Right, so we’ve had the rebellion of the toffs, when labour got their well-deserved kicking… now we’re stuck with feckin TOFFS
Then we had the rebellion of the Workers, striking NHS workers, teachers, etc., etc
Next we had the rebellion of the kids… we’re sick of being repressed so we’re gonna nick LOADS o **** and burn stuff…
I reckon its about goddam time we had rebellion of the people that abide by the rules and work hard… BUT NEVER SEEM TO HAVE JUSTICE ON OUR SIDES!
We start with the frickin lawyers… you CNUTS are the bloody front line of the lack of justice in this world. You tossers get fired… all of you, and everything you own is sold to raise funds for charities… you to$$ers
Next we repeatedly punch, kick and stab anyone with any modicum of liberalism in their hearts that seems to feel that everyone who has been accused of a crime is suddenly a “victim” in some way and deserves better treatment and legal protection than any citizen EVER received. Your stupidly universal liberal idealism is unfounded, unrealistic and considering what its produced, is a downright insult to hardworking people who ask for nothing, except respect for the fact that they have never asked for any help and have the goddam decency to try and be self-sufficient at no cost to anyone but themselves.
Finally we write the British Constitution cos its about goddam time we had one and we here’s how its gonna go:
COMMON SENSE TRUMPS BLOODY LAWYERS
MANNERS WILL BE PRACTISED BY BLOODY EVERYONE
YOU HAVE FUN BUT WITHIN REASON SO THAT NO ONE GETS HURT
SHOW SOME BLOODY RESPECT TO EACH OTHER
IF YOU DRIVE A CAR, YOU WILL BLOODY WELL LEARN HOW TO DO IN A WAY THAT SHOWS RESPECT FOR OTHER ROAD USERS (OK, I biking biased addition, but a good one I reckon).
We start with the frickin lawyers… you CNUTS are the bloody front line of the lack of justice in this world. You tossers get fired… all of you, and everything you own is sold to raise funds for charities… you to$$ers
Shakespeare had the same idea over 400 years ago
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”. - (Henry VI ,Act IV, Scene II).
Time might have moved on but the sentiment is still just as relevant
I might be wrong here, but wasn’t the context of that quote that by killing the lawyers, they would find it easier to oppress the people because they would have no-one to speak for them ?
Yeah it is funny that in one thread they are screaming for justice for a man that defended his home and then in another they call all lawyers tossers.
Who do you think it is that defends these people from the state?
Without people like Mansfield QC and others we would all be facing being locked up without charge for months on end under the pretence of protection from terrorism, regardless of the actual crime.
I’m fairly clear on what lawyers are good for, no worries there! I’m currently following the potential limits on legal aid quite closely because that one scares the living daylights out of me.
And I think more than one person on this forum has thanked you publicly for your help, so hopefully you’re not taking it too personally. I think people just rant about lawyers because of the personal injury industry
Not too long ago, the UK government tried to change the rules on the HSMP visa. This visa is a settlement visa, but it was issued in 2 parts. So you’d get part 1, move here and work, and then 2 years in you’d need to apply for the second part to allow you to stay until you could apply for indefinite leave to remain. The government at the time changed the points requirements and did so retrospectively. This meant that people who qualified originally were suddenly disqualified and had to leave the country in a rush.
It took a long hard fight all the way to the judicial review before someone finally passed judgement that this was unfair behavior. Sure, feel free to change the rules on new people, but you can’t move the goalposts on people half way through the process.
Without the lawyers on that case, many of my friends would have been sent home and lost almost everything.
And again, that’s just one example.
Without the lawyers who kept fighting the unfair arrests of photographers under the terrorism act, ACPO (the private limited company that advises forces on interpretation of the law - WTF is up with that??) would never have had to issue clarifying information explaining that photographers are not terrorists and to please stop arresting them because it was costing a lot of tax-payer money.
There are soooo many examples.
But hey, let’s kill all the lawyers. Because who cares about the above things, amiright ?
Please don’t tell me you are one of these brain washed citizens who believe the law is wonderful and unimpeachable and there isn’t a single member of the legal community MILKING legal process for all its worth owing to its outdated, archaic and often redundant historic foundations that today are SOOOOO skewed as to be laughable…
Tell me, why is it biased to say “Guilty until proven innocent” but it isn’t biased, in fact, the legal community deems it utterly sensible to have the opposite extreme “Innocent until proven guilty”???
Does no one in the world of law think that there’s a problem with that ?
Come on Kaos… I’ve lit as much touch paper as I dare without getting anywhere near the TNT… time to let it rip baby!
Ahh you see you are no longer innocent until proven guilty in this country.
That is a fallacy, just like the fallacy that you have the right to silence, you don’t have the right to silence, you are not innocent until proven guilty and you can be tried endlessly while held on remand.
All things that this country created and exported to the world, stolen from us under the pretence of protection from terrorism and “justice” for the victims of crime.
“yawn”! Why dont we just kick off a revolution and burn down anything to do with the state - attack the police, the lawyers, the politicians, the fireman, the ambulance guys blah blah - oh yeah, aint that what the rioters did that made everyone so mad a few weeks ago???
Actually, the rioters were out to burn and steal. At least 25% of the ones caught so far were habitual criminals (over 10 convictions). There was no political goal to it.
RIPA. You have to prove that you don’t know the password to something. Until you prove this, you can be held for up to 2 years. The authorities never have to prove that you had or knew the password at any time.
If you don’t mention something during police questioning but later rely on it as part of your defence, the jury can be instructed to view this in a negative light. Prosecution can claim that you needed time to make something up.
The criminal justice act removed double jeopardy and now you can be retried. The authorities can just keep going at you until they finally get the result they want, or you kill yourself out of frustration.
Sorry no… 75%.
I spoke to the head of the research and analysis that put these figures out to the press…
Its long been established that that was just opportunism tho, so the figure merely backs up the hypothesis
funnily enough the original thread was just a venting after a lousy day being insulted by mannerless ruddy London commuters and used as a mobile brake marker by some of the less polite cage owners, bus drivers, cabbies and foreign road users this city has to offer.
It has to also be said, that this thread’s lack of primary focus will ultimately cause it to tickle a synapse or two then vanish, along with many other tredious threads into the LB archive for Jay to sit and protect on behalf of all of us for whatever reason he has for doing something like htat…
Everyone… a big thanks to Jay for looking after our old conversations for us… … actually that’s a touch of a worrying thought considering some of the things some people on here have confessed to…
Nice Jay… good Jay… where do you want the envelope full of cash sent to?
It goes far beyond RIPA, if you pick up your coat, holdall, bag, tank bag, top box or any other sort of container, and someone has put drugs into it, without your knowledge, you are guilty of a crime and can go to prison.
Strict liability litters our justice system and under strict liability you are guilty of the crime, whether you knew you were committing it or not. Sure that seems fine for Speeding, you should have known, but does it really seem right for carrying drugs?
The worst case I have ever seen of Strict Liability is R v G where a 15 year old boy was found guilty of Rape of a Child under 13 because he had consensual sex with a 12 year old girl who had told him she was 15.
Now that is not great, and it something as a society we wish to prevent, but labelling a 15 child as a rapist, is that the best way we can go about it? Bearing in mind, that we have a law “child sex offences committed by children or young persons” but our CPS decided that they would go with the strict liability of rape of a child under 13. Simply because Strict Liability is easy to prove…once you prove the action you don’t have to prove anything else. Whereas with the other offences, you have to prove a reasonable belief, which was apparently too much trouble for our CPS they felt it was better that we label a child a rapist.
