Post your clipboard

[Britvic]

Checking for existence of config file at C:\Program Files\7digital Locker\config\config.xml
Loading config string...
Config string loaded...
Strings loaded...
_sortAutorunMenu
Sending call to load domains...
Loading of domains succeeded.
All ready called...
In beginApp function.
Checking download location - C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\7digital Locker Downloads\

[Xarea]

http://www.viruz.com/spiderman-tattoo.jpg

[Blue]

http//www.rapidtunes.net

[Andys]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5gaG1_xXzd4

[Havoline]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071202004735AAnaDjd

Physics

[Stupid.]

Iglue + Hartly - In this city

[Urnuph]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7819230.stm

[mandy1231]

[Barmi]

The first appellant chief constable appealed against a decision ([2007] EWCA Civ 325, [2007] 1 W.L.R. 1821) that the police had been under a duty to take preventive measures to protect a witness who was being threatened and who was subsequently murdered, and that they were in breach of that duty and therefore acted incompatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.2 . The second appellant chief constable appealed against a decision ([2008] EWCA Civ 39, [2008] H.R.L.R. 23) that a claim in negligence against the police arising from an allegation that they had failed to take necessary steps after being informed of death threats against an individual should not have been struck out. The cases involved two victims (G and S). G had been murdered just days before he was due to give evidence for the prosecution at the trial of a defendant (B) on charges of theft. B was convicted of G's murder. G's parents alleged that G's murder by B had occurred after a number of threats and incidents of witness intimidation by B against G and others of which the investigating police officer (R) should have been aware and which should have led him to take steps to protect G against the risk of serious harm. According to S, he had repeatedly informed the police that his former partner (P) had threatened to kill him, the police had ample evidence and information to arrest P and they had no excuse for not doing so. While the police were investigating the matter, P attacked S with a claw-hammer, causing serious injuries. In bringing proceedings against the respective chief constables, G's parents relied on art.2 of the Convention, while S's claim was brought under the common law. The issue was whether the Court of Appeal had been correct to reach the two decisions that it had.
Appeals allowed. (Lord Bingham dissenting in respect of S's case) (1) (Per Lord Hope) As to the art.2 claim brought by G's parents, the relevant test was set out by the Strasbourg court in Osman v United Kingdom (23452/94) [1999] 1 F.L.R. 193 ECHR. Under the test, the court had to be satisfied that the authorities knew or ought to have known "at the time" of the existence of "a real and immediate risk to the life" of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party. If they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk, the relevant positive obligation would have been violated. In G's case, that test had not been met. The murder had been the action of a seriously disturbed and unpredictable individual, and it could not reasonably be said that R should have anticipated, from the information available to him at the time, that B constituted a risk to G's life that was both real and imminent. It had been argued that by involving G in B's prosecution, in particular by requesting him to be a witness at B's trial, the police had exposed him to a risk to his life, thereby placing him in a special category of witnesses, not shared by all members of the public, to whom a lower threshold applied. However, the test in Osman was invariable and was not intended to impose a standard which might vary from case to case, Osman applied. (2) (Per Lord Hope) As to S's claim in negligence, the balance of advantage in this difficult area lay in preserving the principle set out in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] A.C. 53 HL, whereby, in the absence of special circumstances, the police owed no common law duty of care to protect individuals against harm caused by criminals. In Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] UKHL 24, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1495 Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said that there might be exceptional cases where the circumstances compelled the conclusion that the absence of a remedy sounding in damages would be an affront to the principles that underlay the common law. That approach was to be respected, but S's case did not fall into that category. That was why, if a civil remedy was to be provided, there needed to be a more fundamental departure from the core principle in Hill. That should be resisted, in the interests of the wider community, Hill and Brooks followed. (3) (Per Lord Bingham) The Court of Appeal had been right to decide as it had in S's case. If a member of the public (X) furnished a police officer (Y) with apparently credible evidence that a third party whose identity and whereabouts were known presented a specific and imminent threat to his life or physical safety, Y would owe X a duty to take reasonable steps to assess such threat and, if appropriate, take reasonable steps to prevent it being executed.



Reason: Needed to copy and paste a headnote.

[camera]

holy cow callum LOL


http://www.createblog.com/tutorials/...l.php?id=13080