Comments on: CPS

By: Roger Huffadine

Roger Huffadine — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 13:56:01 +0000

Maybe they could come up with a scheme to rename the Labour Party. Hummm let me see … How about calling it the Conservative Party to more closely reflect its policies - that way they could also win the next election by getting most of the votes - like in Iran, but without the persicution

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 07 Mar 2004 11:22:45 +0000

Youd think that with the state of education, healthcare etc that the government would have more important things to think about than whether to rename the CPS, or are the big problems too dificult to deal with ? Or is it just the case that a design company that some MP’s freind runs is in need of a bit of cash that a renaming like this would cost ? Maybe i’m just turning a bit bitter and twisted…….

By: Bernard

Bernard — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:53:01 +0000

It’s not actually important if the CPS is called the CPS at all, is it? It could be called the PPS and do the same job just as well as it does now - just at a greater cost to the taxpayer due to the renaming! Another example of Blair attempting to hack himself a place in history, I fear…

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:46:16 +0000

I find it hysterical the way the (Daily Hate) Mail rants about ‘issues’ like this. Or is it that the Mail IS hysterical ? "The world’s going to end without the Queen’s name associated with the Prosecution Service. What’s society coming to ? Oh look semi clothed ladies on P32…"

Can they not find some more ("bogus") aslyum seekers to persecute?! Or have they learnt their lesson after all that messy business with opposing Jewish immigration before the holocaust…?

I think we should be told…

By: niall

niall — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:36:17 +0000

Following Harman’s less-than-impressive showing immediately after today’s PMQs (and Blunkett’s lack of enthusiasm for speaking on the topic himself), it seems clear that the government have once again introduced a measure (designed to make the system appear "more democratic"???) without thinking through the natural consequences of its introduction. Are we merely making a cosmetic change that will have no appreciable effect on government and the judiciary? It is designed to herald a whole ream of measures designed to eradicate the position of HRH as head of state? Or is it, as is most likely, somewhere in between.

Blunkett displayed his own shoddy thinking on the matter when he said yesterday that, whilst he approved the CPS’ name-change, he rather preferred to keep the old practise of labelling cases Regina versus x; i.e. continuing to prosecute in the name of the Queen.

Rather more worrying is the amalgamation of the Prison Service and Probation Service into one administrative body. The two are not necessarily natural bed-fellows.

By: misternomer

misternomer — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:10:21 +0000

Isn’t "drifting into the arena of the unwell" a quote from Withnail and I?

Richard Lack
www.yourparty.org

By: Julian Todd

Julian Todd — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:17:46 +0000

Chris has it right. It’s how you parse the phrase. The public supposedly gives a mandate to oppress itself in the way that the crown, without that mandate, cannot justify.

I also like "Public Interest Immunities" — a certificate a minister signs to keep something immune from the public interest. Famous during the Iraqi supergun scandal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/fileon4/index_20031202_publicinterestimmunity.shtml

By: Daniel Adler

Daniel Adler — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:02:49 +0000

I for one am sorry to see the "Crown" part leave the name. I would much prefer to know that Her Maj is in overall control of prosecution than TB. I realise it is only the name that changes but that can have a serious psycological impact. Is this the latest move to turn us into a republic?

The judiciary needed to be changed no question or we would have been taken to court (again) by Europe. Whether the changes benefitted the victims or the accussed is another matter.

By: Dikkie

Dikkie — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:26:08 +0000

Does it matter at all what they call the service?
The proper name would probably be David Blunket Decides what\x92s right. DBDR
Well seeing that he’s not too hot on the idea of trial by jury, so if he gets his way after shouting out his draconian rhetoric he can decide who is guilty.

By: Gregory Lightyear

Gregory Lightyear — Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:26:12 +0000

OK, I don’t get the hub-bub. Who cares whether or not it’s called the Crown Prosecution Service or not? It still belongs to the Crown as much tomorrow as it did yesterday.

And reform of the judiciary is the one hope we have of a judiciary free from political control in an environment where there are no official documents safeguarding the powers of that judiciary. History, though a great read, is a poor protector of rights.