Idris Francis and the ECHR
19 May 2006, 12:33 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idris Francis and the ECHR
I know some have an interest in the developments in this case which, basically, is concerned with the right to silence but specifically relates to the Notice of Intended prosecution and s172.
This appeal was referred to the Grand Chamber as it was considered to raise an important and fundamental point of law. There will be a hearing in Strasbourg on 27th September but because the case has become so complex we could wait as much as a year after that for a ruling.
This appeal was referred to the Grand Chamber as it was considered to raise an important and fundamental point of law. There will be a hearing in Strasbourg on 27th September but because the case has become so complex we could wait as much as a year after that for a ruling.
19 May 2006, 01:10 PM
#2
Thanks for the update. Nearly posted you a PM last week to ask what the state of play was.
What's the betting that with even more European governments now using scameras as revenue earners, Idris loses?
Last time I was over there, there were big noises being made by the French government in their newspapers about catching and fining foreign drivers with their, now proliferating, scameras. At the moment, if they get a pic of a foreigner, it goes into the bin.
Alcazar
Alcazar
What's the betting that with even more European governments now using scameras as revenue earners, Idris loses?
Last time I was over there, there were big noises being made by the French government in their newspapers about catching and fining foreign drivers with their, now proliferating, scameras. At the moment, if they get a pic of a foreigner, it goes into the bin.
Alcazar
Alcazar
19 May 2006, 01:48 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brendan Hughes
Bloody human rights tree-hugging lefty sandal wearers. What's up, did he get a parking ticket for his 2CV?
Idris drives a range of interesting cars but, that I am aware of, he doesn't currently own a 2CV. His ECHR case relates to a speeding, in a 1938 Alvis as I recall, rather than parking offence but, as the court has recognised, it has raised several very fundamental points of law which, I believe, are vital if we are to protect ourselves from the tree-hugging lefty types.
Now, I am sure you are aware of all this and are well able to correct me on the points I make but it may be useful for others who, perhaps, haven't followed the case to gain my view on the matter. Idris got an NIP for speeding and is arguing that it is an extremely bad thing. His point is fundamental to British law rather that some vague issue only related to speeding and it is that the NIP demands that you name a driver or else you will be charged with a greater (s172) offence. When the NIP is issued the partnership have no idea who was driving the car and the car itself can't commit the offence so, in effect, they need you to confess and in order to gain a confession they threaten you. This is not how British law should work as you should be considered innocent until a court can prove that you are guilty. With s172 and the NIP the court doesn't have to prove anything, you sign away your rights on the NIP.
The lefty types come into this just because we are seeing what could only be described as creeping Stalinism in this country. For example there are now a wide range of phone lines where you can grass up your neighbours for a range of offences, this is similar to the strategy used by Stalin where it was in your interests to denounce someone before they denounced you. Under such circumstances someone could name you and you could be left to prove your innocence rather than it be necessary for a court to prove your guilt.
Clearly if I am accused of robbery, say, and a robbery has never taken place then I am in the clear but what if I am accused of one of the new "thought" crimes? Say a neighbour phones up and denounces me as being homophobic, (currently a high priority crime for police) how do I prove that I'm not? For this reason what Idris is doing is important to us all, even those who have never stepped into a car in their lives.
As an aside it is most entertaining that Idris is using the very methods and resources often associated with those wishing to erode the fundamental principles of British law to forward his case and to attempt to strengthen British law in the face of attack by the far left. If Idris wins it will assist the generally law abiding citizen of this country to defend themselves against the creeping Stalinism I mentioned earlier.
19 May 2006, 02:39 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This "grassing up" bit is really worrying. I don't mind reporting someone if they do something violent or cause serious damage but this kind of encouragement to snitch on your neighbours or even family for that matter is out of order.
Les
Les
19 May 2006, 05:20 PM
#6
Originally Posted by hedgehog
I know some have an interest in the developments in this case which, basically, is concerned with the right to silence but specifically relates to the Notice of Intended prosecution and s172.
This appeal was referred to the Grand Chamber as it was considered to raise an important and fundamental point of law. There will be a hearing in Strasbourg on 27th September but because the case has become so complex we could wait as much as a year after that for a ruling.
This appeal was referred to the Grand Chamber as it was considered to raise an important and fundamental point of law. There will be a hearing in Strasbourg on 27th September but because the case has become so complex we could wait as much as a year after that for a ruling.
FFS
This was supposed to be heard in June/July, now late September, a High court appeal has been held in abeyance until the outcome of this case. By the time the ECHR decision is handed down there could be hundreds if not thousands of cases to be heard!
Just like the good old days of Broomfield and the unsigned forms
Last edited by andy97; 19 May 2006 at 05:24 PM.
19 May 2006, 05:27 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hedgehog
Good to see you're back Brendan. You really must go and finish the previous discussion we were having as you were putting me right on so many points, I've since brushed up on my tea making for example and so am in a great position to take on board any further counter arguments you might care to make.
Idris drives a range of interesting cars but, that I am aware of, he doesn't currently own a 2CV. His ECHR case relates to a speeding, in a 1938 Alvis as I recall, rather than parking offence but, as the court has recognised, it has raised several very fundamental points of law which, I believe, are vital if we are to protect ourselves from the tree-hugging lefty types.
Now, I am sure you are aware of all this and are well able to correct me on the points I make but it may be useful for others who, perhaps, haven't followed the case to gain my view on the matter. Idris got an NIP for speeding and is arguing that it is an extremely bad thing. His point is fundamental to British law rather that some vague issue only related to speeding and it is that the NIP demands that you name a driver or else you will be charged with a greater (s172) offence. When the NIP is issued the partnership have no idea who was driving the car and the car itself can't commit the offence so, in effect, they need you to confess and in order to gain a confession they threaten you. This is not how British law should work as you should be considered innocent until a court can prove that you are guilty. With s172 and the NIP the court doesn't have to prove anything, you sign away your rights on the NIP.
The lefty types come into this just because we are seeing what could only be described as creeping Stalinism in this country. For example there are now a wide range of phone lines where you can grass up your neighbours for a range of offences, this is similar to the strategy used by Stalin where it was in your interests to denounce someone before they denounced you. Under such circumstances someone could name you and you could be left to prove your innocence rather than it be necessary for a court to prove your guilt.
Clearly if I am accused of robbery, say, and a robbery has never taken place then I am in the clear but what if I am accused of one of the new "thought" crimes? Say a neighbour phones up and denounces me as being homophobic, (currently a high priority crime for police) how do I prove that I'm not? For this reason what Idris is doing is important to us all, even those who have never stepped into a car in their lives.
As an aside it is most entertaining that Idris is using the very methods and resources often associated with those wishing to erode the fundamental principles of British law to forward his case and to attempt to strengthen British law in the face of attack by the far left. If Idris wins it will assist the generally law abiding citizen of this country to defend themselves against the creeping Stalinism I mentioned earlier.
Idris drives a range of interesting cars but, that I am aware of, he doesn't currently own a 2CV. His ECHR case relates to a speeding, in a 1938 Alvis as I recall, rather than parking offence but, as the court has recognised, it has raised several very fundamental points of law which, I believe, are vital if we are to protect ourselves from the tree-hugging lefty types.
Now, I am sure you are aware of all this and are well able to correct me on the points I make but it may be useful for others who, perhaps, haven't followed the case to gain my view on the matter. Idris got an NIP for speeding and is arguing that it is an extremely bad thing. His point is fundamental to British law rather that some vague issue only related to speeding and it is that the NIP demands that you name a driver or else you will be charged with a greater (s172) offence. When the NIP is issued the partnership have no idea who was driving the car and the car itself can't commit the offence so, in effect, they need you to confess and in order to gain a confession they threaten you. This is not how British law should work as you should be considered innocent until a court can prove that you are guilty. With s172 and the NIP the court doesn't have to prove anything, you sign away your rights on the NIP.
The lefty types come into this just because we are seeing what could only be described as creeping Stalinism in this country. For example there are now a wide range of phone lines where you can grass up your neighbours for a range of offences, this is similar to the strategy used by Stalin where it was in your interests to denounce someone before they denounced you. Under such circumstances someone could name you and you could be left to prove your innocence rather than it be necessary for a court to prove your guilt.
Clearly if I am accused of robbery, say, and a robbery has never taken place then I am in the clear but what if I am accused of one of the new "thought" crimes? Say a neighbour phones up and denounces me as being homophobic, (currently a high priority crime for police) how do I prove that I'm not? For this reason what Idris is doing is important to us all, even those who have never stepped into a car in their lives.
As an aside it is most entertaining that Idris is using the very methods and resources often associated with those wishing to erode the fundamental principles of British law to forward his case and to attempt to strengthen British law in the face of attack by the far left. If Idris wins it will assist the generally law abiding citizen of this country to defend themselves against the creeping Stalinism I mentioned earlier.
Trending Topics
19 May 2006, 05:48 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diablo
Yeah, but was he speeding or not...
19 May 2006, 05:57 PM
#9
Stalinism? Hmmmmmm..........
Now which was the LAST European government to usher in a VERY strict I.D. card, bolster it's police's powers, bring in new types of police, and start encouraging anybody and everybody to report "crimes", which were then assumed as true until the unfortunate person denounced could prove their innocence ?
WHAT was that guy's name? Hister? Hilter? Can't remember for the life of me.
Alcazar
Now which was the LAST European government to usher in a VERY strict I.D. card, bolster it's police's powers, bring in new types of police, and start encouraging anybody and everybody to report "crimes", which were then assumed as true until the unfortunate person denounced could prove their innocence ?
WHAT was that guy's name? Hister? Hilter? Can't remember for the life of me.
Alcazar
19 May 2006, 09:35 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that it is very difficult to see any difference between Stalin and Hitler. However, at least Hitler was keen on allowing people to travel (Volkswagen for example) even if he did kill anyone he didn't like.
Stalin had more of a problem with travel and I suspect that a goodly part of this was because of the problem he had with the peasants (the rural population) who were prone to nipping into town and selling stuff. Stalin hated people being free to travel, or even to choose where they lived, and this offers an interesting parallel with the current administration in the UK, and indeed in Europe. Labour hardly hold a single rural seat and their banning of fox hunting demonstrated an utter contempt for the rural population.
I realise that this is a minor detail and that the control systems today are more subtle, but wide reaching due to modern technology, than any seen under Stalin or Hitler but while there isn't much to choose between Stalin and Hitler in terms of how they compare with the present for me Stalin just about has the lead.
Stalin had more of a problem with travel and I suspect that a goodly part of this was because of the problem he had with the peasants (the rural population) who were prone to nipping into town and selling stuff. Stalin hated people being free to travel, or even to choose where they lived, and this offers an interesting parallel with the current administration in the UK, and indeed in Europe. Labour hardly hold a single rural seat and their banning of fox hunting demonstrated an utter contempt for the rural population.
I realise that this is a minor detail and that the control systems today are more subtle, but wide reaching due to modern technology, than any seen under Stalin or Hitler but while there isn't much to choose between Stalin and Hitler in terms of how they compare with the present for me Stalin just about has the lead.
20 May 2006, 01:11 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Preston, Lancs.
Posts: 2,977
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by alcazar
WHAT was that guy's name? Hister? Hilter? Can't remember for the life of me.
John.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
lightning101
Non Scooby Related
2
18 November 2004 06:40 PM