General / Off-Topic Free Speech in UK - discuss

Minonian · May 20, 2017

FuzzySpider said:
Just to be clear here, you think it's not illegal to drive 100mph around a city street but you think it is an infringement of law for me to type "Troll Troll Troll Trollity Troll"?

What he thinks in this matter does not count. In the eyes of law ignorance is not an excuse you can deny it, but for that, they are still apply if it's forbidden, than he cant, and if he gotc aught he will be punished, and he neither uphold a law what does not exist, cant give and carry out an order what's contradicts with law, or by limitations cannot be carried out. For an example? An order even if it's lawful in the US it cannot be carried out in EU territory unless other factors not allowing it. For an example there is no extradition agreement between UK and Hungary. And UK authority cannot work legally in Hungarian soil, if he doing it?

That's law breaking an international incident from the part of armed forces.

In the other hand, if there is an agreement, and allowance, in some cases?

- - - Updated - - -

jontycampbell said:
Is truth the same as reality,

Tough question! What kind of truth? How much of truth? A small piece of it, viewed poorly or a large chunk of it, understood perfectly?

Edit; Anyway? Your truth is just as much real and true as close to reality, as close to the absolute truth.

AJW · May 20, 2017

Minonian said:
...there is no extradition agreement between UK and Hungary...

European arrest warrant: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002F0584:EN:HTML

Minonian · May 20, 2017

AJW said:
European arrest warrant: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002F0584:EN:HTML

Not the same! A few years back we had an UK - Hungary case because of lack of Extradition agreement. A man run over some childs and they died after that, he ran back to UK, and we cannot extradited him, if i remember correctly it's ended up by him returning to there, after long long years of Legal wrangling.

X-Terminator · May 20, 2017

FuzzySpider said:
Just to be clear here, you think it's not illegal to drive 100mph around a city street but you think it is an infringement of law for me to type "Troll Troll Troll Trollity Troll"?

To be clear of two extreme views irrespective of each other...
When I speak of speeding I do so in relation to the definition of speeding in a Court is to factor in all regulations of the evidence as absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is separate to you seeing you are doing 37 in a 30mph by looking at your tachometer and even more so by simply being handed a fine with a pic of your vehicle at that time to be used as their proof. Search the net for actual Traffic Police and what they say contrary to this in their own experiences.
NO - I do not condone going faster than the prescribed limits. That is dangerous. I am speaking about the legal use in a fine is all.

2nd - on a tangent here yes I do stand by the use of TROLL/TROLLING to be banished here under any world laws which together unite us over the globe.

A final statement in relation to both - I do not condone breaking the Law.

Minonian · May 20, 2017

All of this does not matter. Law cannot be relativised, no special cases no exceptions. It is what it is, whenever you like and accept it or not?

The only thing matters in question of speeding what the traffipax saying, and what's the (actual)speed limit in the giver road part?

X-Terminator · May 20, 2017

It is upto you to fight a case or not. It does still cost you 1/4 if you happen to win. Not all laws are so tight they can not be challenged. It simply goes by definitions within it's books.

With speeding I already stated many of the regulations which must form proof. If you do not look into them that is your own chosing.

Minonian · May 20, 2017

Except if the case was a big bogus at the first time, and out of any kind of legitimization. In this case the whole mess are simply null and void, and to act like you can do it, is a crime.

(personal note you cannot act based on a crime happened in another nation again; out of jurisdiction.)

Minonian · May 21, 2017

FuzzySpider said:
If a man talks in the woods and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?

He is always wrong. What you gonna do about it?

(it's free to speak but you are not obliged to listen, and give a damn...)

X-Terminator · May 21, 2017

This is FREEDOM OF SPEECH vs OPRESSIVE POLICING. What a total waste of our tax!

[video=youtube;z19AOo4ndlo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z19AOo4ndlo[/video]

FuzzySpider · May 21, 2017

X-Terminator said:
This is FREEDOM OF SPEECH vs OPRESSIVE POLICING. What a total waste of our tax!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z19AOo4ndlo

Ok, you really need to start checking your information sources more thoroughly. The first vid you linked had other legends such as "Why Hitler was right" and "Why multiculturalism will lead to civil war". The particular channel you're linking here has wonderful vids like "A message to the pirates (politicians)" and "What is anarco-capitalism".

Here. Watch some of these. I strongly recommend the CGPGrey channel for you to start with.

https://www.youtube.com/user/destinws2
https://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey
https://www.youtube.com/user/scishow/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/crashcourse
https://www.youtube.com/user/Kurzgesagt
https://www.youtube.com/user/numberphile

Minonian · May 21, 2017

Anyone remember this?

The way how you deal with any kind of tin foil hatter conspiration theorist anarchist ECTS nutjob, in life. Hit em in the face, kick em out, and never ever listen.

[video=youtube;BbZlf4KDnGA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbZlf4KDnGA[/video] 3.0

Minonian · May 21, 2017

X-Terminator said:
This is FREEDOM OF SPEECH vs OPRESSIVE POLICING. What a total waste of our tax!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z19AOo4ndlo

I think you lots still not understand it at all... In your hand karma is not karma but a tool of veangance. (Eye for eye!) In Our hands is a tool of education with a lot of witholding power, furthermore? Whatever you do, however you try? in my eyes you are just a criminal, a dangerous element, a pestering annoyance whom trying to corrupt me, trough converting me to your ways. And the thing about attempted corruption of a police officer?

It's just another crime!

And based on the fact how desperately you lots trying to make it work? Feared it like fire!

X-Terminator · May 21, 2017

This is purely about freedom of speech vs oppression by harassment from those we employ to protect and serve to keep the peace. If those people did not speak out then it would be assumed we can not speak out openly at all. Protect our rights because they are being abused by law enforcement on a daily basis as a matter of habit. Stamp it out!

OPRESSIVE POLICING: 2/3 of cases examined in 1999, where the defendant did not plead guilty, led to acquittal at court because of oppressive police interview tactics. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/sep/13/vikramdodd

FuzzySpider · May 21, 2017

X-Terminator said:
This is purely about freedom of speech vs oppression by harassment from those we employ to protect and serve to keep the peace. If those people did not speak out then it would be assumed we can not speak out openly at all. Protect our rights because they are being abused by law enforcement on a daily basis as a matter of habit. Stamp it out!

Spoken truly like a man who wants to ban the word "troll".

X-Terminator said:
OPRESSIVE POLICING: 2/3 of cases examined in 1999, where the defendant did not plead guilty, led to acquittal at court because of oppressive police interview tactics. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/sep/13/vikramdodd

That article is almost 20 years old. It's irrelevant right now.

Yaffle · May 21, 2017

X-Terminator said:
OPRESSIVE POLICING: 2/3 of cases examined in 1999, where the defendant did not plead guilty, led to acquittal at court because of oppressive police interview tactics. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/sep/13/vikramdodd

Which is precisely why PACE was introduced before it, to allow people to gain a remedy if they have been mistreated.

You know the point of that article is that if the police obtain evidence unfairly then that is no longer evidence and cannot be used as part of a prosecution don't you? We'll skip over the 18 year old nature of the article, other than to note that if you had to go back 18 years to find an example of bad behaviour it simply can't be all that common.

It's in the opening part, my emphasis:

Police seeking confessions from suspects are using intimidatory and coercive tactics, which can lead to crucial evidence being thrown out of court, a study reveals today.

Seems to me it's all working as intended - there are checks and balances which come into play for the odd rogue police officer.

Am I saying the police are all perfect - no, no I am not. Every profession and trade has its nefarious rogues. Are all police corrupt? No, not at all. The vast majority are honest and just trying to do a job under difficult circumstances. Often these cannot be trained for, and require life-changing split second decisions. They get a lot right, they get some wrong. The very fact that when they get it wrong there are newspaper headlines, public enquiries and so on demonstrates how rare it is, and how important. We don't have a public enquiry into the many thousands of interactions the police have with the public every day because nearly all of them are fine.

Yes, sometimes it goes wrong. When it does it is right for us to examine why and prevent it happening again. We do that already. This is not an issue.

Minonian · May 21, 2017

X-Terminator said:
This is purely about freedom of speech vs oppression by harassment from those we employ to protect and serve to keep the peace. If those people did not speak out then it would be assumed we can not speak out openly at all. Protect our rights because they are being abused by law enforcement on a daily basis as a matter of habit. Stamp it out!

OPRESSIVE POLICING: 2/3 of cases examined in 1999, where the defendant did not plead guilty, led to acquittal at court because of oppressive police interview tactics. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/sep/13/vikramdodd

This is purely nonsense and the only reason i not burned you into a spoon of ashes because that's get me banned in there. And honestly? I fed up to your i have the right because i'm, right self explainatory !
No, you are wrong! No, you don't have the right! No you are not above the law, and you cant twist and turn how you like it! No one is above the law, not even the president of the USA, not even god! He too bound to his own rules, otherwise they are worthless!

No you don't have the right to extract vengeance in personal matters for the simple reason of personal affection! No one can place himself above the law, and extract vengeance, because trough personal affection you unable to judge clearly! No! You don't have the "right" to act as an authority personnel, without proper authorization, and if you do so, Thats a serious crime, especially if you in the same time dare to place above yourself to the laws what you bound to follow. the ones whom want to serve justice first of all must apply to themselves the rules of law and justice, and even more importantly!? Honor them!

If you want to represent law and justice? Than you are his servant, you must be his "avatar!"

Whatever you lot's do, while you trying to force your absurd ? It's just another sin!

X-Terminator · May 21, 2017

Interesting to see Trump's speech to the Arab Leaders today whilst he too preached what they themselves should do whilst saying he will not lecture and yet smoothly avoid the obvious big huge bleeding elephant that is the War on Iraq 2003.

The next time you are stopped by the Law, do take note when they ask you for your details for joinder of anything they wish to use as an excuse for wasting your time if they also provide you with your rights to opt out. Then if perhaps you decline under no reasonable suspicion to be stopped take note on the lies which follows. You can call this basic training OR abuse of power!

FuzzySpider · May 21, 2017

X-Terminator said:
The next time you are stopped by the Law, do take note when they ask you for your details for joinder of anything they wish to use as an excuse for wasting your time if they also provide you with your rights to opt out. Then if perhaps you decline under no reasonable suspicion to be stopped take note on the lies which follows. You can call this basic training OR abuse of power!

Opt out of what?

X-Terminator · May 21, 2017

Giving details as it says in the sentence. Before requiring elaboration, the gov law on this is in previous threads.

AJW · May 21, 2017

Still plugging this delusional 'joinder' nonsense I see. A simple question: if existing law allowed people to 'opt out' in the way these fruitcakes claim, why hasn't the law been changed?