More London explosions

Anything and Everything about Uplink

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver

User avatar
Flamekebab
level5
level5
Posts: 2979
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2002 5:39 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Postby Flamekebab » Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:01 pm

Does that mean we can get away with plundering now?

*waves cutlass hesitantly*
Darksun
level5
level5
Posts: 6461
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 7:08 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby Darksun » Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:59 pm

It's still punishable by a long prison sentence of course...
Deepsmeg
level5
level5
Posts: 6508
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:26 pm
Location: Register 2102
Contact:

Postby Deepsmeg » Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:43 pm

And Big Bubba.
Image
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:16 pm

Don't make me post it!

Oh and stews: there is still one automatic capital crime in the UK: Regicide. That's constitutional, and so exempt from EU law. The others are no longer automatic, but Her Majesty (or in reality her govenment) still has the power to put someone to death. That's why the police have the power to shoot people 5 times in the head on tube trains. And you missed a good one: before the EU law changes, it was a captial offence to "deface Westminster Bridge." - so no tagging, Ok, guys? :lol:

It is also legal to shoot a welshman from more than 10 feet (but less than 40) with a longbow within 100 miles of Bristol Cathedral. :wink:
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Darksun
level5
level5
Posts: 6461
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 7:08 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby Darksun » Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:49 pm

The police shooting someone doesn't count as capital punishment. Capital Punishment is only when someone is tried and found guilty of a crime, and then executed by the state.

And as far as I know, Regicide isn't a capital crime, can you provide a source? Or else, kill the Queen and see what happens!
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:59 pm

Erm... right. Excuse me while I go and fetch a copy of our unwritten constitution... :lol: I think it's precident. Everyone who's killed a king has been killed: has to be, because we rely upon the devine right of kings to give power to our executive. God chooses the king. So, if you kill the king, (and you arn't king) you have to die horribly. Simple. If any normal mortal could kill the king and get away with it, our legal system would collapse.

But I think we should check. :P

And, no, it's not capital punishment, but it's justified by the same power: the crown can kill to protect itself and it's subjects. The issue is just one of degree.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:05 pm

Seems odd to just make up stuff like that. . .

The Acts of Parliament override the Constitution in any event. So like I said the UK doesn't have the death penalty.
Darksun
level5
level5
Posts: 6461
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 7:08 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby Darksun » Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:24 pm

Well killing the King (or Queen) would be Treason, and murder. And no King or Queen has been murdered since either treason or murder ceased to be capital offenses. So precedent doesn't mean anything.
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:25 pm

Oh no. Regicide is most definatly a crime all by itself: that's why there's a special word for it. :lol:

Stews: qute right, they do. Only in america can a democraticly passed law be declared "unconsitutional". Now show me the act that says "Britain no longer reserves the right to kill". Since we still have an army, you may have difficulty.

and Darksun: this is Britain we're talking about. Precedent means EVERYTHING. It's the foundation of our constitution.

The only way to find out would be to try it, like I said.

(Mutiny Under Weigh? Is that still a capital offence? Probably not, but it should be!)
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:28 pm

Umm. . . Capital punishment and military action are totally different things.

The benefits of a concrete constitution are quite profound. For one thing it keeps fools like Bush from being able to do too much damage in the name of democracy.
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Wed Jul 27, 2005 7:16 pm

No, they arn't. They are killing in the name of protecting the state or it's population. They are justified by the same power.

And, yeah, a written constitution has benifits, as does an unwritten one. It's all swings and roundabouts. For example, you can't ban guns, even though the need for an armed militia is long gone. And people can get off by exploiting loopholes in legislation, while british law is "or such other wording", so such loopholes don't exist.

On the other hand, blair (almost) abolished the role of lord chancellor in a routine cabinet reshuffle! That post is the head of our legal system and has existed since 1066! Fortunatly, there was a bit of a revolt in the house... :P
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Wed Jul 27, 2005 7:34 pm

Lol, you can't be serious.

Capital punishment is very different from military action. I am quite sure you understand that, and even if you don't everyone else does so I won't get into it. Still I only claimed there was not any captial punishment in the UK, so either way I was totally correct.

Loopholes exist in all laws. Having a concrete constitution does not change that. And the US can ban guns if it wants, it would just have to be as a amendment to the Constitution.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:32 am

There is some new information out that seems to warrant a double post and bump:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4157892.stm

Documents that have apparently been leaked say the man was in no way acting suspiciously, did not "vault the ticket barriers", was not wearing a big jacket and only ran when he saw a train about to leave. It also says he was restrained by a community police officer when he was shot. If all this is true, it speaks very, very badly for the police officers involved in the shooting. It looks like the police officer who fired the shots (8 hit, 3 missed) simply decided to take out his anger at the bombings on this man who he believe (wrongly) was involved. If it is true I hope there are some extremely severe punishments handed down.



As I was browsing the BBC website I also came across a story about the earthquake in Japan and this brilliant bit of journalism:

BBC wrote:Two tsunamis around 10cm high (four inches) hit the coast about 15 minutes after the quake but were not thought to have caused any damage.


As troubled as I was after reading the article about the shooting that bit about the earthquake made me laugh out loud. :)
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:57 am

As for the police officers, my dad made a comment, jokingly, at dinner last night about it. I shall paraphrase it.

"Well with all those evil republicans not going around killing things now the poor bobbies need someone to shoot at."

Cruel, politically uncorrect, and funny as hell. At least to me.

Regardless it does not speak well for the gung ho attitude that was so complimented by a certain US president.......


As for the tsunamis, don't they have to be over a certain size to be called such? I mean seriously, 10cm is not a tsunami, it's a normal wave.
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
Darksun
level5
level5
Posts: 6461
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 7:08 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby Darksun » Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:20 am

Nah, I think for it to be classed as a tsunami it just has to be a wave caused by an underwater earthquake. Besides, tsunamis generally arn't that large, they just incredibly fast moving and have a lot of power.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest