General / Off-Topic Free Speech in UK - discuss
- Thread starter X-Terminator
- Start date
- Status
X-Terminator
Banned
AJW, dude. There is no 1 track in life even with any laws. As the say goes, "watch how you go". We each walk our own line wherever it may lead. For all almighty righteousness we do not know our fate.
No, but I know that getting legal 'advice' from random blokes on the internet is a sure-fire way to persuade fate to make an example of you...
Minonian
Banned
Wrong, it's situation dependent. Without any reason he can't cause you harm, but if your behaviour or the conditions gives him reason, (like strong suspicion of criminal activity) than he can use forcing tool, to resist or attack police officer, resist inspections, are such circumstances but to make things clear, he must have legalization to do so, for an example he can't do it in the territory what's not within their legit operational area. And he must have the order / permit to checkups.
Only if his actions are condemned illegal. If he had the right to do it, and you resist? than you can be prosecuted for various other reasons, armed resistance against Authority measure is a serious offense! And if you actually hurt a police officer because "you have the right to resist"? Tough luck! Authority personnels enjoing elevated protection, and with a pretty good reason, to let them to do their jobs undisturbed is everyone best interest. At first, at many cases otherwise it can't be done, and many other cases they are need to do their jobs as fast they can, ambulance, fireman, police, ects... But also? if they abuse their privileges coming with their status? That means increased punishment too.
Edit; As another example? if you committing a crime, and the cops are in hot pursuit, than we don't talk about inspection. But production of a suspect and if he after committed a serious crime, stupid enough to show armed resistance?
Last edited:
X-Terminator
Banned
I am obviously talking about them grabbing you without giving reason and to detain you for questioning. In UK this is illegal unless an arrest has been made. On the part about any injury they receive in resisting and still under no arrest then case has been proven. I can dig this up for you if required.
Minonian
Banned
In this case we are agreeing, and no need to dig you up anything this is clearly of the violation the police code. But if you a known associate of a criminal organistion? TAnd the police have the warrant of checkups? than what? 
The warrant alone without your known association is a reason enough. And if you are a known associate, You can be sure they will going to stop you!
The warrant alone without your known association is a reason enough. And if you are a known associate, You can be sure they will going to stop you!
Last edited:
Police powers to stop and search (UK): https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights
Incidentally, this thread has reminded me of a conversation I had some years ago with a bloke I met on a course. He was explaining all sorts of ways to get off serious charges through legal loopholes. I was a little sceptical, and asked him how he knew all this: he replied that he'd learned it all from other inmates while serving six months for fraud. The irony of this somehow escaped him...
Incidentally, this thread has reminded me of a conversation I had some years ago with a bloke I met on a course. He was explaining all sorts of ways to get off serious charges through legal loopholes. I was a little sceptical, and asked him how he knew all this: he replied that he'd learned it all from other inmates while serving six months for fraud. The irony of this somehow escaped him...
Last edited:
X-Terminator
Banned
Voluntary Community Police don't get sworn in to the Crown so they may get to waive such legislation as a sly move in future.
Last edited:
Minonian
Banned
We call this militia. Entirely different level than a full fledged police. So as a rookie police officer not trained properly by someone else's fault. So yes, without authorization / badge / license?
- - - Updated - - -
Sorry, but i don't get this one.
- - - Updated - - -
The beauty of prison, you will be well educated in matters of criminal activity.
Last edited:
You appear to have a very confused understanding of the legal term "Beyond reasonable doubt".
Note the second word. "Beyond reasonable doubt".
Please also note the lack of other words, such as "Beyond any doubt" or "Beyond all shadow of doubt" or even "Beyond doubt".
If you get a speeding ticket you get a fine, points on your license, although this can be waived on certain traffic offenses at the moment as long as you haven't been caught before, and are willing to go on a traffic safety awareness course.
You can, of course, contest this in court. But the fact of the matter is (in the case you outlined) you're going up against the word of a police officer and the evidence of your speeding provided by the equipment he was using at the time. If you attempt to argue against this by saying that you *might* have let your speed creep over the limit by one or two miles per hour and you're sorry, however you didn't do any more than this you might be in with a shout depending on the coppers evidence.
If you start going on about how lasers are no good along with claiming it's just the coppers word against yours then you're going to walk away with a fine, points on your license, and court costs.
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
What a mess.
Right - there are two legal 'systems' in the UK. One is criminal, which deals with punishing those who break the law, and the other is civil, which deals with putting people back in the position they would have been but for another's actions.
The rule of law is absolute. Dicey explains it best - you will not be punished if you have done nothing wrong, if you are harmed then the court will provide relief, and all of us are equal under the law. Feel free to look up Dicey and Rule of Law to confirm that. Note, I paraphrase.
Criminal law deals with punishment, and can involve the loss of liberties. As a result a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That proving is usually attempted by The Crown in the form of the CPS. Not 'beyond all doubt' and not 'with some doubt'. Many crimes (speeding is not one) involve a mental element, called a mens rea. You have to do the act, and you had to have a mental state while doing it. Theft, for example involves you being both dishonest and having an intent to permanently deprive. To help with this we have juries, who can use their world experience to decide what they think a defendant's mental processes were. Juries are directed by a judge and decide upon facts.
Civil law seeks to compensate someone for a loss. So in the theft case above if it was your cash that had been stolen you are now short of that cash. The criminal law does not care about you, it cares about punishment (government backed victim compensation schemes sit outside this). If you want your money back, you would need to bring a civil case against the perpetrator. Because civil cases tend to involve handing over money mistakes are less severe, and so you have to show your case on a balance of probabilities. Note the much lower burden of proof. Civil cases (bar defamation) have no juries, there is a judge only.
Judges make errors, as we all do. Judges often can think that a legal point is ill-defined. To help with this there is an appeal system, where a case can be reviewed by more senior judges. Typically in the UK the Court of Appeal has three judges (no jury, you need a majority verdict) and the Supreme Court has five (Brexit had all of the eligible judges, called the Law Lords).
For more information, a good and easy book to read is Howard, Nick. 2013., Beginning Constitutional Law. Routledge. I've found it free on Google Books for you - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gAezmBsPrEoC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
I strongly suggest starting there rather than random youtube videos.
Right - there are two legal 'systems' in the UK. One is criminal, which deals with punishing those who break the law, and the other is civil, which deals with putting people back in the position they would have been but for another's actions.
The rule of law is absolute. Dicey explains it best - you will not be punished if you have done nothing wrong, if you are harmed then the court will provide relief, and all of us are equal under the law. Feel free to look up Dicey and Rule of Law to confirm that. Note, I paraphrase.
Criminal law deals with punishment, and can involve the loss of liberties. As a result a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That proving is usually attempted by The Crown in the form of the CPS. Not 'beyond all doubt' and not 'with some doubt'. Many crimes (speeding is not one) involve a mental element, called a mens rea. You have to do the act, and you had to have a mental state while doing it. Theft, for example involves you being both dishonest and having an intent to permanently deprive. To help with this we have juries, who can use their world experience to decide what they think a defendant's mental processes were. Juries are directed by a judge and decide upon facts.
Civil law seeks to compensate someone for a loss. So in the theft case above if it was your cash that had been stolen you are now short of that cash. The criminal law does not care about you, it cares about punishment (government backed victim compensation schemes sit outside this). If you want your money back, you would need to bring a civil case against the perpetrator. Because civil cases tend to involve handing over money mistakes are less severe, and so you have to show your case on a balance of probabilities. Note the much lower burden of proof. Civil cases (bar defamation) have no juries, there is a judge only.
Judges make errors, as we all do. Judges often can think that a legal point is ill-defined. To help with this there is an appeal system, where a case can be reviewed by more senior judges. Typically in the UK the Court of Appeal has three judges (no jury, you need a majority verdict) and the Supreme Court has five (Brexit had all of the eligible judges, called the Law Lords).
For more information, a good and easy book to read is Howard, Nick. 2013., Beginning Constitutional Law. Routledge. I've found it free on Google Books for you - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gAezmBsPrEoC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
I strongly suggest starting there rather than random youtube videos.
Last edited:
verminstar
Banned
You obviously never been to northern ireland then if thats what ye believe...the reality is a little different here ^
Theres a reason why normal everyday 'bobbys' carry automatic weapons, body armour and travel around in armoured vehicles. Although I think we may well be the exception as opposed to the norm here.
Oh and prison time is easy time...did ye know its not the screws who make the rules or enforce them in the likes of magaberry prison? Its the inmates of a paramilitary wing...they decide who gets onto the wing and they decide who leaves it. Why? Because the screws live locally and are well known...thats why ^
Last edited:
X-Terminator
Banned
Quite right but the Terrorist Threat Level is on high everywhere in UK. Even though you may never get to see 1 Police car on the road nor 1 Policeman in any city. If they ever do grab you without arrest then do remind them of the Law. Everything is abused.
So...I declare I am a Christian (labelled an infidel by Islam which is defamation)
I have decided to move to being Catholic (it takes 5 steps)
However, I may not like this (not Bigotry but a preference) and instead want to become Buddhist (it takes 13 steps)
However, I may not like this also and wish to become Muslim (it takes 14 steps) and I am then made to stay else I will be killed for leaving as they hate other Religions (Bigotry and Racist and Terrorist!)
Yet because I have changed RACE by moving to other religions I can at least declare for certain I was NOT RACIST until I joined Islam.
This is a Politically Correct Statement.
So...I declare I am a Christian (labelled an infidel by Islam which is defamation)
I have decided to move to being Catholic (it takes 5 steps)
However, I may not like this (not Bigotry but a preference) and instead want to become Buddhist (it takes 13 steps)
However, I may not like this also and wish to become Muslim (it takes 14 steps) and I am then made to stay else I will be killed for leaving as they hate other Religions (Bigotry and Racist and Terrorist!)
Yet because I have changed RACE by moving to other religions I can at least declare for certain I was NOT RACIST until I joined Islam.
This is a Politically Correct Statement.
X-Terminator
Banned
Truth is an illusion just as Law is a book and so too are Religions. Believe what you like. Believing is in the eye of the beholder.
X-Terminator
Banned
I think I am exercising my right to speak freely under UK Law which is open for discussion. More abuse of power is becoming apparent and twisting definitions which pervert the Courts for heavy sentences. i.e., our right to speak freely is very limited under such abuse.
- Status