|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Nov 19, 2009 2:02:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Nov 19, 2009 2:08:36 GMT
Meh, it's London. Don't they film everything there anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 19, 2009 3:11:34 GMT
Britain actually has the most spied upon population in the world, believe it or not. Our control-freak govt seems to sincerely believe it has the right to spy on us in any way it chooses at any time it chooses.
Most of us aren't too keen on it, it must be said...
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Nov 19, 2009 5:02:51 GMT
E, I think it's rather sad really , what of privacy and liberty , are none of you prepared to stand against this ? is all of this big brother met with no resistance?
|
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Nov 19, 2009 7:01:24 GMT
no offense to EK & other Brits, the Brit government is an expert in big bro governance. look at the legacy they've left in Commonwealth countries, especially 3rd world - like Malaysia, the government uses divide-&-conquer, info control & manipulation etc to control the masses. what gives them the right? Internal Security Act.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 19, 2009 12:48:47 GMT
The problem with the peoples of any nation is that in order to rise they need leaders. Brits are unhappy and they complain a lot and there is an increase in social friction for many, many reasons. But there are no real leaders anywhere, so nothing gets changed. Sad, but that's how the world is.
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Nov 19, 2009 21:56:14 GMT
Here's more insanity to consider for the english www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.htmlEx-soldier faces jail for handing in gun Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 12:15A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty". Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year. The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon. In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested. "I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets." The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden. In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges. "I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him. "At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall." Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells. Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours. He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms". Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?" To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so." Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant. Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added. But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun. He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle. "You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park. "Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?" Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11. Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge. "The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." - Comments on this story have been disabled for legal reasons |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 19, 2009 23:54:10 GMT
5 years in jail for being a good citizen... It would be laughable if it weren't so horrendous a miscarriage of justice. I'm ashamed of the jury, let alone the police  |
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Nov 20, 2009 9:07:21 GMT
Five years for making the mistake of picking it up and handing it in rather than just reporting it? Idiocy. If this is what the law says then the law is in dire need of change.
Übereil
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 20, 2009 9:12:59 GMT
The reason for the strictness of the law is because of gun mules - people who have been given guns by others so that they don't suffer the penalties. Also the Jury could have overturned this if they wanted to, but many juries don't actually know how much power they wield. However the home office (more precisely the home secretary can over turn this judgement if they want, as can the queen.
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Nov 20, 2009 11:09:59 GMT
When laws are enforced with zero tolerance , without consideration given to particulars of a circumstance , justice is often abandoned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 20, 2009 11:59:27 GMT
Ube - Agreed.
DPR - in theory the Queen may have that power, but in actuality there'd be a constitutional crisis if she tried to exercise it.
Kilgore - Agreed. The Law is far from being the same thing as Justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Nov 20, 2009 13:12:31 GMT
One of the problems in all our judicial systems - though I believe more so in Anglo-Saxon/American - is that more is argued the letter of the law than the intent of the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Nov 20, 2009 22:13:46 GMT
Ube - Agreed. DPR - in theory the Queen may have that power, but in actuality there'd be a constitutional crisis if she tried to exercise it. Kilgore - Agreed. The Law is far from being the same thing as Justice. I guess privacy is not highly regarded in your country's constitution? Not to say our constitution is follwed very closely just asking because I'm not so familiar the British version. |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Nov 20, 2009 22:43:22 GMT
English common law is the basis for our laws and constitution. Now let me see if I get this right... In the UK, if I am in my home and someone with a gun is breaking in and I call the police, I am ok and not a criminal (providing I am still alive).  If, however, circumstances make it possible for me to disarm this burgler/whatnot and am actually in possession of the gun when the police arrive, and holding this guy for the police, I am the one charged with possession and there is absolutely NO way I am not not a lawbreaker... That is the way it reads to me...and if so...then the English will soon be history...I am afraid...no matter how stiff their upper lip is.. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 21, 2009 0:11:39 GMT
Britain really survived on custom and the intuitive common sense of the average policeman, as far as criminal law goes. We have no actual Constitution, just a general unwritten understanding. If you are attacked (In your own home or otherwise) you may use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself under the law, but that is obviously open to judicial interpretation.
The problem with all of that is quite obvious, of course. A govt with tyrannical intentions has nothing to stop it from applying the law any way it wants and politicising the police to make sure they ignore common sense and become instead a tool of govt.
Welcome to Britain under New Labour...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Nov 21, 2009 0:15:20 GMT
I heard a rumour that writing a constitution is smart. But woo common law!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Nov 21, 2009 0:17:36 GMT
Oh, and : lol Daily Mail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Nov 21, 2009 11:47:25 GMT
"The UK has no single constitutional document comparable to those of most other nations. It is therefore often said that the country has an "unwritten", uncodified or de facto constitution. However, the majority of the British constitution does exist in the written form of statutes, court judgments and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions and the royal prerogatives."
This, I must say, at first surprised me - but then again not on second thought, when thinking of the historic development starting with and since the Magna Charta.
What it seems to lack, and what the Americans did better, is a system of checks and balances.
In the power struggle of the parliament versus the King(s), legislative and parliamentary executive seem to have acquired too much power - probably because all other power ultimately is what was ceded by parliament, whereas in countries like the USA or Germany the constitution was written BEFORE the establishment of parliament and government structures, by bodies of people independent from a legislative power position.
I, by the way, see no realistic chance to change that nowadays in the UK, regardless of who may be in power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 21, 2009 12:52:02 GMT
Britain has always depended on the three pillars of church, state and monarch. As generally speaking all have wanted what is best for the country, in their own way, they have acted as a very effective balance for many centuries.
Unfortunately, the church has turned itself into a complete irrelevance, losing all interest in the moral health of the nation (Which is its primary concern) while it implodes in petty internal politicking. Needless to say, the nation turns ever more away from the church as a result.
The Monarch has been solid, sensible and kept totally within constitutional bounds at all times. At a time when we desperately need the Monarch to bend the rules in the face of a lost church and a state lost in cloud cuckoo land. The Monarch is competent (The best of the three institutions) but no more.
The state - the govt - is lost in utter fantasy. And I don't just mean one party here, I mean the whole rotten edifice. They are so out of touch with the people that most of the things they think are of vital importance the people don't really care about and vice versa. Like all complete incompetents, they resort to charts, mindless box ticking and performance tables. There are a scattered few individuals who are not lost, but they have no real power or influence.
So with all three major institutions taking no real hand in the governance of the realm, no wonder Britain is in such a parlous state.
|
|
.com