111–120 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When was the last IRA attack, Manchester 1996?
A republican bomb maker was convicted literally yesterday. This isn't ancient history.
There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe". Although that it is often the intention of legislation to prevent behaviour which may lead to unsafe situations. For example, making it illegal to drink and drive. You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but never can you arrest someone right up to the point of breaking the law. For example, You cannot arrest so…
>For example, You cannot arrest someone for being drunk and having their car keys in their pocket, or even being asleep in the car while drunk. An aside, but this is not true. "According to Alabama state law, Hand was deemed to be in “constructive possession” of the vehicle, and although he wasn’t driving and the vehicle was parked, the keys being in the car was the determinant that triggered the arrest."" https://ww…
"The vehicle cranked" is the key there.. he is shown to be operating the vehicle while under the influence.. If he was asleep in the car without it being on, I doubt they would have a case.
There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe". Although that it is often the intention of legislation to prevent behaviour which may lead to unsafe situations. For example, making it illegal to drink and drive. You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but never can you arrest someone right up to the point of breaking the law. For example, You cannot arrest so…
In the UK* it is an offence to be "drunk in charge of a vehicle" so you absolutely can be arrested and charged for being asleep whilst drunk in a vehicle. You'll be having to defend yourself in court as to whether it was likely that would could have driven it drunk. In the same way reading communications can be perfectly legal and is often helpful in establishing conspiracy cases. Accepting that Governments can legal…
What is the legal definition of being in charge?
There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle.
Matters are more complicated where a person is sitting in the vehicle or "otherwise involved with it". In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle".
This opens a WHOLE can of worms for me as I do live in the UK.. and I regularly get drunk and sleep in my campervan. According to this particular interpretation, all campervan owners who get drunk and sleep in the van can be arrested. Im thinking that due to there is no legal definition of "in charge" that this could definitely be argued in court.
There is a growing misconception that it is the role of the government to "keep their citizens safe". Although that it is often the intention of legislation to prevent behaviour which may lead to unsafe situations. For example, making it illegal to drink and drive. You can arrest someone for breaking the law, but never can you arrest someone right up to the point of breaking the law. For example, You cannot arrest so…
actually, funnily enough in the UK you can be arrested for being "drunk in charge of a motor vehicle" even if you aren't in the driver's seat. That can apparently include sleeping one off in the back seat of your car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they continue to do the same with other legal systems like cannabis law and speed traps with poor visibility that do more harm than good.
Let's be devil's advocate for a second. The UK's speed cameras are brightly coloured, so there is an intention for them not to be traps - that is, they would prefer road users didn't speed. You cannot seriously argue that they are trying to sneakily catch people. If you get caught speeding by a speed trap which wasn't so visible, it is still your own fault and no-one else's. Either you are in control of your own vehi…
Perhaps a more productive tone to take on a discussion forum would be inquiry rather than indignant belittling.
edit: Also, speed cameras are brightly coloured by law, notably a law that the police themselves do not write, so you cannot in good faith argue that the warning paint is an act of temperance on the part of the police.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The vast majority of terrorists are clowns. Perhaps if you're referring to home grown Islamic terrorists. However Britain does have a problem with an experienced group of rather professional terrorists called the IRA.
And the lesson people keep refusing to learn is that the conflict in NI was ended not by military or legal action but by political action, including the establishment of human rights in law there as insurance against arbitrary state actions. The IRA are and were very different from the Islamic terrorists, who are much less organised and more resemble isolated self-radicalised far right extremists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU are working to prevent it https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/19/eu-outlaw...
the Parliament doesn't have any ability to legislate to stop it the governments of the member states (essentially the Council) want it, so it will happen
Of course, with the UK leaving the EU and potentially tearing up the Human Rights Act it might not matter but as for the EU having power to stop this in EU member states I think the courts are the most likely solution.
[0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3245181-C-203-15-amp...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the lesson people keep refusing to learn is that the conflict in NI was ended not by military or legal action but by political action, including the establishment of human rights in law there as insurance against arbitrary state actions. The IRA are and were very different from the Islamic terrorists, who are much less organised and more resemble isolated self-radicalised far right extremists.
Also banning encryption would have bo effect on IRA. They were super effective without it...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iktf. The Brexit shit won't wash away, not in our lifetimes. I'm looking at France or Switzerland. This Bizarro country can't be the best that humanity can do.
You realise that Switzerland isn't in the EU...right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know this argument might well work for Theresa May.
"You mean GCHQ can see running through wheat field pics? Let's ... let's just take a step back, shall we?"