3 ms·
> So check the case coverage on the Guardian. I think except the most recent one they're on there. The details still seem pretty thin though, and finding a sou
by mootothemax 10y ago
> So check the case coverage on the Guardian. I think except the most recent one they're on there.
The details still seem pretty thin though, and finding a source which reliably summarises quite chunky texts is a job in itself.
For example, here's one ruling linked from the Guardian which implies a very different story to that being told by the press:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/B31.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2012/B31.html
(a quite incredibly poorly-edited or mistyped or, I dunno, redacted ruling at that!)
It doesn't take an age to read, but it does take a good amount of time to digest and understand - and even then you walk away with an incomplete picture.
I'm still on the fence.
- paulhart 10y agoSeems very clear to me - the Court has ordered a stop to a pattern of behaviour, the person so ordered has not stopped, and so the court is "turning up the volume" by using the powers it has available to it. Regardless of what you may think of the duration of the sentence (and I'll assume that it's within the bounds of both legality and jurisprudence for the circumstances), the Judge takes into account that the ordered person probably didn't believe that the Court would follow through on things.
- jacquesm 10y agoOr may have believed it but chose to stand by their family member in a time of need.