|
Hahaha, Farage meltdown, love it. Also gently caress diverted profits tax, biggest pile of poo poo ever. Edit: April 2nd: Not April 1st. Also the day that the glorious freedom loving Argentinians tried to liberate the opressed huddled masses of Las Malvinas.
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
notaspy posted:So that fully understand non-dom: Not my area of expertise, but I'll have a go at explaining it. The current rules are a bit complex and tax different kinds of income in different ways. (Edit: Eugh, that turned out way too long. Tldr: Domicile is hard to change, this policy doesn't generally affect rich Brits leaving the country for a time.) There's a distinction between your tax "residence" (basically, where you spend most of your time in a given year) and your "domicile" - the latter is something you inherit from your parents and is harder to nail down - it's based on fact patterns and is very subjective; where is your permanent home, where does your heart really belong. It's quite hard to change your domicile away from the UK. You could be living in France full time for 10 years, but if you're planning to retire to the UK and maybe have some family and friends back in the UK, then HMRC will probably try and say you're still UK domiciled - historically they take a very aggressive approach. I have a vague memory of being told of a letter telling a friend how much they missed the UK countryside being used as evidence by HMRC that someone's domicile hadn't actually moved abroad. The key part is that certain taxes are levied based on your domicile, rather than your residence - capital gains tax and inheritance tax from memory. So if you work abroad for a whole tax year, you won't be taxed in the UK on your overseas earnings, as income tax is based on residence, but if you bought and sold a house overseas, you'd still be subject to UK capital gains tax as that's based on your domicile. When you don't pay income tax, that isn't "avoidance", it's just how things work - it's not sensible to tax you on your income in multiple countries because it involves a lot of ballache and paperwork, as any US goons lurking in the UK at the moment could attest to. As the question of domicile is so subjective, the non-dom regime allows someone living abroad to achieve certainty over their status and pay a flat fee to exclude their non-UK earnings from HMRC. It's probably worth saying that this isn't a mega unusual or outrageous system compared to other countries around the world and (at least on paper) it's not the massively unfair system it's presented as either. It's really, really hard to lose your UK domicile if you were born in the UK to British parents. So the people in this regime are not generally British-born and it's not about Brits deciding to get minted and squirrel their money away from HMRC. Generally speaking, the non-dom regime is targeted at rich immigrants, who may live here enough to be resident (so pay income tax), but may have an uncertain domicile. E.g. HMRC argues they're UK domiciled because they've been running a business here for 3 years and moved their kids here, but the immigrant points to a large family back in India, say, and maybe some overseas property or business interests as evidence for their ultimate desire to return. It's messy and uncertain, so HMRC gives them the option to pay a flat fee - this gives everyone certainty and gives the Exchequer some cash as well. The reason this isn't as unfair as the tabloids would have you believe is that these non-doms are taxed on all their economic activity in this country. So if they become evil slum landlords in London, or start a business here, or take a job here etc, they're paying UK tax on all this, just like everyone else. Basically, if they get rich here, they'll pay tax here. If they're already rich enough to have property empires or businesses overseas, then they've already paid tax (lol) on that wealth in the overseas country, both when they acquired it (e.g. income tax on previous salary, inheritance tax if they were given it) and in the future (e.g. corporation tax overseas, withholding tax on interest etc). There's a general question about whether it's right for the UK to start taxing people living here on earnings that have nothing to do with their UK activities or assets (we love to bitch about the US doing exactly this, normally). More to the point, if you take away the non-dom exemption, you just create a shitload of paperwork (both for the immigrants and for HMRC) without accomplishing a huge amount in most cases. Overseas taxes would be creditable against the UK tax bill, so assuming their overseas business interests are in sensible places, then the UK tax due may be very small, or nil. There's a benefit to the UK where the non-doms have overseas income from low-tax territories e.g. Dubai - the trick is whether there are enough of those to outweigh the extra costs of administration. To answer your second question directly, your domicile isn't really affected by short term movements away and back - it's much more about encouraging people to base themselves here, without clobbering them with a gigantic tax bill on their other non-UK activities for the privilege. A UK person would find it very difficult to move away and switch his domicile in the manner your question suggests and it would be pretty unheard of to change it for a second time - HMRC would go straight for the jugular of saying your domicile had never changed after all, and try and reopen those old tax years. It will be interesting to see what impact it has and whether people would relocate as a response - some of the examples given in the papers seem pretty outrageous and I'm not sure how they've been getting away with it. I wonder whether it just needs proper enforcement of the current rules and aggression over the domicile position rather than removing the ability to make an election entirely. Partly of course, it's a case of HMRC wanting to have its cake and eat it - they naturally want to make it as hard as possible for British people to move their domicile abroad but want to try and make it very easy to do the reverse. Prince John fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Niric posted:As an Edinburgher who's lived in Glasgow for 10 years or so, it's an eye-rollingly common trope - especially among people who have never been to Edinburgh. The slippery slope of localism. When Scotland becomes independent, Edinburgh will be the new London. Independence for the highlands from the Edinburgh bubble!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
mrpwase posted:This is pretty poo poo journalism really. I know he's an absolute fascist fucker but at the end of the day it's just a man campaigning for a seat in parliament, of course he's gonna look tired or stressed. Does anyone know what actually happened in the protest to make the landlord dial 999? All I can find when I google is all the previous pub protests.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Pantsuit posted:All those 'rogue states' (I'm guessing NK, Iran) with nukes that can strike Britain. Don't forget that when planning something with the lifetime of Trident, it's not just the current capability that needs to be considered, but the potential capability over a 20 or 30 year time period. Given the progress by both of these parties on missile technology, it's entirely realistic to suggest that they could be a future threat. The Iranian Sejil 2 medium range ballistic missile gets half way here, with a range of 2,000km. They're developing a Sejil 3 at the moment with a range of 4,000km which is just about enough to reach the UK, should they have a desire to. Not saying Iran's about to nuke us or anything, but it's naive not to plan ahead or to only consider their current capability. Edit: baka kaba posted:More like Defensive Secretary am I right I laughed. 
Prince John fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:But what about if, after UKIP take us out of the EU the rest of Europe turns on us and decides to nuke us? You need to think about the future threats! That would require a united European foreign policy, which is even less likely than Iran nuking us. Seriously though, it's literally this guy's job to think about future threats, as cheesy as it sounds. Shame he seems like a bit of a chump.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Along with having the names and addresses of known war criminals in your pocket. I agree with your general unease about the law, but that's a very disingenuous example - this particular person was also in possession of two bomb making manuals, including instructions for a viable car bomb hidden inside his ipad cover. If you read the article you linked, it looks like some pretty decent police work to me, uncovering a disturbing pattern of behaviour. At best, he was a potential criminal - his defence was apparently that he had "contemplated committing an armed robbery or buying heroin or a gun instead", and at worst he was a potential terrorist. quote:Incedal was first stopped by police in September 2013 in what appeared to be a routine a traffic stop, the court heard. To say he was charged simply for having their address in his pocket is a big stretch of the truth. He was found not guilty of the second charge of preparing an act of terrorism, but details still secret, alas.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
^^ Sorry, I clearly had a sense of humour failure. Thanks though, it was an interesting case to read about. Holy crap, this is going to be controversial. A new study has found that 40% of the risk of being a sex offender is genetic. As always, it's worth bearing in mind that the "risk" is still a very small percentage, but brothers of convicted sex offenders are five times more likely to commit a sexual crime and they've been able to rule out environmental influences by including half brothers in the study. quote:Sex offending is written in the genes, an unprecedented study has shown, with the brothers of men convicted of sex crimes five times more likely to commit a rape or assault than the general public. Prince John fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:The first BBC headline I heard yesterday morning was "the Tories say that labours policy to end non-domiciled status is a shambles" then I turned off the radio. Regardless of what you think about the merits of abolishing non-dom status, Labour's policy on it has been a bit of a shambles, so it's fair cop if they're called out on it. Ed Balls was of the opinion it would lose the treasury money earlier this year. Jolyon Maugham, the tax barrister who helped Labour develop the policy, has said there is a risk of a "negative tax yield". The IFS says it's so uncertain an outcome that it could raise up to "£1bn or even less than zero". It's a political move that will no doubt win them votes, but Labour's policy has been based on almost no reliable evidence and marked by contradictory statements from key decision makers. A minishambles perhaps.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
TinTower posted:On that note, you'd never know from the dialogue that most trafficking victims are actually trafficked for domestic purposes. It's quite depressing that there are more slaves alive now than there were during the American Civil War. By domestic purposes, are you referring to things like Dubai housemaids etc.? That is a very depressing statistic.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It's estimated that there were about 25 million slaves in 1860, 20% of which were in the US. Current estimates of the worldwide slave population are around 30 million, nearly half of which are in India. Interesting, I hadn't realised that India was such a large destination. Does this include things like indentured servitude? Are the slaves mostly other Indians, or people trafficked across the border?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
^^ Or this! Lord of the Llamas posted:Profits from the oil should go into renewables. Not a sovereign wealth fund?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
^^ There's no ruling. I think what Disinterested meant was "if the profit charged on supplies of coffee beans or whatever was ridiculously high, it clearly violates the arm's length principle." This principle is written into UK law. HMRC have either looked into it and concluded it was acceptable, ignored it, or are currently enquiring into those periods which we wouldn't necessarily hear about.Malcolm XML posted:The trick is to route the vast majority of your UK earnings outside of the country and only remit (and thus get taxed on) the amount you need to live on an ongoing basis That's pretty hard to do though - there's a ton of legislation explicitly designed to stop this. It's really more about people with existing non-UK wealth and earnings before they come to the UK. Prince John fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:And it will continue to, you can't design a system without some of this. In fact, in an ironic twist, our tax system has partly become easier to abuse precisely because it has chased avoidance too hard. I was interested to hear that the OECD's reaction to the diverted profits tax was pretty negative, due to the fact that (i) it was unilateral action, which is what the BEPS project is supposed to be avoiding and (ii) that it was reactionary and ill thought out. The one silver lining - UK tax isn't as prescriptive as US tax. At least we still have some intent and motive requirements still kicking around.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Hasn't that been a consistent complaint against labour since Blair? Not by anyone competent / electorally threatening, until now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
I love your pipe smoking dog.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Anyone know anything about the English Democrats? They've just launched their campaign today apparently. http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/policies/full-manifesto.html Looks like a less socialist English answer to the SNP and Plaid.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
You folks will love this. I present a day in the life of David Cameron.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:
I found this story from November: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
winegums posted:I think a second chamber is a Good Thing if it's filled with a decent non-elected cross-section of society, a few representatives from charity, law, healthcare, policing etc. It'd mean populist legislation gets knocked down by a group not concerned with pissing off the electorate. It will be a Bad Thing though, because he wants an elected second chamber - just going to be another shower of politicians with no spine to knock down populist crap. I could cope with your suggestion of appointed specialists and subject experts, but I truly believe the quality of scrutiny and our protection from populist legislation will be diminished by a second elected chamber. Also anyone who wants to knock down that building has no architectural appreciation! 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Oh I know, I expect no better from them but I so rarely watch the BBC news these days that it just leaps right out at me. I think it's a positive rather than a negative - it would be impossible for a state broadcaster to be impartial* about such a wide range of issues were it to promote a non-consensus view of the world. (*Or as impartial as any one party could ever be. ) Slimchandi posted:Where can I read about more stuff like this?! I've really enjoyed "Bad Science", which has received widespread critical praise. It's very accessible to a non-technical audience. Prince John fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't know if I've ever heard a stronger case for Polish immigration. Amen to that. Is it possible to avoid the illegality if both parties consent? I'm thinking in the same way that it's not a criminal offence to rugby tackle someone in the course of a game, when it would be assault in a different circumstance? I seem to remember from my couple of weeks of 'law for dummies' many years ago that sport was a special case that probably can't be extended to include duelling. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:They could fence using those electric suits. This is obviously the sporting solution. Come on Nige, we'll put a piste down in Parliament Square. Also, thanks for the interesting answers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:This is a whole new level of Clegging: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/the-northerner/2015/apr/13/nick-clegg-sends-student-to-stand-in-for-him-at-sheffield-hallam-hustings I'll pick up Clegg's fallen flag - it's not quite as bad as it sounds. The headline reads: "Nick Clegg sends student to stand in for him at Sheffield debate" He did send a prospective councillor; someone who may be representing those same constituents after the elections. For anyone who just reads the headline, that's quite misleading. "Nick Clegg sends Lib Dem council candidate to Sheffield debate" just doesn't quite have the same ring to it. They then go on to say he was "too busy to attend election hustings" in the sub-headline. Observant readers will note further down that this was incapable of being a hustings because it wasn't on neutral ground - there are Labour Party offices within the social club. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this wasn't a bit of a short-notice stitch up by a Labour-supporting venue, carried with glee by an anti-coalition paper. Naturally, the article describes all of the attacks on Nick Clegg in great detail but nary a word on what the Lib Dem speaker had to say about Labour. I imagine that to book an appearance by a party leader this close to an election you would need to give months of notice. Or maybe he just decided that there wasn't much point in debating the Labour Party faithful. Prince John fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
BigPaddy posted:So the real headline is "Media in cannot be trusted to tell the whole story shocker!" Who'd'a' thunk it!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I admit the reason why VAT impacts the poor more isn't terribly obvious to me, assuming a decent portion of food is not taxed. The poor spend all they earn, therefore a higher proportion of their earnings is spent on VAT. The rich use a smaller proportion of their income for consumption, therefore spend a smaller proportion on VAT.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:the only ways to have a non regressive VAT policy are either abolish VAT If memory serves, I think this is forbidden under EU law. So, we're stuck with the horrible mess.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:So why is owning your home so important? Like I can see it's probably the best setup but it isn't like alternatives are terrible in and of themselves (landlords are another matter). Apart from the obvious that you're buying a valuable asset for yourself, rather than your landlord, I'm slightly surprised that nobody has mentioned security as a big plus. If you own your home and are eventually able to pay off your mortgage, then you have a base that can't be taken away from you under normal financial circumstances. If your income drops drastically in retirement, or you're unable to work for whatever reason, you no longer have to worry about finding a huge monthly rental payment each month. Edit: vv I suspect there are laws stopping this (traveller related?). We lived in a caravan for a few months on a big site and were explicitly forbidden from remaining there for a continual 12 months of the year. Prince John fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Double post, sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Mr N posted:Not sure I should really share this on an internet forum but... my friend had an interview with Galloway the other day, about a potential offer of an internship type role. I was always a bit unsure about him, is he really that awful? I find him a really, really difficult person to get my head around. He's a great orator, not afraid to rightfully call out countries on their bullshit foreign policies, very handy if you want to expose political spin in a debate. On top of that he's a great believer in internationalism and is a passionate defender of the Palestinian cause. Against this, he plays the race/religion card really, really loving hard when campaigning and there's been a whiff of dirty tricks about a few of his elections. He also comes across as a bit of a pompous dick at times, and has often tripped over himself to criticise Western foreign policy so much that he has historically appeared to support very undesirable foreign figures. Allegations of anti-semitism have been robustly refuted - he would describe himself as an anti-zionist. He runs a funny radio show where he shoots down ignorant racists who phone in (you can sometimes sample these on youtube) and in many cases has what this thread would usually describe as Right Thinking about issues such as racism, nationalism, capitalism etc. He's probably a Muslim, but is hyper-sensitive about anyone suggesting it. Gave two fingers to the US Senate in 2005 which is well worth watching. Assuming he's not a massive bellend to work for, I'd be interested in spending some quality time with him - I suspect it will be a unique opportunity for your friend. Out of interest, what were their impressions from the interview? Edit: vv I was slightly surprised at how many manifesto policies they had kept according to the Guardian link posted earlier. Prince John fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
TinTower posted:False statements as to the character of a candidate. Publishing that as a candidate in one of the most Asian constituencies in the country is skirting very close to the line, if his whole spiel on Shah lying about her forced marriage wasn't already. Didn't he have a copy of the marriage certificate to back up his claim? Asides from all the distasteful implications of how he got it, doesn't that support his claim, or was it a fake? On your second point, I don't know. I've watched *a lot* of Galloway, and I don't think I've ever heard him stray from his careful line of separating Israelis from Jews and he speaks angrily about Netenyahu's attempt to conflate the two. He enjoys skirting the line, such as accusing the Israelis of behaving in ways the Nazis historically had, but that's not as outrageous as it seems - I found his comparison of Gaza with the Warsaw Ghetto to be quite compelling.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Fluo posted:Please back up your claim. Wow, those hats are amazing. I guess I don't know any orthodox jews, but I'd never seen a shtreimel before.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
Do you know any more detail about this particular case? That article makes it sound like the union is going on strike due to being paid less than the living wage, but then it goes on to say that management have made an offer to start the payscale at the living wage for inexperienced employees and expand the salary scale.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The great weather this week in London has really turned around my opinion of the UK. Completely random, but if you're not staying permanently in the UK then do make the time to explore other  I knew a Japanese colleague who managed to spend an entire year in the UK on secondment but never set foot outside the capital before returning home. He was a bit woebegone when someone got him a book of ultra-scenic landscapes and landmark photographs from around Britain as a leaving present and he realised what he missed out on seeing. Prince John fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:The North West Highlands. If you've not got a car then get to Glasgow, spend a night there and get the early morning train to Mallaig, see a tiny fishing village, then get a ferry over to Skye. And then never leave because it's bloody gorgeous. Plus there's the Clan Donald Centre which is, from my vague memories, really interesting for the history of the natives of Skye, home of the Lord of the Isles (well, former). Forkboy speaks truth. We adored the NW Highlands when we did a whistlestop tour of Scotland a couple of years ago. We went up to Ullapool, then further up to Inchnadamph then towards the coast and finished in Lochinver for an evening meal. All of that coastal area is breathtakingly beatiful and bleak - we actually preferred it to further south towards Skye. Just don't do what we did and forget that petrol stations are nowhere to be found and not open in any case on Sunday evenings.  If you're coming from London and have some cash to burn, consider the Deerstalker Express sleeper train which looks pretty convenient - some cool pics here, including a description of the Fort William -> Mallaig route which is ridiculously scenic. Best whisky ever - Ledaig (pronounced Laycheck) from Tobermory distillery, nice and peaty. I haven't seen it in shops down here, but you can order it online here. It singlehandedly converted my girlfriend into drinking whisky and has been lapped up by everyone who's tried it. The Isle of Mull is well worth a visit - some amazing scenery and places to explore. Prince John fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:In unrelated news, MPs who contest their seat and lose are entitled to a Loss of Office payment equivalent to about £14,000 for every decade served. I'm sure you're saving a bullet for me anyway, but I feel the need to defend this, at least in principle. This is compensation for the fact they will have put their normal career on hold to enter a position with no job security for the sake of public service. The payment allows them to find their feet again and resume a normal career. Similar to women returning from a period of maternity and child rearing, they will often be re-entering their industries at a disadvantageous age. I get that it's silly if you have a "line my pocketsss" MP who will be independently wealthy, but there are some decent MPs who don't do this. £1.4k a year to help you readjust into a normal career doesn't seem outrageous. Soldiers get a £12k resettlement grant for example after 12 years of service, so £1k/year. (I realise the two careers aren't directly comparable). You can picture an MP from a working class background, with a mortgage to pay, who hasn't lined their pockets or got a cosy non-exec director position lined up. After two terms, he suddenly gets ousted in the election and, just like that, is unemployed at the age of 40. He was working in IT, but that was 10 years ago. Apparently there's this thing called the cloud now? I'd be happy to means test it, but I'm of the opinion that we've created quite a hostile environment that's made it more difficult to attract the type of MPs we want (i.e. working class backgrounds) and allowances like this will be a genuine help/comfort to MPs that aren't independently wealthy. Prince John fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:Maybe we should just have a welfare system that is there to actually assist the unemployed, regardless of their background? I don't disagree with this, but while we wait the years (decades?) for this to happen, it doesn't seem like an outrageous policy. Also, a welfare state is supposed to be a safety net, not necessarily something that could maintain the mortgage on a family home for example. Assuming that people still think of 'public service' as a laudable goal in itself, I think additional help to those choosing to put their life on hold for the sake of the nation is reasonable, in the same way I would support it for ex-servicemen. (Sorry, I know that sounds really hokey, but I'm not really sure how to make the argument without falling into that trap!) Prince John fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:even if conclusions drawn may differ, it's always healthy to talk with people who hold different views. I'll toast to that comrade. I've lurched massively to the left from my previous positions as a result of lurking in the UKMT for a while and feel much more informed about how lovely life can be for the poorest and most vulnerable as a result of the links and everything posted here. It's led to one less Conservative voter, if nothing else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:In a year we'll have you semi-ironically posting the Internationale everywhere next to a Maid Marian avatar Hahaha, love it. I shall never abandon the Funniest Disney Villain Ever though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
This post was somewhat lost in debate chat, but IMO Leicestershire police can gently caress off. They're overstepping the mark so much it's is ridiculous. The defendant has alzheimers and dementia and is "incapable of considering evidence, instructing lawyers or entering a plea". It is loving outrageous that so many people are clamouring for a trial to go ahead. I can't believe that so many people are forgetting that the right to be fit for your trial is fundamental to our justice system. I felt so angry about it that I sent the Asst. Chief Constable a message much to the same effect. Let's just hope that none of the muppets bitching about this never find themselves on the stand, unable to follow or understand the proceedings or defend themselves properly. The 'victim industry'* is now in full swing, and even MPs are apparently getting in on the act. "Justice needs to be served,” they shout. There has been a fundamental misunderstanding about what justice means in recent years in the UK - it's not about revenge, or making victims feel better, or validating their claims - it's about the right to a fair trial, the acknowledgement that a high burden of proof is necessary to avoid widespread miscarriages of justice, even if that means some criminals go free, and the acceptance that sometimes the Just answer isn't necessarily the one that sits easily with us. It's never in the Public interest (meant in the lofty sense of the word) to put someone who is incapable of defending themselves on trial - it weakens and shames us all to hold a show trial. (*I label it that, despite being a 'victim' myself, although I've never really felt the label fitted). Rant over.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 10:25
|
|