I just read this article on Sky News & it got me thinking..... what is the punishment ?

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13404744,00.html

Varying degrees of jail.

Unless you're viewed as being 'harmless' or part of the establishment today when you'll get a slap on the wrist.

I would expect if the Government manage it, the bad boys would probably receive jail terms of several years. Unless some bleeding heart lawyer whines about their human rights...

Joe

had thought that high treason could lead to hanging, but think this was abolished in 1999-

http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/timeline.html
# 1994. The last vote on re-introduction of the death penalty was defeated by 403 votes to 159.
# April 16th 1996. John Martin Scripps becomes the last Briton to hang, for murder in Singapore.
# 1998. Death penalty abolished for crimes committed under military jurisdiction.
# 20th May 1998. On a free vote during a debate on the Human Rights Bill, MPs decided by 294 to 136, a 158 majority, to adopt provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights outlawing capital punishment for murder except "in times of war or imminent threat of war". The Bill incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into British law.
# July 31st 1998. The Criminal Justice Bill of this year removed High treason and piracy with violence as capital crimes, thus effectively ending capital punishment.
# 27th January 1999. The Home Secretary (Jack Straw) formally signed the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on behalf of the British government formally abolishing the death penalty in the UK. It had been still theoretically available for treason and piracy up to 1998 but it was extremely unlikely that even if anyone had been convicted of these crimes over the preceding 30 years that they would have actually been executed. Successive Home Secretaries had always reprieved persons sentenced to death in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man where the death sentence for murder could still be passed and the Royal Prerogative was observed.

Originally posted by JoeP
I would expect if the Government manage it, the bad boys would probably receive jail terms of several years. Unless some bleeding heart lawyer whines about their human rights...

I'd have thought you'd have risen above echoeing the carrion call of the gutter press, Joe...

Since when did 'human rights' become such a major obstacle to putting people who break the law in jail?

Originally posted by Greenback
I'd have thought you'd have risen above echoeing the carrion call of the gutter press, Joe...

Since when did 'human rights' become such a major obstacle to putting people who break the law in jail?

To be honest, when the actions of soemone put teh well being of their fellow citizens at risk, and they actually admit to their actions and are proud of them, then there should be no option of getting off on a technicality.

Many of these people are very adept at using the arguments of 'free speech' and 'freedom of association' to attempt the destruction of the society that harbours them.

If that make me part of the gutter press, so be it.

Joe

well in the days of guy fawkes it was hanging, drawing and quartering?

:)

I have to say I actually thought it was a hangable offence too.

Originally posted by Greenback
I'd have thought you'd have risen above echoeing the carrion call of the gutter press, Joe...

Since when did 'human rights' become such a major obstacle to putting people who break the law in jail?

In 1998, with the passage into law of the Human Rights Act (a deeply flawed piece of legislation drafted and enacted by a Labour government headed by one T.Blair).

Originally posted by LordChaverly
In 1998, with the passage into law of the Human Rights Act (a deeply flawed piece of legislation drafted and enacted by a Labour government headed by one T.Blair).

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what has the Human Rights Act got to do with any of this?

Originally posted by Greenback
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what has the Human Rights Act got to do with any of this?

you cant go round hanging people for no good reason these days


jez wheres all the fun gone?

Originally posted by Greenback
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what has the Human Rights Act got to do with any of this?

If you read the HR Act, the full text of which is available on the web, it is couched in such vague terms as to provide a comprehensive legal challenge to virtually any attempt to impose restrictions on freedom of speech or actions as a means of dealing with terrorist threats (for example by holding suspects for more than 14 days without charge, banning organisations preaching hatred and deporting foreign troublemakers who are flagrantly abusing our hospitality). It was pointed out at the time that the HR act could provide a legal cover for fanatics of one kind or another, but Blair would not listen. He (and also the Tories) are now considering amendments to the Act.

Originally posted by JoeP

I would expect if the Government manage it, the bad boys would probably receive jail terms of several years. Unless some bleeding heart lawyer whines about their human rights...

Joe

Like one Mrs. C. Blair ? :D

Originally posted by Greybeard
Like one Mrs. C. Blair ? :D

You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment. :)

Ahhh so the laws were changed (effectively) in 1998?

I thought Treason, Piracy and Arson still carried the death penalty (out of touch again)!

Isn't there some bloke still in prison after God know's how many decades for Arson? Apparantly he got one of the worst sentences you can get - detained at her Majesty's pleasure?

Is there still such a sentence as to be 'detained at her Majesty's pleasure'? Coz basically that could mean until you die?

Originally posted by Hels
Ahhh so the laws were changed (effectively) in 1998?

I thought Treason, Piracy and Arson still carried the death penalty (out of touch again)!

Isn't there some bloke still in prison after God know's how many decades for Arson? Apparantly he got one of the worst sentences you can get - detained at her Majesty's pleasure?

Is there still such a sentence as to be 'detained at her Majesty's pleasure'? Coz basically that could mean until you die?

yes there is still her majestys pleasure

certain high profile murderers have recieved it i believe

Originally posted by Hels
Ahhh so the laws were changed (effectively) in 1998?

I thought Treason, Piracy and Arson still carried the death penalty (out of touch again)!

Isn't there some bloke still in prison after God know's how many decades for Arson? Apparantly he got one of the worst sentences you can get - detained at her Majesty's pleasure?

Is there still such a sentence as to be 'detained at her Majesty's pleasure'? Coz basically that could mean until you die?

The death penalty for all offences (including for Treason and Piracy) was finally abolished in the UK in 1999. The Treaty of Nice also formally abolished the death penalty throughout the EU, so the EU is a capital punishment free zone.

Moreover, the EU states are not allowed to extradite people to countries where the death penalty is still allowed if there is any prospect of them being executed.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
If you read the HR Act, the full text of which is available on the web, it is couched in such vague terms as to provide a comprehensive legal challenge to virtually any attempt to impose restrictions on freedom of speech or actions as a means of dealing with terrorist threats (for example by holding suspects for more than 14 days without charge, banning organisations preaching hatred and deporting foreign troublemakers who are flagrantly abusing our hospitality). It was pointed out at the time that the HR act could provide a legal cover for fanatics of one kind or another, but Blair would not listen. He (and also the Tories) are now considering amendments to the Act.

I've read it before, and don't really have a problem with it. I suspect if many of its critics were to do the same, they would also struggle to find fault.

Of course there will always be lawyers looking to take advantage of technicalities, but this is hardly a new phenomenon and doesn't make the act itself intrinsically wrong, as many tabloid editors (and posters on here) would have one believe as they invent nightmare scenarios with which to whip themselves up into a righteous fury. If certain sections need amending, so be it.

Originally posted by Greenback
I've read it before, and don't really have a problem with it. I suspect if many of its critics were to do the same, they would also struggle to find fault.

Of course there will always be lawyers looking to take advantage of technicalities, but this is hardly a new phenomenon and doesn't make the act itself intrinsically wrong, as many tabloid editors (and posters on here) would have one believe as they invent nightmare scenarios with which to whip themselves up into a righteous fury. If certain sections need amending, so be it.

Well, therin lies the problem. Lawyers will always seek to find and exploit loopholes in legislation. That's their job. But this is why legislation needs to be carefully and tightly drafted in the first place. The HR Act reads more like a political tract rather than precisely worded legislation, meaning that so much of it is open to wide interpretation. In particular, it grants 'rights' in a very general way, without really having much to say about the limits or potential implications of those rights. Because it is a legal document, virtually anything the government does can be challenged in the courts on the grounds that it breaches someone's human rights. Judges should not be the final arbiters of government measures to combat terrorism.

Originally posted by Hels


Is there still such a sentence as to be 'detained at her Majesty's pleasure'? Coz basically that could mean until you die?

There is such a sentence. It applies to juveniles convicted of murder, and to certain mental health patients.

The mandatory sentence of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure is imposed by section 53(1) of the Children & Young Persons Act of 1933 which, as currently in force, provides as follows:

"A person convicted of an offence who appears to the court to have been under the age of 18 years at the time the offence was committed shall not, if he is convicted of murder, be sentenced to imprisonment for life, nor shall sentence of death be pronounced on or recorded against any such person; but in lieu thereof the court shall (notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act) sentence him to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure, and if so sentenced he shall be liable to be detained in such place and under such conditions as the Secretary of State may direct."

It does not mean that you are incarcerated until you die, as it is not a mandotry life sentence. There have been tests cases recently, both in the House of Lords (including the Jamie Bulger murderers, Thompson and Venables) and the European Court, and tariff sentencing is now usually the norm.

Under Part 3, section 46 of the Mental Health Act 1983, "The Secretary of State may by warrant direct that any person......is required to be kept in custody during Her Majesty's pleasure or until the directions of Her Majesty are known shall be detained in such hospital (not being a mental nursing home) as may be specified in the warrant and, where that person is not already detained in the hospital, give directions for his removal there".

This part of the Mental Health Act 1983 deals with a variety of criminal offenders, including those recognised as not being fit to plead. Mental Health Tribunals will periodically assess any such detained person's competance to either stand trial, or be released.

Originally posted by JoeP
To be honest, when the actions of soemone put teh well being of their fellow citizens at risk, and they actually admit to their actions and are proud of them, then there should be no option of getting off on a technicality.

Many of these people are very adept at using the arguments of 'free speech' and 'freedom of association' to attempt the destruction of the society that harbours them.

If that make me part of the gutter press, so be it.

Joe It doesn't make you part of the gutter press. Freedom of speach doesn't mean freedom to destroy your society just as it doesn't mean freedom to hand out racist material:thumbsup:

Whatever the case, just the mention of Treason has got them scared. Just seen this on BBC site :

Treason threat cleric 'flees UK'

Omar Bakri Mohammed was one of three expected to face scrutiny
A controversial Islamic cleric has left the UK for the Middle East amid speculation he would be investigated for treason, said his spokesman.
Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed - former head of radical group Al Muhajiroun - left on Saturday for Lebanon, his colleague Anjem Choudary told the BBC.

Tony Blair had warned Mr Mohammed's organisations faced a potential ban under new anti-terrorism measures.

Mr Choudary said the cleric believed "Britain had declared war on Muslims".