It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I just had a huge debate about this on a student forum. In the end I gave up as the twerps were not listening to me. In fact most ignored my points and forced their own to everyone else.
Do you think this is a legit arguement;
I was for the law as it does the following
-protects an officer if s/he is on duty on a high profile case (drugs/gun related)
-allows for an officer to do their job without annoyance
-prevents images getting into the wrong hand
-intevenes in terror activity
Those against were as follows;
-police will abuse these powers and use it against the public (you won't believe how much hostility I got for saying minority spoil for majority)
Only " I " can make me accept the PERSON status ; there is no LAW on the land which says that a HMAN BEING is a PERSON .
Originally posted by Mike_A
So what can you cite from Common Law?
I’m looking for something within British law that sets this out. You can cite multiple sources if you like if it is multi threaded but you must be able to cite something. For example where does it say that person only refers to a corporate identity?
In the UK a corporation is referred to as a person (interpretations act 1978) but there is nothing that precludes the term person from being a natural person as well as a legal person.
The closest I’ve seen someone come to contradicting this is the citation of an outdated definition found in an American legal dictionary; which in addition to being outdated and I believe misconstrued anyway is also not a legal document nor of any relevance to the United Kingdom.
Correct me if I’m wrong but this whole idea hinges on the supposed fact that a human being is not the same as a person as referred to in British legislature. If that is correct it must say this somewhere. But where?
Originally posted by tac109
Man, Them brits just bend over every time. It seems like every single week the British Government creates some new law to better enslave their people. I guess their government didn't learn the first time they pissed people off. I wonder however, Do the british people like these new enslavement laws or are they just too afraid and unarmed to do anything about it. Who knows.. Could be that all the brave ones left to start America.
Mike_A said ;
That is just not true.
The presumed definition of “person” is inclusive of “human being” and nothing in UK law states that person means anything else except to say that it includes “a body of persons”.
The legal fiction of personhood only exists because previous to this it was impossible to sue a body of persons since only a natural person (a human being) had the legal right to do this.
To remedy this the term person was taken to include corporations and the like (the latest statement of such in UK law is in the interpretations act 1978).
Thus in UK statutes the term person, unless otherwise stated, refers to both natural persons and corporations. It is implicit in UK law that person refers to a human being.
hmmm , Innocent until proven guilty would be the one to cite I guess .
It does not say who the ACT doesn't apply .
Now if a HUMAN BEING comes along and does not dispute the ASSUMPTION / PRESUMPTION ;
then by virtue of silence ,
the said HUMAN BEING has accepted the PERSON status .
Despite the fact that this act does not say anything about HUMAN BEING ; then why we ASSUME that it is talking about a HUMAN BEING ?
Natural Person , Legal Person or any other type of PERSON is not a HUMAN BEING , they are all fiction i.e make believe .
Unfortunately , no one can be told what the matrix is .
Funny but it doesn’t address the question. Where is it set out in law that the word person does not refer to a human being?
You say that the law only applies to someone who assumes that person refers to a human being but you are only assuming that it doesn’t.
How does that work ?
If you are taking a picture of a policeman then you are presumed to be ACTING in BREACH of the ACT which defines the ACTIVITY of TAKING PICTURES as ILLEGAL .
If you are a SOVERIGN in your own right , these ACTS & STATUES does not APPLY .
Just one look at the definiton of the ACT is enough to see that there is NO mention of a HUMAN BEING within the said ACT / STATUE .