Supreme Court (uk)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynx+11 February 2004 - 02:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 11 February 2004 - 02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-billyfridge@11 February 2004 - 00:04
Please correct me if i&#39;m wrong. if TonyBlair gets rid of the Lord Chanceller, and the house of lords. wouldn&#39;t he be getting rid of the only people who can police him and his government. <_<

---

This, along with other deplorable proposals by this corrupt government, is exactly how countries proceed down the road towards dictatorship. [/b][/quote]
The House of Lords is not being abolished, at least not yet. The Law Lords are currently the highest Court of Appeal, that situation is being replaced by the Supreme Court. If the House of Lords ever goes and I suspect it will, it will almost certainly be replaced by an upper house which is elected by the people. That would be my preferred option.

Someone will probably correct me on this, but I think the Lord Chancelor is a political post, as such not a great problem for the person who elects him. I am not sure about this though. I&#39;ll get back to you.

This "Supreme Court" will be comprised of judges who are primarily political appointees. Sounds more like a return to the old Star Chamber to me.

Other current or recent proposals:

• A "super police task force" with powers of arrest for doing just about anything they care to think of.
• Changes to the requirements for conviction to reduce the "burden of proof" - reasonable doubt will not be a reason for a jury to produce a "not guilty" verdict.
• Removal of the right to trial by jury for many offences.

These proposals would not have been out of place had they come from the KGB. Perhaps the British Labour Party is further left than we all imagined.

Edit: typo

What is the new Super Police Task Force ? I have not heard about that one. If you are talking about the SOCA then the offences it will investigate will be very limited. If you are talking about something else I would be very interested to hear about it.

With regard to the political appointees, is that not the case just now for the senior legal positions ? It certainly is in Scotland. I am happier with that situation than for example the House of Lords having veto over the House of commons. They (some of them) are there because of an accident of birth. Others are appointed there, some are from the Church of England and they can over-rule the elected Government. That to me is a problem. We need an elected upper house in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mogadishu@10 February 2004 - 15:43
I don&#39;t know enough about the situation between the different parts of the UK, but an appointed Supreme Court is not a good way to go. It would be better to have 7 elected by the people. That way what happened in our 2000 election woulnd&#39;t happen.. The judges would have been elected by the people, not by a republican or democratic president. The only downfall is the first year.. the public would have to elect 7 that year.

---

but then the judges&#39; elections would be tampered with by state officials and the vote-counting machinery, and depending upon which states the candidates campaign first we&#39;d end up with either jesse ventura or gary coleman in "office."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+12 February 2004 - 19:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 12 February 2004 - 19:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mogadishu@10 February 2004 - 15:43
I don&#39;t know enough about the situation between the different parts of the UK, but an appointed Supreme Court is not a good way to go. It would be better to have 7 elected by the people. That way what happened in our 2000 election woulnd&#39;t happen.. The judges would have been elected by the people, not by a republican or democratic president. The only downfall is the first year.. the public would have to elect 7 that year.

---

but then the judges&#39; elections would be tampered with by state officials and the vote-counting machinery, and depending upon which states the candidates campaign first we&#39;d end up with either jesse ventura or gary coleman in "office." [/b][/quote]
:lol:

Or Stallone "I am the Law"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Agrajag@12 February 2004 - 18:21
What is the new Super Police Task Force ? I have not heard about that one. If you are talking about the SOCA then the offences it will investigate will be very limited. If you are talking about something else I would be very interested to hear about it.

---

What makes you think it&#39;s powers would be limited?

Woolly thinking comes from sheep.

Quote:

---

Woolly thinking comes from sheep.

---

So do wooly jumpers come from kangaroos then? :rolleyes:


:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynx+14 February 2004 - 04:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 14 February 2004 - 04:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@12 February 2004 - 18:21
What is the new Super Police Task Force ? I have not heard about that one. If you are talking about the SOCA then the offences it will investigate will be very limited. If you are talking about something else I would be very interested to hear about it.

---

What makes you think it&#39;s powers would be limited?

Woolly thinking comes from sheep. [/b][/quote]
I am not entirely sure what you mean when you say "Woolly thinking comes from sheep", however I did not actually say that their powers would be limited. Since it is only a proposal just now nobody actually knows what their powers will be, so nobody is in a position to say how limited or far reaching they wil be.

What I did say was "the offences they will investigate will be limited" that is an entirely different thing. That was as a response to your contention that there was going to be "a super police task force with powers of arrest for doing just about anything they care to think of." I don&#39;t think this is the case, it is proposed they will only deal with serious and organised crime. Even then it will only be in relation to specific offences like drug trafficking and laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking.

Sorry for any confusion caused.

My point is that the police and/or customs & excise already have more than enough powers to deal with organised crime and drug trafficking, but perhaps not the correct resources. We are told repeatedly "these new powers will not be used other than for ...(fill in the appropriate words)" but inevitably they end up being used for things which are contrary to their stated purpose. You need look no further than the anti-terror laws which were recently (ab)used to prevent demonstrations in London.

The meaning of my comment is that those who automatically believe the statements of the politicians who come up with these schemes are being led like sheep. If the police don&#39;t need extra powers then they shouldn&#39;t be given them, any other point of view is woolly thinking. Just my opinion.

With regard to there being an elected upper house, you may well be right, but don&#39;t expect anything like that from the current government. The current situation is that they are trying to take as many powers away from the House of Lords as possible, and to give the impression that they lack credibility. An elected upper house would totally undermine that, so it isn&#39;t likely to happen soon.

I take your points. I will wait to see just what powers are given to them and if there are any new powers. It may just be a new organisation, which is given the same powers as the Police, NCIS and Customs already have. It is considered to be an entirely new body, unlike the National Crime Squad which it replaces along with NCIS and parts of Customs. NCS get their staff from the Police Forces as do NCIS in part. This Agency will recruit and train it&#39;s own people, it will then only work on the highest levels of crime. Taking up your point on resources, the idea is to put more resources into the highest level of crime, that makes sense to me.