The Political Thread

[Jim_Campbell]

The biggest blow to the referendum debate is that on one side, you have Cameron.

There is very little doubt in my mind that Cameron would shed no tears at all if the Scots vote for independence. As a Tory leader, he has to pay lip service to the idea of the Union, but I think this speaks more eloquently to his real feelings on the subject:



I rather hope that there is a civilised and informed debate going on North of the border, because looking at it from down here, it's a mess.

On the one hand, you have Salmond asserting things as fact or fait accompli that would more accurately be filed under a heading of 'No useful precedents in international law; your guess is as good as mine' or making claims that he must know are untrue.*

Meanwhile, the paucity of the argument on the 'No' side is massively depressing. 'Better together'? More accurately: 'You'll be fucked if you go'. It's hardly compelling.

Bah.

Jim

*It may well be that Scotland could walk away from the UK sovereign debt, but if he honestly thinks the international credit ratings agencies wouldn't punish the country hard for that, or that such action would have no implications for Scots domestic policy then he's an idiot. And I don't think he's an idiot.

[TordelBack]

This is why police officers ask if people arrested for such crimes understand their rights. By saying "yes", the arrested person is agreeing to be punished.

Sorry Sharky, I really don't understand this.  You have to acknowledge the right to be punished? So if you don't, you can't be punished?  I don't get it.

Surely the point of that question is to allow the arrestee to say 'no', so that they can have their rights explained to them, thereby deflecting accusations of improper procedure or abuse.  I don't see how consent comes into it.

I'm not disputing the negative connotations of magistrates in police stations, mind.

[The Legendary Shark]

In Legalese, the word "understand" has a very specific meaning - it basically means "stand under" or accept. So technically, when a police officer reads you your rights he or she isn't asking you if you comprehend the meaning of the words he or she has just explained to you (as most people believe) but if you agree to be bound by them.

[Mikey]

This is why police officers ask if people arrested for such crimes understand their rights. By saying "yes", the arrested person is agreeing to be punished.

Has there been case law made to that effect Sharky? I understand the English legal system has it's own foibles and ways of conducting itself, but the caution given before interviews is pretty much the same isn't it? As TB says, that is not what you are being asked if you understand. If you are cautioned when a police or other enforcement bod believe an offence may have been committed, you're being asked if you understand the meaning of the caution, which carries of course the implication that you might go to court. The relevant part of the caution is (or at least was) 'You do not have to say anything but if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court, it may harm your defence. If you do say anything it may be given in evidence. Do you understand the caution?'

But magistrates in police stations is a mental idea.

M.

M.

[ZenArcade]

Why not make the Magistrate the police officer.....surley there is some precedent for this in history; if not in fiction?Z

[8-Ball]

@ Jim Campbell

I'm not going to quote your post but all I can say is that as a Scot what Alex Salmond (as the First Minister of Scotland and leader of the SNP) says and what the Scottish people think are two separate things. Alex Salmond speaks for himself and the political objectives of his party. We are having a civilised and informed debate up here but if you are only looking at it through the prism of the English media (which I hope you are not) then it will look like a mess. We will not be going to the voting booths wearing See-You-Jimmy hats, blue face paint and drunkenly shaking our fists southward screaming, "Freedom!"

[jackstarr]

We will not be going to the voting booths wearing See-You-Jimmy hats, blue face paint and drunkenly shaking our fists southward screaming, "Freedom!"

Ah, but you see, we get our impression of you from the news media, Braveheart, and 2000ad.   

You mean you're not all like Mel Gibson, Middenface or Kenny Who? 


As emotive as this subject can be, I do think it's starting to overshadow (and distract from) other important political issues.

[Jim_Campbell]

We will not be going to the voting booths wearing See-You-Jimmy hats, blue face paint and drunkenly shaking our fists southward screaming, "Freedom!"

Heh. I should mention that my Dad was a Scot and for a big chunk of my childhood, family holidays were spent north of the border with relatives. I have very special affection for Scotland and the Scots and if there is an informed, civilised debate going on (which you would also not get a sense of get from any social media, either) then I'm delighted.

Cheers

Jim

[Tiplodocus]

We will not be going to the voting booths wearing See-You-Jimmy hats, blue face paint and drunkenly shaking our fists southward screaming, "Freedom!"

Speak for yourself!

[8-Ball]

We will not be going to the voting booths wearing See-You-Jimmy hats, blue face paint and drunkenly shaking our fists southward screaming, "Freedom!"

Heh. I should mention that my Dad was a Scot and for a big chunk of my childhood, family holidays were spent north of the border with relatives. I have very special affection for Scotland and the Scots and if there is an informed, civilised debate going on (which you would also not get a sense of get from any social media, either) then I'm delighted.

Cheers

Jim

With a name like Jim Campbell I did suspect that you might have a bit of Highland Spring in your veins. I hope that I didn't come across as too defensive but I have had one too many run-ins with commentators from south of the border using Alex Salmond as a stick to beat all Scots with.

[Jim_Campbell]

With a name like Jim Campbell I did suspect that you might have a bit of Highland Spring in your veins.

It's very strange... it sounds fanciful to put it down to the genes, but for the last few years I've felt an indescribable but very definite pull north and I can't explain it. I have some small caring responsibilities here but they won't last forever and I may try and persuade my wife to try a stint on the other side of Hadrian's Wall...

I hope that I didn't come across as too defensive but I have had one too many run-ins with commentators from south of the border using Alex Salmond as a stick to beat all Scots with.

Not at all, old chap! Toodle pip! ;-)

Cheers

Jim

[TordelBack]

I may try and persuade my wife to try a stint on the other side of Hadrian's Wall...

Jeez, if you like it so much up there why don't you go instead.   

[Jim_Campbell]

Jeez, if you like it so much up there why don't you go instead.   

Just think of the peace and quiet, man!

Cheers

Jim

[Emp]

If Scotland does indeed become a separate nation does that mean a new flag will be required to repace the current Union flag? If so, we should have a flag design comp...just for a laugh.

[The Legendary Shark]

Mikey (sorry, for some reason I can't include quotes from this Kindle),

I haven't seen any case law on the word understand but this is due to the fact that I haven't looked for any. This is because it is unlikely to be used as a defence in court. As I comprehend it, if someone is arrested for an offence where no Common Law crime (causing actual loss, harm or damage) has been committed then one of two main routes will be taken. If the arrestee answers "yes" to the question "do you understand?" then the damage has already been done; the arrestee has basically agreed to play the legal game and so to consequently claim in court that "I didn't know what 'understand' meant and didn't know what I was agreeing to" would be given short shrift by a judge, especially since other admissions would probably hace been made by this point - "yes, I was carrying cannabis", for example.


The arrestee who answers "no" to the question "do you understand" may (and  pdobably will) be taken into custody but, so long as no other admissions are made (and no Common Law crime has been committed), the custody sergeant and duty solicitor will have no option other than to release the arrestee as the arrest was unlawful. Thus the case will never get to court in the first place.


Please.note that I am not advocating use of this knowledge to allow folks to break the law with impunity, this knowledge is entirely meant to protect one from unlawful arrest and subsequent trial for non Common Law or legislative offences. If anyone breaks  Common Law then they should and must be taken to trial. That said, I have read of a case in the United States where a murderer did secure almost immediate release by answering "no" to the question simply because the arresting officer did not know  the difference between legislative and Common Law crimes. (The murderer was subsequently brought to book under a private prosecution from the victim's family, as I recall, so even though this is powerful knowledge it will not protect you from punishment for actual crimes.) The purpose of this knowledge is to protect you from unlawful arrest and subsequent trial and nothing more. It's more to do with knowing how to protect your own right to go about your lawful business unimpeded than using it as a loophole to avoid being arrested for inflicting actual loss, harm or damage - a shield against tyranny.


It's a complicated thing to get your head around, granted, and I'm probably not  the best person to explain it with any clarity, given my propensity for verbosity!