Sunday, 29 November 2009
I must congratulate the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC on bringing some sanity back to our justice system, and publish a copy of her recent success story printed in a news bulletin.
I have praised this lady in past posts,as it's nice to know someone in power is using that power to do some good for a change by looking after the victims of crime instead of always looking out for the criminals.
Crimes should be punished severely, which DOES act as a deterrent and the do-gooders who would rather see criminals walk the streets should spend some time with them behind bars where they belong.
Murderers to be jailed for longer
Brian Boyle and Greig Maddock
Brian Boyle and Greig Maddock both had their sentences increased
Killers could have to spend the rest of their natural lives behind bars after appeal court judges increased the minimum prison term for murder.
The judges said the 12-year minimum sentence which was often imposed in murder cases was generally too lenient.
And they said the worst killers should spend longer than 30 years in prison - the previous maximum sentence.
The judges issued the new guidelines in response to an appeal by Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC.
Anyone convicted of murder is given an automatic life sentence, but judges set a minimum term that must be served before the killer is able to apply for parole.
A punishment part as low as 12 years would not be appropriate unless there were strong mitigating circumstances
Scottish Courts statement
Mrs Angiolini said an appeal case in 2002 had led to an understanding that the range of minimum terms imposed by judges was a "relatively compressed scale from 12 years to 30 years".
In their ruling issued on Thursday, the appeal court judges agreed with Mrs Angiolini that 12 years was too lenient unless there were exceptional circumstances - and said minimum sentences of more than 30 years could be imposed for mass murderers.
Among the five judges who had been convened to examine the issue was Scotland's most senior judge, Lord Hamilton.
He said it would be open to a sentencing judge in a murder case "to specify a period which was in excess, even well in excess, of the offender's anticipated lifespan".
And he said minimum sentences of at least 16 years should be set for knife murders in order to tackle the "scourge" of knife crime.
A statement issued by the court said: "It has held that there may well be cases (for example, mass murders by terrorist action) for which a punishment part of more than 30 years may, subject to any mitigating considerations, be appropriate.
"A punishment part as low as 12 years would not be appropriate unless there were strong mitigating circumstances, and a punishment part of less than 12 years should not be set in the absence of exceptional circumstances - for example, where the offender is a child.
"Where the offender has deliberately armed himself with a knife or other sharp instrument and committed murder with it, the court would expect, other than in exceptional circumstances, the punishment part to be at least 16 years - in some cases significantly longer.
"It has endorsed a view expressed in an earlier case that where the victim is a child or a police officer acting in the execution of his duty, or where a firearm is used, a punishment part in the region of 20 years should be set."
Mrs Angiolini had also asked the appeal court to examine whether the sentences on killers Robert Kelly, Brian Boyle, and Greig Maddock had been unduly lenient.
Kelly was jailed for a minimum 15 years for strangling loan firm collector Agnes "Nessa"' Mechan, 64, and hiding her body under floorboards in the Govanhill area of Glasgow in 2002. The body was only found four years later.
Boyle and Maddock had been sentenced to 15 and 12 years respectively in 2007 after murdering father-of-two Brian Bowie by setting fire to him in Dunfermline.
The judges ruled that Kelly's minimum sentence should be increased to 19 years, and also increased the minimum sentences on Boyle and Maddock to 20 and 18 years respectively.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Image by giumaiolini via FlickrEvery time the subject of global warming comes up we are asked to take precautions to "save the planet."
The government use green issues to con more money out of the taxpayers in the pretence that it is to help "save the planet."
This planet has survived the formation of our solar system, collisions with the moon (if our scientist are to be believed) meteorites crashing onto its surface and wiping out life forms, extreme degrees of heat, and cold during any natural phases, or catastrophes it goes through, so it is not the planet that is in danger but mankind its self.
Instead of using the term "save the planet" we should face facts and admit its human beings who are at risk, not the planet, and use the term "save mankind."
Mankind, or the human life form we are, has only been on this planet for a short space of time in comparison to the lifetime of the earth, and the way we abuse the resources on it might accelerate global warming, but no matter how hard we try to combat the changes on earth whether we are responsible for them or not, mother nature with always win.
As long as the earth rotates, and orbits around the sun, these changes will always occur, the planet WILL survive, and mankind being just another phase in its cycle might, like the dinosaurs be another casualty in its evolution.
The planet will save its self, with or without our help, and the taxes we are being conned into paying to save it, are more for the survival of government finance, rather than anything else.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Image by ssoosay via FlickrThere are plenty of charities who between them collect millions of pounds for cancer research, and while it is put to good use with methods discovered which cure some cancers and others that at least reduce growths, giving the sufferer a longer and less painful life,it must anger the scientists when the end result is not allowed to go on the market because the cost to the National Health Service would be too great.
A new drug called "avistan" is one such drug that can cure bowel cancer, but deemed to be too expensive to allow sufferers to reap the benefits of it.
Think of the money spent to bring these drugs onto the market, and the money donated by people who most likely have lost someone close to them in the hope that it will save others from going through the pain and suffering they witnessed, then ask yourself why can these drugs not be used.
What is the point of developing these drugs only to be told, "we have a cure but we cannot afford to give you it.
The very people who donated money towards cancer research are the type of people who are refused the treatment, so where is the justice in that?
The drug companies must find a way to to produce these drugs that will make them available to everyone, whether it means cutting their profits or by going to the government for help.
If the government can come up with billions of pounds, all of a sudden to bail out the banks then they should be able to assist in the distribution of these important drugs that will save the lives and suffering of the people they were supposed to help.
I wonder how much of Fred Goodwin's vulgar pension, will go towards charities, because with his track record, his policy will be "charity begins at home."
It's the likes of him and the rich rip off merchants from the city who can afford this treatment who will benefit, the very people who have no thought for anyone else, and who I doubt very much if they care about any charity, while the poor folk who would give their last are the victims again.
The drugs were discovered through the determination of our scientists, and the well meaning people who donate so much money to the cancer research charity, so it should not be too difficult to let them see their efforts come to fruition, without money grabbing companies cashing in.
Monday, 23 November 2009
I was listening to the radio as I was driving home in my SAAB (I thought that a bit of advertising might help with my next purchase LOL.) and they were speaking of the results of a poll that had been taken recently.
It suggested that their might be a hung parliament at the next election.
Now I am sure that the words on every ones lips when they heard this would have gone something like this.
"They all deserve to be hung after the fiasco's of the past year, what with the expenses scam and the banking farce to name but two."
Now before anyone who does not know what a hung parliament is, and might get excited at the thought, a hung parliament means that there will be no clear majority after the votes have been counted at the next election, meaning that the British public have no faith in any one party to dig us out of the mess we find ourselves in.
It only proves what I have stated in this blog many times, that no matter who we vote for it will only be the lesser of two evils.
If it is a hung parliament all the evil will be put together in a "coalition government" to sort out the mess, and who knows where that will take us.
It might be the best solution though, and save all the political bickering in the house, where they all act like a bunch of school kids instead of getting down to the business in hand; the job we hired them to do, and get this country back on an even keel again, or we might find there is a new meaning to the term "hung parliament."
Saturday, 21 November 2009
Image via WikipediaThe French fishermen would not stand for it, and the Spanish are never questioned about their methods of catching fish of all sizes, and cleaning up their fishing grounds, but the responsible Scottish fishermen are once again being punished by the mindless idiots in Brussels who still want restrictions on our fishing fleet.
These laws are being passed by people who know nothing about the job or the fish stocks around our waters, and who's main aim seems to be to ruin the Scottish, or British fishing industry.
Our representatives in Europe come away the same old sob story that there is nothing they can do about it, but it is their job to fight for the rights of Britain, not to walk away with their tails between their legs, and allow this useless union dictate to them.
Britain is the only country who allows this to happen while countries like Spain and France, to name but two stand up for their fishing rights, and are listened to even though their boats slaughter everything they catch.
Why does our representative not use these facts as ammunition to protect our rights instead of walking away in defeat.
Questions like these should be asked, so why are our MEPs not asking them and fighting on our behalf?
Their jobs should be questioned if they cannot let their voices be heard.
What excuses are we gong to get when our fleet is tied to the wall with thousands of jobs gone, ashore and at sea, while foreign vessels from other E.U. countries come and plunder our seas leaving them in the desolate state they have left their own in?
This union has no right to dictate to our fishermen,nor should they have been given the power they have been, and if we were given the vote we were promised by our weak government, we would be in control of our own waters and making a better job of it than these fools who are in charge of our destiny now, not only in fishing matters, but in all other important matters.
Heaven help us for the future.
What is happening now is a far cry from the Common Market we DID sign up for, where the price and distribution of food produce was the main factor.
The European Union was bad enough but the Lisbon treaty is a step too far, and a step most countries will live to regret.
The gutless wonders we send to represent us in Europe will be the cause of us losing our individuality, while the stronger countries, like Germany, and France who are already beginning to dominate, will take over the running of everything and their word will be law.
Now why did Hitler not think about conquering the world this way?
It seems his modern day counterparts have come up with a successful formula to rule Europe,only this time there is no resistance.
Monday, 16 November 2009
Image via WikipediaIt has just been announced that the cost of the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow has risen from 373 million pounds to 454 million pounds, a rise of 22%, and with under four years to go before they start the cost could rise even more.
This situation is nothing new to to the organizers of Olympic, and Commonwealth Games of the past, so why does it always make such a big impact when it is announced with every new venue.
According to what they say the extra money HAS to be paid for by the taxpayer.(As if we haven't got enough to pay back thanks to the banking farce.) Taxpayers who had no say as to whether they wanted the games in their country, or the people of Glasgow, who were never consulted about the inconvenience to them.
Why should the taxpayers be burdened by more expense to make the dream of some city or government officials dream come true?
OK its a big thing for the British competitors to have the games on their own soil, but the expense does not warrant the benefits of having them here, and I am sure the countries who failed this time round are pretty thankful that they escaped the expense during the world recession we are now in.
Where the money was coming from in the first place is a mystery, as poverty was being pleaded by anyone and everyone in authority before we won (or lost more like)the vote to hold the Commonwealth Games.
It seems it is easy finding money to finance unnecessary, or frivolous causes, but when it comes to making necessary cuts it's the public who has to suffer by withdrawing the services they need the most, like refuse collections, and all other services paid for by extortionate council taxes.
It seems to me when political figures get into power they seem to think they are working with monopoly money, and that the taxpayers will come to their rescue every time they overspend.
In the case of the games we are always promised the benefits will be greater than the cost, but it never turns out that way, and this will be no exception.
It's time we started handing over monopoly money to pay our taxes after all it's the only money that doesn't disappear into thin air, and always lands in the hands of the winner, not like the Billions lost by our world bankers, never to be seen again.
NOW WHERE DID ALL THAT CASH GO?
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Image via WikipediaAlex Salmond's words of "A Scottish bloc of MPs will unblock Westminster" and "We shall use voting power to make London dance to a Scottish tune" would have had a better chance of ringing true had they not shown how incapable they really are of running the country,or making important decisions, by releasing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. That is the rock they perished on, not past manifestos or future promises.
The Scottish people do not forget, even though it means a pathetic bunch of labour candidates getting in.
Its hard to know who to vote for in the coming general election as no one party seems able to carry out the duties required.
When it comes to the crunch it will be the lesser of two evils, a result none of the parties should be proud of.
The fact that the turnout for this by-election was the lowest turnout for a post-war Westminster by-election in Scotland, shows how interested the Scottish people are in electing the money grabbing crooks who now stand for parliament seats to line their own pockets rather than attend to the policies, and people they once used to care for.
Another reason might be the fact that we have been swallowed up by what is now the dictatorship of the European Union.
Either way the public can't win, and have no real say in political decisions, so why vote at all.
Until our voice is heard again the feeble bunch of British politicians can expect the same disdain at every election.
Image via WikipediaHere is another example of the stupidity in the British justice system.
I am so disgusted that I will post a copy of the story rather than write about it, and give you an idea how our courts here in Britain have no respect for the victims of crime.
Make up your own minds, and tell me if this rapist should ever walk free again,regardless of his age, as it is obvious to me that on his release he will waste no time until he finds his next victim.
Any judge who released or, releases this scum in the future should be sacked, and never allowed to sit on any bench in our courts again.
Its long past the time when we should be demanding justice,and protect our general public.
Freed child rapist, 16, detained
Sentencing Judge Adrian Smith
Judge Adrian Smith initially imposed a community order for the first rape
Judges follow sentence guidelines
A teenager who kidnapped and raped a five-year-old boy, eight days after avoiding custody for another rape, has been detained for at least three years.
The 16-year-old admitted offences against the second boy including rape and child abduction.
Manchester's Minshull Street Crown Court heard the attack happened after he was given a community order for the rape of a boy aged seven in Tameside.
The first sentence, by Judge Adrian Smith, provoked a legal challenge.
On Wednesday, the attacker, who cannot be named, was given an indeterminate sentence for protection of the public after committing a second attack.
He must serve a minimum of three years minus five days before being considered for parole.
But Judge Peter Lakin told him: "The offences you have committed are deeply disturbing and very serious.
Det Con Terry Farrell read out a statement from the victim's father
"You are a devious and manipulative young man with an unhealthy and completely unacceptable sexual interest in young boys.
"It is likely you will not be released for some very considerable period of time."
He added that it was "highly unusual" for a court to categorise a 16-year-old as a danger to the public but in this case it was merited.
"I have to say I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in reaching the conclusion that you are indeed a dangerous offender," the judge said.
The boy was sentenced to three years and four months, but will be eligible for parole earlier because of time spent in custody.
Judge Lakin also revoked the community rehabilitation order passed by Judge Adrian Smith and resentenced him for the earlier rape offences against the seven-year-old.
He was sentenced to three years and four months, to run concurrently, and placed on the Sex Offenders Register.
In sentencing for the first rape, Judge Smith is believed to have considered the victim's family, who forgave the youth because of their Christian beliefs.
The three-year community order led to an appeal by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), but was overtaken when, just days after appearing in court, he was arrested for the second rape.
Rape is rape and whether you are 16 or 60, it is one of the most horrific crimes anyone can commit
Det Con Terry Farrell
On 4 July 2009, the second victim, who is now six, was playing outside near his home when he was lured away to look for a lost football but was actually taken to the teenager's house and abused.
He was found emerging from the house while his parents searched the neighbourhood for him.
The teenager later admitted child abduction, rape, committing an offence with the intention of committing a sexual offence, attempted rape and causing a child to engage in sexual activity.
Speaking after the hearing, Det Con Terry Farrell, who led the investigation, said it was a "harrowing and disturbing" case.
"Rape is rape and whether you are 16 or 60, it is one of the most horrific crimes anyone can commit. For this to happen to a five-year-old boy is beyond comprehension."
He then went on to read a statement on behalf of the father of the victim.
He said: "This has been a traumatic ordeal for my whole family, and particularly for my six-year-old son who has had to go through what no-one, let alone a young innocent boy, should ever have to go through.
"It has been a harrowing time but I'm glad it is finally over and we can now draw a line under everything and move on with our lives."
Donald Swarbrick says.
Its all very well having a christian attitude,but if the parents of his first victim had not wanted leniency, the other poor victim and family would not have had to suffer the same atrocities plus the pain and suffering that goes along with it. .
They should be regretting that christian decision now, and have some thought for future victims.