|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 28, 2024 18:34:03 GMT
So pointing out that a law is subjective and open to abuse then refuting your claim that using a jury will make everything ok means I agree with sharia law ? That’s about as dishonest an argument as you can get. You are claiming that the UK courts system can make a poor subjective law , open to abuse ,a good law. Your argument refutes itself . No wonder you stoop to this level of debate. This makes no sense. The legal system used in the UK and elsewhere was devised in the Middle Ages. You dont support it. Sharia law does not use the jury system. I suggest you would be happier with that system of jurisprudence. Of course it does . No legal system can’t make a poor law a good one. You are just posting waffle now. I suggest you stop making up straw men arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Feb 28, 2024 19:00:51 GMT
Just for clarification:-
All cases referred to the CPS by the police which have been identified as racially and/or religiously aggravated, should be flagged immediately on Compass CMS using the appropriate case monitoring codes. Similarly, if the receiving CPS lawyer perceives that the case involves an element of hostility towards disability, the appropriate monitoring code should be added on CMS. The decision to flag can be taken at almost any stage of the process; if not already flagged by the investigating officer, it might be flagged by the reviewing prosecutor, at review stage even up to and including the trial. It is best practice to flag as soon as possible in order to ensure the correct support is made available to the victim and facilitate a proactive investigation of the evidence.
The CPS uses definitions agreed with the National Police Chiefs' Council to identify racist or religious incidents/crimes and to monitor the decisions and outcomes:
"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race"
or
"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's religion or perceived religion."
Flagging is a subjective question. Flagging a case puts the CPS on notice that someone at some stage has perceived the incident that gave rise to the case had such an element of racial or religious hostility or prejudice to it. For a conviction to receive enhanced sentencing in court the police need to provide sufficient evidence to prove the hostility element, however this is not required for flagging purposes. Therefore, whilst not all flagged cases will result in specific racially or religiously aggravated charges or an application for an uplift of sentence under s.66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 [‘s.66 SA 2020’] (which applies to all convictions on or after 1st December 2020), they should still be flagged on CMS.
It is not CPS policy to remove a flag in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a sentence uplift. This in part reflects the commitment to treat hate crime seriously and to support the victim's perception and also to encourage community confidence in reporting all such offending. However, if a flag has been attached to a file due to an administrative error, it will be removed, to support increased data accuracy. Removal of a flag can have serious consequences and advice should be sought from a hate crime specialist or a senior manager before removal.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't support either the flagging or the law in the way it is drafted. I don't support the law because the measure of demonstrating hostility ignores the subjective motive. That is to say that individuals may be labelled as having committed a racially aggravated crime when the motive for the offence has nothing to do with racial etc. prejudice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 28, 2024 19:02:37 GMT
Just for clarification:-
All cases referred to the CPS by the police which have been identified as racially and/or religiously aggravated, should be flagged immediately on Compass CMS using the appropriate case monitoring codes. Similarly, if the receiving CPS lawyer perceives that the case involves an element of hostility towards disability, the appropriate monitoring code should be added on CMS. The decision to flag can be taken at almost any stage of the process; if not already flagged by the investigating officer, it might be flagged by the reviewing prosecutor, at review stage even up to and including the trial. It is best practice to flag as soon as possible in order to ensure the correct support is made available to the victim and facilitate a proactive investigation of the evidence.
The CPS uses definitions agreed with the National Police Chiefs' Council to identify racist or religious incidents/crimes and to monitor the decisions and outcomes:
"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race"
or
"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's religion or perceived religion."
Flagging is a subjective question. Flagging a case puts the CPS on notice that someone at some stage has perceived the incident that gave rise to the case had such an element of racial or religious hostility or prejudice to it. For a conviction to receive enhanced sentencing in court the police need to provide sufficient evidence to prove the hostility element, however this is not required for flagging purposes. Therefore, whilst not all flagged cases will result in specific racially or religiously aggravated charges or an application for an uplift of sentence under s.66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 [‘s.66 SA 2020’] (which applies to all convictions on or after 1st December 2020), they should still be flagged on CMS.
It is not CPS policy to remove a flag in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a sentence uplift. This in part reflects the commitment to treat hate crime seriously and to support the victim's perception and also to encourage community confidence in reporting all such offending. However, if a flag has been attached to a file due to an administrative error, it will be removed, to support increased data accuracy. Removal of a flag can have serious consequences and advice should be sought from a hate crime specialist or a senior manager before removal.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't support either the flagging or the law in the way it is drafted. I don't support the law because the measure of demonstrating hostility ignores the subjective motive. That is to say that individuals may be labelled as having committed a racially aggravated crime when the motive for the offence has nothing to do with racial etc. prejudice.
Exactly. |
|
ginnyg2
Full Member
Don't blame me - I voted for someone else.
Posts: 410
Member is Online
|
Post by ginnyg2 on Feb 29, 2024 8:46:19 GMT
You obviously don't follow the news. Clearly not. You had better tell me what other ways Muslims are trying to take over the UK. Dont keep me waiting too long. I have to make a tin hat. You must be confusing me with someone else. I never wrote that Muslims were trying to take over the UK. From the post you are referring to: " Because like the Marxists, they have found other ways to get what they want." |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 1, 2024 9:15:33 GMT
So the search for proof of events doesnt exist in your grasp of how courts work? You should watch more detective programmes. The events might well be uncontroversial. However, the crime isn't defined primarily in terms of events, but rather the feelings of the 'victim'. Pudding brain law Both sides have "feelings". Cases are decided on facts and juries are instructed to consider facts. Any person found guilty can appeal. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 1, 2024 9:18:05 GMT
This makes no sense. The legal system used in the UK and elsewhere was devised in the Middle Ages. You dont support it. Sharia law does not use the jury system. I suggest you would be happier with that system of jurisprudence. Of course it does . No legal system can’t make a poor law a good one. You are just posting waffle now. I suggest you stop making up straw men arguments. Sharia law is interpreted by an imam. There is no jury Any legal system can make a poor one a good one. It is called a government. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 1, 2024 9:21:59 GMT
The events might well be uncontroversial. However, the crime isn't defined primarily in terms of events, but rather the feelings of the 'victim'. Pudding brain law Both sides have "feelings". The accused feelings are not legally pertinent, the so called 'victim's' are. It's porridge brain law |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 1, 2024 10:25:59 GMT
Both sides have "feelings". The accused feelings are not legally pertinent, the so called 'victim's' are. It's porridge brain law Of course they are! Both sides have advocates, lawyers, defense. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 1, 2024 10:33:11 GMT
The accused feelings are not legally pertinent, the so called 'victim's' are. It's porridge brain law Of course they are! Both sides have advocates, lawyers, defense. The only feelings mentioned in, or pertinent to, law are the alleged victim's. This is the instruction a jury will receive. I have explained this simple point 4 times in a row. You aren't arguing with me, instead you just keep raising the red herring that they both have lawyers. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 1, 2024 10:46:04 GMT
Of course it does . No legal system can’t make a poor law a good one. You are just posting waffle now. I suggest you stop making up straw men arguments. Sharia law is interpreted by an imam. There is no jury Any legal system can make a poor one a good one. It is called a government. No system can make a poor law a good one . Neither a jury system or any other system . A law that forbids homosexuality isn’t a good one because it has or had to be interpreted by an Inman or a jury . It merely reflected the political correct dogma of the time . There same goes for a subjective law that rejects the political correct dogma of the time and is based on the subjective view of the offended ‘ victim’. It the kind of law popular to an oppressive cult . Which explains why members of an oppressive cult defend it . |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 1, 2024 11:49:11 GMT
Sharia law is interpreted by an imam. There is no jury Any legal system can make a poor one a good one. It is called a government. No system can make a poor law a good one . Neither a jury system or any other system . A law that forbids homosexuality isn’t a good one because it has or had to be interpreted by an Inman or a jury . It merely reflected the political correct dogma of the time . There same goes for a subjective law that rejects the political correct dogma of the time and is based on the subjective view of the offended ‘ victim’. It the kind of law popular to an oppressive cult . Which explains why members of an oppressive cult defend it . Do you not understand democracy? It is the job of the MP to connect between the people and the government. They also read papers , lobbyists and focus groups. If the issue vomws to a white paper, it is voted on. Can you suggest a better system? |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 1, 2024 11:51:49 GMT
Of course they are! Both sides have advocates, lawyers, defense. The only feelings mentioned in, or pertinent to, law are the alleged victim's. This is the instruction a jury will receive. I have explained this simple point 4 times in a row. You aren't arguing with me, instead you just keep raising the red herring that they both have lawyers. The first sentence is factually incorrect. There is no point in following up your second . FACT .both sides have lawyers who can represent the feelings of their client. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 1, 2024 11:52:24 GMT
Neither a jury system or any other system . A law that forbids homosexuality isn’t a good one because it has or had to be interpreted by an Inman or a jury . It merely reflected the political correct dogma of the time . There same goes for a subjective law that rejects the political correct dogma of the time and is based on the subjective view of the offended ‘ victim’. It the kind of law popular to an oppressive cult . Which explains why members of an oppressive cult defend it . Do you not understand democracy? It is the job of the MP to connect between the people and the government. They also read papers , lobbyists and focus groups. If the issue vomws to a white paper, it is voted on. Can you suggest a better system? I never said there was a better system . I never addressed the subject of a better system . Had you read the post then you might have read “NO system can make a poor law a good one .”. Nil points ..try again 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 1, 2024 12:29:34 GMT
The only feelings mentioned in, or pertinent to, law are the alleged victim's. This is the instruction a jury will receive. I have explained this simple point 4 times in a row. You aren't arguing with me, instead you just keep raising the red herring that they both have lawyers. FACT .both sides have lawyers who can represent the feelings of their client. They can if they wish. However, only the alleged victim's feelings are pertinent in law - and this is the instruction juries will receive. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 1, 2024 15:04:43 GMT
FACT .both sides have lawyers who can represent the feelings of their client. They can if they wish. However, only the alleged victim's feelings are pertinent in law - and this is the instruction juries will receive. Dont be ridiculous. Are you so pathetic that you have to make stuff up so you have someone to talk to? |
|
