That's pure comedy stuff.

Reminds me of another true story:

A mate's neighbour in Dublin - who was a grandson of a very famous IRA man of 1920 vintage - was arrested and jailed in England in the 70's for conspiring to cause IRA explosions. By the late 80's he'd been released, and when the Channel Tunnel project started he applied for and was called for an interview for the job of blasting engineer!

Good one Noel - it's too surreal.

David,

Yes, the Afghan story is pretty surreal. Though not quite as surreal as America at present being at war with the Afghanis they armed. This from every homophobe's nightmare the pink pistols:

Recently the Violence Policy Center (VPC) released a press release claiming that Americans had armed the Afghani Mujahaddin with as many as 25 high-caliber rifles over a decade ago.

But the Simon Jester Project, a program of national gay-friendly shooting group the Pink Pistols, has followed their lead to learn much more chilling information: Afghani fighters have gained access to advanced "Stinger" shoulder fired missiles that can bring down a warplane. The Pink Pistols even uncovered the shocking secret funding source behind the deadly weapons.

Their search led them into the shadowy underworld of the international military arms trade. "At first," Rostcheck said, "we assumed that the terrorists had obtained these fearsome weapons at gun shows and shipped them to Afghanistan, as recent VPC literature indicates. But then, after more knowledgeable parties mocked the idea that overseas military units are equipped at American expo centers, we learned that you can't actually buy a Stinger missile at a gun show."

"But our research uncovered an amazing fact - the missiles were actually supplied to Afghanistan by a shadowy agency called the United States Government!" Other research indicated that the now-defunct Soviet government may have supplied arms, perhaps unwittingly.

"But that wasn't the worst part!" continued Rostcheck. "When we found out that we had paid for the missiles ourselves, we figured we would be able to get ahold of them easily, but American taxpayers were not allowed to own them!"

"Consider the hypocrisy," elaborated Krick. "American citizens with no criminal record must jump through elaborate hoops to get even the overrated .50 caliber rifle, but Afghanis obtain much more powerful Stinger missiles, paid for by us, with no waiting period or criminal background check whatsoever!" Krick noted that the poor screening has let weapons fall into the hands of well-known criminals such as Osama Bin Laden, who appears on the FBI's Most Wanted List.

"It's ridiculous," Krick noted, shaking his head. "We fingerprint law abiding Americans, but hand Osama Bin Laden crates of Stingers. What a world!"

And some of us thought Charlie Wilson's War was fiction.

It seems impossible.

"All were jailed, but later had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal"

What more to say?

Human rights lawyers, judiciary, Legal systems, Law - corrupt.

>>Human rights lawyers, judiciary, Legal systems, Law - corrupt.<<

No, they aren't!

BTW. It's all a bit too bizarre. Does anyone know why their convictions were quashed back then?

Oh yeah they are Noel. Full totally and utterly corrupt. Their decisions are appauling and just keep on making those headlines and as long as they do they remain corrupt - or 'bizarre' if you are so inclined. They are liberal or tory upper class Untouchables and so get a free pass from some. Like the mafia - only all above board because they wear wigs and quote the Law at you.

Does anyone know why their convictions were quashed back then?

Because it was against their human rights to send them back. There is a judge at the root of it.

"In 2006 Mr Justice Sullivan caused widespread outrage after ordering the Home Office to grant the gang 'discretionary leave' to remain in Britain as Afghanistan was 'unsafe' to return to".

Corrupt

>>Because it was against their human rights to send them back. There is a judge at the root of it.<<

No. I meant the decision to quash thier convictions, which was independent of their right to stay in Britain, which is what Sullivan was deciding on.

Well, actually one probably led to the other. If they were deemed not guilty, and had been wrongly convicted, they'd obviously have a stronger argument againt being deported.

The question is why were they exonerated (they were after all caught in flagranti, I believe).

Nobody would disagree with you that there is corruption and unfairness in the legal world. But that is saying very little. We must be asking:

How much corruption and injustice is there?
Is it worse in Britain than in other countries?
Is it getting worse over time?
Is the present degree - however unfortunate - inevitable?
What are the likely causes?

I think you are applying the brush much too broadly here, Alison, and it weakens your argument.

I would also like to hear you say for once that there are no alternatives to the rule of law, and certainly mob law (= yob law) isn't one of them.

Noel

I'm applying the brush broadly on purpose. Because so little is done about it and we are all too comfortable with the system that you have to shake the whole tree. I will stay on code red on this because i feel passionately about this issue and would like to see reform.

Justice and the lack of it affects people like me and you on a very real level. The system which is designed around it is somehow bizarrely cossetted from criticism by virtue of the esteemed intellect in the trade and centuries old tradition. What they say goes. As a consequence there is a dictinct lack of desire to effect change.

It is not a case that there are a few bad decisions and that we can accept that because the system is 'inherently good'. We need to stop being so lazy and get serious about justice.

At least you ask some pertinent questions. Thanks.

I don't feel my argument has been weakened - yet. I don't actually think other than beating the drum on this I have ever laid out my thoughts on reform apart from once on one issue. The resulting fury in the comments taught me a lot. But if there is a real debate to be gained on this then I will.

And some of us thought Charlie Wilson's War was fiction.

its not fiction but it is the acceptable face of that part of history. what they dont tell you is that the funding began long before the russians invaded. zbig brzinski admits it quite openly.

Daytripper,

Thank you for responding to my comments on what's actually the bigger picture here. I know it's slightly off topic, but...

Alice,

You got it in one regarding our judiciary. We have the weight of history upon us, when the squires had the power of life and death over their tenants.

Whenever I see m'luds issuing to the Upper House in their wigs and silk stockings I weep that so many of my fellow citizens still tolerate this nonsense. It's an outward show of the rottenness at the heart of our legal system. We need a root and branch clean-out. But I'm blessed if I know where to start. The Law Lords are actually above the law—and some Brits fondly imagine we're a democracy.

Dawkins -

Drivel. You take against 'wigs and stockings' because you have no argument of substance, but want to look edgy and funky so attack the dress. It's a dress that dates back to the 15th Century and connects us with our past, which in itself carries as much legitimcy as anything.

The Law Lords are actually above the law

Rubbish. No-one is above the Law, not even the monarch.

... and some Brits fondly imagine we're a democracy.

Well this is liberal Britain, a country in which history, patriotism and enquiry have been expunged from schools. It's also a country in which our great native culture has been taken out and shot, its place taken by the worship of anything foreign, alien, weird, peculiar and inferior.

But since you brought it up, no, we're not a democracy. We're what our Consitution intends us to be - a Protestant constitutional monarchy.

Pete,

Do keep taking the tablets.

PETE

Everything you've just said in your 1.41pm is an absolute contradiction of your 'I don't need to be told what to do by fancy hatted officials' comment recently.

Colm: How dare you insist our Pete not contradict himself!

Colm -

Nothing at all in my previous post contradicts that position, though I suspect you've taken my one line that no-one is above the law and inflated it to encompass the whole post.

Plainly no-one is above the Law, not even the monarch, whose very position is a creature of Law. This is simple fact. And no, I don't need fancy-hatted government oficials to tell me how to live my life.

Apart from indulging in hyperbole, what are you going on about?

Dawkins

Im not too worried about the validity of dress and tradition, though I can see what Pete is saying - but with the pillocks who wear it and who claim to represent "The Law". Their curious belief they are actually doing anything worthwile at all whatsoever.

I have no respect - ZERO. So their choice of dress makes them currently look like clowns to me. If what they ever did was any good i would respect the traditions they purport to represent and uphold, including, probably, their garb.

The fact they currently find the wigs a bit itchy is of no consequence to me right now. It is certainly a minor inconvenienece in comparison to the judgments they uphold vis a vis victims. Victims twice over at the hands of criminals and at the hands of our precious mustn't-be-messed-with system.

Alison,

A scary thought just occurred to me. If judges in the 18th and 19th centuries had behaved as they do today, Australia as we know it wouldn't exist.

But every cloud has a silver lining: Kylie Minogue and Nicole Kidman wouldn't exist either.

Rubbish. No-one is above the Law, not even the monarch.

LOL thank god its friday

Pete

Nothing to do with your line about no-one being above the law. Just a reflection on your assertion on another thread that you don't have to be told how to live your life by government, yet you are happy to insist that our constitution and Bill of Rights, and all the ancient statutory instruments and customs of our judiciary created by bewigged officials centuries ago are sacrosanct and must be obeyed to the letter by everyone. Do you not see the hypocrisy ?

Colm -

No, because there is no hyprocisy. The point of Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights and all the rest of it is that government must obey them.

That we cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that we can only be punished following fair trial, that we can only be found guilty by our peers, that punishment must fit the crime, that the monarch is bound by oath and law to govern in accordance with our customs and all the rest of it are liberties against despotic government. We aren't obliged to follow these rules, they are.

Not only is this not inconsistent with my claim that I don't need the government to tell me how to live my life, it is entirely consistent with my claim that the government has no business telling me how to.

No Pete that won't wash. Those documents are frameworks set out by historic governing officials which as you say are permanent instruments of obedience here in the UK. Fair enough, but it is also those self same statutes that give our governing structures their legitimacy, and it isn't for you to choose which perfectly lawful Acts of parliament you can decide applies to you . Unless you are an anarchist or someone who refuses to recognise the legitimacy of the UK , of which you are neither, then you can't suddenly treat the laws of Parliamant as a pick and mix sweet selection for your individual taste. Swallow the whole bag or none at all.

"no-one is above the Law, not even the monarch"

"The point of Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights and all the rest of it is that government must obey them"

God Bless Britain. Our gift to the free world.

Then what the hell happened?

Oh yus. We stood back and watched it get bastardised, trivialised and milked for $$$.

Colm -

It washes very well. The liberties of Magna Carta were forced from king John, who signed it at the point of a sword. The Bill of Rights is merely a statutory recognition of the preceeding Declaration of Right, which is a statement of our common law freedoms. William of Orange didn't grant these liberties, he had to recognise them before being offered the throne.

Alison -

Yes, they were a great gift to the world, much of which incorporated them into their constitutions. The American Constitution is based on ours, their Bill of Rights is based on ours. Famously and properly, it doesn't grant rights to citizens (as the Code Napoleon does in assuming state ownership of citizens) but explicitly serves to restrict government.

Alison,

"milked for $$$."

Are you saying there was a deal done with the Merkins?

Or is it simply the case that your keyboard doesn't have these little chaps —> £££

Pete

All you are doing is re-iterating your support for the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta. Not actually answering any of my points, which I accept you realise you can't, not without admitting your inconsistency.

Colm -

I didn't spell it out but then I assumed I didn't need to. Ah well.

Those documents are frameworks set out by historic governing officials

Dealt with that.

which as you say are permanent instruments of obedience here in the UK.

Yes, for government.

Fair enough, but it is also those self same statutes that give our governing structures their legitimacy, and it isn't for you to choose which perfectly lawful Acts of parliament you can decide applies to you .

Interesting. You'd be undoubtedy right if government recognised constitutional constraint, but it hasn't done so since the Parliament Act 1906 at least.

The Bill of Rights explicitly outlaws fines and forfeitures prior to conviction, yet each day the police and local government goons issue such penalties - do I obey the Bill of Rights or the Parking Act 1989? I cannot obey both.

What if - even in your view - Acts of Parliament become immoral? Would you advocate that we obey the Kick The Niggers Out Act 2030, pushed through Parliament by the future BNP government with threats to Honourable Members?

The Queen has clearly broken her Oath of Coronation and the Law also by rendering herself suzereign to a foreign power. Most of our laws are now derived from that foreign power and are therefore illegitimate (again, Bill of Rights). Since the Queen is no longer sovereign anyway, the Royal Assent is without lawful authority.

Crikey, we could go on. I'll leave it there by saying that I'll concede my obligation to obey the reasonable Laws of the Crown when we are again an independent, self-governing people.

Unless you are an anarchist or someone who refuses to recognise the legitimacy of the UK , of which you are neither, then you can't suddenly treat the laws of Parliamant as a pick and mix sweet selection for your individual taste. Swallow the whole bag or none at all.

Covered above I think. Since Parliament doesn't recognise the legitimacy of the British Constitution, is my obligation to obey its laws really that compelling?

That I normally do obey those laws shows what a reasonable chap I am, but I'm still not getting a TV licence.

Pete,

"That I normally do obey those laws shows what a reasonable chap I am, but I'm still not getting a TV licence."

Do you believe in intellectual property rights? Specifically, patent and copyright?

Frank

Somedays he might, somedays he may choose not to. That's the luxury of Pete's pick and mix legal world.

Frank O'Dwyer -

I genuinely don't hold to a definitive view on patent and copyright. The problem for me isn't with natural rights, which I do recognise, but with intangibles.

As the content of my mind is mine, so my ideas are mine. But what if your idea is very close to mine? It's your idea, but how do we judge if it's sufficiently close to mine to say that I got there first?

And if you had your idea without any knowledge of mine, does the fact that the chemical process took place in my head first make it 'mine' and negate your claim?

Frankly, I do believe in patent and copyright, but it would be such a heavily qualified agreement as to be a practically useless concept.

I'm tempted to say that I just don't have the brain power to figure it out, but maybe that superior brain would leave me even less certain.

Colm -

Sorry I can't be black or white and agree or not with your assertion, but my world isn't always black or white. Oh to be so certain. It's an honest answer at least and I don't think it deserves a dismissive response, but there you go.

I asked you a question, by the way.

Pete

"My world isn't black and white"

Thank you. That is exactly the point I am making. We all make choices about what we think is fair or unfair, or where we think the govt. should or should not legislate. You are not infused with a greater principle or morality in these areas than others. We all have different points on our personal social legal moral compasses. What you consider to be an intrusive law others will think necessary and good, and vice versa.

PS - An occasional flippant or dismissive one liner is not necessarily uttered in place of a more substantial response nor is it always a direct response to a previous comment. I could argue these issues with you seriously all day and night if I wanted but neither of us I'm sure have the inclination to do so.

Let me just finally sum up my point as this. If you feel morally justified in rejecting what you consider to be unjustified restrictions by parliamant, then why cannot others - namely politicians - make the same choices aginst the statutes that you claim restrict them ?

I will answer your question. No I would not obey a law I consider to be immoral. I would have to accept the consequences of that refusal, but I wouldn't claim that Parliament has no jurisdiction to make that law.

We have argued this before but no document, not Magna Carta nor the Bill of Rights or any other binds it's succesers in perpetutity.

Colm -

Yeak ok. I "can't pick and mix" the laws I choose to obey, but you can't promise to obey a future law you consider to be immoral.

We have an understanding.

Pete,

"I genuinely don't hold to a definitive view on patent and copyright."

Me either. Not that it invalidates the idea, but both are backed by some of the most draconian laws going and the state/corporations always welch on the deal whenever the term is about to expire - can't have Mickey Mouse falling into the public domain.

Anyway the reason I asked is that not paying the TV license and still watching the programmes is a breach of copyright and therefore can be regarded as theft - and indeed is regarded as theft. Not a big deal as most people probably violate copyright in one way or another - probably the most breached laws going - but still a dilemma for the ardent advocate of property rights.

"But what if your idea is very close to mine? It's your idea, but how do we judge if it's sufficiently close to mine to say that I got there first?"

Well in terms of copyright it is supposed to apply only to derivative works so not knowing about the other work should in theory make it not derivative. However that would be very difficult to show and I'm not even sure it is a defence - presumably the use of first publication date is only because it is simpler. In the case of patents, 'obviousness' is supposed to be a defence and so is prior art - but in practice lots of obvious patents are granted, and prior art is often overlooked. It is really very common for people to independently make the same discovery.

"The problem for me isn't with natural rights, which I do recognise, but with intangibles."

Well I don't think they are any more intangible than other forms of property such as money, contracts, or electronic funds transfer. They are no more or less a legal fiction than any other type of property either - and whether you believe in natural rights or not the same type of arguments can be used for both.

I personally do not believe the concept of natural rights is either true or useful, but it doesn't make much practical difference. If there are natural rights there is no objective way to discover them, and no test to determine what is or isn't a natural right. They are mainly an issue for people who crave certainty because they are insecure about their "mere" opinions and they want a "basis" for them - usually as a means to force others to accept them or to justify doing so.

I don't mind people who believe there are such things as natural rights but have the humility to admit that they probably don't quite know what they are. The rest act like they are constantly on the telephone line to god. In other words such people think they know what is best, and in my experience they are almost always dangerous and almost always wrong.

Frank O'Dwyer -

I'm not sure that viewing BBC programmes without a TV licence is a breach of copyright (as I'm not reproducing anything) but I'm happy to credit the BBC as the broadcaster.

But if property rights in any form are to be asserted then while they prosecute me for owning a TV without the state's permission, I'll make a claim for trespass since their broadcasts encroach my property.

Either way I'm upfront about it: I own a TV without the state's permission. It's my decision, I know the consequences and I take responsibility.

Pete,

What an interesting discussion that's developed here.

For what it's worth, the TV licensing chaps have been hounding me for about a year now. It's comical. Here's what happened.

A year ago I bought a new DVD player. The store was obliged by law to have me fill in and sign a form giving my name and address, etc. The assistant explained that it was done to register "new" TV owners. Bloody cheek I thought.

And sure enough within the month I received a shot across the bows from the TV peeps. I needed a licence. In fact Mrs Dawkins held/holds a licence in her name but I was damned if I was going to tell them that. Why should I? No damned business of theirs.

The upshot of this is that there isn't an upshot. In the past year I've been threatened with fines, public flogging and more besides. The promised "inspector" never materialized. Disappointing mind you; I was looking forward to amusing myself by telling him I didn't have a TV licence and to go and screw himself.

Thought I'd share that with you. Keep up the good fight!

Dawkins

Unless I am mistaken and you don't live with Mrs D then you have done nothing wrong. There is a TV Licence in your hoisehold which is not I presume the case in the Moore household. Your situations are not the same.

Colm,

You misunderstand me. I didn't say they were. Mrs D and I know I've done nothing wrong but HM's Inspectorate of Televisual Licences or whatever TF they call themselves don't know. I enjoy wasting their time because I'm damned if I'm going to do their "job" for them :0)

Dawkins

Ok I understand that point, but do you approve of Pete deliberately not having a TV license - while presumable watching the BBC ?

Colm,

No. That's leeching. It's also against the law and I cannot side with lawbreakers. My mummy and daddy wouldn't approve.

Dawkins -

I've read that it's not the law at all that you must supply your name and address, but retailers have been leaned on and they comply. When I bought my current TV I put my name and address as Charlotte the Harlot, 22 Acacia Avenue. Iron Maiden fans will get it. The half asleep teenage assistant actually looked at the form when I gave it back to him without flickering.

Unless you live on a sink estate and are a student or single mother, no inspector will appear. They concentrate on those they can frighten into admitting that they have no licence. If you have a job they assume you might tell them to f- off so don't bother.

Although I still receive the occasional letter (which is into the bin unopened) I haven't had a single visit in the 9 years I haven't had a licence. Incidentally, those letter would cause an outcry if they were sent by a private body, such is their threatening nature.

I'd do what you're doing though even if I had one. Sod'em.

exactly the same selfish ant-social attitude that you rightly railed against on the 'bad girls' thread. No different really to a fare dodger or uninsured driver.

I don't even begin to understand why the government makes you pay to watch TV - that's so odd. Don't you have advertising to fund the programs?

Daphne,

One of the pluses with the BBC is that there is no advertising (as compared to the US version which is apparently funded mainly by adverts for pharmaeceuticals with alarming side effects :-). The other channels do have advertising.

Daphne

Yes there are many ggod arguments to be amde for not having the licence fee, but nontheless the BBC is a statutory broadcasting organisation available to all without advertising breaks and paid for by all UK residents with a televison set in their homes or businesses. If Pete refuses to pay for a licence then he is simply getting free entertainment paid for by those (including pensioners, the poor and the single parents he mentions) who do. He is behaving as a freeloader.

How much does a license cost? Do you have to have one for every TV you own? How does the government know if you have a TV or not?

Oh Frank - the med ads are so boring and scary, everything they advertise either gives you the trots or makes you impotent.

Daphne

Each contained dwelling place (house, flat, bedsit) requires only one licence regardless of how many TVs there are. The annual Licence is £140.00 (about $250). I don't think they can technically detect a televison , they just presume all households have at least one.

Daphne -

A TV licence represents permission to own a TV, granted by the state.

Well stuff that.

It stems from the early days of the BBC, when it was the sole broadcaster, there was no advertising revenue and it needed a guaranteed revenue.

The law states that you must have a TV licence if you use any broadcast receiving equipment, so that now (apparently) applies to computers and mobiles phones too.

Again, stuff that. It's as logical as needing the state's permission to own a toaster and kettle.

That BBC News is virulently Left Wing is irrelevent. I even acknowledge that the BBC is very often a marvellous broadcaster. The relevence of the law to the BBC is that almost all of the revenue raised - about £3bn this year - funds it.

The plain truth is that I regard paying the state for permission to own a TV as so absurd I simply will not do it.

Pete

I agree with you that it is a foolish way to fund the BBC, but it remains a fact that the entertainment you get from the BBC is being paid for by those less fortunate (or stubborn/brave) than you.

Ps - It does not apply to mobile phones. It does apply to PCs with a TV tuner.

Colm -

Yep, my BBC entertainment is paid by others. I'm not proud of it, I don't snigger or even smile about it, but I do acknowledge it.

I got my reference to the mobile phone from here (first answer, first para.):

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp