Christine I would agree with what Suzy has said but thought it was very funny that he would insure the cigars and the smoke them and then try to claim on them,
He must of high on cigar smoke to claim ha ha ha
Christine I would agree with what Suzy has said but thought it was very funny that he would insure the cigars and the smoke them and then try to claim on them,
He must of high on cigar smoke to claim ha ha ha
Well that's one stupid lawyer and a very funny story Chrissie. Thanks.
A lawyer in Charlotte, NC purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed a claim with the insurance company.
In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued....and won! In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be "unacceptable fire," and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the "fires."
But... After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine.
The question everyone is asking, should this type of crime warrant the same human rights as any 'normal' person, the expense of surgery etc. when children are denied certain types of treatment due to prohibitive costs, or even getting ahead in the que for reasignment surgery. We are not talking about stealing a carton of milk or a loaf of bread here, we are aware two young girls were violently raped and traumatised. Now I am aware the Ian Huntley who murdered and sexually asaulted two very young schoolgirls has stated his intention to go the same route. Whilst my remit is to defend human rights and my commitment to the transgender community to be treated fairly with respect and get what they need under the existing laws, are human rights being extended to the point that, these people can disadvantage society in general. Are these animals entitled to the same rights as honest decent people regardless of being transgendered or not. They should in my opinion only deserve the basic needs to keep them alive to serve out any sentence imposed upon them.
As you say Cris ,"All to often these occasions are sensationalised by the press as if it was because a person is transgendered and that was a reason why they committed such a dastardly offence".Transgendered people are victimised by this and emotionally affected by this,Non Transgendered people are not victimised and not emotionally affected.There is the exception which is people who assert the emotion and actions of fury in false judgement .Why are the Press still inciting likely prejudice toward Transgender people by this careless toxic association.
Thnx!! Seems pretty simple to me!
Basically one can change ones name and gender overnight, just by completing a change of name deed poll, then the time it takes to notify all relevant departments and busineses. Obviously passports and driving licences and government departsments take a little longer all depends on the postal system. By law people must recocognise your new gender and name when they receive the deed poll. After two years living in ones new gender, one can apply to have their birth certificate gender and name changed and then are legally the new gender for all intense and purpose regarding marriage pension entitlement.
Question for you Crissie...
How long is the process of getting one's name and records changed in the UK? Is there much resistence along the way from the "system"? And is it costly to that person?
Emotions should not be a factor in a case like this. She got what she needed a provision in law, surgery etc, and she is entitled to privacy as a transgendered person, as such she should not be ridiculed, harrased, bullied for being transgendered. BUT as a convicted rapist it goes with the ''job'' ie, racing drivers take the risk of inury by being involved in a crash, if they get hurt they accept it as part of the job they do, other drivers if they are inured by another driver who drives while drunk, thats another matter. Convicted rapist can expect to be villified, but being a transgendered person should not be alluded to regarding the crime. All to often these occasions are sensationalised by the press as if it was because a person is transgendered and that was a reason for commiting such a dastardly offence.
By Heat Street Staff | 4:17 am, March 21, 2017
A convicted rapist who had a publicly-funded sex change operation while in prison has been moved to a women’s jail.
Father-of-three Martin Ponting was jailed for life in 1995 after attacking two girls. He was serving his sentence at the high security men’s jail HM Prison Whitemoor in Cambridgeshire, eastern England.
Having decided to live as a woman, Ponting, now 50 years old, had a £10,000 ($12,500) sex change operation courtesy of British taxpayers and now goes by the name Jessica Winfield. He changed his name at least a decade ago.
According to The Sun, Winfield is currently serving time in the women’s jail HM Prison Bronzefield in Surrey and is hoping to be released this year.
One of Winfield’s victims told The Sun: “He may have changed physically but his brain is still the same. To assume the identity of a woman after what he did is a kick in the teeth. There are not enough words to describe him and the evil he has done. It is diabolical they have allowed him to have a sex change and diabolical that he could be freed this year. He may have changed physically but his brain is still the same. You can change somebody’s genitals but it’s not going to take away the urge and impulse inside them to do horrific things to children. I feel like it mocks the people he offended against. It is a kick in the teeth for me and his other victim.”
Transgender prisoners in the UK have been allowed to apply for publicly-funded gender surgery since 1999.
It is rare for an article about a transgender person not to reveal their previous name. This conveys the false impression that transgender people are happy to have their previous names made public. A transgender person takes a new name to reflect their public change of gender. They discard the old name in the process and the deed poll on change of name is quite emphatic about this. Under no circumstance is the old name retained.
Why should you avoid revealing a transgender person's former name?
When a Gender Recognition Cerificate (GRC) is awarded, it becomes a criminal offence to reveal the owner's transgender history. At present the fine is £5000. It is the individual who reveals the name, not the organisation for which they work, who will face charges. There are no exemptions for journalism as there are with the Data Protection Act. Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act was created with an "expectation of privacy" in mind.
It is important for a transgender person to be able to wipe the slate clean, to live a life free from persecution. Provided they have no outstanding debts, their credit history will be erased. They will be entitled to a new passport and driving licence. There is even a fresh birth certificate to help them through life. All of this is to no avail if their previous and current name are linked on a website. When this happens, such a person has no choice but to change their name again if they want the privacy to which they are entitled.
Whilst the legal position is not cut-and-dried, it is heavily weighted in favour of the transgender person. Even colleagues discussing a post-transitional person may be in breach of this law. Even before the award of a GRC, charges of harassment may be applied if the person is reported about on separate occasions using their previous name. Any article remaining on the internet following the award of a GRC may expose its author and editor to risk of prosecution.
The award of a GRC is never publicly announced, of course. There have been no high-profile prosecutions under Section 22 but that situation is unlikely to last. It is best to respect the terms of the person's deed poll and refer to them by their chosen name only.
Wednesday, January 18 - 3:32 AM UK Metro - Richard Hartley
Forget the battle between cyclists, drivers and pedestrians - the war of today is between prams and wheelchairs on buses. The Supreme Court will today rule whether disabled travellers are legally entitled...
Does this absolve bus companies from contract law.
The bus driver is the representative of the bus company, passengers pre-pay for their journey on a top up card, as soon as they swipe the card and the fare is deducted from the balance on the card, a contract exists, so over say the first five stops, the bus is full includeing standing people and a puschair in the disabled space,, can the driver then eject a number of passengers and the person with a pushchair to make space for a disabled persons wheelchair.
In london this would mean that when they get on the folowing bus they have to swipe thier card again, now they have paid twice, now say on this second bus after another two stops another person in a wheelchair demanded to get on the bus?
When we had that hung parliment I was thining, og good, but then I realised that they weren't to be hung. Pity.
Apparently a law still in force today, states it shall be deemed a criminal act to die in the houses if Parliament.
WTF, will the dead person then be sentanced to spend a term of incarceration in the Tower of London???? Perhaps if it was rather a bad death, would they be hung drawn and quartered.
Committing treason is one of the most extreme things you can be punished for in Britain.
While rare, acts of treason and high treason are still punishable - although the death penalty is no longer the ultimate sentence after it was scrapped in 1998 under the Crime And Disorder Act.
That is very fortunate for anyone committing acts of treason as the death penalty in the past didn’t mean an injection or gas chamber.
In fact, it was a lot worse as Guy Fawkes and his fellow comparators discovered when they were executed for treason in 1605 by hanging, drawing and quartering.
Nevertheless, guilty parties can expect a maximum term of life behind bars for acts of disloyalty to the Queen.
Britain’s Treason Act was written out in 1351 - and is still in force today, albeit with several amendments over the years.
The last time it was used was in 1946 at the trial of William Joyce, AKA Lord Haw-Haw.
He assisted Germany during the second world war by broadcasting Nazi propaganda and was ultimately executed by hanging.
But while the 665-year-old act may not be commonly used in the modern era, it has been brought up as recently as 2014 when the then Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond suggested that British extremists who travel to Iraq and Syria to pledge allegiance to ISIS could be charged with high treason.
Sex with various Royals
Sorry, but you also can’t have consensual sex with monarch’s wife, heir’s wife or his unmarried eldest daughter. No specifics on any daughters after that but basically the Royal women highest up in succession are out of bounds. Erm does that account for butlers, hangers on, what about if the monachs spouse indulges in a few bits on the side, seems a bit one sided to me.
Calling for the abolition of the monarchy
Technically you could be sent to prison for advocating the abolition of the monarchy by any means, as part of the Treason Felony Act 1848. It was mistakenly thought to have been repealed in 2013 - but it has not been used in a prosecution since 1879. erm a few MP's and party leaders due for a long spell.
Saying you want something bad to happen to the Queen
Under the Treason Act 1537, you can technically be imprisoned for something as simple as writing or saying that you wish harm upon either the Queen or her heirs. The odd few extremists,
Helping out Britain’s enemies
Essentially you are a traitor if you start helping out the enemy. And that can be in this country or abroad - either way it’s a big no-no. Hmmm holidays in Syria?
Hung draw and quartered, Hanging, (until Nearly dead) disembowled and then being pulled apart by four horses, proberly in this day an Range rovers, Paedo's and child rapists and murderers only get a few years. Oh and not to mention they used to hang molly's, Victorian transexuals under the 1883 buggery act.
Death penalty for murder abolished.
The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It abolished the death penalty for murder in Great Britain (the death penalty for murder survived in Northern Ireland until 1973). The Act replaced the penalty of death with a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for life.
The Act was introduced to Parliament as a private member's bill by Sydney Silverman MP. The Act provides that charges of capital murder at the time it was passed were to be treated as charges of simple murder and all sentences of death were to be commuted to sentences of life imprisonment. The legislation contained a sunset clause, which stated that the Act would expire on July 31st 1970 "unless Parliament by affirmative resolutions of both Houses otherwise determines". This was done in 1969 and the Act was made permanent.
The Act overlooked four other capital offences: high treason, "piracy with violence" (piracy with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm), arson in royal dockyards and espionage, as well as other capital offences under military law. The death penalty was not finally abolished in the United Kingdom until 1998 by the Human Rights Act and the Crime and Disorder Act. However the last executions in the United Kingdom were in 1964, for murder.
The Brexit vote was won because we were told quite outreagous bullshite by both sides and the few things we were told like immigration and unelected leaders were the only couple reasons we voted out. It's just a pity that we don't live in a p;erfect world.
Thankyou Suzy, not my political party, I have no allegiance to either of the main parties, the Labour party's impossible dream and the conservative party of expediency and profit for private companies. When they sell, national assets to foreign countries, especially the French, who upon Brexit being finalised will penalise us to the extreme.
My main concern will be the availability of treatment for trans people, under the EHRC it is illegal to blanket ban treatment, due to costs involved, with the selling off of the more lucrative aspects of medical care, Will there be anything left to cover the costs involved regarding trans people. A little ammendment to the law, ''where and when available due to cost'' will be all it takes, prioritising other ''more urgent procedures'' typically the general public will be more than happy that money will appear to be spent on more pressing and urgent aspects of health care. I still maintain that the Brexit vote was won by a dissalusioned populance over the greed and avarice of Cameron and his cronies, his pomposity and his stupid belief that the phlebs would'nt win.
This sound a bit weird. The majority of us (excluding myself and Scotland and Northern Ireland) have voted to remain. Saying that you will be taking the rules that made people want to leave the EU and making them into national law.
And this from a woman who was voted to become the Prime Minister by your political party and not by the British voters even though they voted out because the EU had unelected leaders that aren't the EMP (European Member of Parliament) who were voted by the public is a bit unreal. This means that we have to have an unelcted (by the public) PM for about 4 or 5 more years until a general election comes up. I think the Americans have the right idea, flee to Canada. Now where's my passport.......
Theresa May has said she plans to introduce a “Great Repeal Bill” that will overturn the act that took the UK into the European Union.
The Prime Minister will tell the Conservative Party Conference that she will enshrine all European Union regulations that apply to Britain in domestic law when the country leaves the bloc.
She will tell Tories in Birmingham that a “Great Repeal Bill” will scrap the 1972 European Communities Act, which gives direct effect to all EU law, and at the same time convert Brussels regulations into domestic law.
This will give Parliament the power to unpick the laws it wants to keep, remove or amend at a later date, in a move that could be welcomed by MPs keen to have a say over the terms of Brexit.
The move is also designed to give certainty to businesses and protection for workers’ rights that are part of EU law, the Press Association reports.
May told The Sunday Times: “This marks the first stage in the UK becoming a sovereign and independent country once again.
“It will return power and authority to the elected institutions of our country. It means that the authority of EU law in Britain will end.”
Brexit Secretary David Davis will tell the conference: “To those who are trying to frighten British workers, saying ‘when we leave, employment rights will be eroded’, I say firmly and unequivocally, ‘no they won’t’.”
The Bill is expected to be brought forward in the next parliamentary session (2017-18) and will not pre-empt the two-year process of leaving the EU, which begins when the Government triggers Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Davis will say: “It’s very simple. At the moment we leave, Britain must be back in control. And that means EU law must cease to apply.
“To ensure continuity, we will take a simple approach. EU law will be transposed into domestic law, wherever practical, on exit day.
“It will be for elected politicians here to make the changes to reflect the outcome of our negotiation and our exit.
“That is what people voted for: power and authority residing once again with the sovereign institutions of our own country.”
The repeal Bill will end the primacy of EU law, meaning rulings by the European Court of Justice will stop applying to the UK once the legislation takes effect.
It will include powers to make changes to the laws using secondary legislation as negotiations over the UK’s future relationship proceed, although more wide-ranging amendments or new laws may come forward in separate Bills.
It sounds like the rules on imigration and free passage are going to remain, they are rules, what concerns me will the Human rights act be altered which is an edict from Strasbourg, not Brussels and how it will be tailored to perhaps discriminate and or affect the rights of TG people, there obviously will be no right of appeal to the EU courts of any infringements of UK trans citizens after Brexit has been invoked.
Onviously this now changes the pension entitlements of male to female transisionists. We have come a long way in this country, I am not sure if similar changes of recognised lawful marriages are the same in all EU countries, some countrieis have unilateral equality in pension ages anyway. We are talking of legal marriage here, not civil partnerships.
News this morning an inquest ruled a woman died of smoke inhalation because her Beko tumble dryer caught fire even though she had switched it off, before retiring to bed.
Surely in this day and age of technology a device could be incorporated to prevent this happening, perhaps a very loud sounding smoke/carbon monoxide detector it was stated that the manufacturers knew of the fault within a component for four years, the model has subsequently been replaced with a new design. Should there be a law ragarding immediate recalls. Should there be more accountabilty.
The total disregard for safety, and profit margins and reputation is disconcerting to say the least.
It's my considered opinion that the attitude and whitholding of information in this case is tantamount to murder for gain at the very least a criminal charge of culpable manslaughter, against all those at fault. Like many Mega companies, what they save, scrimping and taking short cuts, is probably many times more than what they will have to pay in compensation.
Fortunately for B, they get off scott-free: Suicide is defined as the act of intentionally ending one's own life. Before the Suicide Act 1961, it was a crime to commit suicide, and anyone who attempted and failed could be prosecuted and imprisoned, while the families of those who succeeded could also potentially be prosecuted. Perhaps the law, Sir, is not always an ass.
So... the law is not an ass?
Bit late with my findings, Judith beat me to it.
1 Attempting to commit an offence Criminal Attempts Act 1981
(1) If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence.
(2) A person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence to which this section applies even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible.
(b) if the facts of the case had been as he believed them to be, his intention would be so regarded,
then, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, he shall be regarded as having had an intent to commit that offence.
(4) This section applies to any offence which, if it were completed, would be triable in England and Wales as an indictable offence,
4 Trial and penalties
(1) A person guilty by virtue of section 1 above of attempting to commit an offence shall -
(a) if the offence attempted is murder or any other offence the sentence for which is fixed by law, be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life; and
I suspect that this is the kind of situation which led to the drafting of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Section 1(2) of the Act specifies that "a person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence to which this section applies even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible". Thus, even though the defence of impossibility prevents conviction for the murder of an already-dead victim, section 1(2) would open the charge of attempted murder, provided that:
* the culprit had the intention to commit the offence
* performed an act which was more than preparatory to the commission of the offence.
In the instant case, as has been pointed out above, there's a strong inference that the culprit's actions suggest an unawareness of the victim's previous demise, and thus an intention to commit murder. A bullet in the brain probably counts as more than preparatory.
The bigger headache would have been if A had poisened B & just as B is expiring C appears into the room shooting B in the head. Ensuring that B was dead......
How do you prove what Killed B??
Well Matt, I had considered that, if that was proved, that would be easy, thats pervertng the course of justice. I'm thinking that it was attempted murder just to make it more interesting and a problem for the DPP
There is a scenario you may not have taken into account Cris;
C maybe trying to protect A & knew full well that B had expired and attempted to muddy the waters as such by shooting them in the head...
Shoots dead mum in the head lol.
Nikki I have spoken to 2 barristers, whilst not dealing in the field of criminal law, they threatened to get back to me, Why would someone put themselves at any sort of risk to shoot somone who'm they knew was allready dead? my contention, the intended murder of someone they believed at the time was not dead. Still comes down to can a person face a charge of attempted murder of a dead person.
I still believe that the intent to commit murder is the basis for the charge. Whether it was unsuccessful or not the idea was to kill the person. It would have to come down to unquestionable evidence that murder was intended and they did not already know that the perosn was already dead. Difficult to prove.
If anyone shoots someone in the head thinking they were alive then the intent is to kill them , if C shot B in the foot then that would be different.
The moral to this is to not mix with people called A B or C , you have a very high chance of ending up dead.
Yes, thought so...
Well, it just seems to me that attempted murder is when you try to murder someone but fail, C attempted to murder B but failed. The reason for the failure does not remove the attempt.
Are they guilty of any other offence then? Like Julia says, you can't go round shooting dead bodies in the head!
Surely going out with a gun with the intention of killing someone is at least a little bit naughty?
Just lock them all up dead or not. A murdered B and C murdered the dead one not knowing the dead one was dead because why would anyone shoot a dead person?
A is a murderer and C is and as B cannot speak so B could be too. Put all 3 in the same cell with the smell.
Best not put my answers in any paper you will fail lol.
Then the law is an ass, lol, 'C' cannot in law be charged with attempting to murder a person who is allready dead. Murder by definition is depriving someone of life, if they are allready dead, then the attempt does'nt come into it. Lucy is thinking on the same lines as I am, proving that 'C' did not know 'B' was allready dead, logical, otherwise why would they bother going to the trouble of shooting a person who is allready dead.
With respect, I think some of you are getting your letters mixed up!
A is guilty of murder
B is dead
C shot B in the head, and if it could be proved that they did not know that B was already dead then it follows that C attempted to murder B.
C is guilty of attempeted murder in my opinion, otherwise the law is an ass.
Yes it was proved that 'B' had expired some time before, by autopsy. UK law a person cannot obviously be charged with attempted murder of a dead person, but my interpretation and the basis of a charge would have to be the intent and proving that 'C' did not know that 'B' was allready dead, but attempted murder?. Attempted murder is the intention or actions that would deprive some person of life. ie. beating someone or inflicting injuries that could reasonably be expected to kill someeone.
I have to do 5 scenarios for a paper I am submitting.
The intention is to kill but someone already dead cannot be murdered. It would be feasible to charge them with 'assault' or some such as there must be a law against assaulting, mutilating or doing whatever to a dead body.
Was A actually dead? Is it possible after autopsy that they could have survived the dose of poison? If so, both A and C must be charged. Interesting case; I wonder how it will turn out.
But A did know B was dead because A murdered B with poison. As for C? Well just lock C up because surely shooting dead people is very cruel , they already died once and thats just rubbing it in.
Case closed lol :)
How true it is I have no idea yet!.
From an American Television program.
'A' murders 'B'' by administering poison. 'B' dies in bed, 'C' a disgruntled lover, enters the bedroom and shoots 'B' in the head,
The question is can 'C' be charged with attempted murder?
Logically one cannot be charged with attempting to murder a dead person, but if 'C' did not know 'B' was allready dead, surely then the intention is still there.
You can be sure of it - and in some cases 'non receipted) coffees too!
Amanda, corporate law, is erm, ratified and made up my those with power and MONEY, not my forte, but a typical example is offshore banking and handling companies, not illegal, but morally wrong, quote david Cameron, but seems his father used the process and Cameron hinself benifited from it personally. as used by a world wide chain of coffee shops, google etc, who actually employ thousands of British workers, who pay tax on their earnings and the companies registered as off shore companines still pay VAT for money paid for into the companines for the services provided, sounds like calling coffee pot and kettle black, starbucks pay to IRCE 40 pence for every cup of coffee sold over the counter. Cameron and his cronies probably claim those coffee's on their expense accounts.
I need to say a few things about this thread. It was not my intention to bring it to a halt , even though in my opinion the original poster had no intention of becoming a part of this website. From begining to end it is easy to see this is just about themself.
Crissie (Cristine Shye) Has put so much work into this with very little thanks (I thank her). Her work is about the law side and my posts have been about the human side. Crissie is very human and has human emotions just as we all do but she has been 100% professional. As for me? I do not and have no need to be professional. I have concerns for the hurt caused by these situations , hurt that could have been avoided with some honesty from the start.
I knew from a very young age that my life was not just like anyone elses , I knew I was different and also found out that telling lies gets you no where in life. Yes me being honest about who I was got me into a lot of trouble when I was young but I could not hide what was on the inside , and I knew it was going to find a way out. I never married or fathered any children for that very reason. Yes I tried to have relationships but they all failed because I knew , or should I say felt it was wrong.
In my 20's I met a woman and something between us just clicked , that had not happened before. She was different than the others , she was I suppose what is known as a Tom Boy.
After we had been seeing each other for about a week I started to have feelings for her and I knew she had for me too. I had to make a decision and that was to tell her about me. I had to make that decision knowing I would most likely lose her. When I told her her first words were "I knew there was something different about you".
That week turned into 23 years , 23 Years of love and trust. Just over 12 years ago she died suddenly but she remains in my heart and I think of her everyday , I often have very real dreams about her.
I have no clue what would have happened if I had not told her but I told her because I knew I could not hide who I was and had no wish to. That is the human side. I did not want a relationship based on lies and deception and our 23 years were about being honest and that is what held us together.
She bought me a recording and the lyrics turned out to be true apart from the fact that she died. Please listen and you will understand https://youtu.be/SuWAGT9ZkYE
This is the one I bought for her https://youtu.be/Y65sHbLWNoU
Before anyone gets any ideas about deleting this post please read it again. If I am going to be picked on for being honest just remember my 23 years of honesty worked unlike what this thread is all about.
Take care xx
I gave this thread 5 stars but it deserves a lot more for the amount of work Crissie has put into it. Yes Crissie had a few Thank you's but in my opinion it is easy to type empty words. In my post which was deleted I stated that. I also used the words selfish and taking the piss , why? Because that is what I see. I am not going to lie for anyone and say anything different.
Again I thank you Crissie for all of your work , and you know I mean it x.
Yes it was deleted and I expected it to be. I am pleased you appreciate my honesty because that is what it was. I would not call honesty offensive though.
Take a look at this http://youtu.be/92cwKCU8Z5c and the look on Agnetha Faltskog's face. Look at her eyes it is not acting. The song was written about her divorce and her life was wrecked just as many other females are by dishonesty.
I forgot to add. If you watch the video and pay attention to Agnetha's face you will see her eye make up change. Although she has admitted this is her favourite song Abba recorded it was very hard for her to record the video , she was filming with her ex husband and still going through the pain of their break up. I stated she was not acting , she is not an actor and eyes tell a story on their own. She had her eye make up re done several times to create this short video and that was due to tears.
I've received an email which I think has already been deleted by the moderator for this forum. You are out of order. Unbeknownst to you my decreed absolute is due to be decide upon tommorrow. I have only posted onto this forum what I am comfortable with and no more. I appreciate your honesty, but please respect my openness. This is my life! I am truly grateful for any positive feedback, but you are just being offensive.
This is some pretty heavy stuff. Thank you all for the informative exchange. I can't believe someone can just claim to be transgender without any analysis and diagnosis. I don't know what to believe with this rapist because it looks like he may be trying to get out of being raped himself. In a perfect world, I feel that someone is the gender they feel no matter what they do or don't do with their outer appearance, and no matter if they ever see a professional or not...it's a state of mind...but in the judicial system, it's a sticky situation and cannot be my idealistic way. It's hard to wrap my mind around non-transgender criminals taking advantage of the current law...but at the price of changing their gender? Really?! First it gives a bad name to transgender people, and secondly, they don't even realize the gravity, and that SRS will be a worse punishment for someone who is non. Ever see the movie The Skin I Live In?!
I did know it is not up to the magistrates Crissie but , am I wrong in thinking they can make recomendations for vulnerable people?. If I am wrong then that is something that needs changing. From what I have read Tara Hudson did not seem to have legal representation , if she did they were cr*p , I bet they all want to represent her now though.
Her petition did reach over 100,000 signitures , it is in a link within a link at the end of this. In my opinion , and it is my opinion , thinking over and over about this the recomendation of where a transgender person should be sent prison wise should come from medical professionals , not a bunch of people who do not understand.
I have personally been in court as a victim and the CPS represented me. They ill advised me though and I decided to stand up for myself. I recall one woman from the CPS saying to me , I have never met anyone like you. I responded , what , you have never met a transexual woman? . She said no , I have never met anyone so determined to see someone punished , I responded , and you would just let him get away with it would you?. Sorry but this will go to trial if he persists in pleading not guilty I said.
A woman is like a Teabag. You never know how strong she is until she gets into hot water.
Take care x
Tara Hudson, Magistrates don't decide which prison a person is sent to regardless of gender the ministry of justice offenders/prison decides, magistrate cannot make an order or make a precedent, as it did'nt reach crown court or the high courts, precedent was not relevant, her legal council should have made representation to a higher authority to make such a decisiion, but if it had of been refered to a higher court, the sentence could have been more severe, it would seem she was advised to plead guilty in the magistrates court to get a lighter sentence in the original trial. BUT it was still up to the Ministry of justice department to make the appropriate accomodation order.
On the appeal with a judge presiding representation should have been made. He would have explained the procedures and that it came under the remit of the ustice department.
(in my opinion) her legal team should have made this a case when the original sentence was imposed at the magistrates court, drawing attention to the circumstances and demanding a review as above, she might have even been released on tag when it was discovered just how involved things can get..
I know I have taken this a bit off topic in parts but. No one should forget this person raped a 15 year old girl , that is in the UK still in effect a child.
A rapist is a rapist and and a child rapist is the lowest of them all. And just like Katie said I don't care.
I don't care about what happens to this person in prison , if he (which in this case I think is the proper pronoun) gets raped then I have no sympathy , it can be part of the punishment in my opinion. I personally think some people should have the right to call themselves transgender taken away from them.
Where the press are concerned they very rarely have anything good to say about transgender individuals. Going back to Tara Hudson. Just google her if anyone has not read about her or seen her. Being transgender is not about looks but how can any sane magistrate even think about sending her to a male prison?. That was punishment far beyond punishment.
Take care x
Mmmmmmm if they sent him/her to a womans prison, life could be very uncomfortable, being a rapist. He might get some sort of SRS