in which case there is nothing to challenge: this case deals with *warrantless* searches. This case has just legitimised warrantless searches, sod any constitutionally-based objections.
Addendum: what this means is that the father of his own, legitimate child, has no PR and not even a voice in open hearing unless it suits the court to allow it.
you all missed this part: Children Act 1989 Section 2 Paragraph (4): The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.
What this means, in case it gave you a haircut, is that the father had to fight his way to get recognised in the first place as a person with parental *responsibility* (nobody has parental *rights* anymore since that was abolished in the Children Act).
Additionally, this case *does not* engage the Human Rights Act nor the EU Convention on Human Rights, since the contested parties are minors and *minors cannot be made signatories to contracts*.
- (multiple precedents in Common Law, see BAILII England & Wales High Court cases from the Family Division)
why does David Cameron hate democracy? We're still waiting for our fucking in/out referendum on Europe!
Why do family court judges in England hate democracy? There's usually only the one on the bench, and he makes ALL the decisions. Often based on *his uninformed and unqualified opinion* rather than *established fact* and *uncontested truth*!
here's a horror story that writes itself, considering seasonal shots and MMR use albumen as a purportedly "inert" suspension:
in 2010 I attended a warehouse in Sutton that housed 50 million chicken eggs. My reason for being there could be summed up in few words: kill rats.
They were EVERYWHERE. Thousands of them, jumping all over the eggs, pissing all over the *very porous eggs* to get to the bags of dry dog food at the other end of the building, then on their way back, ripping up the egg cartons to take back for nesting material, dropping capers and still pissing all over the eggs on the way.
Were those eggs destroyed?
No.
After a couple months of me fighting a losing battle to control the rats (ended up ordering the dog food out of the building - remove the food, the rats generally fuck off but this lot were too well established), several refrigerated trucks finally arrived to take the eggs away.
Knowing what I know, and having seen what I saw, you come near me with a needle I will fucking stab you in the eye with it.
what this is, is an epiphany in building design. Squares are unnatural, and so are enclosed office spaces. Most people don't work well in isolation, which is why prisons exist - to isolate you. If this design is a: open plan (not even bullpens, thank you) and b: open to let in as much natural light as is humanly possible, then I for one would not only reconsider my career direction to work in such a place, I would willingly relocate to do so. I've tried to work under fluorescents, it made me ill. Give me a window next to my workstation or we're not having a conversation.
try it, get dragged through the court system, get it to the Supreme Court and make a Constitutional challenge to speed limits. Best of luck and try not to kill anyone in the process. Point is, aside from the insanely bad analogy, the only way to challenge bad Law is to break it and challenge it in Court at the highest level possible, set precedent - it's precedent that writes Law, not some keyboard monkey in a basement.
isn't there an exception somewhere for when (not if, it is apparently a common occurrence) classification of materials is misused to conceal evidence of criminal activity by the State?
For instance, when someone is indicted by the Public Prosecutor in England, any and all evidence whether relied upon or not is revealed and offered to all parties to the case per the Criminal Procedure Rules 2013 Part 1.1 paras. 2(b)-(c). This would necessarily include any and all such documents and other materials marked "Classified". Apart from the content of such documents, knowledge of the existence of said documents would from that point become a matter of public record. There's nothing stopping the court, upon agreement of all parties or by order from the Ministry of Defence per the Official Secrets Act 1911, from only revealing the contents of those documents in chambers, out of public view.
it depends on the jurisdiction. Some (such as England which is a constitutional legal system) defamation is a civil matter. In others which operate a primarily statutory legal system, it can be civil or criminal - depends how far the legislative branch has gone to suppress freedom of speech or expression of dissent.
...but in England, the defence to a defamation claim is the facts in evidence. The trick is to get the facts in evidence. If you're defending a defamation claim and have the supporting facts in evidence, providing you're not in front of a corrupt judge you're home free; if either condition isn't met, you're fucked.
this is old news.
"...the core of Jupiter, forever beyond human reach, was a diamond as big as the Earth."
De Beers stakeholders, please take note....and one year ago to the day, news broke of a planetary core twice the size of Earth showing all the signs of being made of diamond: google 55 Cancri e. It's a rocky world, close to its primary, and given its calculated density it may well be the remnant of a gas giant whose atmosphere has long since burned away, leaving a core that is likely fully one third crystalline carbon.
Slashdot Mirror
or the favourite: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
in which case there is nothing to challenge: this case deals with *warrantless* searches. This case has just legitimised warrantless searches, sod any constitutionally-based objections.
Addendum: what this means is that the father of his own, legitimate child, has no PR and not even a voice in open hearing unless it suits the court to allow it.
there is no such qualifier, exemption or exception. S2P(4) is reproduced in my previous post in its entirety.
that's what headphones are for.
what rights??
Refer CA1989 Section 2 Para. 4: The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.
you all missed this part: Children Act 1989 Section 2 Paragraph (4): The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.
What this means, in case it gave you a haircut, is that the father had to fight his way to get recognised in the first place as a person with parental *responsibility* (nobody has parental *rights* anymore since that was abolished in the Children Act).
Additionally, this case *does not* engage the Human Rights Act nor the EU Convention on Human Rights, since the contested parties are minors and *minors cannot be made signatories to contracts*.
- (multiple precedents in Common Law, see BAILII England & Wales High Court cases from the Family Division)
it also fails (1) since there is no such thing as a perfect vaccine.
why does David Cameron hate democracy? We're still waiting for our fucking in/out referendum on Europe!
Why do family court judges in England hate democracy? There's usually only the one on the bench, and he makes ALL the decisions. Often based on *his uninformed and unqualified opinion* rather than *established fact* and *uncontested truth*!
here's a horror story that writes itself, considering seasonal shots and MMR use albumen as a purportedly "inert" suspension:
in 2010 I attended a warehouse in Sutton that housed 50 million chicken eggs. My reason for being there could be summed up in few words: kill rats.
They were EVERYWHERE. Thousands of them, jumping all over the eggs, pissing all over the *very porous eggs* to get to the bags of dry dog food at the other end of the building, then on their way back, ripping up the egg cartons to take back for nesting material, dropping capers and still pissing all over the eggs on the way.
Were those eggs destroyed?
No.
After a couple months of me fighting a losing battle to control the rats (ended up ordering the dog food out of the building - remove the food, the rats generally fuck off but this lot were too well established), several refrigerated trucks finally arrived to take the eggs away.
Knowing what I know, and having seen what I saw, you come near me with a needle I will fucking stab you in the eye with it.
what this is, is an epiphany in building design. Squares are unnatural, and so are enclosed office spaces. Most people don't work well in isolation, which is why prisons exist - to isolate you. If this design is a: open plan (not even bullpens, thank you) and b: open to let in as much natural light as is humanly possible, then I for one would not only reconsider my career direction to work in such a place, I would willingly relocate to do so. I've tried to work under fluorescents, it made me ill. Give me a window next to my workstation or we're not having a conversation.
try it, get dragged through the court system, get it to the Supreme Court and make a Constitutional challenge to speed limits. Best of luck and try not to kill anyone in the process. Point is, aside from the insanely bad analogy, the only way to challenge bad Law is to break it and challenge it in Court at the highest level possible, set precedent - it's precedent that writes Law, not some keyboard monkey in a basement.
isn't there an exception somewhere for when (not if, it is apparently a common occurrence) classification of materials is misused to conceal evidence of criminal activity by the State? For instance, when someone is indicted by the Public Prosecutor in England, any and all evidence whether relied upon or not is revealed and offered to all parties to the case per the Criminal Procedure Rules 2013 Part 1.1 paras. 2(b)-(c). This would necessarily include any and all such documents and other materials marked "Classified". Apart from the content of such documents, knowledge of the existence of said documents would from that point become a matter of public record. There's nothing stopping the court, upon agreement of all parties or by order from the Ministry of Defence per the Official Secrets Act 1911, from only revealing the contents of those documents in chambers, out of public view.
it depends on the jurisdiction. Some (such as England which is a constitutional legal system) defamation is a civil matter. In others which operate a primarily statutory legal system, it can be civil or criminal - depends how far the legislative branch has gone to suppress freedom of speech or expression of dissent.
...but in England, the defence to a defamation claim is the facts in evidence. The trick is to get the facts in evidence. If you're defending a defamation claim and have the supporting facts in evidence, providing you're not in front of a corrupt judge you're home free; if either condition isn't met, you're fucked.
there's a song there somewhere, but for the life of me I can't think what it is...
this is old news. "...the core of Jupiter, forever beyond human reach, was a diamond as big as the Earth." De Beers stakeholders, please take note. ...and one year ago to the day, news broke of a planetary core twice the size of Earth showing all the signs of being made of diamond: google 55 Cancri e. It's a rocky world, close to its primary, and given its calculated density it may well be the remnant of a gas giant whose atmosphere has long since burned away, leaving a core that is likely fully one third crystalline carbon.