legaleagle wrote:Deacus thank you for the clarity. I was just asking as there are people who use a blanket statement that legislation is evil and unlawful, when in fact what (i think from what you say) they mean to say is there is legislation that they don't agree with. On that point I whole heartedly agree! There is an awful lot of legislation that I disagree with and feel the issue (in some peoples eyes) is being dealt with in the wrong way.
As to my opinion on if it is fair or not It depends on the legislation you are talking about (a lawyers answer I know.)
You use the example of speeding,this type of offence is created in an attempt to prevent the harm coming to pass. But that's pre-crime guilty before an offence is just wrong if not criminal? Now I am very lucky that I live out in the country and have a reasonable size garden between me and the road, so people speeding passed my house is not a problem to me. I have however come across people who tell me that speeding passed schools is a huge concern to them and they wish the police would sit outside schools to catch people more often. The problem (in my opinion) with the laws on speeding(and many others for that matter) is not that it is there, it is that it does not see a difference between someone going 40mph in a 20mph zone right outside a school and someone who goes 90mph on a deserted dual carriageway at 2 in the morning.
Agreed & that is understandable but I feel the frustration of many on here is the whole "Nanny state" there are morons in all warps of life including drivers as the example but most people are not, yet we are all treated as moronic children by an over controlling Government & what seems to be rapidly heading towards a Police state
If you are are referring as many people have to the practice of offering the chance to avoid court and pay a fine, this is because by accepting the fine the person is in effect pleading guilty to the offence. The problem with this (again in my opinion) is that as has been said in another thread many people accept the fine based on their fear of the court system rather then because they are pleading guilty. In my opinion this is something that does need changing and I think that one way this can be helped is by people who have experience of court (and hopefully people like me who work in them) dispelling some of the myths and fear around courts.
This is the problem we have agreed we are guilty before we even enter a Court, by force, if the contract is not signed we are arrested the courts & Judges must know this goes on & that must be indicative of corruption isn't it?
The following from the Bill of rights,
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;"
So all on the spot fines are not only void but illegal, from memory of Blacks a penalty (charge/notice) is a fine how can this be, how can this have been misinterpreted?
Hopefully this answers your question
Thanks for your reply but unfortunately has raised more
legaleagle wrote:Can someone (preferably someone who only agrees with common law) explain to me where they think it comes from? This is because it is referred to by so many people as a bastion of good and the exact opposite of those naughty statutes. Now when I talk about common law I talk about what I learned in (my government run indoctrinating gulag) law school. This is Law created by the courts through interpreting legislation as well as the laws created before the civil war by kings and lords and put into a common system by again the judges appointed by the monarch.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest