Insane Legislation

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:25 am

From The Sunday Herald

WHAT do you give someone whoÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s been proved innocent after spending the best part of their life behind bars, wrongfully convicted of a crime they didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t commit?

An apology, maybe? Counselling? Champagne? Compensation? Well, if youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re David Blunkett, the Labour Home Secretary, the choice is simple: you give them a big, fat bill for the cost of board and lodgings for the time they spent freeloading at Her MajestyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s Pleasure in British prisons.

On Tuesday, Blunkett will fight in the Royal Courts of Justice in London for the right to charge victims of miscarriages of justice more than Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£3000 for every year they spent in jail while wrongly convicted. The logic is that the innocent man shouldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have been in prison eating free porridge and sleeping for nothing under regulation grey blankets.

Feel free to post other absurd legislation [whether proposed or actual law].

Oh...

And Discuss!

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:02 pm

Some guy in Canada got like 10 million $ after spending 11 years in prison I think.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:29 pm

I think this could be used to stop prisoners from claiming there innocence so the WHEELS OF JUSTICE ARE WELL OILED WITH THE BLOOD OF A THOUSAND CORPSES

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:55 pm

See, it's like I've been saying all along: Britain is a nation ruled by madmen. They also have WMDs.

ExtremeDrinker · Post by **ExtremeDrinker** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 10:23 pm

I've got a stupid law...Here in Oklahoma, it's illegal to hunt whales from the coast.

There is no coast in Oklahoma....We're a very much inland state..

Viktor · Post by **Viktor** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:53 am

Doyle wrote:See, it's like I've been saying all along: Britain is a nation ruled by madmen. They also have WMDs.

Yes! Fear our Mad Cow Bombs!

Seriously, Blunkett has been pushing for new "anti-terror" laws where suspects can be tried by "special" courts which don't have juries made up from the general public and since any "evidence" presented might give away operational security details, he wants only the judge to see it! A fair trial in open court with a jury of your peers? Not in Britain for much longer!

Somebody needs to give this Stalinist motherfucker's guide dog a handful of Es so it drags him into the road and under a London bus before he helps Big Brother Blair put the finishing touches on his Orwellian nightmare!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 2:02 am

Heh. "Miscarriage of justice". That's cute.

Mr Carrot · Post by **Mr Carrot** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 2:06 am

The whole point is that people who are clearly guilty but are released by the new generation of crack pot femenist anti establishment muslim judges cant sue for 10987987 billion pounds.

They arnt going to charge everyone who gets falsy imprisoned.

I do think a better law is to just take the expenses for the legal fees and prison stay from the criminals belongings.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 6:13 am

Mr Carrot wrote:The whole point is that people who are clearly guilty but are released by the new generation of crack pot femenist anti establishment muslim judges cant sue for 10987987 billion pounds.

Right now I'm wondering if your grasp of reality in general is as impaired as your grasp on WWII tank production.

Thinking back to your arguments that the "phoney war" let the Germans produce "600 - 1,000" PzKpfw IIIs that "could actually do something to French tanks" -- i.e. 50mm gun-armed -- and now reading the above statement I'm inclined to think that it is.

Carrot, I'm thinkin' you need to repeat after me:

Suicide is painless,
it brings on many changes...

Everybody sing along!!!

Mr Carrot wrote:They arnt going to charge everyone who gets falsy imprisoned.

How 'bout I sign a law into effect that says that I get to butt-fuck anyone that goes by a name that has a vegetable component. Oh, don't worry, I won't butt-fuck everyone in that category, just the ones that deserve it...

OTB

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:07 am

It's only reasonable to pay compensations to those who've been sat in the jail for no reason. It's only justice, /me thinks. It's the size/amount of compensating that gives me the bugger. Maybe pay the guy like the minimum wages of his profession from that time he was in jail minus the expenses he caused to the prison and therefore to the society? I think that's what they do here in F, though I only know a very few cases of "innocent in jails".

As a side note: most often (in here at least) it's some kind of a stupid administration error, some evidence getting stuck in the gear of bureaucracy etc. and that costs let's say 5 years of an innocent man's life. I don't think it's too much to pay him back for those lost 5 years.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:11 am

I think you need to reread the post, Kashluk. It's not about compensating them, it's about charging them money for their incarceration.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:16 am

Ah, fuck. That's what you get when you're too tired and try to read News reports in foreign language... Bleh, in that case, I whole-heartedly agree with you dudes.

ExtremeDrinker · Post by **ExtremeDrinker** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:18 am

I think a lot of people mis-read the post...

I don't think it's right to bill people who were imprisoned and not-guilty. I mean come on..They deal with rape, beatings, rape, rape, and rape.

Seriously, though....Sending someone to prison is not like sending someone to a hotel for 10 years...It's sending them to hell. What little time I spent in jail, I can tell you that it sucks a lot. If someone gets sent to jail, it's not like they want to be there, so making them pay for what they used/ate while in jail is just idiotic. It's not a vacation on the state's budget..It's a really shitty nightmare that's the state's fault.

Mr Carrot · Post by **Mr Carrot** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 3:43 pm

Ignoring the fact i was quite drunk whilst posting the above message,

The French at the start of WW2 has a cavalry tank advantage as well as a general strategic advantage. The Phoney War allowed the Germans to produce a number of upgunned models of the PII and III and apply the tactical doctrines they learnt in Poland. The PII and PI could not penetrate the armour of the Char B or the British infantry support tanks, FrancForce and the 4thDCR show how bad the general German infantry anti tank weapons and German early model tank guns were at knocking out the Allied tanks.

As for my comments of course im exagerating the cost of trials but if you actually lived in the current lunacy of a legal system that is the UK you'd understand my point. Just as Blunkett is removed from reality so are the human rights judges and the European Bill of Human rights. And again like most of Blunkett's laws they are to be used with discression such as his "on the spot fines" scheme, its just another threat he likes to band about.

If i recall his reasoning behind it was aimed at yobs and thugs who despite a lengthy history of crime get let out due to legal loop holes, and to counteract over the top amounts of compensation. Blunkett is trying to force the issue due to him wanting to protect his new legislation. It just seems to have been cruely unleashed on the Birmingham 6 as opposed to the drug dealers and scum it was meant to go after.

Mr Carrot · Post by **Mr Carrot** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 3:58 pm

Some actual figures, between Sept. 1939-July 1940 the Germans Produced 435 PzKpfw III Ausf. F, 50 PzKpfw III Ausf. G, 100-150 PanzerjÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¤ger I and 229 PzKpfw IV Ausf. D (from On-War and Tanknet) +numerous other types with higher velocity tank guns then 20mm.

All these tanks posessed weapons capable of penetrating the side and rear armour of the allied tanks (and in the case of the PzKpfw IV Ausf. D the frontal armour), thus the Germans added a thousand+ plus capable tanks to the several hundred they already had.

As opposed to December 1939 where they had several thousand panzer I and IIs and just a few hundred early model IVs and IIIs.

British war (tanks in particular) production didnt really kick in until May 1940, when it was pretty much over before it had begun for the land war in France.

However the massive advantage the Allies enjoyed in the west whilst the Whermacht transited to defensive positions opposite the Maginot line in late 1939 was not exploited. Even without the creation of the French armoured divisions the massive air and artillary superiority the Allies enjoyed would have enabled a damaging if not succesful assault on the German industrial concentration in the Rhur. Whilst the critical German AA and ground attack assets were tied up on the other side of the continent.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 2:54 am

what the fuck.

This is a thread about stupid law, seriously, this tank discussion could take place in a tank thread?

Thanks a lot.

Mr Carrot · Post by **Mr Carrot** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 3:13 am

Well OTB decided to bring up a year and half old drunken tank banter, my point still stands, the law actually has some quite good uses at striking at people who get let off for no good reason (just as people sue for being caught on CCTV commiting a crime get let off AND win compensation in the UK), however the Birmingham 6 dont deserve this as their compensation doesnt fit the length of their incarceration (for once).