Lottery Watch

This discussion is closed.
Muse
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#81
Report 14 years ago
#81
(Original post by Fleff)
No, I think the loophole should be closed. But at the present time, it isn't, which means, at the present time, I think he is entitled to his money.
ends can justify the means, laws can be interfered with, and i have a sneaky feeling David Blunkett will wipe the smirk from his face. pity an extra 5 years couldn't be slapped on to his sentence for his recent arrogance.

*is starting to sound like a Daily Mail reporter*
0
Fleffzilla
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#82
Report 14 years ago
#82
(Original post by timeofyourlife)
ends can justify the means, laws can be interfered with, and i have a sneaky feeling David Blunkett will wipe the smirk from his face. pity an extra 5 years couldn't be slapped on to his sentence for his recent arrogance.

*is starting to sound like a Daily Mail reporter*
:eek: No! Daily Mail! Argh! *runs away*
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#83
Report 14 years ago
#83
(Original post by timeofyourlife)
ends can justify the means, laws can be interfered with, and i have a sneaky feeling David Blunkett will wipe the smirk from his face. pity an extra 5 years couldn't be slapped on to his sentence for his recent arrogance.
People who commit the biggest crime of all receive more lenient sentences than this lottery winner. David Blunkett is an arse anyway.
0
john !!
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#84
Report 14 years ago
#84
He should do what he wants with it.

THe people are being pathetic beggars. He served his sentence, wouldn't it be unfair to take his money? No other people pay a £7m fine for going to prison.
0
Greyhound01
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#85
Report 14 years ago
#85
The criminal who bought the lottery ticket paid his pound like everybody else. He contributed to the "good causes" by paying the pound so he's entitled to his winnings like any other winner. It's impossible to actually stop someone with a criminal conviction from buying a ticket because newsagents can't check someone's criminal record, and once someone has won you can't, I believe, morally tell someone they can't have their legitimate winnings.
0
Muse
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#86
Report 14 years ago
#86
(Original post by mik1a)
He should do what he wants with it.

THe people are being pathetic beggars. He served his sentence, wouldn't it be unfair to take his money? No other people pay a £7m fine for going to prison.
he hasn't served his sentence yet though, that's the issue.
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#87
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#87
(Original post by timeofyourlife)
he hasn't served his sentence yet though, that's the issue.
He has nearly served his sentance and he hasn't broken any laws or rules so I think it will be illegal to take is money.
0
Muse
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#88
Report 14 years ago
#88
(Original post by randdom)
He has nearly served his sentance and he hasn't broken any laws or rules so I think it will be illegal to take is money.
ah, but that's where our David changing the law comes in
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#89
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#89
(Original post by timeofyourlife)
ah, but that's where our David changing the law comes in
Surely that can't effect someone who has won it before the law was changed.
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#90
Report 14 years ago
#90
(Original post by randdom)
Surely that can't effect someone who has won it before the law was changed.
Laws can be made retrospective i.e War Crimes Act 1991 (I think it was 1991). But for something like this then no. And Blunkett does not have power to change laws in the effect which someone stated earlier. It is Westminster Parliament.
0
dave134
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#91
Report 14 years ago
#91
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Laws can be made retrospective i.e War Crimes Act 1991 (I think it was 1991). But for something like this then no. And Blunkett does not have power to change laws in the effect which someone stated earlier. It is Westminster Parliament.
It would be in breach of the Human rights act to make most legislation retrospective. You could not simply turn around and fine everyone who had ever chewed gum £100 because you felt like it.

The War Crimes act was a different kettle of fish though. If we had no legislation against murder, it would be compatible to make an act introducing such a crime, retrospective.

Technically is it not still the Queen who makes all the laws in the country. The opening of all acts of parliament have this at the beginning

(Original post by Consolidated Fund Act 2004)
BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows
That to me reads that the Queen is making the law, upon the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual (i.e. the Bishops) and Temporal (the house of lords) and Commons (i.e. MPs)
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#92
Report 14 years ago
#92
(Original post by dave134)
Technically is it not still the Queen who makes all the laws in the country. The opening of all acts of parliament have this at the beginning

That to me reads that the Queen is making the law, upon the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual (i.e. the Bishops) and Temporal (the house of lords) and Commons (i.e. MPs)
But does the Queen make laws like previous monarchs did such as Charles I? No. The above preamble us only there for constitutional reasons. You not heard the saying that the Queen reigns but does not rule? The queen is part of the Parliament.
0
Dajo123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#93
Report 14 years ago
#93
(Original post by dave134)
It would be in breach of the Human rights act
The Article you are referring to (Article 7 - no punishment without law) has been bypassed many times by the European Court of Human Rights, they say that if a reasonable person would have considered the persons actions a crime, then a law can be applied in retrospect, without breeching Article 7.
0
dave134
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#94
Report 14 years ago
#94
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
But does the Queen make laws like previous monarchs did such as Charles I? No. The above preamble us only there for constitutional reasons. You not heard the saying that the Queen reigns but does not rule? The queen is part of the Parliament.
I would read it that the Queen is the only person who can make laws, but may only do so with the consent of Parliament. I would read it that she could refuse to grant Royal Assent if she wished.
0
Dajo123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#95
Report 14 years ago
#95
(Original post by dave134)
I would read it that the Queen is the only person who can make laws, but may only do so with the consent of Parliament. I would read it that she could refuse to grant Royal Assent if she wished.
This is only tradition, she has no real power, Judges are one of the biggest sources of law in Britain.
0
dave134
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#96
Report 14 years ago
#96
(Original post by Dajo123)
This is only tradition, she has no real power, Judges are one of the biggest sources of law in Britain.
Sorry, yes. For laws read Statutes in my previous post
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#97
Report 14 years ago
#97
(Original post by Dajo123)
The Article you are referring to (Article 7 - no punishment without law) has been bypassed many times by the European Court of Human Rights, they say that if a reasonable person would have considered the persons actions a crime, then a law can be applied in retrospect, without breeching Article 7.
Yes by sensible societies or something is mentioned there.
0
dave134
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#98
Report 14 years ago
#98
(Original post by Dajo123)
The Article you are referring to (Article 7 - no punishment without law) has been bypassed many times by the European Court of Human Rights, they say that if a reasonable person would have considered the persons actions a crime, then a law can be applied in retrospect, without breeching Article 7.
I thought my post made that point?

A retrospective law against possession of chewing gum would be blocked by Article 7
A retrospective law against murder/genocide would not.
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#99
Report 14 years ago
#99
(Original post by dave134)
I thought my post made that point?

A retrospective law against possession of chewing gum would be blocked by Article 7
A retrospective law against murder/genocide would not.
But the ECHR does not have the same power as other statutes.
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#100
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#100
(Original post by Dajo123)
The Article you are referring to (Article 7 - no punishment without law) has been bypassed many times by the European Court of Human Rights, they say that if a reasonable person would have considered the persons actions a crime, then a law can be applied in retrospect, without breeching Article 7.
But that wouldn't be applicable in this case surely because no reasonable person would consider the man buying the lottery ticket to be a crime.
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

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (542)
37.74%
No - but I will (112)
7.8%
No - I don't want to (98)
6.82%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (684)
47.63%

Watched Threads

View All