@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:David, it's not what the government thinks,
it's what the people want.
Really? Do the English have a direct democracy?
I didn't think so.
Regardless of the wishes of the mob,
the Individual has his own
natural rights, including freedom of
OPINION,
and (dare I say??) freedom to
EXPRESS the opinion.
A "tyranny" suppresses them by threats & intimidation by law
including, but not limited to, being incarcerated or killed.
izzythepush wrote:The judge was right,
most people in the UK were concerned about Muamba at the time.
That was
NOT what he said; forgive me.
The basis of his judicial decision (the conviction) was that:
" . . . everybody was praying for his life".
That allegation is
EITHER true
or
its false, Izzy.
Judges r not supposed to make naked,
un-supported findings of fact
in their dispositions of criminal litigation,
especially not if defendant is actually being
convicted.
To
DO that makes a joke out of a trial in his court.
It impugns the entire judicial system of England,
unless it is overturned by higher authority.
Did his judicial decision render a holding
on
how many Englishmen must pray
in order for the operative statute
to apply to defendant???
Did the judge send bailiffs to search
the homes and all edifices of England
to ascertain how many Englishmen were
PRAYING??
(or did it suffice for his bailiffs merely to
peek in the windows?)
Of those who were found to be praying,
did his judicial researchers interrupt them to ascertain
whether
the decedent was in their prayers???
Did the source of the judge's information on this point
inquire of those Englishmen who were found in prayer
qua whether thay FAVORED or OPPOSED decedent's
recovery of his health?? From a jurisprudential perspective,
were defendant's rights of free speech forfeit
IF the majority
of praying Englishmen petitioned the Supreme Being
AGAINST the well-being of decedent? (i.e., a curse)
How wud that affect the legal result, in this criminal trial??
(By the way,
IF the majority of praying Englishmen
were found to petition the Deity
IN OPPOSITION
to decedent's recovery of good health, is that
another "hate-crime"?
Wud the Englishmen
be arrested by those bailiffs (or police)
for the substantive content of their divine prayers, Izzy??????)
Does the statute come into operation
if only 9O% of the English pray??
How about 3O% ?
Does the Individual English citizen forfeit his right
to freedom of speech when the FIRST Englishman begins to pray??
One wud expect that these questions of law wud be decided
b4 an Englishman is dragged away in chains n hurled into
a dungeon for expressing his opinion.
izzythepush wrote:He's a really nice guy,
Maybe, but he is not much of a judge,
using emotion-based language like that,
citing to
NO authority, in support.
izzythepush wrote:his family did not deserve to be subjected to a load of vile filth
spouted by a racist while his life hung in the balance.
We 've had that problem
with pacifists thusly attacking the funerals
of American servicemen, killed in combat.
(If I remember, that was judicially resolved
in favor of free speech. I hope that someone
will correct me, if my memory is in error.)
izzythepush wrote:Your insistence in using terms like tyranny is pure hyperbole.
I don't think so; I 'll stand by what I said
(until u convince me otherwise).
izzythepush wrote:Tyrannous regimes murder their citizens and lock them up without trial.
Members of the July 20, 1944 von Stauffenberg plot
(who had not already been shot) were
put on trial,
presided over by Roland Freisler. (I don't think much of his judicial service, either.)
I deem the 3rd Reich to have been
"tyrannous"; yes ?
izzythepush wrote:Both of those conditions are true in America.
What do u have in mind?
izzythepush wrote:The facts are that we enjoy a lot of freedoms that you don't,
Which ones ?
izzythepush wrote:and we're not particularly bothered about your definitions,
especially when you say things that are wrong.
OK.
I hope that u r happy. U must live with the result.
izzythepush wrote:Given the choice I would much rather be in a UK jail than a US one,
and I've got a much better chance of a fair trial over here.
OK. Its a good thing that we r both in places
that we wanna be. Not everyone is.
Quote:Robert King paces the front room of his small, one-storey house in Austin, Texas.
"I imagine I could put my cell inside this room about six times," he says. "Probably more."
For 29 years Robert King occupied a cell nine feet by six - just under three metres by two - for at least 23 hours a day.
He spent most of his time incarcerated in one of the toughest prisons in the United States - Louisiana State Penitentiary.
The prison, the largest in the US, is nicknamed Angola after the plantation that once stood on its site, worked by slaves shipped in from Africa. King, who was released from prison in 2001, still calls himself one of the Angola Three - three men who have been the focus of a long-running international justice campaign.
Continue reading the main story
Between them, they have served more than 100 years in solitary. All three say they were imprisoned for crimes they did not commit, and where convictions were only obtained after blatant mistrials.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17564805
