From: "Innocent", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's just as well Tom failed to catch up with the gang. Otherwise, the
ensuing altercation might have resulted in the diminutive star being
prosecuted for assault. In Britain, criminals, police, and magistrates are
united in regarding any resistance by the victim as bad form."
With regard to this article and in particular this statement above,
I wish I had a way of getting back to the author to let them know
that when it comes to Magistrates, they DO NOT make the law, and are
obliged to apply the law, whatever form it takes, so that when a case
is considered very strict legal guidance is given to ensure the factual
position, in accordance with the current law, is the basis for the decision.
Magistrates do not regard any form of resistance by the victim as bad,
and to suggest otherwise is crass, especially with the lumping into the
same category as criminals. Whilst accepting this is probably a
tongue-in-cheek observation, it is nevertheless thoroughly objectionable,
ill-informed and basic drivel.
The way this article is written appears to give magistrates the role of
being able to interpret the law in the same way as Judges do when setting
a precedent; I am aware that in America, Magistrates are fundamentally
different, having more powers than in the UK, sit alone like our
stipendiary magistrates, and are probably more akin to our junior Judges
than to the body of lay people in the UK who make up the magistracy, so
perhaps the author is making his statement in the belief we have the
same system. Let no-one be under the illusion that this is so!!
Strangely enough, the majority of magistrates use toilet facilities in
exactly the same way as everyone else, and have common sense in
abundance, and you can bet your bottom-dollar on the fact that if the
ordinary bloke in the pub thinks someone deserved all that a criminal
got, if in the course of committing a violent crime he/she was stopped
by the use of force, you wouldn't have too much personal sympathy oozing
out of many magistrates either!!. The difference is magistrates are
obliged to apply the law as it stands to the facts of the situation,
fairly and impartially, and at the same time set aside any personal
prejudices (if any), to ensure that the case is decided in accordance
with the law of the land...........you want it changed? go see your M.P.
and hope he/she uses toilets the same way as you do!!!
Chris
--
What I find fascinating about that article is that it is becoming
very difficult indeed for the politicians to hide behind the liberal
mantra that seems to have driven their actions since the mid-50s.
Being extremely angry about the idiotic laws on self-defence in this
country is no longer a minority view and is increasingly being shared
by intellectuals rather than just Joe Bloggs on the street.
Even the ultra-liberal European Court of Human Rights has criticised
our law, the politicians though still seem to be afraid of touching
this subject for the simple reason (it appears) that they don't trust
the people of this country to act on their own behalf as regards
self-defence. Of course, the courts often take one view or the other,
but mention changing the law to politicians and they come out with
heaps of BS about vigilante actions and "people taking the law into
their own hands", which as this article points out, is exactly where
the law should be, and in fact where the authority of the politicians
comes from as this is supposed to be a representative democracy.
Steve.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
