Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Modern Panther

The last few weeks have a distinct "Day of Chaos" vibe.  Wouldn't surprise me if it all ended with a mass emptying of the nation's prisons, as it's suddenly noticed that prisoners only have to stay locked up if they accept the authority of the courts

Professor Bear

If you punch a policeman's helmet off, he's technically not in uniform so he can't arrest you for it.

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: Modern Panther on 24 June, 2017, 11:12:47 AM
QuoteOkay, I'll bite - what's your theory on why events played out as they did?

Really, there are two possible options here:

1) criminal legislation only works if the criminal in question is accepting of that legislation, and yet, no-one other than you and a handful of individuals, have noticed such a glaring omission in society's most fundamental tenants.  The police, indeed the entire criminal justice system, is aware that they have no authority other than that granted to it by those who have broken legislated laws, but no steps have been taken to address this powerlessness - they have simple hoped that no one would notice.

2) the police and crown prosecution service have better things to do that waste tax payers money and their precious time on a bloke with some weed. Such as prosecuting drunk drivers (under legislation), or , I don't know...arms traffickers (under legislation).

Now, I am willing to accept that I am possibly wrong, but on balance of probability I'm going to go with the underfunded system idea, rather that the one you proposed.

On your first point, the difference between legislative and common or natural law have been a matter of debate for as long as laws have existed. Government, of course, favours the primacy of legislative law and so this is the branch it prefers, promotes and teaches. It is not true that the state's legal/law institutions and employees all know it's a scam and are covering it up - to claim such a thing is a straw man. They are acting in good faith (on the whole) in the way they have been trained and educated by trainers and teachers who also (on the whole) are acting in good faith. The idea that it's all a big conspiracy is simply wrong. As an analogy, the idea that lead water pipes were perfectly safe persisted for a very long time despite a few people knowing (or at least suspecting) the truth. It would be foolishness to think that every plumber, pipe manufacturer, safety officer and architect (amongst dozens of other professions) were all part of a massive pro-lead conspiracy, just as it's foolish to believe all police, solicitors, bailiffs, clerks and judges are in on a big conspiracy.

Your second point (that prosecuting me would be too expensive or not cost-efficient) also does not hold water. An elaboration on what happened will illustrate this.

Two police cars and four officers attended initially. A van, manned by two more officers was called. I was handcuffed, put in the van and driven something like ten miles to a police station. I was interviewed about the possession charge and answered every question "no comment." (In the spirit of full disclosure, I also presented the argument that the cannabis was "fruit of the poisoned tree," which is a real legal thing, but the police don't let little things like legal points stop them and they ignored this - probably because it's not their job to address legal arguments.) The interviewing officer found this approach very frustrating. Once the interview was over, and this is the part I'm talking about, a desk sergeant with pink-eye presented me with a form to sign. I asked him what it was and he TOLD ME it was an ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHARGE of possession of cannabis. I asked for more information and he further explained that if I signed it I'd be released but also agreeing to attend the local magistrates' court - if I refused to sign I'd be returned to a police cell, which is what happened. By their own rules they can only keep one locked up for so long (24 hours, I think) and, once this time was up, the charge I refused to accept was dropped. Not very cost-efficient. Now, if I had capitulated and signed that document agreeing to the charge, my "fruit of the poisoned tree" argument would also have been invalidated - in effect, I would have been signing a confession, which means that whatever I said in court would have been largely irrelevant because I have already signed a confession and the only thing for the magistrates to do would be decide on a sentence.

(Your later post about emptying prisons would be extremely unlikely to happen as, by signing similar documents to the one I was offered, the prisoners have already agreed to stand under the police and courts' authority and accept sentence. This is why arresting officers always ask the arrestee, "do you understand?" In legalese (Black's Legal Dictionary, 10th Edition, if memory serves), the word "understand" is defined as "stand under" or "accept (the state's) authority." In more modern legal dictionaries (the last one I checked, iIrc, was the 2015 Oxford Legal Dictionary) the word "understand" was defined as having an unclear definition - I believe this word needs to be properly examined in court because if it does retain its original meaning then the arresting officer is actually asking permission to arrest a person. Under legislative law, where no actual loss, harm or damage has been caused but a fine can be extracted, this is not really a problem but if a person is arrested for causing actual loss, harm or damage - a "real" crime - and is asked permission by an officer then they could get away on a technicality, which nobody wants. You might think that my arguments are all about getting away with actual crimes (Jim seems to think this) but this is not so. Law, at its heart, is really very simple but governments have complicated the Hell out of it by promoting the perception that legislation is on equal footing with common or natural law, which is both unfair and extremely dangerous.)

That's what happened, whether you believe it or not. Still, it's always nice to give JPM the opportunity to trot out his favourite logical fallacy.

Steven, I accept a lot of what you say about my attempt to explore what rights actually are. I deliberately avoided reading what other people have concluded at this stage, preferring to try and explore the idea myself. Rightly or wrongly, I tried to base what I see as a right on real things, quantifiable aspects of the human being. I would not by any means claim that what I said earlier is a final position, indeed the approach may turn out to be incorrect or at least flawed, but for now I think the idea of a right being based on or arising from real human traits (whether physical or instinctive) is a good foundation on which to build.

I'd be interested to read what others think a right actually is and how it can be constructed or discovered.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Modern Panther

A police officer asking if you understand can charge is not asking your permission to arrest you.  They are checking you have heard the charges, and are not mentally ill. 

If a police officers released you because you were not willing to be charged, this would require said police officer to know, understand and accept that their authority to charge you was dependent entirely on your acceptance.  This means that they are not "acting in good faith" like a murderous plumber, but rather engaged in a massive, albeit paper thin conspiracy, to pretend that legislation is worth the goat skin it's written on. A conspiracy which you have apparently unearthed by being a bit of a dick in interview.

Alternatively, a guy smoked some weed then wasted police  time until they let him go, because taking the matter further was more effort than it was worth.

Modern Panther

Also...
QuoteI also presented the argument that the cannabis was "fruit of the poisoned tree," which is a real legal thing, but the police don't let little things like legal points stop them and they ignored this - probably because it's not their job to address legal arguments.) The interviewing officer found this approach very frustrating

I imagine he did, since its a term used in American law to describe illegally obtained evidence, but you've admitted possession, so its not really relevant.

sheridan

Quote from: Modern Panther on 24 June, 2017, 02:18:28 PM
And several tower blocks evacuated overnight, without warning, and residents moved to sleeping on the floor of nearby leisure centres, because their homes are so dangerous.

Never mind, soon we won't have to follow those pesky EU safety rules.

And one of those moved said it was "disgusting" that she was being moved out of her death-trap of a home while her local council (either Islington or Camden, I forget which) paid to make it safer.

The Legendary Shark

Okay, Panth. Never mind.

Wilful misunderstanding, name-calling, etc. Again.

I'm not going to put you on ignore but I won't be engaging with you any more.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Smith

Sharky,I dont think you are off the hook there.Maybe your not the top priority,but they will get to your case.

The Legendary Shark

Nope, Smith, it's definitely dead. It's part of a larger situation and I know they've dropped it.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Modern Panther

QuoteWilful misunderstanding

Jesus.  No. I understand. "I was released without charge, because the police couldn't charge me, because I didn't accept the charge.  But that doesn't mean that they knew they couldn't charge me, because that would require the police to know that legislation is irrelevant, and that would be ridiculous.  I outwitted them using irrelevant legal terms used in a different country"

Quotename-calling, etc. Again.

Really? When was that?  Was it before or after the fucking horrendous things you called me for saying democracy was a good idea? 

Stop getting your legal advice from conspiracy theorist's blogs. 

The Legendary Shark

"A conspiracy which you have apparently unearthed by being a bit of a dick in interview." Wilful misunderstanding and name-calling in the same sentence.

Enough.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Modern Panther

If the authorities know that they cannot charge you without your consent, but they withhold that information from the public in order to retain control, how is that anything other than a conspiracy?

If no one knows about this conspiracy, but you do, and you came to reveal the conspiracy in the course of a police interview, how is that not your unearthing of a conspiracy?

If you are willfully refusing to accept the authority of the police, the court, the government and any legislation, and instead use foreign legal terms to frustrate the police and waste their time, then refuse to admit that you understand you are being charged and why, then that is by just about anyone's standards "being a bit of a dick". 

You didn't outsmart these people.  You didn't escape charge by refusing to believe they could charge you. They got sick of dealing with you, because taking you to court where you might have got a slap on the wrist for possession, wasn't worth their time.

JPMaybe

Sorry for doing the Belgian Milkmaid fallacy or whatevs on you dude.  How about you replicate your Magic Consent Haxxoring powers by going down to your local nick and doing a line off the front desk?
Quote from: Butch on 17 January, 2015, 04:47:33 PM
Judge Death is a serial killer who got turned into a zombie when he met two witches in the woods one day...Judge Death is his real name.
-Butch on Judge Death's powers of helmet generation

The Legendary Shark

Oh, you're such a card.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Tjm86

Quote from: JLC on 24 June, 2017, 10:34:56 AM
Quote from: Tjm86 on 23 June, 2017, 09:09:52 PM
Quote from: JLC on 23 June, 2017, 07:37:30 PM
Disgusting

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/kensington-resident-tells-shocked-radio-host-if-grenfell-families-moved-in-id-leave-a3572066.html

Oh come on.  This has got to be trolling.  Are you honestly telling me that this Sloan Ranger mentality exists.  Seriously.  This has got to be the product of a fertile imagination.  The LBC presenter fell for it hook line and sinker.
Yes. I am honestly telling you that this Sloane Ranger mentality exists, & its wilfully naive to think that this mentality doesn't exist. Why has it got to be the product of a fertile imagination? Why do you think we are in the mess we are in?!?

You know what, I need to apologise.  Sarcasm doesn't work too well online at times.  You are absolutely right, the fact that this kind of mentality exists is why we are in such a bind at present.  That was my point, albeit badly made, that we could even consider such a caricature to be real.  Even more disturbing, that it was not a caricature but a real live 'human being' who would even consider such a point of view.  Clearly we live in parallel universes where such thinking is appropriate.