|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 24, 2024 21:35:07 GMT
There is not a lot you can legally do about persuasion without handing intolerable and easily abused tools to government That's only because the Mail reader thinks in binary: either free or oppressive. There is a third option and it is called discernment. The third option requires far more intelligence than they have got and it is why they make a pig's ear of understanding law, which is a precise system. We have a greater problem in this country, and that is the Brits are going absolutely fucking stupid. It's the worst I've seen in my life and it is widespread. Being a lawyer does not make you exempt from stupidity either, or a policeman. It's a strong case of 'can't get the staff', so they arrest you illegally.
You nearly always find in these absurd cases banded about that it was not the fault of the law, but the fault of those applying it. The proles plead guilty since the brief is too stupid to do a proper defence job. Lawyers now are mostly professional bluffers.
In fact to do law I would say comes closest to computer programming. What with my programming skills it dawned on me one day that the system is almost conceptually identical, and then I realised I already knew how to do it! You have to t get over the hill and the way I learnt was reading loads of higher court cases. After a while you can get your mind to think how a serious judge thinks. Anyway, it worked, and the judge was very impressed with it.
I somehow doubt at any time in history the proles as you call them needed to be astute as they do these days, with a mind control media and establishment pumping so much propaganda at them to have full control over them, they just seem more stupid than ever because a great many of them are not yet educated enough to see it, but on the other hand many of them have also been woken up hence we are starting to see a backlash. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 24, 2024 22:04:05 GMT
That's only because the Mail reader thinks in binary: either free or oppressive. There is a third option and it is called discernment. The third option requires far more intelligence than they have got and it is why they make a pig's ear of understanding law, which is a precise system. We have a greater problem in this country, and that is the Brits are going absolutely fucking stupid. It's the worst I've seen in my life and it is widespread. Being a lawyer does not make you exempt from stupidity either, or a policeman. It's a strong case of 'can't get the staff', so they arrest you illegally.
You nearly always find in these absurd cases banded about that it was not the fault of the law, but the fault of those applying it. The proles plead guilty since the brief is too stupid to do a proper defence job. Lawyers now are mostly professional bluffers.
In fact to do law I would say comes closest to computer programming. What with my programming skills it dawned on me one day that the system is almost conceptually identical, and then I realised I already knew how to do it! You have to t get over the hill and the way I learnt was reading loads of higher court cases. After a while you can get your mind to think how a serious judge thinks. Anyway, it worked, and the judge was very impressed with it.
I somehow doubt at any time in history the proles as you call them needed to be astute as they do these days, with a mind control media and establishment pumping so much propaganda at them to have full control over them, they just seem more stupid than ever because a great many of them are not yet educated enough to see it, but on the other hand many of them have also been woken up hence we are starting to see a backlash. A little secret virtually no one knows and is even less likely to admit it if they were told is: it is actually far easier to brainwash an intelligent person than a stupid person. A stupid person thinks a spade is a spade, a pint is a pint and so on. An intelligent person reads a lot of books, goes to theatres and art galleries and can be a great connoisseur of the arts in general, but they forget, with these skills comes the skill of being able to imagine imaginary worlds. It's part of the creative talent. Designers have got it as do artists and computer programmers. They invent what does not exist. A brainwasher can come along and see an intelligent person and say hey, you look smart. He will reply well thank you very much, and he will think, yes I am smart, I know what's what so I can't be fooled. Straight away the brainwasher thinks great, just the kind to work on. He thinks he is immune. I will use his creative mind to imagine my brainwashing virus.
With is in mind you can see the backlash is inevitably going to come from the working class/manual laborer type/not paid to think. The thing is when you are not paid to think, you have all that spare mental capacity that can start to think beyond the veil. Intelligent people are kept busy thinking 24/7.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 25, 2024 7:20:24 GMT
I somehow doubt at any time in history the proles as you call them needed to be astute as they do these days, with a mind control media and establishment pumping so much propaganda at them to have full control over them, they just seem more stupid than ever because a great many of them are not yet educated enough to see it, but on the other hand many of them have also been woken up hence we are starting to see a backlash. A little secret virtually no one knows and is even less likely to admit it if they were told is: it is actually far easier to brainwash an intelligent person than a stupid person. A stupid person thinks a spade is a spade, a pint is a pint and so on. An intelligent person reads a lot of books, goes to theatres and art galleries and can be a great connoisseur of the arts in general, but they forget, with these skills comes the skill of being able to imagine imaginary worlds. It's part of the creative talent. Designers have got it as do artists and computer programmers. They invent what does not exist. A brainwasher can come along and see an intelligent person and say hey, you look smart. He will reply well thank you very much, and he will think, yes I am smart, I know what's what so I can't be fooled. Straight away the brainwasher thinks great, just the kind to work on. He thinks he is immune. I will use his creative mind to imagine my brainwashing virus.
With is in mind you can see the backlash is inevitably going to come from the working class/manual laborer type/not paid to think. The thing is when you are not paid to think, you have all that spare mental capacity that can start to think beyond the veil. Intelligent people are kept busy thinking 24/7.
At the moment they are so frightened the globalists are arresting anyone who may play a part in letting the chattering classes chatter. I think they are also realising another recession would be a tipping point with trying to normalise the idea of recessions. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 25, 2024 7:47:42 GMT
There is a lot of crap talked about it, but I've been listening to these barristers who explain the crux of the way it works. The subject is about trying to make online use safe, i.e. so people who use the internet don't get harmed. These words safe and harm have long legal definitions, so bear this in mind. Harm is broadly defined as anything that is either physical or psychological. So you would think that's fine. In principle you only get convicted if you intended to cause harm. All criminal offences must have intent, and intent means doing something which the harmful consequences are clear to yourself and you did it under your own free will, i.e. not because someone was holding a gun to your head (duress as it is known).
Now having explained it, you would think logically this is all good and is not censorship per se. A point about a new act is the act is deliberately left vague so the various judges can work out what constitutes harm, what can be easily foreseen to be likely to cause harm and so on. There is also another big limitation to it where it has to be untrue, and the person who communicated it must have reasonably known it was untrue, but there isa bit of the due diligence here too where if you knew it was likely to cause great harm if untrue then it is reasonable for you to check before broadcasting it. So they could get you for intending to cause harm by omission too. You see the general idea. They can not convict if you reasonably believed something to be correct and it was not. It might have been above your head, e.g. a comment on stocks and shares which you could not have easily understood the level of complexity to assess the harm. That's the innocent mistake.
Anyway having said all of this and having noted this is entirely sensible and reasonable, there is one other aspect that throws the whole thing into chaos. This is that broadcast organisations are exempt. An organisation must be set up in such a way that it is not all under the control of one individual, i.e. say it has a board of trustees or some formal management structure. This is aimed at your ITV, BBC etc. Under the definition I suppose it could also include charities and NGOs too. It's just the implication of this exception is the government (Labour + Conservative) are fine with these organisations causing their users harm.
BvL, anyone with any common sense knows perfectly well that the online safety act is not only about controlling what we write, but also what we read and ultimately, what we think. Even the Labour supporting Guardian described it as a disaster for free speech. A couple of months ago Starmer from the despatch box demanded that free speech must be protected, just another Labour lie. Starmer is a left wing autocrat, not a democrat. This government will prove to be the most authoritarian in living memory. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 25, 2024 7:53:02 GMT
There is not a lot you can legally do about persuasion without handing intolerable and easily abused tools to government That's only because the Mail reader thinks in binary: either free or oppressive. There is a third option and it is called discernment. It has nothing to do with the daily mail - vague law can be used to harass and the concept of psychological harm is about as vague and subjective as it gets. Conversely, It is so easy to put rational boundaries around things so the law can't be easily abused. In this case, limiting the harm to physical (or empirical) more or less does it I have no idea why you would argue for gaping wide vague law that could be easily used to politically intimidate a population. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 25, 2024 8:06:09 GMT
That's only because the Mail reader thinks in binary: either free or oppressive. There is a third option and it is called discernment. It has nothing to do with the daily mail - vague law can be used to harass and the concept of psychological harm is about as vague and subjective as it gets. Conversely, It is so easy to put rational boundaries around things so the law can't be easily abused. In this case, limiting the harm to physical (or empirical) more or less does it I have no idea why you would argue for gaping wide vague law that could be easily used to politically intimidate a population. Most laws start off like this. They are vague because they have to fit in with all the other law. You don't understand law, so please don't think there is something wrong with what I'm saying.
By the way, psychological harm can be just as bad as physical harm. You could brainwash someone to kill themselves. Also refer back to the points I already made. You don't seem to have used them to help you understand what is going on here.
|
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Aug 25, 2024 9:16:55 GMT
Someone sprayed orange paint on the New Scotland Yard sign ? Poured Tomato Soup over a painting ? Its not quite the same as hurling bricks at police officers, or setting fire to a public building with people inside, or looting shops, setting fire to police vehicles is it. ? Or maybe you actually think it is It's criminal damage you fool, a fucking priceless painting??
You have just confirmed the double standards that exist in the justice system, you fell right into the trap.
And you just proved your complete lack of sense of gravity or seriousness of criminal offences. Violent disorder, endangering life, assaulting police officers, arson and riot are in a completely different league to criminal damage, but of course convincing yourself that it isn't helps to prop up your ridiculous assertion that there is "two tier policing", which most people believe is nonsense, because it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 25, 2024 9:29:04 GMT
It's criminal damage you fool, a fucking priceless painting??
You have just confirmed the double standards that exist in the justice system, you fell right into the trap.
And you just proved your complete lack of sense of gravity or seriousness of criminal offences. Violent disorder, endangering life, assaulting police officers, arson and riot are in a completely different league to criminal damage, but of course convincing yourself that it isn't helps to prop up your ridiculous assertion that there is "two tier policing", which most people believe is nonsense, because it is. JSO
1. Endangering life guilty
2. Obstructing police guilty
3. Obstructing emergency services guilty
4. Criminal damage guilty
5. Conspiracy to cause public nuisance guilty
That's ^^ just for starters.
|
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Aug 25, 2024 9:49:17 GMT
And you just proved your complete lack of sense of gravity or seriousness of criminal offences. Violent disorder, endangering life, assaulting police officers, arson and riot are in a completely different league to criminal damage, but of course convincing yourself that it isn't helps to prop up your ridiculous assertion that there is "two tier policing", which most people believe is nonsense, because it is. JSO
1. Endangering life guilty
2. Obstructing police guilty
3. Obstructing emergency services guilty
4. Criminal damage guilty
5. Conspiracy to cause public nuisance guilty
That's ^^ just for starters.
I refuse to continue on with some discussions because the counter argument is so utterly ridiculous that its pointless. Obstructing the police - NOT a grave or serious or life threataning offence, and not likely to lead to or cause violence. Criminal Damage - NOT in the same league as most of the offences the rioters committed Causing a publc nuisance - NOT in the same league, and causing a nuisance is what most protests are all about. Many protests, marches, even approved events, demonstrations and even carnivals or festivals can hold up emergency services, but its not done with intent or on purpose. As a matter of interest I googled "Just Stop Oil Protest" to see what came up ... and it was this ... "Just Stop Oil activists who blocked M25 appeal 'manifestly excessive' sentences after rioters given shorter terms" "The five Just Stop Oil (JSO) activists who were convicted for conspiring to block the M25 have appealed against their sentences claiming they were “manifestly excessive”. www.lbc.co.uk/news/just-stop-oil-activists-who-blocked-m25-appeal-manifestly-excessive-sentences/ |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 25, 2024 9:54:02 GMT
JSO
1. Endangering life guilty
2. Obstructing police guilty
3. Obstructing emergency services guilty
4. Criminal damage guilty
5. Conspiracy to cause public nuisance guilty
That's ^^ just for starters.
I refuse to continue on with some discussions because the counter argument is so utterly ridiculous that its pointless. Obstructing the police - NOT a grave or serious or life threataning offence, and not likely to lead to or cause violence. Criminal Damage - NOT in the same league as most of the offences the rioters committed Causing a publc nuisance - NOT in the same league, and causing a nuisance is what most protests are all about. Many protests, marches, even approved events, demonstrations and even carnivals or festivals can hold up emergency services, but its not done with intent or on purpose. As a matter of interest I googled "Just Stop Oil Protest" to see what came up ... and it was this ... "Just Stop Oil activists who blocked M25 appeal 'manifestly excessive' sentences after rioters given shorter terms" "The five Just Stop Oil (JSO) activists who were convicted for conspiring to block the M25 have appealed against their sentences claiming they were “manifestly excessive”. www.lbc.co.uk/news/just-stop-oil-activists-who-blocked-m25-appeal-manifestly-excessive-sentences/Likewise I refuse to continue with discussion when it's clear as day the poster is advocating a two tier policing system, JSO are criminals, but the likes of you want them reclassified so they can get away with their crimes unchallenged by the law ....... you are a disgrace to a civilised society. |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Aug 25, 2024 9:56:53 GMT
And you just proved your complete lack of sense of gravity or seriousness of criminal offences. Violent disorder, endangering life, assaulting police officers, arson and riot are in a completely different league to criminal damage, but of course convincing yourself that it isn't helps to prop up your ridiculous assertion that there is "two tier policing", which most people believe is nonsense, because it is. JSO
1. Endangering life guilty
2. Obstructing police guilty
3. Obstructing emergency services guilty
4. Criminal damage guilty
5. Conspiracy to cause public nuisance guilty
That's ^^ just for starters.
You have to keep in mind that anyone who preaches about the innocent civilians, who were slaughtered by Hamas terrorists, reaping what they sow in real time aren't likely to oppose the two-tier police state that works in their favour. It's what I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 25, 2024 10:04:36 GMT
It has nothing to do with the daily mail - vague law can be used to harass and the concept of psychological harm is about as vague and subjective as it gets. Conversely, It is so easy to put rational boundaries around things so the law can't be easily abused. In this case, limiting the harm to physical (or empirical) more or less does it I have no idea why you would argue for gaping wide vague law that could be easily used to politically intimidate a population. Most laws start off like this. They are vague because they have to fit in with all the other law. You don't understand law, so please don't think there is something wrong with what I'm saying.
By the way, psychological harm can be just as bad as physical harm. You could brainwash someone to kill themselves. Also refer back to the points I already made. You don't seem to have used them to help you understand what is going on here.
My point is not that psychological damage isn't real, my point is that exists in non-empirical realm and so can't be the basis of rational, defined law. The notion is so vague and subjective it can be easily abused. You waffling on about law, makes no difference to this. Of course a defense can be mounted - if you have the resources, time and attention to do so. One thing a system of law needs is an effective practical category "Those who, given the information available, may well have commuted crimes". If psychological damage is a crime, then this category encloses the entire population. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 25, 2024 10:51:21 GMT
Most laws start off like this. They are vague because they have to fit in with all the other law. You don't understand law, so please don't think there is something wrong with what I'm saying.
By the way, psychological harm can be just as bad as physical harm. You could brainwash someone to kill themselves. Also refer back to the points I already made. You don't seem to have used them to help you understand what is going on here.
My point is not that psychological damage isn't real, my point is that exists in non-empirical realm and so can't be the basis of rational, defined law. The notion is so vague and subjective it can be easily abused. The art of law is to find the ways where you can make it objective. It can't be easily abused in law because there is a House of Lords ruling that says one must know what the law is before the act. I'll use this as an example of a detail I know and you don't. I know you don't know about the ruling or you would not have said what you did. I'm not trying to attack you or make out I'm an expert lawyer, which is often the response to criticism. What I'm trying to do is help you to understand a bit more about the way the law works as I have had a lot of experience myself in fighting a case in the higher courts. It was three years and more than 300 pages of documents. It is a very complicated business and this is why these lawyers you are fighting get some grand an hour for their work. You have to be bloody well read in law. I only got by because the area I was dealing with was a specialist thing so I could become an expert in that tiny part of the much larger landscape. I made use of some 30 different references to case law. As I was trying to explain before, it felt most like the job of computer programming. Everything is logical, but you need to learn the language. Words in law have very precise meanings. Like with computer code where you run a procedure, you determine exactly what it will do, and likewise in law you do similar. Anyway, having been through he fire, it makes me feel far safer from erroneous prosecution.
I take it that you are not paying attention then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 25, 2024 11:02:48 GMT
I take it that you are not paying attention then. You edited out the part where i explained why you waffling about the law makes no odds Of course a defense can be mounted - if you have the resources, time and attention to do so. One thing a system of law needs is an effective practical category "Those who, given the information available, may well have commuted crimes". If psychological damage is a crime, then this category encloses the entire population.The entire population being arguably criminals, is a great place to start. You can then charge everyone to find out who the innocent are. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 25, 2024 11:15:06 GMT
I take it that you are not paying attention then. You edited out the part where i explained why you waffling about the law makes no odds Of course a defense can be mounted - if you have the resources, time and attention to do so. One thing a system of law needs is an effective practical category "Those who, given the information available, may well have commuted crimes". If psychological damage is a crime, then this category encloses the entire population.The entire population being arguably criminals, is a great place to start. You can then charge everyone to find out who the innocent are. They might well shit on a few people to start with, but then along comes someone a bit tougher and takes to to the appeal courts. If it is dodgy the appeal judges wont be very happy and what you find is lower down the food chain reforms are implemented. Sometimes they are not, and if the appeal judge sees the same malpractice several times more trouble is created and so on. Believe it or not there are some very good and decent judges that are very competent. You only meet them higher up. Mind was a professor of law at Southampton University. Southampton is considered a top uni as well. They were fair to me. I played the game their way and the whole thing somehow clicked in my head, like when learning a craft, sometimes there is a point where you think, ah ha, now I see how the pros get such a good job. They know something I did not. Law is very much a case of "it's not what you think it is". Very few journalists understand law and talk constant shit all day long to make the whole thing even more arcane. |
|
