|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 26, 2024 13:01:04 GMT
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. I think you are ignoring what i'm saying and following your own silly legalistic argument which doesn't really intervene with my argument at all. If people cannot easily predict what is legal and what is not, then this ambiguity acts as a disincentive to any act that might bee deemed illegal (in this case large sections of speech) If what is legal and what is not is not reasonably clear then it is impossible to argue coherently that the law is being miss-applied (when it is) If you start with a situation in which everyone is technically a criminal (or can be argued to be one), then the law can be applied arbitrarily on anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 26, 2024 14:29:56 GMT
Indeed. And there are plenty of badly written, perhaps deliberately so, laws as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 26, 2024 14:40:37 GMT
Starmer is that busy trying to find ways to shut people up from highlighting what a fuckup he is making of the county he's taking his eye off the ball, the worst people you can ruffle the feathers of is pensioners FFS
Don't fuck about with them, he's totally underestimated the blue rinse brigade ........ LOL .. Good Luck Starmer, you'll need it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 26, 2024 14:57:56 GMT
Face it whoever you vote for the Westminster party is a danger to your health, mental or physical and wallet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 26, 2024 17:53:34 GMT
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. I think you are ignoring what i'm saying and following your own silly legalistic argument which doesn't really intervene with my argument at all. If people cannot easily predict what is legal and what is not, then this ambiguity acts as a disincentive to any act that might bee deemed illegal (in this case large sections of speech) If what is legal and what is not is not reasonably clear then it is impossible to argue coherently that the law is being miss-applied (when it is) If you start with a situation in which everyone is technically a criminal (or can be argued to be one), then the law can be applied arbitrarily on anyone. I can't discuss something with someone who tells me my arguments are silly. It is a waste of my time. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 26, 2024 18:02:46 GMT
Starmer is that busy trying to find ways to shut people up from highlighting what a fuckup he is making of the county he's taking his eye off the ball, the worst people you can ruffle the feathers of is pensioners FFS Don't fuck about with them, he's totally underestimated the blue rinse brigade ........ LOL .. Good Luck Starmer, you'll need it. It's the police you have to watch. These laws serve a purpose, but can easily be abused. It's coming very close to the position of if some specially protected group gets insulted by someone, no matter how stupid the thing is, then it is deemed that person allegedly insulting is automatically guilty, because the other bloke says so. You can't possibly nick someone for that lawfully since it clashes with the human rights. It's unbalanced. Most people sitting down at the police station with the spotlight on them have little understanding of the law and so the police can easily convince them that it is better to admit to it, as per I admit I insulted that person. Once they have that in a statement they are fucked, and it is very difficult to get out of. You would have to prove police coercion and you know all the officers will back each other up. |
|
