ECHR ..... now - Killers' life terms 'breached their human rights'

[Patti]

I agree, I don't think the 'whole life tariff' is wrong (in some cases). But it should NEVER be used for political gain. I don't believe that politicians should ever be allowed to alter sentences that have already been passed - they always have an agenda!!

I think today is good because it has brought the case to the main headlines but I don't think Jeremy will benefit from today's ruling because he is maintaining innocence and they don't like that!!   

I agree Caroline.

Those that change the sentencing are those that are not present in court and rely on transcripts and opinions of others to sway their decision. Is this right? In my opinion its not.  What right has someone got to make a soul decision on whether to move a sentence from 25 years to that of whole life based on looking through a case file?  Using this method can be full of errors and those that make the decision have a life in their hands and who are they to make such a decision at the end of the day, baring in mind that they have never met, heard or been at the trail of those they gave a whole life too. 

I would like to say that Cameron does not like to lose....but, he has to take this on board and not be so tunnel visioned in his own agenda. 

[Patti]

Hi Patti - the government can't appeal against the ruling, they simply have six moths to respond.

They will respond but what will that lead too? I suspect that they can appeal to the decision otherwise why would they be given time to respond if it was clear cut?

Good job the moths know eh....

[Caroline R]

They will respond but what will that lead too? I suspect that they can appeal to the decision otherwise why would they be given time to respond if it was clear cut?

Good job the moths know eh....

From the BBC website "The government cannot appeal against this ruling but now has six months to consider its response"

[Patti]

Patti, David Boutflour has already been on the box talking about how the family have to put up with this behaviour from Jeremy every few years.

You are joking April? Really? So the ECHR has given him a win and they say its Jeremy who is doing this to them...and not the legal team or the ECHR...its Jeremy. Oh Dear! 

[Patti]

From the BBC website "The government cannot appeal against this ruling but now has six months to consider its response"

You don't have to be a parrot Caroline....I heard you the first time...lol  sorry this went flying off before I had finished...Ha! I hope you are right. 

[Caroline R]

I agree Caroline.

Those that change the sentencing are those that are not present in court and rely on transcripts and opinions of others to sway their decision. Is this right? In my opinion its not.  What right has someone got to make a soul decision on whether to move a sentence from 25 years to that of whole life based on looking through a case file?  Using this method can be full of errors and those that make the decision have a life in their hands and who are they to make such a decision at the end of the day, baring in mind that they have never met, heard or been at the trail of those they gave a whole life too. 

I would like to say that Cameron does not like to lose....but, he has to take this on board and not be so tunnel visioned in his own agenda. 

I would be highly surprised if Howard even bothered to look at the case file - the paper most likely ended up on his desk and he signed it!!

[lookout]

From the BBC website "The government cannot appeal against this ruling but now has six months to consider its response"

We'll now have to wait and see if any loopholes are found in the ruling. I can't help but feel slightly pessimistic,,unless there is a clever person out there who is a step ahead " of the game ".

[Jane]

You are joking April? Really? So the ECHR has given him a win and they say its Jeremy who is doing this to them...and not the legal team or the ECHR...its Jeremy. Oh Dear! 

Sadly Patti, I'm not joking. It was just an opportunity for him to tell the world how Jeremy is persecuting the family.

[Caroline R]

Sadly Patti, I'm not joking. It was just an opportunity for him to tell the world how Jeremy is persecuting the family.

Yeah, I saw that too.

[Patti]

Sadly Patti, I'm not joking. It was just an opportunity for him to tell the world how Jeremy is persecuting the family.

I suppose he had to say something...for they think he is guilty, so a natural response to hit back..

[lookout]

  ,,you've got to laugh.Two hours ago there was quite a heated debate going on at the Yahoo news thread. I had my say,,giving two posts,,and the damn thing's come to a standstill. Nobody has posted another word. I wonder why ?. Majority of posters are against the ruling,,including myself,except in Jeremys' case.

Just looked at the news about Michael George who'd applied for compensation after having been accused of killing Jill Dando. The answer was " that he wasn't innocent enough to receive compensation " ? Eh.?

[Patti]

Here is the press release from the ECHR its a long document I have tried copying it...but my laptop is about to burn out..

[Jane]

,,you've got to laugh.Two hours ago there was quite a heated debate going on at the Yahoo news thread. I had my say,,giving two posts,,and the damn thing's come to a standstill. Nobody has posted another word. I wonder why ?. Majority of posters are against the ruling,,including myself,except in Jeremys' case.

Just looked at the news about Michael George who'd applied for compensation after having been accused of killing Jill Dando. The answer was " that he wasn't innocent enough to receive compensation " ? Eh.?

Lookout,  I heard what was said about Michael George's compensation, or should I say, lack of. Do you think that being found to be "not innocent enough" is the equivalent of the Scottish "not proven."

[Patti]

The ECHR awarded Vinter's legal team 40 thousand Euro's for expenses....

Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The only claim for just satisfaction was made on by Mr Vinter and the Court held that the
finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for any
non-pecuniary damage he had sustained. The Court did, however, award 40,000 euros
for his lawyers’ costs and expenses, including the costs of the hearing before the Grand
Chamber.
Separate opinion

[lookout]

Lookout,  I heard what was said about Michael George's compensation, or should I say, lack of. Do you think that being found to be "not innocent enough" is the equivalent of the Scottish "not proven."

Not sure April. Whoever said it was being very evasive.