Correct The Unlawful Legal System - they're just a bunch of CTULS

[SpearGrass]

but I am not aware of any statute that takes away the right to falsify a judgment by the duel.

I can help, it was the Appeal of Murder Act 1819 (George III 46 c 46) section 2: https://statutes.org.uk/site/the-statut ... of-murder/. The introductory text summarises the content:

WHEREAS Appeals of Murder, Treason, Felony and other Offences, and the Manner of proceeding therein, have been found to be oppressive; and the Trial by Battel in any Suit, is a Mode of Trial unfit to be used; and it is expedient that the same should be wholly abolished:

[serfmaninthepolis]

If the people who did this to him knew that in the end he might get to bash their skulls in, maybe they'd be more likely to behave honorably?

What if “the people who did this to him” turned out to be better at bashing in skulls than he was? Would that make what they did OK?

By the way, on the previous page, less than a week ago, you seemed to disapprove of “the use of force and violence“. This is quite the U-turn.

Well, you could quote it specifically---generally my aversion to force is gang-violence, e.g. a situation where someone is bullied and never gets to fight back 1 on 1. Ideally economic relationships would keep people from ever using the Duel, but it has to be in the back pocket, IMO, otherwise you can get situations where, say, imprudent central regulators ruin an economy, ppl default on taxes/mortgages, are made homeless, this has happened at least a couple of time within the last 100 years.

[serfmaninthepolis]

but I am not aware of any statute that takes away the right to falsify a judgment by the duel.

I can help, it was the Appeal of Murder Act 1819 (George III 46 c 46) section 2: https://statutes.org.uk/site/the-statut ... of-murder/. The introductory text summarises the content:

WHEREAS Appeals of Murder, Treason, Felony and other Offences, and the Manner of proceeding therein, have been found to be oppressive; and the Trial by Battel in any Suit, is a Mode of Trial unfit to be used; and it is expedient that the same should be wholly abolished:

[snipped]

We do not need to prove anything to you. If YOU want to know why trial by combat was outlawed, then go to law school -- if any will have you.

[serfmaninthepolis]

An example that I heard well over two decades ago from a tradesman. He said it was common that people would hire him to do something worth, say, $3000, pay him $1000, he'd complete the job and they would stiff him. He could not find any lawyer willing to take the claim because they mostly are uninterested in small-small claims. He did not have facility with the language to write pleadings, etc. etc. So what do you tell a guy like him, that the legal system is really looking out for him? If the people who did this to him knew that in the end he might get to bash their skulls in, maybe they'd be more likely to behave honorably?

Incidentally, how would you distinguish between a case in which a tradesman has done $3,000 worth of work, been paid $1,000, and is trying to get the two grand he’s owed by threatening to bash people’s skulls in, and one in which he’s done $1,000 worth of work, been paid a fair price, and is trying to extort an extra two grand by threatening to bash people’s skulls in?

Of course that is possible. Both cases do exist---if I have shoddy work done on my house, it is much easier to just withhold payment (presuming I gave something in earnest to make a contract) than it is for the tradesman to sue for what was agreed upon. If I refuse to pay, he is faced with going to court, something he may not be able to do, and something which a lawyer may not take on because it is "small potatoes."

[longdog]

It also raises the question of judicial review, whether this is a statute contrary to the common law used for hundreds of years, e.g. from prior to 1077 until 1819.

It doesn't matter two hoots whether statute law is at odds with common law or not. For the very simple reason that, if common law and statute law conflict, then what statute law says is law stands as law and what common law has to say on the matter it can stick in its ear.

Statute law trumps common law and that fact itself is a part of common law. Parliament is not bound by previous parliaments and cannot bind future parliaments which neatly takes care of statute. Nor is it bound by common law when it comes to passing statute law or modifying or abolishing common law principles.

[eric]

Of course that is possible. Both cases do exist---if I have shoddy work done on my house, it is much easier to just withhold payment (presuming I gave something in earnest to make a contract) than it is for the tradesman to sue for what was agreed upon. If I refuse to pay, he is faced with going to court, something he may not be able to do, and something which a lawyer may not take on because it is "small potatoes."

It is becoming more and more evident to others here that you haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about concerning the hypothetical situation you keep harping on. Your imaginary tradesman, who probably hasn't taken any graduate courses in philosophy, is well aware how to legally extract the money from your purse or make you homeless without the bother of lawyers or court appearances.

[longdog]

I'm wondering how this idea of trial by combat would play out if we swap the burly tradesman for someone who is less likely to be skilled in the arts martial.

An interior designer or a supplier of curtains, cushions and assorted flounces and doilies?

I'm completely at a loss as to where serf thinks he's going with this. He seems to have some sort of half-baked idea of an anarchist utopia dystopia whose guiding principles were lifted straight from the St Trinian's School song.

Maidens of St Trinian's, gird your armour on.
Grab the nearest weapon; never mind which one.
The battle's to the strongest; might is always right.
Trample on the weakest; glory in their plight.

I'm sure he's quite proud of the fact he's read philosophy (assuming he actually has). Not entirely sure he's understood any of it or realised that most of it is just a tedious circle-jerk for people incapable of thinking for themselves.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

...whose guiding principles were lifted straight from the St Trinian's School song.

I'm more a fan of the St Trinian's Chant, being a big Girls Aloud fan, as what I am

we are the best
so screw the rest
we do as we damn well please
until the end
St Trinians
defenders of anarchy

so scam all the toffs
the neats and the freaks
blackmail the goths,
the slappers and the geeks
and if they complain
we'll do it all again
we do as we damn well please

The asbo's the chavs
the emos and their mates
to torment the slags
we offer special rates
and if they complain
we'll do it all again

defenders of anarchy

[longdog]

I'm more a fan of the St Trinian's Chant, being a big Girls Aloud fan, as what I am

I refuse to even acknowledge the existence of any films but the original four. And even then ...Train Robbery was nothing to write home about.

[John Uskglass]

If I refuse to pay, he is faced with going to court, something he may not be able to do, and something which a lawyer may not take on because it is "small potatoes."

Ah, but if you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find him....maybe you can hire Edward Ellis, Equity Lawyer.

[Albert Haddock]

Of course that is possible. Both cases do exist---if I have shoddy work done on my house, it is much easier to just withhold payment (presuming I gave something in earnest to make a contract) than it is for the tradesman to sue for what was agreed upon. If I refuse to pay, he is faced with going to court, something he may not be able to do, and something which a lawyer may not take on because it is "small potatoes."

But under the system you propose, if you refuse to pay, and he is unable to employ a lawyer, or to take the case to court himself, he has the option of bashing your skull in and taking the money, whether or not he is entitled to it. Would you consider this to be an acceptable outcome? If not, how would your proposed system avoid it?

[longdog]

If not, how would your proposed system avoid it?

If only there were some way in which the population as a whole could decide on a system whereby disputes of this nature could be resolved through means which didn't involve anybody getting their brains bashed out. Some sort of codified civil system whereby an impartial decision maker, or 'judge' if you will, could make a binding decision and ultimately force payment.

I don't know why nobody has thought of this before... I wonder if I could patent it.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

If only there were some way in which the population as a whole could decide on a system whereby disputes of this nature could be resolved through means which didn't involve anybody getting their brains bashed out. Some sort of codified civil system whereby an impartial decision maker, or 'judge' if you will, could make a binding decision and ultimately force payment.

I don't know why nobody has thought of this before... I wonder if I could patent it.

And if only there was some way of doing this online for small amounts without a lawyer by paying a fee proportional to the debt that didn't result in having to bash someone on the noggin. Oh, there is. It's small claims.

I don't know if Serf is genuinely stupid, or just doing it as performance art.

[noblepa]

I don't know if Serf is genuinely stupid, or just doing it as performance art.

I'm beginning to think that he is merely the latest in a long line of trolls who come here, throw out some outrageous gibberish and then enjoy arguing with those here who try to point out that it is gibberish and nonsense.

I think he knows it is nonsense and enjoys getting a rise out of people.

[longdog]

I'm beginning to think that he is merely the latest in a long line of trolls who come here, throw out some outrageous gibberish and then enjoy arguing with those here who try to point out that it is gibberish and nonsense.

I've been on the internet long enough to remember when trolling was an art-form and one at which I flatter myself I had no small amount of skill. The whole point is to kick off a massive bun-fight which makes others look ridiculous WITHOUT making yourself look ridiculous in the process. Saying something idiotic wasn't trolling it was just saying something idiotic and any idiot can do that.

Essentially it's the art of making people have a duck-fit at what they think you have said rather than what you actually did say. There's one forum that I effectively left 10 years ago where I still get called a racist on the rare occasion I stick my head around the door. Some people are still obsessed with the idea that I said something I never said and where I actually said the exact opposite.

Much like good servants... You really can't get the trolls these days.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I've been on the internet long enough to remember when trolling was an art-form and one at which I flatter myself I had no small amount of skill. The whole point is to kick off a massive bun-fight which makes others look ridiculous WITHOUT making yourself look ridiculous in the process. Saying something idiotic wasn't trolling it was just saying something idiotic and any idiot can do that.

Back on Compuserve in the "Other Sports" forum in 1993 (there wasn't a dedicated Soccer forum until the World Cup in 1994), a yank and myself had a running joke. If an American came on the forum talking about "soccer" we'd both rip into him with "IT'S FOOTBALL". When a Brit came on the forum and did the "It's football" we'd rip into him with "IT'S SOCCER".

I was a lot younger then. It made us laugh. And at 28k baud, it was as good as it got!

[SpearGrass]

Serfman said:

We do not need to prove anything to you. If YOU want to know why trial by combat was outlawed, then go to law school -- if any will have you.

Ooh, get her! As most people who regularly post here have probably twigged, I'm a barrister with a law degree, for which I did courses in legal history and legal philosophy, and I've forgotten more law than most trolls ever knew.

I appreciate he craves attention, but this is getting rather tedious now.

[longdog]

I was a lot younger then. It made us laugh. And at 28k baud, it was as good as it got!

28k modems would be back in the day when I had to dial into bulletin boards one at a time. I'd moved onto 56k by the time the electronical interwebs really started getting off the ground.

I still remember the sheer joy of my first, pitifully slow (but lightning fast by comparison) broadband connection. It happened to coincide with one of my manic periods where I could go for days without sleep so I trolled The Peter Hitchens Forum solidly for 72 hours. It was the straw that broke the camel's back for the admin and he shut it down. That made a lot of frothing right-wing nutters and outright Nazis homeless. It was remarkably easy once I realised that an upper case 'i', lower case 'L' and the digit '1' were identical in the font used for user names. So many nutters had used shouty-caps for user-names that one loon by the name "ADRIAN" suddenly found himself being mistaken for "ADRlAN" and "ADR1AN" both of who were me. He was lucky there was only one 'i' in his user name. Some people with more than one 'i' had anything up to a dozen other thems.

Ah... Happy days when all this 'round here were fields and you could go the the kinema, get the bus home, pick up a fish supper and still have change from half a crown.

I miss BBC announcers spelling out, very s...l...o...w...l...y every last colon and forward-slash-forward-slash of the BBC's URL.

[Albert Haddock]

I don't know if Serf is genuinely stupid, or just doing it as performance art.

I'm beginning to think that he is merely the latest in a long line of trolls who come here, throw out some outrageous gibberish and then enjoy arguing with those here who try to point out that it is gibberish and nonsense.

I think he knows it is nonsense and enjoys getting a rise out of people.

To be fair, what he is proposing is pretty much what the results of FOTL would be, in which the law is unenforceable and people resolve their differences by bashing one another’s skulls in. He’s just being a bit more direct and honest about it than they usually are.

[rosy]

I'm wondering how this idea of trial by combat would play out if we swap the burly tradesman for someone who is less likely to be skilled in the arts martial.

An interior designer or a supplier of curtains, cushions and assorted flounces and doilies?

I was thinking that. Let's say I make a commissioned memory quilt for the guy down the road. We agree on £200, I make it, he loves it, but he decides that what with the price of leccy, petrol and Polish vodka he's only going to give me £50.

Who is going to come off best in a trial by combat for the £150? A tiny woman in a wheelchair or the striker of the local football team who outweighs me by a good 50kg? Obviously he's going to win so I'm out all that effort, time and materials.