The man accused of murdering Ann Widdecombe has been charged with engaging in conduct in preparation of acts of terrorism including against Nigel Farage.
People wibbling on about how Nige doesn’t need security are going to be a little put out by this revelation, no?
Tennessee woman on death row taken to hospital after surviving two lethal injections
Christa Pike, sentenced to death over 1995 murder, was heard snoring 40 minutes after lethal doses administered, witnesses said
Executing someone 30 years later somehow violates my own sense of good sense. Not that I’d go to the barricades on this, nor necessarily hold the position if really pressed. But swift and vicious maybe, a generation later seems not quite right somehow.
The Tennessee Department of Correction later confirmed that Pike had survived the state’s effort to execute her, saying “the lethal injection chemical in the protocol has consistently been effective, and the protocol does not allow for additional procedures beyond what was carried out this evening.”
“Christa Pike has been transported to an off-site medical facility,” the statement concluded.
It’s always one of those little things that gets me, that they’re going to have to take care of her, cure her, before they try again.
Thin end of the wedge stuff:
Specialist courtrooms prioritising cases of rape and other serious sex offences are to be introduced across England and Wales, with campaigners welcoming the move as potentially transformative.
The rooms, well. But we can see how this will transform into specialist courts. With their own judges, rules of evidence and so on. Which is what the feminazis have been calling for for decades of course. Rape is not to be judged on the facts, as with other crimes.
As to the delays in cases being heard. That’s across the board, not just rape. And not providing the tolerable administration of justice is violating one of those prime duties of government. If they’d not nationalised British Steel they could have fixed the entire court system…..
A PR campaign to discredit a judge and thus get a court decision overturned?
The researcher behind the Duke of Sussex’s phone hacking claim is preparing a campaign to discredit the High Court judge who threw out the case, The Telegraph can reveal.
Umm:
The Telegraph has seen a document that suggests he is now soliciting support for a campaign to undermine the judge as the Duke and his fellow claimants weigh up whether to launch an appeal.
OK, so maybe a chancer looking to set up a scheme rather than an active campaign.
But, umm, no, eh?
Graham Johnson plans to undermine the legal credibility of Mr Justice Nicklin, who ruled against the Duke and his fellow claimants in their £50m case against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
Seems a bit fanciful, the people who need to be swayd are the judges of the Court of Appeal. And I tend to doubt a PR camapign is going to get to them. But even so, no, not something I think is a good idea. Really, just not…..
It is hoped a legal opinion, stating that slavery was illegal under English law at the time it was practised, would expose Britain to future litigation and make it responsible for reparations.
Which is why we didn’t have slavery in England. Not so much because it was illegal but because there was no law making it legal. But, obviously, English law only covered England…..
One of Malta’s richest men has been found not guilty of involvement in the murder of the anti-corruption journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.
OK. A jury verdict is a jury verdict.
Nearly nine years after Caruana Galizia’s death in a car bombing in October 2017, a jury of six women and three men found Yorgen Fenech, 44, not guilty of both counts with which he had been charged: complicity in the voluntary homicide of Caruana Galizia, and association with the intention of committing a crime.
Delivered at 7.30pm, the verdict was decisive. To gasps from the gallery and cheers from Fenech’s relatives, the forewoman announced jurors had voted to dismiss both counts by an eight-to-one majority.
Criminals deemed a danger to society will be freed from jail under Andy Burnham’s early release plans, MPs and former justice secretaries have warned.
Opponents said Mr Burnham’s plans to create more prison space by ending a category of indefinite sentences could lead to “high-risk” offenders returning to the streets.
Folk get put in chokey for what they have done, not for what they might do.
Cunts.
A Queensland woman gave birth to twin children with separate sets of biological parents last year, in what is believed to be an Australian first situation so rare it had not been contemplated by state surrogacy laws.
Bird got regular pregnant at same time as implanted. Twins born, but wholly different parents for each. Local law doesn;t allow breaking up twins or more in adoption, custody cases.
So, in this case, they decide that while “gestational twins” not wholly twins in hte meaning of local law and therefore the genetic parents on each side can continue – as they have for 10 months – their respective children.
Whatever we might think of how we got here it seems the obvious solution to the situation.
But note the joy of the common law system – as opposed to Roman. The judge sits there and looks at the whole thing and then decides. When in possession of the full facts. And wthout varied harpies screaming politics at him – as would be true if this were the sort of thing decided in a legislature.
Well, OK, but I like it, so there.
The American manufacturer of the flammable cladding on the Grenfell Tower paid £23m more to its shareholders than to the families of the 72 people who died when the apartment block caught fire nine years ago, according to a report released on Tuesday.
The firm, Arconic, settled a class action lawsuit with its shareholders in 2023 for £54.7m.
Right. But why the complaint? Different legal system has different outcome and, yes?
The fact that the larger settlement was paid out in the US is hardly surprising. Punitive damages are a common outcome from routine civil litigation across the pond. Class action lawsuits are about as American as apple pie. But they’re relatively new in the UK, where courts are restricted to awarding “exemplary damages”, which are far more limited in their scope and application.
Groups like Common Wealth and the Corporate Justice Coalition say it is high time for this to change. They believe UK courts can intervene where successive governments have failed and secure some measure of justice for Grenfell’s victims.
“We hope these findings help drive the legal and political changes needed to ensure no company can evade responsibility in this way again,” Grenfell United, a group representing families of the victims, said of Common Wealth’s report.
Ah, they want punitive damages in English law then, do they? Any legal types care to wade in? For it’s possible that this hsa greater effects than just “Justice for Grenfell”, no?
The US has sanctioned the president of the international criminal court (ICC) and a prosecutor tasked with investigating crimes committed by Israel during its war on Gaza.
The new sanctions designations were unveiled by Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, who called the Hague-based ICC a “corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate”, in a statement.
Rubio announced that the US would sanction Tomoko Akane of Japan, the ICC president, and Abdoulaye Seye of Senegal, an ICC senior trial lawyer, because they had “directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute officials whose government has not consented to ICC jurisdiction”.
An awful lot of people would prefer that it doesn’t, but it do.
As with all the other international treaties, you’ve got to sign up to it to be covered by it. The US hasn’t signed up – it isn’t covered.
Adani was charged in 2024 with agreeing to bribe Indian government officials so a subsidiary of his Adani Group could win approval to develop a solar energy plant, then misleading US investors by providing reassuring information about his company’s anti-corruption practices.
Now, as to whether I think he might have done that, well, that’s irrelevant. Whether it can be proven in an Ameriucan courtroom is another.
US judge drops criminal charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani
Justice department says it decided to abandon fraud and bribery case in which Adani Group has denied wrongdoing
Probably the right decision there.
The argument against the ECHR is very simple. It’s as Johnathan Sumption put it. We are a common law system. Therefore having as our ultimate court of appeal something operating in the Roman law system does not work.
That’s it, that’s the thing.
Which is why we need to leave the ECHR and have our own – common law – Supreme Court deal with it.
It’s really very simple indeed and there is no arguing with it.
There is debate among experts about how far the fifth amendment extends. Some argue that once a person accepts a presidential pardon, they cannot invoke the fifth amendment for federal crimes. Without that right, Congress could hold a witness in contempt, which can lead to fines or – in the extreme – jail time. Others have argued that the right extends as long as there is a valid threat of prosecution, particularly by states.
And this part is untrue:
The hearing was a continuation of Paul’s years-long support of the “lab leak” theory, or the idea that the Covid-19 pandemic began as a release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a theory many virologists contend is improbable.
As Matt Ridley’s reporting the messages from virologist to virologist seem to indicate that pretty much everyone thought it was lableak. Just weren’t willing to say so. Which is, you know, fairly important?
Johnson & Johnson said it would pay an estimated $5.5bn to resolve tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging its baby powder and other talc products caused ovarian cancer, in a landmark deal that could end a contentious, decade-long legal battle.
But my impression has always been that this was a grift by the lawyers. This being the price of getting them to bugger off.
As I say, I’m near information free on this subject so that is a prejudice, not a claim of fact. But there we are.
The scene is now set for a battle over the costs of the case. Estimates have been put at as much as £50m by Mail figures, though other sources close to the case said the real costs could be a small fraction of that amount, following previous court rulings.
However, it is understood that whatever the outcome, Lawrence, who was persuaded to join the legal action by Prince Harry and his legal team, will not have to pay any share of the costs of the failed case.
“Nobody, least of all the duke, who is very protective over Doreen, is going to see her out of pocket,” said a source familiar with the matter.
As I understand it they are jointly and severally liable for common costs, then there are some singular costs on top they are individually liable for.
The joint and severally bit means that they’ve got to make sure all of those common costs are covered if Lawrence isn;t going to have to pay any of it. They can’t just cut out her share and make sure that’s paid. They’ve got to make sure Hughes, Frost and so on cough up and so *all* those costs are paid so she’s safe.
Which is going to be fun.
There were, what, 7 people in the case against the Daily Mail? Whoi now face a £50 million legal bill?
Dunno if that’s including their own costs or just the Mail’s costs. Apparently there’s some insurance around somewhere. But I’m dubious about whether that really exists. Certainly dubious about how much of anything it would cover.
So, that’s £7 million each to find – minus whatever the insurance is.
Prince Harry, Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost and Baroness Doreen Lawrence
One, mebbe two, of those could get wiped out, no?
A fundamental principle is that you’re charged,tried and punished under whatever the law was at the time of the offence, not whatever happened to the law after you dunnit.
Alex Norris, the Home Office minister, said “all options are on the table” when asked in the Commons whether the Government could fast-track legislation to pave the way for the removal of Shabir Ahmed.
Ahmed, 73, was released from prison last week after serving 14 years of a 22-year sentence for 30 child rape offences. He cannot be returned to Pakistan despite being stripped of his UK citizenship.
He has avoided deportation because the Immigration Act 1971 exempts Commonwealth citizens such as Ahmed who came to Britain before 1973 and have lived here for at least five years.
Yes, yes, we all want ‘im gone etc. And yet he is indeed protected by that law. So, that’s that I’m afraid.
We could get all Roper etc. But consider this. Given the cunts who gain power in this country anyone really want them to be able to change the law retrospectively and so nail I, you, we, us?
Quite….
While dowries have been banned in India since 1961, demands from a bridegroom’s family persist and remain widespread, according to the research, and women who fail to provide them can face abuse, harassment and, in some cases, murder.
Doesn’t mean people are going to obey the laws that you make. A useful thought about taxes, censorship, social media and so on…..
The kind of regulation we need is not new: a licensing regime that requires a minimum safety standard before a system can be built and released. This is how we handle nuclear power, airplanes, buildings, elevators, hairdressers and sandwich makers. Is it too much to ask of trillion-dollar AI corporations, who claim to be building the most dangerous technology in history?
You need this to apply to all models, globally, forever. Which ain’t gonna happen, is it?
Ricardo Gama, a partner at the law firm Leigh Day, which is representing
So we know that argument, whatever it is, is bollocks then, don’t we?
Its consultation proposed that the HSE should be allowed to fast-track chemical hazard classifications from other countries into British law. When the HSE published its response to the consultation findings, it said it would recognise the EU’s standards when adopting such hazard classifications. The EU has the highest standards on chemical safety globally.
But when the government laid the regulations before parliament earlier this year, the EU and its standards were not mentioned. Fighting Dirty is taking legal action against the government over concerns that this omission may expose the public to more hazardous chemicals.
Ricardo Gama, a partner at the law firm Leigh Day, which is representing Fighting Dirty in the proceedings, said the absence of this “safeguard” meant the government, or any future government, “could approve chemicals from places that have lower standards than the UK and EU”.
And, you know, how in buggery did this become justiciable? And who’s paying for it, obviously.