Why should those who disagree be allowed to read this for free?...
- 9 April 2013 10:22224512The State is too big, we here hear. The State is too powerful, too far reaching in it's scope and interferes in too many places in too many ways...The State should be cut to the bone, we hear here.
What better place to begin than to deny that the State exists at all? Far better to divide the Nation into right-uns and wrong-uns.
Big-endians and Small-endians? (As Swift outlined in Gulliver's Travels.)
Thatcher is dead, long live Thatcher!?
Barry, rejoice. Your dream of a return to the 18th century is at hand...the full thrust of the 'Industrial Revolution(2)' is surely right around the corner.
The time when the first question you are asked when you visit any A&E, "Can you afford to be ill?" may be some time off as yet, but the question, "Can you afford to be innocent?" is just around the corner.
Chris Grayling: criminals should be made to pay their legal costs.
Justice secretary says convicted criminals may have to pay their own legal defence costs, as part of cuts to legal aid
"Grayling said: "Why should the law-abiding, hard-working majority pay for a court service for the minority who break the law?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/chris-grayling-criminals-legal-costs
Soon the word 'Justice' shall have it's core definition fall into neglect and go the way of 'Fairness' to become Putty- Proclamations, that mean whatever you wish them to mean, unless that disagrees with the State's, ad hoc, liquid-definition.
No longer shall it be, Crown verses Defendant, it shall become, The Small-minded verses The Small-intellect.
N.B.
All and every detractor should pay £1 to the 'Raise The Dover' fund for each post.Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
9 April 2013 10:35224515Oh tom
you have opened a can of wormsALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 9 April 2013 10:38224517I really don't have a clue what thats all about Tom.
I agree with Grayling though, I resent paying to defend criminals - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
9 April 2013 10:41224519I would be happy if this was across the board, but it usualy ends up those at the bottom get hit(rightly so if they are convicted) whilst others may swan away
The maxwell case being one exampleALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 9 April 2013 10:51224521just another cheap gimmick with no substance, most convicted felons are small fry with not even two pennies to rub together.
serious career criminals don't have jobs they simply plan the next job so there are no wages to deduct anything from. - 9 April 2013 10:51224522Don't follow that Keith, what happened in the Maxwell case?
- Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
9 April 2013 10:57224524a bit slow this morning david,maxwell of the daily mirror fame,fraud etc.then done a dissapearing act [fell of a yaht in the med or somwhere simular]. - 9 April 2013 10:58224525Tes Brian I'm aware of that, I'm not sure of the relevance to Tom's post
- Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
9 April 2013 11:01224526it depends on how you read it,but be carefull how you read it.but take it at face value. - 9 April 2013 11:10224527OK you've lost me Brian
- 9 April 2013 11:25224530Fools rush in where wise-men fear to tread...
Let us not confuse 'Justice' with 'Law', due process or no.
Being convicted by a Court does not confer 'guilt' any more than not being convicted by a Court confers 'innocence'.
It takes a queer idea of the relationship between a Citizen and the State, that would deny any standing at all to the Citizen.
Perhaps what some enjoy about these proposals is that they put the lid on the removal of, and the replacement of, The State (whether it be Crown or Parliament) with 'Money', Cash is King*.
It may be that such a notion fits well with an individual's sense of equality, it may seem the height of egalitarianism, because if the State is represented by The Crown, next to nobody, not born of that one family, will be at all able to progress up the ranks of the Social Strata, but anybody (and always the most deserving) can come by great wealth. Where any of this leaves any and all notions of Democracy, seems not to matter one little bit.
Shall the convicted, innocent or not, need to earn over £21k before their wages are subject to garnishment? If not, what then the chances of 'redemption'. Would it be that any conviction resulting from a contested Court action marks those convicted as outcasts from society, to become fit only for begging on the streets?
It 'used' to be thought only Just and Fair that any individual facing the full might of the State should be provided with the means of defending themselves.
Yet, if this so called justice is to be free at the point of need, what of the Appeals process? At what point does this begin to look like a money saver? Then we can begin to wonder at the likelihood of the non-appropriately insured accused would be ever able to begin to repay what is said to be their strictly monetary liabilities?
This is just plain dumb!
*[URL][/URL]Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
9 April 2013 11:36224531Brian
David is fully aware of the case, smoke screens appear to be some of the tactics used by some posters these days,
anyway never mind i will respond
It was concerning that even in the early days of the two maxwell sons legal aid of over £394,000 was granted
one rule for one
and others quite differentALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 9 April 2013 11:39224532Ahhh I'm with you, you're referring to his sons who received legal aid some 20 odd years ago.
It was wrong then and it would be wrong now - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
9 April 2013 11:47224537aarr david maybe we are getting somewhere,,,,,,, slowlyALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 9 April 2013 11:49224538Thats because you've stopped talking in riddles Keith.
I disagree with legal aid - do you? - 9 April 2013 11:52224539"Your dream of a return to the 18th century is at hand...the full thrust of the 'Industrial Revolution(2)' is surely right around the corner."
Thank christ for that. No welfare state to be abused, no vagrants 'gobbing' on the street, a return to the workhouse for the unemployed, a country that regains it's manufacturing ability, no 'care in the community', proper punishment for criminals in dank prisons, the return of the death penalty, the return of empire and entrepreneurship, the return of family values, no daytime TV and children that know their place...
That's my idea of a proper country.Dover and Cinque Ports Life Magazines are on Facebook www.facebook.com/DoverandCinquePortsLife - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
9 April 2013 11:54224542I hope your jesting paul??
David
Although i probably go some way to agreement with you, there are cases where by those less well off may well need legal aid, but it should be a lot more focused on who should/should not get itALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 9 April 2013 11:59224547Why would I jest Keith?
The welfare state is broken, our manufacturing capability is nil, our political leaders are spineless, respect is a forgotten word, the country has no money, liberals run amok in society and crime goes relatively unpunished.
A return to Victorian values is just what this country needs...
...or we become German - either is good for me
Dover and Cinque Ports Life Magazines are on Facebook www.facebook.com/DoverandCinquePortsLife - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
9 April 2013 12:12224552Paul I
(1)The welfare state as you call it is a good safety net for some, but needs to be for only those that are in real desperate need of
it
(2)Sadly it has become the NORM for a lot of society to GOBB in the streets
(3)I would hate to see the unemployed dealt in the way you suggest, although we should be doing more to create the jobs
to get these guys/girls back to work
(4)Share the view on regaining manafacturing and more jobs vision
(5)don't agree on your view on care in the community
(6)will never agree on bringing in the death penalty
(7)the empire has long gone, and unlikely to return
(8)agree on family values but we may differ on how to achieve them
(9)nothing wrong with day time tv
(10)big education to be in place, and major change in society before you will ever achieve your children viewALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 9 April 2013 14:03224568Paul Isles: "the return of empire and entrepreneurship".
You may interpret this as Globalisation and Speculation, earning the quick buck on a package of toxic investments that are destined to backfire, but cashing in the top salary and the massive yearly bonus.
While trying to keep to the spirit of this thread, which presumably highlights the lack of money to finance a justice-based system, and somehow latching onto Paul Isles view, I'd put it this way:
hitherto, it was planned and believed that speculation, bank-driven and fueled by large corporations and by "globalisation", would steadily bring in revenues, together with a yearly interest rate.
Unemployment meant little or nothing, as Society would have assured revenues from fictitious financial investments.
Pension funds, schemes, shares, whatever-funds....would just bring in assured revenue, and guarantee a salary and a whopping bonus to the financial operators.
Houses would rise in value 3-times the rate of inflation, along with rent. Never mind first-time buyers (fatal mistake to the system - bound to backfire).
Now that all this is collapsing and crashing starting as of 2008, Society will grasp that:
1) the nested eggs have gone foul and won't hatch.
2) the unemployed have come back to roost, and can't bring in a revenue to Society, which, however, has seen its perceived future revenues forfeited, these having been imagined as being infallible and coming from speculation, property scams (Spain, Ireland), debt bubbles and the whole humpty-dum-noodle of the paper-economy.
3) State debt and private debt are steadily becoming the harvest of Society, while toxic investments lie in tatters on the floor inside banks, and people queue up at the cash-points to save whatever they can from confiscation.
Have a nice day, folks!
Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ