Naked Rambler Lock him up or let him roam free?

[Andy BB]

A prime example why localism is a very wrong policy. This will only get worse with English community kangaroo courts. Where we have to ask is Liberty, the organisation, more important i would suggest than their normal cases. The worst oppression is legal oppression because the victim has nowhere to turn. Even in Tudor times we had the Star Chamber to curb overmighty subjects.

??? English community Kangaroo courts? Did I miss something here? When were they set up? And in a wider context, do we no longer have one man one vote? Does Parliament - consisting of people WE elected - not have the power to change laws that WE consider unacceptable? Do you not have an absolute right to set up a party and contest every seat at the next General Election? If the majority of people - or even a sizeable minority - agree with your views, they will eventually become Law.

(Oh, and if you suddenly become crazed and want to stop all future elections/democracy once you're in power so that you can become an absolute dictator, you still need Royal Assent to legally pass the enabling legislation. And the Armed Forces are ultimately loyal to the Crown, not the politicians, in such a circumstance..)

 

[Toddy]

Santaman2000, that's the clearest post on the topic yet



Andy BB, +1

cheers,
M

 

[boatman]

??? English community Kangaroo courts? Did I miss something here? When were they set up? ..)

If you don't follow the news this might be a useful start for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6377487.stm

 

[Andy BB]

If you don't follow the news this might be a useful start for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6377487.stm

Sorry - but it didn't mention kangaroo courts anywhere in there! Just a local scheme "Community Justice Courts are meant to listen to local people's concerns and reduce offending by treating the root causes of crime, like drug addiction." Hardly lifting someone off the streets then putting him up against a wall to be shot, is it?

And - presumably like Magistrates courts - you have the option to move up to a Crown Court if not happy with being assessed/judged at that level?

So, not exactly a kangaroo court, then...................................

 

[boatman]

??? English community Kangaroo courts? Did I miss something here? When were they set up? ..)

If you don't follow the news this might be a useful start for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6377487.stm

 

[Humpback]

???? Same link? Same giant leap* for conspiracy theorists?

* closest it gets to 'Kangaroos'

 

[boatman]

Don't know how I posted that twice, must have been thinking about something else but where do you get conspiracy theories from?

Anyway, do think that an accused will always be treated fairly? No prejudicies to warp a local self important group who are likely to be involved with such a court? Ever seen old style Magistrates at work? About fifty years ago,as an example, a fox-hunting Magistrate convicted, quite rightly, some local youths in Calne, Wiltshire, of killing a cat in a cruel way but he was party to the same sort of killing of a comparably sized animal most hunting days. Hypocrisy or what?

 

[British Red]

No hypocrisy at all boatman. One was legal, one was not. You may not like, or agree with, the law. However a court is a court of law, not a court of moral realtivism.

 

[santaman2000]

No hypocrisy at all boatman. One was legal, one was not. You may not like, or agree with, the law. However a court is a court of law, not a court of moral realtivism.

Or at least that's the way it's supposed to work. Some decisions over here make you wonder.

 

[Andy BB]

The law is blind, and quite frequently an bottom. But its the law - don't like it, change it through the ballot box. That's democracy - it may be a terrible system, but its less terrible than all the others

 

[Wook]

Given that in Britain we

a) vote for people and not policies

and

b) there is absolutely no punishment for MPs who campaign on one promise, and then do the exact opposite once they get in power

I am sceptical about the power of voting to effect any change whatsoever.

Democracy is not the best system. It is certainly a system you can use, and better than some - but not the best by any means. In practice democracy seems to be more about creating the illusion that you have consented to whatever the government happens to be doing to you. This is of course nonsense - if you felt differently the government would continue behaving exactly the same.

 

[Andy BB]

I would be interested to hear about your "better systems"!

Clearly you don't understand the basic concept of democracy - 1 man, 1 vote. Don't like the politicians in charge, create a groundswell to vote them out and replace them with those with your views. Or work from within the existing political structures to change them.

But that means hard work and dedication. Its much easier to bleat about how awful it is from the sidelines.................

 

[xylaria]

The law is blind, and quite frequently an bottom. But its the law - don't like it, change it through the ballot box. That's democracy - it may be a terrible system, but its less terrible than all the others

Ok tax on petrol. No matter who you vote for, the tax goes up. We are the most taxed raod users in europe. The magna carta has clause that no balliff can seize your horse or cart or means transport or means of making a lawful living. Why can DLVA take your car for refusing to pay a tax you think is without proportion. This is also in the magnacarta.

It comes to something when reading the magnacarta feels a thought crime. But atleast we aint korean

 

[santaman2000]

Given that in Britain we

a) vote for people and not policies

and

b) there is absolutely no punishment for MPs who campaign on one promise, and then do the exact opposite once they get in power...

Most politcians lie at least to some extent. However after while their record in office should be clear enough to see through the retoric. I find the biggest problem with democratic government (over here at least) is the ambivalence of the populous. Voter turnout is low enough and made worse when you consider that it's measured by the percentage of registered voters who turn out to vote; it doesn't take into account the citizens eligible but don't even bother to register (much less care enough to enter the contest as a candidate)

 

[Wook]

Clearly you don't understand the basic concept of democracy - 1 man, 1 vote. Don't like the politicians in charge, create a groundswell to vote them out and replace them with those with your views. Or work from within the existing political structures to change them.

But that means hard work and dedication. Its much easier to bleat about how awful it is from the sidelines.................

I understand the concept Andy, I just don't agree with it. I don't see that Group A outnumbering Group B should confer special privileges on Group A where they get to decide what happens to everybody. Of course in our society that isn't even what happens. Group A thinks they get to decide, but actually the people they put in power do. And they can and do whatever they please. Every couple of years people will realise voting for the Group A guys didn't change anything and the Group B guys get in. Repeat cycle ad nauseum....

As to the better systems - anything with a strong and binding constitution limiting what exactly the government can do to you is better than pure democracy. By all means incorporate democratic principles if you wish, but the important part is that the powers of the government are clearly defined and that they are kept within those bounds.

We have no such protections left in Britain, they have all been systematically destroyed. There are no theoretical limits on the kinds of laws parliament can pass.

 

[British Red]

and how would you creat a constitution....? Would everyone get a vote?

 

[santaman2000]

I understand the concept Andy, I just don't agree with it. I don't see that Group A outnumbering Group B should confer special privileges on Group A where they get to decide what happens to everybody. Of course in our society that isn't even what happens. Group A thinks they get to decide, but actually the people they put in power do. And they can and do whatever they please.

As to the better systems - anything with a strong and binding constitution limiting what exactly the government can do to you is better than pure democracy. By all means incorporate democratic principles if you wish, but the important part is that the powers of the government are clearly defined and that they are kept within those bounds.

We have no such protections left in Britain, they have all been systematically destroyed. There are no theoretical limits on the kinds of laws parliament can pass.

Wook you're starting to sound like an American. I agree with your assessment of what's "possible" in a democracy (as Mel Gibson said in The Patriot, "why trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants next door?") but having been to England I cain't say I agree with your doom & gloom view of it. I don't agree with all the restrictions over there but----and this is a very big but----the UK is hardly a tyranical place to live.

 

[Wook]

and how would you creat a constitution....? Would everyone get a vote?

The short answer is "I wouldn't". I have no interest in controlling other men's lives.

As to how you would go about creating a constitution in a fair way - I have no idea. The whole point would be to protect everyone from the petty demands of small interest groups, something which a democratic process tends to bring to the fore. The Second Continental Congress seemed like quite a good way - certainly not democratic though....

 

[Toddy]

...............and on that note folks..........no politics please.

M

 

[Wook]

Does it qualify as politics if we don't mention political parties? More political philosophy I'd have thought, but you're the boss......

Meh... I'm done talking about the socio-political ramifications of nudity... I think I'll go play with my new Biolite again before bed