so, the english are raping again

[Phang]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Actually, having government set the law isn't tyranny.

no, but having them interpret it as well is.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

i don't understand how this in any way binding. you have nothing written down, not even a constitution. who authorises what is legal(probably wrong word) and what isn't? isn't that supposed to be the job of the government, not that of some judges?

PS anyway, a tyranical dictator could just develop his own civil law system

stop saying we don't have anything written down. are you mentally subnormal? or perhaps you imagine english lawyers learn case law in verse and rhyme travelling from court to court maintaining the oral tradition of wandering minstrels.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Phang

no, but having them interpret it as well is.

that's why we're lucky then.

because we don't

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

that's why we're lucky then.

because we don't

that's my point dude

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Phang

that's my point dude

i was going back to my 'the common law is one of the greatest jewels that the empire gave the world' point.

i'd hate perle to miss it. he tends to avoid my posts...

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Not within the parliamentary system, he couldn't.

with a parliamentary system worth mentioning he wouldn't be a dictator , would he?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

with a parliamentary system worth mentioning he wouldn't be a dictator , would he?

if only germany had managed ...

edit: and MrL missed the far better point that the common law system itself would stop the tyrant, no need parliament

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

edit: and MrL missed the far better point that the common law system itself would stop the tyrant, no need parliament

I would have thought that all he'd need to do would be to "persuade" the Queen to make him Lord High Steward, Lord High Admiral, Lord High Constable and Capital Justiciar of England and he'd be able to do whatever the hell he wanted (legally, at any rate, I can't imagine he'd last very long before a rebellion kicked him out).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

edit: and MrL missed the far better point that the common law system itself would stop the tyrant, no need parliament

I wasn't mentioning that, as it might be possible to drastically change the legal system by extraordinary measures. I don't really know enough about the abstract systems of governance to make an argument on it.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

stop saying we don't have anything written down. are you mentally subnormal? or perhaps you imagine english lawyers learn case law in verse and rhyme travelling from court to court maintaining the oral tradition of wandering minstrels.

so what happens with a case that's completly different to all others before if you don't have laws to interpret?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I wasn't mentioning that, as it might be possible to drastically change the legal system by extraordinary measures. I don't really know enough about the abstract systems of governance to make an argument on it.

that's ok.
i can tell you that the common law is perfectly capable of defending itself.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

if only germany had managed ...

that hardly had anything to do with civil law, did it?

edit: and MrL missed the far better point that the common law system itself would stop the tyrant, no need parliament

if you have a military coup / some mad guy who starts a revolution, how exactly would any legal system whatsoever stop that guy?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

so what happens with a case that's completly different to all others before if you don't have laws to interpret?

The judge makes a ruling, which can then be challenged by a court of appeal, and so on until it gets to the Law Lords who make definitive rulings in the Common Law of England and Wales.

Well, for now at least. Charlie's getting rid of them and making a supreme court of the united kingdom, which is rather curious because it'll be bound to none of the legal systems of the countries it oversees.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

so what happens with a case that's completly different to all others before if you don't have laws to interpret?

analogies are drawn with earlier cases and if that is insufficiant we create a new precedent to make sure that the new thread fits perfectly into the ever growing tapestry of justice.

a pre-written civil law system simply doesn't have this flexibility.

[noah02]

Pah to this thread I am in the British army and i was in Iraq and i didnt see anything Guvner.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if you have a military coup / some mad guy who starts a revolution, how exactly would any legal system whatsoever stop that guy?

That's a change in governmental system, and represents rather more than the machinations of an individual. What would happen to common law if the UK was invaded?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

that hardly had anything to do with civil law, did it?

it had a lot to do with a weak parliamentary system.

which was why i said it.

do keep up.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Well, for now at least. Charlie's getting rid of them and making a supreme court of the united kingdom, which is rather curious because it'll be bound to none of the legal systems of the countries it oversees.

the changes are purely cosmetic.
i don't follow your second point. explain.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if you have a military coup / some mad guy who starts a revolution, how exactly would any legal system whatsoever stop that guy?

any change of leadership requires legal validity to succeed.

had you not noticed that england has remained curiously free of dictators since magna carta?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

analogies are drawn with earlier cases and if that is insufficiant we create a new precedent to make sure that the new thread fits perfectly into the ever growing tapestry of justice.

a pre-written civil law system simply doesn't have this flexibility.

and how exactly is that different to our system? we either pass a new law / change an existing one or interpret existing laws in a way so that they fit.

and how can you claim its flexible and at the same time say it can't easily be changed?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

it had a lot to do with a weak parliamentary system.

which was why i said it.

do keep up.

which is not what we are talking about right now. read to what i answered.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

the changes are purely cosmetic.

Pamis wasn't particularly clear on that point. It was said that the move was designed to add a constitutional distance between the highest court of appeal and parliament, but didn't really say anything about the changes in system that may take place.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

i don't follow your second point. explain.

Well, the nations of the united kingdom have significantly different legal systems depending on the country in question (I'm talking about scotland, obviously). It seems rather strange to have a single body interpreting law for both a common law based system and one based more on civil law.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

and how exactly is that different to our system? we either pass a new law / change an existing one or interpret existing laws in a way so that they fit.

and how can you claim its flexible and at the same time say it can't easily be changed?

its flexible because it can easily embrace new concepts or adapt and regulate itself to changes in society and the concept of justice.

it can't be 'changed' in that it isn't like a civil law system based on one book which can be rewritten. the common law is spread out in each individual case, its incrimental growth makes it immune to destruction.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

and how can you claim its flexible and at the same time say it can't easily be changed?

It's difficult to change the entire. An individual interpretation can be changed by any given judge, subject to appeal. I think.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Pamis wasn't particularly clear on that point. It was said that the move was designed to add a constitutional distance between the highest court of appeal and parliament, but didn't really say anything about the changes in system that may take place.

don't take statements out of context. what they say is a 'constitutional distance' is in terms of a symbolic distance. such meaningless symbolism is described by me as cosmetic.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Well, the nations of the united kingdom have significantly different legal systems depending on the country in question (I'm talking about scotland, obviously). It seems rather strange to have a single body interpreting law for both a common law based system and one based more on civil law.

the existing role of the judicial house of lords will not change by changing its name to 'the supreme court'

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

don't take statements out of context. what they say is a 'constitutional distance' is in terms of a symbolic distance. such meaningless symbolism is described by me as cosmetic.

I thought that was the case, but couldn't be sure.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

No I'm sorry but it is clear the Great Britain invented Gravity. Sir Isaac Newton might claim the credit bu tthe whole nation was workign together to sort that one out, same with the invention of evolution, how could one or two people possible arrange all that.

Isaac Newton himself said he was standing on the shoulders of Giants, it is clear he was referring to the unusally tall caucasion race.

lol invented gravity. i guess the universe must be thankfull to the english people. the invention of gravity really helped it alot.

oh and by the way, sir newrton only described the effects of gravity correctly. he was completely wrong on the cause of gravity. It was one genius called albert einstein who truely explained the causes of gravity in 1915.

[Ärketrollmannen]

Originally Posted by Perle

oh and by the way, sir newrton only described the effects of gravity correctly. he was completely wrong on the cause of gravity. It was one genius called albert einstein who truely explained the causes of gravity in 1915.

Please enlighten me on the actual cause of gravity.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Perle

lol invented gravity. i guess the universe must be thankfull to the english people. the invention of gravity really helped it alot.

The problem with you, like all mono-obsessional extremists, is that you have absolutely no humour within you. In fact, you are without a soul altogether.

P.S, please don't try to inavde and rape Greece again.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Perle

oh and by the way, sir newrton only described the effects of gravity correctly.

No he didn't.

Originally Posted by Perle

he was completely wrong on the cause of gravity. It was one genius called albert einstein who truely explained the causes of gravity in 1915.

No he didn't.

[Marilyn Manson]

The first rule of Science Club is: You do not suppose yourself to be more knowledgable than Mark.

The second rule of Science Club is: You do not suppose yourself to be more knowledgeable than Mark.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

What in gods name are you talking about? I pointed out that the REASON iraq came about was not because of british imperialism so much as the collapse of another empire which spanned half of the arab world which left this horrific vaccum of power.

nono you didnt point out a damn thing.


I said that the empire was responsible for the creation of the artificial country of iraq, with three people(sunnis, shiites,kurdes)which have no bussiness of being in a country together.



you said : ohhh your history is so weak ottomans ottomans uhuhuh

I said: no, you illiterate fool, it was the british empire.

now, are you gonna admit you were wrong or not???

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Yes we did go and carve up the land using mandates to 'legitimise' our power and so on but

aha, facing irrefutible and overwhelming evidence, the english nationalist and defender of colonialism finally admits being wrrong....

Originally Posted by JammyJim

what your asking is an apology for doing so....why exactly?

Because you created unstable countries on purpose, with the evil
intention of keeping the region instable, so you could keep exploiting the natural ressources.


Iraq was carved out of the old Ottoman Empire by direction of the UK government on January 10, 1919, and on November 11, 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".
At the end of the war, ownership of and access to Iraq's petroleum was split five ways: 23.75% each to the UK, France, The Netherlands and the USA, with the remaining 5% going to a private oil corporation headed by Calouste Gulbenkian. The Iraqi government got none of the nation's oil. This remained the situation until the revolution of 1958.

The British government laid out the institutional framework for Iraqi government and politics; the Iraqi political system suffered from a severe legitimacy crisis; Britain imposed a Hashemite monarchy, defined the territorial limits of Iraq with little correspondence to natural frontiers or traditional tribal and ethnic settlements, and influenced the writing of a constitution and the structure of parliament. The British also supported narrowly based groups -- such as the tribal shaykhs over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement, and resorted to military force when British interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani coup. This coup led to a British invasion of Iraq using forces from the British Indian Army under General Sir Edward Quinan, combined with an attack by the British controlled Arab Legion based in Jordan. This led to a very rapid defeat for the Iraqi army in May 1941.

source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...q#Modern_Times


poor poor iraqees, their oil was being stolen and they tried to get rid of the foreign aggressors and were beaten by the brutal english invaders
and in the year 2005, the same shit is going on in Iraq.

Dont you really feel you should apologize to the iraqee people for 80 years of theft and robery????

Originally Posted by JammyJim

If we had not others would have and at the time there was a true sense that we were civilising the rest of the uncivilised world for the greater good of the empire.

oh really, you were civilising the iraqees. they were so uncivilized. they had to lose their oil ....eehhh i mean uncivilized ways.

and the brilliant defence.
The massmurderer on trial says: hey, if i hadnt lkill them, someone else would have.


I quote again: The British also supported narrowly based groups -- such as the tribal shaykhs over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement, and resorted to military force when British interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani coup. This coup led to a British invasion of Iraq using forces from the British Indian Army under General Sir Edward Quinan, combined with an attack by the British controlled Arab Legion based in Jordan. This led to a very rapid defeat for the Iraqi army in May 1941.

oh thank you english masters thank you for civilizing the iraqees. thank you that you take the time to invade iraq 3 times(1919,1991,2003) when are the poor people in Iraq ever gonna get rid of the bloddthirsty invaders who have been torturing them for 80 years???

Originally Posted by JammyJim

We were the most powerful nation on earth in the same way that America steps in when a vacuum threatens to engulf entire areas into civil war. Did it occur to you that the collapsing of an empire usually leads to rather alot of 'fighting' and violence as a result.

so when an iraqee national movement tries to get rid of the invadors, who are stealing the countries natural ressources, the english have to kill them all, to stop the civil war???

in what kind of a fantasy world do you live??
the evidence of british and english attrocities is irrefultable. be ashamed.
power vacuum my arse!!! The rebellion was 20 years after the fall of the ottomans

Originally Posted by JammyJim

No. Im not arrogant of my history. It IS my nations history. Why should i be ashamed of it?

I just posted one example above. that example can be applied to many many countries which were raped by the arrogant english empire

Originally Posted by JammyJim

We remain one of the largest economies in the world and one of the bastions of freedom for centuries. Why in gods name should i be embarassed to say 'im british'. Oh and our inventions/historical accomplishments propelled the world into the 20th century and without many of them you wouldnt be talking on this internet forum today.

I guess that compensates for english attrocities throughout centuries

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Obviously someone else would have invented most of the stuff but the point is that the british did it first because of the 'conditions' of the age.

ridicilous argument, its like germans saying: hey who cares if started ww2 , we have so many inventions. we are proud of our history

Originally Posted by JammyJim

No.
Imo we are more civilised than most countries outside of the western world. We dont go round cutting peoples hands of for stealing or making sure women cant vote. We dont descent into civil war everytime theres an election and we dont threaten our neighbours with invasion.

no, you are not more civilized than other countries. this is exactly the arrogance i am talking about

Originally Posted by JammyJim

We are a civilised country and tbh id FAR FAR prefer to live in the west and enjoy its 'civilisation' thani would some backwater shithole in the middle of a desert riding around on a camel and praying i find water before i get ethnically cleansed by a rival religion.

then stay the hell home and let other people live how they want to live. stop invading them damnit

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Yes you are. Your asking for a total unreserved apology for Britains past. I was being 'sarcastic'

yes ,I am, do it, stop making up excuses

Originally Posted by JammyJim

. As for Iraq. Noone 'created it'. It was already there. Iraq didnt suddenly rise up from the waters and become a nation on the command of britain.

please stop bringing up stupid arguments. there was no iraq before the english went there and created it. of course the land upon which the iraqee state was created was already there.
we are not in a kindergarten here dude

Originally Posted by JammyJim

It was part of a division of the Ottoman empire granted but this does nto mean that every single fault and problem it has caused over the years is ours to blame.

the english are to blame. they intionally created a state which had no chance of having stability. it was easier to steal the ressources.


I quote again:
The British government laid out the institutional framework for Iraqi government and politics; the Iraqi political system suffered from a severe legitimacy crisis; Britain imposed a Hashemite monarchy, defined the territorial limits of Iraq with little correspondence to natural frontiers or traditional tribal and ethnic settlements, and influenced the writing of a constitution and the structure of parliament.The British also supported narrowly based groups -- such as the tribal shaykhs over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement, and resorted to military force when British interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani coup.

It was a simple and easy calculation by the brutal english invaders. keep the kurds and sunnis and shiites fighting each other, and they wont notice us stealing their oil.

"who cares how many of the savages kill each other. And even if they manage to kick us out, the country would be so unstable that we can invade it again at a later time"

Originally Posted by JammyJim

If we had not discovered america.
If we had not 'lost' the wars of independence.
If we had gone back and claimed it instead of thinking '**** em'

America would be under our control. Its vast resources wouldve been part of the empire. Noone would have dared to attack anyone and WW2 would never have happened. The Cold war Would nto have taken place and the various proxy wars would not have killed thousands.

soooo by your logic (apologise because you made iraq), we should apologise for losing control of america too....or maybe just discovering it. damn our imperial ambitions. sigh

idiotic, i wont justify that with an answer

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Its usually a fair indication that when your right people go 'you know what...hes right'. and when your wrong and drivelling on about something either

a) noone cares about
b) noone agrees with

people tend to go 'shut up you fool' much likee most of the people here.


Its a shame you didnt understand the earlier sarcasm but hey ho. Maybe its just because im British.

hey people, let us all eat shit. Millions of flies cannot be wrong!!!!!!

[MrL_JaKiri]

ridicilous argument, its like germans saying, hey who cares if started ww2 , we have so many inventions. we are proud of our history

oshi, godwins

hey people, let us all eat shit. Millions of flies cannot be wrong!!!!!!

Whilst arguing from popularity is obviously a logical fallacy, I think the point was more that the level of this forum is pretty high, and thus if an idea has any logical merit it seems fairly likely that more than one of the members will support it, given that, whilst many people on here have strongly held opinions, they are not arrogant enough to not change them in the face of contradictary evidence.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Ärketrollmannen

Please enlighten me on the actual cause of gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

read and be enlightened

[Perle]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

No he didn't.



No he didn't.

well on second thought, i think i misphrased that. newtons statement that masses attract eachother was wrong. the cause of gravitation is of course the mass.
my fault

[Perle]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

The problem with you, like all mono-obsessional extremists, is that you have absolutely no humour within you. In fact, you are without a soul altogether.

P.S, please don't try to inavde and rape Greece again.

oh yes, i am very sorry for the invasion of other countries by my ancestors.
It was wrong and iI am very ashamed of it.
National pride is a very stupid thing!!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Perle

well on second thought, i think i misphrased that. newtons statement that masses attract eachother was wrong. the cause gravitation of course is the the mass.
my fault

No, masses do attract eachother. He was wrong about the precise mathematical interaction, though, and didn't provide a causual explanation. Einstein got the maths right (as far was we know, barring the quantum fuzz), and had a slightly better explanation, but still didn't explain the cause of this interaction between masses anywhere near fully.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

No, masses do attract eachother. He was wrong about the precise mathematical interaction, though, and didn't provide a causual explanation. Einstein got the maths right (as far was we know, barring the quantum fuzz), and had a slightly better explanation, but still didn't explain the cause of this interaction between masses anywhere near fully.

I think you are wrong there. Masses do not attract each other. masses cause a curvator in the space time continuum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

general relativity by albert einstein

[meglamaniac]

Dear god, is this travesty of a thread still going on?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Perle

I think you are wrong there. Masses do not attract each other. masses cause a curvator in the space time continuum.

I know very well what General Relativity states, but one mass making another mass move towards it merely by its presence is what english speakers call 'attraction'.

Of course, that's ignoring the QM desription of gravity, which GR compliments rather than competes with.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I know very well what General Relativity states, but one mass making another mass move towards it merely by its presence is what english speakers call 'attraction'.

.

hmmmm
but doesnt that imply some invisible force which pulls the smaller object to the bigger object?
and also the object isnt really making the other object movie towards it. it simply makes a curvator in space.

hmm, difficult to say actually, you might be right, Iam not really sure. Will have to read about that.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Perle

then stay the hell home and let other people live how they want to live. stop invading them damnit

We did.

more's the pity

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by perle

then stay the hell home and let other people live how they want to live. stop invading them damnit

Perle, does this mean youre going to apologise for Germany invading Poland? Or Austria. Or France. Or Belgium? , or are you point scoring on an internet forum in the vain hope of getting a fanclub? I only ask since you seem to pretty much ignore any question you cant refute or dismiss the individual asking the question as either Biased or an Idiot.

I think youve found your calling. Theres a Republican Nomination or two going in the senate. Youre a sure thing. Alternatively , the English seem to want you to go for a Hat Trick , now might be your best time to rally the troops.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Perle

hmmmm
but doesnt that imply some invisible force which pulls the smaller object to the bigger object?
and also the object isnt really making the other object movie towards it. it simply makes a curvator in space.

"A male doesnt really attract a female, he just produces an aura of masculine charm that causes her to want him". You certainly could phrase it like that without being technically wrong, but whats the point?

The word attract means (dictionary.com): "To cause to draw near or adhere by physical force: Magnetic poles are attracted to their opposites". Does it really matter whether the method of causation involves producing a field, rather than extending tiny little arms and grabbing? In some contexts it might be worthwhile to distingish between 'indirect' and 'direct' attraction, but there doesnt really seem to be any point here. There's no need to introduce difficulties into terms and expressions that everyone understands perfectly well,

[SYMM]

Didn't we establish a while ago that he's Iranian and not German?

And this thread is still going?
Reading about humourous misreadings of things was better.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Yeah, I meant modern day rather than the C17.

Although having said that, remember that we're looking at a fairly biased sample, as we only remember those who made discoveries. We don't know about the numbers of Gentlemen Scientists overall.

I wouldnt imagine he was standing on the shoulders of those who didnt actually discover anything...

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You're being rather selective on your definition of 'society'. For example, where would Einstein have been without the teaching he received in the european university system?

As far as I know, his parents were wealthy - they'd probably have managed to provide him with some form of private education. Not that I know how the German education system worked at the turn of the 20th century anyway - did state funded education even exist? Also, a fair number of scientists have been relatively self-educated (in the sense of not participating in the academic system to any significant degree). Not that it's particularly relevant, since I wasnt claiming that anyone reinvented the wheel from scratch (or that this is desirable).

In any case, it would be fairly ridiculous for the "average German man" to take the credit for Einstein, given the whole 'organised political campaigns against his work' thing. Pehaps as ridiculous as Britain claiming 'they' invented computers despite persecuting one of the most significant contributors to the point where he committed suicide.

[JonnyBGood]

I'm responsible for the crimes of every Irishman who ever existed and their actions do in fact say quite a lot about me. Although my dad's english so maybe that's my lying imperialist genes talking


you ****ing retard.



PS Sorry for being late guys.

[Nodrog]

hey I have an ireland joke.


Why isnt the cooking equipment hungry?

Because the pot-ate-o

[JonnyBGood]

All cooking equipment bears responsibility for the failings of it's predecessors in terms of cooking times and preventing the loss of substantial amounts of energy and time which might otherwise have been so invested as to end world hunger.

So the conservatives are right. The fault really does lie with the pot