‘Re-train soft judges’ says Shipley MP Philip Davies

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: MP Philip Davies MP Philip Davies

Soft judges who allow offenders to go on fresh crime sprees should be punished, says Shipley MP Philip Davies.

The Conservative MP demanded “consequences” for judges who fail to send serious criminals to prison when a jail term is appropriate.

During debate on a fresh crime Bill, Mr Davies did not set out exactly how judges should be made more “accountable” for their decisions. But he told ministers: “There should be consequences for a judge who consistently allows offenders to avoid prison if those offenders go on to make others suffer as a result of their continuing crime sprees.

“At the very least there should be some assessment of their ability to perform their role.”

The call came as Mr Davies called for a series of measures to toughen up the legislation, including: l Prisoners on early release who are recalled to jail for breaching conditions to be forced to serve their entire original sentence – not just 28 days.

l An end to the “ludicrous position” where time spent on a tagged curfew is deducted from a sentence in the same way as days spent on remand in prison.

l Magistrates to be allowed to sentence people to prison for up to 12 months for one offence, instead of the current six-month limit.

The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill creates a series of new offences, including fresh jail terms for prisoners who escape and go “on the run”.

Possession of pornography showing rape will be banned and automatic early release from prison for terrorists and child rapists will be scrapped.

Criminals who commit serious offences involving child pornography and supplying class A drugs will no longer escape with a simple caution under the reforms.

And criminals will be forced to pay part of the cost of their court case, while offenders will also pay to appeal against any court decisions if they then lose that appeal.

Mr Davies said: “Despite these omissions, the Bill can still be seen as a substantial step forward for the criminal justice system in this country.”

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:33am Wed 26 Feb 14

Albion. says...

I gather that judges are sometimes pressurised to impose less custodial sentences because of prison overcrowding. If there were more places to send the convicted it might change judges actions.
I gather that judges are sometimes pressurised to impose less custodial sentences because of prison overcrowding. If there were more places to send the convicted it might change judges actions. Albion.

11:37am Wed 26 Feb 14

allannicho says...

The latest is 4 years for a Mans Life! ex --Uni Dipsticks
like the Politico,s
The latest is 4 years for a Mans Life! ex --Uni Dipsticks like the Politico,s allannicho

12:46pm Wed 26 Feb 14

alive and awake says...

Tough long sentences = less crime, reason: criminals off the streets = less crime, tough long sentences = detterant for other scum bags. Try it, we've tried everything else.
Tough long sentences = less crime, reason: criminals off the streets = less crime, tough long sentences = detterant for other scum bags. Try it, we've tried everything else. alive and awake

1:10pm Wed 26 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

What happens if someone has been wrongly convicted and cannot afford to launch an appeal due to any money they have being taken from them to pay court costs? Justice should never be reliant on the financial status of the accused.
What happens if someone has been wrongly convicted and cannot afford to launch an appeal due to any money they have being taken from them to pay court costs? Justice should never be reliant on the financial status of the accused. RollandSmoke

2:52pm Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

In many cases its not the case that they are being soft but is down to having their hands tied by the ECHR
In many cases its not the case that they are being soft but is down to having their hands tied by the ECHR G_Firth

4:08pm Wed 26 Feb 14

pcmanners says...

Dear Philip, I live in your constituency, consider myself working class, and normally vote Conservative. However the more you and the rest of the party become blue-rinsed hang-em flog-em caricatures the harder I find it to defend by beliefs.

Yesterday's attempt by Grant Shaps to portray us as the party of choice for aspirational blue collar workers was deeply embarrassing and underlined how out of touch and remote the hierarchy have become. We used to appeal to everybody, now it's just the rich and the extremists.

Given your background I would have hoped you would be putting the leadership's feet on the ground before it's too late, not wasting your time with calls to lock up the judges. It's very sad.
Dear Philip, I live in your constituency, consider myself working class, and normally vote Conservative. However the more you and the rest of the party become blue-rinsed hang-em flog-em caricatures the harder I find it to defend by beliefs. Yesterday's attempt by Grant Shaps to portray us as the party of choice for aspirational blue collar workers was deeply embarrassing and underlined how out of touch and remote the hierarchy have become. We used to appeal to everybody, now it's just the rich and the extremists. Given your background I would have hoped you would be putting the leadership's feet on the ground before it's too late, not wasting your time with calls to lock up the judges. It's very sad. pcmanners

6:32pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Grumpygirl says...

pcmanners wrote:
Dear Philip, I live in your constituency, consider myself working class, and normally vote Conservative. However the more you and the rest of the party become blue-rinsed hang-em flog-em caricatures the harder I find it to defend by beliefs.

Yesterday's attempt by Grant Shaps to portray us as the party of choice for aspirational blue collar workers was deeply embarrassing and underlined how out of touch and remote the hierarchy have become. We used to appeal to everybody, now it's just the rich and the extremists.

Given your background I would have hoped you would be putting the leadership's feet on the ground before it's too late, not wasting your time with calls to lock up the judges. It's very sad.
It's very sad that you have betrayed your class and voted Tory. No wonder you feel let down. These days the Tories are the divisive party of inequality. They laugh at people like you. The days of Churchill, Macmillan and one nation conservatism are long gone. Thatcher saw to that when she abandoned her roots. See sense and vote Labour.
[quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: Dear Philip, I live in your constituency, consider myself working class, and normally vote Conservative. However the more you and the rest of the party become blue-rinsed hang-em flog-em caricatures the harder I find it to defend by beliefs. Yesterday's attempt by Grant Shaps to portray us as the party of choice for aspirational blue collar workers was deeply embarrassing and underlined how out of touch and remote the hierarchy have become. We used to appeal to everybody, now it's just the rich and the extremists. Given your background I would have hoped you would be putting the leadership's feet on the ground before it's too late, not wasting your time with calls to lock up the judges. It's very sad.[/p][/quote]It's very sad that you have betrayed your class and voted Tory. No wonder you feel let down. These days the Tories are the divisive party of inequality. They laugh at people like you. The days of Churchill, Macmillan and one nation conservatism are long gone. Thatcher saw to that when she abandoned her roots. See sense and vote Labour. Grumpygirl

7:11pm Wed 26 Feb 14

BertSanders says...

The Bournemouth supermarket situation seems to support Mr Davies
absolutely. 4 years (out in 2) is not a sufficient punishment for a man who hits a man twice his age. He could not have known he was ill but the sentence was inappropriate. The Judge heard the case and knows all the details (and I do not) but other thugs will know that you can get away with minimum punishment. The Law is an ****, On the other hand the Rigby killers were given an appropriate sentence. and the Judge is realistic and to be applaude.
The Bournemouth supermarket situation seems to support Mr Davies absolutely. 4 years (out in 2) is not a sufficient punishment for a man who hits a man twice his age. He could not have known he was ill but the sentence was inappropriate. The Judge heard the case and knows all the details (and I do not) but other thugs will know that you can get away with minimum punishment. The Law is an ****, On the other hand the Rigby killers were given an appropriate sentence. and the Judge is realistic and to be applaude. BertSanders

7:12pm Wed 26 Feb 14

allinittogether says...

pcmanners wrote:
Dear Philip, I live in your constituency, consider myself working class, and normally vote Conservative. However the more you and the rest of the party become blue-rinsed hang-em flog-em caricatures the harder I find it to defend by beliefs.

Yesterday's attempt by Grant Shaps to portray us as the party of choice for aspirational blue collar workers was deeply embarrassing and underlined how out of touch and remote the hierarchy have become. We used to appeal to everybody, now it's just the rich and the extremists.

Given your background I would have hoped you would be putting the leadership's feet on the ground before it's too late, not wasting your time with calls to lock up the judges. It's very sad.
That would be Philip Davies the non declarer of funds from the gambling industry and the multi aliased Grant Shapps author of get rich quick scheme books?
I suggest you take a long hard look at your tory beliefs.
[quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: Dear Philip, I live in your constituency, consider myself working class, and normally vote Conservative. However the more you and the rest of the party become blue-rinsed hang-em flog-em caricatures the harder I find it to defend by beliefs. Yesterday's attempt by Grant Shaps to portray us as the party of choice for aspirational blue collar workers was deeply embarrassing and underlined how out of touch and remote the hierarchy have become. We used to appeal to everybody, now it's just the rich and the extremists. Given your background I would have hoped you would be putting the leadership's feet on the ground before it's too late, not wasting your time with calls to lock up the judges. It's very sad.[/p][/quote]That would be Philip Davies the non declarer of funds from the gambling industry and the multi aliased Grant Shapps author of get rich quick scheme books? I suggest you take a long hard look at your tory beliefs. allinittogether

8:34pm Wed 26 Feb 14

alive and awake says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
pcmanners wrote:
Dear Philip, I live in your constituency, consider myself working class, and normally vote Conservative. However the more you and the rest of the party become blue-rinsed hang-em flog-em caricatures the harder I find it to defend by beliefs.

Yesterday's attempt by Grant Shaps to portray us as the party of choice for aspirational blue collar workers was deeply embarrassing and underlined how out of touch and remote the hierarchy have become. We used to appeal to everybody, now it's just the rich and the extremists.

Given your background I would have hoped you would be putting the leadership's feet on the ground before it's too late, not wasting your time with calls to lock up the judges. It's very sad.
It's very sad that you have betrayed your class and voted Tory. No wonder you feel let down. These days the Tories are the divisive party of inequality. They laugh at people like you. The days of Churchill, Macmillan and one nation conservatism are long gone. Thatcher saw to that when she abandoned her roots. See sense and vote Labour.
Oh you poor simple soul, to think class as anything to do with right and wrong.
I would be as tough as any breathing person, but do not bring class into it.
To vote Tory is not to betray your class but to have an open mind, and see through all the lies Labour as speeled over the years, I cannot forgive the Rev Flowers for his conduct. Is anyone investigating his role in Bradford Council?
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pcmanners[/bold] wrote: Dear Philip, I live in your constituency, consider myself working class, and normally vote Conservative. However the more you and the rest of the party become blue-rinsed hang-em flog-em caricatures the harder I find it to defend by beliefs. Yesterday's attempt by Grant Shaps to portray us as the party of choice for aspirational blue collar workers was deeply embarrassing and underlined how out of touch and remote the hierarchy have become. We used to appeal to everybody, now it's just the rich and the extremists. Given your background I would have hoped you would be putting the leadership's feet on the ground before it's too late, not wasting your time with calls to lock up the judges. It's very sad.[/p][/quote]It's very sad that you have betrayed your class and voted Tory. No wonder you feel let down. These days the Tories are the divisive party of inequality. They laugh at people like you. The days of Churchill, Macmillan and one nation conservatism are long gone. Thatcher saw to that when she abandoned her roots. See sense and vote Labour.[/p][/quote]Oh you poor simple soul, to think class as anything to do with right and wrong. I would be as tough as any breathing person, but do not bring class into it. To vote Tory is not to betray your class but to have an open mind, and see through all the lies Labour as speeled over the years, I cannot forgive the Rev Flowers for his conduct. Is anyone investigating his role in Bradford Council? alive and awake

8:43pm Wed 26 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

BertSanders wrote:
The Bournemouth supermarket situation seems to support Mr Davies
absolutely. 4 years (out in 2) is not a sufficient punishment for a man who hits a man twice his age. He could not have known he was ill but the sentence was inappropriate. The Judge heard the case and knows all the details (and I do not) but other thugs will know that you can get away with minimum punishment. The Law is an ****, On the other hand the Rigby killers were given an appropriate sentence. and the Judge is realistic and to be applaude.
There are numerous conflicting witness statements and other aspects in the Lee Rigby case that raise my suspicions which I won't go into here but the Judges now have the legal right to imprison people for the rest of their life with no hope of parole. This is not just the people in this case it is whoever they see fit. Davies only wants them to have the right of appeal if they can afford to take the chance of loosing more money if indeed they have anything left after paying court costs for their trial. Outside the court the BNP were demanding the re-instatement of the death penalty. How far do we want to take this?. Now I understand that this was a very emotive case but we mustn't be fooled into thinking with our emotions in order that we agree to changes in law that we may not otherwise have agreed to. The phrase problem reaction solution springs to mind. The principle of beyond all reasonable doubt should always apply. There are a lot of reasonable people who doubt the authenticity of the story we have been told. They are being mocked, ridiculed even demonised but that does not change facts and when there are questions they must be answered. This locking people up and charging them for their legal representation could easily be abused in order to fully exploit the money making potential that would present. couple this with private prisons and you don't need to be a genius to work out where this could lead. Although I'm sure non of our politicians would contemplate anything like that would they?
[quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: The Bournemouth supermarket situation seems to support Mr Davies absolutely. 4 years (out in 2) is not a sufficient punishment for a man who hits a man twice his age. He could not have known he was ill but the sentence was inappropriate. The Judge heard the case and knows all the details (and I do not) but other thugs will know that you can get away with minimum punishment. The Law is an ****, On the other hand the Rigby killers were given an appropriate sentence. and the Judge is realistic and to be applaude.[/p][/quote]There are numerous conflicting witness statements and other aspects in the Lee Rigby case that raise my suspicions which I won't go into here but the Judges now have the legal right to imprison people for the rest of their life with no hope of parole. This is not just the people in this case it is whoever they see fit. Davies only wants them to have the right of appeal if they can afford to take the chance of loosing more money if indeed they have anything left after paying court costs for their trial. Outside the court the BNP were demanding the re-instatement of the death penalty. How far do we want to take this?. Now I understand that this was a very emotive case but we mustn't be fooled into thinking with our emotions in order that we agree to changes in law that we may not otherwise have agreed to. The phrase problem reaction solution springs to mind. The principle of beyond all reasonable doubt should always apply. There are a lot of reasonable people who doubt the authenticity of the story we have been told. They are being mocked, ridiculed even demonised but that does not change facts and when there are questions they must be answered. This locking people up and charging them for their legal representation could easily be abused in order to fully exploit the money making potential that would present. couple this with private prisons and you don't need to be a genius to work out where this could lead. Although I'm sure non of our politicians would contemplate anything like that would they? RollandSmoke

9:39pm Wed 26 Feb 14

BertSanders says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
BertSanders wrote:
The Bournemouth supermarket situation seems to support Mr Davies
absolutely. 4 years (out in 2) is not a sufficient punishment for a man who hits a man twice his age. He could not have known he was ill but the sentence was inappropriate. The Judge heard the case and knows all the details (and I do not) but other thugs will know that you can get away with minimum punishment. The Law is an ****, On the other hand the Rigby killers were given an appropriate sentence. and the Judge is realistic and to be applaude.
There are numerous conflicting witness statements and other aspects in the Lee Rigby case that raise my suspicions which I won't go into here but the Judges now have the legal right to imprison people for the rest of their life with no hope of parole. This is not just the people in this case it is whoever they see fit. Davies only wants them to have the right of appeal if they can afford to take the chance of loosing more money if indeed they have anything left after paying court costs for their trial. Outside the court the BNP were demanding the re-instatement of the death penalty. How far do we want to take this?. Now I understand that this was a very emotive case but we mustn't be fooled into thinking with our emotions in order that we agree to changes in law that we may not otherwise have agreed to. The phrase problem reaction solution springs to mind. The principle of beyond all reasonable doubt should always apply. There are a lot of reasonable people who doubt the authenticity of the story we have been told. They are being mocked, ridiculed even demonised but that does not change facts and when there are questions they must be answered. This locking people up and charging them for their legal representation could easily be abused in order to fully exploit the money making potential that would present. couple this with private prisons and you don't need to be a genius to work out where this could lead. Although I'm sure non of our politicians would contemplate anything like that would they?
You seem extremely reluctant to accept that these men were tried in a Court of Law. I can accept that in this country, and am satisfied that it was impartial. Lee Rigby was murdered because he was a soldier and serving his Country. as directed.
How the Government may change the Law is a matter for Parliament - and Mr Davies is an elected member and will have his say. I do not doubt the story at all - the perpetrators wanted the publicity of TV.
I think the sentence was correct and that will continue to be the case - they can I presume appeal. You give the impression that this is a financially corrupt country - it may not be perfect but we all have the choice of leaving - we are free to move throughout Europe for starters..
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: The Bournemouth supermarket situation seems to support Mr Davies absolutely. 4 years (out in 2) is not a sufficient punishment for a man who hits a man twice his age. He could not have known he was ill but the sentence was inappropriate. The Judge heard the case and knows all the details (and I do not) but other thugs will know that you can get away with minimum punishment. The Law is an ****, On the other hand the Rigby killers were given an appropriate sentence. and the Judge is realistic and to be applaude.[/p][/quote]There are numerous conflicting witness statements and other aspects in the Lee Rigby case that raise my suspicions which I won't go into here but the Judges now have the legal right to imprison people for the rest of their life with no hope of parole. This is not just the people in this case it is whoever they see fit. Davies only wants them to have the right of appeal if they can afford to take the chance of loosing more money if indeed they have anything left after paying court costs for their trial. Outside the court the BNP were demanding the re-instatement of the death penalty. How far do we want to take this?. Now I understand that this was a very emotive case but we mustn't be fooled into thinking with our emotions in order that we agree to changes in law that we may not otherwise have agreed to. The phrase problem reaction solution springs to mind. The principle of beyond all reasonable doubt should always apply. There are a lot of reasonable people who doubt the authenticity of the story we have been told. They are being mocked, ridiculed even demonised but that does not change facts and when there are questions they must be answered. This locking people up and charging them for their legal representation could easily be abused in order to fully exploit the money making potential that would present. couple this with private prisons and you don't need to be a genius to work out where this could lead. Although I'm sure non of our politicians would contemplate anything like that would they?[/p][/quote]You seem extremely reluctant to accept that these men were tried in a Court of Law. I can accept that in this country, and am satisfied that it was impartial. Lee Rigby was murdered because he was a soldier and serving his Country. as directed. How the Government may change the Law is a matter for Parliament - and Mr Davies is an elected member and will have his say. I do not doubt the story at all - the perpetrators wanted the publicity of TV. I think the sentence was correct and that will continue to be the case - they can I presume appeal. You give the impression that this is a financially corrupt country - it may not be perfect but we all have the choice of leaving - we are free to move throughout Europe for starters.. BertSanders

10:39pm Wed 26 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

BertSanders wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
BertSanders wrote:
The Bournemouth supermarket situation seems to support Mr Davies
absolutely. 4 years (out in 2) is not a sufficient punishment for a man who hits a man twice his age. He could not have known he was ill but the sentence was inappropriate. The Judge heard the case and knows all the details (and I do not) but other thugs will know that you can get away with minimum punishment. The Law is an ****, On the other hand the Rigby killers were given an appropriate sentence. and the Judge is realistic and to be applaude.
There are numerous conflicting witness statements and other aspects in the Lee Rigby case that raise my suspicions which I won't go into here but the Judges now have the legal right to imprison people for the rest of their life with no hope of parole. This is not just the people in this case it is whoever they see fit. Davies only wants them to have the right of appeal if they can afford to take the chance of loosing more money if indeed they have anything left after paying court costs for their trial. Outside the court the BNP were demanding the re-instatement of the death penalty. How far do we want to take this?. Now I understand that this was a very emotive case but we mustn't be fooled into thinking with our emotions in order that we agree to changes in law that we may not otherwise have agreed to. The phrase problem reaction solution springs to mind. The principle of beyond all reasonable doubt should always apply. There are a lot of reasonable people who doubt the authenticity of the story we have been told. They are being mocked, ridiculed even demonised but that does not change facts and when there are questions they must be answered. This locking people up and charging them for their legal representation could easily be abused in order to fully exploit the money making potential that would present. couple this with private prisons and you don't need to be a genius to work out where this could lead. Although I'm sure non of our politicians would contemplate anything like that would they?
You seem extremely reluctant to accept that these men were tried in a Court of Law. I can accept that in this country, and am satisfied that it was impartial. Lee Rigby was murdered because he was a soldier and serving his Country. as directed.
How the Government may change the Law is a matter for Parliament - and Mr Davies is an elected member and will have his say. I do not doubt the story at all - the perpetrators wanted the publicity of TV.
I think the sentence was correct and that will continue to be the case - they can I presume appeal. You give the impression that this is a financially corrupt country - it may not be perfect but we all have the choice of leaving - we are free to move throughout Europe for starters..
"Ohhhhh myyyy God!!!! I just see a man with his head chopped off right in front of my eyes!" — Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013.
Confusing then how that squares with this statement?
“The Lady told me he was dead and it was suprising because he didn’t look injured to me. I could see his head, it was covered with his jacket, but he looked alright to me.” Ingrid Loyau-Kennett ITV Daybreak 20 December 2013
If you look at the various "witness statements" then how can Ingrid be saying "he looked alright to me"? After the trial of course.
[quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: The Bournemouth supermarket situation seems to support Mr Davies absolutely. 4 years (out in 2) is not a sufficient punishment for a man who hits a man twice his age. He could not have known he was ill but the sentence was inappropriate. The Judge heard the case and knows all the details (and I do not) but other thugs will know that you can get away with minimum punishment. The Law is an ****, On the other hand the Rigby killers were given an appropriate sentence. and the Judge is realistic and to be applaude.[/p][/quote]There are numerous conflicting witness statements and other aspects in the Lee Rigby case that raise my suspicions which I won't go into here but the Judges now have the legal right to imprison people for the rest of their life with no hope of parole. This is not just the people in this case it is whoever they see fit. Davies only wants them to have the right of appeal if they can afford to take the chance of loosing more money if indeed they have anything left after paying court costs for their trial. Outside the court the BNP were demanding the re-instatement of the death penalty. How far do we want to take this?. Now I understand that this was a very emotive case but we mustn't be fooled into thinking with our emotions in order that we agree to changes in law that we may not otherwise have agreed to. The phrase problem reaction solution springs to mind. The principle of beyond all reasonable doubt should always apply. There are a lot of reasonable people who doubt the authenticity of the story we have been told. They are being mocked, ridiculed even demonised but that does not change facts and when there are questions they must be answered. This locking people up and charging them for their legal representation could easily be abused in order to fully exploit the money making potential that would present. couple this with private prisons and you don't need to be a genius to work out where this could lead. Although I'm sure non of our politicians would contemplate anything like that would they?[/p][/quote]You seem extremely reluctant to accept that these men were tried in a Court of Law. I can accept that in this country, and am satisfied that it was impartial. Lee Rigby was murdered because he was a soldier and serving his Country. as directed. How the Government may change the Law is a matter for Parliament - and Mr Davies is an elected member and will have his say. I do not doubt the story at all - the perpetrators wanted the publicity of TV. I think the sentence was correct and that will continue to be the case - they can I presume appeal. You give the impression that this is a financially corrupt country - it may not be perfect but we all have the choice of leaving - we are free to move throughout Europe for starters..[/p][/quote]"Ohhhhh myyyy God!!!! I just see a man with his head chopped off right in front of my eyes!" — Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013. Confusing then how that squares with this statement? “The Lady told me he was dead and it was suprising because he didn’t look injured to me. I could see his head, it was covered with his jacket, but he looked alright to me.” Ingrid Loyau-Kennett ITV Daybreak 20 December 2013 If you look at the various "witness statements" then how can Ingrid be saying "he looked alright to me"? After the trial of course. RollandSmoke

8:22am Thu 27 Feb 14

BertSanders says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
BertSanders wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
BertSanders wrote:
The Bournemouth supermarket situation seems to support Mr Davies
absolutely. 4 years (out in 2) is not a sufficient punishment for a man who hits a man twice his age. He could not have known he was ill but the sentence was inappropriate. The Judge heard the case and knows all the details (and I do not) but other thugs will know that you can get away with minimum punishment. The Law is an ****, On the other hand the Rigby killers were given an appropriate sentence. and the Judge is realistic and to be applaude.
There are numerous conflicting witness statements and other aspects in the Lee Rigby case that raise my suspicions which I won't go into here but the Judges now have the legal right to imprison people for the rest of their life with no hope of parole. This is not just the people in this case it is whoever they see fit. Davies only wants them to have the right of appeal if they can afford to take the chance of loosing more money if indeed they have anything left after paying court costs for their trial. Outside the court the BNP were demanding the re-instatement of the death penalty. How far do we want to take this?. Now I understand that this was a very emotive case but we mustn't be fooled into thinking with our emotions in order that we agree to changes in law that we may not otherwise have agreed to. The phrase problem reaction solution springs to mind. The principle of beyond all reasonable doubt should always apply. There are a lot of reasonable people who doubt the authenticity of the story we have been told. They are being mocked, ridiculed even demonised but that does not change facts and when there are questions they must be answered. This locking people up and charging them for their legal representation could easily be abused in order to fully exploit the money making potential that would present. couple this with private prisons and you don't need to be a genius to work out where this could lead. Although I'm sure non of our politicians would contemplate anything like that would they?
You seem extremely reluctant to accept that these men were tried in a Court of Law. I can accept that in this country, and am satisfied that it was impartial. Lee Rigby was murdered because he was a soldier and serving his Country. as directed.
How the Government may change the Law is a matter for Parliament - and Mr Davies is an elected member and will have his say. I do not doubt the story at all - the perpetrators wanted the publicity of TV.
I think the sentence was correct and that will continue to be the case - they can I presume appeal. You give the impression that this is a financially corrupt country - it may not be perfect but we all have the choice of leaving - we are free to move throughout Europe for starters..
"Ohhhhh myyyy God!!!! I just see a man with his head chopped off right in front of my eyes!" — Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013.
Confusing then how that squares with this statement?
“The Lady told me he was dead and it was suprising because he didn’t look injured to me. I could see his head, it was covered with his jacket, but he looked alright to me.” Ingrid Loyau-Kennett ITV Daybreak 20 December 2013
If you look at the various "witness statements" then how can Ingrid be saying "he looked alright to me"? After the trial of course.
Defending the indefensible - nonsense!!
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: The Bournemouth supermarket situation seems to support Mr Davies absolutely. 4 years (out in 2) is not a sufficient punishment for a man who hits a man twice his age. He could not have known he was ill but the sentence was inappropriate. The Judge heard the case and knows all the details (and I do not) but other thugs will know that you can get away with minimum punishment. The Law is an ****, On the other hand the Rigby killers were given an appropriate sentence. and the Judge is realistic and to be applaude.[/p][/quote]There are numerous conflicting witness statements and other aspects in the Lee Rigby case that raise my suspicions which I won't go into here but the Judges now have the legal right to imprison people for the rest of their life with no hope of parole. This is not just the people in this case it is whoever they see fit. Davies only wants them to have the right of appeal if they can afford to take the chance of loosing more money if indeed they have anything left after paying court costs for their trial. Outside the court the BNP were demanding the re-instatement of the death penalty. How far do we want to take this?. Now I understand that this was a very emotive case but we mustn't be fooled into thinking with our emotions in order that we agree to changes in law that we may not otherwise have agreed to. The phrase problem reaction solution springs to mind. The principle of beyond all reasonable doubt should always apply. There are a lot of reasonable people who doubt the authenticity of the story we have been told. They are being mocked, ridiculed even demonised but that does not change facts and when there are questions they must be answered. This locking people up and charging them for their legal representation could easily be abused in order to fully exploit the money making potential that would present. couple this with private prisons and you don't need to be a genius to work out where this could lead. Although I'm sure non of our politicians would contemplate anything like that would they?[/p][/quote]You seem extremely reluctant to accept that these men were tried in a Court of Law. I can accept that in this country, and am satisfied that it was impartial. Lee Rigby was murdered because he was a soldier and serving his Country. as directed. How the Government may change the Law is a matter for Parliament - and Mr Davies is an elected member and will have his say. I do not doubt the story at all - the perpetrators wanted the publicity of TV. I think the sentence was correct and that will continue to be the case - they can I presume appeal. You give the impression that this is a financially corrupt country - it may not be perfect but we all have the choice of leaving - we are free to move throughout Europe for starters..[/p][/quote]"Ohhhhh myyyy God!!!! I just see a man with his head chopped off right in front of my eyes!" — Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013. Confusing then how that squares with this statement? “The Lady told me he was dead and it was suprising because he didn’t look injured to me. I could see his head, it was covered with his jacket, but he looked alright to me.” Ingrid Loyau-Kennett ITV Daybreak 20 December 2013 If you look at the various "witness statements" then how can Ingrid be saying "he looked alright to me"? After the trial of course.[/p][/quote]Defending the indefensible - nonsense!! BertSanders

3:32pm Thu 27 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

BertSanders wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
BertSanders wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
BertSanders wrote:
The Bournemouth supermarket situation seems to support Mr Davies
absolutely. 4 years (out in 2) is not a sufficient punishment for a man who hits a man twice his age. He could not have known he was ill but the sentence was inappropriate. The Judge heard the case and knows all the details (and I do not) but other thugs will know that you can get away with minimum punishment. The Law is an ****, On the other hand the Rigby killers were given an appropriate sentence. and the Judge is realistic and to be applaude.
There are numerous conflicting witness statements and other aspects in the Lee Rigby case that raise my suspicions which I won't go into here but the Judges now have the legal right to imprison people for the rest of their life with no hope of parole. This is not just the people in this case it is whoever they see fit. Davies only wants them to have the right of appeal if they can afford to take the chance of loosing more money if indeed they have anything left after paying court costs for their trial. Outside the court the BNP were demanding the re-instatement of the death penalty. How far do we want to take this?. Now I understand that this was a very emotive case but we mustn't be fooled into thinking with our emotions in order that we agree to changes in law that we may not otherwise have agreed to. The phrase problem reaction solution springs to mind. The principle of beyond all reasonable doubt should always apply. There are a lot of reasonable people who doubt the authenticity of the story we have been told. They are being mocked, ridiculed even demonised but that does not change facts and when there are questions they must be answered. This locking people up and charging them for their legal representation could easily be abused in order to fully exploit the money making potential that would present. couple this with private prisons and you don't need to be a genius to work out where this could lead. Although I'm sure non of our politicians would contemplate anything like that would they?
You seem extremely reluctant to accept that these men were tried in a Court of Law. I can accept that in this country, and am satisfied that it was impartial. Lee Rigby was murdered because he was a soldier and serving his Country. as directed.
How the Government may change the Law is a matter for Parliament - and Mr Davies is an elected member and will have his say. I do not doubt the story at all - the perpetrators wanted the publicity of TV.
I think the sentence was correct and that will continue to be the case - they can I presume appeal. You give the impression that this is a financially corrupt country - it may not be perfect but we all have the choice of leaving - we are free to move throughout Europe for starters..
"Ohhhhh myyyy God!!!! I just see a man with his head chopped off right in front of my eyes!" — Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013.
Confusing then how that squares with this statement?
“The Lady told me he was dead and it was suprising because he didn’t look injured to me. I could see his head, it was covered with his jacket, but he looked alright to me.” Ingrid Loyau-Kennett ITV Daybreak 20 December 2013
If you look at the various "witness statements" then how can Ingrid be saying "he looked alright to me"? After the trial of course.
Defending the indefensible - nonsense!!
I could literally go on all day about the problems with the story we have been told. It was a pantomime, a hoax, but obviously I would be wasting my time as you have absolute trust in the government and their media mouthpieces. Good luck with that.
[quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BertSanders[/bold] wrote: The Bournemouth supermarket situation seems to support Mr Davies absolutely. 4 years (out in 2) is not a sufficient punishment for a man who hits a man twice his age. He could not have known he was ill but the sentence was inappropriate. The Judge heard the case and knows all the details (and I do not) but other thugs will know that you can get away with minimum punishment. The Law is an ****, On the other hand the Rigby killers were given an appropriate sentence. and the Judge is realistic and to be applaude.[/p][/quote]There are numerous conflicting witness statements and other aspects in the Lee Rigby case that raise my suspicions which I won't go into here but the Judges now have the legal right to imprison people for the rest of their life with no hope of parole. This is not just the people in this case it is whoever they see fit. Davies only wants them to have the right of appeal if they can afford to take the chance of loosing more money if indeed they have anything left after paying court costs for their trial. Outside the court the BNP were demanding the re-instatement of the death penalty. How far do we want to take this?. Now I understand that this was a very emotive case but we mustn't be fooled into thinking with our emotions in order that we agree to changes in law that we may not otherwise have agreed to. The phrase problem reaction solution springs to mind. The principle of beyond all reasonable doubt should always apply. There are a lot of reasonable people who doubt the authenticity of the story we have been told. They are being mocked, ridiculed even demonised but that does not change facts and when there are questions they must be answered. This locking people up and charging them for their legal representation could easily be abused in order to fully exploit the money making potential that would present. couple this with private prisons and you don't need to be a genius to work out where this could lead. Although I'm sure non of our politicians would contemplate anything like that would they?[/p][/quote]You seem extremely reluctant to accept that these men were tried in a Court of Law. I can accept that in this country, and am satisfied that it was impartial. Lee Rigby was murdered because he was a soldier and serving his Country. as directed. How the Government may change the Law is a matter for Parliament - and Mr Davies is an elected member and will have his say. I do not doubt the story at all - the perpetrators wanted the publicity of TV. I think the sentence was correct and that will continue to be the case - they can I presume appeal. You give the impression that this is a financially corrupt country - it may not be perfect but we all have the choice of leaving - we are free to move throughout Europe for starters..[/p][/quote]"Ohhhhh myyyy God!!!! I just see a man with his head chopped off right in front of my eyes!" — Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013. Confusing then how that squares with this statement? “The Lady told me he was dead and it was suprising because he didn’t look injured to me. I could see his head, it was covered with his jacket, but he looked alright to me.” Ingrid Loyau-Kennett ITV Daybreak 20 December 2013 If you look at the various "witness statements" then how can Ingrid be saying "he looked alright to me"? After the trial of course.[/p][/quote]Defending the indefensible - nonsense!![/p][/quote]I could literally go on all day about the problems with the story we have been told. It was a pantomime, a hoax, but obviously I would be wasting my time as you have absolute trust in the government and their media mouthpieces. Good luck with that. RollandSmoke

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree