Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Because you won't get any compo.
Poor old Barry "Bulsara" George.
that you have to prove your innocence to get compensation. Which is an odd way of looking at it. I suppose it stops people getting out on some tiny technicality being showered with cash.
otherwise we think they are monstrous cruel incompetants.
But I suspect in the Victor Nealon case it is hardly him getting off on a technicality.....he served 17 years for attempted rape....and because he protested his innocense he got 10 years more than otherwise.....and now DNA evidence shows another 'Unknown man'
Well Victor can hardly go around on his own bat forcing men to give dna samples so he can match them up can he.
Nor does it seem that hes got off on a technicality.
I don't know.....I mean I know crimes are monstrous....but when 'our representatives do a crime and refuse to make amends then its horrible in a diferent way somehow.
does this mean that victor Nealon, Barry George etc can now, take goods from the state that would have resulted in 17 years and 8 years convictions?
Surely this must be illegal? I really do not understand.
Isn't false imprisonment illegal? I'm confused.
Although my questions are obviously silly, they're only silly because I am confused as to what is going on here.
(I genuinely genuinely do not understand as the amount of compensation saved would hardly make a dent in budgetry deficits)
Havn't the state incited ,uncompensated victims of miscarriages of justice, to comit crime? (or at least not obey rules of law)
Isnt incitement to crime a crime in itself?
Why do such questions (from me and others), have to be answered by authority?
It is surely proof that authority is here to rule us, not just administer.....I can understand this, except that people keep correcting me when I refer to us being 'ruled' over.
For us to not be ruled over then there must be a mechanism whereby we can have such questions answered and such debates to be had.....with US, not through the institutions and mechanisms that are 'handled' by the system.
There now exists the internet, why can't we get answers on such genuinely baffling issues such as in this link.....perhaps it is because the authorities really really genuinely believe that the released men are not inocent but are in fact guilty....in which case they really should say, because otherwise they are destroying mine (and others) confidence in the rule of law as adminsitered by those in authority, and that is also surely not on the books.
PO or Raanraals you're lawyers....could you answer me (please dont try to just pick holes in the way I might express myself, but instead try to address what you really think that Im trying to get at here......i.e. why cant WE demand explanations for things that otherwise erode any respect for authority being able to do things. Why doesnt the law have to justify itself in proper discussion with US
and the police/courts wanted to put him away to effectively stop these?
If so they should say this when explaining why he won't get compensation, (or that its a contributary factor, and they dont want to be seen to rewarding people who were sex offenders anyway, just because of the specifics of a particular case.........I suppose this makes it consistant with the continually imprisoning of the naked rambler, I suppose in some circles this IS regarded as a sex offence (even if it isnt by most people), Is this why he gets locked up so much?
Or is it the wilfulness (of Nealon and of the naked rambler) to insist on themselves being right, even if that seems to be against the rulings of authority (i.e. a bit like lucifer.....hes emphasised as being sooooooo bad, because he challanged authority) Its a bit unfair though, I mean people maintaining their innocence isnt really as much anti authority as just defending yourself really.
I don't think the legal system bothers to help explain things that trouble people like this.
Again can PO and Raanraals help me with this one?
Is the harsh treatment of people also meant to be a deterrent to others that you'd best not try to cause trouble to authorities decissions (irrelevant of whether they are right or wrong) ?