The law is the law

walkingbootweather

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

What would a cop would say if someone said to him:

"I agree that this is illegal but I do not agree that it is unlawful"

After he gets pulled without a seat belt on?

"You're nicked you slaaaaaaggg"?

ftfy

Wunnunda

All this polysyllabic pseudo-techincal waffle about the law and he still can't grasp the difference between punishment and restitution :roll:

First.Aspect

Manc33 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Based on all of the nasty things he seemed not to regard as being a tort, such as theft, my guess is that he doesn't know much about the subject.

I randomly pulled out this post and I am being misrepresented as usual. I said "harm or loss" is wrong - where loss to someone means a theft occurred.

Not much point talking to people that misrepresent what I say, but why would you need to do that if there was no validity to it?

All along I have said causing harm or loss is wrong and you're posting "he thinks theft is OK" etc etc. What are you... an orangutan?!

Was it because I said you have no lawful or legal obligation to pay your mortgage in cases where the mortgage lender cannot provide a signed copy of your mortgage agreement? I think you'll find in that case, it is the mortgage lender thieving from the homeowner until some signed paperwork is shown.

The fact that the courts might unlawfully side with the mortgage company in certain cases is irrelevant and is again helping to cause an unlawful financial loss to the homeowner if the signed documentation that would prove the claim has still not been produced.

Yes, yes I'm an orangutan. As we know, orangutans are particularly libellous animals.

Manc33 wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

You and your mate didn't write anything down about this loan. So does that mean you don't have to repay it?

If it went to court and there's nothing the mate can do to prove you owe him the money, no, you don't have to pay it. Otherwise anyone could say anyone owes them money and successfully get away with it.

This sort of what I had in mind. Perhaps its not theft. Maybe fraud or misrepresentation (in addition to perjury, of course).

First.Aspect

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Drink driving? Should that be illegal? No loss and (probably) no damage

It already is illegal. Yes it should be illegal, as a deterrent.

The law however is that harm or loss has to occur, otherwise there cannot be a crime.

It is done this way for the exact purpose of knowing where you stand at all times. The fact that hardly anyone knows this these days has nothing to do with anything. So to pull someone in a car and say something "could" have happened, still doesn't equate to a crime. Everything like this has to be done under statutes, because it isn't lawful to prosecute on a "what if" in Common Law, which trumps Statute Law.

So can we go back to this. Drink driving is and should be illegal, but should only be punishable in those cases where it actually results in some harm or loss? So a drink driver has to hurt someone or damage something in order to be punished.

Okay, so how does this apply to other acts? Should I be able to point a loaded gun at someone, providing I don't actually fire it? What if I fire it at someone and miss, and the bullet simply hits a tree. Is that okay? No actual harm has occured, has it?

veronese68

First Aspect wrote:

Okay, so how does this apply to other acts? Should I be able to point a loaded gun at someone, providing I don't actually fire it? What if I fire it at someone and miss, and the bullet simply hits a tree. Is that okay? No actual harm has occured, has it?

What about the soiled underpants? That would count as damage though I don't know what level of punishment would be appropriate.

Kieran_Burns

Veronese68 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Okay, so how does this apply to other acts? Should I be able to point a loaded gun at someone, providing I don't actually fire it? What if I fire it at someone and miss, and the bullet simply hits a tree. Is that okay? No actual harm has occured, has it?

What about the soiled underpants? That would count as damage though I don't know what level of punishment would be appropriate.

30 days in the clinker?

Manc33

If you cause someone that amount of stress (pointing a gun at them) that is harm.

There might be no physical harm, but if it could be proven (like with a video) that the guy had a gun pointed at him, yes. The thing is we're talking about something non-accidental there. It isn't something that could happen by accident.

Making someone think they are about to die is harm, except in cases where it is voluntary, like when you go on a roller-coaster. :P

You're using extreme examples to give the Government carte blanche to fine people for things like swearing. Can we apply the same rules to swearing as we can to someone pointing a gun? Nope. One is far worse than the other. One is almost causing death (at least the victim thinks they might die) and one is just a word coming out of someone's mouth, as soon as it is said it is carried away with the wind.

So that's my question - why is it acceptable for the Government to do whatever it wants just because they can?
You know £80 fines for swearing are absurd! You know £30 for dropping a wooden stick is absurd!

It is also really childish to say "If they made that legal everyone would do it". Nope. In the Netherlands there's less people per head smoking weed than do here and in the Netherlands weed smoking is legal. So I just won't listen to anyone trying to claim that, people that say these things are talking out of their ass. "Everyone would..." no, they wouldn't. They don't.

In Canada most people own guns but there's barely any shootings. You can point at the US and say look at all their shootings but I would rather look at Canada to see what's possible. I mean people suggest we would become like the US if guns were legalized... nope, we would become like Canada, like we were when guns were legal here. :roll:

One thing the Government has never been able to get away with in the US is disarming everyone but they are gradually doing it, has to be gradual or people would notice. You can trace it all back. People in the US used to be allowed fully automatic, now its for military use only. After 50 years they will be down to pea shooters thinking they still have the exact same gun rights they had in 1776.

I'm not saying guns should be legal, we don't need them in the UK. Everyone focuses on the US all the time when it comes to guns, forget it, no other nation is like that! It annoys me that people only ever point at the US as an example when it comes to guns, you could just as easily point at Canada, where it is all the other way around and barely anyone gets killed by a gun. There was a cop from Toronto or Vancouver in a Michael Moore documentary that said one murder happened there in ten years from a gunshot and that was a guy that had wandered in from Detroit.

People are extremists lol. How many discussions on here have people said to me stuff like "Oh so if they did that it would be perfectly fine to..." like with the gun arguments. "So people can just carry machine guns around as long as they don't shoot them off it should be legal?" well yeah it sort of should, it would be in Canada, except not machine guns, there's the exaggeration again sigh.

First.Aspect

Manc33 wrote:

If you cause someone that amount of stress (pointing a gun at them) that is harm.

There might be no physical harm, but if it could be proven (like with a video) that the guy had a gun pointed at him, yes. The thing is we're talking about something non-accidental there. It isn't something that could happen by accident.

Making someone think they are about to die is harm, except in cases where it is voluntary, like when you go on a roller-coaster. :P

You're using extreme examples to give the Government carte blanche to fine people for things like swearing. Can we apply the same rules to swearing as we can to someone pointing a gun? Nope. One is far worse than the other. One is almost causing death (at least the victim thinks they might die) and one is just a word coming out of someone's mouth, as soon as it is said it is carried away with the wind.

So that's my question - why is it acceptable for the Government to do whatever it wants just because they can?
You know £80 fines for swearing are absurd! You know £30 for dropping a wooden stick is absurd!

It is also really childish to say "If they made that legal everyone would do it". Nope. In the Netherlands there's less people per head smoking weed than do here and in the Netherlands weed smoking is legal. So I just won't listen to anyone trying to claim that, people that say these things are talking out of their ass. "Everyone would..." no, they wouldn't. They don't.

In Canada most people own guns but there's barely any shootings. You can point at the US and say look at all their shootings but I would rather look at Canada to see what's possible. I mean people suggest we would become like the US if guns were legalized... nope, we would become like Canada, like we were when guns were legal here. :roll:

One thing the Government has never been able to get away with in the US is disarming everyone but they are gradually doing it, has to be gradual or people would notice. You can trace it all back. People in the US used to be allowed fully automatic, now its for military use only. After 50 years they will be down to pea shooters thinking they still have the exact same gun rights they had in 1776.

I'm not saying guns should be legal, we don't need them in the UK. Everyone focuses on the US all the time when it comes to guns, forget it, no other nation is like that! It annoys me that people only ever point at the US as an example when it comes to guns, you could just as easily point at Canada, where it is all the other way around and barely anyone gets killed by a gun. There was a cop from Toronto or Vancouver in a Michael Moore documentary that said one murder happened there in ten years from a gunshot and that was a guy that had wandered in from Detroit.

People are extremists lol. How many discussions on here have people said to me stuff like "Oh so if they did that it would be perfectly fine to..." like with the gun arguments. "So people can just carry machine guns around as long as they don't shoot them off it should be legal?" well yeah it sort of should, it would be in Canada, except not machine guns, there's the exaggeration again sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country

Gun ownership in Canada is about the same as in most of continental Europe and far less than the US. Canada has its fair share of crime, but gun ownership really comes down to the popularity of "sports" shooting - i.e. hunting, which is understandable given the amount of true wilderness they have, rather than the misplaced "right to bear arms" nonsense in the US.

Its utter nonsense to claim that there has been one death in a decade from gunshot wounds in a city of 2 1/2 million like Vancouver, or 5 million like Toronto. The actual number is about 10-15 per annum in Vancouver, the smallest of the two cities. So you are, at the very best, about a factor of 100 out. That's quite a lot, in case you were wondering.

You know, when you start to blither on about things that so easy to debunk, it doesn't help your credibility.

Returning now to the pointing a gun/drink driving thing. You seem to agree that pointing a gun at someone causes harm even if not fired. By analogy therefore, would there be a harm caused to a pedestrian who becomes frightened for their life by a drunk driver who is not in full control of their vehicle, even if no collision occurs? Lets assume that even you would agree that having to jump out of the way of a badly driven motor vehicle is frightening. Following from that, if it can be shown that you will not be in full control of a vehicle if you have been drinking, do you regard it as necessary to demonstrate in each case that someone has actually been frightened, or would it be sufficient to say that the likelihood of this or an actual accident occuring is sufficiently high that it would be justifiable to prevent them from stepping into the car in the first place?

You can't get fined just for swearing - there has to be a likelihood of offence or intimidation. In that case the recipient(s) of the anti-social behaviour would then be harmed. We have a police force to prevent that harm or punish the person causing it, on behalf of the public as a whole.

The loss for parking illegally is felt by the other motorists who are delayed as a consequence, or the people who would otherwise be able to park there, or the retailers who have not received custom because someone has been unable to park. Again, we empower local government or the police to prevent or punish that harm, on the basis that it is so likely to take place. This obviates the need to actually locate someone who is delayed in traffic.

You can argue, if you want, as to whether the threshold that society has set for these illegal acts is too low, and I think you'd find quite a lot of support. However, merely stating that you are a different legal person from your birth certificate is more likely to get you committed than it is to exempt you from a parking ticket.

You are either a comic genius who is assisting in making this thread so enjoyable, or you are a rather pitiful individual; its your choice. But you aren't a Freeman of the Land I'm afraid.

Manc33

Once you allow silly legislation to pass, it can only get worse. Someone has to keep the Government in check, or they would be taxing the air. This silly legislation gets passed all the time because the people passing it have to pass it, they are being blackmailed, where not passing it would be the end of their career at the very least.

This is why we end up unlawfully invading places like Iraq, I mean without enough politicians being compromised that couldn't ever happen, with it being illegal and all. They wouldn't vote for it. Anyone opposing the war gets killed like Dr. David Kelly and Robin Cook. Two people that stood for decency instead of a bunch of warmongering propagandists. Yes there are decent people in Government, we know this because one gets killed every now and then, for the crime of being honest.

First.Aspect

Manc33 wrote:

Once you allow silly legislation to pass, it can only get worse. Someone has to keep the Government in check, or they would be taxing the air. This silly legislation gets passed all the time because the people passing it have to pass it, they are being blackmailed, where not passing it would be the end of their career at the very least.

This is why we end up unlawfully invading places like Iraq, I mean without enough politicians being compromised that couldn't ever happen, with it being illegal and all. They wouldn't vote for it. Anyone opposing the war gets killed like Dr. David Kelly and Robin Cook. Two people that stood for decency instead of a bunch of warmongering propagandists. Yes there are decent people in Government, we know this because one gets killed every now and then, for the crime of being honest.

Robin Cook died of a heart attack whist hiking, moron. David Kelly, regrettably, committed suicide.

Who is blackmailing parliament exactly? The same people who killed Kenny? The ba$tards.

Manc33

First Aspect wrote:

Robin Cook died of a heart attack whist hiking, moron.

You read it in a newspaper, so it must be true.

First Aspect wrote:

David Kelly, regrettably, committed suicide.

You read it in a newspaper, so it must be true.

First Aspect wrote:

Who is blackmailing parliament exactly?

Whoever makes all the money from it. Whats easier, hoping politicians will vote the way you want, or forcing them to?

Do you think its normal that Dick Cheney used to be the CEO of Halliburton, then he joins the US Government calling himself "Vice President" and Halliburton makes a ton of cash as a direct result of his policies in Government? Its OK he already "retired" lol, PEOPLE ACTUALLY SAY THAT. :shock: It doesn't matter, there's no conflict of interest because he only "used to be" the CEO of Halliburton, oh well why didn't you say, he must be innocent. Same with Condoleezza Rice and the oil tanker with her name on it, doesn't matter, these people aren't really still working for Chevron and Halliburton, only someone paranoid could think so!

In the UK they are a lot better at not getting caught out, in fact it seems if you want to know about anything juicy going on in the UK, you're better off looking for news in other countries, they tend to have a lot more details than we do here and vice versa, I mean we get a lot of news about the US that people in the US don't even know happened.

All of this is just one big accident huh? You might see sense one day, I hope so. No one has ever explained why Dick Cheney ordered NORAD to stand down either (see the Norman Mineta testimony). None of it ever gets explained, hence my ranting. If the stuff I bring up was explainable I wouldn't have anything to rant about would I.

First.Aspect

What the hell has Dick Cheney got to do with minor public order offences in Cheshire?

Lets run with it for a while then. Who killed Robin Cook and how did he die?

Manc33

I don't need to know that if anyone with a profile opposing the war gets killed shortly afterwards.

Try following the pattern. If you don't see a pattern, I apologize.

jamesco

Manc33 wrote:

Try following the pattern. If you don't see a pattern, I apologize.

Milhouse: The Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people...

Bart: Thank you.

Milhouse: ...under the supervision of the reverse vampires...

Lisa: [sighs]

Milhouse: ...are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner!

We're through the looking glass, people...

First.Aspect

Manc33 wrote:

I don't need to know that if anyone with a profile opposing the war gets killed shortly afterwards.

Try following the pattern. If you don't see a pattern, I apologize.

No, pretty sure that most of the million or so people who marched in opposition of the Iraq war have managed not to be murdered by "them". How are these guys doing? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... q-war.html Have their lives been sabotaged by still further fame and money?

What do you do for a living Manc33? Does it involve hamburgers?

cruff

It's hard to follow a 'pattern' when said 'pattern' involves someone with the thought processes of a gibbon scribbling randomly on a piece of black paper with a black magic marker

The Rookie

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Drink driving? Should that be illegal? No loss and (probably) no damage

The law however is that harm or loss has to occur, otherwise there cannot be a crime.

In your warped and distorted view where there is no statute law maybe, in everyone else's there is.

Manc33

You're asking why they would kill one or two high profile people when they could just as easily kill a million people? Not sure if I can even answer that. I think if a million people vanished we would notice it.

Since when have members of the public going on marches ever been able to directly affect Government policy?

The people in the march can't stop the war, whereas people like David Kelly and Robin Cook could have.

Do I really have to explain that members of the public on marches aren't elected officials? I guess I do lol.

Now what you'll do is say "There were politicians in that march". If there were any politicians at all or any high profile figures from the Government marching with them, I would love to know if they are still alive. Even then its easy to have them marching with people after Robin Cook died to divert attention from it, so then people can say "See, they don't kill high profile people that oppose the war". They can do anything.

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

Now what you'll do is say "There were politicians in that march". If there were any politicians at all or any high profile figures from the Government marching with them, I would love to know if they are still alive. Even then its easy to have them marching with people after Robin Cook died to divert attention from it, so then people can say "See, they don't kill high profile people that oppose the war". They can do anything.

It's like you are arguing with yourself.

As for marches affecting things, have a read into American civil rights

First.Aspect

Who can do anything? Who are they?

chris_bass

Illuminati folks no doubt

rick_chasey

Curious to know who the people are who really run the world according to Manc.


Who d'ya think they are Manc? Any names?

greg66_tri_v2.0

But seriously, folks, if David Icke and our secret reptilian overlords don't get a mention in this thread soon, I'm going to be very disappointed.

The Rookie

Go to his website, Icke is a FoTL supporter...

chris_bass

Just putting it out there, I've never seen David Icke and Manc33 in the same room! Icke33?

bendertherobot

Manc33 wrote:

In Canada most people own guns but there's barely any shootings. Y

In this context, what do you claim most to be?

Why are the CPS in the small claims court?

How do you square the Courts equitable decisions with the common law?

First.Aspect

Most is about 30% of households. About the same as France and Germany. But as ever when faced with an inconvenient truth Manc33 has now moved on - in this instance to Halliburton being responsible for secondary legislation in the UK relating to littering, by threatening to kill our parliamentarians by giving them health problems that manifest several years later after they've left government.

I'm actually starting to wonder if MI5 should be made aware of this guy. Yes liable to do something a bit whack to protect himself from "them".

chris_bass

Come on, MI5, or M15, or M6, or M3+3, or M33, or Manc33! It is all starting to make sense!

Wunnunda

Chris Bass wrote:

Come on, MI5, or M15, or M6, or M3+3, or M33, or Manc33! It is all starting to make sense!

First.Aspect

The "I" is missing. The "I" stands for "intelligence".

Figures.