Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sundowner on May 26, 2007, 11:12:33 PM
-
It seems Blair wants to add a new dimension to the Big Brother campaign to "protect" the people.
"Stop and question" powers for the police without cause to suspect any crime has taken place.
With these kinds of trends in our modern first world societies how hard is it to imagine the world of the global police state of say...2030?
Regards,
Sun
Blair wants to give UK police more anti-terror muscle
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair plans to push through a new anti-terrorism law before he steps down next month giving "wartime" powers to police to stop and question people, a newspaper reported on Sunday.
Blair, who is due to resign June 27 after a decade in office, wrote in an article in The Sunday Times that his government planned to publish new anti-terrorism proposals "within the next few weeks".
An interior ministry spokeswoman confirmed the government was looking at including a "stop and question" power in the new legislation. "We are considering a range of powers for the bill and 'stop and question' is one of them," she said.
The "stop and question" power would enable police to interrogate people about who they are, where they have been and where they were going, The Sunday Times said. Police would not need to suspect a crime had taken place.
If suspects failed to stop or refused to answer questions, they could be charged with a crime and fined, The Sunday Times said. Police already have the power to stop and search people but have no right to ask them their identity and movements.
The Sunday Times said the powers already existed in Northern Ireland. Civil rights groups viewed the plan to extend them to the rest of Britain as an attack on civil liberties, it said......
Full Article:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/26/britain.security.reut/index.html
-
I'm sure Blair is going to be able to pass that law all by himself. :O
-
Personally I agree with giving the police more powers.
At the moment They are soft and the whole justice system is a shambles.
I'd rather have them asking suspicious people questions there on the spot rather than waiting a week getting an arrest warrant. Either way criminals end up with light sentences and cushy jails.
There is no FEAR factor for criminals/terrorists anymore they know that most of the time they will get away with it.
Makes middle eastern measures seem appropriate.
-
Must admit I'd like the police to do more, but then I'm a bit biased as my wife and I are getting hassle from the neighbourhood chavs.........and agree with Bruv about the state of the prisons etc........no one seems to be worried about the victims rights, just the crim's rights....
Wurzel
-
Sorry to hear about the chavs wurzel.
I'm lucky where I live there arent too many young uns around that chav age. When I was growing up there were quite a few more of us but we never sunk as low as what some get up too these days. At least not from what i recall lol.
Personally I blame the parents, America, the education system and Tony Blair. Not necessarily in that order.
-
unfortunately the world is changing. Accept the fact that the planet is packed with human beings, and there is a dog religion that promotes murder through suicide on the rampage across the globe.
-
I'm not worried about the terrorists. It's the "chavs" that need educating and sorted out and hopefully these extra police powers can help with that.
In my opinion its not down to the police to stamp out bad behaviour in todays youth its their parents and the schools.
Laws are in place for a reason and when they arent adhered too because of the above the Police are needed to keep the peace. They are becoming increasingly powerless/not bothering because of the amount of watermelon they have to deal with.
If the UK slips towards a police state so be it. Discipline is needed.
I wont go into my opinions on US foreign policy.
Bruv
~S~
-
whats a chav? some sort of street thug? Just shoot em.
-
Cant shoot them guns NOT allowed ;)
If i took a cricket/baseball bat to their legs im the one who will get done for GBH/ assault taken to court fined community service. If i did it twice i would go to jail.
plus they would have a pack they arent lonewolves.
-
"SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!!"
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
I'm not worried about the terrorists. It's the "chavs" that need educating and sorted out and hopefully these extra police powers can help with that.
LOL yeah... better off being a police state than a chav state :)
-
yessss herr flick!
-
maybe we can ask Boroda for some tips.
a DO's and DONT's kinda thing
-
You birts had a good thing going back in the day when you sent the riffraff down to Australia. Why change that winning formula? :D
-
They all came back and are working as bar staff.
Need to ship em out again :)
-
Furball, that just cost me a clean shirt and a pack of screen wipes.......too funny......
Bruv, I found the easiest way of dealing with my chav problem is to "bump into one when they are by themselves...".....He didnt enjoy it, but I did...lol...
Reason we get so much crap from them is my wife is American......and for some reason they dont like that......so every time they start off, it automatically goes under racist crime...so at least they try to do something. I've had words (and more) with the father of one of them.....which put him back in his box....but they always have their "so brave" friends.....bah...
Wurzel
-
My father fought for five years to protect freedoms we have now!I do not want to be stopped by the police going about my lawful business ,this serves no one but a more centralised and interfering government.If the British public had half a brain cell they would crowd trafalguar sq. over Blairs attacks on are freedoms,but their to busy watching big brother-Oh the irony-and reading the sun to bother.
I suggest Bruv goes and lives in China or North Korea - Chav free! - or since he's FREE, to read any book he chooses,maybe Orwell would be a place to start.
:aok
-
I'm not worried about the terrorists. It's the "chavs" that need educating and sorted out and hopefully these extra police powers can help with that
The police have all the powers they need to deal with chavs. But because chavs answer back, don't show up in court, claim police brutality, make a nuisance of themselves in the police station etc, the police prefer to use their powers on people who are not really committing crimes, like the pensioner cautioned for criminal damage for pruning his neighbour's tree, the kids cautioned for criminal damage to a tree whilst building a tree-house in a park, etc.
It's all to do with nu-Labour's "targets".
When Robert Peel set up the modern British police force, he set out 9 principles by which policing should be carried out. The last of them was:
"The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it."
Nu-Labour know better, of course, and introduced targets. Every police officer has to carry out x number of "detections" in a month. A detection is a solved crime, but it doesn't matter what the crime is. A solved case of a man pruning his neighbour's tree is exactly the same as a solved murder, as far as the government is concerned. The result is, the police make up minor crimes they can solve, so that they can prove to the government they are doing their job.
But if you are being victimised by real criminals, say kids vandalising cars, burglars, shoplifters etc, then the police do not want to know. Too much effort, too few "detections" (the beauty of "detecting" the most minor crimes is that there won't be a prosecution, thus saving police time preparing a case, appearing in court etc.)
In my opinion its not down to the police to stamp out bad behaviour in todays youth its their parents and the schools.
On the other hand, the police are increasingly giving up on investigating shoplifting and burglary, which it is most definitely down to them to stop.
They are becoming increasingly powerless/not bothering because of the amount of watermelon they have to deal with.
That's the problem. And to keep the numbers up, they are instead focusing on people they know won't give them chit.
If the UK slips towards a police state so be it. Discipline is needed.
But who are the police going to stop and question? The chavs walking down the road screaming abuse at people and spitting at cars? No, just like now they'll stop the sort of respectable person they know won't answer back, won't spit at them, and who'll tell them his real name and address.
-
For the non-British viewers of this thread, all they need to know is that people who criticise this latest legislation are America-hating terrorists.;)
If the UK slips towards a police state so be it. Discipline is needed.
I agree. Discipline with a leather-based sense of fashion. We need to change the police uniform to include leather over-coats and a peaked cap. They should refer to each other as antiterrorsturmunterhauptfuhrer. That will have the general populace cowering... err... I mean have the terrorists under control!
Long live the War on Terror!
-
Ouch......bit of a sweeping generalisation there fella.........*shrug*......I dont agree with everything Bliar gets up to......personally I think he's a complete waste of breathe, skin and bone.........but something has to give in the UK soon.........hopefully anyway...
Wurzel
-
Hazzer Freedom only comes to those who have enough cash to be free.
If your one of those lucky ones well done.
I have read orwell's book and my dad would comment
"its getting more like 1984 everyday"
I don't mind a police officer pulling me over or questioning me because I know I'm a good citizen and havent broken any laws or committed any crimes. We can argue the finer points all day.
Say in 20 years time they start bugging phones and putting cameras in your own house then come back to me. I was just pointing out that we should be more concerned with education, crime and prevention of.
Not a law that will give police more power to achieve the above.
-
If the British public had half a brain cell they would crowd trafalguar sq. over Blairs attacks on are freedoms
2 million people did the anti-war demonstration over IRAQ.
Did that move him enough to change his policy?
Does he listen to the British people?
-
so what is a chav?
Are you guys saying that the police can't defend you? Are you saying that it is illegal to defend yourself?
boy... you guys backed yourself into a corner there didn't ya? Your choice seems to be to allow people to defend themselves or to have a police state.
The job of the cop is to take down reports and stop any crime that he happens to see if he isn't too busy. Your job is to protect yourself and your family and your property.
lazs
-
Chav's are the local nasty little scrotes..(Council Housed And Violent). The police have so many reports etc to fill in before any action can be taken against them (I speak from experience here :mad: ) To get anything done, basically takes about 4 episodes (crimes) to actually bring them to the attention of the police, and if the copper involved is anything like one that came out to my wife and I, he will then plead not to destroy "this poor misunderstood youth" who has just broken my double glazed front window, and called my wife, amongst other things, a potato, by giving him a criminal record. Had I the opportunity, I'd have given him more than a record........lol.....
Anyway, I'm not bitter...errr....much......
Wurzel
-
Oh, and yes, the law abiding bods have been backed into a crap corner by various acts of parliament, and target driven policing.......(personally I think the police do a good job given the constraints they have, and certainly one I dont have the disposition to do!!).
Wurzel
-
so "chav" is a class type distinction used to dehumanize a portion of the population so that you can use more severe police tactics on them than the humans?
Don't forget... whatever powers you give your government... they will be in the hands of the next people elected... for good or evil. You may think the current crop of cops are "restrained" and "good" but... what happens if the next crop is not? they will have all the powers you gave the good guys.
We had "jim crow" laws here... they were meant to keep negroes in line and not allow them to have firearms. The good old boys who passed em never expected that white folks would some day be targeted with these same laws and have their rights restricted just like the negroes they meant to target.
If you are not allowed to defend yourselves and family and property with whatever weapon works best... you have no freedom.
lazs
-
Good points Laz, I have no idea what the answer is, unfortunately, neither do our "illustrious" leaders.
Wurzel
-
In the US there is case law for "consensual contact" already
Police are allowed to randomly contact people without PC and ask if s/he can talk to you, if you say yes... you have legally agreed to a consensual contact. During which you are free to leave at any time, and anything you say can be used against you in court.
Anything garnered from that contact can be used to form probable cause for a detention. The police do not have to advise you of your right to say "no", and Miranda doesn't apply until the officer suspects you of a crime.
If an officer randomly approaches you and says "Hey dude, can I talk to you?... where ya going?..to a jihad?, got any Iraqi WMDs in that backpack??" type of stuff, you are 100% legally allowed to say "I don't want to talk to you, go have intercourse with yourself"
The police can even legally nag you, "Come on, lets talk?.. what are you hiding huh? if you've done nothing wrong".. one you start defending yourself in conversation, you've agreed to a consensual contact.
-
Just put the damn ID tatoo on citizen forehead, radio ID chip under their skin and get over with.
Everybody without one of the above and those who aren't en route to or from work get to be re-educated, re-formed in one of those facilities with barbed wire...
Fear not, it's for the common good...
Hail law and order!
-
The Chav (or 'Ned's as they are referred to in Scotland) phenomenon is the biggest problem in UK society today and until they get a grip on it I will never return.
These little scrotes are allowed to ruin people's lives with little or no recourse.
Never mind the police - its school teachers I feel sorry for.
-
Personally I blame the parents, America, the education system and Tony Blair
SO Britain's juvenile gangs are America's fault? Not sure how my country is responsible for your juvenile gangs..... :rolleyes:
-
Are you really that stupid to not be able to spot a troll like that?
Jeez... didnt even need any bait, you just jumped straight onto the boat. :lol
-
could the uk be slipping? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICILUwI_p14
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
In the US there is case law for "consensual contact" already
Police are allowed to randomly contact people without PC and ask if s/he can talk to you, if you say yes... you have legally agreed to a consensual contact. During which you are free to leave at any time, and anything you say can be used against you in court.
Anything garnered from that contact can be used to form probable cause for a detention. The police do not have to advise you of your right to say "no", and Miranda doesn't apply until the officer suspects you of a crime.
If an officer randomly approaches you and says "Hey dude, can I talk to you?... where ya going?..to a jihad?, got any Iraqi WMDs in that backpack??" type of stuff, you are 100% legally allowed to say "I don't want to talk to you, go have intercourse with yourself"
The police can even legally nag you, "Come on, lets talk?.. what are you hiding huh? if you've done nothing wrong".. one you start defending yourself in conversation, you've agreed to a consensual contact.
Under this new UK legislation you have no right to refuse questions without penalty.
From the article:
"If suspects failed to stop or refused to answer questions, they could be charged with a crime and fined, The Sunday Times said. Police already have the power to stop and search people but have no right to ask them their identity and movements."
Isn't it funny that anyone stopped to be questioned is already referred to as "suspects" by The Sunday Times?--even if no crime was thought to have taken place.
I suppose under the new law EVERYONE would be considered "suspects".
Regards,
Sun
-
Originally posted by gpwurzel
Good points Laz, I have no idea what the answer is, unfortunately, neither do our "illustrious" leaders.
Wurzel
The simple answer is to use your guns and over throw the government...
Oh, wait...
-
Under this new UK legislation
Just to make it clear, there is no new legislation about this yet. What we have is some ministers in the Blair government floating a trial balloon to see what public reaction is, with legislation planned for late this year, or early next. Of course, Blair will be gone by then, so will many of the ministers he appointed. Brown, who is taking over in a few weeks, hasn't voiced an opinion on the plans, and the rest of the cabinet seems to be split on the issue.
I'd be very surprised if any proposal on these lines becomes law. Far more likely is there will be a requirement for reasonable suspicion before the police can demand details.
Don't forget, Blair is very big on talk, very short on action, and has been throughout his term as prime minister. Considering many of the ideas he came up with 10 years ago when he became prime minister have long since disappeared, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for something he's proposed a few weeks before he retires.
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
Personally I agree with giving the police more powers.
end up with light sentences and cushy jails.
let me guess, you have never done jail time?
-
You've done time in the UK ink?
I'm sure the US jails are what my idea of a jail should be like.
Dou you get playstations, pool time and gym rooms?
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
In the US there is case law for "consensual contact" already
Police are allowed to randomly contact people without PC and ask if s/he can talk to you, if you say yes... you have legally agreed to a consensual contact. During which you are free to leave at any time, and anything you say can be used against you in court.
Anything garnered from that contact can be used to form probable cause for a detention. The police do not have to advise you of your right to say "no", and Miranda doesn't apply until the officer suspects you of a crime.
If an officer randomly approaches you and says "Hey dude, can I talk to you?... where ya going?..to a jihad?, got any Iraqi WMDs in that backpack??" type of stuff, you are 100% legally allowed to say "I don't want to talk to you, go have intercourse with yourself"
The police can even legally nag you, "Come on, lets talk?.. what are you hiding huh? if you've done nothing wrong".. one you start defending yourself in conversation, you've agreed to a consensual contact.
Marine you are 100% correct ( with the exception of Miranda.. Only applies when a person is in custody you can suspect or even know they are involved in crime as long as they are not in custody or functional equivelent of arrest,then no miranda is required)..
Consensual encounter is the way to get to see whats in that backpack by using the old "mind if I have a look"... Also needs no probable cause nor reasonable suspicion a simple "go ahead" works just fine :aok
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
You've done time in the UK ink?
IIRC Ink had done 25 years in prison by the time he was 21...
-
I suppose he beat Chuck Norris at arm wrestling when he was there too.
-
You might want to rethink the Miranda statement there. Any time you are questioning a suspect and are narrowed down to that individual as a participant in a crime, asking questions related to the offense, you must mirandize or lose the answers for court. Miranda has nothing to do with custody or not. You do not need to be under arrest to be accorded Miranda warning and protection. Once someone is a suspect, in custody or not, and you want to question them about the crime or crimes in question you must give the Miranda warning.
Originally posted by sgt203
Marine you are 100% correct ( with the exception of Miranda.. Only applies when a person is in custody you can suspect or even know they are involved in crime as long as they are not in custody or functional equivelent of arrest,then no miranda is required)..
Consensual encounter is the way to get to see whats in that backpack by using the old "mind if I have a look"... Also needs no probable cause nor reasonable suspicion a simple "go ahead" works just fine :aok
-
Originally posted by Maverick
You might want to rethink the Miranda statement there. Any time you are questioning a suspect and are narrowed down to that individual as a participant in a crime, asking questions related to the offense, you must mirandize or lose the answers for court. Miranda has nothing to do with custody or not. You do not need to be under arrest to be accorded Miranda warning and protection. Once someone is a suspect, in custody or not, and you want to question them about the crime or crimes in question you must give the Miranda warning.
Maverick,
This is a very common misconception by police officers. The deciding factor in Miranda is CUSTODY... No other situation other than CUSTODY, commonly considered by courts to be "ARREST OR FUNCTIONAL EQUIVELENT OF ARREST" requires Miranda Warnings. Having said that, to be on the safe side it may be best to give Miranda Warnings in situations you are unsure if they may be needed, however, in doing so you offer the suspect the chance to "lawyer up" when it is not needed to do so.
If your state courts are relying on MIRANDA which is a US Supreme Court Case in deciding when you have to give "Miranda Warnings" then custody is the defining issue. However if they are using your State Constitution in deciding these cases they have the right to provide MORE PROTECTION to their citizens than required by the US Constitution.
The US Constitution sets the MINIMUM RIGHTS provided to all citizens, however states always have the right to provide even greater protections to the citizens of that particular state.
I will paste this below which I found doing a search on Miranda vs Arizona. If you so desire I can provide you with numerous Appelant and Supreme Court cases in which Miranda was decided in Pennsylvania, which has adopted the federal standard in such cases.
Hope this helps you out. Dont give the suspects a chance to go silent when it is not necessary.
Miranda vs. Arizona Court Case
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966)
Ernesto Miranda, a rape suspect, was arrested and taken to the police station. After two hours of questioning, he signed a written confession and was subsequently found guilty. Miranda appealed his conviction on the grounds that prior to confessing, he had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s conviction, finding that the coercive nature of detention in a police station necessitates certain safeguards in order to ensure that suspects do not naively waive their rights. The ruling held that when law enforcement officers take a suspect into custody with the intention of conducting an interrogation, they must inform the suspect of certain fundamental conditions:
The suspect has the right to remain silent.
Anything the suspect says can be used against him/her in court.
The suspect has the right to an attorney.
If the suspect cannot afford an attorney one will be provided at no charge.
The Court imposed these limitations upon law enforcement officers for the purpose of ensuring that criminal suspects do not waive constitutional rights as a result of not knowing how to properly exercise them. This ruling had broad ramifications for all police officers, who have since been required to issue Miranda warnings to all suspects that are arrested and taken into custody.
What you should know about your Miranda Rights:
We are all aware of the contents of the Miranda warning. It is recited on police shows everyday and can be repeated verbatim by most Americans, though often without a thorough understanding of its significance. In short, the Miranda warning is an acknowledgement of the criminal suspect’s right to take what is always the best course of action for any arrestee: say nothing until you’ve spoken with a lawyer.
Still, the Miranda warning is frequently misunderstood as encompassing all lawful detentions by police. It should be noted that Miranda does not apply under the following circumstances:
Questions asked at a crime scene
Any statements volunteered by the suspect at any time
Questioning of individuals for fact-finding purposes
Questioning during an investigatory stop
These exceptions are significant in that they encompass many situations in which police acquire important evidence from suspects who are under no legal obligation to answer questions. In many cases, police officers acquire probable cause to arrest a suspect due to his/her own answers to police questions at the crime scene. Thus the following should be remembered with regards to Miranda warnings:
If police have arrested you and plan to ask you questions about a crime, they must read you a Miranda warning
While this process is often referred to as “reading you your rights” police will only inform you of your right against self-incrimination and your right to an attorney
Other than identifying yourself, you are under no obligation to disclose information to the police at any time
The right against self-incrimination excludes statements made voluntarily; Anything you say to a police officer at any time can be used against you
There is no reason to disclose information to the police about your involvement in a crime prior to speaking with a lawyer
<<<>>
-
Sgtboring,
I'm familiar with Miranda. The Miranda ruling came from an arrest from my Department well before I got on.
The explanation I gave you was not my interpretation, it was from the Department Legal Advisor. Once the investigation has narrowed to the point where you are now asking questions of a SUSPECT of the crime in question you had better Mirandize them, in custody or not. In other words you may not have probable cause to affect an arrest at that time but you have reasonable suspicion that the individual you are talking to is a suspect in the crime you are investigating. Situations where the reasonable suspicion has not been gained are not protected (ie. fact finding or talking to people who are not suspected of involvement).
Read what I posted before again. Note that the circumstances are simple. You are questioning a suspect about their involvement in a crime. They do not have to be under arrest in order to be questioned as you well know.
Miranda is not necessary in any custody situation UNLESS you will be asking questions of an investigatory purpose to determine more information to be used in prosecution. It is not necessary to read the Miranda rights just because someone is under arrest as long as you will not be asking any questions related to the offense. Identity questions (name, address etc.) are not protected as you indicated.
I made numerous arrests for on-sight activity and didn't need to ask questions other than identity since I witnessed the incident in questions. Miranda was not necessary for the arrest then since the suspect was not being questioned.
-
NWA had it right in '88.
-
BTW this thread and law is flawed. We would have to have policemen in order for them to ask questions. They all got replaced by cameras.
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
I'm sure the US jails are what my idea of a jail should be like.
Dou you get playstations, pool time and gym rooms?
Pretty damn close.
-
A personal attack Mav.....
OK...
First... I never said you had to mirandize anyone just because they are under arrest......
Second... I never said it was your interpretation...
Third.. Get a new legal advisor cause the one your department has is a Moron.. Any first year law student should know in what situations miranda applies... Focus of investigation, reasonable suspicion have nothing to do with it..
And yes I am sure you are familiar with Miranda Case but being "familiar" does not equate to understanding... Obviously..
As I said I can provide you with as many cases as you so desire to back up my point... can you provide me with 1????
Unfortunately you are mistaken and so is your department.. although there is nothing worng with reading Miranda under the cirsumstances as you said to say it is required is blatantly false..
To be honest I am absoulutely dumbfounded by your last response and cannot beleive that you actually beleive this..
And yes I may be sgtboring, but I would much rather be boring than to be so wrong as to be laughable...
<<>>
-
First off I made no personal attack. If you think I did you really have a problem.
As to the rest of your post and your most definite personal attack, go take a hike. We're done discussing much of anything.
-
Yes I took exception to being called sgtboring when I was discussing an issue and took that as personal attack and responded accordingly. For that I apologize.
If you do not wish to respond thats fine.. but the facts are the facts and you are mistaken about this and I am actually trying to help you out. However as stated this is a COMMON MISCONCEPTION and that in no way was an attack on you.
But as stated I can back up my point and if you have access to legal research here it is. I will only go back as far as 1999 till 2004.
Commonwealth vs Fetter
Superior Court of Pa
770 A.2d 762
Interest of V.H. , A Juvenile
Superior Court of Pa
788 A.2d 976
Comm vs Templin
Supreme Court of Pa
795 A.2d 959
Comm vs Donovan
Commonwealth Court of Pa
829 A.2d 759
Yarborough vs Alvarado
US Supreme Court
June 1, 2004
Comm vs. Smith
Supreme Court of Pa
836 A.2d 5
Comm vs. Sepulveda
Supreme Court of Pa
No. 402 (8/19/04)
In all of these case the courts have ruled the defining issue for Miranda is Custody.
I cant post all of the material in here for you but I will briefly quote the US Supreme Court in Yarborough vs Alvarado (2004).
" The rule is this: Warnings must be given prior to interrogation because of the compulsion that is present when a person is in custody and the warnings help eliminate the compulsion and thus, enable the person to be able to make a free will decision whether to waive his rights. The Miranda decision held that "custodial interrogation" meant questioning started by law enforcement officers AFTER A PERSON HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY OR OTHERWSIE DEPRIVED OF HIS FREEDOM OF ACTION IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY (my emphasis). Later, the test for for custodial interrogation was stated by our Court as follows: whether there is a formal arrest or restraint upon freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest."
I apologize for my remarks as I was offended by your reply but I do have copies of the cases cited above if you would like them if you do not have access to do the research yourself.
You can PM me a fax number and I will fax them to you (about 25 pages) for you to review.
<<<>>.
-
And who could forget Kramer vs Kramer?
-
^^^^
lol...
That was a civil (or uncivil) action if you will...:aok
-
Sgt203,
The handle Sgt boring is another poster I know from another bbs that I am on. I ended up typing that instead of sgt203. No intent to render a personal attack was intended, it was a case of dyslexic keyboard.
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
Sorry to hear about the chavs wurzel.
I'm lucky where I live there arent too many young uns around that chav age. When I was growing up there were quite a few more of us but we never sunk as low as what some get up too these days. At least not from what i recall lol.
Personally I blame the parents, America, the education system and Tony Blair. Not necessarily in that order.
Well i hope your meaning American politicans and not Americans in general, we are just like you dealing with the same problems, OR can we just blame the whole world for our problems?
-
Yes, and the Police get their marching orders from the Government, who never do anything unless its for "the good". Right? They never cross the line or do something, lets say, in their own self interest.
...and of course, the police never make mistakes.
By the logic some of you post we dont need any rights at all, because, well, only those that break the law need them. Innocent people dont need rights.
Kinda scary logic.
-
OK Mav
<<>>
Hope theres no hard feelings none here..