Police Harassment

[BrilloPad]

So, this shows that the system works in a way that innocents are given justice in the end - do you really think that if there were like zero cases of such appeals then it would mean the system is good? I actually think in Russia such appleals have zero chance - which does not mean innocents there are not convicted, quiet the opposite actually.

And finally - for the last time, you are confusing issues with "just" decisions or corrupt practices with issue of "independence" of courts.

UK courts are independent of the Govt, period.

UK courts in principle are pretty damn good when it comes to just decisions, this does not mean they are perfect.

UK courts in principle are pretty good when it comes to low level of corruption - this is because the system is pretty well oiled and odd decisions will be given chance at appeals so any seriously corrupt decision can be overturned.

Yet again, don't confuse all sort of issues with the independence of courts - Gordon Brown can't pick up the phone to call relevant judge and tell him to convict opposition figure despite lack of evidence - in Kremlin they can and do so all the time, well, they did enough so that courts know what decisions to make now.

So, in your opinion we are better than Russia? I dont think many here can comment on Russia.

Lets say we are. Does that make it a good system?

I repeat, I hope you never get divorced in the UK...

[AtW]

Does that make it a good system?

Yes it does make a pretty damn good system.

I repeat, I hope you never get divorced in the UK...

And why you blame courts for being LEGALLY REQUIRED to apply laws passed by the Parliament? It's a very bad divorce law and the judges can't exactly judge by ignoring laws simply because they think it would be right to do so?

You guys simply don't understand what courts independence is because you never came across with non-independent courts, so since you have no clue you start extending your own view on injustices that may have happened to say the courts ain't independent.

Courts in the UK are independent of Govt, police and CPS - end of story. That's the main thing in any legal system.

[BrilloPad]

And why you blame courts for being LEGALLY REQUIRED to apply laws passed by the Parliament?

Well judges are not elected. governments are. at least people get some sort of say every 5 years. even if their policies are almost identical.

[AtW]

Well judges are not elected. governments are. at least people get some sort of say every 5 years. even if their policies are almost identical.

What elections of the judges have got to do with the independence of the judicial branch?

In Russia the "Parliament" is elected, do you think this makes them independent? No - they are puppets of the executive branch, just like the judicial branch.

It's easy to see from decisions being made against the other branches - if you see that court cases against Govt always fail then you can be damn sure the courts are not independent.

In the UK a lot of cases go against Govt - judges critisise Govt often in their decisions, very harshly and very directly, yet those judges don't get killed or fired (as a rule) - that's why UK courts are independent.

As for miscarriages of justice and bad laws, then sure - I agree this exists here too, however on a much smaller scale and insofar as divorces are concerned that's the issue of laws, not courts - judges don't write laws, take your issues with unfair divorce settlements with the legislative branch, not judicial.

[BrilloPad]

insofar as divorces are concerned that's the issue of laws, not courts - judges don't write laws, take your issues with unfair divorce settlements with the legislative branch, not judicial.

You gave quite a long post - I do wish you would keep to the point.

Do you understand the mechanics of divorce? There are 3 strands - the divorce, financial and child.

Lets stick to the child bit if that is ok? The 1989/1996 Children Act contains everything that f4j wants - but has not been implemented - who do you think I should take that up with?

[AtW]

Lets stick to the child bit if that is ok? The 1989/1996 Children Act contains everything that f4j wants - but has not been implemented - who do you think I should take that up with?

There are probably other laws that have to be taken into account - it is rare when one single law gives complete 100% clear path - there are always possible to have overrides (like Human Rights Act), I am pretty sure that the courts are making decisions on the basis of available laws or practice not because they are somehow against F4J.

Divorce laws in this country are sure carp, but this needs to be solved by the Parliament.

[SueEllen]

There are probably other laws that have to be taken into account - it is rare when one single law gives complete 100% clear path - there are always possible to have overrides (like Human Rights Act), I am pretty sure that the courts are making decisions on the basis of available laws or practice not because they are somehow against F4J.

Divorce laws in this country are sure carp, but this needs to be solved by the Parliament.

The laws are pretty well written they just need to be applied so they actually do take the child's welfare into account that way you won't get cases like Molly Campbell/Misbah Iram Ahmed Rana.

[sappatz]

Welcome to UK police state.

[Platypus]

Courts in the UK are independent of Govt, police and CPS - end of story. That's the main thing in any legal system.

er...

Geoff [Monks] has now been released from the High Security Prison at Woodhill after spending 8 weeks being banged up [as was promised would happen by an involved magistrate months before the application was heard] when he applied to have his innapropriate fine reviewed.

Geoff Monks was refused his basic visiting or telephone rights in HMP Woodhill an innocent victim of corruption at a dangerously high level in our community.

Mr Monks was told 5 months before his court appearance that he would be going down and indeed on standing in court was unable to present any evidence to defend himself before being sent down.

We have just heard [11.04.2005] that the Magistrate Mr John Hill who had sat on both of Mr Monks ‘trials’ and who was recorded of promising that we are going to jail him some months before the hearing, and indeed some months before he had even read the application, in a competitors pub to all that would listen has been ‘removed from the bench’. We will report when all is clearer put it seems this happened some while after his pronouncments were aired in Private-Eye and cited in the Landmark Crown Court abuse trial.

[AtW]

er...

And this exactly how relates to independence of UK courts from the executive and legislative branches?