Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-04-2011, 05:58 PM   #41
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelyork View Post
Care to explain these words of wisdom?
Check out the image in Post #36.
Pay close attention to what is transformed by the use of capitalisation and that which is left unmolested.

That will provide the explanation you seek.

Art is in the eye of the beholder.
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman

Last edited by yozhik; 03-04-2011 at 05:59 PM.
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2011, 09:56 PM   #42
weeman
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Behind you....... Pulling Faces!
Posts: 6,065
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danster82 View Post
Yes the common law evolves which is actually a necessity that should be considered when adopting systems of law. Anything that doesnt evolve is rigid and thus ultimately subject to the second law of thermodynamics which will break it down.

Wikipeida has a good explaination here

The common law evolves to meet changing social needs and improved understanding

The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy. Second, the common law evolves through a series of gradual steps, that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects.[15] In contrast to common law incrementalism, the legislative process is very difficult to get started, as legislatures tend to delay action until a situation is totally intolerable. For these reasons, legislative changes tend to be large, jarring and disruptive (sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, and sometimes with unintended consequences).
How do you find out who wrote that text?
weeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2011, 10:01 PM   #43
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

You don't you have to state for and on the record and provide proof of your claim in order to get it removed. If it is inaccuarate or defamatory there are the Statutes to apply to get it removed but the author in Wiki is entitled to their privacy. That's how it is set up. If you make a big legal noise about it the ISP will usually take it down rather than face libel action.

Though as luck would have it for you it appears in the name of a one Rita K on Facebook if you wish to contact her. She may know the source or she could be the original author.

Of course pale imitators make up excuses for why they don't site the original authors when quoting text they've been to lazy to find the original off themselves. Bad form even more when someone says Wiki says:

Last edited by girlgye; 03-04-2011 at 10:08 PM.
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2011, 10:16 PM   #44
weeman
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Behind you....... Pulling Faces!
Posts: 6,065
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by girlgye View Post
You don't you have to state for and on the record and provide proof of your claim in order to get it removed. If it is inaccuarate or defamatory there are the Statutes to apply to get it removed but the author in Wiki is entitled to their privacy. That's how it is set up. If you make a big legal noise about it the ISP will usually take it down rather than face libel action.

Though as luck would have it for you it appears in the name of a one Rita K on Facebook if you wish to contact her. She may know the source or she could be the original author.

Of course pale imitators make up excuses for why they don't site the original authors when quoting text they've been to lazy to find the original off themselves. Bad form even more when someone says Wiki says:
Yeah, I actually pasted
Quote:
The common law is more malleable than statutory law.
into a search engine and found it cited on facebook as well as another 5 trillion sites. Just been copy and pasted into oblivion.

ho hum..... I managed to qualify the interpretation of someones opinion then....
weeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 01:53 AM   #45
weeman
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Behind you....... Pulling Faces!
Posts: 6,065
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by weeman View Post
Noticed a pickup in common law discussion recently but didn't want to derail with my query....

I asked (virtually) the same question on thinkfree and got bloody nowhere.....

As far as I'm concerned, common law must evolve or must have changed somewhere along the line.

The reason I say this is because common law doesn't prevent or cure all ills of a community; the don't cause harm, loss, injury or commit fraud doesn't cut the mustard in many-many aspects of community living. Anti Social behaviour being one of them.

What I class as Okay my older neighbours may find intolerable. Perspective and context maybe?

For instance, boys playing football on a nearby field. Yeah they are noisy but they are playing a game and not writing graffiti on every available wall. To me thats fine, but my neighbours find them too noisy. Should they call the cops? Is there such a thing as anti social behaviour within common law?

The other one I found a little more difficult to get through to people, so please bear with me....

Rape within a marriage.

Now,

Go back as far as you care to delve. Rape within marriage at one point in time WAS NOT A CRIME, not even in common law.
After all 'you can't rape your own wife' was the attitude of the husband (and most men of that era) when women were seen more as chattel than human beings.

Obviously that was the attitude at that time.

Nowadays, raping your wife is a crime, a statute crime; and only because perspectives have changed. (Womens Rights, equality statutes etcetera)

So, is common law all its cracked up to be?
The way I see it espoused within fotl sites, its as though common law is the bees knees of simplicity and responsibility.
Too simplistic perhaps?
Any thoughts on anti social behaviour being hard to define under Common Law?

Has the rape issue changed in Common Law?

(btw Yoz, for the purpose of this thread Common Law = common law and common law = Common Law. Any semantic games will not be played. I am sometimes far too lazy to press the caps key is all.) If there is a difference in meaning due to caps or lower case, either post it up and be done with it, or stop derailing the thread being a pedant. Everyone else seems to have understood.

Got an issue? Grab a tissue.
weeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 06:15 AM   #46
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Corr, I would love to know where Mike from the UK got his definitions from. I'll eat my hat if it's not a source linked to freemanery.

I think my hat is safe today though
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 06:38 AM   #47
soxism
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 138
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Common sense isn't very common. ...Which kinda fits with Common Law
__________________
'Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.' - Einstein

All matter, is merely Energy condensed to a slow vibration.
soxism is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 08:42 AM   #48
danster82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 3,923
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by weeman View Post
How do you find out who wrote that text?
what it written is not important it was merely an eloquent way of putting it. Why does it matter who wrote it? it is just a description. I assume you are deny what is said? But of course common law changes it is the most basic concept of common law that it evolves according to each new judgment made. If your point is to argue against this I'm personally not interested in that debate as its like arguing that fire is not hot or ice is not cold.
__________________
http://danster82.com//

Last edited by danster82; 04-04-2011 at 08:43 AM.
danster82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 06:48 PM   #49
weeman
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Behind you....... Pulling Faces!
Posts: 6,065
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
what it written is not important it was merely an eloquent way of putting it.


Quote:
Why does it matter who wrote it?


Quote:
But of course common law changes it is the most basic concept of common law that it evolves according to each new judgment made.
Judgements made by who?

Oh ! Doesn't matter, you don't want to discuss or debate.

Quote:
If your point is to argue against this I'm personally not interested in that debate as its like arguing that fire is not hot or ice is not cold.
Okay then, bye bye.
weeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2011, 10:21 PM   #50
weeman
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Behind you....... Pulling Faces!
Posts: 6,065
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by weeman View Post
Noticed a pickup in common law discussion recently but didn't want to derail with my query....

I asked (virtually) the same question on thinkfree and got bloody nowhere.....
As far as I'm concerned, common law must evolve or must have changed somewhere along the line.

The reason I say this is because common law doesn't prevent or cure all ills of a community; the don't cause harm, loss, injury or commit fraud doesn't cut the mustard in many-many aspects of community living. Anti Social behaviour being one of them.

What I class as Okay my older neighbours may find intolerable. Perspective and context maybe?

For instance, boys playing football on a nearby field. Yeah they are noisy but they are playing a game and not writing graffiti on every available wall. To me thats fine, but my neighbours find them too noisy. Should they call the cops? Is there such a thing as anti social behaviour within common law?

The other one I found a little more difficult to get through to people, so please bear with me....

Rape within a marriage.

Now,

Go back as far as you care to delve. Rape within marriage at one point in time WAS NOT A CRIME, not even in common law.
After all 'you can't rape your own wife' was the attitude of the husband (and most men of that era) when women were seen more as chattel than human beings.

Obviously that was the attitude at that time.

Nowadays, raping your wife is a crime, a statute crime; and only because perspectives have changed. (Womens Rights, equality statutes etcetera)

So, is common law all its cracked up to be?
The way I see it espoused within fotl sites, its as though common law is the bees knees of simplicity and responsibility.
Too simplistic perhaps?
Quote:
Any thoughts on anti social behaviour being hard to define under Common Law?

Has the rape issue changed in Common Law?
It appears these questions (which were posted on thinkfree and now here with little response) will remain unanswered.

Last edited by weeman; 07-04-2011 at 10:22 PM.
weeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:34 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.