politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Question

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Question

"If I see the rule of law being broken in a way that I find unacceptable then of course I will go," says Justice Secretary Robert Buckland, about the government’s internal market bill which could breach international law#Marr https://t.co/Qoevttrfze pic.twitter.com/9vawyPqPmG

Read the full story here

Beibheirli_C

I'll be first out the door of Johnson's fascist Britain...

FrancisUrquhart

Going to be lots of Poppyism reaction this evening in the hand egg if the social media outcry to this particular star QB perfectly reasonable position is anything to go by.

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/baker-mayfield-changes-mind-anthem-183952283.html

BluestBlue

There's that false equivalence between domestic criminal law and international treaties again...

Chris

kinabalu said:

Chris said:

kinabalu said:

nichomar said:

kinabalu said:

ydoethur said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite)

In what sense is Johnson not part of the metropolitan elite?

He doesn’t deserve to be in the intellectual elite?

Palpably true but we should cut him some slack because longcovid might be responsible for this. The virus is known to have some odd symptoms and it's possible that "turns people into blustering buffoons with the morals of an alley cat and the attention span of a mosquito" is one of them.

He was like that before his infection.

Well, yes. So maybe that's what it does sometimes, which would be more interesting. It takes what you are and intensifies it. So let's hope Toby stays safe this winter.

Hmm. Dominic Cummings? Jair Bolsonaro? Novak Djokovic?

Yep - I think we might just be onto something here.

Maybe Usain Bolt will be able to run 100m in five seconds when he's recovered.

ClippP

BluestBlue said:

There's that false equivalence between domestic criminal law and international treaties again...

That needs a bit of explaining , I think.

Chris

BluestBlue said:

There's that false equivalence between domestic criminal law and international treaties again...

Surely it's not that. It's a false equivalence between ordinary people and Important People.

WhisperingOracle

BluestBlue said:

There's that false equivalence between domestic criminal law and international treaties again...

Why is the principle of the rule of law any different ? Many governments have broken international law, but no postwar western governments have trumpeted it as a virtue, until we get into this Trumpian era.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1305126305369858050

FrancisUrquhart

Up to 4.5million most at risk from Covid 'will be told to stay home under new shielding plan based on health, age and weight'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8727553/Up-4-5million-risk-Covid-told-stay-home-new-shielding-plan.html

Stark_Dawning

BluestBlue said:

There's that false equivalence between domestic criminal law and international treaties again...

I remember the good old days when we respected both. Careful. Your man Boris has flouted the latter. Nothing to say the former won't be next.

Scott_xP

Chris said:

Surely it's not that. It's a false equivalence between ordinary people and Important People.

The Cummings Principle

Philip_Thompson

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1305084912907816961

FrancisUrquhart

Has anybody told England that it isn't a test match?

FrancisUrquhart

A spectator in the Tour de France has just removed his mask so he could cheer on the riders better...hand face palm....

CarlottaVance

"Negotiating in good faith"? Or "over-reach"?
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1305121859860598786?s=20
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1305121862255599623?s=20

kinabalu

BluestBlue said:

There's that false equivalence between domestic criminal law and international treaties again...

This government have covered both bases. Cummings was not praised by Johnson for breaking an international treaty.

Philip_Thompson

https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1305121859860598786
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1305121861085343745

Perfectly logical. So there's no excuse for the EU to abuse 3rd country certification to screw up GB/NI (or EU) trade.

ydoethur

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

Scott_xP

CarlottaVance said:

"Negotiating in good faith"? Or "over-reach"?

See the tweet upthread...

isam

Is there anyone on here who would actually not have 10 of their family round from tomorrow until the govt tell them different?

Gallowgate

Why can’t we just fill in the documentation the EU is looking for? Our new reality is bureaucracy heavy: this is what we voted for ffs.

Chris

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Of course. It's known as the rule of law. Everyone can make up their own mind whether to obey it.

RobD

Gallowgate said:

Why can’t we just fill in the documentation the EU is looking for? Our new reality is bureaucracy heavy: this is what we voted for ffs.

Aren't we already in perfect alignment?

Scott_xP

Gallowgate said:

Why can’t we just fill in the documentation the EU is looking for? Our new reality is bureaucracy heavy: this is what we voted for ffs.

Exactly.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1305134374833336323

ydoethur

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

Why can’t we just fill in the documentation the EU is looking for? Our new reality is bureaucracy heavy: this is what we voted for ffs.

Aren't we already in perfect alignment?

If we are, why can't we prove it?

Gallowgate

RobD said:

Gallowgate said:

Why can’t we just fill in the documentation the EU is looking for? Our new reality is bureaucracy heavy: this is what we voted for ffs.

Aren't we already in perfect alignment?

Bureaucracy doesn’t care for the “obvious”. This is what we voted for.

We just need to fill in the f*cking forms and stop whinging.

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1305133678100701186?s=20

Scott_xP

RobD said:

Aren't we already in perfect alignment?

If we are then certification will be a doddle, and this whole row has been confected by BoZo and chums as a distraction.

Oh...

Philip_Thompson

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

williamglenn

CarlottaVance said:

"Negotiating in good faith"? Or "over-reach"?
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1305121859860598786?s=20
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1305121862255599623?s=20

He negotiated it himself and understood the implications at the time. If Johnson thinks it's a bad deal, he should sack Frost.

ydoethur

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.

Were you really unaware of this?

Gallowgate

Brexit zealots have spent the last 4 years telling us how a few forms are not a problem and we just need to get on with it.

And then on the first sign of said bureaucracy they throw their toys out of the pram in a collective tantrum.

It’s just embarrassing.

Chris

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

ydoethur must be feeling pretty stupid for having told you everyone who ever broke the law has been deported!

Foxy

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Of course. It's known as the rule of law. Everyone can make up their own mind whether to obey it.

Not obeying the the law does have its risks though!

ydoethur

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

ydoethur must be feeling pretty stupid for having told you everyone who ever broke the law has been deported!

Well, yes, naturally I do feel very stupid. I've had to quote Michael Gove in support of my argument and there's no way back from that...

nichomar

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

Quite happy to break law while snorting cocaine so comes naturally.

justin124

FPT
Sean F said:
' I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.'

Not even that would justify restoring capital punishment. Treachery can often be morally justified.Had the Nazis been British rather than German , many Britons would wish to have seen the defeat of their own armed forces. Doubtless there were many in Germany hoping to see their country defeated during World War 2 in the wider interest of common humanity - and such people extended well beyond the obvious vitims of the Nazi regime -eg the Jewish population and communist sympathisers.On a similar basis I had no wish to see the victory of UK and US arms in the 2003 Iraq invasion in that I viewed the attacking forces as being instruments of evil.

alex_

Lol Morris Dancer's bet a winner after 6 laps!

DougSeal

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

You’ve been commenting on this site for roughly 2750 days. On average you have posted approximately 14.5 comments per day for seven and a half years. Assuming you sleep eight hours and take two hours a day to eat that’s roughly one post per waking hour for three quarters of a decade. Assuming a minute per post, again on average, you’ve spent roughly a solid month of your life on here to the exclusion of everything else just posting. I’m guessing you read all the posts as well so we’re probably talking two or three months of your life in total. That’s dedication. With this post you have sought to both recast the dictionary definition of a “law” and to single handedly remove the need for courts. If you manage either then all that time will have been well worth it.

Chris

Foxy said:

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Of course. It's known as the rule of law. Everyone can make up their own mind whether to obey it.

Not obeying the the law does have its risks though!

You might even have to sit through an embarrassing press conference and answer impertinent personal questions from journalists.

ydoethur

Chris said:

Foxy said:

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Of course. It's known as the rule of law. Everyone can make up their own mind whether to obey it.

Not obeying the the law does have its risks though!

You might even have to sit through an embarrassing press conference and answer impertinent personal questions from journalists.

The whole problem was, he wasn't able to answer them.

Chris

DougSeal said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

You’ve been commenting on this site for roughly 2750 days. On average you have posted approximately 14.5 comments per day for seven and a half years. Assuming you sleep eight hours and take two hours a day to eat that’s roughly one post per waking hour for three quarters of a decade. Assuming a minute per post, again on average, you’ve spent roughly a solid month of your life on here to the exclusion of everything else. That’s dedication. With this post you have sought to both recast the dictionary definition of a “law” and to single handedly remove the need for courts. If you manage either then all that time will have been well worth it.

Think of the entertainment value.

Though getting into a clowning contest with Boris Johnson is a bit futile.

CarlottaVance

Nuts.

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/edinburgh-uni-renames-david-hume-tower-over-racist-views?top

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/AislingTax/status/1305099040640696320

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/carlgardner/status/1305138207504437249

nichomar

justin124 said:

FPT
Sean F said:
' I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.'

Not even that would justify restoring capital punishment. Treachery can often be morally justified.Had the Nazis been British rather than German , many Britons would wish to have seen the defeat of their own armed forces. Doubtless there were many in Germany hoping to see their country defeated during World War 2 in the wider interest of common humanity - and such people extended well beyond the obvious vitims of the Nazi regime -eg the Jewish population and communist sympathisers.On a similar basis I had no wish to see the victory of UK and US arms in the 2003 Iraq invasion in that I viewed the attacking forces as being instruments of evil.

I think capital punishment for treason is still on the statute books?

RobD

CarlottaVance said:

Nuts.

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/edinburgh-uni-renames-david-hume-tower-over-racist-views?top

Someone is distressed by his views? Seriously??

ydoethur

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/AislingTax/status/1305099040640696320

Given that over half of all known cases of BSE (307,000 of them) were in France, that's a very, very bad example.

kinabalu

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

It is indeed for each and every person and/or country to decide for themselves about anything and everything. And it is for each and every person and/or country to decide for themselves what they think about what every other person and/or country has decided about anything and everything.

Philip, you're posting a stream of fatuous banalities on this topic and I INSTRUCT you to stop. If you don't I will take further action. I will sue you in a court of law.

logical_song

"in a way that I find unacceptable"
So, OK the law has been broken but I find it acceptable.

Chris

CarlottaVance said:

Nuts.

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/edinburgh-uni-renames-david-hume-tower-over-racist-views?top

"The building, which will be used as a student study space in the current academic year, will now be known as 40 George Square."

Well, better safe than sorry.

George Square.

Named after King George III.

Wikipedia:
"During most of his reign, King George III opposed the abolitionist movement. Pitt conversely wished to see slavery abolished but because the Cabinet was divided and the King was in the pro-slavery camp,"

Would anyone like to sign a petition?

Philip_Thompson

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.

Were you really unaware of this?

The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.

We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".

RobD

Chris said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nuts.

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/edinburgh-uni-renames-david-hume-tower-over-racist-views?top

"The building, which will be used as a student study space in the current academic year, will now be known as 40 George Square."

Well, better safe than sorry.

George Square.

Named after King George III.

Wikipedia:
"During most of his reign, King George III opposed the abolitionist movement. Pitt conversely wished to see slavery abolished but because the Cabinet was divided and the King was in the pro-slavery camp,"

Would anyone like to sign a petition?

Brilliant. Top trolling by the university there.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/TheCricketerMag/status/1305133654864257026

isam

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TheCricketerMag/status/1305133654864257026

Those transphobe worshippers are cancelled!

ydoethur

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.

Were you really unaware of this?

The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.

We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".

Hang on a minute. What are you talking about? The courts do send people to prison for breaking the law, unless the judge is an idiot (check the Browne case) for varying lengths of time, if they break the law.

Where has all this nonsense about 'everyone being sent to prison for life come from?' That is not the same thing at all!

You are completely missing the point. We have laws. Everyone has to follow them, or they get punished. They may decide the risk of punishment is less important than breaking the law, but that's altogether different from saying 'we don't have to obey the law.'

That really *is* what authoritarian dictatorships do, because they have no laws.

DougSeal

nichomar said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Sean F said:
' I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.'

Not even that would justify restoring capital punishment. Treachery can often be morally justified.Had the Nazis been British rather than German , many Britons would wish to have seen the defeat of their own armed forces. Doubtless there were many in Germany hoping to see their country defeated during World War 2 in the wider interest of common humanity - and such people extended well beyond the obvious vitims of the Nazi regime -eg the Jewish population and communist sympathisers.On a similar basis I had no wish to see the victory of UK and US arms in the 2003 Iraq invasion in that I viewed the attacking forces as being instruments of evil.

I think capital punishment for treason is still on the statute books?

No, it was removed at the same time as the Human Right Act coming in in 1998. Since then, the 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights has also become binding on the United Kingdom, prohibiting the restoration of the death penalty for as long as the UK is a party to the convention. Unless you subscribe to the Philip Thompson view of the law as being more a set of guidelines.

Peter_the_Punter

Thank you Cyclefree.

I see you have become brief. This is in response to recent criticisms?

I will attempt to follow your example.

I like what you say.

That's it.

Kind regards.

PtP on behalf of PaP [Posters against Prolixity]

ydoethur

DougSeal said:

nichomar said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Sean F said:
' I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.'

Not even that would justify restoring capital punishment. Treachery can often be morally justified.Had the Nazis been British rather than German , many Britons would wish to have seen the defeat of their own armed forces. Doubtless there were many in Germany hoping to see their country defeated during World War 2 in the wider interest of common humanity - and such people extended well beyond the obvious vitims of the Nazi regime -eg the Jewish population and communist sympathisers.On a similar basis I had no wish to see the victory of UK and US arms in the 2003 Iraq invasion in that I viewed the attacking forces as being instruments of evil.

I think capital punishment for treason is still on the statute books?

No, it was removed at the same time as the Human Right Act coming in in 1998. Since then, the 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights has also become binding on the United Kingdom, prohibiting the restoration of the death penalty for as long as the UK is a party to the convention. Unless you subscribe to the Philip Thompson view of the law as being more a set of guidelines.

I'm not sure I'm in a Rush to endorse that view.

FrancisUrquhart

Chris said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nuts.

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/edinburgh-uni-renames-david-hume-tower-over-racist-views?top

"The building, which will be used as a student study space in the current academic year, will now be known as 40 George Square."

Well, better safe than sorry.

George Square.

Named after King George III.

Wikipedia:
"During most of his reign, King George III opposed the abolitionist movement. Pitt conversely wished to see slavery abolished but because the Cabinet was divided and the King was in the pro-slavery camp,"

Would anyone like to sign a petition?

It appears what we need to do is rename every street and building using simply a random combination of alpha-numeric characters.

ydoethur

A snail has just left Old Trafford, complaining about the slow pace of the cricket.

alex_

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.

Were you really unaware of this?

The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.

We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".

Hang on a minute. What are you talking about? The courts do send people to prison for breaking the law, unless the judge is an idiot (check the Browne case) for varying lengths of time, if they break the law.

Where has all this nonsense about 'everyone being sent to prison for life come from?' That is not the same thing at all!

You are completely missing the point. We have laws. Everyone has to follow them, or they get punished. They may decide the risk of punishment is less important than breaking the law, but that's altogether different from saying 'we don't have to obey the law.'

That really *is* what authoritarian dictatorships do, because they have no laws.

I'm a bit confused about where this talk of deportation/life in prison has come from, is something being missed?

Sentencing policy is decided by statute and or sentencing guidelines. I'm not sure what limits there are in relation to Common law offences.

But what Philip is going on about is a bit of a mystery.

DougSeal

ydoethur said:

DougSeal said:

nichomar said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Sean F said:
' I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.'

Not even that would justify restoring capital punishment. Treachery can often be morally justified.Had the Nazis been British rather than German , many Britons would wish to have seen the defeat of their own armed forces. Doubtless there were many in Germany hoping to see their country defeated during World War 2 in the wider interest of common humanity - and such people extended well beyond the obvious vitims of the Nazi regime -eg the Jewish population and communist sympathisers.On a similar basis I had no wish to see the victory of UK and US arms in the 2003 Iraq invasion in that I viewed the attacking forces as being instruments of evil.

I think capital punishment for treason is still on the statute books?

No, it was removed at the same time as the Human Right Act coming in in 1998. Since then, the 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights has also become binding on the United Kingdom, prohibiting the restoration of the death penalty for as long as the UK is a party to the convention. Unless you subscribe to the Philip Thompson view of the law as being more a set of guidelines.

I'm not sure I'm in a Rush to endorse that view.

Very good. Took me a second through.

FrancisUrquhart

And Root does a Root....

Philip_Thompson

OK start for England on Day One of the Test.

Oh . . . did someone forget to tell England this is an ODI and not The Ashes?

ydoethur

DougSeal said:

ydoethur said:

DougSeal said:

nichomar said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Sean F said:
' I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.'

Not even that would justify restoring capital punishment. Treachery can often be morally justified.Had the Nazis been British rather than German , many Britons would wish to have seen the defeat of their own armed forces. Doubtless there were many in Germany hoping to see their country defeated during World War 2 in the wider interest of common humanity - and such people extended well beyond the obvious vitims of the Nazi regime -eg the Jewish population and communist sympathisers.On a similar basis I had no wish to see the victory of UK and US arms in the 2003 Iraq invasion in that I viewed the attacking forces as being instruments of evil.

I think capital punishment for treason is still on the statute books?

No, it was removed at the same time as the Human Right Act coming in in 1998. Since then, the 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights has also become binding on the United Kingdom, prohibiting the restoration of the death penalty for as long as the UK is a party to the convention. Unless you subscribe to the Philip Thompson view of the law as being more a set of guidelines.

I'm not sure I'm in a Rush to endorse that view.

Very good. Took me a second through.

It was an aDeppt pun.

DougSeal

ydoethur said:

DougSeal said:

ydoethur said:

DougSeal said:

nichomar said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Sean F said:
' I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.'

Not even that would justify restoring capital punishment. Treachery can often be morally justified.Had the Nazis been British rather than German , many Britons would wish to have seen the defeat of their own armed forces. Doubtless there were many in Germany hoping to see their country defeated during World War 2 in the wider interest of common humanity - and such people extended well beyond the obvious vitims of the Nazi regime -eg the Jewish population and communist sympathisers.On a similar basis I had no wish to see the victory of UK and US arms in the 2003 Iraq invasion in that I viewed the attacking forces as being instruments of evil.

I think capital punishment for treason is still on the statute books?

No, it was removed at the same time as the Human Right Act coming in in 1998. Since then, the 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights has also become binding on the United Kingdom, prohibiting the restoration of the death penalty for as long as the UK is a party to the convention. Unless you subscribe to the Philip Thompson view of the law as being more a set of guidelines.

I'm not sure I'm in a Rush to endorse that view.

Very good. Took me a second through.

It was an aDeppt pun.

That one gets a yellow card.

ydoethur

DougSeal said:

ydoethur said:

DougSeal said:

ydoethur said:

DougSeal said:

nichomar said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Sean F said:
' I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.'

Not even that would justify restoring capital punishment. Treachery can often be morally justified.Had the Nazis been British rather than German , many Britons would wish to have seen the defeat of their own armed forces. Doubtless there were many in Germany hoping to see their country defeated during World War 2 in the wider interest of common humanity - and such people extended well beyond the obvious vitims of the Nazi regime -eg the Jewish population and communist sympathisers.On a similar basis I had no wish to see the victory of UK and US arms in the 2003 Iraq invasion in that I viewed the attacking forces as being instruments of evil.

I think capital punishment for treason is still on the statute books?

No, it was removed at the same time as the Human Right Act coming in in 1998. Since then, the 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights has also become binding on the United Kingdom, prohibiting the restoration of the death penalty for as long as the UK is a party to the convention. Unless you subscribe to the Philip Thompson view of the law as being more a set of guidelines.

I'm not sure I'm in a Rush to endorse that view.

Very good. Took me a second through.

It was an aDeppt pun.

That one gets a yellow card.

Just the one, or will it be shown Knightley?

eristdoof

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

SInce when has it been illegal to smoke or ingest canabis? The last I knew the law was only broken for possession or supplying.

In practice indiviuals do break laws if they disagree with those laws, they do though realise that if they are caught they will recieve a punishment (or that person is just plain foolish).
It is a different level if a council or the government deliberately chooses to break the law.

Foxy

FrancisUrquhart said:

Chris said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nuts.

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/edinburgh-uni-renames-david-hume-tower-over-racist-views?top

"The building, which will be used as a student study space in the current academic year, will now be known as 40 George Square."

Well, better safe than sorry.

George Square.

Named after King George III.

Wikipedia:
"During most of his reign, King George III opposed the abolitionist movement. Pitt conversely wished to see slavery abolished but because the Cabinet was divided and the King was in the pro-slavery camp,"

Would anyone like to sign a petition?

It appears what we need to do is rename every street and building using simply a random combination of alpha-numeric characters.

The Roman alphabet and Arabic numerals?

Weren't both civilisations notorious slave traders?

DougSeal

The puns are Blooming

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

A snail has just left Old Trafford, complaining about the slow pace of the cricket.

I'm watching the demolition derby F1, there's been about 700 metres of racing in the last hour, and that's a lot more exciting than the cricket I'm following on the ball by ball online commentary.

Pulpstar

williamglenn said:

CarlottaVance said:

"Negotiating in good faith"? Or "over-reach"?
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1305121859860598786?s=20
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1305121862255599623?s=20

He negotiated it himself and understood the implications at the time. If Johnson thinks it's a bad deal, he should sack Frost.

Or resign

williamglenn

George Galloway says “no surrender” to the Ulsterisation of Scottish politics.

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1305108515313381377?s=21

FrancisUrquhart

Foxy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Chris said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nuts.

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/edinburgh-uni-renames-david-hume-tower-over-racist-views?top

"The building, which will be used as a student study space in the current academic year, will now be known as 40 George Square."

Well, better safe than sorry.

George Square.

Named after King George III.

Wikipedia:
"During most of his reign, King George III opposed the abolitionist movement. Pitt conversely wished to see slavery abolished but because the Cabinet was divided and the King was in the pro-slavery camp,"

Would anyone like to sign a petition?

It appears what we need to do is rename every street and building using simply a random combination of alpha-numeric characters.

The Roman alphabet and Arabic numerals?

Weren't both civilisations notorious slave traders?

Sshhhhhhhh...its only the British that were horrid slave traders.

ydoethur

eristdoof said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

SInce when has it been illegal to smoke or ingest canabis? The last I knew the law was only broken for possession or supplying.

Nope. Class B drug still. Up to 5 years for possession. There is however now a medical exemption although it's difficult to get.

TheScreamingEagles

People say slavery was bad, but can anything top the feat of say the pyramids?

Slavery gets shit done.

nichomar

eristdoof said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

SInce when has it been illegal to smoke or ingest canabis? The last I knew the law was only broken for possession or supplying.

In practice indiviuals do break laws if they disagree with those laws, they do though realise that if they are caught they will recieve a punishment (or that person is just plain foolish).
It is a different level if a council or the government deliberately chooses to break the law.

A councilor can be surcharged for illegal or reckless decisions, can an MP or government minister?

kinabalu

isam said:

Is there anyone on here who would actually not have 10 of their family round from tomorrow until the govt tell them different?

Exactly. People can and will behave as they see fit unless things are seriously policed. Which they (rightly) won't be because (i) we can't and (ii) we don't want to. And in any case most people are not inclined to be reckless. I just cannot get animated about all this. The virus is still nasty and still afoot so we need to stay careful. That's about it.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

People say slavery was bad, but can anything top the feat of say the pyramids?

Slavery gets shit done.

I thought feet were usually at the bottom, not the top?

Sorry, did I rekkit?

justin124

nichomar said:

justin124 said:

FPT
Sean F said:
' I think it would take a serious war, for the restoration of capital punishment to become a reality. In a WWII situation, no one would object to the execution of traitors or war criminals.'

Not even that would justify restoring capital punishment. Treachery can often be morally justified.Had the Nazis been British rather than German , many Britons would wish to have seen the defeat of their own armed forces. Doubtless there were many in Germany hoping to see their country defeated during World War 2 in the wider interest of common humanity - and such people extended well beyond the obvious vitims of the Nazi regime -eg the Jewish population and communist sympathisers.On a similar basis I had no wish to see the victory of UK and US arms in the 2003 Iraq invasion in that I viewed the attacking forces as being instruments of evil.

I think capital punishment for treason is still on the statute books?

No longer.

Philip_Thompson

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.

Were you really unaware of this?

The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.

We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".

Hang on a minute. What are you talking about? The courts do send people to prison for breaking the law, unless the judge is an idiot (check the Browne case) for varying lengths of time, if they break the law.

Where has all this nonsense about 'everyone being sent to prison for life come from?' That is not the same thing at all!

You are completely missing the point. We have laws. Everyone has to follow them, or they get punished. They may decide the risk of punishment is less important than breaking the law, but that's altogether different from saying 'we don't have to obey the law.'

That really *is* what authoritarian dictatorships do, because they have no laws.

People can be punished for breaking a law but that doesn't mean that the law must be obeyed.

If a law has a fine of £60 as its penalty, and someone really wants to break the law and is prepared to pay the £60, then must the law be obeyed? Or does someone have the right to break the law and face the consequences for doing so?

Civil disobedience works on this basis. People can be prepared to break the law and face the consequences because we live in a free society where punishment is prescribed in advance and not arbitrary.

isam

kinabalu said:

isam said:

Is there anyone on here who would actually not have 10 of their family round from tomorrow until the govt tell them different?

Exactly. People can and will behave as they see fit unless things are seriously policed. Which they (rightly) won't be because (i) we can't and (ii) we don't want to. And in any case most people are not inclined to be reckless. I just cannot get animated about all this. The virus is still nasty and still afoot so we need to stay careful. That's about it.

Make you right

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

A snail has just left Old Trafford, complaining about the slow pace of the cricket.

I'm watching the demolition derby F1, there's been about 700 metres of racing in the last hour, and that's a lot more exciting than the cricket I'm following on the ball by ball online commentary.

I suspect the F1 is about to rival the cricket and football in acting as a cure for insomnia.

SouthamObserver

williamglenn said:

CarlottaVance said:

"Negotiating in good faith"? Or "over-reach"?
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1305121859860598786?s=20
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1305121862255599623?s=20

He negotiated it himself and understood the implications at the time. If Johnson thinks it's a bad deal, he should sack Frost.

Yep - a series of Tweets that show the UK either negotiated a really bad deal or never had any intention of honouring it. Either way the government lied to the British people about it.

Theuniondivvie

Chris said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nuts.

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/edinburgh-uni-renames-david-hume-tower-over-racist-views?top

"The building, which will be used as a student study space in the current academic year, will now be known as 40 George Square."

Well, better safe than sorry.

George Square.

Named after King George III.

Wikipedia:
"During most of his reign, King George III opposed the abolitionist movement. Pitt conversely wished to see slavery abolished but because the Cabinet was divided and the King was in the pro-slavery camp,"

Would anyone like to sign a petition?

Hume Tower is a beige carbuncle on the general 1960s desecration of George Square, too bland to be even called brutalist. i daresay in due course it will have outlived its usefulness and something that might please the eye named after Greta Thunberg will take its place (if there's any money left).

Looking forward to the kerfuffle when some of the Union Streets and Squares get renamed, preferably by Gaelic names.

Gallowgate

FrancisUrquhart said:

Chris said:

CarlottaVance said:

Nuts.

https://news.stv.tv/east-central/edinburgh-uni-renames-david-hume-tower-over-racist-views?top

"The building, which will be used as a student study space in the current academic year, will now be known as 40 George Square."

Well, better safe than sorry.

George Square.

Named after King George III.

Wikipedia:
"During most of his reign, King George III opposed the abolitionist movement. Pitt conversely wished to see slavery abolished but because the Cabinet was divided and the King was in the pro-slavery camp,"

Would anyone like to sign a petition?

It appears what we need to do is rename every street and building using simply a random combination of alpha-numeric characters.

We’ve actually already had that debate.

MaxPB

FrancisUrquhart said:

Up to 4.5million most at risk from Covid 'will be told to stay home under new shielding plan based on health, age and weight'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8727553/Up-4-5million-risk-Covid-told-stay-home-new-shielding-plan.html

Fucking finally. Risk segmentation is the only thing that will work without destroying the economic future of millions of younger people.

Philip_Thompson

eristdoof said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

SInce when has it been illegal to smoke or ingest canabis? The last I knew the law was only broken for possession or supplying.

In practice indiviuals do break laws if they disagree with those laws, they do though realise that if they are caught they will recieve a punishment (or that person is just plain foolish).
It is a different level if a council or the government deliberately chooses to break the law.

Its the exact same concept if within their own domestic powers the government chooses to break "international law", its a different level if they break domestic law.

FrancisUrquhart

And Buttler gone....England will struggle to get 250.

isam

Is this true?

https://twitter.com/NJ_Timothy/status/1305123177299877888?s=20

ydoethur

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.

Were you really unaware of this?

The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.

We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".

Hang on a minute. What are you talking about? The courts do send people to prison for breaking the law, unless the judge is an idiot (check the Browne case) for varying lengths of time, if they break the law.

Where has all this nonsense about 'everyone being sent to prison for life come from?' That is not the same thing at all!

You are completely missing the point. We have laws. Everyone has to follow them, or they get punished. They may decide the risk of punishment is less important than breaking the law, but that's altogether different from saying 'we don't have to obey the law.'

That really *is* what authoritarian dictatorships do, because they have no laws.

People can be punished for breaking a law but that doesn't mean that the law must be obeyed.

If a law has a fine of £60 as its penalty, and someone really wants to break the law and is prepared to pay the £60, then must the law be obeyed? Or does someone have the right to break the law and face the consequences for doing so?

Civil disobedience works on this basis. People can be prepared to break the law and face the consequences because we live in a free society where punishment is prescribed in advance and not arbitary.

You seem to me to be confusing two concepts. One is the rule of law, which is something we follow - the second is the system of punishment, which is what happens when people fail to follow it.

You seem to think 'we must all obey the law' would only be valid if the government had the power to stop us from breaking it at all, which simply isn't the case.

ydoethur

FrancisUrquhart said:

And Buttler gone....England will struggle to get 250.

The way they're playing, I'll be surprised to see them get 150.

kinabalu

TheScreamingEagles said:

People say slavery was bad, but can anything top the feat of say the pyramids?

Slavery gets shit done.

And let's stop using "international law" as an excuse for not paying Iran the £400m we owe them for those undelivered tanks.

FrancisUrquhart

I find the argument that some of these historical genius should have known better for their out of date views, because well they were a genius, rather odd.

Not only must they have confirmed to a perfectly virtuous life (by modern standards), they must have also been able to see the future and know what they had wrong in advance.

e.g. Considering that black Africans were intellectually inferior to white Europeans, when at the time virtually nobody had visited Africa, let alone have any empirical evidence. Rather it is based on hearsay about things like level of development in those civilisations and what was considered "backward" beliefs they had in comparison to the enlightened European civilisation.

But of course our own civilisation 200 years ago is massively backward in their beliefs of how the world works in every subject from today. And in 200 years will be looked back on what idiots we were today.

BluestBlue

isam said:

Is this true?

https://twitter.com/NJ_Timothy/status/1305123177299877888?s=20

I have a more troubling question - why does Sophy Ridge appear to be interviewing a mermaid?

nichomar

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Up to 4.5million most at risk from Covid 'will be told to stay home under new shielding plan based on health, age and weight'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8727553/Up-4-5million-risk-Covid-told-stay-home-new-shielding-plan.html

Fucking finally. Risk segmentation is the only thing that will work without destroying the economic future of millions of younger people.

That picture of young people in London last night just shows how irresponsible people can be, nobody is stopping the going out for a meal and a drink but to behave like that they are either stupid, selfish or both.

DougSeal

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.

Were you really unaware of this?

The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.

We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".

If you break the law, in any state, you are at risk of sanction. The severity of the sanction will vary, from a caution to execution, but the state can enforce all its laws. Indeed enforcing laws is literally all a state does. All a state is is a collection of laws. To paraphrase Weber a state is a compulsory organisation that holds the monopoly on violence in a territory - that compulsion is effected by abstract concepts we call “laws” breach of which, ultimately, will trigger state violence, from bailiffs knocking down your door to enforce a debt judgment to the hangman pulling the lever, with a variety of other mechanisms in between.

Your anti-German dig is very on brand.

Philip_Thompson

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

It is for every person to decide for themselves - and every country do decide for themselves - how they will follow the law. We don't live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed at all times.

Umm...we live in a country where the law must be obeyed.

That's why it's called 'the rule of law.'

The whole point about the authoritarian dictatorships, e.g. Venezuela, Belarus, China, Turkey and Luxembourg, is that they don't follow the law. The law is whatever shit the lowlife in charge thinks up and wants to follow.

But in answer to @Cyclefree, it's OK to ignore the law if you need childcare and don't know how to use a phone, or want to test your eyesight, or need to check on your parents, second home or pet birdwatching project. Apparently.

Edit - btw, there is a certain irony to Cummings and Gove doing this, given the inane 'British values' they foisted on us during their car crash tenure of the DfE include 'democracy [and] the rule of law' both of which they are flagrantly breaking.

No we don't. We don't live in such a country.

Does everyone who has ever broken a law ever in their life get deported or locked up for life in prison? If someone smokes cannabis then should they face deportation because they haven't followed the law and THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED!

Er - yes. If they are convicted and a court orders it.

Were you really unaware of this?

The courts don't order that and if they did it would be insanely authoritarian and I would not support such a policy. If the courts ordered life in prison for every trivial crime someone does, then that would be inappropriate and probably a breach of human rights too.

We do not live in a state where "ze law must be obeyed".

Hang on a minute. What are you talking about? The courts do send people to prison for breaking the law, unless the judge is an idiot (check the Browne case) for varying lengths of time, if they break the law.

Where has all this nonsense about 'everyone being sent to prison for life come from?' That is not the same thing at all!

You are completely missing the point. We have laws. Everyone has to follow them, or they get punished. They may decide the risk of punishment is less important than breaking the law, but that's altogether different from saying 'we don't have to obey the law.'

That really *is* what authoritarian dictatorships do, because they have no laws.

People can be punished for breaking a law but that doesn't mean that the law must be obeyed.

If a law has a fine of £60 as its penalty, and someone really wants to break the law and is prepared to pay the £60, then must the law be obeyed? Or does someone have the right to break the law and face the consequences for doing so?

Civil disobedience works on this basis. People can be prepared to break the law and face the consequences because we live in a free society where punishment is prescribed in advance and not arbitary.

You seem to me to be confusing two concepts. One is the rule of law, which is something we follow - the second is the system of punishment, which is what happens when people fail to follow it.

You seem to think 'we must all obey the law' would only be valid if the government had the power to stop us from breaking it at all, which simply isn't the case.

If people can deliberately choose not to obey the law then the idea that the law "must" be obeyed is not true.