Sign in with Twitter

Type the topic in any language to check out real time results of Who's Talking on Social Media Sites


Trending Topics: #edecasa#WhenAStrangerSaysHelloGoodLuckTodayAustinDışişleri BakanlığıOMeteoroVeioPraFicarLS#OfDiyorumKeşke#OqueMeuCrushDeveriaSaberMichaelJacksonDayAmal Clooney#Com1MilhaoDeReaisEu#TekUmutHdp#EvleneceğimKişiyeNotum#SabadoUhuuDetremuraSdv#WorstEverTributeBand#yılıntransferiほん怖Jamaikaど根性ガエル#agson#nhkらじらー#MutluluğuAnlatDeselerMitrovic#freeajstaff#IREvWAL#HappyBirthdayLiamFromBrazilアメリカ失格#NUFCvAFCColocciniHappy Birthday Liam#本当にあった怖い話ジャマイカ洗濯機お化けLevent KırcaAndre Marriner#Satchat斎藤工Yavuz BingölTheoOwn GoalChris WoodMo FarahWalcottRobbie SavageNewcastle生き霊#CheAustinMahone#AttireAMovieOrTvShow#ManchesterPrideFilistinliイートン#FinalsDay#あなたの心の充電量はRomaoFire玉ちゃんGOOD LUCK BEYONCE ON VMA#ŞunuÇokiyiAnladımkiAsk LAÍSファラーWar Room 2015Bryan RandallOwen LabrieWar RoomWhat Do You Mean Justin BieberNY Daily NewsTropical Storm ErikaBEAUTY BEHIND THE MADNESSWe Are Your FriendsPansexualPablo EscobarEmmett TillUsain BoltDarryl DawkinsMississippi StatePatriotsStar WarsTim BeckmanZendayaMiley CyrusMore

Most recent 20 results returned for keyword: Human Rights Act (Search this on MAP)

https://plus.google.com/109105469772268643610 Darren Williams : How to Fire an Employee and Not Get Sued (Successfully) – Part 1 In this article we will review an ...

How to Fire an Employee and Not Get Sued (Successfully) – Part 1

In this article we will review an employer’s rights to terminate an undesirable employee, and what steps an employer should take in order to minimize the risk that they will be successfully sued by the employee for wrongful dismissal.  

To start with, what makes law interesting is that it is fluid; it is always changing and the facts are different in every case. There are no universal rules that can be applied to any and every case to determine the result with certainty.  While legal outcomes are often difficult to predict, probable outcomes can be identified if the guidelines that have been established in law are followed.  The information in these articles may be referred to as legal information on the guidelines, but should not be relied upon as legal advice.  Seeking legal advice specific to the facts of your case before terminating an employee is prudent, particularly when the amount that could be awarded in severance is potentially large, such as with very senior employees or those with very long service histories..  It is not unheard of for a wrongful termination award to be as high as 24 months of wages/salary, as such terminating an employee improperly can be very expensive compared to the cost of obtaining legal advice in advance.

Issue 1: Labour Law or Employment Law?

The threshold issue in terminating an employee is asking whether the employee is unionized or not.  This article does not apply to unionized employment.  Unionized employees often have special rights under their collective bargaining agreements, and the employer often has to take different steps to properly fire an employee.  The law of unionized employment is called “labour law”, while non-unionized employment relationships are governed by “employment law”.  While there is significant overlap in these areas of law, people often confuse them.  This article deals with employment law.

Issue 2: Could the Basis for Termination be “Discrimination”?

I generally say to clients: “an employer can fire an employee for any reason, the real issue is: how much will it cost”.  This refers to the fact that no employer is forced to keep employed a worker they do not find desirable (because of economic, performance or personality reasons for example), however, unless the employer has just cause to fire, the employer must give the employee reasonable notice of termination or pay in lieu of that notice (referred to as severance pay). Just cause and reasonable notice are defined later in this article.       

The important exception to the general rule that an employer is not required to keep an employee they do not find desirable, is that the employer’s reason for firing an employee cannot involve issues of the employee’s “race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person” (BC Human Rights Code).  

If the employer’s reason for terminating the relationship involves one of the issues above, the Human Rights Tribunal (“HRT”) may find the termination was discriminatory, set the termination aside, require the employer to re-employ the employee and/or award damages for wrongful termination, as well as damages for harm to dignity.  It is important to note that the employer may have several legitimate reasons (including just cause) for terminating the employee, but if the HRT finds that a discriminatory ground influenced the decision to terminate the termination can be set aside.  While there may be some discussion to be had on whether it is the BC Human Rights Code or the federal Canadian Human Rights Act that applies to marine employees (the Acts are substantially similar), it is sufficient to note at this point that the issue of discriminatory firings is a large and stormy topic beyond the scope of this particular article, and any conduct that can remotely be said to be discriminatory is best given a wide berth by marine employers.  

Issue 3:  Does the Employer Have a Contractual Right to Terminate?

A well-written, one-page standard form employment contract can save an employer tens of thousands of dollars on a single employee’s termination, yet they are surprisingly rare.  I would estimate that less than one-third of marine employers in B.C. have written employment agreements with their employees.  Such agreements are very useful because they can define circumstances where the employer may fire the employee without having to prove they had the just cause discussed below, and can limit the employee’s entitlement to severance to the minimum required by the B.C. Employment Standards Act (which ranges from one week of notice after three months of service, up to 8 weeks of notice after 8 years of service), and limit the employer’s exposure to having to pay the more generous compensation awarded by some courts (which can average about one month for every year of service, up to approximately 24 months). In many cases it is less stressful and expensive for an employer not to try to prove they had just cause to fire an employee and simply pay the employee the limited entitlement of severance under the employment agreement, but of course, this benefit only exists of there is an appropriately worded and signed employment agreement.  If no agreement exists, the employer must determine whether they have just cause to terminate in order to avoid paying potentially significant severance damages.

Issue 4:  Does the Employer have Just Cause to Terminate?

Having just cause allows the employer to terminate the employee immediately without giving the employee working notice or severance pay.  It is, when terminating an employee, what most employers look to establish because it is the quickest and presumably the cheapest way to rid themselves of a bad employee.  However, employers are often mistaken about whether an event or a series of events (such as insubordination, poor performance, lateness, dishonesty) amount to just cause, and many expensive law suits arise because an employee, and ultimately a judge, disagrees that the employer had just cause to terminate.  

There is no universal definition of just cause, but it exists where there is a fundamental breach in the employment relationship, and it entitles the employer to terminate the employee without having to give reasonable working notice or pay in lieu of the working notice.  A fundamental breach of an employment relationship is conduct that destroys the root of the employment relationship, frustrating or destroying the purpose of the employment agreement (BC Court of Appeal: Carr v. Fama). Just cause can only be determined on a case by case basis.

What is important to understand about just cause is that it may or may not arise from one event. Singular events, such as theft of significant employer property or workplace violence, substance abuse or harassment can amount to just cause and allow for immediate dismissal without severance. More commonly however an employer will want to establish just cause but only has a series of less significant events to rely on for their reason to terminate.  For example, the employee may be repeatedly late by 10 minutes, regularly disrespectful or lazy at the workplace, or continually making the same mistake despite correction.  It is these more common cases where it is important to follow particular steps to record the undesirable behavior, assist the employee in correcting the behavior, warn of specific consequences and carry out the actual termination in a respectful manner in order to avoid being successfully sued for wrongful dismissal damages. In Part 2 of this article I will outline those recommended steps.


Darren Williams is a partner at Lambert and Williams Law Corporation in Victoria B.C. and can be reached for question or comment locally 250-888-0002, by emergency cell phone at 250-589-2174 or at dw@MarineLaw.ca..
9 hours ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/112552592129488119506 Waking up the Masses : Moment in time: Aug. 28, 1971 - First large-scale gay-rights rally takes place on Parliament Hill Standing...
Moment in time: Aug. 28, 1971 - First large-scale gay-rights rally takes place on Parliament Hill
Standing in the rain on Parliament Hill, gay and lesbian activists gathered for the first large-scale gay-rights demonstration in Canada. They read a list of 10 demands, including the right to serve in the military and "all legal rights for homosexuals which currently exist for heterosexuals." Two years earlier, amendments to the Criminal Code allowed sexual relationships between any two consenting adults older than 21, effectively decriminalizing homosexuality. But the activists argued that they had hardly achieved equality. It would be 25 years before sexual orientation was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The ban on gays and lesbians in the Armed Forces was lifted in 1992, and in 2005 Bill C-38 gave same-sex couples the right to marry across the country.- Madeline Smith


Stolen From Our Bodies: First Nations Two-Spirits/Queers and the Journey to a Sovereign Erotic By Qwo-Li Driskill


This is a Warrior Song From one poor Skin to another And I don’t know what I’m lookin’ for But I know I’ve found you These words will shuffle across concrete Will float across the Rockies To the Smokey Mountains We were stolen from We were stolen from
We were stolen from our bodies We were stolen from our homes And we are fighters in this long war To bring us all back home
And this is a Warrior Song From one poor Skin to another And I don’t know what I’m lookin’ for But I know I’ve found you
U-ne-la-nv-hi U-we-tsi I-ga-gu-yv-he-yi Hna-quo-tso-sv Wi-yu-lo-se But I know I’ve found you
And this is a Warrior Song From one poor Skin to another And I don’t know what I’m lookin’ for But I know I’ve found you
This song came to me one night a few years ago as I began to understand that healing our sexualities as First Nations people is braided with the legacy of historical trauma and the ongoing process of decolonization. Two-Spirits are integral to this struggle: my own resistance to colonization as a Cherokee Two-Spirit is intimately connected to my continuing efforts to heal from sexual assault and the manifestations of an oppressive overculture on my erotic life. Like other Two-Spirit people, I am making a journey to a Sovereign Erotic that mends our lives and communities.
I mention my experiences with trauma in this essay because sexual assault, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia are entangled with the history of colonization. Sexual assault is an explicit act of colonization that has enormous impacts on both personal and national identities and because of its connections to a settler mentality, can be understood as a colonial form of violence and oppression. My own journey back to my body, and the journeys of other First Nations people back to their bodies, necessarily engage historical trauma. In her book Shaking the Rattle: Healing the Trauma of Colonization Barbara-Helen Hill (Six Nations, Grand River Territory) writes:
“All of the abuse and addiction that we are seeing in communities are symptoms of the underlying cause, the oppression and the stress of living in isolation on reservations or in Native communities within the larger non-Native communities… . Healing the spirit of the individual will eventually spread to healing the spirit of family and this in turn will spread out into the communities… .”
When I speak of a Sovereign Erotic, I’m speaking of an erotic wholeness healed and/or healing from the historical trauma that First Nations people continue to survive, rooted within the histories, traditions, and resistance struggles of our nations. I am in agreement with Audre Lorde when she writes, “Our erotic knowledge empowers us, becomes a lens through which we scrutinize all aspects of our existence, forcing us to evaluate those aspects honestly in terms of their relative meaning in our lives”. I do not see the erotic as a realm of personal consequence only. Our relationships with the erotic impact our larger communities, just as our communities impact our senses of the erotic. A Sovereign Erotic relates our bodies to our nations, traditions, and histories.
The term “Two-Spirit” is a word that resists colonial definitions of who we are.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-0UxsT-NMXIM/VeE2mFHE9FI/AAAAAAAAMXU/6s14uzDm2TA/w506-h750/tumblr_mr7tz3vKml1r4o7hoo1_500.jpg
10 hours ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/111499542946884367511 Lance Winslow : Should robots have human rights? Act now to regulate killer machines before they multiply and demand...
Should robots have human rights? Act now to regulate killer machines before they multiply and demand the right to vote, warns legal expert
11 hours ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/104367358939540447415 Apocalypse Justice : Read all of them then you can agree and disagree on some!!! Heres my political opinions on the uk politics...
Read all of them then you can agree and disagree on some!!!
Heres my political opinions on the uk politics and major issues:
1)im pro-choice
2)im infavour of lgbt rights
3)pro NHS and would like it to have no private involvement at all
4)for nuclear Disarmament
5)against nuclear power
6)for giving 16 year old the vote and all the same rights as those at 21
7)for the abolishment of zero hour contracts, split shifts, rain shifts, commission only jobs
8)for renewable energy
9)for the renationalisation of the railway
10)for the renationalisation of royal mail
11)the minimum wage should be the same for everyone from 16 onwards it should be the higher rate
12)im against the governments surveillance bill as its attack on our civil liberties.
13)anti-fracking
14)pro-Australian style immigration system
15)pro-leaving the European union
16)pro-abolishing the human rights act but replacing it with a bill of rights that i have outlined in my political manifesto
17)pro-benefit cap of ₤20,000 a year
18)freeze politicians pay and abolish expenses
19)reform the house of lords as i have outlined in my manifesto
20)create a saving fund like Australia to help the country in bad times
21)support a benefit tappering system so that it pays too work
22)anti-gm foods
23)have referendum on the monarchy
24)reduce the defecit over time
25)cap how much local government can spend on special advisors
26)stop taxing benefit's
27)keep the thatcher union law but repeal any law that goes further
2 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/108518074829098357296 iCrowdNewswire : #crowdfunding 15 Day of Action: Celebrating the Human Rights Act
#crowdfunding 15 Day of Action: Celebrating the Human Rights Act
15 Day of Action: Celebrating the Human Rights Act | iCrowdNewswire
Fifteen years ago on 2 October 2000 the Human Rights Act became law with cross-party political support. Fast forward to today and it is now stated government policy to “scrap” this vital law which protects us all. At the British Institute of Human Rights, we know people across the UK see past ...
3 days ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/107381461624918468464 Alina Popescu : Who says we don't need the Human Rights Act? •  Unprotected by Human Rights: the last 'British' prisoner...
Who says we don't need the Human Rights Act?
•  Unprotected by Human Rights: the last 'British' prisoner in Guantanamo Bay Who says we don't need the Human Rights Act? The government says, that’s who. And yet.. it’s the government – and governments – against whom the Human Rights Act is supposed to de...
Who says we don't need the Human Rights Act?

3 days ago - Via Reshared Post - View -
https://plus.google.com/112212208952354834042 Jon Danzig : Who says we don't need the Human Rights Act? •  Unprotected by Human Rights: the last 'British' prisoner...
Who says we don't need the Human Rights Act?
•  Unprotected by Human Rights: the last 'British' prisoner in Guantanamo Bay Who says we don't need the Human Rights Act? The government says, that’s who. And yet.. it’s the government – and governments – against whom the Human Rights Act is supposed to de...
Who says we don't need the Human Rights Act?

3 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/111620794170982899447 MUHAMMAD AKHTAR QURESHI : Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Promotion, Protection and Enforcement of Human Rights Act, 2014. AN ACT to provide...
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Promotion, Protection and Enforcement of Human Rights Act, 2014.
AN ACT to
provide for the promotion, protection and enforcement of human
rights in the Province of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Preamble.---
WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the promotion, protection and
enforcement of human rights as provided for in the Co...
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Promotion, Protection and Enforcement of Human Rights Act, 2014.
AN ACT to provide for the promotion, protection and enforcement of human rights in the Province of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Preamble.--- WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the promotion, protection and enforcement...
3 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/107851005775894759733 wap access : Blind man tasered by police who mistook walking stick for samurai sword wins compensation Man in his...
Blind man tasered by police who mistook walking stick for samurai sword wins compensation

Man in his sixties was shot in the back after his white stick was mistaken for a samurai sword

PAUL PEACHEY CRIME CORRESPONDENT 

Thursday 20 August 2015

A blind man Tasered by a police officer who mistook his white stick for a samurai sword has been awarded compensation nearly three years after the bungled operation.

Colin Farmer, registered blind after suffering strokes, was walking to a pub to meet friends when he was shot in the back for five seconds with a Taser in October 2012.

The officer who fired the Taser was disciplined and told to apologise to Mr Farmer but was allowed to keep his job at Lancashire police.

Armed police teams were scrambled after reports that a man, variously described, including as a skinhead in his twenties, had been spotted in Chorley, Lancashire, carrying a two-foot sword.

PC Stuart Wright jumped out of his patrol car when he spotted Mr Farmer, and ordered him to stop. When Mr Farmer, then aged 63, failed to respond, the officer Tasered him, then handcuffed him while he lay on the ground.

When another colleague ran to join him, PC Wright said: “I think I’ve got the wrong person”, according to a report into the incident issued by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) last year.

Mr Farmer brought legal action against Lancashire police for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and breach of the Human Rights Act. The claim has been settled for an undisclosed sum, said his lawyer Sophie Khan.

Lancashire police admitted that the officer used unreasonable force and did not carry out a proper risk assessment before firing, said Ms Khan.

“This should be a clear example of why Tasers have no place in policing,” said Ms Khan. “We just don’t need them. The experiment with Tasers has failed and they should be shelved now.”

Lancashire police declined to comment. The case has highlighted campaigners’ claims that Tasers have been used when less drastic methods could be just as effective.

Some British forces have used the weapons since 2003. Last year the weapons were drawn more than 10,000 times, but fired in less than a fifth of the cases.

One in 10 officers is now armed with a Taser. The Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, voted earlier this year for all frontline officers to be given Tasers. A 2010 Home Office survey found that a sizeable majority of the public supported their use.

But an inquest last month raised concerns about the weapons’ safety. A 23-year-old factory worker, Jordon Begley, died two hours after being struck by a Taser in July 2013, and a jury found that the electrical discharge from the gun – which reaches up to 50,000 volts – was in part responsible. Police responded to the verdict by calling for an independent review of the medical evidence.

Home Secretary Theresa May last year ordered a review into who was being targeted with the weapons.
Blind man tasered by police given compensation
A blind man Tasered by a police officer who mistook his white stick for a samurai sword has been awarded compensation nearly three years after the bungled operation.
4 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/105928300854086925115 Reuben Woolley :

DAY ONE HUNDRED AND ONE - Daljit Nagra
Ghazal is the Human Rights Act in the desert Inshallah are Freedom of Speech and Equal Ops curlews in the crazy desert Inshallah repetition of treasures in the Congo repetition of bobble heads acro...
5 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/106554964409479328127 Anton Carpena : In tbe UK my rigjht to life was violated in 2010. The Human Rights Act requires the government to protect...
In tbe UK my rigjht to life was violated in 2010.

The Human Rights Act requires the government to protect human life. This means that nobody - including the government - can try to end your life. It also means that you have the right to be protected if your life is at risk.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-sAn4bBcTNlk/VdeW8sNzLyI/AAAAAAAAH7I/_CkmgOn6vu0/w506-h750/2015%2B-%2B1
7 days ago - Via - View -
https://plus.google.com/105108567213853312676 Thomas Colledge :

Human Rights Act 1998
An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.
8 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/102171679294161898714 love and light : DISCOVER THOMSON REUTERS SUBSCRIBE TWITTER YOUTUBE ABOUT | LEGAL CURRENT Global NewsPodcastsVideoPress...

DISCOVER THOMSON REUTERS SUBSCRIBE TWITTER YOUTUBE ABOUT
| LEGAL CURRENT
Global NewsPodcastsVideoPress Releases
VOLUME OF ‘RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL’ CASES SHOW MAGNA CARTA STILL RELEVANT IN EUROPE TODAY
The “right to a fair trial” is still being regularly litigated over in the UK and across Europe 800 years after it was enshrined in Magna Carta. Research from the Legal business of Thomson Reuters shows that in the last decade, the European Court of Human Rights has made 19 rulings against the UK and 1,237 rulings against all EU countries in total for breaches to the right to a fair trial.

As Britain led the world in celebrating the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta at Runnymeade on June 12, 1215, the research adds to the long standing debate over the relevance of the historical document and suggests the principles laid out in Magna Carta are still live issues in the UK and other well established democracies, even today.

In 2014 alone, 149 violations of the right to a fair trial were recorded by the European Court of Human Rights against signatory countries to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The “right to a fair trial” and “no punishment without law” (the right not to be charged for an offence committed before that offence became a crime) are the core elements of Magna Carta that remain relevant today.

Both the “right to a fair trial” and “no punishment without law” are now part of both the European Convention on Human Rights, as Articles 6 and 7 respectively, and are also contained in the UK’s Human Rights Act.

The current government in Britain has outlined plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights. It would be expected that a British Bill of Rights, were it to go ahead, would affirm the principles of the “right to a fair trial” and “no punishment without law” set down in the Magna Carta.

Legal experts trace the ideas incorporated within these two Articles from the European Convention on Human Right back to Magna Carta’s declaration: “No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land….to no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or justice.”

The definition of “right to a fair trial” and “no punishment without law” have significant impact on companies as well as individuals and have been argued in cases relating to employment law, tax tribunals, regulatory issues and other, often high value, commercial cases.

Press coverage:
Magna Carta Still Essential Today
Strasbourg Court Proves Magna Carta is Still Relevant in Europe
Magna Carta is Still Relevant in Europe
Britain Makes 800th Anniversary of Magna Carta

Paul Sandell June 18, 2015 0 Magna Carta, Runnymeade
Share on email Share on linkedin
PAUL SANDELL
Leave a Reply

Name *

Email *

Website





Company Links

Legal Current podcast
Thomson Reuters, Legal
WestlawNext
Thomson Reuters YouTube
Thomson Reuters Legal YouTube
Thomson Reuters Legal Solutions
Thomson Reuters Blogs

The Knowledge Effect
IP Solutions
FindLaw Blogs
Westlaw Journals
Legal Solutions Blog
Super Lawyers
Tax & Accounting Insight
Other Blogs & Resources

Above the Law
Dewey B. Strategic
Law Technology News
Slaw
3 Geeks and a Law
Law Sites
Twitter Accounts

Legal Current
EliteLink
ThomsonReuters
West LegalEdcenter
Westlaw
WestlawGC
Westlaw Small Law
Thomson Reuters
© 2014 Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement Terms and Conditions Copyright Information

8 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/106361671327334549755 Kevin Saemus : Judicial review in Scotland From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Judicial...
Judicial review in Scotland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Judicial review in Scotland functions within the framework of Scots administrative law.
The power of judicial review of all actions of governmental and private bodies in Scotland is held by the Court of Session. The procedure is governed by Chapter 58 of the Rules of Court.[1]
Approximately 600 judicial review cases are raised every year, but most are settled by agreement with only a small minority having to be decided by the court.
Procedure[edit]
There are no time limits on seeking judicial review, although if proper administration is prejudiced by delay on the part of the pursuer, the court may exercise its discretion and refuse to grant a review.
Despite the procedural differences, the substantive laws regarding the grounds of judicial review in Scotland are similar to those in other western legal systems, with decisions in one jurisdiction regarded as highly persuasive in the others. There is, however, one substantial difference in Scotland since there is no distinction between review of a public body and a private body, which is different from, for example, judicial review in England and Wales, where review is only possible in the case of a public body or a quasi-public body (West v. Secretary of State for Scotland).
Generally, review is confined to purely procedural grounds (the official action was illegal or improper), although the court will also sanction decisions which are, in substance, so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it (so-called Wednesbury unreasonableness). A more rigorous standard of substantive review is applied where the matter complained of touches upon the pursuer's rights in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998
10 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/110582165856337999179 SOLOMON OLUWASEYI BANK' ADELEYE : TORTURE MEMOIRS THE SICKNESS OF SOME MINDS CONFOUNDS THE LOWEST MINDS RIGHTS INFRINGED BY 'MICROCHIP...

TORTURE MEMOIRS
THE SICKNESS OF SOME MINDS CONFOUNDS THE LOWEST MINDS

RIGHTS INFRINGED BY 'MICROCHIP' IMPLANTS

COMMON LAW
In America The Right To PRIVACY May Be Inferred From The Language Of The First,
Fourth,
Fifth &
Ninth Amendments.

IT HAS ALSO BEEN ESTABLISHED THROUGH COMMON LAW PRECEDENTS.[72]

As early as 1891, Justice Gray of the U.S. SUPREME COURT INDICATED THAT,
"[N]o RIGHT IS HELD MORE SACRED, OR IS MORE CAREFULLY GUARDED, BY THE COMMON LAW, THAN THE RIGHT OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL {BLACK OR WHITE} POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF HIS OWN PERSON, FREE FROM ALL RESTRAINT OR INTERFERENCE OF OTHERS, UNLESS BY CLEAR AND UNQUESTIONABLE AUTHORITY OF THE LAW."[73]

SIMILARLY THE ABOVE HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO OUR HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

DURING SLAVERY ALL NEGRO SLAVES WERE DECLARED PROPERTIES TO THEIR WHITE MASTERS
{DURING SLAVERY AN ORDINARY FURNITURE HAD MORE RIGHTS THAN A NEGRO SLAVE}

I Therefore Hope That Now
"[E]VERY HUMAN BEING OF ADULT YEARS AND SOUND MIND HAS A RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH HIS OWN BODY"

BANALITY OF COLONIAL HATE

MORE HATE AND TORTURE DOES NOT JUSTIFY CRIMINALITY AND, OR A "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY"!!

IF ANYTHING IT WORSENS YOUR PREDICAMENT OR MAYBE YOU ARE THINKING YOUR ACTIONS WILL HELP YOUR "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY" TO DISAPPEAR ! !

WISHFUL THINKING NEVER HURT NO ONE !!

*REVISITING SLAVERY
*REVISITING TORTURE
*REVISITING HATE
*REVISITING YOUR PAST COLONIALISM ONLY PROOFS YOU FEEL NO REMORSE

THE ABOVE HAS MADE YOUR CRIMES MORE DEMONIC AND IT CONTINUES TO SHOW PREMEDITATION & DESPERADO !!

I FEAR NO ONE BUT GOD: AFTER 16/17 YEARS IF YOU LEARNT ANYTHING FROM ANY OF YOUR THREATS, TORTURE, HATE, SLAVERY; OVER THE YEARS:

THIS FACT IS CLEAR YOU HAVE COMMITTED WORST CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO 'COVER-UP'!!

ONE SPECIAL NOTICE IS DRAWN TO EASTBOURNE POLICE "ATTEMPT TO CAUSE FEAR":

SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY IS AWARE OF THIS:

* EASTBOURNE POLICE IS AWARE I CAN'T TRAVEL IN A NORMAL CAR
AROUND 12 MIDNIGHT I WAS REMOVED FROM BESIDE MY HOME ADDRESS AND SHUTTLED INTO A POLICE CAR WITHOUT MY WHEELCHAIR
THE POLICE OFFICER PUT ME ON THE FLOOR OF HIS CAR AND DROVE ME TO THE "CLIFF EDGE NEAR ROCKS" PROBABLY FOR "ANNIHILATION"

AND WITHOUT MY WHEELCHAIR.

ABANDONED AND THREATENED I CALLED SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY AND THE AMBULANCE SERVICE!!

YOUR SITUATION IS PITIFUL BUT YOU ALONE AND YOU ALONE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS 'MONSTROUS ACTS'

THE TESTIMONY WILL GLORIFY GOD IN THE HIGHEST
I AM CONFIDENT OF THIS: I CONTINUE TO FORGIVE YOU AND BEG GOD TO LET YOU SEE THE THE ERRORS OF YOUR WAYS

THE PAIN YOU ARE CAUSING OUR CHILDREN, FAMILY AND MY WIFE THROUGH YOUR SELFISHNESS TO CONTINUE A 'LOST CAUSE' IS UNBELIEVABLE

WHAT YOU DO NOW DOES NOT REMOVE YOUR 'MICROCHIP'
NEITHER DOES IT LESSEN THE DEFINED "CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY"

INDEED YOU ARE MAKING IT WORST FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY
I SAW PICTURES OF YOU THE OTHER DAY AND I WAS MOVED TO PRAY FOR YOU

THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY: LETS BE CLEAR ON THAT!

YOU COULD PRETEND IT'S NOT THERE,
YOU COULD TWIST IT,
TOSS IT,
COVER IT,
POLITIC DUNK IT,
SLAVE DUNK IT;
IT STILL COMES BACK CRUEL;
EVIL CRUEL!!

AND MUCH WORST!!

LETS BE VERY CLEAR:
*THERE WAS NO 9/11 WHEN YOU AUTHORISED A MICROCHIP IN ME UNDER FALSE MOTIVES
WE WERE LIVING IN PEACE TIME!!

ONLY YOU CAN BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF: ONE WAY OR ANOTHER MY LORD, JESUS CHRIST WILL SEE JUSTICE DONE

"WATCH THE HAND": THE EVIDENCE DON'T LIE

THE BANALITY OF COLONIAL:
CONSPIRACY
TORTURE
&
COMPLICITY ON TORTURE

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-torture-mi5

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-torture-seven-paragraphs

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/10/torture-mi5-binyam-mohamed

The Highest Judges In Great Britain, Including The Master Of Rolls Made The Following Judgment.
Our Judges Made The Very "Unusual" Criticism Of Our Intelligence

TOP JUDGE ADAMANT:
COMPLICITY ON TORTURE, DISHONESTY, DEVIOUSITY!

"AUTHORITIES DID NOT RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS":

A) HAD NOT RENOUNCED PARTICIPATION IN "COERCIVE INTERROGATION" TECHNIQUES.

B) DELIBERATELY MISLED MPs AND PEERS ON THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE, who are SUPPOSED to SCRUTINISE its work.

C) HAD A "CULTURE OF SUPPRESSION" IN IT'S DEALINGS with Miliband and the COURT.

D) Sumption described NEUBERGER'S observations in his draft judgment as "AN EXCEPTIONALLY DAMAGING CRITICISM of the GOOD FAITH of the Security Service as a whole".

It Has Been Noted That For Some Time:
Whenever Authorities Wanted A "Reason" For A Particular Line Of "Investigation" To Suffice; Strangely But Surely, Reasons To Pursue That Line Shows Itself!

Yesterday, Amongst Others Was Another Day, Hate, Colour & Race Played An Important Roll In Relations!

OUR HIGHEST JUDGES AND 'MASTER OF THE ROLLS';
MADE A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN THE PAST!

Naked Pictures
'Dogged' Pictures
'Strange' Signatures
'Coercive Lyrical' Techniques

ALL THE ABOVE ARE:
"DRACONIAN AUTHORITARIAN TRADE CRAFTSMANSHIP"

Since They Are Not Used For A Clear "Evidence Data", It Could Be Easily "Conjured" Into Surveillance Notes!

This "Surveillance Note" Could "Constitute" An EXCEPTIONALLY UNWARRANTED BREACH INTO SOMEONE'S LIFE:

To Justify An Abuse Of Power Or To Explain 'Away' Why "Pictures" Of A Kind Were Downloaded Into "A Subject Of Surveillances Phone Or Computer, To;
' "SET HIM UP'' '
' "FIT HIM UP" '

FOR OVER 15 YEARS THE AUTHORITIES HAVE PLAYED THIS
"COERCIVE ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES TENUOUSLY"
AND
"CULTURE OF SUPPRESSION"

FORGIVE THEM LORD: LET YOUR GRACE BE ABUNDANT
LET YOUR MERCY ENDURE FOREVERMORE

BE CLEAR
A VAST MAJORITY OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AND POLICE FORCES ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD:
THEY DO A "UNIQUE" OUTSTANDING AND WORTHY OF 'VALOUR' DUTY IN PROTECTING THE PUBLIC AND PROPERTY
MY DUTY AND READERS DUTY TO MAKE IT A "DUTY" IN THEIR MORNING PRAYERS TO "INTERCEDE IN PRAYERS" FOR THIS BRAVE "MEN OF VALOUR"

MAY GOD ALMIGHTY HEAR OUR PRAYERS AS WE PRAY FOR ALL WE LOVE

IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME I PRAY

Take All The Glory But Your Name Be Glorified For Eternity Amen

Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah Amen 

THE BANALITY BANALITY OF COLONIAL HATE (CONTINUES)

If You Love Your Wife It Is 'VERY EASY TO ABSTAIN FROM SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE OR IN MY CASE TILL I SEE MY WIFE

AT PRESENT I HAVE ABSTAINED FOR OVER 3 YEARS:
I MADE A VOW 17 YEARS AGO WHEN WE GOT MARRIED' SHE IS WORTH THE WAIT!

I DON'T EVEN ENTERTAIN THE THOUGHT:

I CAN'T BECAUSE MY WIFE JANE ADELEYE IS MY OTHER HALF:

I AM NOT COMPLETE WITHOUT HER!

OVER 3 YEARS NOW SINCE THE ENEMY HAS SEPARATED US:

KIDNAPPED OUR CHILDREN AND CONTINUES TO LABEL US A TERRORIST USING THE FOLLOWING METHODS DESCRIBED BY THE HIGHEST JUDGES IN GREAT BRITAIN:

DECEIT
DECEPTION
SUPPRESSION
HATE
HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE
COERCIVE TECHNIQUES
TORTURE AND COMPLICITY ON TORTURE
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY :

THE LIKES, NEVER SEEN, NEVER WILL BE SEEN.

AND RELYING ON IT'S OPPRESSION, PERSECUTION AS A WEAPON OF CHOICE

PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE

BUT 'OUR GOD IS MIGHTY IN BATTLE':
'MIGHTY TO CONQUER'

'NO WEAPON FASHIONED AGAINST ME WILL PROSPER'

'I AM PREPARED FOR BATTLE'
PREPARE FOR BATTLE AND BE SHATTERED.......

ISAIAH 8:9-11
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (NIV)

"RAISE THE WAR CRY YOU NATIONS:
AND BE SHATTERED!

LISTEN, ALL YOU DISTANT LANDS.

PREPARE FOR BATTLE, AND BE SHATTERED!
PREPARE FOR BATTLE, AND BE SHATTERED!

DEVISE YOUR STRATEGY:
BUT IT WILL BE THWARTED

PROPOSE YOUR PLAN, BUT IT WILL NOT STAND:
FOR GOD IS WITH US"

It Remains To Be Seen What Humans {In This Age} Continue To Plot Against GOD'S Purpose'

I Must Admit:
It's Entertainment To Our GOD
It's A Testimony For Us

WE THANK GOD FOR THE "FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT" {GOD Willing} THAT HE HAS BLESSED US WITH.
Part Of Those Fruits Of The Spirit Are:

FORGIVENESS
LOVE
PATIENCE ....

GALATIANS 5: 22-23
"BUT THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT is:
LOVE,
JOY,
PEACE,
FORBEARANCE {Also Called 'PATIENCE'}, KINDNESS,
GOODNESS,
FAITHFULNESS,
GENTLENESS AND
SELF-CONTROL".

NO PLAN OF THE ENEMY SUPERCEDES THE WORD OR WORDS, OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD:

'I Boast Only' In GOD'

We Have 'Taken Captive Every Weapon Of The Enemy {GOD Willing} Making It Obedient To CHRIST'

FORGIVING AND PRAYING FOR MY PERSECUTORS

TO GOD BE THE GLORY FOREVERMORE AMEN

I LOVE YOU JAYNE ADELEYE ALWAYS FOR EVER
👑 👑


Top judge: Binyam Mohamed case shows MI5 to be devious, dishonest and complicit in torture
Legal defeat plunges Security Service into crisis over torture evidence, and it is revealed that judge removed damning verdict after Foreign Office QC's plea
10 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/101670248192604004074 Francesca Van der Geld : Capital punishment in the United Kingdom. "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one...
Capital punishment in the United Kingdom.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Capital punishment in the United Kingdom was used from the creation of the state in 1707 until the practice was abolished in the 20th century. The last executions in the United Kingdom were by hanging, and took place in 1964, prior to capital punishment being abolished for murder (in 1965 in Great Britain and in 1973 in Northern Ireland). Although not applied since, the death penalty was abolished in all circumstances in 1998. In 2004 the 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights became binding on the United Kingdom, prohibiting the restoration of the death penalty for as long as the UK is a party to the Convention.

Background:
Sir Samuel Romilly, speaking to the House of Commons on capital punishment in 1810, declared that "[there is] no country on the face of the earth in which there [have] been so many different offences according to law to be punished with death as in England." Known as the "Bloody Code", at its height the criminal law included some 220 crimes punishable by death, including "being in the company of Gypsies for one month", "strong evidence of malice in a child aged 7–14 years of age" and "blacking the face or using a disguise whilst committing a crime". Many of these offences had been introduced to protect the property of the wealthy classes that emerged during the first half of the 18th century, a notable example being the Black Act of 1723, which created 50 capital offences for various acts of theft and poaching.

Whilst executions for murder, burglary and robbery were common, the death sentences for minor offenders were often not carried out. A sentence of death could be commuted or respited (permanently postponed) for reasons such as benefit of clergy, official pardons, pregnancy of the offender or performance of military or naval duty. Between 1770 and 1830, an estimated 35,000 death sentences were handed down in England and Wales, but only 7,000 executions were carried out.

Reform:
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2013)

In 1808 Romilly had the death penalty removed for pickpockets and lesser offenders, starting a process of reform that continued over the next 50 years. The death penalty was mandatory (although it was frequently commuted by the government) until the Judgement of Death Act 1823 gave judges the power to commute the death penalty except for treason and murder. The Punishment of Death, etc. Act 1832 reduced the number of capital crimes by two-thirds. Crimes eligible for the death penalty included shoplifting and stealing sheep, cattle, and horses, and before abolition of the death penalty for theft in 1832, "English law was notorious for prescribing the death penalty for a vast range of offences as slight as the theft of goods valued at twelve pence." The death penalty was abolished for counterfeiting and almost all forms of forgery in the same year. Gibbeting was abolished in 1832 and hanging in chains was abolished in 1834. In 1861, several acts of Parliament (24 & 25 Vict; c. 94 to c. 100) further reduced the number of civilian capital crimes to five: murder, treason, espionage, arson in royal dockyards, and piracy with violence; there were other offences under military law. The death penalty remained mandatory for treason and murder unless commuted.

The Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1864-1866 concluded (with dissenting Commissioners) that there was not a case for abolition but recommended an end to public executions. This proposal was included in the Capital Punishment Amendment Act 1868. From then executions in Great Britain were carried out in prison. The practice of beheading and quartering executed traitors stopped in 1870.

Juveniles under 16 could no longer be executed from 1908 under the Children Act 1908. In 1922 a new offence of Infanticide was introduced to replace the charge of murder for mothers killing their children in the first year of life. In 1930 a parliamentary Select Committee recommended that capital punishment be suspended for a trial period of five years, but no action was taken. From 1931 pregnant women could no longer be hanged (following the birth of their child) although in practice since the 18th century their sentences had always been commuted, and in 1933 the minimum age for capital punishment was raised to 18 under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The last known execution by the civilian courts of a person under 18 was that of Charles Dobel, 17, hanged at Maidstone together with his accomplice William Gower, 18, in January 1889.

In 1938 the issue of the abolition of capital punishment was brought before parliament. A clause within the Criminal Justice Bill called for an experimental five-year suspension of the death penalty. When war broke out in 1939 the bill was postponed. It was revived after the war and to everyone's surprise was adopted by a majority in the House of Commons (245 to 222). In the House of Lords the abolition clause was defeated but the remainder of the bill was passed.
 
Popular support for abolition was absent and the government decided that it would be inappropriate for it to assert its supremacy by invoking the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 over such an unpopular issue.

Instead, then Home Secretary, James Chuter Ede, set up a new Royal Commission (the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, 1949–1953) with instructions to determine "whether the liability to suffer capital punishment should be limited or modified". The Commission's report discussed a number of alternatives to execution by hanging (including the US methods of electrocution and gassing, and the then-theoretical lethal injection), but rejected them. It had more difficulty with the principle of capital punishment. Popular opinion believed that the death penalty acted as a deterrent to criminals, but the statistics within the report were inconclusive. Whilst the report recommended abolition from an ethical standpoint, it made no mention of possible miscarriages of justice. The public had by then expressed great dissatisfaction with the verdict in the case of Timothy Evans, who was tried and hanged in 1950 for murdering his baby daughter. It later transpired in 1953 that John Christie had strangled at least six women in the same house; he also confessed to killing Timothy's wife. If the jury in Evans's trial had known this, Evans would probably not have been found guilty. There were other cases in the same period where doubts arose over convictions and subsequent hangings, such as the notorious case of Derek Bentley.

The commission concluded that unless there was overwhelming public support in favour of abolition, the death penalty should be retained.

Between 1900 and 1949, 621 men and 11 women were executed in England and Wales. Ten German agents were executed during the First World War under the Defence of the Realm Act 1914, and 16 spies were executed during the Second World War under the Treachery Act 1940.

By 1957 a number of controversial cases highlighted the issue of capital punishment again. Campaigners for abolition were partially rewarded with the Homicide Act 1957. The Act brought in a distinction between capital and non-capital homicide. Only six categories of murder were now punishable by execution:-

in the course or furtherance of theft.

by shooting or causing an explosion'

while resisting arrest or during an escape.

of a police officer.

of a prison officer by a prisoner.

the second of two murders committed on different occasions (if both done in Great Britain).

The police and the government were of the opinion that the death penalty deterred offenders from carrying firearms and it was for this reason that such offences remained punishable by death.

Abolition:
In 1965 the Labour MP Sydney Silverman, who had committed himself to the cause of abolition for more than 20 years, introduced a private member's bill to suspend the death penalty, which was passed on a free vote in the House of Commons by 200 votes to 98. The bill was subsequently passed by the House of Lords by 204 votes to 104.

The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 suspended the death penalty in England, Wales and Scotland (but not in Northern Ireland) for murder for a period of five years, and substituted a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment; it further provided that if, before the expiry of the five-year suspension, each House of Parliament passed a resolution to make the effect of the Act permanent, then it would become permanent. In 1969 the Home Secretary, James Callaghan, proposed a motion to make the Act permanent, which was carried in the Commons on 16 December 1969, and a similar motion was carried in the Lords on 18 December. The death penalty for murder was abolished in Northern Ireland on 25 July 1973 under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973.

Following the abolition of the death penalty for murder, the House of Commons held a vote during each subsequent parliament until 1997 to restore the death penalty. This motion was always defeated, but the death penalty still remained for other crimes:-

1.causing a fire or explosion in a naval dockyard, ship, magazine or warehouse (until 1971);

2.espionage (until 1981);

3.piracy with violence (until 1998);

4.treason (until 1998); and

5.certain purely military offences under the jurisdiction of the armed forces, such as mutiny (until 1998). Prior to its complete abolition in 1998, it was available for six offences: 1.serious misconduct in action;

2.assisting the enemy;

3.obstructing operations;

4.giving false air signals;

5.mutiny or incitement to mutiny; and

6.failure to suppress a mutiny with intent to assist the enemy.

However no executions were carried out in the United Kingdom for any of these offences, after the abolition of the death penalty for murder.

Nevertheless, there remained a working gallows at HMP Wandsworth, London, until 1994, which was tested every six months until 1992. This gallows is now housed in the Galleries of Justice in Nottingham.

Last executions:
England and in the United Kingdom: on 13 August 1964, Peter Anthony Allen, at Walton Prison in Liverpool, and Gwynne Owen Evans, at Strangeways Prison in Manchester, were executed for the murder of John Alan West on 7 April that year.

Scotland: Henry John Burnett, 21, on 15 August 1963 in Craiginches Prison, Aberdeen, for the murder of seaman Thomas Guyan.
Northern Ireland: Robert McGladdery, 25, on 20 December 1961 in Crumlin Road Gaol, Belfast, for the murder of Pearl Gamble.
Wales: Vivian Teed, 24, in Swansea on 6 May 1958, for the murder of William Williams, sub-postmaster of Fforestfach Post Office.

Last death sentences:
Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom: Liam Holden in 1973 in Northern Ireland, for the capital murder of a British soldier during the Troubles. Holden was removed from the death cell in May 1973. In 2012 his conviction was quashed on appeal.
England: David Chapman, who was sentenced to hang in November 1965 for the murder of a swimming pool night-watchman in Scarborough. He was released from prison in 1979 and later died in a car accident.

Scotland: Patrick McCarron in 1964 for shooting his wife. He hanged himself in prison in 1970.

Wales: Edgar Black, who was reprieved on 6 November 1963. He had shot his wife's lover in Cardiff.

Final abolition:
The Criminal Damage Act 1971 abolished the offence of arson in royal dockyards.
The Naval Discipline Act 1957 reduced the scope of capital espionage from "all spies for the enemy" to spies on naval ships or bases. Later, the Armed Forces Act 1981 abolished the death penalty for espionage. (The Official Secrets Act 1911 had created another offence of espionage which carried a maximum sentence of fourteen years.)

Beheading was abolished as a method of execution for treason in 1973. However hanging remained available until 1998 when, under a House of Lords amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, proposed by Lord Archer of Sandwell, the death penalty was abolished for treason and piracy with violence, replacing it with a discretionary maximum sentence of life imprisonment. These were the last civilian offences punishable by death.

On 20 May 1998 the House of Commons voted to ratify the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibiting capital punishment except "in time of war or imminent threat of war." The last remaining provisions for the death penalty under military jurisdiction (including in wartime) were removed when section 21(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 9 November 1998. On 10 October 2003, effective from 1 February 2004, the UK acceded to the 13th Protocol, which prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances.

As a legacy from colonial times, several states in the West Indies still had the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the court of final appeal; although the death penalty has been retained in these states, the Privy Council would sometimes delay or deny executions. Some of these states severed links with the British court system in 2001 by transferring the responsibilities of the Privy Council to the Caribbean Court of Justice, to speed up executions.

Public support for reintroduction of capital punishment:
Since the death penalty's abolition in 1965, there have been continued public and media calls for its reintroduction, particularly prompted by high-profile murder cases.

At the same time, there have been a number of miscarriages of justice since 1965 where someone convicted of murder has later had their conviction quashed on appeal and been released from prison, strengthening the argument of those who oppose the death penalty's reintroduction. These include the Birmingham Six (cleared in 1991 of planting an IRA bomb which killed 21 people in 1974), the Guildford Four (cleared in 1989 of murdering five people in another 1974 IRA bombing), Stephen Downing (a Derbyshire man who was freed in 2001 after serving 27 years for the murder of a woman in a churchyard) and Barry George (who was freed in 2007 when his conviction for the 1999 murder of TV presenter Jill Dando was quashed on appeal).

Perhaps the first high-profile murder case which sparked widespread calls for a return of the death penalty was the Moors Murders trial in 1966, the year after the death penalty's abolition, in which Ian Brady and Myra Hindley were sentenced to life imprisonment for the murders of two children and a teenager in the Manchester area (they later confessed to a further two murders). Later in 1966, the murder of three policemen in West London also attracted widespread public support for the death penalty's return. Other subsequent high-profile cases to have sparked widespread media and public calls for the death penalty's return include "Yorkshire Ripper" Peter Sutcliffe, convicted in 1981 of murdering 13 women and attacking seven others in the north of England, Roy Whiting, who murdered a seven-year-old girl in West Sussex in 2000, and Ian Huntley, a Cambridgeshire school caretaker who killed two 10-year-old girls in 2002.

A November 2009 television survey showed that 70% favoured reinstating the death penalty for at least one of the following crimes: armed robbery, rape, crimes related to paedophilia, terrorism, adult murder, child murder, child rape, treason, child abuse, or kidnapping. However, respondents only favoured capital punishment for adult murder, the polling question asked by other organisations such as Gallup, by small majorities or pluralities: overall, 51% favoured the death penalty for adult murder, while 56% in Wales did, 55% in Scotland, and only 49% in England.

In August 2011, the Internet blogger Paul Staines—who writes a political blog as Guido Fawkes and heads the Restore Justice Campaign—launched an e-petition on the Downing Street website calling for the restoration of the death penalty for those convicted of the murder of children and police officers. The petition was one of several in support or opposition of capital punishment to be published by the government with the launch of its e-petitions website. Petitions attracting 100,000 signatures would prompt a parliamentary debate on a particular topic, but not necessarily lead to any Parliamentary Bills being put forward. When the petition closed on 4 February 2012 it had received 26,351 signatures in support of restoring capital punishment, but a counter-petition calling to retain the ban on capital punishment received 33,455 signatures during the same time period.

Also in August 2011, a representative survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion showed that 65% of Britons support reinstating the death penalty for murder in Great Britain, while 28% oppose this course of action. Men and respondents aged over 35 are more likely to endorse the change.
Capital punishment in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

11 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/100444284006713810309 Law Map (TheLawMap) :

Ali Smith hits out at 'obscenity' of scrapping Human Rights Act
Delivering English PEN’s annual HG Wells lecture, novelist declares plan for a UK bill of rights as ‘evolution going backwards’
11 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/115977379335436985102 shahid ansari : National Human Rights Commission NHRC:-     The National Human Rights Commission is an expression of...
National Human Rights Commission
NHRC:-     The National
Human Rights Commission is an expression of India's concern for the
protection and promotion of human rights. It came into being in October, 1993
under The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and hence it is a statutory
body (and no...
National Human Rights Commission
NHRC:-     The National Human Rights Commission is an expression of India's concern for the protection and promotion of human rights. It came into being in October, 1993 under The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and henc...
12 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/102916020267643969553 Ilaisaane Kolo : This photo taken during the horrifying Holocaust is of a gas chamber in Auschwitz. The chamber was used...
This photo taken during the horrifying Holocaust is of a gas chamber in Auschwitz. The chamber was used to slowly poison and kill Jewish individuals. In fact, women and children. Under the law of ‘Human Rights Act’ knowing that each individual has the rights to their own freedom and equality.
#CLSY2p3 #CLSY2CN source: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=gas+chambers+holocaust&view=detailv2&&id=3D59615D0571A74390E61C2F63722275BC47EA66&selectedIndex=43&ccid=VbAjp633&simid=608014962873797410&thid=OIP.M55b023a7adf7de1ee42634fcb6e26ee0o0&ajaxhist=0
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-r1HlPnNZZv0/VdCBApHDJ8I/AAAAAAAAACM/I42JPHgl6v4/w506-h750/holocaust.jpg
13 days ago - Via Google+ - View -
https://plus.google.com/106361671327334549755 Kevin Saemus : Judicial review in Scotland From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Judicial...
Judicial review in Scotland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Judicial review in Scotland functions within the framework of Scots administrative law.
The power of judicial review of all actions of governmental and private bodies in Scotland is held by the Court of Session. The procedure is governed by Chapter 58 of the Rules of Court.[1]
Approximately 600 judicial review cases are raised every year, but most are settled by agreement with only a small minority having to be decided by the court.
Procedure[edit]
There are no time limits on seeking judicial review, although if proper administration is prejudiced by delay on the part of the pursuer, the court may exercise its discretion and refuse to grant a review.
Despite the procedural differences, the substantive laws regarding the grounds of judicial review in Scotland are similar to those in other western legal systems, with decisions in one jurisdiction regarded as highly persuasive in the others. There is, however, one substantial difference in Scotland since there is no distinction between review of a public body and a private body, which is different from, for example, judicial review in England and Wales, where review is only possible in the case of a public body or a quasi-public body (West v. Secretary of State for Scotland).
Generally, review is confined to purely procedural grounds (the official action was illegal or improper), although the court will also sanction decisions which are, in substance, so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it (so-called Wednesbury unreasonableness). A more rigorous standard of substantive review is applied where the matter complained of touches upon the pursuer's rights in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998
13 days ago - Via Reshared Post - View -