Corruption in legal systems ( Scotland )

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

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.

You forgot False in your list.

a reply to: angryhulk

By 'that type of guy', if you mean that I will question why anyone bothers to post 'advice' that can't possibly help anyone ever, and isn't really inkeeping with the opening posts statement as to the thread point, then yes I suppose I am that type of 'everyone always presumes you're a man cause clearly you aren't in the same cult they are and a woman can't be that clever'...guy.

I don't even see the point in saying things like that to others in off the cuff conversation - it's not as if you have any control over whether you get 'caught' or not, which is a major point of the system being incredibly corrupt.

This isn't about being purposely evil and trying to get off with it, it's about the fact lots of convictions are for things that are not bad at all, and also in some cases are fighting against that which is evil.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

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.

You forgot False in your list.

I put black instead of False.. False isn't a colour.

a reply to: visitors
Maybe i've missed something, but just what exactly is it "YOU" have been charged with.?

If you tell us exactly what happened to "YOU" instead of the cryptic messages about a possible third party then maybe we could look further into it.

originally posted by: visitors
(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.)

My only experience is the legal system in England and Wales, but personally I think the law is okay as it stands.
The only course of action considered reasonable when using violent force is when one is defending oneself or others from physical attack, or perceived threat of imminent attack. For example, say an aggressive person is coming running at you, it could be considered reasonable to make the first strike as soon as they came into range.

Violent force is allowed up to the point the threat is made safe, the attacker is unconscious, injured to the point they are no longer a threat. This means that stamping on their head after the threat is removed would not be considered reasonable force.

Personally I've stabbed one burglar in my life and savagely beat another. Both times my argument was that I feared for my safety, and I stopped when the threat was removed. Both times I didn't even get a caution.

Do I want a society where the law allows people to punch you in the face because of verbal insults? Nope, not a chance.
I like the reasonable force laws as they are.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Again, as already clearly outlined more than once in reply, the point of this thread isn't just about the law being corrupt and evil regarding its treatment of me.

It's corrupt and evil generally - for example, someone like me would never go for a job in it, as we know we'd be involved in ruining lives at least indirectly, because so many laws are - wrong. It'd be stupid and unrealistic to presume that they can't possibly ever be used against anyone good, you know? to presume that if bad things happen to someone then they must have done something to deserve it.

Is honesty about that really so hard?

I'm not ignoring your repeated requests in my thread to read exact personal details re. me, it's just highly unlikely I'll be obliging them.

a reply to: grainofsand

That may have worked out for you, but it doesn't always work that way for everyone.

I've been told by many police they are quite willing to arrest and charge anyone for even considering using any kind of force to defend themselves.

"Do I want a society where the law allows people to punch you in the face because of verbal insults? Nope, not a chance. "

Yes, in a sense. I wouldn't trust the 'law' to apply it though.

Someone mentioned the Communications Act here - there's an example of when words are used to arrest people and charge them, and ruin their lives - for typing things or saying things.

So, if it's ok to arrest people and charge them as criminals for using words, how isn't it ok to punch someone or kick them in the head for shouting at you, or harassing you with words or actions, even if they haven't physically touched you?

What would you prefer: a temporary bruise, or judgement against you that stays on your record for life and doesn't state the true circumstances of what you did? and can be used against you again as 'previous'? or worse jail time and all the potential life ruining circumstances that creates?

originally posted by: visitors
because so many laws are - wrong

Which one's specifically?
I question and challenge authority quite often, it is good to live in a country where we can, but I interpret the law as the courts do and adapt accordingly, so have a high success rate over my life experience.

Which laws do you think are wrong? We can easily find the legislation through gov.uk if you can explain the laws you feel are questionable. It is something I enjoy looking into if it is a genuine crappy law.
Interpretation is always key though.

originally posted by: visitors
I've been told by many police they are quite willing to arrest and charge anyone for even considering using any kind of force to defend themselves.

Lol, ignore what the police say, it is the Crown Prosecution Service (in England and Wales) who make the decision to go to trial, and it is the court which produces the verdict.
If you understand the law as it is interpreted by the courts then you are good to go taking the piss in police interview, even under caution.

The last time I walked out of a police station, free without caution or charge, the cop interviewing me called me a cocky # when I laughed at his lack of evidence and the many holes in his case which provided reasonable doubt for me, I taunted him that his hours of detention were running out so I predicted I would be walking free of charge in a couple of hours.
I took the piss out of him that the Crown prosecutor would chuckle while listening to this recorded interview because he/she would know I'd nailed it I was correct.

No, I'm happy with most UK law, and the laws I think are silly I just disregard because most cops in my area think the same.

a reply to: grainofsand

Are you serious? Every drug law for a start. Anything that polices cyberspace and logs your internet or phone data. Nearly every transportation and traffic law - this and that for having a vehicle on the road. Laws that charge people for shouting or swearing or writing or saying things. Graffiti laws. We could be here all day listing them. Laws that don't allow for personal arming. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the fact you can be arrested & charged because you don't know your true rights. The fact that you can't get a real appeal that honestly looks at what you did - in context. The fact you'd need to appeal anything because context wasn't taken into account. The fact it ignores context when charging and prosecuting.

originally posted by: visitors
a reply to: grainofsand

Are you serious? Every drug law for a start. Anything that polices cyberspace and logs your internet or phone data. Nearly every transportation and traffic law - this and that for having a vehicle on the road. Laws that charge people for shouting or swearing or writing or saying things. Graffiti laws. We could be here all day listing them. Laws that don't allow for personal arming. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the fact you can be arrested & charged because you don't know your true rights. The fact that you can't get a real appeal that honestly looks at what you did - in context. The fact you'd need to appeal anything because context wasn't taken into account. The fact it ignores context when charging and prosecuting.

Just picking one of the laws that you feel unjust if I may.

Graffiti? Painting someone's property without there permission is something that you feel is acceptable then?

As to road laws, this and that for having a vehicle on the road do you really think we should allow people to drive unsafe vehicles that could cause harm or death to others due to negligence?

Or to have no insurance to cover damage that may be caused by your actions.

You really seem to make less and less sense the more this goes on in my opinion.

So If I choose to paint a picture on your property without your prior consent you do not feel that I should be accountable for my actions and be punished for such an action?

originally posted by: visitors
a reply to: grainofsand

Are you serious? Every drug law for a start.

I have to remind myself that recreational drug use which causes no problems to others is still illegal here where I live lol.
Devon and Cornwall police are way underfunded and understaffed so they don't give a toss about personal.
Maybe your constabulary employs stormtroopers?

Anything that polices cyberspace and logs your internet or phone data. Nearly every transportation and traffic law - this and that for having a vehicle on the road. Laws that charge people for shouting or swearing or writing or saying things. Graffiti laws. We could be here all day listing them. Laws that don't allow for personal arming. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the fact you can be arrested & charged because you don't know your true rights. The fact that you can't get a real appeal that honestly looks at what you did - in context. The fact you'd need to appeal anything because context wasn't taken into account. The fact it ignores context when charging and prosecuting.

Lots of words, but how about provide some detail. What specific miscarriage of justice to you feel is the one you are whinging about?
As I said, I am anti authoritarian myself, but I just learned the rules and actually enjoy the game.
Digital monitoring? Meh, knock my door, I'm easy, it's all a #ing game, but with rules that even help us if we interpret them as the courts do.
Police? They are not the law, just bouncers who kick us out of the club on occasion.

a reply to: grainofsand

Again, your personal experience doesn't reflect what happens to others. In my experience and that of others also, the Crown Prosecution go along with the police, and it's really obvious they're all in on it together all along. See some of my original examples in this thread where I described what some Procurator Fiscals are up to.

Here's an example of two things that happened to the same person:

hit a pedestrian unintentionally, who was blind drunk and who ran towards their vehicle. Charge - careless driving. Result - 3 points and £100 fine

tried to stop their vehicle on a motorway after it had serious trouble to it, in areas of no hard shoulders. Charge - dangerous driving. Result - automatic year ban (because Dangerous Driving is a completely corrupt law that automatically bans you) and £500 fine

Why would the Crown even pursue such a case as the latter, unless they planned all along to ensure the ban happened?

How can you get the most lenient result bar a Not Guilty for hitting someone, albeit accidentally and albeit it was the pedestrians fault, but if you do no damage at all and nothing happened you get banned and a massive fine?
Unless - the law is completely corrupt.

And to emphasise (the wording of the Dangerous Driving law is as bad in your neck of the woods too, not just in Scotland) - if you are charged with Dangerous Driving, it doesn't even matter how clean your driving record is. There is no room for context of any kind. Actual circumstances make no difference. How is a law like that ever ok? It's completely corrupt just like loads of other laws are.

a reply to: grainofsand

"but I just learned the rules and actually enjoy the game."

Then you are very much part of the problem, because life is no game. And there must be something wrong with you in the head to think that it is, much less enjoy it.

a reply to: visitors

Hmm, I don't recognise any of what you speak of so probably best to leave you to it with others who have experience of Police Scotland and the Scots legal system.

I wish you the best with your thread, and thanks for reminding me about how chilled it feels living in the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary under the legal system of England and Wales.
I'm look forward to reading the opinions of other ATS members from Scotland.

originally posted by: visitors
Then you are very much part of the problem, because life is no game. And there must be something wrong with you in the head to think that it is, much less enjoy it.

Something wrong with me in the head for enjoying playing the game that is life? Really?
I enjoy life, I hope you find yourself in a position to enjoy yours.
I wish you well, but I shall leave you to the thread now for reasons I mentioned in my previous post.

a reply to: nonspecific

Graffiti people wouldn't write on personal property.

Why do you think the state pays money to clean art off of public places, where it literally harms nobody? Do you even realise how difficult it is logistically to be able to do that kind of art?

Laws for driving and having a vehicle, lots of them are ridiculous. For example if you have a high hp vehicle you have to pay more tax....you already paid for the vehicle, and you already have to fill it with more fuel - which is taxed.

You can't build a car and have this and that on it, the wheels can't stick out from the arches, blah blah - load of totalitarian state garbage.

I've been to India, I'll take their version of driving over the UKs any day.

a reply to: grainofsand

Yes, people like you who think this is a game are part of the problem.

By believing that, you permit an opposition to exist.

I know you don't listen to sanity, but I assure you that life isn't a game.

originally posted by: visitors
a reply to: nonspecific

Graffiti people wouldn't write on personal property.

Why do you think the state pays money to clean art off of public places, where it literally harms nobody? Do you even realise how difficult it is logistically to be able to do that kind of art?

Laws for driving and having a vehicle, lots of them are ridiculous. For example if you have a high hp vehicle you have to pay more tax....you already paid for the vehicle, and you already have to fill it with more fuel - which is taxed.

You can't build a car and have this and that on it, the wheels can't stick out from the arches, blah blah - load of totalitarian state garbage.

I've been to India, I'll take their version of driving over the UKs any day.

You make little to no sense again.

I really fail to see any benefit for either of us continuing any form of rational debate.

I will say that your views on graffiti are absurd and that as far as I know India has one of the worst road traffic fatality records in the known world precisely because they have very few laws in place to prevent them.

I shall follow the route of my honourable fellow member and wish you well and bid you good day.

Ps, check that little envelope that has changed colour.

originally posted by: visitors
a reply to: grainofsand

Yes, people like you who think this is a game are part of the problem.

By believing that, you permit an opposition to exist.

I know you don't listen to sanity, but I assure you that life isn't a game.

Knowing it is a game allows us to win by playing those same rules.
You clearly haven't learned that yet...unlucky.

Please do carry on whinging on ATS though, while this is definitely my last reply in this thread, just know I am continuing to read it for amusement and entertainment reasons.