recedite wrote: » Maybe so, but the issue would be around supplying the drug. Compare to a common antibiotic such as Augmentin which is available prescription only here. I know people who stock up on this when they go to Spain on holiday, where it is available cheaply over the counter. That's not illegal, but if they came back here and started selling it to others, the law would have something to say on the matter. I presume these ladies will say they intended to give their pills away free, which will complicate things, but its still an "unlicensed supplying of drugs" issue.
MrPudding wrote: » The discussion was around civil disobedience in response to the (possible future) convictions. aloyisious talked, specifically, about not paying fines and serving time but appealing to the SC. The point Absolam made, which I followed up, was that there likely wouldn't anything to be civilly disobedient about. There isn't likly to be a fine to refuse to pay and appealing a suspended sentence doesn't really have the same impact as appealing a sentence when one's liberty has actually been removed. I happen to agree with you that seeing these cases being taken should be enough to get people motivated, but the posts you are objecting to were in response to specific suggestions by another poster. Perhaps you should read the earlier posts, then you might understand these posts. MrP
volchitsa wrote: » I don't understand what's being discussed here : the three women who have handed themselves in to the police haven't yet been tried so any talk of appeals seems premature, to say the least. Has there been a suggestion that they wouldn't be satisfied with a suspended sentence, and would "accept" nothing less than serving time in prison? If so, I don't think that's true : a series of ridiculously lenient (given the severity of possible sentences for the crime, and the lack of mitigating circumstances) guilty sentences being handed down to more and more women would be just as effective in discrediting the law itself, and consequently the judicial system for participating in such a charade.
MrPudding wrote: » Yeah. I think it is likely to need a second offence. I think you are right in that they won't have a scope to civilly disobey, so their only option will be to commit the offence (or any other offence) again during the suspension period. Then they would go to jail for the previously suspended term and, presumably, another term for the second offence, though I think they would be concurrent. Then it would get interesting. The first appeal would be to the court of appeal in Northern Ireland, and I can't see that being very different. They could then appeal to the SC, but again, I am not sure the SC would or could do much. The SC in the UK can't change legislation. Also, there is the small matter of getting leave to appeal. The appeal would need to be on a point of law, in other words, the court was mistaken in its application of the law. The correct application of a law, even if one does not agree with that law, is not necessarily sufficient grounds for appeal. Though perhaps an appeal might be granted on a public policy basis. Either way, I suspect if they did go to jail they would likely serve their term... MrP
Absolam wrote: » As far as I know (and I'm open to correction here) mifepristone and misoprostol are not on the list of drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act, so it's legal to buy the pills in Northern Ireland, even though they're not sold there, and it's legal to possess the pills in Northern Ireland.
Absolam wrote: » Having already stated their guilt, it's hard to see what exactly they'll be in a position to say 'No' to; they're not likely to break into a prison and then refuse to be removed, so what conceivable act of civil disobedience could they take, outside of stating their intention to re-offend? More likely it will be Ulsters politicians saying 'No' to having their laws amended to mirror Westminster as they did; whatever about cultural Catholic opposition to abortion in the Republic, 'religious' views in the North are considerably more... entrenched?
Absolam wrote: » whatever about cultural Catholic opposition to abortion in the Republic, 'religious' views in the North are considerably more... entrenched?
recedite wrote: » There will be no ruling on that. Just a sentence for unlicensed dealing in drugs; probably a suspended one under the circumstances. But yeah, the three ladies will become much sought after as lunch companions for a while.
aloyisious wrote: » make the case go all the way to the UK Supreme Court (formerly the law lords) or further for a ruling on access to the morning-after pill..
recedite wrote: » Looks like these three oul wans want to be martyred by the law. Whatever penalties might be applied to somebody actually using the pills, the penalty for supplying drugs without a license would be under a completely different set of laws. So whatever happens to them will have no relevance to any person thinking of using the pills. Its just a publicity stunt.
recedite wrote: » Its just a publicity stunt.
robdonn wrote: » Social Democrats member dropped as Mass reader over abortion stance
robdonn wrote: » Who says she was trying to justify anything? She didn't write the article, she could have been approached to simply tell her story or volunteered to tell her story without any need to justify her actions.
frostyjacks wrote: » She probably does need to justify her actions, seeing as she knowingly broke the law. I thought that was the point of the article; that she was attempting to justify what she did to her and her then boyfriend's unborn child?
eviltwin wrote: » You don't agree with abortion in any circumstances, what difference would it make if she told every detail or none at all? Your opinion won't change. Besides this woman doesn't need to justify her actions to anyone.
Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: » what is Truth?
Cabaal wrote: » http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/examiner-9.jpg The Church trying to use people's faith to blackmail them again, its like 2013 all over again.
oscarBravo wrote: » Not a case of Keats being wrong? :pac:
Absolam wrote: » Nope.
aloyisious wrote: » Do you mean beautiful?
Absolam wrote: » Truth is beauty.
