Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message


Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Lord Foul on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:I begin to see perhaps WHY your cops are so trigger happy...dead folks cant lie....... scratch

They can't tell the truth, either.  Now you're getting it.

You ask why free speech is so inviolable in the US?  It is criminalizing politics.  Imagine if you could arrest and prosecute the opposition for defamation.

we get round that by the law of paliamentary privilidge...

we even have THAT in court....

IF you are defending yourself and put yourself in the witness box (i.e. you are cross examining yourself) you can make the most outraggeous claims...without having to prove any of them...privilidge of court

_________________
If at any time in 2017 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up snowflake, cause 2018 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude


[b].(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)
avatar
Lord Foul
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR

Posts : 9778
Join date : 2015-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think that the security chap was hiding something when he was falsely accused of snatching a baby?

You're having a difficult time with abstract thinking, aren't you?  It has nothing to do with this situation.  In fact, it has nothing to do with who is right or who is wrong.  It has to do with preserving a structural right in the political system.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think our law is better.

Ignorance always wins.  Laughing  Just stay in your country and we'll be ok.

It's not ignorance, it's protecting people against malicious accusations. If you approve of spite, malice, and false accusations which can ruin people's lives, that's up to you, but don't try to claim that your way is better because it's not.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:10 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You're having a difficult time with abstract thinking, aren't you?  It has nothing to do with this situation.  In fact, it has nothing to do with who is right or who is wrong.  It has to do with preserving a structural right in the political system.



Ignorance always wins.  Laughing  Just stay in your country and we'll be ok.

It's not ignorance, it's protecting people against malicious accusations. If you approve of spite, malice, and false accusations which can ruin people's lives, that's up to you, but don't try to claim that your way is better because it's not.

Let's see...hummm...false accusations vs. Hitler...tough choice.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not ignorance, it's protecting people against malicious accusations. If you approve of spite, malice, and false accusations which can ruin people's lives, that's up to you, but don't try to claim that your way is better because it's not.

Let's see...hummm...false accusations vs. Hitler...tough choice.

Are you suggesting that the security chap at Primark is like Hitler? How your mind jumps around.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Let's see...hummm...false accusations vs. Hitler...tough choice.

Are you suggesting that the security chap at Primark is like Hitler? How your mind jumps around.

Abstract thinking doesn't come easy for you, so I'm trying to be patient.  Forget the security chap...we are discussing a principle.  

Without free speech, at some point someone is going to get the idea that you can jail the people who say what you don't like to hear.  That's political, and criminal law has no substantive place in political issues.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you suggesting that the security chap at Primark is like Hitler? How your mind jumps around.

Abstract thinking doesn't come easy for you, so I'm trying to be patient.  Forget the security chap...we are discussing a principle.  

Without free speech, at some point someone is going to get the idea that you can jail the people who say what you don't like to hear.  That's political, and criminal law has no substantive place in political issues.

We do have free speech here, we just don't approve of malicious and false accusations against people. Do you not see the difference?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:27 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Abstract thinking doesn't come easy for you, so I'm trying to be patient.  Forget the security chap...we are discussing a principle.  

Without free speech, at some point someone is going to get the idea that you can jail the people who say what you don't like to hear.  That's political, and criminal law has no substantive place in political issues.

We do have free speech here, we just don't approve of malicious and false accusations against people. Do you not see the difference?

So you just pluck out the impartial jury, and go directly to handcuffs.  Razz  

Wouldn't it be fun to put Republicans in shackles?  They lie all the time.  Donald Trump started the vicious rumor that Jeb Bush is asleep.  Twenty years!! cheers


Last edited by Original Quill on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Lord Foul on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:30 pm

Rolling Eyes

parliamentary privilidge
and its civil equivalent

privilidge of court

_________________
If at any time in 2017 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up snowflake, cause 2018 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude


[b].(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)
avatar
Lord Foul
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR

Posts : 9778
Join date : 2015-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:32 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Rolling Eyes

parliamentary privilidge
and its civil equivalent

privilidge of court

Special privileges for special people. But fook the little guy...velly, velly British.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

We do have free speech here, we just don't approve of malicious and false accusations against people. Do you not see the difference?

So you just pluck out the impartial jury, and go directly to handcuffs.  Razz  

Wouldn't it be fun to put Republicans in shackles?  They lie all the time.  Donald Trump started the vicious rumor that Jeb Bush is asleep.  Twenty years!!  cheers

What?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:Rolling Eyes

parliamentary privilidge
and its civil equivalent

privilidge of court

Special privileges for special people.  But fook the little guy...velly, velly British.

I think you misunderstood.

Look, let's say a woman falsely accused a man of raping her, and he was arrested. Do you think that's fair because it's "free speech"?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Lord Foul on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:39 pm

civil equivelent...

privilidge of court

Rolling Eyes

and yes unless evidence was produced ...as in the case of this woman...there WOULD be a trial...obviously Rolling Eyes

but given the evidence of the dash cam...she would be treated as the ciminal she is there would be NO need for the cop to go to the expense and trouble of a civil suit for defamation the criminal system would bounce her

ALSO unlike the ridiculous laws YOU have even IF he managed to pay for a civil suit, the "recompense" he would get would be very small in comparison to the potential damage caused

lets face it if one of YOUR cops took out and won a civil suit , he'd be able to retire comfortably on the proceeds...

_________________
If at any time in 2017 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up snowflake, cause 2018 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude


[b].(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)
avatar
Lord Foul
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR

Posts : 9778
Join date : 2015-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:43 pm

Lord Foul wrote:civil equivelent...

privilidge of court

Rolling Eyes

and yes unless evidence was produced ...as in the case of this woman...there WOULD be a trial...obviously Rolling Eyes

but given the evidence of the dash cam...she would be treated as the ciminal she is there would be NO need for the cop to go to the expense and trouble of a civil suit for defamation the criminal system would bounce her

You don't know the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial?  Unbelievable.

Lord Foul wrote:ALSO unlike the ridiculous laws YOU have even IF he managed to pay for a civil suit, the "recompense" he would get would be very small in comparison to the potential damage caused

lets face it if one of YOUR cops took out and won a civil suit , he'd be able to retire comfortably on the proceeds...



_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Lord Foul on Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:58 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:civil equivelent...

privilidge of court

Rolling Eyes

and yes unless evidence was produced ...as in the case of this woman...there WOULD be a trial...obviously Rolling Eyes

but given the evidence of the dash cam...she would be treated as the ciminal she is there would be NO need for the cop to go to the expense and trouble of a civil suit for defamation the criminal system would bounce her

You don't know the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial?  Unbelievable.


I GENUINELY DONT SEE WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT....civil trials here are usually minor matters and dealing with things like injunctions over simple trespass....
they have to be called for by the person offended via the offices of either a barister (or someone who has "direct access") which is EXPENSIVE or via the so called "small claims courts" if its a monetary matter

making a malicious criminal complaint is a CRIMINAL matter....


Lord Foul wrote:ALSO unlike the ridiculous laws YOU have even IF he managed to pay for a civil suit, the "recompense" he would get would be very small in comparison to the potential damage caused

lets face it if one of YOUR cops took out and won a civil suit , he'd be able to retire comfortably on the proceeds...


and your point is??? you DO have the law that allows "unlimited liability" and "punitive damages" dont you....
granted that my be limited by the miscreants worth ..but non the less.......



_________________
If at any time in 2017 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up snowflake, cause 2018 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude


[b].(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)
avatar
Lord Foul
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR

Posts : 9778
Join date : 2015-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:00 pm

Slander would be dealt with in a civil trial. If there's no CCTV footage, someone would have to sue for slander if a false accusation was made. Most people don't though because it's expensive if you lose, or even if you win if the other party doesn't have any dosh.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Lord Foul on Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Slander would be dealt with in a civil trial. If there's no CCTV footage, someone would have to sue for slander if a false accusation was made. Most people don't though because it's expensive if you lose, or even if you win if the other party doesn't have any dosh.


which, one presumes, is why making a malicious criminal accusation is NOT a "civil matter" but a criminal one
, due to the potential consequences of such an accusation.



_________________
If at any time in 2017 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up snowflake, cause 2018 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude


[b].(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)
avatar
Lord Foul
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR

Posts : 9778
Join date : 2015-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:07 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Slander would be dealt with in a civil trial. If there's no CCTV footage, someone would have to sue for slander if a false accusation was made. Most people don't though because it's expensive if you lose, or even if you win if the other party doesn't have any dosh.

which, one presumes, is why making a malicious criminal accusation is NOT a "civil matter" but a criminal one
, due to the potential consequences of such an accusation.



I guess so. Slander can also have consequences though. I think the issue with slander is that because there's not much evidence, a court would decide what is more likely - there's less burden of proof.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:08 pm

Also, in the cases in this thread, the accusation was made to the police, so it wasn't just slander.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:13 pm

In the case of the Primark security chap, the charge against the woman was intent to pervert the course of justice, so her crime wasn't against the chap as such. He could possibly also sue her for slander or libel if he wanted to.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:11 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Also, in the cases in this thread, the accusation was made to the police, so it wasn't just slander.

Special status, special people. And you see...it's a police issue. What a coincidence. Evil or Very Mad

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Lord Foul on Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:17 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Also, in the cases in this thread, the accusation was made to the police, so it wasn't just slander.

Special status, special people.  And you see...it's a police issue.  What a coincidence.   Evil or Very Mad

doh!....


the complaint was MADE to the police....I.E it was reported as a crime

nothing to do with reported ABOUT the police

_________________
If at any time in 2017 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up snowflake, cause 2018 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude


[b].(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)
avatar
Lord Foul
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR

Posts : 9778
Join date : 2015-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:58 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Special status, special people.  And you see...it's a police issue.  What a coincidence.   Evil or Very Mad

doh!....


the complaint was MADE to the police....I.E it was reported as a crime

nothing to do with reported ABOUT the police

Yes, that's what I meant. I was still talking about the Primark chap.

I think that if someone is prosecuted for making a false accusation, it's for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time. Women who have falsely accused men of rape have been prosecuted for that. The judge usually makes a reference to the victim of the lie and how it affected them.

If they knowingly lie in a court they can be prosecuted for perjury.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:59 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Also, in the cases in this thread, the accusation was made to the police, so it wasn't just slander.

Special status, special people.  And you see...it's a police issue.  What a coincidence.   Evil or Very Mad

To the police, not about the police.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:52 am

So is false accusation - ie, defamation - ever a criminal offence in the UK? I thought it was interesting that it is in Italy - Amanda Knox was convicted of slandering Patrick Lumumba, and was eventually given three years in prison for that offence.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:06 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:So is false accusation - ie, defamation - ever a criminal offence in the UK? I thought it was interesting that it is in Italy - Amanda Knox was convicted of slandering Patrick Lumumba, and was eventually given three years in prison for that offence.

Yes, in post-war Europe there was a rush to pass legislation compromising freedom of speech, as if to hold up hands and say, Not Me!  They called it hate-speech legislation, but it was really focused on prosecuting Nazis after-the-fact.  But, unfortunately, it has set a precedent for monitoring and prohibiting certain kinds of other speech.  

This particular case is troubling because censorship is used not to punish those who would persecute the people without power (eg, the Nazis), but to prosecute those who would criticize the in-power faction.  The great fear, of course, is that some faction will eventually come into power, and then pass laws that would prohibit free and open political competition...starting with freedom of speech.  

We saw the beginnings of this with the Morsi government in Egypt, before the Egyptian military removed him from power: a government comes into power, then passes laws that prohibit free exchange of political ideas and suppresses competition of political parties.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So is false accusation - ie, defamation - ever a criminal offence in the UK? I thought it was interesting that it is in Italy - Amanda Knox was convicted of slandering Patrick Lumumba, and was eventually given three years in prison for that offence.

Yes, in post-war Europe there was a rush to pass legislation compromising freedom of speech, as if to hold up hands and say, Not Me!  They called it hate-speech legislation, but it was really focused on prosecuting Nazis after-the-fact.  But, unfortunately, it has set a precedent for monitoring and prohibiting certain kinds of other speech.  

This particular case is troubling because censorship is used not to punish those who would persecute the people without power (eg, the Nazis), but to prosecute those who would criticize the in-power faction.  The great fear, of course, is that some faction will eventually come into power, and then pass laws that would prohibit free and open political competition...starting with freedom of speech.  

We saw the beginnings of this with the Morsi government in Egypt, before the Egyptian military removed him from power: a government comes into power, then passes laws that prohibit free exchange of political ideas and suppresses competition of political parties.

I don't think it's censorship to expect people to tell the truth and not make up stories about the police trying to pull their headscarves off. She didn't just criticise the officer, she accused him of something he didn't do, and she did it out of spite because she didn't like being given a ticket.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes, in post-war Europe there was a rush to pass legislation compromising freedom of speech, as if to hold up hands and say, Not Me!  They called it hate-speech legislation, but it was really focused on prosecuting Nazis after-the-fact.  But, unfortunately, it has set a precedent for monitoring and prohibiting certain kinds of other speech.  

This particular case is troubling because censorship is used not to punish those who would persecute the people without power (eg, the Nazis), but to prosecute those who would criticize the in-power faction.  The great fear, of course, is that some faction will eventually come into power, and then pass laws that would prohibit free and open political competition...starting with freedom of speech.  

We saw the beginnings of this with the Morsi government in Egypt, before the Egyptian military removed him from power: a government comes into power, then passes laws that prohibit free exchange of political ideas and suppresses competition of political parties.

I don't think it's censorship to expect people to tell the truth and not make up stories about the police trying to pull their headscarves off. She didn't just criticise the officer, she accused him of something he didn't do, and she did it out of spite because she didn't like being given a ticket.

It's censorship anytime authorities use the threat of criminal law and force to prohibit speech.  The truth or falsity of the speech is a secondary matter, which is what the civil courts are for.

Speech is non-violent.  What do the police need the force of criminal law for generally...it's clear they are afraid they will be called out when they are wrong.  It's clear, they want people to shut up generally.  It's the mark of the closed society.

In an open society, like the US, it is the message is that the authorities are not afraid to subject themselves to criticism.  They can be right or wrong, but free speech allows the question to be answered without resort to violence.  That is the very definition of 'open'.

And yes, criminal law is synonymous with violence.  That is why demonstrations in a closed society, like the UK, often turn to violence.  Criminal law implies the option to force by the authorities.  Once the authorities resort to force, it turns violent.

Much of this was considered and evaluated by the forefathers in the US--men like Adams, Jefferson and Franklin.  Wasn't the Boston Massacre done by British troops?  We learned it's better to talk than shoot...and became an open society because of it.


Last edited by Original Quill on Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's censorship to expect people to tell the truth and not make up stories about the police trying to pull their headscarves off. She didn't just criticise the officer, she accused him of something he didn't do, and she did it out of spite because she didn't like being given a ticket.

It's censorship anytime authorities use the threat of criminal law and force to prohibit speech.  The truth or falsity of the speech is a secondary matter, which is what the civil courts are for.

Speech is non-violent.  What do the police need the force of criminal law for generally...it's clear they are afraid they will be called out when they are wrong?  It's clear, they want people to shut up generally.  It's the mark of the closed society.

In an open society, like the US, it is clear that the authorities are not afraid to subject themselves to criticism.  They can be right or wrong, but free speech allows the question to be answered without resort to violence.

And yes, criminal law is synonymous with violence.  That is why demonstrations in a closed society, like the UK, often turn to violence.  Criminal law implies the option to force by the authorities.  Once the authorities resort to force, it turns violent.

Much of this was considered and evaluated by the forefathers in the US--men like Adams, Jefferson and Franklin.  Wasn't the Boston Massacre done by British troops?  We learned it's better to talk than shoot...and became an open society because of it.

So then Quill, if a woman went to the police and accused a bloke of raping her, and it was lie because he'd turned her down or something, do you think that would be fine because it's "free speech" and she's entitled to accuse anyone of anything?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's censorship anytime authorities use the threat of criminal law and force to prohibit speech.  The truth or falsity of the speech is a secondary matter, which is what the civil courts are for.

Speech is non-violent.  What do the police need the force of criminal law for generally...it's clear they are afraid they will be called out when they are wrong?  It's clear, they want people to shut up generally.  It's the mark of the closed society.

In an open society, like the US, it is clear that the authorities are not afraid to subject themselves to criticism.  They can be right or wrong, but free speech allows the question to be answered without resort to violence.

And yes, criminal law is synonymous with violence.  That is why demonstrations in a closed society, like the UK, often turn to violence.  Criminal law implies the option to force by the authorities.  Once the authorities resort to force, it turns violent.

Much of this was considered and evaluated by the forefathers in the US--men like Adams, Jefferson and Franklin.  Wasn't the Boston Massacre done by British troops?  We learned it's better to talk than shoot...and became an open society because of it.

So then Quill, if a woman went to the police and accused a bloke of raping her, and it was lie because he'd turned her down or something, do you think that would be fine because it's "free speech" and she's entitled to accuse anyone of anything?

If you are asking hypothetically, in the US she will not be charged unless they can clearly demonstrate malice.  Malice is difficult to show because of intervening factors like perception and confusion.  Very often, it requires an admission of wrongdoing.

Even if a tape recording shows she is demonstrably wrong about the facts, that does not meet the malice standard.  Because it is a 'state of mind' offense, she would almost have to blurt out she made the accusation maliciously.

But fabricated hypotheticals tend to avoid the issue.  For example, this is not about a rape and physical assault.  This is about harm to reputation, and the indignity suffered is at best fleeting.  This is always the case with alleged reputation injury.  You have to weigh the prospects of a free and open society against a flighty insult, and an open society comes down on the side of free and open communication even in the face of the prospect of being wrong.

Moreover, when taking such a balancing approach, keep in mind that what is at stake is the very fabric of openness itself.  We are talking about a police officer here, with the very force to potentially destroy a free and democratic society.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time we saw that.  Fold that into the equation.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:13 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So then Quill, if a woman went to the police and accused a bloke of raping her, and it was lie because he'd turned her down or something, do you think that would be fine because it's "free speech" and she's entitled to accuse anyone of anything?

If you are asking hypothetically, in the US she will not be charged unless they can clearly demonstrate malice.  Malice is difficult to show because of intervening factors like perception and confusion.  Very often, it requires an admission of wrongdoing.

Even if a tape recording shows she is demonstrably wrong about the facts, that does not meet the malice standard.  Because it is a 'state of mind' offense, she would almost have to blurt out she made the accusation maliciously.

But fabricated hypotheticals tend to avoid the issue.  For example, this is not about a rape and physical assault.  This is about harm to reputation, and the indignity suffered is at best fleeting.  This is always the case with alleged reputation injury.  You have to weigh the prospects of a free and open society against a flighty insult, and an open society comes down on the side of free and open communication even in the face of the prospect of being wrong.

Moreover, when taking such a balancing approach, keep in mind that what is at stake is the very fabric of openness itself.  We are talking about a police officer here, with the very force to potentially destroy a free and democratic society.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time we saw that.  Fold that into the equation.

Forget state of mind, forget confusion, I said the woman lied and said a guy raped her when he didn't touch her. Do you think she should be allowed to do that under the banner of free speech?

The Muslim woman lied, and she knew she lied. She knew he didn't try to pull her headgear off - she lied. Why do you think that's OK?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:20 pm

Oh, and Quill, what is this "fleeting" indignity you speak of? If there had been no camera, the damage to that officer would have been more than "fleeting".

I know a person who accused another person of doing something which the second person denied. The damage to that second person was a lot more than "fleeting". Sadly, there was no CCTV to prove anything either way.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

If you are asking hypothetically, in the US she will not be charged unless they can clearly demonstrate malice.  Malice is difficult to show because of intervening factors like perception and confusion.  Very often, it requires an admission of wrongdoing.

Even if a tape recording shows she is demonstrably wrong about the facts, that does not meet the malice standard.  Because it is a 'state of mind' offense, she would almost have to blurt out she made the accusation maliciously.

But fabricated hypotheticals tend to avoid the issue.  For example, this is not about a rape and physical assault.  This is about harm to reputation, and the indignity suffered is at best fleeting.  This is always the case with alleged reputation injury.  You have to weigh the prospects of a free and open society against a flighty insult, and an open society comes down on the side of free and open communication even in the face of the prospect of being wrong.

Moreover, when taking such a balancing approach, keep in mind that what is at stake is the very fabric of openness itself.  We are talking about a police officer here, with the very force to potentially destroy a free and democratic society.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time we saw that.  Fold that into the equation.

Forget state of mind, forget confusion, I said the woman lied and said a guy raped her when he didn't touch her. Do you think she should be allowed to do that under the banner of free speech?

The Muslim woman lied, and she knew she lied. She knew he didn't try to pull her headgear off - she lied. Why do you think that's OK?

Now whose in favor of the exclusionary rule? Lol. If you forget about state of mind and confusion, you are no longer talking about real life. In this case, the woman might have been confused or mistaken. Without evidence of state of mind you can't make out the case. You can't make those kind of guesses and say you have probable cause to allege a crime.

And keep in mind, the alleged harm is a flighty claim to a reputation injury. I want to hear more about this cop's reputation. Is he prone to violence? What is the back story here? Does he really have a 'good' reputation?

All of these issues would be aired in a civil trial.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:13 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Forget state of mind, forget confusion, I said the woman lied and said a guy raped her when he didn't touch her. Do you think she should be allowed to do that under the banner of free speech?

The Muslim woman lied, and she knew she lied. She knew he didn't try to pull her headgear off - she lied. Why do you think that's OK?

Now whose in favor of the exclusionary rule?  Lol.  If you forget about state of mind and confusion, you are no longer talking about real life.  In this case, the woman might have been confused or mistaken.  Without evidence of state of mind you can't make out the case.  You can't make those kind of guesses and say you have probable cause to allege a crime.

And keep in mind, the alleged harm is a flighty claim to a reputation injury.  I want to hear more about this cop's reputation.  Is he prone to violence?  What is the back story here?  Does he really have a 'good' reputation?

All of these issues would be aired in a civil trial.

Quill, the Muslim woman said that the officer tried to pull off her headscarf. Now, no matter how "confused" she was, or how annoyed she was, there was no way that she could possibly have misconstrued any of his actions as trying to pull of her scarf. If he had touched it by accident, maybe she could have thought that, but he didn't.

There comes a time when you simply can't give someone the benefit of the doubt, and this was one of them. The woman lied.

Why would you need to know if the cop is prone to violence? You saw the video - did he look violent to you? You see, you are automatically blaming the cop and trying to find a way to excuse this woman. Luckily, the court didn't do what you did. What you're saying is that if he did something wrong before, well it's OK for her to accuse him of something he didn't do.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Now whose in favor of the exclusionary rule?  Lol.  If you forget about state of mind and confusion, you are no longer talking about real life.  In this case, the woman might have been confused or mistaken.  Without evidence of state of mind you can't make out the case.  You can't make those kind of guesses and say you have probable cause to allege a crime.

And keep in mind, the alleged harm is a flighty claim to a reputation injury.  I want to hear more about this cop's reputation.  Is he prone to violence?  What is the back story here?  Does he really have a 'good' reputation?

All of these issues would be aired in a civil trial.

Quill, the Muslim woman said that the officer tried to pull off her headscarf. Now, no matter how "confused" she was, or how annoyed she was, there was no way that she could possibly have misconstrued any of his actions as trying to pull of her scarf. If he had touched it by accident, maybe she could have thought that, but he didn't.

There comes a time when you simply can't give someone the benefit of the doubt, and this was one of them. The woman lied.

And that time is before a civil court jury. That's what the system is designed to do...consider these kinds of questions. The issue is whether you do it the peaceful way, or with police batons.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would you need to know if the cop is prone to violence? You saw the video - did he look violent to you? You see, you are automatically blaming the cop and trying to find a way to excuse this woman. Luckily, the court didn't do what you did. What you're saying is that if he did something wrong before, well it's OK for her to accuse him of something he didn't do.

Apparently the justification for the law under which the woman is being prosecuted is for protection of the reputation of the police in general, and the police officer specifically. Is there injury to these reputations? If not, the prosecution is unnecessary.

This is the law of Australia, designed and set up by the British. We are not arguing the facts of the case so much as the legitimacy of the law. The law's premise is that of a 'closed' society, in which one can be prosecuted for what one says...without harming anyone. That is not acceptable to one from an open society.

I foresee big trouble down the road with the 'restricted speech' allowed by Europeans.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill, the Muslim woman said that the officer tried to pull off her headscarf. Now, no matter how "confused" she was, or how annoyed she was, there was no way that she could possibly have misconstrued any of his actions as trying to pull of her scarf. If he had touched it by accident, maybe she could have thought that, but he didn't.

There comes a time when you simply can't give someone the benefit of the doubt, and this was one of them. The woman lied.

And that time is before a civil court jury.  That's what the system is designed to do...consider these kinds of questions.  The issue is whether you do it the peaceful way, or with police batons.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would you need to know if the cop is prone to violence? You saw the video - did he look violent to you? You see, you are automatically blaming the cop and trying to find a way to excuse this woman. Luckily, the court didn't do what you did. What you're saying is that if he did something wrong before, well it's OK for her to accuse him of something he didn't do.

Apparently the justification for the law under which the woman is being prosecuted is for protection of the reputation of the police in general, and the police officer specifically.  Is there injury to these reputations?  If not, the prosecution is unnecessary.

This is the law of Australia, designed and set up by the British.  We are not arguing the facts of the case so much as the legitimacy of the law.  The law's premise is that of a 'closed' society, in which one can be prosecuted for what one says...without harming anyone.  That is not acceptable to one from an open society.

I foresee big trouble down the road with the 'restricted speech' allowed by Europeans.

Why are you talking about police batons? scratch

You keep talking about this as if it's a "free speech" issue. It's not - free speech generally refers to opinion, but this was a false accusation designed to get a police officer into trouble, possibly sacked or even prosecuted. I think the law is a good one.

There's no point in a civil jury in this case. What they could do? Tell the woman to pay the officer damages?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:26 pm

I read that the Muslim woman got off on appeal because they couldn't be sure that the woman who made the complaint was the same woman - because she was wearing a face veil, so technically she's not guilty. She didn't get her costs paid though.

Why would some other woman pretend to be her though?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

And that time is before a civil court jury.  That's what the system is designed to do...consider these kinds of questions.  The issue is whether you do it the peaceful way, or with police batons.



Apparently the justification for the law under which the woman is being prosecuted is for protection of the reputation of the police in general, and the police officer specifically.  Is there injury to these reputations?  If not, the prosecution is unnecessary.

This is the law of Australia, designed and set up by the British.  We are not arguing the facts of the case so much as the legitimacy of the law.  The law's premise is that of a 'closed' society, in which one can be prosecuted for what one says...without harming anyone.  That is not acceptable to one from an open society.

I foresee big trouble down the road with the 'restricted speech' allowed by Europeans.

Why are you talking about police batons? scratch

Criminal law is generally associated with the police. Police frequently use batons to enforce the criminal law.



Raggamuffin wrote:You keep talking about this as if it's a "free speech" issue. It's not - free speech generally refers to opinion, but this was a false accusation designed to get a police officer into trouble, possibly sacked or even prosecuted. I think the law is a good one.

There's no point in a civil jury in this case. What they could do? Tell the woman to pay the officer damages?

In a closed society you get to make factual decisions yourself...or, the authorities do. But in an open society questions of "false accusations" are left to a jury. You want to bypass the standards of an open society. And for the most part, Britain is not an open society. Having been raised in that system, you have difficulty grasping the concept of an open society. I sympathize.

In an open society, free speech is treated with utmost respect. A person does not face the chill of criminal prosecution for making a complaint...any complaint. It is contrary to the whole idea of airing complaints in a civilized forum. This woman may be wrong, or she may be right, but in an open society that is not for you to say. It belongs to a jury to say. In an open society, she would have the right to bring the complaint without fear of any reprisal, including criminal.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution involves more than speech. It involves freedom to associate in order to convey that speech. It involves raising any kind of question, without fear of reprisal. Most importantly, it involves the challenging the authority of government, as this woman did, without fear of, or the chill of criminal prosecution. If even the possibility of a negative result exists from exercising free speech, it is not free.

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are the result of lessons learned from immoral British practices. The presumptions of the First Amendment were from the British imposing force (eg, the baton) in lieu of reason and discussion about anything, but especially religion, politics and authority. The Second Amendment was from the British practice of confiscating firearms. The Third Amendment was from the fact of British invasions of the home. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were to assure that an impartial judicial officer or jury reviewed events, and aired issues in a contemplative and peaceful arena...in particular, this is the one you want to overlook in jumping to your conclusion that this woman did wrong. The Eighth Amendment was to check the British propensity for cruel and unusual punishments.

The First, Second and Third Articles of the Constitution are structural in nature. But the first ten amendments were directly out of the British experience. Britain is not an open society, and these constitutional provisions were (and are) to ensure that the US is, and remains an open society.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:50 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I read that the Muslim woman got off on appeal because they couldn't be sure that the woman who made the complaint was the same woman - because she was wearing a face veil, so technically she's not guilty. She didn't get her costs paid though.

Why would some other woman pretend to be her though?

It's a superfluous question. The real issue is why did she face the chill of criminal charges for exercising nothing more than speech?

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I read that the Muslim woman got off on appeal because they couldn't be sure that the woman who made the complaint was the same woman - because she was wearing a face veil, so technically she's not guilty. She didn't get her costs paid though.

Why would some other woman pretend to be her though?

It's a superfluous question.  The real issue is why did she face the chill of criminal charges for exercising nothing more than speech?

Because she allegedly accused the officer of trying to pull her face veil off - obviously.

Your reasoning and views are so far removed from what I think is reasonable that there's no point discussing this further. Your idea of free speech is completely different to mine. I don't think it includes false and malicious accusations to get someone into trouble.

This is nothing to do with batons either - you introduced a red herring for no apparent reason.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:22 pm

Stormee wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's a superfluous question.  The real issue is why did she face the chill of criminal charges for exercising nothing more than speech?

She lied on oath when she signed her statement of accusation against the police officer which is criminal amongst other things.

Exactly my point: in the US she would not have to face criminal charges for having brought the complaint.  In an open society there is no such chill placed upon the process of seeking redress.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Lord Foul on Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Stormee wrote:

She lied on oath when she signed her statement of accusation against the police officer which is criminal amongst other things.

Exactly my point: in the US she would not have to face criminal charges for having brought the complaint.  In an open society there is no such chill placed upon the process of seeking redress.

even for something that is patently a lie and motivated out of criminal intent????

_________________
If at any time in 2017 I have annoyed you, pissed you off or said the wrong thing....Suck it up snowflake, cause 2018 AINT gonna be any different

There are those who's opinion I value, there are those who's opinion I neither value or scorn, and then there are those who's opinion I just ignore as insignificant...I can assure you the latter outnumber the first two combined by a whole order of magnitude


[b].(It's hard to remember that the task is to drain the swamp, when you are up to your arse in alligators)
avatar
Lord Foul
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
INTERNAL SECURITY DIRECTOR

Posts : 9778
Join date : 2015-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:37 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Exactly my point: in the US she would not have to face criminal charges for having brought the complaint.  In an open society there is no such chill placed upon the process of seeking redress.

even for something that is patently a lie and motivated out of criminal intent????

What jury has declared it a lie?

It's a process, and you don't prosecute for engaging in a lawfully sanctioned process.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

even for something that is patently a lie and motivated out of criminal intent????

What jury has declared it a lie?

It's a process, and you don't prosecute for engaging in a lawfully sanctioned process.

A magistrate declared it was a lie in a court of law.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:01 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

What jury has declared it a lie?

It's a process, and you don't prosecute for engaging in a lawfully sanctioned process.

A magistrate declared it was a lie in a court of law.

Exactly. Why was the magistrate even involved? A civil complaint has no business being aired in a criminal court.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:02 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

A magistrate declared it was a lie in a court of law.

Exactly.  Why was the magistrate even involved?  A civil complaint has no business being aired in a criminal court.

Are you trying to tell people in another country how their country should be run?

Typical yank.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Original Quill on Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:12 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Exactly.  Why was the magistrate even involved?  A civil complaint has no business being aired in a criminal court.

Are you trying to tell people in another country how their country should be run?

Typical yank.

Not at all,   I'm just explaining how the US is superior.  We left Britain behind for good reason.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25963
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Raggamuffin on Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you trying to tell people in another country how their country should be run?

Typical yank.

Not at all,   I'm just explaining how the US is superior.  We left Britain behind for good reason.

Weird ...

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31685
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Guest on Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:31 pm

Yep, it's so superior it's police shoot hundreds of people every year and murder is just an every day occurence.  Rolling Eyes

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum