redfox

I am sure we will appreciate that your greater knowledge of the criminal justice system means you are better placed than we are to make such comments. For those of us needing more help please educate us all as to what specific criminal offences you are referring to? But having swerved the question in such a transparent fashion - yet again - to defend your beloved - here it is for you to have another go at - "Regardless of whether there have been prosecutions of not, do you personally feel that any of the events I listed has actually happened?"

There not all criminal offences Maka - didn't you know that? Yet again (tiresome doesn't do your blind loyalty justice) you are defending SCC to the hilt - Can you perhaps try and deal with any of the issues Dave has raised - Or do you really think it is acceptable for SCC to have sought to imprison an elected opposition official and someone who read a poem? Do I not have a right to see the terms of a contract or the full terms of an injunction - if not why ? Its not quite 12 yet so the legal boys will still be available to take your call.

Come on Maka - keep up. There's overtime in this for you.:):)

I would think the image itself may be indecent (it may not but for the purposes of this discussion lets say it is) - possession of indecent images is an offence, as is the distribution of them. Funny that - taking the image is not currently an offence but possession of and distributing them is.

i did. Have you ever prosecuted anyone for this type of offending or any type of offending ? When you have come back and we can chat on a level playing field.

I think most posters have observed it is not as easy as you claim and one person who knows the rules can scupper new legislation that most sane people think would be a positive step - including his party leader. Proving this sort of thing isn't that difficult if you think about it - man with camera/recording device - takes image up skirt of female - or do you think magistrates and juries would believe it was all a bit of a laugh?

I quite agree it is ridiculous that legislation is required to deal with perverted men who seem to think taking photo's up the skirts of women is just a bit of a laugh. No doubt you would laugh it off if your partner was filmed in such a way. It deals with (or would have done but for a rather odd tory MP) a lacuna in the current law.

Any chance the organ grinders controlling you could consider the points in the article ? Or is the knee jerk all they have left The city council is now famous for trying to lock its citizens up and chop down trees. Or do you not agree with that either?

Yes and they will know that prison is likely to follow as a result.

You are mixing up wholly different issues 1. Family courts have always been confidential. The proceedings involve children and domestic issues. Whether I agree or not about that they are very different to CMP - there is no valid comparison in my view. 2. The procedure - it’s not a secret court at all - typical hyperbole without proper analysis of the reality - is very closely regulated indeed. You will have read the quote from Neuberger - Parliament has decided that cases should be dealt with even if they involve sensitive national security issues and laid down a process so those cases could continue as opposed to he plug being pulled because security implications prevented material being considered. Have you not heard of Public Interest Immunity applications Anna? Happen all The time in criminal proceedings.

They are not secret at all. There are specific procedures enacted by parliament to deal with very limited application and even more limited use. You could try and read this - it is not quite what you think it is - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/664979/use-of-closed-material-procedure-2016-17-report.pdf I have also found this - "Secondly, a closed material procedure is a serious departure from the fundamental principles of open justice and natural justice: see Al Rawi v Security Service [2012] 1 AC 531 per Lord Dyson at paragraph 35; Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No.2) [2014] AC 700 per Lord Neuberger at paragraphs 2 to 4; McGartland per Richards LJ at paragraph 34. It therefore requires careful scrutiny and caution before it is adopted. ... However it must also be borne in mind that the incursion into the principles of natural and open justice which is inherent in a closed material procedure is the price which Parliament has determined should be paid in appropriate cases because it falls to be balanced against the competing policy that cases which require disclosure of material which would damage national security should not for that reason be incapable of a trial at all. Can I suggest Anna you do a little more research than rely on a long out of date report from the Guardian.

Yes. Hence my interest in these "secret courts" Anna has mentioned.

Can you tell me more about "secret courts" ?

Yes. Have you ever sought one? Have you ever argued that one was inappropriate? Have you ever sough to enforce one? Have you ever argued there was no breach either in law or facts? When you have come back and let me know if you have gained any insight into the process. When you have you will be in a very much better place to comment. If you seriously think this process shows SCC in a good light, on top of the issues that matter to those who elected them, able to deal with very substantial commercial contracts in a way that indicates they knew what they were getting into, and when criticism comes there way competent to deal with it - then you and I are living in different places. As I understand it the politicians said the proceedings for committal to prison were a matter for the legal department - thats called ducking the issue. When the Judge asked the obvious question at the outset the response from a politician was Yes we do want to continue to seek to imprison Sheffield people. You can't make this stuff up.

Speeding is a criminal offence although I struggle to see the comparison. Fly tipping - as above. If you think its acceptable for a local authority to seek to imprison its citizens for objecting to a dubious, at best scheme (on any number of levels - cost of the of the "secret" contract being one) good for you. If you think it is acceptable at the commencement of proceedings for the Judge to ask in terms 'are you sure you really want to do this" and get a response "oh absolutely we really really do want to do this" then good for you. This whole issue has been a disaster on every level for SCC, and guess who is paying for it. The concept of local accountability seems somewhat alien here. I find the whole process unedifying, embarrassing, exasperating and bloody daft.