It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Corruption in legal systems ( Scotland )

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
This would seem to be the best forum for a topic about some aspects of the law, since the laws are created by governments.

My purpose in posting this is to try to find out - where else is the law so unfairly conducted, other than in places generally accepted to be 'developing' (condescending term I agree) or 'third world' or similar.

I've had some problems with the law, to say the least. Each time this happens I'm amazed, in a bad way, as to how they can get away with calling it justice.

Some examples and questions - is it the case in other countries that the context of *why* a crime is committed is entirely irrelevant?

Because in Scotland that's how it is - it doesn't matter why you did what you did. The context is entirely ignored.
(Just for example - if you were being harassed by someone and you snapped and hit them, then surely the reason why you did so would be important in a true justice system. Since it is entirely different to if you just went up to someone and hit them for nothing with no provocation. Also in those kinds of situations - where else in the 'free world' are you allowed to start problems with others, and then that isn't taken into account? It's only if you respond to someone bothering you that it counts as illegal.)

I'm wondering how common is that in the rest of the 'free world'? Because I thought that in order to be a justice system that context would be fairly important. That was before I was ever arrested or charged with anything.

Another Scots Law special - in Scotland, there's a law that basically takes the evidence of two or more people as automatically more truthful than the evidence of one person. This as far as I know isn't the case in England or Wales.

Effectively it means that as long as there's enough witnesses saying one thing happened, their version is taken as truthful enough to say press charges, if the witnesses to the contrary are less in number.

Doers anyone else agree that is so blatantly a law made to help people lie and cheat and basically pervert the course of justice? Why else would anyone create a law like that?

Off my own topic a little - how common is it elsewhere for the law to be so obsessed with policing the internet and cell phone messages? Now I've been a 'declaration of cyberspace' * kind of person all along, so I don't agree with any curtailing presence online, don't agree with the spying and the data mining for the dodgy purposes - don't care that the internet was actually invented by the US military, doesn't matter, cyberspace should be a place free from all the rubbish of the law anywhere.

* www.eff.org...




posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: visitors
Historically, Scottish law has followed the traditions of Roman law more closely than English law has done. That may account for some of the differences. I think the same is true about the legal systems of the Continent.

However, I'm not sure that English law accepts "provocation" as a justification for violence either (though I've never been in a position to find out).


edit on 23-3-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

However, I'm not sure that English law accepts "provocation" as a justification for violence either (though I've never been in a position to find out).



"I feared for my own safety" ought to do it.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
The USA strongly enforces laws covering the internet and cell phone messages. Just look at the stories where teens have sent pictures of each other in underwear only to end up being done for the production kiddieporn. Existing laws were meant to target camera photographers spending thousands on photo labs to print and distribute pictures of anyone under 16. Mainly to regulate the porn industry.

These laws gets extended to taking and emailing a selfie using a smartphone.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

Yes, it's that kind of obvious injustice I'm meaning. How would anyone even know who is sending what pictures to each other unless they are spying on them or stalking them.

Of course yes, if I do see the news or newspapers, they are always full of stories of things that blatantly shouldn't be able to happen. I think it's obvious the same conspiracy is behind all of it.

Cyberspace, as my link there indicates, should not be subject to any countries laws, or any planets laws for that matter. It's bad enough the problem thinks it can have physical reality, without it also messing up the internet too.

Just generally,

It makes me sick how these systems claim to be about justice - when really it's just loads of people, of all kinds, going along with things being all wrong and corrupt. The "I'm alright jack"s and how they just let it all continue to be corrupt, while lying that we live in free countries. Well yeah the law is fake and superimposed, political borders don't mean anything really - they mean someones used violence and war to take over land and sea and impose a government on it. It's no more legit than if anyones else decide to do the same thing. So in that sense it's free, if you want and can, you too can take over land and sea with violence. Just like every other political map has been drawn out to.

Here's an example I heard of yesterday of further Scottish court corruption - 3 different people up before the court. One has quite a long list of previous and is up for assault - the Procurator Fiscal doesn't ask for a bail extension on that. However, they do try to get the court to jail these two people - one who is a first offender (nothing major) and another whose 'offences' are only things they have said or written, because of harassment to them.
Those requests come from the same office, by the same people.
I'm not saying the assault charge person should have gone to jail or even been in court - I know nothing of them personally. I do know though that for a Fiscals office to be so blatantly corrupt as that, then how does anyone in any authority justify those types being allowed to have jobs like that?
Their jobs ruin lives, and they don't answer to anyone. How is that democratic? It's not even slightly democratic when systems like that exist.

Just another example - person drove home with exhaust hanging off, cause it was just a couple of miles away. Once home they had a drink. A neighbour (must have been a right bitch, but anyway) phoned the police on them. The police breathalysed them - after they'd been in their house - and wrote it up as them being charged with drink driving. And somehow the sheriff / judge agreed, when even if you're not a proper lawyer you could have won a case like that. You can't breathalyse someone after they've been in their house for like half an hour. This again was in Scotland.
In Scotland recently, they also changed the law to make it even worse than the rest of the UKs drink driving laws. People have gone to jail for a year, for doing nothing wrong other than having had a drink, meaning they didn't cause any harm to anyone or anything while driving. This is worse? than the USAs dry states, which btw how is that even able to happen in the USA? What kind of free country stops you drinking or selling / providing alcohol.

Personally I believe we should police ourselves. Part of the problem has been that the law is taken out of the hands of individuals, and the are forced to deal with their problems via complaints systems, or taking people to court - which costs way to much to even consider. So the system is corrupt. If you defend yourself or sort your own problems out, then the police and courts tend towards treating you as the criminal. This forces people to deal with those corrupt law systems. I'd rather take my chances with people being allowed to be armed thanks, than have to deal with the evil corruption of the law, and I'm quite sure that had that been the case all along (people being allowed to be armed and police themselves), then by now we'd have gotten rid of all those who actually cause the problems.

I'm looking at that over generations. And perhaps without the complexity of the fake law then things like reincarnation would have actually meant something, eg are you that into this reality you'd reincarnate to kill who killed you? Plus it'd still work out better even if it didn't end up that way - at least it'd take a way shorter amount of time for us to wipe each other out.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Ok, What you done.? Busted with something under the Communications act.?

Scottish law has been used as a template in just about every civilized country in the world. There is a reason for that.

Here's a suggestion. Either dont break the law, or if you do, try not to get caught...No witnesses, no evidence = a free man.

edit on 25-3-2016 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: visitors
a reply to: stormcell



Just another example - person drove home with exhaust hanging off, cause it was just a couple of miles away. Once home they had a drink. A neighbour (must have been a right bitch, but anyway) phoned the police on them. The police breathalysed them - after they'd been in their house - and wrote it up as them being charged with drink driving. And somehow the sheriff / judge agreed, when even if you're not a proper lawyer you could have won a case like that. You can't breathalyse someone after they've been in their house for like half an hour. This again was in Scotland.



You are correct. The Police cant Charge you with driving whilst pished if they have zero evidence. Maybe the person admitted it. The person didn't need to open the door to the police. The police had no right to enter the house unless under warrant or invited unless they suspected a crime was being committed in the house.

As you say. A Lawyer, any lawyer would have got you off with that charge. Something smells fishy and i'm not talking about the contents of Susan Boyle's Rhubarb Crumble.


edit on 25-3-2016 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-3-2016 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-3-2016 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

That's a disgusting image and turn of phrase, please don't trash talk about celebrities in lurid gossip column ways. My comedy tastes have never lurked in those dark areas.

In reply to the first post - that isn't helpful. I made it clear in the opener why I started this thread. I don't need anyone to come here and tell me vague ways to commit crimes and get away with it. That isn't the point - the point is exposing and getting rid of the corrupt system.

It does indeed fear words, so it does have an effect, merely typing about it.

(Most of the words they charge and prosecute people for are no worse than what you typed there about the singer. Except - and I don't mean you should be charged for this or anything - what you did was actually worse than what Scottish law prosecutes people for, as it was unprovoked and sexually demeaning. Unless you know her and she thought it was funny, and that kind of thing.)

The thread is about the fact that indeed as you say - it stinks. It's not just that one example, it is rife. And that shouldn't be allowed to happen.


edit - That is also true, about not opening your door to police, that they need warrants, and so forth. But what if someone doesn't know that? You're unlikely to know that until after they charge you and a lawyer tells you what you should have done. So that isn't a fair system, when people don't know how the law works. It affects them, so they should be informed about it clearly.
And what happens if someone else lets them in? Why should that be allowed to affect you if you're the one being charged? It quite simply shouldn't. They shouldn't be able to take that into account in prosecution.


edit on 25-3-2016 by visitors because: extra bit



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Good example of corruption - why has this thread been flagged? Too truthful for the conspiracy?

I see many accounts with a lot of flags - does anyone check to see who flags what, and why? Is it used for anything?

I think for a fair system, at the very least, your account stats should show the amount of flags you have applied to others. And even better if it gives details of reasons for flagging, which presumably you need to provide (I haven't even looked it up..).
edit on 25-3-2016 by visitors because: extra bits



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
As i said, Spill the beans. You still havn't told us what you were charged with and the circumstances surrounding it. ?



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: visitors
a reply to: Soloprotocol

That's a disgusting image and turn of phrase, please don't trash talk about celebrities in lurid gossip column ways. My comedy tastes have never lurked in those dark areas.


(Most of the words they charge and prosecute people for are no worse than what you typed there about the singer. Except - and I don't mean you should be charged for this or anything - what you did was actually worse than what Scottish law prosecutes people for, as it was unprovoked and sexually demeaning. Unless you know her and she thought it was funny, and that kind of thing.)




Feel free to report me. Here's the Number.. 101



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I wouldn't stoop so low as to flag people for posts, for the reasons I described above.

Do people generally just reply without reading, cause I spend lot of posting time online pointing out what I already wrote.

"Scottish law has been used as a template in just about every civilized country in the world. There is a reason for that."

Well doesn't that speak volumes. Because those systems are all corrupt too. No wonder the world that calls itself ''civilised'' (when it is of course nowhere near that, maybe after Full Disclosure and after all the fake political borders are gone and they stop lying about history and human origins and how reality works and what occult evils they're all actually up to, ritualistic repeating sacrificial backward king-kill-33 re-enactment sickos they all are, maybe then when they build civilisations on truth they can call themselves civilised) is actually completely messed up, given the kind of false masonic law template they decided to copy.

Civilised, that is the biggest add of insult to injury. They don't do anything right.

Oh we're civilised, we lie about drugs and make them illegal to fund our war economy that devastates the globe. We're civilised, we turned the mid-east and some of asia to sand and dust cause of wrong farming, then we went to europe and did the same to most of the habitat and forests there, then we went to america and did the same thing there, and then we used america as a launch pad to destroy the remainder of the world we hadn't invaded and messed up yet. We keep animals in captivity, and we raise them in demented conditions worse than our ritualistic prisons, just to eat them or wear them, and we keep big areas going just to shoot them, while we over urbanise most of the globe, and perpetuate technological advances that are merely about enslaving people by making them dependant upon machines they can't make themselves. We cut funding for all sorts while pursuing people through the courts and corrupt law systems for doing wrong at all. Yeah really civilised. That's the tip of that iceberg; how can't anyone not be aware of such things?

edit - in case it isn't obvious, the parts about their corruption messing up different places should be seen in the thousands of years context to which its fail agricultural-city-state of approx. 6000 years applies.

edit on 26-3-2016 by visitors because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: visitors

People 'flag' threads usually to indicate it is an interesting or important topic.
Flags are generally a positive thing, more flags = more interest.
I can confirm I have not flagged this thread though.
edit on 26.3.2016 by grainofsand because: Typo



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: visitors
Historically, Scottish law has followed the traditions of Roman law more closely than English law has done. That may account for some of the differences. I think the same is true about the legal systems of the Continent.

However, I'm not sure that English law accepts "provocation" as a justification for violence either (though I've never been in a position to find out



European laws derive from the 'Code Nepolian' (spelling might be off) The french dictator.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I was born in Scotland, and have lived in Scotland my whole life. Can't really relate to your post though. In the 28 years I have graced this planet I've never spent a single minute in court, and I've done just as much stupid things as the next guy. The best thing for anybody to do is not get caught.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff
Ah yes, named after Napoleon. I was drawing on memories of studying earlier periods. A legal expert (but I'm not one) could tell us how much he may have been systematising the older Roman influences.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: angryhulk

I can't emphasise how pointless and insane that 'advice' is. All the more so that again I already explained why, in a previous reply. Ok, maybe you didn't read anything bar the original post here. But even at that - do you really think that is even worth posting or saying to anyone, "don't get caught" ? It is no help or use at all. For the reasons already outlined here.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Oh. I thought flags were more for what the other chap there also thought, because someone thinks there is something wrong with the thread. Usually a flag does indicate a problem.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: visitors
a reply to: angryhulk

I can't emphasise how pointless and insane that 'advice' is. All the more so that again I already explained why, in a previous reply. Ok, maybe you didn't read anything bar the original post here. But even at that - do you really think that is even worth posting or saying to anyone, "don't get caught" ? It is no help or use at all. For the reasons already outlined here.



Wow. So your that type of guy? Bye.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: visitors
a reply to: grainofsand

Oh. I thought flags were more for what the other chap there also thought, because someone thinks there is something wrong with the thread. Usually a flag does indicate a problem.

Depends on the colour of the flag.

White = Surrender.
Yellow = accident, slow down (Grand Prix)
Black = Dodgy government operation
red = a warning or alert
Green = Vehicle roadside recovery company..Like the AA or AAA
multi coloured (rainbow) = Men mincing around in hot pants to Gloria GAYnors 1978 classic I will Survive.
Brown = I really really really Surrender.


edit on 26-3-2016 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join