Whoops! A Judge who knows what LAWFUL means??

Whoops! A Judge who knows what LAWFUL means??

Postby Veronica » Fri May 22, 2009 8:32 am

Lord Dyson added the justification police offered in court - that Mr Wood might commit an offence at an upcoming arms trade protest - was not enough to justify interference with his rights.

Lord Collins of Mapesbury said he was 'struck by the chilling effect on the exercise of lawful rights' being followed by a police photographer has.

But Lord Justice Laws disagreed, saying he believed the police acted within 'the margin of operational discretion' in keeping the photographs.

... but not Lord Justice laws.

Notice the Policymen's logic: "... that Mr Wood might commit an offence at an upcoming arms trade protest"

If Policymen are going to go around making sure that no-one ever commits any offences, then everyone need to be locked up, permanently, including themselves, and all the jailers.

The Policymen never display anything but an absolutely moronic & myopic attitude. Their very own words condemn them. Thank heavens for the sanity of Common Law ... which says "You have only committed an offence AFTER you have committed an offence!"

You know something? Even if I thought that I, personally, was doing a really good job ... I could still never work for a Company that publicly said it was prepared to assume, and act upon the assumption: "... that Mr Wood might commit an offence at an upcoming arms trade protest" ... I'd be far too embarrassed. I wouldn't know where to put myself, in shame. I would consider that my Employers were thoroughly insulting my intelligence, and that of any sane and rational person.

But then, the UK Police, being a private CORPORATION, have no more real authority than Securicor or Group4. So, I suppose, it's only to be expected.
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Veronica
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Re: Whoops! A Judge who knows what LAWFUL means??

Postby BaldBeardyDude » Fri May 22, 2009 8:45 am

My answer would be to photograph or lock up every constituency MP - because they WILL commit fraud, the first chance they get. :rotfl:

If found guilty of treason, due to our evidence of such, it would give a new meaning to a 'hung' parliament :wink: (I know it is hanged in this case, btw but it's not as funny)
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
BaldBeardyDude
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire

Re: Whoops! A Judge who knows what LAWFUL means??

Postby Veronica » Fri May 22, 2009 8:52 am

I don't want to see anyone hanged.

I want them to be locked up, in solitary, and have a very long life. So they have a long, long, time (as long as possible) to reflect on all the misery they caused while they were free. And so to fully understand why they are no longer free.

And, of course, while they are still alive, it is always a possibility that information can be extracted from them.

These are the reasons why Capital Punishment was always so utterly stupid as well as being barbaric. Added to which State Sponsored Murder is still murder, and brings everyone else down to the same level as the offender.
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Veronica
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Re: Whoops! A Judge who knows what LAWFUL means??

Postby BaldBeardyDude » Fri May 22, 2009 9:06 am

The above was only humour - honest!

I have stated, too - I am agin it! - I would rather see any crims working to pay off the crime TO THE VICTIM or the victims family, in the case of murder. A life at hard labour would seem fitting for what some people do.

Get them a job at a quarry, etc - they are fed by themselves, by growing stuff. Any monies they earn are taken and given to the victim unitl the crime is paid off, or the crim is dead. I think this would cover most offences. I subscribe to the Ghandi school - an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, would result in a country which is blind and cannot chew it's food.
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
BaldBeardyDude
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire

Re: Whoops! A Judge who knows what LAWFUL means??

Postby Hooplescat » Fri May 22, 2009 9:53 am

They are just trialling some more restorative justice schemes for offenders where there is reparation to the victim. I think it is a good idea as well, although my faith in it being properly applied is not so positive.

Veronica, as always you are sucked in by a media claim and allowing yourself to be carried away. The officer referred to in the quote has made a poor error of judgement. I would not have done the same. On the same day there would have been at least a thousand unreported positive and supportive acts carried out by police officers, you should keep it in perspective and not refer to 'all' police based on one action. I am constantly mystified by your willingness to suddenly accept media slant when it fits with your own prejudices, when you take a stand against the media at all other times.


:peace: :police:
Hooplescat
Newbie
Newbie
 

Re: Whoops! A Judge who knows what LAWFUL means??

Postby MikeThomas » Fri May 22, 2009 10:28 am

Hoops said:

On the same day there would have been at least a thousand unreported positive and supportive acts carried out by police officers, you should keep it in perspective and not refer to 'all' police based on one action. I am constantly mystified by your willingness to suddenly accept media slant when it fits with your own prejudices, when you take a stand against the media at all other times

That's the job they are highly paid for!!!!!
We are the people our parents told us NOT TO PLAY WITH
User avatar
MikeThomas
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:17 pm
Location: Llanharan, South Wales

Re: Whoops! A Judge who knows what LAWFUL means??

Postby Hooplescat » Fri May 22, 2009 10:37 am

That's absolutely right, it is what they are paid for (although I am not sure 'highly' is right :o)

So that means there are thousands of officers doing a proper job as they should and as they are paid to do - it still doesn't mean that focussing with massive intensity on any poor example of policing is a fair representation of the police in general, and doesn't excuse hugely slanted negativity by referring to 'all' police based on one example of poor practice, does it?

:peace: :police:
Hooplescat
Newbie
Newbie
 

Re: Whoops! A Judge who knows what LAWFUL means??

Postby BaldBeardyDude » Fri May 22, 2009 10:39 am

Hoops, what about all the police photographing G20 demonstrators? Where are the pics and what will or are they used for?

We cannot photograph you, apparently, because we may be preparing acts of terrorism. You can photograph us anytime on CCTV and with still cams and from your vans, yes? - I suggest that, as all wars are started by governments THEY and, by implication of employment, YOU are the ones preparing terrorism.

How would you feel - you have taken your wife and children down for a peaceful demo on G20 day. You are met by police tooled up to feck and prepped for a 'do'. They then 'kettle' you and you and your family have to stand there ALL day, watching peeps piss everywhere, no drinks, violence from masked THUGS on the fringes - ya cannot leave - don't you think your kids and family would be terrified? Terror - a state of mind. Terrorism - using terror to achieve political ends - I say the police at G20 are GUILTY of terrorism, m8.

The last war started by civvies was the civil war (and then it was banksters), so the ideas don't wash, m8. Governments are the terrorists - ask the Afghanis, the Iraqis, the Lebanese, any oppressed or occupied peoples of the world. Gocernments use 'shock and awe' - terror by another name.

Victims? - no governments have 'collateral damage' - ever seen collateral damage, Hoops? - I have and it's sickening. I put it to you, more civilians have died by government employees hands than have ever died from acts of terrorists.

Yes, a rant. From me. Well deserved I thought.
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
BaldBeardyDude
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire

Re: Whoops! A Judge who knows what LAWFUL means??

Postby Hooplescat » Fri May 22, 2009 11:07 am

Well, you know my view on taking photographs of the police...why the hell not? Anyone stupid enough to want my ugly mug on a photo is welcome to have it...when I am on street patrol on weekends for trouble at clubs and pubs, you get loads of people asking to have their photo with you for some strange reason, and I never complain - it is part of being accessible to, and approachable by, the community I serve. I have no wish to adopt an aloofness that says you cannot treat me like you would fairly treat any other person, and I think the terrorism/photo thing was a bad idea by the government and undermines our principle goal of policing by consent.

And again, I am not trying to argue with you that police never do anything wrong - I simply point out that many here fall into the trap of referring to what ALL the police do - I do not do those things, therefore not ALL the police do anything - and similarly there are thousands of officers doing exactly what you want them to do, maintain the peace. I will never apologise for making this point as long as is necessary - you are entitled to criticise where you feel police acts are unjust, whether I agree or not - but don't fall into the trap that veronica has of talking about ALL police being one thing or another

surely my point is valid? backatchya, bro! :hug:

:peace: :police:
Hooplescat
Newbie
Newbie
 

Re: Whoops! A Judge who knows what LAWFUL means??

Postby BaldBeardyDude » Fri May 22, 2009 11:22 am

I agree mostly, m8 - and I'm sure we can all agree we would like MORE police with your attitude, just for starters. As to the thousands more doing a good job - YES, there are! But, as always, the few spoil your rep for the many. Worse still, your employers are slowly making both your job and our liberties clash - this is not good.

I do not have the experinces that V has, neither does she have mine - I have said this before - we are individuals here, each with our own views. I merely ask that views are flexible, such that when one comes accross information contrary to ones established viewpoint, one is able to assimilate it and treat it properly, not just dismiss or ignore it because it doesn't fit with ones ethos.

As for me, I am a mirror - if I am met with violence, I respond in kind. Similarly, if a policeman, for example, treats me with courtesy and respect, they shall receive the same. You know this, as I have treated you in this fashion. It is common sense = common law - do no harm. Simple is it not?

Came accross a brilliant quote, btw - "Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims." - Derrick Jensen

I think this can apply in our world, can it not? Bush 'n' Blair the non-comedic double act have killed literally millions of civilians in their wars, but are still regarded as statesmen by the press. Their actions are explained at length. However, contrast the numbers of civvie dead to the 'terrorists' - even if you still think it's not MI5/Mossad/CIA doing it - the numbers don't add up!

Terrorism is practiced by the state, through spooks - not by any disparate group armed with plastic 'sporks', directed from some dead guy in a cave..........

Have you read the commitee of 300 yet, Hoops?

Peace and love, as ever all

Baldy (Pete)
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
BaldBeardyDude
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire

Next

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests