I am many things, but have never before been an acronym.

What a joke, who do the courts act for, lawyers and the accused or victims?

Criminal, equitable, property, succession, contract, torts, administrative, constitutional etc etc –whatever Rog, there’s a concept behind it, a purpose that it serves, sometimes incredibly difficult to grasp for people who can’t force it into (knee-jerk populist) submission: it’s called justice.

steve at the pub on 20 August 2006 at 1:00 pm
If the law isn’t working, it is our job to change it.

There you go!

At last, a practical suggestion from a RWDB.

If you RWDBs want to mount a campaign for reform, you ought to talk to us Lefties.

We Lefties have been the world champion reformers for at least the last 180 years.

So, any questions?

What a joke, who do the courts act for, lawyers and the accused or victims?

Joe Cinque case was another farce where the responsibility of the guilty was diminished to the point of irrelevance, the victims were abandoned to deal with their grief whilst justice was “seen to be done”.

Phillip Adams: Are you responsible, or were you responsible, for what you did, in your own view: sit in judgment on yourself.

Anu Singh: No, I absolutely am responsible and take full responsibility for it, and that’s something that is difficult to come to terms with and it’s something that I live with every single day. It’s difficult that the whole notion of responsibility is predicated on the basis that someone is rational, and it makes it even more difficult that when you are rational, you can look back and see what you’ve done in a state of irrationality, and it’s actually harder to be able to accept that, because I guess a lot of me wishes so much that I’d listened to so many people who had said, ‘Look, there’s something wrong, you need to actually get treatment in a different way.’ I was consumed with what I perceived to be physical illnesses, and in fact what happened was that my illness manifested in a physical way, so that I was not at all wanting to accept the prospect that possibly there wasn’t something wrong with my body, it was something with my mind. And I guess in terms of now accepting full responsibility, I’m trying to determine ways of making it up to my parents, to society, I don’t think that …

Shameful semantics

If only they could synthesise the imperviousness of the RWDB mind. They could coat the Space Shuttles with it.

They’d survive a million re-entries.

Katz has opined here that guilt (or innocence) is not the primary issue in justice.

Actually Rog, Katz is correct in that the whole appeal was about admissability, and was the primary isssue. Guilt, the secondary issue was quashed by rejecting its admission in Cummins J’s lower court.

Despite many RWDBs who want to throw all perceived enemies into jail without due process, and also throw away the keys, the case was all about long-held, hard-fought-for legal rights which will not disappear just because those RWDBs have simplistic irrational childish neo-con inspired fears of phantom enemies which have not coincidently replaced “reds under the bed.”

The Victorian Supreme (Appeal) Court said there is a process and it must be adhered to. Period.

Robert, it was sort of meant as a rhetorical question but we both suffered from not having all the transcripts at our fingertips, but I want to thank you sincerely for the debate, that’s what really matters, and so darned useful for honing my (at this moment slightly chateaux cardboard sozzled) grey matter