!

    Que bono - who benefits!

    The financial benefit has already been stated. The political and potentially the more valuable benefit to the Government is to 'play up' the Human Rights' dimension surrounding the application.

    It is very much in the government's interest to generate as much public antipathy to the Human Rights Act - the very Act they introduced - as possible. They do not like and even the Tories want to repeal or modify it.

    But lets be clear about the HRA. All the court can do when applying the HRA is to make a declaration of incompatibility, then apply the existing law they find to be incompatible! It is then up to Parliament to legislate in accordance with a declaration of incompatibility if they choose to do so. There is a great deal of antipathy towards the judiciary in government as evidenced by some of the most ludicrous remarks made about them by successive Home Secretaries!

    Que bono in this? - why the Treasury and the Government of course!

    They are sneaky lying devious spin-merchants and do nothing without good reason and they know dammed well what the Press will do to sensationalise it and influence public opinion over it!

    Que bono? - the Press, it makes good newspaper selling headlines and both the Press and the Government benefit from this symbiotic relationship of public manipulation of perception.

    I am not going to get so easily taken in by this line of 'spin' since the government knew precisely how the press would treat it when they decided on their course of action and they knew precisely how the public would react to it!