6 ms·
IMO the private prosecution is a necessary safeguard. In other countries you get the opposite problem: a gross injustice has been done, but the public prosecuto
by lmm 3y ago
IMO the private prosecution is a necessary safeguard. In other countries you get the opposite problem: a gross injustice has been done, but the public prosecutor won't prosecute (often because the perpetrator was connected with the government in one way or another), so nothing gets done.
- penguin_booze 3y agoFrom what I heard, this provision for public prosecution dates from the olden days when the post office was carrying important and sensitive messages, like that from the royals, and when they had to fight highway robbers and such. In this day and age, such a provision doesn't make sense, and must be done away with. As for the argument, "nothing else done otherwise", we don't see similar prosecution privileges for other essential services in life (health service, public transport etc.). Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
- lmm 3y ago> From what I heard, this provision for public prosecution dates from the olden days when the post office was carrying important and sensitive messages, like that from the royals, and when they had to fight highway robbers and such. You were misinformed. > As for the argument, "nothing else done otherwise", we don't see similar prosecution privileges for other essential services in life (health service, public transport etc.). Yes we do; as the article says, in the UK any private organisation or individual has the right to bring a prosecution.
- penguin_booze 3y ago> You were misinformed. As I could be now. My sources were the BBC and PrivateEye podcasts. What are yours?
- lmm 3y agoHere's the UK government's page on bringing a private prosecution: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecutions/private-prosecutions https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecuti...