Andy9o8 2 #76 October 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteFalsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre is still illegal regardless of weather anyone runs out screaming. Same shit. It is? Do you have a reference to the law about that? Thanks! On the one hand, there is no statute that specifically states, "Whoever shall falsely shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre shall be guilty of a criminal offense under this Act." On the other hand (which is to say, semantics aside): In terms of criminal law, it would probably constitute criminal reckless endangerment and/or a similar offense. In terms of civil law, if someone gets hurt or their property is damaged as a predictable result of such conduct, it would constitute an actionable tort for which the "shouter" could be sued for damages. So - it is what is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #77 October 24, 2009 QuoteIn terms of civil law, if someone gets hurt or their property is damaged as a predictable result of such conduct, it would constitute an actionable tort for which the "shouter" could be sued for damages. I took the hypothetical situation presented (no one runs out) as meaning that there was no damage to persons or property.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #78 October 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn terms of civil law, if someone gets hurt or their property is damaged as a predictable result of such conduct, it would constitute an actionable tort for which the "shouter" could be sued for damages. I took the hypothetical situation presented (no one runs out) as meaning that there was no damage to persons or property. OK. I think some jurisdictions (and their prosecutors) might take the approach that it's still criminal, because the criminal act in "reckless endangerment" is the endangerment itself (i.e., the risk of harm to the public safety), regardless of whether the harm actually results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 489 #79 October 25, 2009 Quote The fucker Nick Griffin is going to be allowed to be on the BBC Question Time program tonight. He is the leader of the Whites Only BNP.... should freedom of speach be extended to anyone, no matter what their views? .... one funny story came out this week though... apparently, they are not allowed to restrict membership to Whites only... so some have suggested thet All Non-White folks in the U.K join the party and thus be in the majority and would be able to vote out all of the crazies and change the party line I watched QT on iplayer yesterday and to be honest Nick Griffins comes across as clueless and rather dim. I loved it when he nodded his head in agreement at some of the bashing that he got. On the other hand I think that Jack Straws slippery demeanor was just as bad. The two people who really stood out as being level headed were the lib-dem and conservative members of the panel (don't remember the names). The woman from the conservative was extremely good I thought. To focus on the actual topic though. I felt that on a couple of issues the BNP are closer to the "truth" than the others. 1) The acknowledgment that people dislike politicians and don't trust them. 2) The general denial by Jack Straw and Bonnie that there is such a thing as "indigenous British/english". I know MANY white englishmen feel that being a white middle class male puts you right at the bottom of the governments priority list. Failure to step up and address those feelings and pretending they don't exist causes problems. I have a very good friend whose parents moved to Southern Africa when he was 5 or 6 years old. When things collapsed he returned to the town of his birth (Skegness) and was bullied and abused out of 2 jobs by "locals" who resented "you bloody foreigners stealing our jobs". Last thought - I am very happy to see the BNP forced to open their constitution, but I would like to see a bit of fairness and see a few white faces in the black police officers associationExperienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #80 October 25, 2009 Hi Nigel, I have to agree with your observations. However the North of England does tend to be more racist in general, I was seeing a Yorkshire lass a few years ago, she was lovely but got all hell from her family for dating a 'Paki' and I was born in England and am as Darius so quaintly puts it a Tan person (Love that description, always used to say coffe coloured) There a good reason why the BNP have so much sucess in the North of England. Although the BNP managed to get one seat on the London Assembly their real powerbase is in the North of England , winning a council seat in Lancashire and Leistershire, and MEPs for Yorkshire and the Humber, and Northwest England. The conservative lady was Baroness Warsi, I agree that she was very impressive. There were some points on rampant uncontroled imigration that she actually agreed on with Nick Griffen. She's right as well, the UK is a small place and its way to overcrowded, the Government has no idea on how many people are coming into the country and staying. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 489 #81 October 25, 2009 Quote The conservative lady was Baroness Warsi, I agree that she was very impressive. There were some points on rampant uncontroled imigration that she actually agreed on with Nick Griffen. She's right as well, the UK is a small place and its way to overcrowded, the Government has no idea on how many people are coming into the country and staying You'd think it would be quite easy to keep track on an island. The funny thing is people "focus" on different races and yet I worked with an illegal immigrant - from New Zealand. He said it was quite well known that if you wanted to stay and work you simply flew into Ireland and then travelled on into the UK. He since married a british person and to do so legalised his status (this was about 7 or 8 years ago). For what it is worth I get REALLY upset at the discussions/expressions of sympathy for asylum seekers trying to come into the UK through France (Calais). If they are genuinely so hard up they should be happy to stay in the FIRST country of refuge. There are legitimate reasons why people arrive in the UK through heathrow or Gatwick, especially when escaping former commonwealth counties.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #82 October 25, 2009 QuoteI get REALLY upset at the discussions/expressions of sympathy for asylum seekers trying to come into the UK through France (Calais). Why? I'd think Brits should feel flattered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 489 #83 October 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteI get REALLY upset at the discussions/expressions of sympathy for asylum seekers trying to come into the UK through France (Calais). Why? I'd think Brits should feel flattered. Because the basis of an asylum seeker (and I believe enshrined in international law) is that your "human right" is to have safe protection in the first SAFE country. I think that once you are in a safe zone - so if you escape the turmoil in the middle east then the first EU country that you arrive in should be deemed safe, moving from one safe country to another under your own initiative is simply wrong and shifts you from asylum seeker to economic migrant - at which point you rightfully lose the protections that are afforded asylum seekers. It is important to note that this does place a moral burden on the "inland" countries that do not border countries with a high outflow of refugees to either take refugees or assist in funding them.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
