17 ms·

I thought British legal system and computer forensics were serious but this case is just a travesty of justice.

closewith 1y ago
The British legal system is and always has been a litany of injustices dressed up in formal attire. To be avoided at all costs.
- mathiaspoint 1y ago
  That mess inspired the American legal system though, which is probably one of if not the best in the world. IMO common law is still better than case law at least.
  - closewith 1y ago
    > That mess inspired the American legal system though, which is probably one of if not the best in the world. Poe's Law strikes again. The American legal system isn't even the best legal system in the US.
    - nusaru 1y ago
      > in the US Huh? What does this mean? Are there other systems in the US that I’m not aware of?
      - closewith 1y ago
        Yes, the indigenous domestic nations.
        renewiltord 1y ago
        Indeed, and science can’t account for the wonders of indigenous ways of thinking either.
    - whycome 1y ago
      How dare you. Do you want to get sued? /s
  - zapzupnz 1y ago
    I’m curious to know how American legal system is better than any other country’s. From the outside looking in, it looks just as broken if not worse. You may have been kidding, but I’m sure someone will genuinely think so and have some decent arguments for it.
    - tialaramex 1y ago
      My favourite inspiration goes the opposite direction. The United States has this Supreme Court, a final Court of Appeal, politically independent and empowered even to decide that the government's actions are illegal. Sounds great. The UK had this rather antique thing called the "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" aka "Law Lords" who were in theory just some Lords (ie people who are arbitrarily in the upper chamber of the Parliament, maybe because their dad was) but served the same purpose as a final court of appeal in practice and so had for a very long time all been Judges because duh, of course they should be judges, that's a job for a judge, just make some judges Lords and forget about it. They met in some committee room in the Palace of Westminster, because they're Lords and that's where the Lords are, right? So, there was practical independence, but the appearance was not here. About 15 years ago now, the dusty Law Lords were in the way of an attempted reform of parliament. A Supreme Court sounds like a good idea, so the UK got a Supreme Court. It fixed up a nice building nearby, gave the exact same people a new job title and sent them over the road. Done. But the UK version does what it says on the tin. It said on the tin they're politically independent. In the US of course this "independence" is bullshit, but in the UK since there's already a politically independent process to pick judges the same process continues for the Supreme Court. So a Prime Minister might hate the supreme court but they can't pick the judges.
      - PaulRobinson 1y ago
        The Prime Minister can influence earlier in the chain though: they get to approve appointments to the Lords as a whole. Who then gets appointed to positions within the Lords is none of their business, but they can tip the scale if they need to. It's actually for this reason that for hundreds of years until the early 21st century there was real concern about having a Catholic prime minister. There was even hand-wringing over PMs of other denominations, but the history of Catholicism in the UK in particular raised concern. Why? The PM has final approval of the Lords Spiritual - the bishops from the Church of England who are there to provide a protestant spiritual dimension to all debates before that House. It's allegedly for this reason that Tony Blair (married to a Catholic) waited until after he left office to convert. I think it was either Brown or Cameron who then got the law explicitly changed to not bar Catholics and other religions to serve as PM.
  - LtWorf 1y ago
    Isn't the american legal system the one who famously killed Sacco and Vanzetti?
- sparsely 1y ago
  Indeed. The goal of the British legal system is to appear serious. Justice is an occasional byproduct.
  - penguin_booze 1y ago
    Just say British system; 'Legal' is extraneous. But boy does it appear serious.
- tialaramex 1y ago
  Compared to? I mean, it's no Norway, but to remind you the United States, which has continued just straight up executing people who may not have committed any crime, is currently trying to make some of its own citizens stateless, then ship them to a foreign oubliette. Russia doesn't bother with courts and people who are out of favour just have deadly "accidents" there.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mystraline 1y ago
  The stuffy 17th c clothes and powdered wigs were a warning that you are entering the Clown Zone (not the Twilight Zone).
duncans 1y ago
The thing here is that the Post Office as the "victim" could also act as its own investigator and prosecutor, due to historical reasons going back to the 17th century when it effectively functioned as part of the state and as such, had the authority to investigate and prosecute crimes related to its operations (like mail theft or fraud).
jekwoooooe 1y ago
[flagged]

The British legal system is and always has been a litany of injustices dressed up in formal attire. To be avoided at all costs.

mathiaspoint 1y ago
That mess inspired the American legal system though, which is probably one of if not the best in the world. IMO common law is still better than case law at least.
- closewith 1y ago
  > That mess inspired the American legal system though, which is probably one of if not the best in the world. Poe's Law strikes again. The American legal system isn't even the best legal system in the US.
  - nusaru 1y ago
    > in the US Huh? What does this mean? Are there other systems in the US that I’m not aware of?
    - closewith 1y ago
      Yes, the indigenous domestic nations.
      - renewiltord 1y ago
        Indeed, and science can’t account for the wonders of indigenous ways of thinking either.
  - whycome 1y ago
    How dare you. Do you want to get sued? /s
- zapzupnz 1y ago
  I’m curious to know how American legal system is better than any other country’s. From the outside looking in, it looks just as broken if not worse. You may have been kidding, but I’m sure someone will genuinely think so and have some decent arguments for it.
  - tialaramex 1y ago
    My favourite inspiration goes the opposite direction. The United States has this Supreme Court, a final Court of Appeal, politically independent and empowered even to decide that the government's actions are illegal. Sounds great. The UK had this rather antique thing called the "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" aka "Law Lords" who were in theory just some Lords (ie people who are arbitrarily in the upper chamber of the Parliament, maybe because their dad was) but served the same purpose as a final court of appeal in practice and so had for a very long time all been Judges because duh, of course they should be judges, that's a job for a judge, just make some judges Lords and forget about it. They met in some committee room in the Palace of Westminster, because they're Lords and that's where the Lords are, right? So, there was practical independence, but the appearance was not here. About 15 years ago now, the dusty Law Lords were in the way of an attempted reform of parliament. A Supreme Court sounds like a good idea, so the UK got a Supreme Court. It fixed up a nice building nearby, gave the exact same people a new job title and sent them over the road. Done. But the UK version does what it says on the tin. It said on the tin they're politically independent. In the US of course this "independence" is bullshit, but in the UK since there's already a politically independent process to pick judges the same process continues for the Supreme Court. So a Prime Minister might hate the supreme court but they can't pick the judges.
    - PaulRobinson 1y ago
      The Prime Minister can influence earlier in the chain though: they get to approve appointments to the Lords as a whole. Who then gets appointed to positions within the Lords is none of their business, but they can tip the scale if they need to. It's actually for this reason that for hundreds of years until the early 21st century there was real concern about having a Catholic prime minister. There was even hand-wringing over PMs of other denominations, but the history of Catholicism in the UK in particular raised concern. Why? The PM has final approval of the Lords Spiritual - the bishops from the Church of England who are there to provide a protestant spiritual dimension to all debates before that House. It's allegedly for this reason that Tony Blair (married to a Catholic) waited until after he left office to convert. I think it was either Brown or Cameron who then got the law explicitly changed to not bar Catholics and other religions to serve as PM.
- LtWorf 1y ago
  Isn't the american legal system the one who famously killed Sacco and Vanzetti?
sparsely 1y ago
Indeed. The goal of the British legal system is to appear serious. Justice is an occasional byproduct.
- penguin_booze 1y ago
  Just say British system; 'Legal' is extraneous. But boy does it appear serious.
tialaramex 1y ago
Compared to? I mean, it's no Norway, but to remind you the United States, which has continued just straight up executing people who may not have committed any crime, is currently trying to make some of its own citizens stateless, then ship them to a foreign oubliette. Russia doesn't bother with courts and people who are out of favour just have deadly "accidents" there.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mystraline 1y ago
The stuffy 17th c clothes and powdered wigs were a warning that you are entering the Clown Zone (not the Twilight Zone).

duncans 1y ago

The thing here is that the Post Office as the "victim" could also act as its own investigator and prosecutor, due to historical reasons going back to the 17th century when it effectively functioned as part of the state and as such, had the authority to investigate and prosecute crimes related to its operations (like mail theft or fraud).

jekwoooooe 1y ago

[flagged]