[macafee2]

Originally Posted by wraymond

The trouble, or the benefit if all things considered, is that there is a range of penalties available to the judge that he can in theory apply in varying degrees of severity. I'm in favour of each case being taken on its merits but the judges personal disposition on the day is too variable to rely on.

I remember the miners too, couldn’t believe what I was seeing. At that time I was a union shop steward and I was enraged at the brutality of what went on. It looked like a Russian Gulag. In that case the minister was told firmly to stop the unrest at any cost. That did more than anything else to destroy public faith in the system and, rightly, it remains firmly in the public mind. Episodes like Hillsborough still occur though. To leave remedies in one individual’s hands on such matters is a recipe for disaster. Although Dukenfield got away with it.

There is a standard, or at least a wide one, to enable a degree of discretion in doubtful cases. This largely means plenty of scope for lawyers rather than judges and invariably causes its own arguments.

However, I remain unconvinced that the penalty for non-payment of a fine should be imprisonment unless it is a clear and unambiguous condition stated at the original conviction.

I would not quote miners as victims bearing in mind the death of David James Wilkie. That sticks in my mind more then anything else about the strike. Hopefully that enraged you too. We digress

macafee2