The Political Thread

[Banners]

If you want to help me, just do the same. Live your life as you see fit and do no harm.

So, nothing tangible.

You don't want our help to start a campaign, establish a charity or something like that? You don't want to urge us to join Liberty, Left Unity, or suggest we attend the People's Assembly Demo on 20 June. You don't want us to contribute to your campaign fund ahead of standing at the next election?

I don't understand everything that's been written on here, but I think there are some great points. However, having read all of it, I'm still confused as to what I'm actually supposed to do now.

[Theblazeuk]

A quick search on the difference between legal and lawful shows that in practical terms they are the same thing, in armchair debate terms Sharky/Falcon has many compatriots It seems that it is almost entirely a case of pedantry to make a distinction between the two.

The distinction between civil and criminal courts does not seem to be of direct relevance and more a case of severity than inherent definition. Certainly I can't find any legal professionals making any claims on this in the first four pages of search results, which implies to me it's probably just pedantry.

As Google reveals this debate occurring across the web (particularly in a certain Mr Icke's forums) without conclusion, I would say it's a bit of a waste of time and I certainly have nothing to contribute on the matter other than to state the lack of a readily available definitive answer.

[EDIT - It only just occurs to me how fitting a Dredd one-off featuring a 'common law' argument presented to Old Stony Face would be ]

[Steven Denton]

Pretty much every answer I found by any legal professional stated that the distinction was a semantic one latched onto by pedants, fantasist and trolls.   

[Fungus]

If you want to help me, just do the same. Live your life as you see fit and do no harm.

standing at the next election?

A Legendary Great White Shark may get my vote anyway.

[Professor Bear]

Pretty much every answer I found by any legal professional stated that the distinction was a semantic one latched onto by pedants, fantasist and trolls.

Which does not necessarily mean that it isn't a valid legal tactic to argue that semantic difference in a court of law - if you have the money.

[Steven Denton]

I have no idea weather it would be worth arguing in court or how useful an argument it would be. I'm sure if it was some one would have, and there would be recorded examples but that would take way more time then I have to research. If Google wont tell me concisely (in under a paragraph) I'm unlikely to ever find out.   

[Professor Bear]

Some legal arguments are just that - arguments.  If you have the money and an indulgent judge, you can pay your barrister to effectively filibuster with semantics until the other guy runs out of cash.

[The Legendary Shark]

In is unlawful to build a house in breach of
planning permission.
But it is not illegal to do so.
Murder is illegal.
It is unlawful to employ someone without a
formal contract.
It is not - however - illegal.
.
Each one of those is the wrong way around!
.
Banners, that's my point - you have to do what you feel is right. You can't change the world - you can only change your world. I can't tell you how to change your world or which parts of it need changing, if any.
.
One of the things I did was with the Council Charge. When I got a bill I basically said, sure, I'll pay it - just show me the contract I signed with you to pay it and I'll pay it. Of course, there was no contract so all the council could do was keep sending demands to which I always responded in the same way. The same with the TV License, sure I'll pay, just show me the contract first. If there isn't one (there isn't), then let's make one. If they threaten to take you to court, and they will, ask for what crime and if they actually mean an ultra vires administrative tribunal (they do). Then decline the invitation on the grounds that you are, and always have been, willing to negotiate. The police will not turn up because it's a civil matter, not criminal. You can back down and pay up any time if your nerve fails you - and it will fail you at some point as you're going against decades of conditioning.
.
This might sound petty (and you should properly research your position if you want to do this) but it's how to begin exercising your own power. I basically picked one demand (in my case the TV License) and refused to bow to it. I'm not an unreasonable man, I'm always willing to negotiate, but I will not be bullied or conned by "authority" any longer.
.
Your first step, though, must be research. Learn the difference between law and legislation, between rights and privileges - that much is vital. Then apply your knowledge in the way that suits you best. And always be polite and respectful, but firm, in your letters - remember you're dealing with human beings who have been trained and conditioned into a certain way of thinking. They should be pitied rather than abused.
.
If what I've done doesn't appeal, find another way. The internet is full of ideas but be careful, there's a lot of crap out there as well. A good place to start your research is getoutofdebtfree.org
.
Just take control of something, anything, that "authority" thinks it has the right to control for you. Change your world. It's as simple, and as difficult, as that.

[The Legendary Shark]

Get yourself a copy of Black's Legal Dictionary, I seem to remember that the 4th edition is the best. Don't rely on the internet - for law, proper old-fashioned books are the best thing, although pdfs of actual books will do at a pinch.
.
And by the time one gets to court, it's too late to start arguing semantics. The judge will have no patience for it. You have to have won your argument before you even get to court. It's the job of the court to weigh the arguments, not become involved in them. You have to have won your argument before you even unleash it on whomever you're arguing with.
.
This is why research is vital.

[Steven Denton]

Some legal arguments are just that - arguments.  If you have the money and an indulgent judge, you can pay your barrister to effectively filibuster with semantics until the other guy runs out of cash.

Digression. the ability to argue a case to a standstill isn't relevant to weather arguing if an offence is referred to as illegal or unlawful is useful. The concept itself is also not a specific example.

 

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

Some legal arguments are just that - arguments.  If you have the money and an indulgent judge, you can pay your barrister to effectively filibuster with semantics until the other guy runs out of cash.

You've seen too many films.

[Steven Denton]

I get all my legal advice from Franklin and Bash

[The Legendary Shark]

The place to argue your case to a standstill is at the initial stage. "Authority" will most likely ignore your arguments and continue to demand. Don't agree to fill in a complaint form, you don't have a complaint, you have questions/suggestions/requirements. In-house complaints procedures funnel you in a certain direction and are designed to tie you up in legalese. State your position, over and over again if need be, to the same person. Ideally the same person who wrote to you in the first place. Don't even demand to communicate with that person's line manager or the overall boss. No matter who writes to you, always address your response to the same person - the person who made the initial demand. And never, ever, ignore a letter or demand. In their legalese world, if you don't object to something then you must accept it - so ignoring a letter/demand is regarded as acceptance. They can then get you for failing to honour something they consider you have accepted.

[Steven Denton]

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/legal-miscellaneous/difference-between-illegal-and-unlawful/

I doubt the distinction between the two words is actually that important, if it was then I'm pretty sure their legal meaning would be clearly defined with cited example of appropriate and inappropriate use. (possible with case numbers)

[IndigoPrime]

Goddammit, Falcon Shark—you don't have to have signed something to be under effective obligation to pay. Regarding the TV licence, you also do NOT have to pay, assuming 1) you don't have a TV capable of receiving broadcast television, and 2) *morally speaking* you do not use any BBC/C4 services whatsoever. As for Council Tax, I trust you're not at any point using any council services, since you're against paying for them?