Freeman

[5./JG27.Farber]

Applies to UK and any other system that uses the Magna Carta (51 countries).

Not an ecuse to do what you want but to ACCEPT the great responsabilities laid upon you that are usually delt with by the government! Think carefully!

I am not not responsable foy you idiocy!

English Version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOF8sg4jD9E

[AndyJWest]

I am not not responsable foy you idiocy!

Seek psychiatric help. Urgently.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Seek psychiatric help. Urgently.

Video Posted at Today, 02:09 AM

Your reply at Today, 03:49 AM

Not even time to watch the whole thing when you found it inbetween.... Nothing to say but that...

[AndyJWest]

Why the **** do you think I would want to watch it? Anyway, a few minute's Googling reveals that John Harris is just another conspiracy-theorist loon (with, yes, you guessed it, a website with a forum with a smattering of antisemitic drivel amongst all the other zaniness). Still, I recommend everyone to watch the last 5 minutes, when Harris tells us that he wants to shut down the internet. Given the deranged ramblings on this forum, maybe he has a point....

P.S. RationalWiki on Harris: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Harris

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

P.S. RationalWiki on Harris: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Harris

Cor! That explains a LOT. Could this be the source of recent claims that Churchill had syphilis and Hitler offered his resignation to the British cabinet?

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

Cor! That explains a LOT. Could this be the source of recent claims that Churchill had syphilis and Hitler offered his resignation to the British cabinet?

Possibly, but I think it more likely that they were either found on some neo-you-know-who website, or simply pulled from the nether orifice of the person posting them.

[WTE_Galway]

Meh ... 2 hours is too long.

Anyway ... the influence of the Magna Carta has been substantially reduced in recent times.

In most common law countries the legislature is continually enacting new civil legislation which overrides the older common law precedents (Politicians do not like the idea of judges defining laws they want to be able to decide and overrule the courts).

Modern capitalist countries like the US pay lip service to the "Rule of Law" (the idea everyone is equal under the law) but in reality being a politician, having money, owning a newspaper or simply being a corporation means you are treated differently in law to the common man. Even serious cases like rape and murder are treated differently depending on who the individual is. Pascal Mazurier is an example of where "Rule of Law" was clearly not applied.

Even Habeus Corpus has been overruled in many countries with the flood new Terrorism legislation introduced over the last 10 years.

[Hood]

Habeus corpus originated in the English courts. To follow up on Galway's post I thought I'd touch on the two main different types of legal systems in the world.

One system is based on Roman law and the other on the English common law. Roman law is based on the rights of the state and it gives permissions for citizens to do certain things. For example a law may say that you are allowed to do X, Y and Z because the state gives permission.

Common law builds up over time from court decisions and legislation commonly says that you cannot do certain things. For example you can do whatever you like but you cannot do A, B and C because it infringes the rights of others, or you can do other things but you have to do it like so.

The split in the different types of systems follows broadly colonial lines, so the USA has a common law system (though its now a hybrid of the two) as do most ex-English colonies. Scotland and most ex-French and Spanish colonies have Roman law systems.

In my opinion most countries are having a gradual shift towards state control and this means a shift towards the Roman law system. I feel this is as a response to things like terrorism or external threats, not because of some conspiracy, and this is why habeus corpus is gradually being eroded - the state doing what it wants in order to protect the state and its peoples.

Personally I don't have a problem with it as long as it is for the right reasons. What the "right reasons" are is worthy of debate. Then the problem becomes how those reasons are applied.

Hood

Caveats

The above is a very general outline, for a better and fuller explanation do your own research. Any opinions expressed are my own and have nothing to do with previous posts or opinions expressed by anyone on this forum but instead are formed from my own life experiences and from what I do in my work.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Thanks for the link. Interesting. RationalWiki its like wiki but with hate and snide.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Hood

Habeus corpus originated in the English courts. To follow up on Galway's post I thought I'd touch on the two main different types of legal systems in the world.

One system is based on Roman law and the other on the English common law. Roman law is based on the rights of the state and it gives permissions for citizens to do certain things. For example a law may say that you are allowed to do X, Y and Z because the state gives permission.

Common law builds up over time from court decisions and legislation commonly says that you cannot do certain things. For example you can do whatever you like but you cannot do A, B and C because it infringes the rights of others, or you can do other things but you have to do it like so.

The split in the different types of systems follows broadly colonial lines, so the USA has a common law system (though its now a hybrid of the two) as do most ex-English colonies. Scotland and most ex-French and Spanish colonies have Roman law systems.

In my opinion most countries are having a gradual shift towards state control and this means a shift towards the Roman law system. I feel this is as a response to things like terrorism or external threats, not because of some conspiracy, and this is why habeus corpus is gradually being eroded - the state doing what it wants in order to protect the state and its peoples.

Personally I don't have a problem with it as long as it is for the right reasons. What the "right reasons" are is worthy of debate. Then the problem becomes how those reasons are applied.

Hood

Caveats

The above is a very general outline, for a better and fuller explanation do your own research. Any opinions expressed are my own and have nothing to do with previous posts or opinions expressed by anyone on this forum but instead are formed from my own life experiences and from what I do in my work.

Close, but not exactly the right choice of words in regards to civil law.

Roman law is based on the rights of the state and it gives permissions for citizens to do certain things. For example a law may say that you are allowed to do X, Y and Z because the state gives permission.

Actually the most stricing difference is not that civil law is "giving citizens permission", which sounds like some kind of dictatorial regime. It is simply not based on precedents like the common law.

In fact both systems are based on the "not guilty until proven otherweise" principle and ppl can do whatever they want until it hurts or endangers others.

Basicly, common law means that a judge makes a call in a certain case which in it's subject matter is a first one.
Later, comparable cases can call upon that judgement to get a similiar call.
It's also not so much english as the roots of this system go back to germanic practices in general, which makes it rather old, comparable to roman law.

Civil law means that ppl get together and actually write down rules for juristication based on cases that have been handeled so far. Should an incident occur that has not yet been covered, then lawmakers come together to figure out rules for future handling of such cases. This law then is written down and binding to courts, so judges do not enjoy the same kind of freedom the common law judges do.

Common law is more individual, judges enjoy more freedom and sentences are mostly based on personal opinions of judges and juries (within the legal framwork), but precedents are often dependent on present day fashion and in the long run, rather chaotic.

Civil law is more rigid and less flexible, on the other hand more reliable and predictable in it's outcome and often (well, sometimes) more based on common sense (lawmakers actually not having anything to do with the case are making the descisions, which makes for laws that are more based on principle)

Both systems, in the long run, tend to become incredible complex, the on in it's chaos, the other in it's regidity.

Imho, a mix of both systems probably is the best way to go, though the less emotions you have in a court, the better.