WTF are Judges thinking nowadays?

#2
all it is giving them is the right to appeal, it doesn't mean they will come off the register. I have no problem with giving them the chance to ask if they can come off the register...think of how much fun it will be to watch their little faces when the judge says..."no...piss off you big pervert"! Much more fun than I'm a celebratty
 
#3
Peados can't be reformed.


This is yet more yuman rights mongness brought to us by the wonderful ECHR
 
#4
all it is giving them is the right to appeal, it doesn't mean they will come off the register. I have no problem with giving them the chance to ask if they can come off the register...think of how much fun it will be to watch their little faces when the judge says..."no...piss off you big pervert"! Much more fun than I'm a celebratty
I dont think its as benign as that. You give them the right to appeal and they will appeal, there are plenty of 'liberal minded' and 'human rights' concious legal types out there who WILL agree that its a breach of their Human Rights, esepcially if it gets as far as the European Court of Human Rights. And as an aside who will pay for all of these appeals? because every single one who has ever been convicted can and probably will appeal.

I am all for Human rights, but there is a limit on how much personal freedom and rights you are entitled to when you break the basic codes of society's laws.

And although I try not to jump on the 'outrage' bus sometimes you just cant help it. some examples a judge has ruled that if you shout at you wife/partner it is classed as domestic violence. A prison was recently told to apologise to an inmate after they did a search of his cell and found drugs. Hooky Hamzi being allowed to stay in the UK because he doesnt have an Egyptian passport anymore even though he is clearly a dangerous individual. The Iraqi twat who killed the little girl ina hit and run and was given a 4 month prison sentence and no deportation. theres many more examples of how crazy our society and legal system can be!
 
#6
#7
Several years back one of the young soldiers in my troop, who was only 18, had a girlfriend who was a shade under 16. For all intense purposes, every time he stuck his dick in her he was committing a crime...!

Does that make him a sex offender? Legally yes. Morally? No..!

Case by case, there are probably many others who have been convicted for what in reality is nothing more than natural teenage behaviour…
 
#8
A couple of points for consideration.

One: Most serving judges today were appointed during the 'reign' of Tony Bliar and are therefore tainted in my opinion.
Two: Signing up to the European Court of Human Rights may well have been a 'good idea' in 1950 in the aftermath of WWII, but now it is almost entirely politicised.

We should withdraw and withdraw p.d.q, before some ******** pleads that he has no chance of inheriting the Throne of of our Kingdom, because the House of Windsor is there in perpetuity. I can just imagine the judgement on that case:

Dismantle your monarchy and give all your citizens the fair and just opportunity to be made Sovereign.

I can also imagine the current farce that is the Coalition Government following the judgement in entirety.

PS: We should set up, alone if necessary, - we have stood alone in Europe before - another ECHR and make it the:

European Court of Human Responsibilities.
 
#9
If this twists your knickers then this is the place for you:

*Outrage linky*
 
#10
Some people are added to the list even though they were never convicted of an offence.

Sure they should have the right to appeal, but only if they weren't convicted of being a sick kiddy-fiddler. Any they should pay for it themselves.

I do wish the ECHR would keep their nose out.
 
#11
They only get lifelong addition to the register if they have been jailed for 30 months+. Now given how we all whine about how soft our judicial system has become, to get 30 months you'd have to be a REALLY naughty boy. So the right to appeal won't apply to the 'slightly' naughty ones as they are on the register for a predetermined length of time.


Check me out being all reasonable and grown up! 'kin ell!!
 
#13
Several years back one of the young soldiers in my troop, who was only 18, had a girlfriend who was a shade under 16. For all intense purposes, every time he stuck his dick in her he was committing a crime...!

Does that make him a sex offender? Legally yes. Morally? No..!

Case by case, there are probably many others who have been convicted for what in reality is nothing more than natural teenage behaviour…
That argument doesnt wash mate. For a start according to the law you are only put on the sex offenders list for life if you are sentenced to 30 months or more. Would a guy banging his underage girlfriend be sentenced if there is mutual consent? I dont know I guess it would depend on the DPP and the judges....mmmm that'll be a yes than as a guy who says "well yes I banged her 'cos we are in love" is an easy conviction as opposed to a rapist who denies it vehemently and has a clued up barrister to back him up!

Morally is it wrong to have sex with your underage girlfriend? YES in the same respect that it is wrong to break the speed limit , even if you are only a tad over the speed limit! But then again should breaking the speed limit be a criminal or civil offence? should banging your 'just a shade under 16' girlfriend be a criminal or civil offence?

The Danger for your young squaddie was that if the girls parents had found out maybe they would have insisted that he be prosecuted and maybe the girl would have felt pressured by them to say that he had forced her to have sex with him, in the persuasion sense rather than actual sense, if you know what I mean.... unless of course she was a dirty scutter well known for receiving swollen goods!
 
#15
You did see the article date, didn't you??
Er no, I opened up the main BBC news website and it is there on the UK news page for today, The date above the article is 16 February 2011 Last updated at 10:10 GMT ...... there is admittedly at the bottom a 'related story' link dated 21 April 2010 but I havent opened that link.
 
#16
Aha just read the article again, as I understand it the original 'complaint' was made last year by two offenders and has been updated today because of remarks made by Nick Clegg about the case.

One of the original 'complainants' is a "teenage boy, known only as F, had been jailed for 30 months in October 2005, aged 11, for raping a six-year-old boy" he filed the complaint because.... "he said he had been prevented from taking a family holiday abroad and from playing rugby league"..... Ah the poor little lamb..... perhaps we should have let him go abroad on holiday providing he had 'I raped a 6 year old boy' tattood in every European language across the whole of his face!
 
#18
Do you think we shouldnt be outraged at this?
No I don't. My pitch soaked torch and rope is still squared away for a worthwhile cause.
 
#19
Several years back one of the young soldiers in my troop, who was only 18, had a girlfriend who was a shade under 16. For all intense purposes, every time he stuck his dick in her he was committing a crime...!

Does that make him a sex offender? Legally yes. Morally? No..!
Case by case, there are probably many others who have been convicted for what in reality is nothing more than natural teenage behaviour…
Actually thinking about your question again, it throws up another flaw in the whole criminal justice system in the UK. The question of whether it is in the public's best interests to try such a case. A question in which the DPP has power to bring prosecutions and at the same time seem to totally misunderstand. In my opinion such a case as you pose it is not in the publics best interest to prosecute.

But take the case of the old biddy who used to work for MI5 who was a traitor and gave details of British agents in Czechoslovakia. If memory serves me correct about a dozen were rounded up by the Czechs and shot. She was directly responsible for these deaths, but the DPP said it wasnt in the publics interest to prosecute her. I believe back then the death penalty was still in effect for treason...and I would have used it!

Just a few weeks ago a woman in Kent was jailed for a year because she tied her daughter up to prevent her from buying drugs. She had just discovered her 19 year old girl was a druggie and in desperation tried to prevent her from going out and scoring. The girl phoned the Police who obviously had to respond. Now who can tell me that bringing the prosecution in the first place let alone Jailing the woman is in the publics best interest? Even the daughter asked the judge to drop the case. But no she is jailed, Dad has to go out working, daughter left alone to do as she pleases. To buy drugs, to maybe steal or go on the game to get those drugs.... how on earth did the jail sentence help society?

And the same week also in Kent a man was jailed for 6 years for killing his girlfriend (they couldnt pin murder on him so he was done for manslaughter) the Police stated the the woman had endured a severly abusive relationship before he killed her.... 6 years for taking a life, one year for trying to save a life..... makes no ******* sense does it!

edited for shoite spelling!
 
#20
Some people are added to the list even though they were never convicted of an offence.

Sure they should have the right to appeal, but only if they weren't convicted of being a sick kiddy-fiddler. Any they should pay for it themselves.

I do wish the ECHR would keep their nose out.
well if it's a sex offenders list and they havent been charged with an offence then yes they should have a right to appeal of course in fact they should have a right to have their name stricken from the list immediately. However if there is a real concern that they are capable and likely of offending then obvioulsy they will have been flagged up on the Police computers as a 'concern'.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top