Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 25,00.html

This sort of story makes me want to leave the UK. Does anyone else find this as unbelievable as I do?

No he shouldn't - it looks like it was an accident anyway and furthermore he was commiting a crime at the time...

Where's the Fiona option?

Was so annoyed that I decided not put in a Fiona option. Maybe I should have, especially as she presents Crimewatch - b**ger!

marty wrote:http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 25,00.html

This sort of story makes me want to leave the UK. Does anyone else find this as unbelievable as I do?

Should he be allowed to sue? Absolutely. He may be a dangerous criminal, but he still has human rights.

Should he win? Probably not, based on the information in the Sky News article. It's possible there's more to the case. That's what the courts are for.

Legal aid is a knottier question. If it's as open-and-shut as the article suggests, it seems like a waste of public money. But if we're relying on the Murdoch press for information, the truth could be anywhere.

matthew wrote: Should he be allowed to sue? Absolutely. He may be a dangerous criminal, but he still has human rights.

That's what winds me up so much! Human rights become confused with the right to sue. Whilst the police have a duty to treat everyone with a certain amount of dignity I don't believe that human rights should extend to allowing those engaged in unlawful acts to launch frivolous law suits. It's his own fault he got hurt. As far as I'm concerned he has forfeited any right to sue as a direct result of his actions. Now we the public have to pay for it, all in the name of human rights. Bonkers bonkers bonkers....
The government should introduce a law that removes the right of criminals to sue anyone, should they be injured during their illegal exploits. And anyway, will the policeman he so nearly killed be allowed to sue him? No. The balance is all wrong and it needs changing. Criminals hide behind the veil of 'human rights' and it's time it stopped.

marty wrote:

matthew wrote: Should he be allowed to sue? Absolutely. He may be a dangerous criminal, but he still has human rights.

That's what winds me up so much! Human rights become confused with the right to sue.

Human rights *are* the right to sue. If you can't seek redress when your rights are violated, you never really had the rights in the first place.

You'll probably say his rights haven't been violated at all, and the police were well within theirs to do what they did. And that may well be the case. But who decides that? If it's the courts, then he has the right to sue. If it's somebody else, then who?

matthew wrote:

marty wrote:

matthew wrote: Should he be allowed to sue? Absolutely. He may be a dangerous criminal, but he still has human rights.

That's what winds me up so much! Human rights become confused with the right to sue.

Human rights *are* the right to sue. If you can't seek redress when your rights are violated, you never really had the rights in the first place.

You'll probably say his rights haven't been violated at all, and the police were well within theirs to do what they did. And that may well be the case. But who decides that? If it's the courts, then he has the right to sue. If it's somebody else, then who?

I disagree totally. Firstly I don't believe that he, as someone who is engaging in violent criminal activity, should be afforded the same rights as law abiding people. That's not to say the police should be given a green light to shoot him but it should mean that if he is injured in the course of his actions the blame for his injury is laid squarely at the foot of his door and not the police who are simply trying to uphold the law.

marty wrote:I disagree totally. Firstly I don't believe that he, as someone who is engaging in violent criminal activity, should be afforded the same rights as law abiding people. That's not to say the police should be given a green light to shoot him but it should mean that if he is injured in the course of his actions the blame for his injury is laid squarely at the foot of his door and not the police who are simply trying to uphold the law.

Right, but you can't have it both ways. If the police 'don't have a green light to shoot', but they do so anyway, then they could be at fault. In a case like this, the police might claim it was an accident, or that they were using reasonable force. The criminal claims otherwise. At that point, somebody has to decide who's right.

AFAIK, that's not very different from the situation we have now.

The alternative is that the police *can* do anything they want to stop a crime, even if it's totally out of proportion.

In all likelihood, what we see here is that some criminal makes headlines by launching a lawsuit with no real chance of success, and the tabloids wail about how they have far too many rights. Shortly afterwards, the case is lost, because it had no real merit in the first place. Strangely, that doesn't get reported as widely.

I'm with Matthew on this one. Human rights are for all people, that's what the word human means. I do not know the regulations on legal aid, so do not feel qualified to comment as to whether he should receive it or not.

I think the criminal should not have the right to be given legal aid to sue the Police as he was evading arrest after committing a criminal offence. What I would say is that he would be perfectly within his rights to ask the Police complaints commission to look into the incident to discover whether or not the officer should have have had a weapon about him at the time. If they find that there was no good reason for the officer to be armed at the time, then and only then should there be a possibility of legal aid because the Police were proven to be in the wrong. If it is found that the officer was right to be armed then he has not right at all.

Absolutely bleedin' disgusting.

AND.................. we're paying £10,000 to drug addict prisoners who we denied access to drugs they need while doing their porridge.

AND.................. Many serious child molestors and rapists have disappeared after being released from prison on licence.

At least there is a web-site now with the country's most wanted missing cons.