Laws today mean nothing.
Discussion
Thats pretty much the conclusion im coming to.
You see, i was always under the impression that laws were there for the protection of innocent people and to deal with those who would transgress against those innocent people.
The speeding law is an example of where a law dosnt protect anyone from a transgressor, so its a pointless law to even have. Theres no "victim" when someone commits a speeding offence, so just what the hell is the point of it?
Its protecting no one. In actual fact its one of those useless laws that is set up to just cycle people through the court system with the express intention of lightening their wallets.
I always thought that a law and its penalties were there to help guide those who may break them back onto the path they were on before they broke that law. In other words, to make them see where they went wrong.
Today it seems the whole idea of a law is to fast track people through the courts, grab as much money as possible and kick them out the door with a criminal record.
Is it any wonder that respect for the law and its enforcers gets lower every day? I think not.
Laws today mean nothing, because the only motivation at the back of most of them is the inate greed for doleing out a big fat fine.
Fcuk the law.
You see, i was always under the impression that laws were there for the protection of innocent people and to deal with those who would transgress against those innocent people.
The speeding law is an example of where a law dosnt protect anyone from a transgressor, so its a pointless law to even have. Theres no "victim" when someone commits a speeding offence, so just what the hell is the point of it?
Its protecting no one. In actual fact its one of those useless laws that is set up to just cycle people through the court system with the express intention of lightening their wallets.
I always thought that a law and its penalties were there to help guide those who may break them back onto the path they were on before they broke that law. In other words, to make them see where they went wrong.
Today it seems the whole idea of a law is to fast track people through the courts, grab as much money as possible and kick them out the door with a criminal record.
Is it any wonder that respect for the law and its enforcers gets lower every day? I think not.
Laws today mean nothing, because the only motivation at the back of most of them is the inate greed for doleing out a big fat fine.
Fcuk the law.
Deltaf
I agree. I can remember something Madcop said in one of his posts apologies I can't remeber the quote directly so I won't attempt to copy it. But it seems to me that when an innocent person tries to protect his own property or person, he innocently perpertrates a far more serious crime. Burgaler / mugger gets away yet you get prison for 6 months for GBH, WTF.
People in the rest of the world must think we are mad!!
IMHO the Law is an ASS and very rarely does it protect the innocent, I'm sure every one of us could quote from radio, TV or a newspaper some massive act of injustice. And people wonder why nobody stops to help people in the street any more.
I agree. I can remember something Madcop said in one of his posts apologies I can't remeber the quote directly so I won't attempt to copy it. But it seems to me that when an innocent person tries to protect his own property or person, he innocently perpertrates a far more serious crime. Burgaler / mugger gets away yet you get prison for 6 months for GBH, WTF.
People in the rest of the world must think we are mad!!
IMHO the Law is an ASS and very rarely does it protect the innocent, I'm sure every one of us could quote from radio, TV or a newspaper some massive act of injustice. And people wonder why nobody stops to help people in the street any more.
You miss the point Deltaf. Speeding laws are there to protect the possiblity of a victim becoming a victim. They are there as a deterrent to stop the free for all use of public roads by those that have little regard for anyone other than their own selfish motives, whatever they may be!
Shooting a rifle into the sky several times in succession could be what some people consider fun. To do so would be reckless and there are rules governing such practice. At the point the bullets were fired, a victimless crime would have occurred until one of the bullets accidentally hits someone.
Thats why people who apply for rifles are strictly vetted so that they do not partake in behaviour that is likely to endanger the rest of the population. If behaviour which may cause danger or the possibility of danger come to the notice of the Police. That authority to possess such an item is withdrawn to avert the danger or possible danger.
There are similar parallels with motor vehicles.
Any person with a vehicle capable of travelling at more than 30mph should be vetted to have such a dangerous weapon in their care. Anyone seen to be potentially endangering another member of the public would be removed of their authority to possess such a dangerous device.
Anyone with a high powered vehicle should have to keep it securely locked away and only be allowed to use it in areas specified by their permit to do so. They should be limited to the amount of fuel they can purchase and possess at any one time and component parts of such devices should also require authority to be possessed.
The ignition systems of such devices should be stored and locked away securely in a seperate part of the building from the main device!
Anyone who appears to be of unsound mind or who commits a criminal offence or has a domestic with their partner should have the device confiscated by the Chief of Police.
I have just posted this idea off to Red Ken as an alternative to the already failing London Congestion charge
Laws are made to keep the population in check. If you are a scrote and you do not care about the law, it is unlikely to bother you because you will have little to lose than your liberty from time to time.
If you are not a scrote and have a Money/house/wife/husband/family/decent job/job?/nice mota/decent reputation, then it is in your interests to be aware of this law stuff and to stay the correct side of the allowances it makes if you want to hang onto either or all of the listed items above.
Laws work on decent people because they fear the reprisals and the losses that the breaches can exact on them.
Scrotes just don't give a fcuk!
Shooting a rifle into the sky several times in succession could be what some people consider fun. To do so would be reckless and there are rules governing such practice. At the point the bullets were fired, a victimless crime would have occurred until one of the bullets accidentally hits someone.
Thats why people who apply for rifles are strictly vetted so that they do not partake in behaviour that is likely to endanger the rest of the population. If behaviour which may cause danger or the possibility of danger come to the notice of the Police. That authority to possess such an item is withdrawn to avert the danger or possible danger.
There are similar parallels with motor vehicles. Any person with a vehicle capable of travelling at more than 30mph should be vetted to have such a dangerous weapon in their care. Anyone seen to be potentially endangering another member of the public would be removed of their authority to possess such a dangerous device.
Anyone with a high powered vehicle should have to keep it securely locked away and only be allowed to use it in areas specified by their permit to do so. They should be limited to the amount of fuel they can purchase and possess at any one time and component parts of such devices should also require authority to be possessed.
The ignition systems of such devices should be stored and locked away securely in a seperate part of the building from the main device!
Anyone who appears to be of unsound mind or who commits a criminal offence or has a domestic with their partner should have the device confiscated by the Chief of Police.
I have just posted this idea off to Red Ken as an alternative to the already failing London Congestion charge
Laws are made to keep the population in check. If you are a scrote and you do not care about the law, it is unlikely to bother you because you will have little to lose than your liberty from time to time.
If you are not a scrote and have a Money/house/wife/husband/family/decent job/job?/nice mota/decent reputation, then it is in your interests to be aware of this law stuff and to stay the correct side of the allowances it makes if you want to hang onto either or all of the listed items above.
Laws work on decent people because they fear the reprisals and the losses that the breaches can exact on them.
Scrotes just don't give a fcuk!
While i do agree with some of what you say madcop, i cant help thinking that the laws are being used as i stated; ie; a fast track device to get money.
There seems to be very little effort put into trying to actually educate people as to why a particular thing is wrong.
It looks to me as though its just a friggin merry go round where the perp gets pulled, goes to court, gets fined, and gets pulled again.
In a never ending cycle of crime and fine.
Do you see where im coming from?
Its a little hard to put it into words!
Its amost as though its a self perpetuating cycle too, cos instead of the perp getting "punished" he gets a fine...money again at the root of this problem.
Why do they have to keep trying to make people pay? Instead of actually "getting into" the real cause of the perps behaviour?
Very hard for me to put it into words for you, but it really does frustrate me seeing the way this is going on.
I cant help thinking that if the Police did the unthinkable, and actually broke the anti strike law, i reckon those block heads in parliament would sit up and really take some notice, maybe things would change then. Maybe im just an idealist.
There seems to be very little effort put into trying to actually educate people as to why a particular thing is wrong.
It looks to me as though its just a friggin merry go round where the perp gets pulled, goes to court, gets fined, and gets pulled again.
In a never ending cycle of crime and fine.
Do you see where im coming from?
Its a little hard to put it into words!
Its amost as though its a self perpetuating cycle too, cos instead of the perp getting "punished" he gets a fine...money again at the root of this problem.
Why do they have to keep trying to make people pay? Instead of actually "getting into" the real cause of the perps behaviour?
Very hard for me to put it into words for you, but it really does frustrate me seeing the way this is going on.
I cant help thinking that if the Police did the unthinkable, and actually broke the anti strike law, i reckon those block heads in parliament would sit up and really take some notice, maybe things would change then. Maybe im just an idealist.
madcop said: it is in your interests to be aware of this law stuff and to stay the correct side of the allowances it makes if you want to hang onto either or all of the listed items above.
Just a thought, but if we are required to follow the laws of the land, how come there is absolutely no way of gaining a basic education in them? Surely there would be merit in having citizenship on the school curriculum.
I agree to an extent, however I used to be able to use my grandfathers collection of rifles and shotguns when I was younger as he owned a farm and the land surrounding it. There was never any chance of hitting anyone unless they were trespassing.
We used to go out and shoot rabbits, hares, pigeons, etc and it was a great experience.
Then the new gun laws came in - obviously to stop criminals getting access to weapons (who do they think they are kidding) - whereby I could not get a licence because I was too young and didn't own the guns anyway.
My grandfather was/is 'friends' with the Chief Constable in his area and got his licence without a hitch (the CC even signed his application) but on the condition that my grandfather didn't let me use the guns anymore.
So now my grandfather can participate in a victimless (or not) activity but I cannot. So if he fires into the air at a bird he is legal and I am not!
As you've already stated the criminals these laws are supposed to deter are not deterred, just the mainly law-abiding public.
I do not go along with the line from some so called 'safety organisations' that most speeders are involved in other crime as well.
I don't have a problem with cameras being sited at accident sites as these are not just stopping potential victims becoming victims, but also warn you that there have been accidents here so slow down.
There are too many cameras on perfectly safe dual carriageways and motorways where the only accidents are due to poor driving in poor conditions at low (comparatively) speeds. The speed camera does not address this below-speed-limit accident.
BTW where's the law to say you can't look at women, obviously this will stop rape victims becoming rape victims?
>> Edited by m-five on Monday 10th March 11:40
We used to go out and shoot rabbits, hares, pigeons, etc and it was a great experience.
Then the new gun laws came in - obviously to stop criminals getting access to weapons (who do they think they are kidding) - whereby I could not get a licence because I was too young and didn't own the guns anyway.
My grandfather was/is 'friends' with the Chief Constable in his area and got his licence without a hitch (the CC even signed his application) but on the condition that my grandfather didn't let me use the guns anymore.
So now my grandfather can participate in a victimless (or not) activity but I cannot. So if he fires into the air at a bird he is legal and I am not!
As you've already stated the criminals these laws are supposed to deter are not deterred, just the mainly law-abiding public.
I do not go along with the line from some so called 'safety organisations' that most speeders are involved in other crime as well.
I don't have a problem with cameras being sited at accident sites as these are not just stopping potential victims becoming victims, but also warn you that there have been accidents here so slow down.
There are too many cameras on perfectly safe dual carriageways and motorways where the only accidents are due to poor driving in poor conditions at low (comparatively) speeds. The speed camera does not address this below-speed-limit accident.
BTW where's the law to say you can't look at women, obviously this will stop rape victims becoming rape victims?
>> Edited by m-five on Monday 10th March 11:40
I totally agree with whoozit: There is no way in the world you can keep abreast of current legislation or even past legislation. I have no idea most of the time whether my actions are criminal or not, only my own moral code to guide me in those situations. This situation was brought into focus recently when illegal material was being posted on newsgroups and the ISP's were meant to police this by investigating when it was reported to them. However they could only determine if it was illegal by viewing it prior to removal which in itself was a criminal offence!.
And even outwith that in effect everything is almost a criminal offence anyway. Breach of the Peace is designed to cover all instances where the offence in itself is not covered by a specific law.
edited to remove indescrete confession
>> Edited by Del Sydyway on Monday 10th March 15:49
And even outwith that in effect everything is almost a criminal offence anyway. Breach of the Peace is designed to cover all instances where the offence in itself is not covered by a specific law.
edited to remove indescrete confession
>> Edited by Del Sydyway on Monday 10th March 15:49
whoozit said:
madcop said: it is in your interests to be aware of this law stuff and to stay the correct side of the allowances it makes if you want to hang onto either or all of the listed items above.
Just a thought, but if we are required to follow the laws of the land, how come there is absolutely no way of gaining a basic education in them? Surely there would be merit in having citizenship on the school curriculum.
shame we can renounce citizenship in england
Del Sydyway said: And even outwith that in effect everything is almost a criminal offence anyway. Breach of the Peace is designed to cover all instances where the offence in itself is not covered by a specific law.
Strange you should pick on Breach of the peace which is not actually an offence but a 'complaint'.
You can be arrested for it and if you end up in court, the punishment is to be 'bound over'
M-five
If you are over 15 years of age, then you can use your grandfathers guns on his land in his presence, regardless of what the Chief Constable says because the law states that you can. You can even do this without a current certificate to hold firearms/shotgun as long as your grandfathers certificate is current and in order.
If you are over 15 years of age, then you can use your grandfathers guns on his land in his presence, regardless of what the Chief Constable says because the law states that you can. You can even do this without a current certificate to hold firearms/shotgun as long as your grandfathers certificate is current and in order.
madcop said: M-five
If you are over 15 years of age, then you can use your grandfathers guns on his land in his presence, regardless of what the Chief Constable says because the law states that you can. You can even do this without a current certificate to hold firearms/shotgun as long as your grandfathers certificate is current and in order.
Strange, because that was the basis for all my grandfather's excuses/reasons for not letting me shoot. It will be good to stop my grandfather using that as an excuse though
Graham said: I didnt think a serving police officer could sign an firearms licence application ? or is their and exception for the CC
All firearms certificate applications are dealt with through the local police (county or met. level). They can only be granted by the police so all are signed by a police officer. There is usually an assigned firearms officer who deals with all applications and inspections etc. He/she then puts the application to the CC for signature.
>> Edited by kevinday on Tuesday 11th March 10:27
Graham said: I didnt think a serving police officer could sign an firearms licence application ? or is their and exception for the CC
They can do. In certain circumstances it is acceptable.
The Chief officer of Police is the person who authorises the issue of the certificate. He therefore must be able to countersign if asked, as he will have the ultimate decision to issue it in anycase.
Regarding deltaf's original post, it is very easy to see how law-abiding citizens can feel aggrieved, especially with all the motoring offences being in the news and the recidivist scrotes getting safari holidays when they get caught for the umpteenth time.
However, the law is an extremely complicated beast, and only a few (ie madcop and a few criminal lawyers who may be reading these pages) may be able to truly appreciate this.
I did a Law Degree, with Criminology as a choice option, and the sentencing systems and ethics/morals behind the rule of law are mind-blowing. So much is legislated for, including a large degree of paternalism, ie where the law stops you from harming yourself. These points have been discussed since law began with the religious bods and the earliest societies, and are still hotly debated and contested every day in courts of law, the papers and pubs.
If you want to know how much the law tries to protect you, read up on stuff like R v Brown from the seventies, were a sadomasochist tried to defend his right to nail his balls to a table
They said he couldn't, he said he could as it's a free country... So should the law protect you from yourself and others by slowing you down on the roads? It's just the other side of the same coin. You'd probably be injured worse in a car crash than putting nails through your bits... well, not that I'd want to put it to the test 
The only bits of legislation that really got me where the kneejerk stuff, like the Firearms Acts (did a thesis in these as I used to shoot handguns pre-Dunblane, but forgotten most of it).
At the end of the day, the law is a bit of an ass, but it's the best one we've got.
If you don't like it (who does?) then best to read up on the law, see what the alternatives to safari holidays for scrotes are (more in prison where they learn more crimecraft?), and then if the alternatives look like they may work better, campaign for a change in the law.
All IMHO, and just a thought, as it is fascinating stuff and deserves more in depth thought than just slagging off the current system (which is far from perfect).
Cheers
Domster
However, the law is an extremely complicated beast, and only a few (ie madcop and a few criminal lawyers who may be reading these pages) may be able to truly appreciate this.
I did a Law Degree, with Criminology as a choice option, and the sentencing systems and ethics/morals behind the rule of law are mind-blowing. So much is legislated for, including a large degree of paternalism, ie where the law stops you from harming yourself. These points have been discussed since law began with the religious bods and the earliest societies, and are still hotly debated and contested every day in courts of law, the papers and pubs.
If you want to know how much the law tries to protect you, read up on stuff like R v Brown from the seventies, were a sadomasochist tried to defend his right to nail his balls to a table
They said he couldn't, he said he could as it's a free country... So should the law protect you from yourself and others by slowing you down on the roads? It's just the other side of the same coin. You'd probably be injured worse in a car crash than putting nails through your bits... well, not that I'd want to put it to the test The only bits of legislation that really got me where the kneejerk stuff, like the Firearms Acts (did a thesis in these as I used to shoot handguns pre-Dunblane, but forgotten most of it).
At the end of the day, the law is a bit of an ass, but it's the best one we've got.
If you don't like it (who does?) then best to read up on the law, see what the alternatives to safari holidays for scrotes are (more in prison where they learn more crimecraft?), and then if the alternatives look like they may work better, campaign for a change in the law.
All IMHO, and just a thought, as it is fascinating stuff and deserves more in depth thought than just slagging off the current system (which is far from perfect).
Cheers
Domster
domster said:
I did a Law Degree, with Criminology as a choice option, and the sentencing systems and ethics/morals behind the rule of law are mind-blowing. So much is legislated for, including a large degree of paternalism, ie where the law stops you from harming yourself. These points have been discussed since law began with the religious bods and the earliest societies, and are still hotly debated and contested every day in courts of law, the papers and pubs.
If you want to know how much the law tries to protect you, read up on stuff like R v Brown from the seventies, were a sadomasochist tried to defend his right to nail his balls to a table
blimey Dom, I'm impressed! You didn't mention the 'Spanner Trial' where Sadists were convicted for nailing each others balls to a table or other such stuff they did to each other
So should the law protect you from yourself and others by slowing you down on the roads? It's just the other side of the same coin. You'd probably be injured worse in a car crash than putting nails through your bits... well, not that I'd want to put it to the test
Exactly the message I have been trying to get across, or worse hurt someone else not involved in your moment behind the wheel.
The only bits of legislation that really got me where the kneejerk stuff, like the Firearms Acts (did a thesis in these as I used to shoot handguns pre-Dunblane, but forgotten most of it).
At the end of the day, the law is a bit of an ass, but it's the best one we've got.
If you don't like it (who does?) then best to read up on the law, see what the alternatives to safari holidays for scrotes are (more in prison where they learn more crimecraft?), and then if the alternatives look like they may work better, campaign for a change in the law.
All IMHO, and just a thought, as it is fascinating stuff and deserves more in depth thought than just slagging off the current system (which is far from perfect).
Cheers
Domster
Good job you didn't let on when we met. Wouldn't have got too many miles under our belt with all that to discuss
I must admit that I am deeply suspicious of most politicians. It is a bit like the Catch 22 situation where if you are insane then you can get out of a war draft, but if want to fight then you are clearly a bit mental.
Likewise, the sound, intelligent and liberal/considered of mind should be elected. But what kind of weirdo actually wants to speak at a Tory Party Conference aged 12? I mean, these people are soooo normal... I'd say about 7 out of 10 (being generous) are a bit
PS Cheers for the comments, MC. I think R v Brown was one of the few cases that actually stuck in the mind. Certainly never looked at stinging nettles in the same way again
>> Edited by domster on Tuesday 11th March 17:51
Likewise, the sound, intelligent and liberal/considered of mind should be elected. But what kind of weirdo actually wants to speak at a Tory Party Conference aged 12? I mean, these people are soooo normal... I'd say about 7 out of 10 (being generous) are a bit
PS Cheers for the comments, MC. I think R v Brown was one of the few cases that actually stuck in the mind. Certainly never looked at stinging nettles in the same way again
>> Edited by domster on Tuesday 11th March 17:51
madcop said:
domster said:
I did a Law Degree, with Criminology as a choice option, and the sentencing systems and ethics/morals behind the rule of law are mind-blowing. So much is legislated for, including a large degree of paternalism, ie where the law stops you from harming yourself. These points have been discussed since law began with the religious bods and the earliest societies, and are still hotly debated and contested every day in courts of law, the papers and pubs.
If you want to know how much the law tries to protect you, read up on stuff like R v Brown from the seventies, were a sadomasochist tried to defend his right to nail his balls to a table
blimey Dom, I'm impressed! You didn't mention the 'Spanner Trial' where Sadists were convicted for nailing each others balls to a table or other such stuff they did to each other
So should the law protect you from yourself and others by slowing you down on the roads? It's just the other side of the same coin. You'd probably be injured worse in a car crash than putting nails through your bits... well, not that I'd want to put it to the test
Exactly the message I have been trying to get across, or worse hurt someone else not involved in your moment behind the wheel.
The only bits of legislation that really got me where the kneejerk stuff, like the Firearms Acts (did a thesis in these as I used to shoot handguns pre-Dunblane, but forgotten most of it).
At the end of the day, the law is a bit of an ass, but it's the best one we've got.
If you don't like it (who does?) then best to read up on the law, see what the alternatives to safari holidays for scrotes are (more in prison where they learn more crimecraft?), and then if the alternatives look like they may work better, campaign for a change in the law.
All IMHO, and just a thought, as it is fascinating stuff and deserves more in depth thought than just slagging off the current system (which is far from perfect).
Cheers
Domster
Good job you didn't let on when we met. Wouldn't have got too many miles under our belt with all that to discuss
speeking of the 'Spanner Trial' I heve met and spoken to some of them involed. and herd in full there side of the story
but at the end of the day Its there nuts.
rather theres than mine
OUCH Iy may be exstream to us. But i do belive if that what they want to do then let em get on with it.
My iprestion was they seamed surprizingly sane considering.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff