|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Bobstar posted:Lol at First person killed by a train was William Huskisson MP who was run over by Robert Stephenson's rocket. After the Power loom riots in liverpool his literally starving constituents came to him begging for minimum wage to be introduced and this fat tory wanker went "a vain and hazardous attempt to impose the authority of the law between the labourer and his employer in regulating the demand for labour and the price to be paid for it"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:I hate having to defend someone like Andrew Neil, but he's in the right here. Not everyone in that little black book were child abusers, as it contained contact details of nearly every influential person - including Andrew Neil. She made a clear implication, and I hope he takes her to the loving cleaners. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:"a vain and hazardous attempt to impose the authority of the law between the labourer and his employer in regulating the demand for labour and the price to be paid for it"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
ooooch aaayeee mah lawyers are drawin up they papurs right now!!!!!!!!! big massive papers thick as a phone book so they are, just you wait!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
they're just doin a spell check and a proof read the now, just you wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
big fat wadsa paypur thick enough to choke an elephant they are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just you wait lassy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
Would love to see what people like this would think if black comedians started doing whiteface and making fun of bigoted old gammons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
Weird legal question that a goon may be able to answer: could someone be done for contempt of court *after* the verdict has been delivered, and technically the result of the trial can no longer be influenced? (Not something I'm planning to do myself, it's for a story I'm writing.) Basically, if the foreman said "Not guilty... [waits for stunned/relieved reactions to die down] but [EVIDENCE] proves that the real killer is sitting right there! [points at someone in front row of the gallery]", what (if any) punishment could the judge hit them with?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Would love to see what people like this would think if black comedians started doing whiteface and making fun of bigoted old gammons. *In an intolerably small faced voice* Interesting boomers, you say that it is the young liberals who are ridiculous for getting triggered by racism yet you get apoplecticly mad, foam at the mouth and suffer heart palpitations if you get called a gammon. Check and mate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
This started with a now deleted Eurostar tweet. That tweet was then reported in the Times, Express, Mail and other papers, and now this updated .gov webpage https://twitter.com/NicBoothby/status/1476562050788831236 But still there's been no confirmation from the French side. No announcements, no updated web pages and no people reporting being stopped. I'm really wondering if this is some sort of 'hate the French' propaganda to direct the anger for when things really start to gently caress up after the Jan 1st import/export regulations kick in?....
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
Ir... irradiated?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
In order for folk traditions to be kept alive, they have to be living traditions, by definition. Something that just does what it did for centuries without changing or adapting isn't a folkway. So we can believe the idea that the black faces were just for disguise, rather than as anything else, in which case they can be green, why not. Or we can be traditional and return to naming it "going n—ring" and it can gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Ir... irradiated? if marvel films have taught me anything, the medical term for people with greenface is indeed irradiated
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:In order for folk traditions to be kept alive, they have to be living traditions, by definition. Something that just does what it did for centuries without changing or adapting isn't a folkway. The first morris dancers would have used Woad which is blue anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
Also lol at "I want tradition to be exactly what my grandad told me it was when I was twelve forever and a day, not something STERILE"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:This started with a now deleted Eurostar tweet. That tweet was then reported in the Times, Express, Mail and other papers, and now this updated .gov webpage Could be somebody on the French side giving us a fright before the real poo poo starts next Monday, you will hear the screams then all right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:This started with a now deleted Eurostar tweet. That tweet was then reported in the Times, Express, Mail and other papers, and now this updated .gov webpage The tweet hasn't been deleted and people have reported being stopped, they were given a letter explaining why.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:The first morris dancers would have used Woad which is blue anyway. It's possible that they used charcoal from the fire. That would make it a tradition co-opted by racists, rather than an inherently racist tradition. The solution is of course to kick all the racists out of the Morrises, and if that should lead to half of them suddenly having no members, that's nobody's fault.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
What's happening on Jan 1st? I've lost track of anything Brexit related.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:What's happening on Jan 1st? I've lost track of anything Brexit related. Pro Wrestling NOAH are running a show from the Budokan featuring Kenoh vs Kiyomiya & Nakajima vs Shiozaki, it'll rule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:What's happening on Jan 1st? I've lost track of anything Brexit related. brexit starts
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
Jedit posted:It's possible that they used charcoal from the fire. That would make it a tradition co-opted by racists, rather than an inherently racist tradition. The solution is of course to kick all the racists out of the Morrises, and if that should lead to half of them suddenly having no members, that's nobody's fault. I've also heard variously that the intent was to disguise, or to look like African 'Moors'. As these folk traditions are living and developing things, I think if it's the former then there's no reason why it can't be pink or green or anything else, and if it's the latter then either they can knock it off or we can pretend that it was the former as part of a living tradition and they can use pink or green etc. The Joint Morris Organisation wants nothing to do with a racist culture war anyway, regardless of the individual prejudices of any of their members.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
Jel Shaker posted:brexit starts The Brexit never ends in the land of Brexitania. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Weird legal question that a goon may be able to answer: could someone be done for contempt of court *after* the verdict has been delivered, and technically the result of the trial can no longer be influenced? (Not something I'm planning to do myself, it's for a story I'm writing.) Presumably you'd then be hit for abuse of process - if you had evidence that the defendant is not guilty (by dint of the actual guilty party being identifiable from your evidence) then if you did not make this evidence available during a trial you'd be wasting the court's time, negatively affecting the defence and mostly just being a bit of a dick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:This started with a now deleted Eurostar tweet. That tweet was then reported in the Times, Express, Mail and other papers, and now this updated .gov webpage This sorta makes sense though if it is true. If you are UK/Spanish for example, there is no direct route from Eurostar to Spain. And no controls at the stations like airports to keep you from just wandering off out into France. Same with driving. So you have a 3rd Country with a way to just get into your country with no need of getting anything related aside from a train ticket to somewhere else. happyhippy fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Dec 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Morris dancing was invented by 16th century poshos so if anything you'd be talking imported indigo, but given that redface is pretty strongly attested it'd surely be madder dyehappyhippy posted:This sorta makes sense though if it is true. Eurostars interpretation seems to be that anyone with European nationality, or a partner or child with European nationality, still has free movement. So it only really restricts single-nationality Brits with residence in a different eu country for the reasons you say, and the rest is just the standard euplf stuff The French government not issuing direct English language guidance is definitely deliberate and hilariously petty, mind Spangly A fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Dec 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
A bunch of old men with beetroot red faces singing about how not racist they are might be scarier than the blackface.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
Jel Shaker posted:brexit starts The Rise of Brexit (2022) Brexit and Robin (2023)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
Well the DWP wrote back about the mandatory reconsideration on the IIDB benefit I applied for. They are sticking with their original decision. Apparently not being able to work full time for over 10 years and not at all for five years (because of a condition they acknowledge that I have, that is lifelong and that was caused by a previous job) means I am only 4% disabled, and they refuse to move it up to a level where I'd be getting any financial help. So congratulations me I guess; I am officially disabled, but not enough to get government support. Apparently I can appeal at tribunal, but I have absolutely zero faith that I would be listened to there either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Weird legal question that a goon may be able to answer: could someone be done for contempt of court *after* the verdict has been delivered, and technically the result of the trial can no longer be influenced? (Not something I'm planning to do myself, it's for a story I'm writing.) There seems to be multiple questions here. First question about contempt of court. Funnily contempt is one where either a person admits it and asks to be allowed Purge their contempt. (IE apologise and pay a hefty sum of money to a nominated charity. You see this happen when a newspaper reports on something that happened in a court room that it wasn't supposed to. Like for example if a newspaper printed the name of a witness in trial who was supposed to go unnamed because they were a minor.) Or the person contests the contempt charge and a trial is held. But the trial doesn't happen until the trial where the alleged contempt occurred has concluded, since it would just delay the main trial. And in that case the contempt trial would happen long after the risk of contempt is over or if the contempt had an effect. For example if a witness refused to testify in a murder trial, they could be brought up on contempt charges. So even if a person was convicted of murder, the non-attending witness could still be tried for contempt and the fact that a murderer could have gone free would be an aggravating factor in sentencing. You second question, the foremen/forewoman of a jury has little actual weight in a trial. In fact the jury technically are both very important and not important at all. They try the facts put before them but only with regards to what charges are before them. They can pronounce the accused guilty or not guilty, but that's it. The court doesn't want to know (and in fact most times the court actively doesn't want to know) what a jury is thinking. Hearing that a jury decided to "do their own investigations because the police didn't do a good enough job" or "the jury asked tons of questions on subjects that the judge ruled inadmissible " have been fertile grounds for appeals of convictions. A jury finding someone not guilty but someone else guilty would be this really weird phantom zone. Technically the jury have gone outside their remit. But once someone is acquited, it's very rare for the State to appeal. Often they take the L and go onto the next case. Could they be charged with contempt? The question is who to charge them with it? Contempt of court cases are always heard by the presiding judge. But the judge has a duty to keep a control of their jury. A contempt case would also be an admission of a failure by the judge on their own role in the trial. So really it's so strange and outlandish that likely nothing would happen. A jury deciding that a person not before the court killed someone might get lots of traction in the newspapers and might prompt a new investigation by the police, but it won't result in any legal repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Well the DWP wrote back about the mandatory reconsideration on the IIDB benefit I applied for. They are sticking with their original decision. Isn't mandatory reconsideration basically always rejected? It's just the first step you have to take in order to reach the goal of tribunal where the decision actually stands a good chance of being reversed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Presumably you'd then be hit for abuse of process - if you had evidence that the defendant is not guilty (by dint of the actual guilty party being identifiable from your evidence) then if you did not make this evidence available during a trial you'd be wasting the court's time, negatively affecting the defence and mostly just being a bit of a dick. I don't think that's the case, but I *do* think you'd get in trouble as you're not supposed to have any knowledge of the case or the accused that you didn't learn as part of the trial, although I think you'd probably get shouted at by the judge if you shouted that out based on evidence that was actually submitted as part of the trial, in the same way you would if you shouted out "Haha, suck it" at the prosecution. Don't forget jurors are *only* supposed to consider the facts presented to them, and only on the question as to whether the accused is guilty of the offence of which they're accused - they're not supposed to even think about alternative scenarios (but are completely free to do so as deliberations are supposed to be completely private) I think there's a few different scenarios here: - defence of person A says that no, person B did it and submits evidence to that effect - judge should probably instruct you to acquit anyway, you get in trouble just for talking out of turn when the verdict is read out, I assume that would just be a talking-to. - defence is just "I didn't do it and I don't know who did", but juror discovers proof in the evidence against A that B in fact did it. You're of course allowed to vote not guilty and encourage jurors to do so as it's reasonable doubt that A did it, again you just get in trouble for being unruly. Legally you accusing B has no legal weight - person B is in fact part of the prosecution case - say a witness - then it gets really complex because it's possible that B might in fact have been convicted of the same offence but evidence of this was kept from the jury by order of the judge, and that's the sort of thing that entire legal careers are built on unpicking - Juror actually knows facts about the case not submitted as part of the trial - instant mistrial, A goes through it all again, juror probably does a couple of weeks for contempt of court Note that the first three outcomes *might* also be used by the prosecution as grounds for a retrial, although again that gets into areas of the law not covered by my expansive knowledge (I've seen every episode of Rumpole of the Bailey twice, and was discharged from jury duty on the first morning). I'm assuming - and hoping - OP is trying to write some fiction rather than sitting in the jury room waiting for our advice, in which case I'd say they'd be better off ignoring the above and just going with the dramatic option (complete with being shouted at by the judge).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Jel Shaker posted:brexit starts The real Brexit Souls starts here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Depends when it's set too. If you're talking English common law before the 19th century then you can just go hog wild and it probably won't be the most outrageous thing that actually happened in a trial. There's multiple cases of judges ordering the whole jury imprisoned for coming to a verdict he didn't want, juries making wild accusations mid-trial, etc. that led to the current conventions to avoid that sort of thing. Or set it in an old French court and it can just turn into a drunken brawl.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Lol, no word yet on all the UK teslas, probably fine. https://twitter.com/BBCTech/status/1476591510074404872
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Depends when it's set too. If you're talking English common law before the 19th century then you can just go hog wild and it probably won't be the most outrageous thing that actually happened in a trial. There's multiple cases of judges ordering the whole jury imprisoned for coming to a verdict he didn't want, juries making wild accusations mid-trial, etc. that led to the current conventions to avoid that sort of thing. There's a show called Garrets Law about an 18th century lawyer, its all about this 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:(I've seen every episode of Rumpole of the Bailey twice, and was discharged from jury duty on the first morning). I'm going to choose to believe the latter is a direct consequence of the former.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Ir... irradiated? Because of the green paint, you see. It's radium.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Well the DWP wrote back about the mandatory reconsideration on the IIDB benefit I applied for. They are sticking with their original decision. i know it's a lot of stress but please do it - don't let the cunts get away with it
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 17:42
|
|