B1063 – Suspect Protection Bill 2016 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Kyx
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 years ago
#21
Nay
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 years ago
#22
(Original post by barnetlad)
I think this although well intentioned goes too far. I suggest that no-one is named until actually charged and appearing in court, unless a judge grants an exemption. We would not know about Cliff Richard under such a Bill for example. The other thing I would like to see is the banning of any payment for a story about anyone accused of a crime or even convicted, at least for a period.

Those who leak such as South Yorkshire Police did about Cliff Richard deserve the proposed sentences though.
I think this is a valid point
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 years ago
#23
I thought we couldn't possibly do this because victims of crime would not come forward if suspected criminals were protected?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 years ago
#24
Is it possible under this bill that a suspect can waive their right of anonymity?
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 years ago
#25
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
Is it possible under this bill that a suspect can waive their right of anonymity?
It possibly isn't. Something to bear in mind for the second reading.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 years ago
#26
PetrosAC barnetlad, the problem with your contention is that one of the primary reasons for this Bill is that being named as someone who had been charged with an offence often results in levels of public censure which are sufficiently bad to amount to punishment in themselves, which seriously affects the fundamental 'innocent until proven guilty' rule we have in our law (and, indeed, international human rights conventions).
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 years ago
#27
JD raises valid points, though it's nice to hear our bill is 'scarily sound' from the arch-critic himself.
1
SakuraCayla
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 years ago
#28
(Original post by RayApparently)
JD raises valid points, though it's nice to hear our bill is 'scarily sound' from the arch-critic himself.
I was about to say exactly the same. I've raised my own concerns as the author knows but I think a second reading taking onboard JD's points could be a very good bill!
1
Paracosm
  • Section Leader
  • Peer Support Volunteers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 years ago
#29
Abstaining
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 years ago
#30
(Original post by iEthan)
Abstaining
Is there any point in you being an MP, you don't seem to do anything else, I guess seat warmers are needed.
0
Paracosm
  • Section Leader
  • Peer Support Volunteers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 years ago
#31
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Is there any point in you being an MP, you don't seem to do anything else, I guess seat warmers are needed.
Thank you, as always for your warm and compassionate commentary on my decisions. I welcome you to continue being miserable as you see fit. :kiss:
1
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 years ago
#32
(Original post by iEthan)
Thank you, as always for your warm and compassionate commentary on my decisions. I welcome you to continue being miserable as you see fit. :kiss:
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Is there any point in you being an MP, you don't seem to do anything else, I guess seat warmers are needed.
And to think the Liberals once left a coalition with Labour because they thought Lab MPs were being rude to them...
2
Paracosm
  • Section Leader
  • Peer Support Volunteers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 years ago
#33
(Original post by RayApparently)
And to think the Liberals once left a coalition with Labour because they thought Lab MPs were being rude to them...
:rolleyes: this is about the third time this week now. :lol:
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 years ago
#34
(Original post by iEthan)
:rolleyes: this is about the third time this week now. :lol:
Why haven't you given up on government yet? I mean I know that the GE is imminent (3 weeks today) but surely it's not worth it?
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 years ago
#35
(Original post by iEthan)
:rolleyes: this is about the third time this week now. :lol:
I, the paragon of politeness and civility, think the Tories should be held to those same standards.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 years ago
#36
My main problem is that this would slow down conviction so much that the investigation is longer than the sentence

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 years ago
#37
How would trial by jury work if the jury isn't allowed to know who the person is?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 years ago
#38
(Original post by Aph)
How would trial by jury work if the jury isn't allowed to know who the person is?

Posted from TSR Mobile
This bill would still allow trials with juries.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#39
Report 2 years ago
#39
(Original post by Quamquam123)
This bill would still allow trials with juries.
But either the person needs to have a paper bag over their head constantly or they can't be there at the trial.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Quamquam123
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#40
Report 2 years ago
#40
(Original post by Aph)
But either the person needs to have a paper bag over their head constantly or they can't be there at the trial.

Posted from TSR Mobile
They can be at the trial but they would not be allowed to release details of the suspect to anyone.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (68)
19.54%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (143)
41.09%
Nope, not that interesting (137)
39.37%

Watched Threads

View All