Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ian Bailey case: Our civil liberties threatened

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    BetterLisbon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 391 ✭✭BetterLisbon


    prinz wrote: »
    A number of other posters have done like wise, including myself. Funnily when asked to show the colour of your own money you seem shy to do so.

    Well the links i have shown demonstrate the key flaws of the civil law system so i consider the colour of my money shown.


  • Options
    #93
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    BetterLisbon wrote: »
    Well the links i have shown demonstrate the key flaws of the civil law system so i consider the colour of my money shown.

    Since when have Wikipedia entries ever constituted proof? All they show is that the author of the Wikipedia entry has expressed an opinion about the topic.

    If you want to demonstrate the "key flaws of the civil law system", try showing us rulings from the ECHR on the two legal traditions. After all, if the civil law system is that appalling, it should be easy to demonstrate this from the ECHR's judgments.


  • Options
    #94
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    BetterLisbon wrote: »
    but under common law the trial judge is at least on paper 100% neutral under civil law he/she cannot be

    For a start, the trial judge can be neutral in teh inquisitorial system, but may not be. Also, as I have pointed out, it is inaccurate to equate inquisitorial with civil and adversarial with common law.

    Furthermore, I'm somewhat surprised that you'd prefer a judge who can be biased but has to put up a pretence that they aren't to a judge to can be biased and is allowed show it.

    How is the (dishonest) pretence of a lack of bias an advantage?
    and in France a jury of peers may not decide the facts of the case.
    That has little to do with the relevance of the claim you're making...that civil law regardless of where it is is somehow inferior to common law regardless of where it is.

    If you want to move the goalposts to discuss one particular nation's legal system against anothers, then please do so, but lets not pretend that we're talking about systems of law any more, but rather specific implementations.


  • Options
    #95
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    prinz wrote: »
    A number of other posters have done like wise, including myself. Funnily when asked to show the colour of your own money you seem shy to do so.

    I have to admit that, not having been tried under either system, I don't have any really strong personal feelings on whether one system is better than the other. What I can say, however, is that unless we assume that the millions upon millions of people who live under the civil law system are downtrodden slaves who know no better, it's extraordinarily unlikely that the civil law system is unjust in any meaningful sense.

    That reduces the issue, once again, to a question of preference and, more probably, custom - or, in some cases, blinkered xenophobia.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #96
    BetterLisbon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 391 ✭✭BetterLisbon


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I have to admit that, not having been tried under either system, I don't have any really strong personal feelings on whether one system is better than the other. What I can say, however, is that unless we assume that the millions upon millions of people who live under the civil law system are downtrodden slaves who know no better, it's extraordinarily unlikely that the civil law system is unjust in any meaningful sense.

    That reduces the issue, once again, to a question of preference and, more probably, custom - or, in some cases, blinkered xenophobia.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Simple question would you like to have the additional protections of common law when facing a false charge. Strawmen about citizens of civil law countries not being "downtrodden slaves" and rhetoric about "xenophobia" dont answear the question.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    BetterLisbon wrote: »
    Simple question would you like to have the additional protections of common law when facing a false charge. Strawmen about citizens of civil law countries not being "downtrodden slaves" and rhetoric about "xenophobia" dont answear the question.

    This is turning into the everlasting story... now we're on to facing false charges.. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #98
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    BetterLisbon wrote: »
    Simple question would you like to have the additional protections of common law when facing a false charge. Strawmen about citizens of civil law countries not being "downtrodden slaves" and rhetoric about "xenophobia" dont answear the question.

    There isn't a question to answer, because you are begging the question*, and you still don't know what a straw man is. Your entire "case" is based on the blind xenophobic belief that foreign systems can't be as good as ours - we go round and round in circles because you can't admit that even to yourself, but you don't have any basis for your dislike of civil law systems apart from your xenophobia.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    *that is, your question "would you like to have the additional protections of common law when facing a false charge" assumes that there are such "additional protections", which in turn would mean of necessity that common law was better protection against a false charge - but you have been entirely unable to demonstrate what these "additional protections" are.


  • Options
    #99
    BetterLisbon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 391 ✭✭BetterLisbon


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    There isn't a question to answer, because you are begging the question*, and you still don't know what a straw man is. Your entire "case" is based on the blind xenophobic belief that foreign systems can't be as good as ours - we go round and round in circles because you can't admit that even to yourself, but you don't have any basis for your dislike of civil law systems apart from your xenophobia.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    *that is, your question "would you like to have the additional protections of common law when facing a false charge" assumes that there are such "additional protections", which in turn would mean of necessity that common law was better protection against a false charge - but you have been entirely unable to demonstrate what these "additional protections" are.

    How about a fully independent judge for a start.
    Resorting to name calling doesnt become you. On top of this i have spoken of my admiration for many elements of the american system which is a foreign system i presume. :D


  • Options
    #100
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    There isn't a question to answer, because you are begging the question*, and you still don't know what a straw man is. Your entire "case" is based on the blind xenophobic belief that foreign systems can't be as good as ours - we go round and round in circles because you can't admit that even to yourself, but you don't have any basis for your dislike of civil law systems apart from your xenophobia.

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    *that is, your question "would you like to have the additional protections of common law when facing a false charge" assumes that there are such "additional protections", which in turn would mean of necessity that common law was better protection against a false charge - but you have been entirely unable to demonstrate what these "additional protections" are.

    You're wasting your time Scoff. BL is either a troll, or totally incapable of seeing beyond the 2 or 3 incredibly poorly conceived thoughts (s)he has. If/when you do get him/her to do so (s)he will inevitably move the goalposts, get utterly confused about the point (s)he is making and ultimately end up contradicting previous posts without even realising it.


  • Options
    #101
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    molloyjh wrote: »
    You're wasting your time Scoff. BL is either a troll, or totally incapable of seeing beyond the 2 or 3 incredibly poorly conceived thoughts (s)he has. If/when you do get him/her to do so (s)he will inevitably move the goalposts, get utterly confused about the point (s)he is making and ultimately end up contradicting previous posts without even realising it.

    Yes, I fear I'm running out of benefit of the doubt, really, but for what it's worth I think (s)he's honest.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    BetterLisbon wrote: »
    How about a fully independent judge for a start.
    Resorting to name calling doesnt become you. On top of this i have spoken of my admiration for many elements of the american system which is a foreign system i presume. :D

    You seem to be alright with it as long as they speak English - I wonder if your fear is simply of being brought to court in a foreign language?

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #103
    BetterLisbon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 391 ✭✭BetterLisbon


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You seem to be alright with it as long as they speak English - I wonder if your fear is simply of being brought to court in a foreign language?

    regards,
    Scofflaw

    Not dealing with the point then. Would you rather have a fully independent judge? i most definitely would.


  • Options
    #104
    Simple_Simone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Simple_Simone


    Excellent article in today's Irish Times. (sorry folks, it's behind a paywall)

    Ian Bailey case heading towards miscarriage of justice
    The Government has shown an exceptional willingness to cede the prosecution of Irish crime to other states    [/URL]


    EDIT - apologies - my earlier link was to the wrong article.


    Irrespective of Bailey's guilt or innocence (and he seems to be a loathsome creature) and the stunning incompetence of the gardaí (which is beyond argument) a crucially important legal principle regarding National Sovereignty is at stake here and the craven attitude of successive Irish Governments is both gutless and contemptible. We should never have allowed our country get into a situation where Johnny Frog can try someone in a case which took place in this country and where our DPP has concluded that there isn't a case to answer. Unsurprisingly, the roots of the sellout took place in 2003, when Bertie was Taoiseach.


  • Options
    #105
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,479 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Simple_Simone wrote: »
    Excellent article in today's Irish Times. (sorry folks, it's behind a paywall)

    Ian Bailey’s trial in France puts Ireland in difficult position

    Could you maybe set out a bit more what the specific argument is please (not a mod note, just it would help me understand your point a bit more)
    Irrespective of Bailey's guilt or innocence (and he seems to be a loathsome creature) and the stunning incompetence of the gardaí (which is beyond argument) a crucially important legal principle regarding National Sovereignty is at stake here and the craven attitude of successive Irish Governments is both gutless and contemptible.

    Im not sure what the specific legal principle is. Countries have always had extradition treaties. Some such treaties exclude own nationals or limit it to requesting state's nationals e.g. country A can only ask country B for the return of a citizen from country A only.

    If its about France prosecuting an offence which allegedly occurred in Ireland, many countries, including Ireland, have offences of extra territorial effect. Ireland has jurisdiction to try an Irish citizen who commits murder abroad. The difference in France is that they allow the extra territorial prosecution of someone who murders a French citizen. It seems like a fairly reasonable law to have, maybe Ireland should bring in a similar law.
    We should never have allowed our country get into a situation where Johnny Frog can try someone in a case which took place in this country and where our DPP has concluded that there isn't a case to answer.

    Why not? France is one of our closest allies, and I think we respect their soverign right to conduct criminal prosecutions. While not commenting on the specifics of the French trial, as that is sub judice, either the proofs are there or they are not. I havent heard any compelling argument that France is in breach of Article 6 ECHR (right to fair trial).
    Unsurprisingly, the roots of the sellout took place in 2003, when Bertie was Taoiseach.

    Why 2003? When the EAW Act came into law? Ireland sends eaws to other European countries and surrenders people to other countries. The system works reasonably well, and having no extradition/rendition procedure would be worse. Imagine a notorious murder accused could live in the other EU states and Ireland could do nothing about it.


  • Options
    #106
    Infini
    Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    Not being bad here but the thread is 9 YEARS old. Pretty big necrobump there.


  • Options
    #107
    Simple_Simone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Simple_Simone


    Infini wrote: »
    Not being bad here but the thread is 9 YEARS old. Pretty big necrobump there.


    Time may indeed have moved on, but the threat to our civil liberties remains the same as it did when the first reference to the Bailey situation was raised here 9 years ago.


  • Options
    #108
    judeboy101
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭judeboy101


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Could you maybe set out a bit more what the specific argument is please (not a mod note, just it would help me understand your point a bit more)



    Im not sure what the specific legal principle is. Countries have always had extradition treaties. Some such treaties exclude own nationals or limit it to requesting state's nationals e.g. country A can only ask country B for the return of a citizen from country A only.

    If its about France prosecuting an offence which allegedly occurred in Ireland, many countries, including Ireland, have offences of extra territorial effect. Ireland has jurisdiction to try an Irish citizen who commits murder abroad. The difference in France is that they allow the extra territorial prosecution of someone who murders a French citizen. It seems like a fairly reasonable law to have, maybe Ireland should bring in a similar law.



    Why not? France is one of our closest allies, and I think we respect their soverign right to conduct criminal prosecutions. While not commenting on the specifics of the French trial, as that is sub judice, either the proofs are there or they are not. I havent heard any compelling argument that France is in breach of Article 6 ECHR (right to fair trial).



    Why 2003? When the EAW Act came into law? Ireland sends eaws to other European countries and surrenders people to other countries. The system works reasonably well, and having no extradition/rendition procedure would be worse. Imagine a notorious murder accused could live in the other EU states and Ireland could do nothing about it.

    Didn't we recently extradite a man to the US despite him committing crimes in this state, crimes any other man would stand trial form, yet the dpp chose not to pursue?


  • Options
    #109
    Simple_Simone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Simple_Simone


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Could you maybe set out a bit more what the specific argument is please (not a mod note, just it would help me understand your point a bit more)



    Im not sure what the specific legal principle is. Countries have always had extradition treaties. Some such treaties exclude own nationals or limit it to requesting state's nationals e.g. country A can only ask country B for the return of a citizen from country A only.

    If its about France prosecuting an offence which allegedly occurred in Ireland, many countries, including Ireland, have offences of extra territorial effect. Ireland has jurisdiction to try an Irish citizen who commits murder abroad. The difference in France is that they allow the extra territorial prosecution of someone who murders a French citizen. It seems like a fairly reasonable law to have, maybe Ireland should bring in a similar law.



    Why not? France is one of our closest allies, and I think we respect their soverign right to conduct criminal prosecutions. While not commenting on the specifics of the French trial, as that is sub judice, either the proofs are there or they are not. I havent heard any compelling argument that France is in breach of Article 6 ECHR (right to fair trial).



    Why 2003? When the EAW Act came into law? Ireland sends eaws to other European countries and surrenders people to other countries. The system works reasonably well, and having no extradition/rendition procedure would be worse. Imagine a notorious murder accused could live in the other EU states and Ireland could do nothing about it.


    I'm not a lawyer. So instead of trying to batter me with legalese and big words, why not carry out a daring raid on your piggy bank, buy the IT, read the two related articles* and make up your own mind!

    * my link is to one by Dermot PJ Walsh, professor of law at Kent Law School and author of Walsh on Criminal Procedure

    The other is by Lara Marlowe - the IT's Paris correspondent for about sixty years.


  • Options
    #110
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,479 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Simple_Simone wrote: »
    I'm not a lawyer. So instead of trying to batter me with legalese and big words, why not carry out a daring raid on your piggy bank, buy the IT, read the two related articles* and make up your own mind!

    * my link is to one by Dermot PJ Walsh, professor of law at Kent Law School and author of Walsh on Criminal Procedure

    The other is by Lara Marlowe - the IT's Paris correspondent for about sixty years.

    Well you dont have to be a lawyer but if youre saying that there is a threat to national soverignty, you should be able to set out what you see as the problem in broad, non legal terms. The Dermot Walsh article raises a variety of isssues, the fact that the Bailey scenario is unorthodox is without question. But you want to discuss the political impact of a loss of soverignty. The closest I can find in that article to that point is this:
    When the Bill implementing the EAW was first introduced in the Oireachtas in 2003, it strongly asserted Irish control over the prosecution of Irish criminal offences. It contained an absolute prohibition on the execution of an EAW where the offence was committed in Ireland. Strangely, and without explanation, this provision was quietly dropped in the course of the Bill’s passage. The net effect is that the Irish authorities cannot resist a French EAW solely on the basis that the offence in question was committed in Ireland. The implicit surrender of sovereignty is obvious

    With the greatest of respect to Prof. Walsh, he is using a definition of soverignty that I dont agree with, but which is used a lot by pro brexit people in the UK. Soverignty is the supreme power of the State to pass its own laws, and he acknowledges that they did have the power to prevent such surrenders but the Dail chose not to put that in. Thats the very definition of a soverign decision and to say that it amounts to a surrender of soverignty is a meaningless phrase. One might as well say that bin charges are a surrender of soverignty if one does not personally agree with them.


  • Options
    #111
    Simple_Simone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Simple_Simone


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Well you dont have to be a lawyer but if youre saying that there is a threat to national soverignty, you should be able to set out what you see as the problem in broad, non legal terms. The Dermot Walsh article raises a variety of isssues, the fact that the Bailey scenario is unorthodox is without question. But you want to discuss the political impact of a loss of soverignty. The closest I can find in that article to that point is this:



    With the greatest of respect to Prof. Walsh, he is using a definition of soverignty that I dont agree with, but which is used a lot by pro brexit people in the UK. Soverignty is the supreme power of the State to pass its own laws, and he acknowledges that they did have the power to prevent such surrenders but the Dail chose not to put that in. Thats the very definition of a soverign decision and to say that it amounts to a surrender of soverignty is a meaningless phrase. One might as well say that bin charges are a surrender of soverignty if one does not personally agree with them.

    Your view is noted.

    However, if you want to put me down properly, then it's not sufficient simply to make a trite and infantile analogy with bin charges; you also need to know how to spell sovereignty correctly!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,479 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Simple_Simone wrote: »
    Your view is noted.

    However, if you want to put me down properly, then it's not sufficient simply to make a trite and infantile analogy with bin charges; you also need to know how to spell sovereignty correctly!

    Im not trying to put you down. Youve said that you think its a big problem with something, but yet havent been able to identify what your issue is.

    As for my misspelling - thanks for that but to a certain extent Im glad I misspelled it. It has become the chosen phrase for the undefinable loss felt by far right nationalists and extremists, who rarely care to elaborate on what exactly they mean.


  • Options
    #113
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    whether he did it or not the show trial going on in France the moment is something else. They have psychiatrists who have never met Bailey doing profiles on him.


  • Options
    #114
    JonnyF
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭JonnyF


    any idea why RTE aren't covering the French trial? no mention of it on the news all week


  • Options
    #115
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,325 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    JonnyF wrote: »
    any idea why RTE aren't covering the French trial? no mention of it on the news all week

    They have been covering it - on TV, radio and online.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #116
    Simple_Simone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Simple_Simone


    So let's have three hearty cheers for Johnny Frog and the Code Napoleon-based legal system that has just found Ian Bailey guilty of murder following a stitch-up trial that a West Belfast kangaroo court would admire and one that makes the Birmingham Six conviction seem watertight and legally sound!

    If Leo had a set of cojones, then he'd have sent a gunboat up the Seine to put manners on Macron and his herd of slack-jawed judicial macaroons. :mad:


  • Options
    #117
    Simple_Simone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Simple_Simone


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    whether he did it or not the show trial going on in France the moment is something else. They have psychiatrists who have never met Bailey doing profiles on him.

    Not to talk of the parish priest of Goleen allowing Toscan du Plantier's son to address the congregation at Sunday mass urging them to stitch up the Brit!


  • Options
    #118
    Simple_Simone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Simple_Simone


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Im not trying to put you down. Youve said that you think its a big problem with something, but yet havent been able to identify what your issue is.

    Sorry, but as I'm neither a qualified lawyer or a remedial teacher, I regret that I am wholly unable to assist you with your comprehension problems.


  • Options
    #119
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    a shock conviction there!
    i wonder if they would have bothered with this punch and judy show had it not been a rich well to do family pushing for it?


  • Options
    #120
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    What evidence did they have over in France that wasn't found in Ireland


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,513 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What evidence did they have over in France that wasn't found in Ireland

    What evidence did they have in general.

    Did anything get handed over.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement