pigpot's Pot

[longdog]

Would you like to try that again?

[Arthur Rubin]

More great "Statutory Laws" eh! Sensible... sensible.........

Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... otgun.html

"Bbbbecccause the "Lorrr" said so Mizter". No American accent there, from a different part of the world. Some here I think are going to defend it but honestly...

Jackie, his wife of more than 40 years, said: ‘It should be those youths in jail, not my Roy. He is a frail old man with a walking stick – he can’t even fire his gun because of arthritis. He has been failed by his country.’

Assuming, the unlikely occurrence of something truthful in the Daily Mail...
Although I tend to agree with pigpot as to the reasonableness of English gun law, there is (and should be) nothing preventing the police from going after the (for the lack of a better word) "yobs". If it is the case that they are not investigating the vandalism because of the gun law violation, that is a tragedy.

[pigpot]

More great "Statutory Laws" eh! Sensible... sensible.........

Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... otgun.html

"Bbbbecccause the "Lorrr" said so Mizter". No American accent there, from a different part of the world. Some here I think are going to defend it but honestly...

Jackie, his wife of more than 40 years, said: ‘It should be those youths in jail, not my Roy. He is a frail old man with a walking stick – he can’t even fire his gun because of arthritis. He has been failed by his country.’

Assuming, the unlikely occurrence of something truthful in the Daily Mail...
Although I tend to agree with pigpot as to the reasonableness of English gun law, there is (and should be) nothing preventing the police from going after the (for the lack of a better word) "yobs". If it is the case that they are not investigating the vandalism because of the gun law violation, that is a tragedy.

Arthur, I thank you.

[NG3]

Assuming, the unlikely occurrence of something truthful in the Daily Mail...
Although I tend to agree with pigpot as to the reasonableness of English gun law, there is (and should be) nothing preventing the police from going after the (for the lack of a better word) "yobs". If it is the case that they are not investigating the vandalism because of the gun law violation, that is a tragedy.

They wouldn't not go after the "yobs" because of gun laws (an absurd notion) but I do note this line:

He blamed it on local youths who he believed had killed his kitten

Looks to me like he thought he might know who was responsible, but there was actually no proof of it, and the law's a stickler for proof.

They would treat both crimes separately on their merits, regardless of each other.

ETA. Whilst I understood why he was found guilty I did wonder about the sentence so I dug a little on this story and found that Mr Delph was not consistent with his story.

His initial excuse for possessing the firearm was that he was going out to shoot vermin.

He also claimed the gun was unloaded, which was (a) inconsistent with the shooting vermin story, but also (b) untrue.

It appears that the story about him being tormented is based on truth, but there has been no evidence presented, or formal identification of any individual involved in committing any specific attack, so there have been no legal grounds for arrest.

Mr Delph lives in a rural community, so therefore the list of suspects is on the short side, so he can probably guess quite accurately who is involved, but not prove with relation to any specific crime.

That's why the kids have not been arrested to date.

Whilst I would look sympathetically towards Mr Delph, and as a judge at the bar of public opinion, state honestly that I would have not sentenced him as harshly (although would have still convicted him), legal judges do not have that luxury and have to work within the confines of the law.

This judge had to consider Mr Delph's story was inconsistent, that he had said he intended to shoot vermin (which in context can be deemed threatening), and that he admitted possessing, and travelling with a loaded illegal firearm to confront children, who in the eyes of the law have to be considered innocent and blameless, and that no doubt impacted the sentence handed down.

As for the "yobs", whilst there is every possibility these kids were responsible I can't call for peoples freedom and liberty to be removed, and for them to be incarcerated on possibilities, I'm an innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, sort of guy.

[pigpot]

They would treat both crimes separately on their merits, regardless of each other.

Not at all. "Law" As you put it... Should mitigate the actions of those that have been caused by those of others. "Causation" is the foundation of the issue. "A cop puts his hand on me unlawfully with excessive force", I'm legally entitled to use at the very least as MUCH force as the "cop" used UPON me (note at the VERY least) to dispel his force. Same goes for bailiffs.

Badges DON'T create extra rights. END OF. "Cops" don't have any more rights than anyone else in reality.

Ideas on this...

[NG3]

"Law" As you put it... Should mitigate

Mitigate =/= investigate or prosecute

[longdog]

Badges DON'T create extra rights. END OF. "Cops" don't have any more rights than anyone else in reality.

Ideas on this...

I don't think you would know reality if it jumped up and bit you on the arse.

[pigpot]

"Law" As you put it... Should mitigate

Mitigate =/= investigate or prosecute

"Must / may" Which legal dictionary are you using?

Is that where we are at?

Too many people have found your stuff out. I don't count anymore... It's the people that have learned from me that count that will destroy the system. Hang around, it'll be great to see it burn. Peoples houses, infrastructure, EVERYTHING, tear it all down and begin again. Are you afraid of a real New World Order?

People already know who I am. I am not a regular poster "name" on the internet. Many people know me though. This is no threat but a promise. I am not ANONYMOUS but I understand "SOME" of their issue.

Have a very good "weekend"!

There will be an internet website up soon where you can challenge whatever and however you like to the 'nth degree.

All are welcome.

It will be advertised here and other places...

[NG3]

"Law" As you put it... Should mitigate

Mitigate =/= investigate or prosecute

"Must / may" Which legal dictionary are you using?

I'm not.

Dictionaries are irrelevant to what I'm saying.

Is that where we are at?

Too many people have found your stuff out.

My stuff?

I don't count anymore... It's the people that have learned from me that count that will destroy the system. Hang around, it'll be great to see it burn. Peoples houses, infrastructure, EVERYTHING, tear it all down and begin again. Are you afraid of a real New World Order?

That would depend on what it consisted of. You'd need to elaborate instead of just throwing out buzz phrases.

[pigpot]

"Law" As you put it... Should mitigate

Mitigate =/= investigate or prosecute[/quote]

"Must / may" Which legal dictionary are you using?[/quote]

I'm not.

Dictionaries are irrelevant to what I'm saying.

Is that where we are at?

Too many people have found your stuff out.

My stuff?

I don't count anymore... It's the people that have learned from me that count that will destroy the system. Hang around, it'll be great to see it burn. Peoples houses, infrastructure, EVERYTHING, tear it all down and begin again. Are you afraid of a real New World Order?

That would depend on what it consisted of. You'd need to elaborate instead of just throwing out buzz phrases.[/quote]

Are you quoting "Law" or "Record"?

"Lawful opinion" or "Lawful precedent"

[NG3]

Are you quoting "Law" or "Record"?

In the post you're replying to the only thing I was quoting was you.

[pigpot]

Are you quoting "Law" or "Record"?

In the post you're replying to the only thing I was quoting was you.

Was what? Are you clever or do you think you are?

[NG3]

Are you quoting "Law" or "Record"?

In the post you're replying to the only thing I was quoting was you.

Was what? Are you clever or do you think you are?

Define clever.

It's a very broad word.

Clever in what way and in relation to what?

[pigpot]

Are you quoting "Law" or "Record"?

In the post you're replying to the only thing I was quoting was you.

Was what? Are you clever or do you think you are?

Define clever.

It's a very broad word.

Clever in what way and in relation to what?

You are using a broad brush. Childish almost. Anyone can do that. Simple. Pathetic.

I put together a comprehensive answer and tried to post it but it failed to post. I can put it back together again and as my commitment shows this is not an issue but my post / this post will show your inadequacy of logical responses.

"Define clever" eh? Really. No, no... I'll leave that up to you unless you agree to me defining "clever" and that is the last word "UPON" IT. Now that's pretty clever.

[pigpot]

Are you quoting "Law" or "Record"?

In the post you're replying to the only thing I was quoting was you.

Was what? Are you clever or do you think you are?

Define clever.

It's a very broad word.

Clever in what way and in relation to what?

[/quote]

You are using a broad brush. Childish almost. Anyone can do that. Simple. Pathetic.

I put together a comprehensive answer and tried to post it but it failed to post. I can put it back together again and as my commitment shows this is not an issue but my post / this post will show your inadequacy of logical responses.

"Define clever" eh? Really. No, no... I'll leave that up to you unless you agree to me defining "clever" and that is the last word "UPON" IT. Now that's pretty clever.

[NG3]

You are using a broad brush. Childish almost. Anyone can do that. Simple. Pathetic.

No need for insults.

You asked a broad question. I reasonably asked for clarification.

"Define clever" eh? Really. No, no...

If you refuse to clarify your question then simply put it would be impossible to knowingly answer correctly.

Is there a purpose to this?

Are my levels of "cleverness" pertinent to this discussion?

[pigpot]

You are using a broad brush. Childish almost. Anyone can do that. Simple. Pathetic.

No need for insults.

You asked a broad question. I reasonably asked for clarification.

"Define clever" eh? Really. No, no...

If you refuse to clarify your question then simply put it would be impossible to knowingly answer correctly.

Is there a purpose to this?

Are my levels of "cleverness" pertinent to this discussion?

No insults from me. I have readdressed the quotations so you can look at the question again.

Have a great day.

[NG3]

No insults from me.

I suppose it's subjective, but to my perspective "Childish almost" & "Simple. Pathetic" can be construed as insults.

I have readdressed the quotations so you can look at the question again.

Which one?

If it's the "clever" one you still haven't defined clever or it's context.

[rumpelstilzchen]

pigpot wrote:

It's the people that have learned from me that count that will destroy the system.

pigpot, that comment has me in stitches. You can't even manage to use the quote function correctly and yet you are telling us you are some kind of teacher? No, please stop it. My sides are beginning to hurt. Tell us more about these people who have "learned from you". Who exactly are they? What exactly have you taught them? Most importantly please provide an exact date when they plan to "destroy the system".

[hardcopy]

"Law" As you put it... Should mitigate

Mitigate =/= investigate or prosecute

"Must / may" Which legal dictionary are you using?

Is that where we are at?

Too many people have found your stuff out. I don't count anymore... It's the people that have learned from me that count that will destroy the system. Hang around, it'll be great to see it burn. Peoples houses, infrastructure, EVERYTHING, tear it all down and begin again. Are you afraid of a real New World Order?

People already know who I am. I am not a regular poster "name" on the internet. Many people know me though. This is no threat but a promise. I am not ANONYMOUS but I understand "SOME" of their issue.

Have a very good "weekend"!

There will be an internet website up soon where you can challenge whatever and however you like to the 'nth degree.

All are welcome.

It will be advertised here and other places...

Call it " Quatloos 2" mate.
Dan Bostock has been paying some of those parking tickets in secret, I think he might be a shill after all. Peace