Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Is bail granted fairly?

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Is bail granted fairly?

Post by astradt1 on Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:25 pm

First topic message reminder :

This hearing took place on Wednesday 5th Oct but has only just made it to Nation Press......

Millionaire's daughter to stand trial after denying London riots burglary

A millionaire's daughter will face trial after she denied stealing £5,000-worth of electronic goods during the London riots, a court official said.

Laura Johnson, 19, pleaded not guilty to eight charges of burglary after the haul was found in a car that she was allegedly driving.

Her parents are reportedly millionaires, and Johnson was a high-flying student at Newstead Wood School in Bromley, south east London, before going to the University of Exeter.
Advertisement >>

She appeared alongside two other defendants at Inner London Crown Court this afternoon, 18-year-old Alexander Elliott-Joahill, and a 17-year-old boy, who both denied the eight charges.

A branch of Comet in Charlton, south east London, was raided during the unrest that swept across England last month, and stock including televisions and mobile phones was stolen.

Johnson and the 17-year-old were bailed, while Elliott-Joahill was remanded in custody, the court official said.

The three teenagers will be tried together at the same court on January 9 next year.

(From 'The Daily Mirror', 8th Oct 2011)
avatar
astradt1
Moderator

Posts : 965
Join date : 2011-10-08
Age : 62
Location : East Midlands

Back to top Go down


Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by Shirina on Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:02 pm

When a potential poor client wavered on the fee, he said, “If my fee is too high for you, go down the street to so-and-so’s office. He’s cheap, and you get what you pay for.”
Which is one of the many ways our system is flawed.

Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by astradt1 on Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:23 pm

ROB (2) the likelihood that the person will not be a danger to anyone if the person remains out of physical custody.

Surely that could be seen as a presumption of guilt?
avatar
astradt1
Moderator

Posts : 965
Join date : 2011-10-08
Age : 62
Location : East Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:31 pm

Legal Aid was paid in Crown Court Cases recently figuring in the Press, without means testing.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12034
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by ROB on Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:41 am

astradt1 wrote:
ROB (2) the likelihood that the person will not be a danger to anyone if the person remains out of physical custody.

Surely that could be seen as a presumption of guilt?

It’s not a presumption of anything. It’s a determination of danger to society.
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by ROB on Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:58 am

=\"RockOnBrother" wrote:
When a potential poor client wavered on the fee, he said, “If my fee is too high for you, go down the street to so-and-so’s office. He’s cheap, and you get what you pay for.”
Shirina wrote:
Which is one of the many ways our system is flawed.

True. Absolutely true.

Meanwhile, if I’m ever accused of a murder I didn’t commit, I’m selling everything I’ve got, converting it to cold, hard (or soft) cash, spending three bucks and a quarter on a bus ticket to Racehorse’s office, walking in unannounced, laying every dollar, quarter, dime, nickel, and penny out on his desk, and saying, “It’s all yours. PLEASE don’t let my last dance be with Ol’ Sparky!”

Hey, a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. But I’m only serious.
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by ROB on Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:02 am


A Racehorse story:

There was a time when Richard “Racehorse” Haynes had his clients thank judges and juries at the end of their trials. But back-to-back cases in the 1970s changed his mind about that.

First, a Texas jury had just found his client not guilty on all counts, when Haynes told the court his client had something to say.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank each and every one of you,” the client stated. “And I promise you that I will never, ever do it again.”

A few weeks later, another Haynes client was acquitted. Again, the defendant thanked the judge and jury, only to be interrupted by the judge.

“Don’t thank me, you little turd,” the judge said. “You and I both know you’re guilty.”

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/richard_racehorse_haynes
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by dimsum on Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:38 pm

In the case of the three teen-agers it prooves that the law is not applied fairly. Period. Not applied fairly at all and goes to the heart of the justice system. it works very well for the rich but all others pay dearly if accused unfaily. Bail is just on the ways.. also the lawyers. If one can not afford the good one lawyer then you will probably go to prison. Now we are talking about being innocent and putting yourself in someone's shoes who is being arrested wrongly. Put your home up so you can get out? Not right IMO.
avatar
dimsum

Posts : 46
Join date : 2011-11-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by dimsum on Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:41 pm

Now in the case of Sandusky for the 40 counts of sex abuse (I call it rape) of children and only 100,000 NON-secured bail? Really? If it had been any of us the bail would be much much higher and we would have to put our home up to secure it. Did Sandusky? Nope
avatar
dimsum

Posts : 46
Join date : 2011-11-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by ROB on Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:17 am


Sandusky is no threat to society. He allegedly preyed upon minor boys as young as ten that he lured, through his “charity” into locations that assured him one-on-one privacy. He was busted (and I’m not so sure it wasn’t literally “busted” in the mouth) the first time that he allegedly raped a boy at a location and time that he was discovered.

As long as he’s required to be around men (even old men, because I would have knocked his “alleged” behind out had I witnessed the “alleged” rape), he’s not going to do a damned thing to anybody.
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by astradt1 on Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:39 am

Sandusky is no threat to society.

So this man is now watched 24/7 whilst out on bail?

Were his 'alleged' Victims asked if they felt safe with him being out on bail?

avatar
astradt1
Moderator

Posts : 965
Join date : 2011-10-08
Age : 62
Location : East Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by ROB on Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:58 pm

astradt1 wrote:

Sandusky is no threat to society.
So this man is now watched 24/7 whilst out on bail?

I doubt it, since a court has determined that Sandusky is no threat to society.

astradt1 wrote:
Were his 'alleged' Victims asked if they felt safe with him being out on bail?

I don’t know. The judge that presided over his bail hearing has the authority to consider anything she/he believes might pertain to (a) Sandusky’s flight risk, and (b) Sandusky’s threat to society in determining (1) whether or no to grant bail, and (2) if granted, what amount to set bail.

The fact that Sandusky is out on bail means that the presiding judge, considering all pertaining to Sandusky’s bail, has determined that Sandusky is no threat to society.
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by oftenwrong on Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:24 pm

The fact that Sandusky is out on bail means that the presiding judge, considering all pertaining to Sandusky’s bail, has determined that Sandusky is no threat to society.
[/color]

That reminds me of an occasion when I was called as a witness in a simple claim for an unpaid debt, in which the Judge found for the Claimant, and told the debtor she would have to pay. The lovely lady responded, "What if I don't agree?"

I will never forget the expression on that Judge's face.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12034
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by Shirina on Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:32 pm

"What if I don't agree?"

Then you get wrath!

avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by astradt1 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:21 am

So 'D' Day looms for spoilt little rich girls on Monday as she has to finally face the court for he actions in LAST YEARS Riots........

What are the odd's of her just getting probation for her jolly wheeze????
avatar
astradt1
Moderator

Posts : 965
Join date : 2011-10-08
Age : 62
Location : East Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by astra on Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:25 pm

Is this an actual court proceeding??



If it is, then RESPECT to Judge Milian!!



If it is actors playing parts, then, legal beagals take a lesson.
avatar
astra
Deceased

Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by keenobserver1 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:28 pm

Shirina wrote:I don't know ... I noticed that two of the three were bailed out but the third was not.

I really find the idea of bail repugnant to our legal system. A person's freedom should not be bought, and I think it's completely unfair that one of the kids has to sit behind bars while the others go free simply because he wasn't the daughter of a millionaire. They should all go free while awaiting trial - or none of them should. They all committed the same crime so they should all face freedom or incarceration together. Money should have NOTHING to do with it.

I know this is a side-issue and not directly related to the story, but the idea of bail has always bothered me.

For this bail is granted not on your abillity to pay, but based on -

  • The possibillity that you will abscond
    Commit further crimes whilst on bail
    Interfere with witnesses
    Nature and seriousness of the offence
    Character of the defendant, associations and community ties of the defendant
    Defendants Bail record
    Strength of evidence


So where two have been released and the other remanded, there is the possibillity that the two had no previous criminal record and the other did. It would appear to be poor journalism highlighting that the girl is from a wealthy family and implying that this is the reason that she was allowed bail, rather than reporting on the actual reason that bail was denied for the other party.

Under Scots Law there is no deposit or pledge required, as long as the court is satisfied that the accussed will turn up for trial they will be granted bail, a much fairer way to deal with things.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:18 pm

You don't need a Maths degree to realise that keeping people in a police-cell awaiting trial is prohibitively expensive if there is a reasonable expectation of their turning up at Court in due course. In the particular circumstances of hundreds of "accused" being processed almost simultaneously, there has to be a pragmatic attitude towards remand in custody.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12034
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by keenobserver1 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:42 pm

oftenwrong wrote:You don't need a Maths degree to realise that keeping people in a police-cell awaiting trial is prohibitively expensive if there is a reasonable expectation of their turning up at Court in due course. In the particular circumstances of hundreds of "accused" being processed almost simultaneously, there has to be a pragmatic attitude towards remand in custody.

Therefore we have achieved a satisfactory process and reason to reduce the budget of the Judicary........next
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by ROB on Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:40 pm

keenobserver1 wrote:
For this bail is granted not on your abillity to pay, but based on -

  • The possibillity that you will abscond
  • Commit further crimes whilst on bail
  • Interfere with witnesses
  • Nature and seriousness of the offence
  • Character of the defendant, associations and community ties of the defendant
  • Defendants Bail record
  • Strength of evidence

So where two have been released and the other remanded, there is the possibillity that the two had no previous criminal record and the other did. It would appear to be poor journalism highlighting that the girl is from a wealthy family and implying that this is the reason that she was allowed bail, rather than reporting on the actual reason that bail was denied for the other party.

"Reasonable" is the key concept; all criteria you've listed are reasonable.

To discriminate for or against a person based upon wealth or lack of wealth is unreadonable. Filthy rich folks have just as an inalienable right to liberty, and thus reasonable bail, as destitute folks. In Texas, Cullen Bryant was held without bail. In California, OJ Simpson was held without bail.
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by Shirina on Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:58 pm

Filthy rich folks have just as an inalienable right to liberty, and thus reasonable bail, as destitute folks.
The problem isn't that filthy rich folks do not have an inalienable right to liberty ... it's that destitute folks do NOT have that inalienable right.

Whether or not you go free while awaiting your trial should NOT be decided upon based on your wealth - or lack thereof. The concept of bail should not exist. The court should rule that the accused be released or held based on keenobserver1's seven points. That's it. Two choices - go free or be held. There should not be any money involved in this process. At all. Period.

This is not about how the court decides how much a bail amount is.

The point I was making originally is that, assuming all else is equal, a poor person will sit in jail while a rich person will go free - and that freedom will help immensely in trying to build his own case. How much money you have should NOT be a factor in determining your freedom. It's that simple.

avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by oftenwrong on Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:16 pm

Name a judicial system anywhere in The World designed to favour the Poor.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12034
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by keenobserver1 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:17 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
keenobserver1 wrote:
For this bail is granted not on your abillity to pay, but based on -

  • The possibillity that you will abscond
  • Commit further crimes whilst on bail
  • Interfere with witnesses
  • Nature and seriousness of the offence
  • Character of the defendant, associations and community ties of the defendant
  • Defendants Bail record
  • Strength of evidence

So where two have been released and the other remanded, there is the possibillity that the two had no previous criminal record and the other did. It would appear to be poor journalism highlighting that the girl is from a wealthy family and implying that this is the reason that she was allowed bail, rather than reporting on the actual reason that bail was denied for the other party.

"Reasonable" is the key concept; all criteria you've listed are reasonable.

To discriminate for or against a person based upon wealth or lack of wealth is unreadonable. Filthy rich folks have just as an inalienable right to liberty, and thus reasonable bail, as destitute folks. In Texas, Cullen Bryant was held without bail. In California, OJ Simpson was held without bail.

Rock - not sure who the first guy you mention is/was? But OJ was accussed of murder was he not? And from memory was there not a televised car chase to aprehend him? Which would be reasonable grounds for denying bail as he would appear to be a flight risk?
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by keenobserver1 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:19 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Name a judicial system anywhere in The World designed to favour the Poor.

Although it doesn't favour the poor, it treats all equal before the law, Scotland , has done since the time of Lord Kames.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by keenobserver1 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:23 pm

[quote="Shirina"]


Whether or not you go free while awaiting your trial should NOT be decided upon based on your wealth - or lack thereof. The concept of bail should not exist. The court should rule that the accused be released or held based on keenobserver1's seven points. That's it. Two choices - go free or be held. There should not be any money involved in this process. At all. Period.



This is the basis of the Enlightened Scottish Legal system, where wealth has nothing to do with bail. All other aspects of the system are not perfect, but fairer than most countries.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by oftenwrong on Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:35 pm

But it's still easier to find a WS to fight your corner if you have the means to pay him.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12034
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by ROB on Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:38 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Filthy rich folks have just as an inalienable right to liberty, and thus reasonable bail, as destitute folks.
Shirina wrote:
The problem isn't that filthy rich folks do not have an inalienable right to liberty ... it's that destitute folks do NOT have that inalienable right.

I believe that you’ve misunderstood my statement. Our Declaration of Independence says, in prêt (enhanced, 21st Century spelling protocol), “… all men [gender, ‘race’/ethnicity inclusive]… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] rights… [including] liberty…”

The “all men” above includes men and women of every economic circumstance, from filthy rich folks to destitute folks, all of whom possess an inalienable right to liberty. Accordingly, destitute folks DO “have that inalienable right” to reasonable bail.

Are destitute folks routinely accorded that inalienable right by “governments… instituted among men?” If not, then that’s the problem; an inalienable right possessed via endowment by their Creator by destitute folks is not being secured unto destitute folks by the governments instituted among men under the jurisdictions of which destitute folks live. And in nations whose governments are founded upon this principle, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”, that’s just plain wrong.

In seeking to correct this wrong, it’s important to keep in mind that filthy rich folks are not getting what they do not deserve, they’re getting what everyone deserves, reasonable bail in such a fashion as not to disparage the inalienable rights of either filthy rich folks or destitute folks to liberty.
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by Shirina on Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:40 pm

In seeking to correct this wrong, it’s important to keep in mind that filthy rich folks are not getting what they do not deserve, they’re getting what everyone deserves, reasonable bail in such a fashion as not to disparage the inalienable rights of either filthy rich folks or destitute folks to liberty.

"Equal" is not synonymous with "fair." Applying a law equally does not automatically guarantee fairness ... or liberty.

Imagine two men accused of the same crime. Both are relatively equal in every way except that one is rich and the other is poor. Both men have no criminal records, neither man is a flight risk. Both men's cases are of equal strength, etc.

The judge sees the equality of both men and sets the bail at $100,000 for each. The rich man, being rich, finds the bail most reasonable and has it posted within an hour. He's free. The poor man couldn't come up with $100,000 if his life depended on it, so he gets to sit in jail. Even though both men are equal, committed equal crimes, and have the same conditions influencing the bail amount, one is free and the other is not. Yes, the law was applied equally, but the outcome is most assuredly less than equal ... and certainly not fair; the poor man did not receive any liberty in this case. While the rich man is free to roam around building up his case, the poor man is behind bars and must rely exclusively on his state-appointed attorney.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by keenobserver1 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:55 pm

"Equal" is not synonymous with "fair." Applying a law equally does not automatically guarantee fairness ... or liberty.

A similar discussion is happening on another thread where the issue is the UK governments Poll Tax of the '80's, in applying it equally to all ,the poorer members of society were not treated fairly.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by ROB on Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:29 pm

Rock On Brother wrote:
In seeking to correct this wrong, it’s important to keep in mind that filthy rich folks are not getting what they do not deserve, they’re getting what everyone deserves, reasonable bail in such a fashion as not to disparage the inalienable rights of either filthy rich folks or destitute folks to liberty.
Shirina wrote:
"Equal" is not synonymous with "fair." Applying a law equally does not automatically guarantee fairness ... or liberty.

The concept is “reasonable bail.” You’ve omitted “reasonable” from the equation. See further comments below.

Shirina wrote:
Imagine two men accused of the same crime. Both are relatively equal in every way except that one is rich and the other is poor. Both men have no criminal records, neither man is a flight risk. Both men's cases are of equal strength, etc.

Then, if the release pending trial of these two men presents no clear and present danger ascertainable by a reasonable person, and if such release presents no risk of flight top avoid prosecution ascertainable by a reasonable person, then each man is entitled to reasonable bail, in adherence to the principle that liberty has the status of an inalienable right.

Shirina wrote:
The judge sees the equality of both men and sets the bail at $100,000 for each. The rich man, being rich, finds the bail most reasonable and has it posted within an hour. He's free. The poor man couldn't come up with $100,000 if his life depended on it, so he gets to sit in jail.

The judge has assessed unreasonable bail on the man who “couldn't come up with $100,000 if his life depended on it”, and that’s just plain wrong. Bail, in order to meet the criteria of (a) reasonableness, and (b) equal protection for all under the law, must be set within parameters which the potential “bailee” can reasonably be expected to meet.

People often think that it’s right because a judge says so. So in 1897, the highest judges in the United States of America said that mandating separate rail car facilities for black passengers (close to the steam engine’s smoke) was right because they said so. Fortunately, a few folks disagreed, and after fifty even years of “legal” injustice (which was actually illegal, even thought the US Supreme Court said so), the landmark Brown v Board of Education decision, in which nine Supreme Court justices concluded that separate is inherently unequal. Changed America forever.

Might be time to hitch up the horse and start setting some judges straight as to what reasonable bail is.

Shirina wrote:
… the law was applied equally, but the outcome is most assuredly less than equal ... and certainly not fair…

Equal protection under the law was applied unequally, so the outcome was just plain wrong.
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by ROB on Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:38 pm

keenobserver1 wrote:
A similar discussion is happening on another thread where the issue is the UK governments Poll Tax of the '80's, in applying it equally to all ,the poorer members of society were not treated fairly.

Keenobserver1,

It has been suggested to me by another poster on that thread that Tories implemented the poll tax at least partially to disenfranchise Scots. If so, I don’t like that at all, to the point of almost taking it personally, for at least three reasons:


  1. Poll tax laws were used in my country to effectively disenfranchise Black Americans;

  2. I’m part Celt;

  3. Four Scots died at the Alamo to secure my sovereign state’s independence from Santa Anna’s Mexico.


I’ve yet to see a poll tax used for anything other than ignoble purposes.
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by Shirina on Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:54 pm

I’ve yet to see a poll tax used for anything other than ignoble purposes.
How true.

I've already heard talk by some right-wingers (not actual politicians, just forum clowns) who want a poll tax here in the US as high as $3000. This is, of course, to keep poor Democrats from voting. I guess they don't mind tossing poor Republicans under the bus in the mean time, and there are a lot of them in the southern states.

I've heard these same right-wingers try to make a case that only landowners should have the right to vote as that was the original intent of the Founding Fathers. They seem blissfully ignorant to the fact that this was only suggested as a justification to keep slaves from having voting rights and not because they wanted a landed aristocracy here in the US. I can only assume that supporting the precursors of Jim Crow doesn't bother them at all.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by ROB on Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:33 pm


Shirina,

Shirina wrote:
I've already heard talk by some right-wingers (not actual politicians, just forum clowns) who want a poll tax here in the US as high as $3000.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

United States Constitution, Amendment 24, ratified 23 January 1964

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Let ‘em try.
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by keenobserver1 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:20 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
keenobserver1 wrote:
A similar discussion is happening on another thread where the issue is the UK governments Poll Tax of the '80's, in applying it equally to all ,the poorer members of society were not treated fairly.

Keenobserver1,

It has been suggested to me by another poster on that thread that Tories implemented the poll tax at least partially to disenfranchise Scots. If so, I don’t like that at all, to the point of almost taking it personally, for at least three reasons:

  1. Poll tax laws were used in my country to effectively disenfranchise Black Americans;

  2. I’m part Celt;

  3. Four Scots died at the Alamo to secure my sovereign state’s independence from Santa Anna’s Mexico.

I’ve yet to see a poll tax used for anything other than ignoble purposes.

The Poll Tax wasn't implemented to disenfranchise Scots, it was intended to be phased in to the whole of the UK and this started with Scotland. By the time it got to England there were protests that soon turned to riots and the idea was abandoned in favour of council tax, which is based on the value of your house at a set time, so rather than an individual tax for each person over 18 years of age, it became a single tax per household.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:40 pm

"The Poll Tax wasn't implemented to disenfranchise Scots, it was intended to be phased in to the whole of the UK and this started with Scotland."

Why did the Thatcher government "start with Scotland" in that way, do you think?
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12034
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by ROB on Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:52 pm

keenobserver1 wrote:
A similar discussion is happening on another thread where the issue is the UK governments Poll Tax of the '80's, in applying it equally to all ,the poorer members of society were not treated fairly.
RockOnBrother wrote:
Keenobserver1,

It has been suggested to me by another poster on that thread that Tories implemented the poll tax at least partially to disenfranchise Scots. If so, I don’t like that at all, to the point of almost taking it personally, for at least three reasons:

  1. Poll tax laws were used in my country to effectively disenfranchise Black Americans;

  2. I’m part Celt;

  3. Four Scots died at the Alamo to secure my sovereign state’s independence from Santa Anna’s Mexico.

I’ve yet to see a poll tax used for anything other than ignoble purposes.
keenobserver1 wrote:
The Poll Tax wasn't implemented to disenfranchise Scots, it was intended to be phased in to the whole of the UK and this started with Scotland.

“‘I disagree’, said W.E.B.”, and also me. By “phasing in” a poll tax starting with Scotland, “‘It seems to me’, said Booker T.” and Rock On Brother, that England, with the lions share of the “clout”, given the non-sovereignty of the Government of Scotland, has disingenuously imposed a covert disenfranchising mechanism upon Scotland, sans permission of the Government of Scotland, in order to effectively subjugate Scots in their own country (Scotland) and nation (the United Kingdom. That’s heinously wrong, and I’m beginning to see why many British posters, including my Scots brothers, abhor Tories.

Ask me, if you’re so inclined, about how this “innocent” poll tax was used to terrorize Black voters in my nation during the first portion of my cognizant life.

keenobserver1 wrote:
By the time it got to England there were protests that soon turned to riots…

Sounds eerily like the protests in Mississippi and Alabama that were termed “riots” by such folks as the supporters of Black voter disenfranchisement in Selma Alabama on “Bloody Sunday” circa 1964. JL Chestnut has a first person account of that available on the NPR website from an interview on NPR’s “Fresh Air” in the early 1990s. I’ll post the link here if you want.  

keenobserver1 wrote:
… and the idea was abandoned in favour of council tax…

Which it should have been; poll taxes inherently disparage the inalienable right to vote for which too many have died for decent folks to sit idly by while crypto-disenfranchisers covertly convert republics into oligarchies.  

keenobserver1 wrote:
which is based on the value of your house at a set time, so rather than an individual tax for each person over 18 years of age, it became a single tax per household.

In other words, property tax disassociated with the right to vote.
avatar
ROB
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by keenobserver1 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:59 pm

oftenwrong wrote:"The Poll Tax wasn't implemented to disenfranchise Scots, it was intended to be phased in to the whole of the UK and this started with Scotland."

Why did the Thatcher government "start with Scotland" in that way, do you think?

You have got to start somewhere, smaller population to allow systems to be put in place to allow it to be operated correctly. If you intend phasing anything in then it is probably the best place to start.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by keenobserver1 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:01 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
keenobserver1 wrote:
A similar discussion is happening on another thread where the issue is the UK governments Poll Tax of the '80's, in applying it equally to all ,the poorer members of society were not treated fairly.
RockOnBrother wrote:
Keenobserver1,

It has been suggested to me by another poster on that thread that Tories implemented the poll tax at least partially to disenfranchise Scots. If so, I don’t like that at all, to the point of almost taking it personally, for at least three reasons:

  1. Poll tax laws were used in my country to effectively disenfranchise Black Americans;

  2. I’m part Celt;

  3. Four Scots died at the Alamo to secure my sovereign state’s independence from Santa Anna’s Mexico.

I’ve yet to see a poll tax used for anything other than ignoble purposes.
keenobserver1 wrote:
The Poll Tax wasn't implemented to disenfranchise Scots, it was intended to be phased in to the whole of the UK and this started with Scotland.

“‘I disagree’, said W.E.B.”, and also me. By “phasing in” a poll tax starting with Scotland, “‘It seems to me’, said Booker T.” and Rock On Brother, that England, with the lions share of the “clout”, given the non-sovereignty of the Government of Scotland, has disingenuously imposed a covert disenfranchising mechanism upon Scotland, sans permission of the Government of Scotland, in order to effectively subjugate Scots in their own country (Scotland) and nation (the United Kingdom. That’s heinously wrong, and I’m beginning to see why many British posters, including my Scots brothers, abhor Tories.

Ask me, if you’re so inclined, about how this “innocent” poll tax was used to terrorize Black voters in my nation during the first portion of my cognizant life.

keenobserver1 wrote:
By the time it got to England there were protests that soon turned to riots…

Sounds eerily like the protests in Mississippi and Alabama that were termed “riots” by such folks as the supporters of Black voter disenfranchisement in Selma Alabama on “Bloody Sunday” circa 1964. JL Chestnut has a first person account of that available on the NPR website from an interview on NPR’s “Fresh Air” in the early 1990s. I’ll post the link here if you want.

keenobserver1 wrote:
… and the idea was abandoned in favour of council tax…

Which it should have been; poll taxes inherently disparage the inalienable right to vote for which too many have died for decent folks to sit idly by while crypto-disenfranchisers covertly convert republics into oligarchies.

keenobserver1 wrote:
which is based on the value of your house at a set time, so rather than an individual tax for each person over 18 years of age, it became a single tax per household.

In other words, property tax disassociated with the right to vote.

It could be argued that a poll tax is fairer as everyone is treated on an equal basis - discuss
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by Shirina on Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:30 pm

Well it looks like Scotland wants to put forth a referendum in 2014 to see if the people want to break away from the UK.

A poll tax might not make any difference after that.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by Ivan on Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:40 pm

It could be argued that a poll tax is fairer as everyone is treated on an equal basis - discuss.
But not on this thread or board, please - UK Economics would be more appropriate.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7282
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by keenobserver1 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:48 pm

Ivan wrote:
It could be argued that a poll tax is fairer as everyone is treated on an equal basis - discuss.
But not on this thread or board, please - UK Economics would be more appropriate.

It had only crept in here on the basis of agruing fairness devoid of wealth, which in itself is hypothetical. tongue
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by keenobserver1 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:50 pm

Shirina wrote:Well it looks like Scotland wants to put forth a referendum in 2014 to see if the people want to break away from the UK.

A poll tax might not make any difference after that.

You will find a thread about this on the UK Politics board, don't want Ivan telling you off as well.
avatar
keenobserver1

Posts : 201
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum