Lawful Rebellion on Radio 4

[BoomerSooner17]

If it's legal, then killing the Scotsman technically isn't murder. It's a Catch-22. This law only applies in cases of murdering a Scotsman, but if it is legal to do so then it is not murder and therefore this law cannot be applied.


*Edit:
Obviously, this problem is easily avoided by not killing Scotsmen, regardless of location or armament.

[grixit]

Odd, it’s stored in my public folder...

Well when i clicked on the link it wanted me to log on as you or no access.

[mufc1959]

But as murder is contrary to the common law, even though it might be legal to kill the Scotsman, it's not lawful.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Would it be an arguable defense if the victim was not a Scot,but his kilt, plaid and bagpipes led you to believe that a person so attired, and carrying a bow and arrows was a legally permissable victim?


What would be the position if the victim, despite having the required archery equipment, and being of Scottish origin, displayed no distinguishing features to establish his Scottishness? Would 'I just thought he might be Scottis'h' be defense enough if the victim did turn out the be Scottish, but fail as a defense if the victim turned out to be a local baker on his way to archery practice?

Would it be permissable for a Scot not carrying a bow to kill a Scot who was suitably equipped?

Truly it is written, arguing arcane points of law is more fun than crossword puzzles.

[exiledscouser]

There's usually some indication, this would be good enough for me;



Other injurious national stereotypes are available.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=976mmTNbLbg

[Hercule Parrot]

If it's legal...

It isn't. This is one of a list of daft archaic 'laws' which are recirculated in the papers periodically to fill a quiet news day. So in 1463 King Fuckknows said it's okay to burn Catholics, and there's no formal and specific record of this being adequately repealed, ergo it's still the law. In reality it has been superseded by centuries of civilisation and lawmaking, and Catholics (even Sottish ones in York) share our universal legal protections.

There's another silly myth about a right to lawfully rebel against the crown, which has been mentioned here occasionally.

[BoomerSooner17]

If it's legal...

It isn't. This is one of a list of daft archaic 'laws' which are recirculated in the papers periodically to fill a quiet news day. So in 1463 King Fuckknows said it's okay to burn Catholics, and there's no formal and specific record of this being adequately repealed, ergo it's still the law. In reality it has been superseded by centuries of civilisation and lawmaking, and Catholics (even Sottish ones in York) share our universal legal protections.

There's another silly myth about a right to lawfully rebel against the crown, which has been mentioned here occasionally.

Your explanation matches exactly with what I assumed to be the case regarding that law: that it is technically not repealed, but that it is legally obsolete and no longer enforced or used. Texas (and most U.S. states, probably) has similarly archaic laws such as "Don't tie your horse to hitch rails in town on Sundays".

I added a sarcasm tag to my earlier post.

[JimUk1]

If it's legal...

It isn't. This is one of a list of daft archaic 'laws' which are recirculated in the papers periodically to fill a quiet news day. So in 1463 King Fuckknows said it's okay to burn Catholics, and there's no formal and specific record of this being adequately repealed, ergo it's still the law. In reality it has been superseded by centuries of civilisation and lawmaking, and Catholics (even Sottish ones in York) share our universal legal protections.

There's another silly myth about a right to lawfully rebel against the crown, which has been mentioned here occasionally.

Your explanation matches exactly with what I assumed to be the case regarding that law: that it is technically not repealed, but that it is legally obsolete and no longer enforced or used. Texas (and most U.S. states, probably) has similarly archaic laws such as "Don't tie your horse to hitch rails in town on Sundays".

I added a sarcasm tag to my earlier post.

It has being superseded by that many other laws it’s hardly going to be a valid excuse in court, I just find it funny the freemen haven’t used it?

I doubt, for one, that even carrying a longbow with arrows would get you as far as the top of your own street these days without the armed police turning up for a quick quiz?

Actually thinking about it, have any freemen latched onto Robin Hood? We’ve seen just about every olde English niche except for Old Robyn!

[John Uskglass]

This is one of a list of daft archaic 'laws' which are recirculated in the papers periodically to fill a quiet news day.

Could we characterise these as 'Folk Law'?

Before I get my coat, I'll just mention that my favourite is the claim Berwick-on-Tweed is still at war with Russia.
http://www.berwickfriends.org.uk/histor ... th-russia/

[longdog]

I doubt, for one, that even carrying a longbow with arrows would get you as far as the top of your own street these days without the armed police turning up for a quick quiz?

I actually own a longbow and I believe the unofficial advice for carrying in public is that you should be at least two and preferably three actions away from being able to loose an arrow. If you carry the bow unstrung, the arrows in a locked arrow tube and preferably have the points separated from the shafts you're on fairly sound legal ground. You would probably still have to have "good reason or lawful excuse" to be carrying it from point A to point B though.

I've carried a recently purchased longbow through Birmingham city centre and New Street station and nobody, including numerous cops, batted an eyelid.

[BoomerSooner17]

I doubt, for one, that even carrying a longbow with arrows would get you as far as the top of your own street these days without the armed police turning up for a quick quiz?

Yet another difference between US and UK norms. Texas, for instance, allows open carry for concealed-carry license holders (don't ask me what I think of openly carrying a handgun in public without a badge to go with it). And ALL the police are armed.

Actually thinking about it, have any freemen latched onto Robin Hood? We’ve seen just about every olde English niche except for Old Robyn!

I would have expected the A61 crowd to have latched onto Robin Hood before now, considering his association with Prince (later King) John of Magna Carta fame, his hostile relationship with local law enforcement (Sheriff of Nottingham), and his devotion to helping the oppressed (basically everybody).

*Edit: I forgot, Robin Hood is also similar to (some of) these people in that he started out as the land-owning Robert Locksley, Earl of Huntington, only to be evicted and outlawed by the oppressive powers-that-be.

[longdog]

*Edit: I forgot, Robin Hood is also similar to (some of) these people in that he started out as the land-owning Robert Locksley, Earl of Huntington, only to be evicted and outlawed by the oppressive powers-that-be.

The Robin Hood we all know and love has one very important similarity to the law of the land as touted by the 'rebels'... They're both fictional.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Oh no!!
Next you will be telling me that the Victorians invented the Druids and ancient highland tartans.

[longdog]

Oh no!!
Next you will be telling me that the Victorians invented the Druids and ancient highland tartans.

I didn't know modern Druidism went back that far

[Hercule Parrot]

Yet another difference between US and UK norms. Texas, for instance, allows open carry for concealed-carry license holders (don't ask me what I think of openly carrying a handgun in public without a badge to go with it). And ALL the police are armed.

Yes, the US relationship with guns seems very strange through UK eyes. So many firearm homicides, countless tragedies involving children and accidents, mass shooting incidents every week, and yet the answer always seems to be "we need more guns". But I can also see the logic of that - if guns are so freely available and widely used by criminals and psychos, then it makes some sense to arm oneself against that perceived threat. It's a pickle.

[BoomerSooner17]

Yet another difference between US and UK norms. Texas, for instance, allows open carry for concealed-carry license holders (don't ask me what I think of openly carrying a handgun in public without a badge to go with it). And ALL the police are armed.

Yes, the US relationship with guns seems very strange through UK eyes. So many firearm homicides, countless tragedies involving children and accidents, mass shooting incidents every week, and yet the answer always seems to be "we need more guns". But I can also see the logic of that - if guns are so freely available and widely used by criminals and psychos, then it makes some sense to arm oneself against that perceived threat. It's a pickle.

[Stepping up on my soapbox, after which I will take the soap out and wash my mouth with it]:
When used and stored properly by responsible individuals, guns are no more dangerous than cars or aircraft. To avoid turning this into a political/gun control debate, I will stop there.