 sj |
||
|
||
BS: No One Is Above the Law?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Oct 17 - 06:17 AM "(But the UN is an organisation that elected Saudi onto both the Human Rights Council and the UN Women's Panel- so there you go! )" And the Saudi regime is Britain's best customer for its sale of weapons - there you go indeed Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: akenaton Date: 04 Oct 17 - 06:26 AM Sorry Joe but you are wrong, unless you were being facetious? "Currently, heterosexual couples are not allowed to enter into a civil partnership and can only enter into marriage. They are only available to couples who are of the same sex. Heterosexual couple Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan had taken their case to be allowed to enter a civil partnership to the High Court. The couple said they objected to the "patriarchal baggage" of marriage and sought to secure legal recognition of their six-year relationship through a civil partnership. The academics, who live in Hammersmith, west London, and have a daughter, argued that the Government's position is "incompatible with equality law" . Their legal team argued the bar on heterosexual couples entering a civil partnership was in defiance of the European Convention of Human Rights. But their case was overruled when the judges said there was a potential human rights breach but the government should have more time to decide on the future of civil partnerships. Now they intend to appeal to the Supreme Court" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 17 - 06:29 AM Apropos of this thread, who can or can't have a civil partnership is totally irrelevant. Gay people entering civil partnerships in countries that allow them are abiding by the law, not acting above it. Bringing this into this thread is mischievous and vexatious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: akenaton Date: 04 Oct 17 - 06:48 AM The reason for the refusal of course, is the bureaucratic nightmare which would ensue....marriage is usually encouraged by the authorities as an easy means of record keeping and stabilisation of society.......family structure. Homosexuals were only granted both, because they are a small minority with huge media and political leverage. Their definition of "marriage" or Union, often differs dramatically from traditional marriage. Devious and mischievous?........didn't you mean inconvenient Steve? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Oct 17 - 06:49 AM I didn't use the word devious, inconveniently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Oct 17 - 08:10 AM Please stop giving this deranged madman the attention he is seeking Homophobic rants aside, back to the subject Being above the law has been brought into sharp focus by the announcement that the Irish Government has been ordered by the EU to pursue Apple for the £12 million in unpaid taxes it is due. Elsewhere Google owes £220 million in unpaid taxes to its credit (sic) One law for the very poor - another for the extremely rich, it would seem Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: bobad Date: 04 Oct 17 - 08:15 AM Meanwhile the US, along with those other paragons of democracy and human rights such as such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, and China, votes against U.N. ban on death penalty for homosexuality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Jon Freeman Date: 04 Oct 17 - 09:43 AM Ake sez: At the moment, under the law, Heterosexuals are discriminated against under the law as opposed to homosexuals. Homosexuals can be "married", single, or in a civil union. Heterosexuals can only be married or single. Not so, Ake. You, too, can have a civil union with a man. Go for it. Or go to Isle of Man, Joe I'm not sure it's relevant that some, including me, have more traditional views over marriage. It seems that some hetrosexual couple themselves would make this choice and view it as progressive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 04 Oct 17 - 01:08 PM Could someone please explain the difference between a Civil Partnership and a marriage conducted by a Registrar - known as a 'Civil Marriage'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 04 Oct 17 - 05:07 PM I'll take that as a "No" then... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: akenaton Date: 05 Oct 17 - 06:46 PM Quite simple, the clue is in the wordage. One is a Marriage in the eyes of the law, the other is not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Oct 17 - 08:03 PM Here in California, both civil unions/partnerships and marriages are available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. For the most part in California, the only difference is in the name. I understand they are supposed to be legally equivalent. In different places, your results may vary. For those wishing to split hairs, here is a handy guide: http://family.findlaw.com/domestic-partnerships/civil-unions-v-marriage.html Ake, where are you going with this, that you haven't gone thirty-seven thousand times before? You're boring us. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Oct 17 - 08:27 PM Don’t bloody ask, Joe... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: akenaton Date: 06 Oct 17 - 03:42 AM Backwoodsman asked a question, I provided the answer Joe and it all involves the law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Oct 17 - 03:51 AM So, does anyone know what the difference is between a Civil Marriage and a Civil Partnership? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Oct 17 - 04:33 AM Here you go... Great thing, Google. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: akenaton Date: 06 Oct 17 - 04:54 AM You are confusing Civil Marriage with Civil Union(partnership) (Stupid)! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Oct 17 - 05:02 AM I asked about the difference between a civil marriage and a civil partnership, that's what the article linked to covers. Stupid is as stupid does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: akenaton Date: 06 Oct 17 - 12:26 PM I had already explained the difference to you. I'm not bitter......for someone whom you regard as a "stupid homophobic fucker"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Oct 17 - 01:41 PM I prefer to take the advice of a legal practitioner, rather than rely on the opinion (incorrect, as it happens - I didn't confuse anything) of someone I regard as a stupid homophobe. Now, conversation terminated. On yer bike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Teribus Date: 06 Oct 17 - 02:27 PM Let's hope that this F**ker (literally) isn't |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Oct 17 - 03:27 PM I had a feeling that's where you get your info. By the way, can you tell us whether there was any point in posting it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Teribus Date: 06 Oct 17 - 03:58 PM Good heavens Shaw you once told us that you read it everyday on-line, Jom swears by it when digging the dirt on dear old blighty, you've quoted it yourself on occasion. Now I can see a point being demonstrated in me providing the link that is relevant to the thread topic. However, I can see nothing in your post that contributes anything to the discussion, c'mon teacher tell us about the tea cakes you had today, that is harmless and banal enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Oct 17 - 04:44 PM I have never in my natural declared that I read the Mail online every day. What I have told you is that I occasionally pick up a free copy of the rag with my Waitrose card. I feel I’m doing my public duty by depriving at least one poor sod of casting their eyes on it. I could pick up a free Guardian but I take that already. Or a Times, basically the Mail sans balls. One does have to know thine enemy, tha knows. You should abide more by bobad’s description of you, a very elderly man (ok, I embellished it a bit) who states only facts. You last post is somewhat deficient in that department. You’re letting your side down, old man Bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: BobL Date: 07 Oct 17 - 02:48 AM The Mail at least has some decent cartoons and a crossword that is neither too trivial nor too taxing. The editorial pages, being large and unstapled, are excellent for wrapping (other) rubbish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Teribus Date: 07 Oct 17 - 04:16 AM Only trouble is Shaw, you've never been able to challenge the facts or details that I have supplied, you've never been able to challenge or counter the reasoning and logic behind my arguments. But there again, unlike you, I am not shackled to any particular political ideology, I have never, ever, been a member of a political party so I am not as constrained in my thinking and questioning of any given situation that I chose to comment on. Your default setting is to label me right-wing and tory solely because I challenge you and your pals when you come out with idiotic statements (Your thinking seems to run along the lines of: I do not agree with you so I must automatically be of the opposite political persuasion - a simplistic and idiotic notion) - I challenge you and your pals because your statements ARE patently IDIOTIC in terms of reasoning and logic - nothing political about it at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Iains Date: 07 Oct 17 - 04:26 AM "Or a Times, basically the Mail sans balls" Seems to me that statement is an admission that the Mail produces hard hitting journalism with superior analysis compared to that of the Times. Do you also avoid Russia Today and Al Jazeera because you do not like the colour of their ink? I presume you receive a gruniard as a part of your union dues. News is news is news just like shit is shit is shit whether produced by a gnat or an elephant. You really do have problems understanding the most simple concepts shaw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: DMcG Date: 07 Oct 17 - 04:44 AM News is news is news ... the most simple concept(s) I don't agree, Iains. At the absolute minimum, whether you are talking broadcasts, printed papers or even websites, there is a selection process that goes on, that decides whether a piece of news is 'newsworthy', where it ranks against other stories - front page or back page, running order and so on - so any reported news is partial, even if not deliberately so. Add to that, there is always bias, intentional or not, in how the news item itself is presented, as in the possibly apocryphal "Fog in the channel - continent cut off". Then all news vendors are aware they need to entertain, not just present news. The best example of this at the moment is the letter falling off of the display during Teresa May's speech. Amusing, yes. A good metaphor opportunity, yes. But news? Letter falls of board - news? I think not. Whatever else is going on, there is nothing simple about news. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Raggytash Date: 07 Oct 17 - 05:30 AM "News is news is news" Interesting, does that indicate that we could just rely on one source for our news, something like the Socialist Worker perhaps? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Iains Date: 07 Oct 17 - 11:50 AM I have said,on more than one occasion on this forum, that to rely on a single news source is not a very good idea. No news source is neutral, each has an agenda to follow that leads to some items being "overlooked" and others given spin. You have two choices- eat the food the meedjah offers or peruse multiple sources and make your own determination. To automatically discount a news source because of it's name is shortsighted to say the least. Why does the US want to demonize RT: Because it is a purveyor of false news or because it deviates from the western narrative? To get anywhere near the truth it is necessary to think and use the [power of analysis. A classic example would be Isis through American and Russian eyes. Which of the three is the great satan? Which ones are above International law? Which ones are Invaders? Who supports who? Who are the bully boys on the block? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 07 Oct 17 - 12:13 PM The rich can break the law almost at will in England - it seems to me. Just watch the tv adverts. So many of them are really misleading, and downright dishonest. If ordinary people lied and cheated in the way the finance industry does every night. They would be in jail. THe MP's of every party say nothing about this abuse of trust, usury and crookedness. I think its because they are rich themselves, and none of them care about poor people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Iains Date: 25 Sep 18 - 08:18 AM The loony left are encouraging criminality! Dawn Butler used the slogan made by Liverpool’s Labour council 30 years ago which set an illegal budget which resulted in redundancy notices for its workforce. http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/politics/brent-central-mp-attacks-government-cuts-at-labour-party-conference-in-liverpool-1-5709010 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Sep 18 - 08:49 AM Mindless "loony left" rhetoric aside More up to date https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-accused-of-waging-war-on-parliament-by-forcing-through-key-legal-changes-without-debate-a6820176.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Sep 18 - 09:00 AM OR THIS ONGOING HABIT OF LAW-BREAKING OR THIS OR THIS Making this a 'loonie leftie' issue is as mindless as it gets Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Sep 18 - 09:05 AM TAX AVOIDANCE those who make the laws are usually the ones who are out of reach of the laws Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Iains Date: 25 Sep 18 - 09:49 AM A little clarity about the alleged overspending. Your linked article is july 2018. The world has moved on. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45519676 The electoral Commission is unfit for purpose. Your other links are as antique and as relevant as the campaign diaries of Attila the Hun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Sep 18 - 10:06 AM Joe, were your questions in the opening post ever answered and, if so, have you come to any conclusions or changed any views? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Sep 18 - 10:54 AM THIS MAKES SENSE TO ME Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Iains Date: 25 Sep 18 - 11:20 AM THIS MAKES SENSE TO ME Well I am glad it makes sense to someone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Sep 18 - 11:25 AM It is obviously beyond your grasp - hence your failure to respond to it Feel free to do so Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Iains Date: 25 Sep 18 - 11:35 AM little jimmie I have to know what it is before I can respond. Did you check your link during your multiple postings, or is that something only the little people do? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Sep 18 - 01:29 PM I have no idea why the link didn't work but the fact it didn't is no reason for your patheruic attempts to talk down to people FEEL FREE NOT TO RESPOND IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO DO SO IN AN ADULT MANNER Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Donuel Date: 25 Sep 18 - 02:16 PM Bill Cosby is not above the law. He was sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: olddude Date: 25 Sep 18 - 04:38 PM Poor above the law no, laws that are specific to targeting the poor yes I believe we have lots more of them than for the wealthy for sure . And in criminal proceedings do the wealthiest get off..yes and if convicted do they go to special country club prison. More often than not. The poor, go away to some hell hold |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Sep 18 - 04:50 PM Dave the Gnome asks whether the questions I asked in the original post have been answered. No, they have not. I asked where the "Nobody is above the law" adage came from, and whether I am correct in thinking it is meant to apply primarily to those who make the laws, not so much on powerless people upon whom unjust laws are sometimes imposed. Here's an excerpt from my first post:
And these very nice people always bring up the adage, "Nobody is above the law." As I said above, I think the adage was meant to apply to those in power, but it has been twisted so that it serves to oppress the oppressed. I think this adage is generally considered to be a basic principle of democracy. Where does this adage come from, and what is its intent? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Thompson Date: 26 Sep 18 - 09:44 AM People from the Moroccan navy fired on a boat full of refugees, killing one and injuring others, yesterday. There were arrests - of "people smugglers", not of killers. Jim, what do you think happened to change the Travellers from how they were in your early days recording them to the Big Fat Gypsy Wedding types of today, and in some cases the millionaire crime lords trafficking rhino horns and the like? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Iains Date: 26 Sep 18 - 10:16 AM Joe the idea seem to have reached its final form in the early days ofthe US. or perhaps from Magna Carter. You would probably need a fleecing of lawyers to obtain a definitive response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://nationalpost.com/opinion/carolyn-harris-magna-carta-established-that-nobody-not-even-the-king-was-above-the-law-of-the-l |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 26 Sep 18 - 10:16 AM FWIW, Joe, I think you are right about it applying more to people of power than those who are oppressed by unjust laws. Good article on Wiki about the rule of law which contains this passage in its introduction - The rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law, including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and judges.[5] In this sense, it stands in contrast to an autocracy, dictatorship, or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law. That was always my understanding of it. In addition, where there are blatantly unjust laws, such as racial segregation, it is our duty to call these out. Pointing out that it makes no sense to have white only drinking fountains or children separated from their parents by stupid immigration rules is not being above the law. It is trying to make the laws better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Jim Carroll Date: 26 Sep 18 - 10:40 AM "what do you think happened to change the Travellers from how they were in your early days recording them to the Big Fat Gypsy Wedding types of today," They became urbanised and took up the bad habits of the city BFgw is not representative to Travellers - they certainly like big weddings (we've been to dozens) but they tend to be fairly traditional family gatherings I usually throw away the 'Style' supplement in the Sunday Times without reading it, but when I do I see far more outlandish clothes in there - as for thosse Royal wetting-the babies-head hats and frocks !! The Rhino horns Traders and the 'slave owners' represent a tiny criminal element as do the sex traders in settled society Up to the time we stopped recording, the most common crime among travellers (according to a survey by the Met Police) was diving without tax and insurance Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No One Is Above the Law? From: Donuel Date: 26 Sep 18 - 11:38 AM Joe your assumption is positively correct. The intent of the law was originally devised to hold the powerful and educated to bear more responsibility under the law because the well to do simply know better than the unwashed public. It has to do with the reasonable man doctrine. |
