Post Reply
Page 4 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Islamic sharia courts in Britain are now 'legally binding'
4 years ago  ::  Sep 15, 2010 - 8:30AM #31
Bezant
Posts: 1,338

Sep 14, 2010 -- 12:20PM, Ebon wrote:


Regarding the sources: While The Times is entirely respectable, Americans really must stop citing the Daily Mail as a source. The Daily Mail is an extreme-right tabloid and what little news might actually be contained therein is filtered through a truly collosal level of bias, distortion and their famous fixations on immigration, cancer and demonising welfare claimants. THIS is a fairly accurate portrayal of their content and attitudes.


As for the story itself: It's a loophole, one that wasn't intended by the arbitration acts and will almost certainly be corrected as soon as Parliament returns from recess in October.





What Ebon said.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 15, 2010 - 9:06AM #32
Guessses
Posts: 2,233

Sep 15, 2010 -- 8:30AM, Bezant wrote:


Sep 14, 2010 -- 12:20PM, Ebon wrote:


Regarding the sources: While The Times is entirely respectable, Americans really must stop citing the Daily Mail as a source. The Daily Mail is an extreme-right tabloid and what little news might actually be contained therein is filtered through a truly collosal level of bias, distortion and their famous fixations on immigration, cancer and demonising welfare claimants. THIS is a fairly accurate portrayal of their content and attitudes.


As for the story itself: It's a loophole, one that wasn't intended by the arbitration acts and will almost certainly be corrected as soon as Parliament returns from recess in October.





What Ebon said.




LOL, I'm not so the even "The Times" is so respectable. These days many "news sources" are crossing the line, faking photographs and pushing the hype (hype=crap)- because "hype" sells.

Infinite Blessings
Mike/NAFOD
"Lord, please, protect me from Your followers!"
"WWBD? Buddha- Does it matter? If you are enlightened it does not. If you are not enlightened it still doesn't matter."
"If you go looking to place blame, eventually you'll wind up blaming the Gods"
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 15, 2010 - 9:37AM #33
Bezant
Posts: 1,338

Sep 15, 2010 -- 9:06AM, Guessses wrote:


Sep 15, 2010 -- 8:30AM, Bezant wrote:


Sep 14, 2010 -- 12:20PM, Ebon wrote:


Regarding the sources: While The Times is entirely respectable, Americans really must stop citing the Daily Mail as a source. The Daily Mail is an extreme-right tabloid and what little news might actually be contained therein is filtered through a truly collosal level of bias, distortion and their famous fixations on immigration, cancer and demonising welfare claimants. THIS is a fairly accurate portrayal of their content and attitudes.


As for the story itself: It's a loophole, one that wasn't intended by the arbitration acts and will almost certainly be corrected as soon as Parliament returns from recess in October.





What Ebon said.




LOL, I'm not so the even "The Times" is so respectable. These days many "news sources" are crossing the line, faking photographs and pushing the hype (hype=crap)- because "hype" sells.





The Times' more respectable and pedigreed than from what I've read in the Daily Mail.


As my uncle says, "In America people are instructed, not educated."

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 15, 2010 - 9:39AM #34
IreneAdler
Posts: 2,849

Thanks, Ebon for taking the time to answer my questions and for setting us straight on this.


 


Irene.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 15, 2010 - 11:39AM #35
Ebon
Posts: 10,122

Sep 14, 2010 -- 8:09PM, Guessses wrote:

Perhaps I should have explained. In the "Legal" courts, (perhaps I should have stated "criminal" courts), a person can not be tried for the same crime twice. In the case of O.J. Simpson versus the people if California, O.J. was found "Not Guilty" by a jury of his peers. However, the Civil Court then found him guilty of "Negligent homicide" and this I find the systems incompatible like Sharia law and the laws of the land.



The reason for the discrepancy is that the two systems use different standards of proof. A criminal prosecution must prove it's case "beyond reasonable doubt" i.e. it must prove that, barring truly outlandish coincidences, OJ (for example) did kill his wife. The evidence of Mark Fuhrman (and, to a lesser extent, some shoddy police work) introduced just enough room for doubt that the prosecution couldn't meet that burden of proof and, via presumption of innocence, OJ is then presumed to be not guilty.


Civil courts don't have to prove things "beyond reasonable doubt", they simply have to assess what the most likely scenario was. Thus, while a criminal court could not say that OJ did kill his wife, a civil court can say that was the most likely scenario and both courts can have made the correct decision on the evidence presented to them.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 15, 2010 - 11:57AM #36
Guessses
Posts: 2,233

Sep 15, 2010 -- 11:39AM, Ebon wrote:


Sep 14, 2010 -- 8:09PM, Guessses wrote:

Perhaps I should have explained. In the "Legal" courts, (perhaps I should have stated "criminal" courts), a person can not be tried for the same crime twice. In the case of O.J. Simpson versus the people if California, O.J. was found "Not Guilty" by a jury of his peers. However, the Civil Court then found him guilty of "Negligent homicide" and this I find the systems incompatible like Sharia law and the laws of the land.



The reason for the discrepancy is that the two systems use different standards of proof. A criminal prosecution must prove it's case "beyond reasonable doubt" i.e. it must prove that, barring truly outlandish coincidences, OJ (for example) did kill his wife. The evidence of Mark Fuhrman (and, to a lesser extent, some shoddy police work) introduced just enough room for doubt that the prosecution couldn't meet that burden of proof and, via presumption of innocence, OJ is then presumed to be not guilty.


Civil courts don't have to prove things "beyond reasonable doubt", they simply have to assess what the most likely scenario was. Thus, while a criminal court could not say that OJ did kill his wife, a civil court can say that was the most likely scenario and both courts can have made the correct decision on the evidence presented to them.




Of this, I understand. It still doesn't make it right.

Infinite Blessings
Mike/NAFOD
"Lord, please, protect me from Your followers!"
"WWBD? Buddha- Does it matter? If you are enlightened it does not. If you are not enlightened it still doesn't matter."
"If you go looking to place blame, eventually you'll wind up blaming the Gods"
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 15, 2010 - 12:13PM #37
Ebon
Posts: 10,122

Sep 15, 2010 -- 9:06AM, Guessses wrote:

LOL, I'm not so the even "The Times" is so respectable. These days many "news sources" are crossing the line, faking photographs and pushing the hype (hype=crap)- because "hype" sells.



We have laws about things like faking photos over here. The Times is, AFAIK, the oldest newspaper in the English-speaking world and they guard their reputation for scrupulous objectivity to such an extent that the paper can actually be rather dry to read (I prefer the left-leaning Independent). Sure, they get hosed on occasion (the infamous "Hitler diaries" hoax being the most famous), that's an occupational hazard of being in the news business but they do make a strong effort to be led only by facts and they're the only national newspaper without a political agenda. British newspapers break down like this:


Broadsheets (top of the line, entirely respectable and trustworthy): The Times (very, very minor conservative lean but you'd have to be skilled in literary analysis to notice it), The Telegraph (centre-right lean, nicknamed the Tory-graph for that reason), The Guardian (centre-left, nicknamed the Groiniad for it's frequent printing errors), The Independent (mid-left, my paper of choice, often known as the Indie), Financial Times (think Wall Street Journal without the editorialising, traditionally printed on pink paper for some reason).


Mid-market (generally respectable but more prone to gossip and info-tainment stories, check their facts): Daily Express (mid-right, famously obsessed with the Royal Family and missing toddler Madeline McCann), Evening Standard (London based, have five editions through the day (their deadlines must be hell) which means you can often watch a story break and develop on their front page, vaguely left-leaning).


Tabloids (don't trust them to tell you what day it is, constantly getting sued by someone or other: Daily Mail (used to be a right-leaning mid-market paper until they plunged off the ultraright-fringe about eight years ago, now reads like something from the BNP, famously supported fascism in a big way during the Thirties and hasn't changed much), The Sun (was already off the ultraright fringe, home to naked women on Page 3 and horrifically bad sourcing, once simply made up a story about Liverpool FC fans urinating on the dead at soccer disaster Hillsborough and still doesn't sell anything in Liverpool for that reason), The Mirror (generally left-leaning but can veer right on issues like crime, journalism isn't quite as shoddy as The Sun's but it's close), Daily Star (newspaper length gossip column, sued even more frequently than other tabloids), Daily Sport (no noticeable political bias, lots of nude women and gossip, sports coverage is pretty good though), Morning Star (formerly outright Communist, now just socialist/radical left, print run is miniscule), News Of The World and The People (Sunday editions of the Sun and Mirror respectively).


We also have thousands of local papers, some of which are quite influential; about a dozen political satire weekly papers, Private Eye being very influential (and constantly sued, the editor likes to publish the legal threats he receives) and about another dozen weekly political analysis papers, of which, the most influential is (surprisingly) The Big Issue, a paper printed and sold by the homeless who keep 40% of it's selling price.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 15, 2010 - 12:22PM #38
Ebon
Posts: 10,122

Sep 15, 2010 -- 11:57AM, Guessses wrote:

Of this, I understand. It still doesn't make it right.



I can understand that, there's a very human need to see someone punished for horrific crimes but we, as a society, decided long ago that it was more important to avoid jailing innocent people than to be sure of convicting guilty ones. If you or I were ever falsely accused (and it wouldn't be difficult to convince a jury of my guilt), those are the same precautions we'd be relying on.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 15, 2010 - 12:30PM #39
Guessses
Posts: 2,233

Sep 15, 2010 -- 12:22PM, Ebon wrote:


Sep 15, 2010 -- 11:57AM, Guessses wrote:

Of this, I understand. It still doesn't make it right.



I can understand that, there's a very human need to see someone punished for horrific crimes but we, as a society, decided long ago that it was more important to avoid jailing innocent people than to be sure of convicting guilty ones. If you or I were ever falsely accused (and it wouldn't be difficult to convince a jury of my guilt), those are the same precautions we'd be relying on.




In the case of Civil versus Criminal: The criminal courts already have the task to be "right", therefore the Civil court should NOT be able to "convict" on a crime the Criminal courts could not prove. And, there lies the conflict.


 

Infinite Blessings
Mike/NAFOD
"Lord, please, protect me from Your followers!"
"WWBD? Buddha- Does it matter? If you are enlightened it does not. If you are not enlightened it still doesn't matter."
"If you go looking to place blame, eventually you'll wind up blaming the Gods"
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 15, 2010 - 12:40PM #40
Ebon
Posts: 10,122

Sep 14, 2010 -- 12:30PM, TemplarS wrote:

Thanks, Ebon, for being the voice of reason.


But, I think, there is a dilemma here for those who support tolerance for immigrants. 


The expectation ought to be that if you are moving into a country, you ought to be prepared to abide by the laws you find there.  If you are not prepared to do so, nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to come.  It might be legal, but exploiting loopholes to try to bring your own laws with you doesn't seem quite right to me. 



I would broadly agree with that. If you, as an immigrant (generic "you"), want to change a law, then join or found one of the legal watchdog groups and press for a change in the law in the normal way. That's fine, I'm a member of such a group and they're an important part of reforms to the judicial system but exploiting unintended blind spots in legislation strikes me as "not cricket".

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook