PhotoBanter.com

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)
-   Digital SLR Cameras (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   Britain's horrific new photo law (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=104403)

Tony Cooper February 19th 09 04:02 PM

Britain's horrific new photo law
 
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H
wrote:

You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK
because of your bill of rights.


What is your basis for this claim?

Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm
just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause
of any problems we might have.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Chris H February 19th 09 04:28 PM

Britain's horrific new photo law
 
In message , tony cooper
writes
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H
wrote:

You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK
because of your bill of rights.


What is your basis for this claim?

Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm
just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause
of any problems we might have.


As I understand it you have everything defined including National
Security overriding everything. This is not the case in the UK

In the UK the courts have far more latitude to stop the government
(assuming some one brings a case) doing lots of things. The Government
can not say "national security" and not have to prove it in court. This
is why the Home Secretary has to go to court to through people out.

The Courts use Case Law and Common Law (common law not being written
down) and can interpret far more freely.

The Government has lost several "national security" trials because the
judges read things differently to the government of the day. Clive
Ponting was a case in point. The Jury and the courts refused to convict
even though on first look he was guilty of a breach of National
Security. Actually he was guilty of severely embarrassing the government
..

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/




Tony Cooper February 19th 09 05:30 PM

Britain's horrific new photo law
 
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:28:36 +0000, Chris H
wrote:

In message , tony cooper
writes
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H
wrote:

You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK
because of your bill of rights.


What is your basis for this claim?

Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm
just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause
of any problems we might have.


As I understand it you have everything defined including National
Security overriding everything. This is not the case in the UK


The Bill of Rights, which is the term used to describe the ten
amendments that were made to the proposed Constitution in 1789, was
added to provide protection to the citizens. Basically, they spell
out the freedoms that were to be guaranteed to the citizens. The
amendments were added because it was felt that the Constitution
itself, as originally drafted, did not adequately protect the rights
of the citizens.

The drafters of these ten amendments used the English Bill of Rights
of 1689 as a guide to what protections the citizens should have. If
you compare our Bill of Rights to your Bill of Rights, you see the
basic similarity. I assume that you are familiar with your Bill of
Rights since you propose yourself as an expert on the effect of the
documents of state on the society of country.

The issue of national security is not covered in the Bill of Rights
unless you consider Amendment II (the right to maintain a
well-regulated militia) to be a national security issue. The effect
of that amendment has been more centered on the right of the citizens
to keep and bear arms than it has on the establishment of a militia.

The various legislation enacted in the name of national security in
the 200-plus years since the Constitution was ratified by the states
must be held to be in line with the Constitution and the subsequent
Amendments. No legislation can abridge the rights given in those
documents.

There are arguments about whether or not certain legislation does
abridge these rights. Often, these take the form of challenges to
legislation, and the challenges end up being decided by the Supreme
Court. It is the Court's job to determine if the legislation is in
accordance with the *intent* of the Constitution and the Amendments.
They have to deal with intent because modern-day situations could not
have been anticipated by the drafters in the 1700s.

In short, some of our laws and practices regarding national security
are controversial, but the Bill of Rights is not the cause of the
problems. Conversely, the Bill of Rights offers protection.

You have a bad habit of going off half-cocked on issues that you have
very little - if any - understanding of. Feel free to criticize us,
but make some effort to approach accuracy in what you say. You are
far too often wide of the mark.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

J. Clarke February 19th 09 06:37 PM

Britain's horrific new photo law
 
Chris H wrote:
In message , tony cooper
writes
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:52:52 +0000, Chris H
wrote:

You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK
because of your bill of rights.


What is your basis for this claim?

Don't take my response as support for Hemi's ridiculous post. I'm
just curious as to why you think that the Bill of Rights is the cause
of any problems we might have.


As I understand it you have everything defined including National
Security overriding everything. This is not the case in the UK

In the UK the courts have far more latitude to stop the government
(assuming some one brings a case) doing lots of things. The
Government can not say "national security" and not have to prove it
in court. This is why the Home Secretary has to go to court to
through people out.
The Courts use Case Law and Common Law (common law not being written
down) and can interpret far more freely.

The Government has lost several "national security" trials because the
judges read things differently to the government of the day. Clive
Ponting was a case in point. The Jury and the courts refused to
convict even though on first look he was guilty of a breach of
National Security. Actually he was guilty of severely embarrassing
the government .


You have a very bizarre view of the Bill of Rights and the workings of the
US courts. Would you care to provide a quotation from the Constitution
which supports you argument that "national security" overrides everything?
Or some case law? Where do you get the notion that case law and common law
are not used by the US courts? How about support for the notion that the
government can say "national security" and not have to prove it in court?

Under what US statute do you believe that Clive Ponting could even have been
given a ticket, let alone arrested?


Justin C[_5_] February 19th 09 09:50 PM

Britain's horrific new photo law
 
In article , Rich wrote:

Follow-ups set.

[snip]

Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police claimed that taking photographs of
police officers would not - except in 'exceptional circumstances' - be
covered by the new offence.


And whatever *any* copper says is an "exceptional circumstance" will be
supported by his Chief Constable, regardless of the actual circumstance.

Welcome to the free world.

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

Chris H February 19th 09 09:54 PM

Britain's horrific new photo law
 
In message , J. Clarke
writes
Under what US statute do you believe that Clive Ponting could even have
been given a ticket, let alone arrested?


The ones used for Quntanamo?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/




Stormin Mormon February 20th 09 01:23 PM

Britain's horrific new photo law
 
Do we have permission to get rid of the Stimulus bill, also?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"DRS" wrote in message
...

You first. Get rid of the Patriot Act, the warrantless
wiretapping and all
the rest and then you can talk.




DRS February 20th 09 03:27 PM

Britain's horrific new photo law
 
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

Do we have permission to get rid of the Stimulus bill, also?


Why would you want to get rid of the first intelligent bill introduced in
America for 8 years?



jaf[_3_] February 20th 09 06:44 PM

Britain's horrific new photo law
 
So your stating that the democratic controlled congress during the Bush administration never passed an intelligent bill?

I have no problem believing that!

John

wikipedia
"In the 1996 and 1998 elections, Republicans lost Congressional seats but still retained control of the House and, more narrowly,
the Senate. After the 2000 election, the Senate was divided evenly between the parties, with Republicans retaining the right to
organize the Senate due to the election of Dick Cheney as Vice President and ex officio presiding officer of the Senate. The Senate
shifted to control by the Democrats (though they technically were the plurality party as they were one short of a majority) after
GOP senator Jim Jeffords changed party registration to "Independent" in June 2001, but later returned to Republican control after
the November 2002 elections. In the 2006 elections, Democrats won both the House of Representatives (233 Democrats, 202 Republicans)
and the Senate (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats) as well as the majority of state
governorships (28-22).



"DRS" wrote in message ...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

Do we have permission to get rid of the Stimulus bill, also?


Why would you want to get rid of the first intelligent bill introduced in America for 8 years?



jaf[_3_] February 21st 09 01:28 PM

Britain's horrific new photo law
 
Hence the proliferation of spell checkers.
Now if I could only get the grandma checker to kick in. 8)


John


"Twibil" wrote in message ...
On Feb 20, 10:44 am, "jaf" wrote:

So your stating that the democratic controlled congress during the Bush administration never passed an intelligent bill?

I have no problem believing that!


And we have no problem believing that you never learned in grade
school what the contraction "you're" means (it means "you are") as
opposed to "your", meaning "belonging to you".

BTW: while you're looking things up, check out procedural stalling
tactics and Presidential veto powers.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com