alchresearch Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I doubt if they would read such erudite sources? Ah, lovely, just what I needed to get the old mouth foaming. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Doesn't anybody think this is important? Is it just me? Just you, I reckon. What exactly is it you're trying to get angry about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barbiegirl80 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I see your point. From what I've read, this is to be used in cases where it is in the public interest to keep it quiet. I was under the impression that the legal system should be as transparent as possible. I can't quite see how shrouding certain cases in secrecy is at all in the public interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMoran Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Doesn't anybody think this is important? Is it just me? Its shameful but what yourd expect from the tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 I think we need more transparency (I'm sure this was promised) not less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Its shameful but what yourd expect from the tories. Why is it? What exactly is so shameful? Do you actually understand the proposals and what they may/may not affect? We are talking about CIVIL matters. Not crime, not deaths, not fraud, not inquests (these will always be open court with full disclosure due to the ECHR) Civil court = financial settlement, debt, insurance litigation, probate or commerical litigation. Do you really think even a third of those types of cases have a public interest anyway? They are already processed by closed court. What exactly is the problem with these "proposals"..... remember that. Not gods words, not actual law.. just a proposal. If I for example had to go to court for my £400 debt with vodafone, pleaded my tragic life circumstnaces and loss of wife, mother, job etc..., then I had an embarrassing judgment ordering me to pay £1 a month for rest of my life, I wouldnt want the specific circumstances of my life avaliable in print to any nosey git who makes a freedom of information request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMoran Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Why is it? What exactly is so shameful? Do you actually understand the proposals and what they may/may not affect? We are talking about CIVIL matters. No crime, no death, no inquest. Civil court = financial settlement, debt, insurance litigation, probate or commerical litigation. Do you really think even a third of those types of cases have a public interest anyway? They are already processed by closed court. What exactly is the problem with these "proposals"..... remember that. Not gods words, not actual law.. just a proposal. I didnt even read it, im just jumping on the badwagon and saying how shameful the tories are before anyone else does Personaly i dont care. Mosdt of the police ive met have been bent or on the way to being bent anyway so i say get rid of as many of them as you can and get someone else in to do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Would it make any difference, they can't do anything anyway! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4687524/Radical-Muslim-cleric-Abu-Qatada-to-be-deported-to-Jordan-on-terror-charges.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.