The differences between common law and civil law systems.

[andreasegde]

THIS IS BULLSHIT; DESIGNED TO CONFUSE PEOPLE.

[doiremick86]

@andreasegde Prove it

[pleasestoplyingtous]

that flag is wrong, is upside down?

[leeds39]

@pleasestoplyingtous An upside down flag is a distress signal...hope that helps!

[pleasestoplyingtous]

@leeds39 That'd be it then!...and we are most definately in distress

[luckylangerie]

i dozed off

[james7167]

the law is corrupt in england every politician in britain has walked away free of corruption

[rugbydazz]

@james7167 well thats not entirely true a few went to prison for the expenses scandal but a reckon quite a few more should have gone with them, scoundrels!

[everydaycreatures]

Excellent, difficult to find such lucid information as a layperson with an interest in law and jurisprudence.

[kevrs2]

well of course, its all nonsense ,as non of what they speak of is law ,these people cant enforce law ,all they can do is let on to ,enforce law ,by calling it an "ACT" of law ,and people think because the knobhead speaking has a plum in his mouth ,then it must be true :(

[WFPCo]

The full UNCENSORED version of Lawful Disobedience: ARREST THAT JUDGE! Is screened-for-free, 4pm, 11th November, KUC, Westhead Avenue, L33 0XN. All are welcome!

Also at Wirral International Film Festival (WIFF 2011), 8.30pm, TA Centre, Wexford Rd, Birkenhead, Merseyside, L43 9TF. Bar, light refreshments and discussion at each venue with filmmaker Kevin West

This film intimately shows the events of the day when the people stormed Birkenhead County Court and arrested a judge! Please share!!

[SpeedingSolicitor]

speedingsolicitor.co.uk



[whoknew213]

Deep! I wish i came across this 2 years ago when those pigs pulled me over for nothing i had a 2inch knife, long story short they cost me my job of 5yrs LIED their asses off in court, stupid lawyer I had never really had my back just the money, so after 6mos of going to court for something so minor I have to do community service if I knew this at the time I would have went without a lawyer.

Since that time I've researching they way the world really works . I'm up!

[huxleypig69]

@whoknew213 This is all too common mate. I've heard that some solicitors just don't give a shit BUT some are good. I had a good one recently, she got me off both my charges scott free (just a caution). After a while you can tell the good ones from the bad just by talking to them for a few minutes. Some are just downright thick, some don't give a shit and some are good. Having a duty solicitor is pot luck, all the nearby ones are on a rota so you might get a good one, you might not.

[xXTheFreakWithinXx]

I had a problem with a neighbor who thought 3 AM was a great time to have parties in his back yard stereo blasting and keeping his neighbors awake all night. called the cops 7 times on different occasions. Nothing was done and they said they would give him a 250.00 fine next time. I said great how will i receive the money for the inconvenience and he laughed. thought we paid the cops through taxes and that the victim was compensated. needs an adjustment.

[ancestoralmemory]

Common Law: Rule of men, Civil Law: Rule of law. No surprise that the majority of the world uses Civil. I wish common law would just fuck off.

[0808SCOOTER]

statute law says - A law can not be made to contravien another law, so COMMON LAW is still in force

as no other law making authority can make a law against the common law of the land

[greywolf424]

@Pulsationz "common law. Which was made by the people for the people and is based solely on common sense"

.

THANKS FOR PROVING YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT COMMON LAW ACTUALLY IS.

[007RoyalFlush]

@Pulsationz Pot. Kettle. Black. If you had any knowledge of the law at all, you would know that I am right. The majority of the Magna Carta has already been overridden by new statute. Your opinion comes from speculation and bullshit fed to you by the uneducated and the clueless, who try anything they think that will allow them to bypass the law. Feel free to break a statutory law and see how far the Magna Carta gets you. Nowhere is where. That I promise you with complete certainty

[toptrichs]

@007RoyalFlush troll

[rampant2]

@007RoyalFlush You're talking about Magna Carta 1297. 1297 is the statute version of MC and of course, any statute can repeal another statute. The ACTUAL Magna Carta is 1215. It is not statute and therefore cannot be repealed by statute. Parliament cannot repeal MC1215 because they were not a party of the original signing. The parties were the Monarch, Barons and Commons. It would take all parties to agree to abolish it. As it is Constitutional law, no law can be in repugnance to it. End Of!!!

[007RoyalFlush]

@rampant2 Again, you are misinformed. Selected parts of the Magna Carta have already been overruled, the fact that you believe the Magna Carta cannot be overruled is irrelevant, because it has already happened. The Government makes the law, if they wish to change the law then they can. To say that a law cannot be overruled is complete madness, the development of a country will continually require those laws to be updated accordingly.

[rampant2]

@007RoyalFlush YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MC1297! It is not the Magna Carta, it is an act made in 1297 and most of it has been repealed. The actual Magna Carta was made in 1215. The king who signed it was dead by the time what you think is Magna Carta (1297) was made. Constitutional law sets out the basis by which all other laws must be made. It is the rule of law that is supreme. to show how ridiculous what you say is, could the gov't lawfully make a law that puts them as dictators able 2 murder?

[007RoyalFlush]

@rampant2 It doesn't matter! The point is that laws that old aren't used any more! No they couldn't because it would contradict European legislation.

[rampant2]

@007RoyalFlush Of course it matters. MP's use The Bill of Rights1689 on an almost daily basis, as article 9 allows parlamentry privilage which means that an MP cannot be prosecuted for anything they say in the house even if they breach court orders. The last time it was challenged led to case Pepper V Hart 1993. The Bill of Rights won! You're arguing over matters of law and yet you know absolutely nothing about it. You don't even understand what constitutional law means. How old are you?

[rampant2]

@007RoyalFlush "No they couldn't because it would contradict European legislation" So what you're saying is that before 1972 when the European Communities Act was signed, The government could have made themselves dictators and could have given themselves the power to murder anyone they want?

[007RoyalFlush]

@rampant2 Yes, in theory they could have, but the law would never have been approved by the Queen or the House of Lords. The bill of rights is still used because there has been no legislation to supercede it because it is still relevant to today's working society. The Magna Carta isn't. Look up "ex tempora" in the legal dictionary. You know nothing, you're just repeating bullshit that somebody else had fed you.

[rampant2]

@007RoyalFlush so now you're contradicting yourself. First it was the government can make any law they want. Now you're saying the Queen would not give assent to it. So which is it? Either the government can or can't make any rule they want?

Oh yeah, and if you knew anything about the law, You would know that the Lords cannot stop a bill going through anymore. All they can do is hold it up for a while.

[AGlycerineSilkQuorum]

@007RoyalFlush Thanks for your comments, I know they are not directed to me but I just thought I would share with you that I have abandoned statutory law on numerous occasions or bypassed it when it was found to be unjust and a source tax revenue against hard-working people. Or simply "framing mischief by decree" on the part of those who claim authority. I have done this using notices and affidavits. Its hard for them to prosecute you when you can reason for yourself.

[007RoyalFlush]

@AGlycerineSilkQuorum Statute is not for you to abandon, it is there to be enforced upon you. There is not one single stated case whereby statute has been bypassed simply because it is statute. A statute is a law, and any monitary gain from criminals has no relevance to the importance of the statute being there in the first place, you are simply attempting to evade the law, which I find disgusting.

[AGlycerineSilkQuorum]

@007RoyalFlush Ever heard of consent of the governed?

[007RoyalFlush]

@AGlycerineSilkQuorum Yes and the term has been grossly misinterpreted by people on these types of threads to be explicit individual consent, when in fact it refers to collective consent in the form of election. To say that an individual can give or remove his consent to be governed is a complete nonsense.

[AGlycerineSilkQuorum]

@007RoyalFlush So would have followed Hitler's statute law?

[AGlycerineSilkQuorum]

@007RoyalFlush Consent of the governed allows for lawful rebellion, Don't you think some of the best laws we see in the world are the result of lawful rebellion. Martin Luther King or Gandhi shouldn't have bothered should they?

[007RoyalFlush]

@AGlycerineSilkQuorum I agree, King and Gandhi are excellent examples of when rebellion is a just and positive response, however there is no such law in this country which comes anywhere near to justifying a rebellion.

[AGlycerineSilkQuorum]

@007RoyalFlush You must be blind and very privileged then all I see is corruption and injustice. Like a government that will kill innocent men women and children in other lands and send young men and women from ours to kill and be killed in unjust wars, crony capitalism, the destruction of all public services and offices the lack of integrity of oaths and the massive developing underclass in Britain through homelessness joblessness the destruction of small business and I could go on and on.

[007RoyalFlush]

@AGlycerineSilkQuorum Wow you talk a lot of crap. People see what they choose to see. Your disagreement with the reasons behind our country sending its soldiers to war is a matter of opinion, for example my opinion is that it was a completely justified and necessary war, and I am proud of the British soldiers who participated. Lack of integrity of oaths? What a load of rubbish, just because you don't understand the role of a police officer don't start criticising

[AGlycerineSilkQuorum]

@007RoyalFlush I have known a few retired policemen who have advised me of what goes on I also have been the victim of policy enforcement and been denied the rights of citizenship been the victim of violence on occasion and denied the right to charge the offender. The police do this of course because they are only doing their job. My argument is that citizenship is a two way street rights and duties I wont do the duties if I am denied the rights. If my rights are honoured then so will my duties

[AGlycerineSilkQuorum]

@007RoyalFlush Please feel free to list the justification!

[007RoyalFlush]

@AGlycerineSilkQuorum For one, well done for completely ignoring my other points. Iraq and Afghanistan had no democracy. They had no law and order, and the civilians were paying the price for it. We gave them both, it's as simple as that.

[AGlycerineSilkQuorum]

@007RoyalFlush Well that is consistent argument is it? firstly as is well published not least by the late Robin Cook who created Al-Qaeda? and secondly that means your argument would lead to your country policing every non democracy in the world what gives you the right to impose your political ideals on other sovereign states. This country has no right to impose what you think democracy is on any other nation. I suppose they need MacDonald's that would bring world peace wouldnt it!

[AGlycerineSilkQuorum]

@007RoyalFlush I agree opinions are like arse-holes everyone has one so lets stick to the points what is your point? I have experienced enough injustice and seen far worse done to others I have also experienced what is great about living in the British Isles. I want to protect what is good and noble about where I live and that is what I am also proud of. I dont want my country to experience further deterioration.

[AGlycerineSilkQuorum]

@007RoyalFlush Please in addition to listing the justification for the war in Afghanistan. Tell me what qualifies you to understand the role of a police officer any better than I? . Are you one?

[007RoyalFlush]

@AGlycerineSilkQuorum Not any more I'm not

[AGlycerineSilkQuorum]

@007RoyalFlush Thanks for sharing. You will know that corruption exists then?

[007RoyalFlush]

@AGlycerineSilkQuorum Of course it does, corruption exists in varying degrees in every single place of work throughout the world. What's your point?

[AGlycerineSilkQuorum]

@007RoyalFlush The police are being made into revenue collectors and policy enforcers more than upholding peace and being accountable to the people they should serve and protect.

[007RoyalFlush]

@AGlycerineSilkQuorum You actually think the government makes money on things like fines? That money is microscopic compared to the amount spent on convicting them. The police should never be accountable to the public, only to the Government.

[wesmatron]

@007RoyalFlush and what if your government is corrupt? Who do they answer to? If the ultimate answer is 'to the people' then the police, by logic, do too.

[007RoyalFlush]

@wesmatron The Government answers to the Government. Corruption exists everywhere but you can't say that because of a couple of bad apples then the whole Government is corrupt, that's just stupid. There are branches of the Government, such as the Lords and the IPCC which deal with corruption. And no the answer is not "to the people". The Police are never answerable to the people, and they never should be.

[wesmatron]

@007RoyalFlush So they aren't public servants then? They are public masters?

[007RoyalFlush]

@wesmatron That's not what I said, they are neither. The police give a service to the public, but that does not mean they have to answer to them. They are not required to justify their actions to the public.

[iwanttocrashmybike]

@007RoyalFlush Not true,they are subject to the common law themselves regardless of statute,thus subject to the actions of other living beings;-)

[007RoyalFlush]

@iwanttocrashmybike Yes they are subject to common law, that has never been disputed, but not regardless of statute. If statute were ever to conflict with common law, then statute takes precedent over common law because it is newer.

[terrygand]

@007RoyalFlush .....I have been told ( by a lawyer), that if there is no contract, the Common Law supersedes Contract/Maritime Law. It is unfortunate that many people don`t know this . I `live under` the Common Law. Unless I have a contract, then it`s Contract Law. I am an English `freeman on the Land` that`s why I never buy a TV Licence . No contract=No Licence ! My Magna Carta Rights, Liberties & Freedoms are not negotiable. I am a `Freeman` & not a Subject. Thanks

[wesmatron]

@007RoyalFlush "Where two rights concur, the more ancient shall be preferred" - Legal Maxim. Wrong again.

[007RoyalFlush]

@wesmatron You could not be more wrong if you tried. Ex tempora - Old laws that conflict with modern law shall be null and void in favour of the more recent one. Do your research please. you're just embarassing yourself.

[wesmatron]

@007RoyalFlush I exposed you a long time ago, darling. Move on.

[007RoyalFlush]

@wesmatron "Exposed"? What a moron you are. I am nothing but an educator.

[wesmatron]

@007RoyalFlush So was Goebbels

[007RoyalFlush]

@wesmatron HAHA! Brilliant. Trust a freetard to confuse nazism with democracy.

[wesmatron]

@007RoyalFlush HAHA! Brilliant. Trust a government lackey to twist what people say to his own ends. That's not what I said at all. Your reading comprehension still hasn't pushed passed Primary School level has it? I thought you needed English GCSE to be a copper?

[007RoyalFlush]

@wesmatron I'm not even going to bother any more. You're clearly barking mad.

[wesmatron]

@007RoyalFlush Clearly

[007RoyalFlush]

@wesmatron I'm glad you agree

[wesmatron]

@007RoyalFlush LOL, you pillock

[007RoyalFlush]

@Pulsationz Road tax goes towards paying for the maintenance of the roads themselves, traffic police and the highways agency, to name but a few things. That is not for personal gain. Cars are dangerous when there is someone behind the wheel who doesn't know how to control it. The freedom movement are against driving licences, which is being against road safety.

[007RoyalFlush]

@Pulsationz I don't need to convince you really, because that is actually the way things are. The fact that the Magna Carta was made by the people has no relevance whatsoever. Nobody is trying to take anyone's rights away. Old laws get changed because modern times require them to be, like the right to travel. In modern times if a person is allowed a right to travel without condition, that is very dangerous. Common sense dictates that old laws should be overruled for that reason

[007RoyalFlush]

@Pulsationz Not at all, under the judicial rule of ex tempora, a newer law overrules an older old, i.e. statutes are more modern laws which override any conflicting older common laws. The terms legal and lawful both refer to either statute or common law. The Magna Carta is centuries old and not really relevant to today's modern world, which is why we have acts of Parliament - that is common sense.

[007RoyalFlush]

@Pulsationz Lawful = legal. They are one and the same, they have the same definition. Statute overrules common law under the rule of ex tempora.

[wobbers99]

Thank you for your effort. I too understand these systems but don't cross streams as they say in Ghost Busters ;)

Oil and water don't mix.

Liens and Legal are two entities who bump into each other. They repel by nature.

Or is it just me?

Great Presentation. Thank you.

[BubbaLummers]

nice the point of laguage is brought up - there is a big swell of issue at the moment in the UK because of the meaning of one word and its legal meaning

--- understand --- interesting to see if its translated to mean comprehend or stand - under ???

[blindhunt3r]

Beautiful.