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

[longdog]

I suppose we could allow proxies and then televise it. It could be on after a fascinating fly on the wall reality show which follows families as they try to sell their children before they starve to death and become worthless.

Serf would love it.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I suppose we could allow proxies and then televise it. It could be on after a fascinating fly on the wall reality show which follows families as they try to sell their children before they starve to death and become worthless.

Serf would love it.

I bags Chrisy Morris. He's useless at actual court stuff, but trial by combat would be right up his street.

[hucknallred]

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

28,800 in '93, cutting edge.
I think I've been through every speed going, 300 baud on the BBS's, 1200/75 on Prestel.
14,400 on the Amiga in 1995, progressing to a PC with a 28.8 ISA card that had drivers to get it at 33.6.
Eventually progressing to 56K.
As we all knew, the max speeds weren't technically possible due to the analogue bit of the cabling to the house.
my 56K was always a solid 52K on the the new Diamond Cable phone line in '95, which was only analogue up to the street cabinet, unlike BT lines. I must have had perfect conditions one night when it synced at an incredible 54,666.
Then they dropped the price on the cable modem service at an eye watering 512Kbps to £20 a month. Sold. The rest is history.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

28,800 in '93, cutting edge.

May have the exact dates wrong, but it was about then. May have been 19.2k. I worked for a large computer company supporting mainframes around the world. Part of that involved out of hours support, so we had all the Carlos Fandango comms equipment for working from home including a home terminal and they were forever upgrading our kit. My first terminal in 1989 was 1200 baud. Kids these days, moaning about a 30ms ping when playing games. They don't know they're born!

[longdog]

A customer of mine had their microfilm database and retrieval system (sounds a lot more impressive than it really was) hooked up to a Nokia mobile for online support. I have no idea what baud they were getting but it was painful even when 56k modems were the best most people had. It was usually quicker and easier for me to drive the 25 miles there and back than go 'online'.

I never worked out how somebody there had had the technical savvy to make the phone work as a modem but not have the technical savvy to copy files from a floppy disk to the hard-drive.

That having been said it took me several years to realise that a simple DOS batch-file on the floppy and the instructions...

Insert this disk into drive A.

Type "A:go" at the command prompt and hit return.

...would save a lot of everybody's time, effort and petrol.

The batch file was nothing more than xcopy A:\db\*.* C:\sf\db if I recall correctly.

[Wakeman52]

Kids these days, moaning about a 30ms ping when playing games.

In the early 1990's. I remember upgrading remote locations from 2400 baud links to 64k via BT Kilostream onto 10Mb ethernet. I got complaints that, as the response time from the mainframe had gone down so much, more work was getting done.....

Then there was the remote login I used from home, via a 'portable' Amstrad CPC464 (this was local government & someone had been convinced to buy a few before I arrived, possibly because they needed to meet a budget target) with its built-in dial-up modem. I then had to claim for the phone bills. At some point, there was an upgrade to PCanywhere on my home PC, using a Hayes modem.

Now, my eldest is being offered 300Mb/200Mb via a local fibre provider. Out here in the sticks, the best you can get is 25Mb down / 5Mb up.

[longdog]

I've just run a speed test on mine and got 30 down, 5 up and 6ms latency. I've no idea if that's good, bad or indifferent but it's fast enough for my needs. As long as I can watch Gun Jesus and Big Clive in 1080p I'm happy.

[hucknallred]

Now, my eldest is being offered 300Mb/200Mb via a local fibre provider. Out here in the sticks, the best you can get is 25Mb down / 5Mb up.

Not sure where you are, but round here Openreach are doing what I can only describe as aggressive enabling of FTTP, even on the edges of town. Every other pole has fibre nodes at the top & coils of fibre ready to go. If it's underground lines everywhere is pretty much done.

Seems they want to scrap the copper infrastructure ASAP, but need to sort out stuff that still needs legacy lines like panic alarms, redcare & the like.

[hucknallred]

A customer of mine had their microfilm database and retrieval system (sounds a lot more impressive than it really was) hooked up to a Nokia mobile for online support. I have no idea what baud they were getting but it was painful even when 56k modems were the best most people had.

Pretty sure GSM could do 9600 tops, this was before GPRS came along. I did do the Nokia thing when staying in a Norfolk holiday let in 2003, nothing so fancy as a cable connection, this involved pointing the IR ports at each other, it was 'adequate.'

[Wakeman52]

Not sure where you are, but round here Openreach are doing what I can only describe as aggressive enabling of FTTP, even on the edges of town. Every other pole has fibre nodes at the top & coils of fibre ready to go. If it's underground lines everywhere is pretty much done.

Seems they want to scrap the copper infrastructure ASAP, but need to sort out stuff that still needs legacy lines like panic alarms, redcare & the like.

I would describe it as on the edge of the countryside; fields to the back of us. No sign of any OR activity at all, let alone on that scale, locally. The nearest FTTC point is over 700m away, hence the speeds I mentioned. The telegraph pole servicing our part of the road has DACS boxes on it, a technology introduced in the 1980s. Lots of work to be done to fulfil the promise of country-wide fibre availability, never mind copper-free. Didn't I hear something about Q4 2023 for the end of PSTN?

[hucknallred]

Didn't I hear something about Q4 2023 for the end of PSTN?

They have done a climbdown after a trial area had a power cut after a storm.
I would expect exponential growth of FTTP as the copper gets scrapped enabling staff maintaining it to move onto fibre installation.

You can register you interest for FTTP with OR & they mail you when it's coming. Although not entirely accurate, I heard nothing from them, then saw the whole estate besieged by OR doing the survey work, it was live around 3 months later.
Then they emailed a month later to let me know.

[aesmith]

Didn't I hear something about Q4 2023 for the end of PSTN?

Supposed to be the end of 2025.

I'm not sure there's actually a promise of country-wide fibre availability, or at least not in terms of serving all premises. Openreach has specifically said that even when an exchange area is rolled out, individual premises may be missed off if there are commercial or wayleave issues.

The "R100" program in Scotland is Government funded, but only promises a download speed of 30meg. So if you end up having to get that via satellite then that still ticked off as covered. Personally I am sceptical that we will get fibre, even though it's forecast for 2024 or something. The reason for my doubt is that they'd have to lay over 900m of fibre just to serve one house, either underground or by installing new poles. I just can't see it happening.

[hucknallred]

The reason for my doubt is that they'd have to lay over 900m of fibre just to serve one house, either underground or by installing new poles. I just can't see it happening.

In these cases the killer 5G is the solution. Just got it here & not too shabby at all.

Anyway, what was the original topic again?

[aesmith]

In these cases the killer 5G is the solution.

Not quite, 5G is short range so really only an urban technology. Our nearest masts are 6.5km away, that gives a usable 4G/LTE signal but no chance of 5G. Of course if 5G is so wonderful nobody would bother with FTTP.

[mufc1959]

In a probably fruitless attempt to try to drag this thread back on topic, here is today's episode of Things That Never Happened.

[longdog]

When it comes to economic theories I try not to listen to people who can't even spell dept debt.

[serfmaninthepolis]

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.

Well, that is one view of common law, but it's not the only one. It's also an obviously silly view, it means Parliament can legislative the euthanization of all blue-eyed babies, and the only recourse is if Parliament has passed an act enabling judicial review, and if that statute is construed to have prohibited that sort of euthanization.

Parliamentary Supremacy is a doctrine that is easy to pronounce, but it is obvious nonsense, unless you really think that a Parliament is capable of enacting a law requiring that people be euthanized without trial.

And as soon as you agree that parliament cannot do such a thing you are in the exact same position as a Sovereign Citizen, claiming that the State does not have as much power in law as it might in fact.

It is a fact that parliament can do whatever it pleases, because there is nobody capable of raising an army to oppose Parliament, but that does not mean everything that Parliament does is right.

"Be it enacted by Her Majesty by and with the advice of consent of the Lords Temporal and Spiritual, (or whatrever the enacting clause is,

(1) After April 22, 2022, every baby born with blue eyes is to be stabbed with an ice pick until dead by the attending physician, midwife, or, in their absence, the mother, or, in event of her incapacity, the father, or, in the event of his incapacity, the first individual to determine that the baby has blue eyes.

(2) This act is not subject to judicial review, and no Court of any description may stay the execution of this act.

(3) No one in good faith who stabs a blue-eyed baby with an ice pick may be found guilty of murder, manslaughter, assault, or in any way sanctioned by any civil, criminal or other proceeding in any Court of any description."

So, if you really and truly believe what you have written about parliament, this is all it takes to euthanize any group of people and avoid judicial review. Parliament simply has to enact this, substituting "jews" or "muslims" or "black people" or 'white people.' I suppose one might argue that the baby does not have blue eyes and stay the act on that ground, but the "good faith" clause would still mean that someone who stabbed a green-eyed baby, thinking it were blue-eyed, would be off the hook.

Interestingly enough, the sort of privative clause (2) is basically how labor law was introduced, with statutory tribunals having its adjudication, instead of the law courts.

This is why Parliamentary Supremacy is a dog-shit doctrine for people with stupid, tiny brains incapable of abstraction. Or, worse, they are full-on psychopaths who just go "heh heh, better hope we don't legislate YOU to death if we get the notion!"

Many things happen in fact (act) which by law ought be prohibited.

[serfmaninthepolis]

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.

Law is really easy. It's a command backed by force. Force is an overwhelming agency that cannot be resisted.

This leaves the question of "whose command?" hanging there, tho.

Unless you're religious, then law is God's command, and you can put any sort of Body in place of God: Your Daddy, Parliament, etc. So you basically have the physicalist account of law, and then theological rhetoric.

The theological account gives a sort of rhetorical justification for enforcing law that allows the enforcer to deny his own culpability, "I was not doing what I wanted, I was doing what Daddy/Parliament/God told me to do." I was just following orders of the Fuhrer, etc.

So, for example, you might conceive of a legal system, physically, as a self-appointed group of people who band together to use force to see their collective will done. And this will could be encoded in a book, like the Pentateuch, or it could be a will that is defined by committee--for example, Parliament. This is basically the Greek concept, NOMOS IS OUR KING, LAW IS OUR KING.

In this sense, law itself is a way to externalize the desires of individuals, e.g. "we desire to arrest/punish murderers, but for rhetorical purposes it is much better if we call our will law." For some reason, humans have evolved this sort of deceitful disposition, where rather than saying "it is my desire to force you to obey this command," they call the command law, and pretend that there is some nomothetoi, or lawgiver. For example in the book of James:

"There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?" (James 4:12)

νομοθέτης is the word translated lawgiver. So, again, you can certainly say 'the lawgiver is whoever has the capacity to (1) command and (2) enforce that command,' but this is not how most people describe law, certainly not academically, it would be a minority position, ironically one that some here have quoted from some sort of song about "might is right," but that is the view most of you seem to have of law, that is, parliament has the capacity to enforce its commands, so they are right, that is, law, and any suggestion that parliament's commands are "not right" is an unfortunate misunderstanidng of terms.

[serfmaninthepolis]

I suppose we could allow proxies and then televise it. It could be on after a fascinating fly on the wall reality show which follows families as they try to sell their children before they starve to death and become worthless.

Serf would love it.

We could call it A Modest Proposal. But this is basically how the world works, except there is not a free market, all children are de facto nationalized by the state, which gives the parents a sort of use in the children, so long as they are treated as the state dictates. Sometimes this is probably legit, e.g. the state will take children who have cigarettes put out on their foreheads, but sometimes it's not legit, e.g. to make the children of poor people go to public school because children are not allowed to stay at home if mom and dad have to work, so it is de facto custody by the state for poors.

And then, you know, the state might convince your boy to chop his dick off and take puberty blockers---but that is the glory of hte state, we cannot have anything like common/natural parental rights, it would interfere with grooming.

[longdog]

Well, that is one view of common law, but it's not the only one.

it's the only one that is correct and the only one the courts recognise.

It's also an obviously silly view, it means Parliament can legislative the euthanization of all blue-eyed babies, and the only recourse is if Parliament has passed an act enabling judicial review, and if that statute is construed to have prohibited that sort of euthanization.

Parliament COULD pass a law to euthanise blue eyed babies if it chose to do so and I have no idea what you think judicial review is but whatever it is... It isn't that. There is NO judicial review of primary legislation in the UK. What parliament says is the law is the law as long as it was passed according to law. The UK isn't the US and its courts cannot declare a law unconstitutional as long as it was properly passed. This isn't even first year law student stuff... It's taught in schools.

Parliamentary Supremacy is a doctrine that is easy to pronounce, but it is obvious nonsense, unless you really think that a Parliament is capable of enacting a law requiring that people be euthanized without trial.

Parliament has the power to do exactly that.

And as soon as you agree that parliament cannot do such a thing you are in the exact same position as a Sovereign Citizen, claiming that the State does not have as much power in law as it might in fact.

As I don't agree your point is moot.

It is a fact that parliament can do whatever it pleases, because there is nobody capable of raising an army to oppose Parliament, but that does not mean everything that Parliament does is right.

From a constitutional point of view parliament can indeed do whatever it pleases as long as it follows the laws that it has itself created. If it doesn't want to break those laws it can neatly sidestep them by passing a law which changes those laws.

So, if you really and truly believe what you have written about parliament, this is all it takes to euthanize any group of people and avoid judicial review. Parliament simply has to enact this, substituting "jews" or "muslims" or "black people" or 'white people.' I suppose one might argue that the baby does not have blue eyes and stay the act on that ground, but the "good faith" clause would still mean that someone who stabbed a green-eyed baby, thinking it were blue-eyed, would be off the hook.

What I believe has nothing to do with it. It's a fact.

Interestingly enough, the sort of privative clause (2) is basically how labor law was introduced, with statutory tribunals having its adjudication, instead of the law courts.

WTF are you talking about?

This is why Parliamentary Supremacy is a dog-shit doctrine for people with stupid, tiny brains incapable of abstraction. Or, worse, they are full-on psychopaths who just go "heh heh, better hope we don't legislate YOU to death if we get the notion!"

Mate... Seriously... You cited a complete sociopath who thought parents should be allowed to starve their children to death as it's better than the horrors of having to pay taxes to fund a social safety net. I don't need lectures on morality from you.

The difference is that I don't actually support parliament passing laws that would result in deaths. I merely state the fact that they have the power to do so. The fact that they would all find themselves hanging from a lamppost on the corner of the street in case a certain little lady goes by is neither here nor there.

There really is no beginning to your understanding of how the UK system of government or its laws work is there?