on (2), the state needs to pay out compensation for those wrongly imprisoned, and bill the ex-judge to make it back. The kids (and their families) should not have to go without actually recieving due compensation because the ex-judges clearly won't have enough assets to compensate all of them.
I think his point is that they could offer the service for $500 less, if they didn't have to recover the cost of drawing up specifications for the customer, which company X doesn't have to recoup owing to having the good fortune to have been asked second.
what I despair at is that fact that the ECHR gave them a round drubbing, and told them to scrub the database, and within 24 hours some government talking-head was on the airwaves saying that they weren't going to do it. Not only do the people of this country continue to have their rights violated, but the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for the government's inevitable fine from the court.
They did it when they were told that they had to let prisoners vote as well.
Personally, I reckon the Human Rights Act was just a cunning ploy. Now the human rights question is tested in the British courts, they find in favour of the government, the ECHR rules against the government, the government gains some legitimacy in ignoring the ECHR because there was been judgements on the case in the highest court in the UK (the Law Lords) which gave a contrary result. In the past, people had to go to the hassle of going straight to Europe, but at least the government had no leg to stand on for disputing the ECHR's judgement.
the other countries break them out by force. Once anyone involved in detaining individuals outside of jurisdiction knows that they have a 50% of getting a bullet in the head from some special forces, you'll soon see a complete inability of governments to actually get anyone to detain people for them. Especially when the people doing the detaining are not soldiers, but ordinary police officers and prison warders - these people did not sign up for the risk of being placed in genuine danger of their lives.
It would take only one or two such incidents before it became generally known that you're not going to be a pushover and cave in; once that's established, there won't be arguments about such basic and obvious things like whether the proprietor has the right to eject an unruly customer.
No, it will become known quickly that your management believes that they have the right to eject people early after taking their money, and you'll be out of business in a month. Once the message that people can and do get burned in your establishment gets around, they won't want to take the risk.
well, yeah, they shouldn't argue that point in the aisles - they should take as much time as legally possible to leave, and make as much disturbance in doing so as they can. The more the theater's heavy-handed tactics cost them in their ability to retain custom, the better. That and the very direct financial cost of losing a lawsuit if they refuse to make a refund. You don't pay for a ticket to be let in, and allowed to stay for as long as the management see fit - you pay to be let in, and stay for the duration of the movie.
And look at it this way, $22 for 2 people is $11 each, that's about 1 hour's wages (i.e. not a lot of money) for 2 hours of movie. For that $11 you get to watch the movie on a 20' - 30' screen with a massive surround-sound system. Guess what the trade-off is? You have to deal with the great unwashed. You don't like it; buy a large TV, a sound system & a blu-ray player and put it in a dedicated room in your house and watch it there. No public for you to worry about, but it'll cost you a not-insignificant amount of money to achieve. That or you book the movie theater out - if you don't want to deal with other people, don't go to public places where there are, guess what, other people.
Maybe it was different 40 years ago. 40 years ago people were more restrained in their behaviour walking down the street too. People are now diffrent, people will do what suits them, and if you don't want to deal with them, they expect YOU to go out of YOUR way to avoid it, not happily allow you to restrain them to levels that you're happy with. Public places are not your personal fifedom of tranquility.
And just for the record, I don't talk on my mobile in movie theaters, I make triple-sure that mine is off normally, if I even bring it. I also find other people talking on their to be annoying, but I don't for one minute delude myself into thinking that gives me the right to try and have them removed.
And are you free to sit in the movie theater with binoculars? They enhance your enjoyment of what you've paid for, and the only way they affect others is that they're vaguely aware that you have binoculars, and they don't.
I think you'd agree that in that situation the theater's only recourse would be to require you to leave, and refund your money.
I like Wesnoth, but whenever I start to get into it and feel "hey, this is a really well put together, prefessional-quality game" something monumentally stupid happens, and all the warm fuzzy feeling that I had towards it fades away into thinking "another open-source project that hasn't quite made it".
You sound like Gul Dukat - no-one (not even the French) will give you unconditional surrender until you've torn their country limb-from-limb, and there's no-one really left in any position to give that surrender. (Take Germany, World War II. There were at least 6 surrenders in the last weeks of the war - 3 of them after Donitz gave the allies the unconditional surrender that they wanted - by the time he was forced to give that surrender he wasn't in control of a functioning country that he could actually tell to lay down their arms) Nothing that's actually recogniseable as an organised country has ever given an unconditional surrender, and people who make such demands know it.
How would unconditional surrender of a complete country go? You tell me to surrender. My country is intact, my leadership is still there, my cities still stand, my infrastructure still works, my army is still a fighting force if I tell it to fight. What happens now? Your army just rolls in and seamlessly takes over the reigns of government, shoots me and my cabinet and carries off any of the women that they want? When you give someone unconditional surrender, you hand them the freedom to do that.
Unconditional surrender is when you're kicking someone on the ground and they're begging you to stop. If you go up to someone and deamand unconditional surrender, it's like you're telling them to lie on the floor so you can kick them if you want. You condemn someone for refusing and tell them that it's their own fault if they got a harder kicking because you had to knock them down first?
Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation. Being a member of Al-Qaeda is an offence in itself. Is being a member of SHAC an offence in itself? I don't know for sure, but I don't think it is - a large number of their members may be involved in criminal, specifically terrorist, activities, but that doesn't make them as a whole a terrorist group, and it doesn't make anyone who isn't opposed to them as much as you are fair game for extrajudicial punishment.
Once you start to do that the police will try to lock you up. And if people try to stop them or even don't help them to the best of their ability, they will lock them up too.
Obstructing the police is a crime, refusing to assist with an investigation isn't. Even if you can, and the police know that you can, it's still not illegal for you to refuse. The police may take extrajudicial action against people who refuse to assist them, but that's supposed to be illegal (hence; extrajudicial), and I'm suprised that you seem to be cheering the idea on.
I think in a democracy, regardless of how you feel about animal experimentation you should not try to get shield people like them from law enforcement.
In a democracy, everyone should shield everyone else from law enforcement. Nothing will walk you into tyrrany faster than a population who are willing to shop each other.
Actually legally you don't have much choice. If you know anything about a crime and don't report it you can be prosecuted as an accessory.
Actually, legally, you are supposed to have the choice. If something has changed since 1998 (when I last knew for sure), I'd like you to quote the law which criminalises simple failure to hand over information. Also, "you can be prosecuted" is weasel words - can you be sucessfully prosecuted? Or can you be prosecuted by an embittered prosecutor who wants to pin something on you for not helping them, thus giving rise to a sucessful countersuit for malicious prosecution?
Not really, the police have very little interest in how much collateral damage they do. If 50 sites are hosted on one server, they'll still take the whole server to get one. If you have many machines and a central repository of disk images for virtualised servers, they'll take the repository. If you have two repositories which mirror each other, they'll take both so as to make sure they're genuine mirrors. If you keep the two machines at seperate sites, there's nothing to stop them getting two warrants and siezing them simultaneously.
Amount of financial damage that will be caused by a raid is not a consideration - to the police you're guilty until proven innocent, and if you're guilty you deserve everything you get. On the one hand, it makes sense, since people would just start protecting stuff with solid-gold padlocks. On the other hand, a hell of a lot of damage can be caused over the pettiest of investigations without any deliberate attempt to artifically increase the damage caused, and there's the ever-present risk of a warrant being treated as carte-blanche to break stuff.
Expenses related to investigations should be recoverable from the accused
Bad idea, it's often the addition of costs that hammer people convicted of petty crimes. They also get down-played when the result of the trial is reported. If person X is fined £50 for littering, few people are likely to think that lenient (I personally think that's on the borderline of excessive for petty littering), but so it is duly reported in the newspapers that person X was fined £50 for littering. Now we add your plan; even the most basic investigation and prosecution (including prosecutor time in constructing the case) could easily come to over £2000. All of a sudden, person X is stuck with a bill of £2050 for petty littering, but the papers may well report only that they were fined £50 for littering, and everyone goes on thinking that the courts are giving out even-handed justice.
If 'society' wants to protect itself from litterers, then 'society' can pick up the tab. Alternatively, whatever the level of the fine, it goes towards to cost of the investigation, not straight to central funds, and the level of the fine is to be decided as it is now, and not dictated by how much the investigation cost.
Andy Robbins is a police officer, he's not (normally) entitled to privacy as regards being identified in connection with his work as a police officer. The British Police Force is not quite the STASI yet.
You think SHAC is odious, GP thinks SHAC is odious, I think SHAC is odious. Perhaps Indymedia doesn't think they're odious, the fact that you condone the police harassing them (and causing damage to their operation that costs real money to put right) because of that viewpoint is the exact problem that GP is complaining about.
Someone commits a crime on your premises. You stop that crime. The police come by to investigate. You refuse to help them potentially concealing the identity of the criminal. They then go get a warrant to compel you to hand over evidence. Thats how it works.
But that doesn't sound like what's happened here - it sounds like the police got their warrant, 'searched' for evidence by emptying every filing cabinet onto the floor, picked up the receptionist's PC, and left.
Or just take the notes home at the end of the lecture and keep them at home. What are they going to do? Deamnd that you bring the notes in so they can be destroyed? And what are they going to do when you don't? Raid your house?
Certainly, the useful value of my university education is in the 8 box files full of notes that I can refer back to when I need to.
If there were enough Jerusalems to go around, it might solve the problem.
In response to your passive solution, US$600b worth of land-based CIWSs could entirely surround Gaza and do a fair job of stopping the rocket fire, without the need for dismantling Berlin.
1) "You're responsible for my reaction to what you did". Wrong. You are responsible for what you do. I'm not going to say that the United States was evil in nuking Japan, given the callous disregard that all sides had for civilian life during that conflict, but trying to say that the Japanese essentially nuked themselves is ridiculous.
2) The whole "comply with demands that we're making in the full knowledge that you won't be willing\able to comply with them, or else" pretext for attacking someone is how the first world war kicked off too.
3) The US took as much part in the Dresden raid as the British (and, infact, changed their bomb mix to be more effective at city-wide destruction than normal)
4) After the war, the US commander, Eisenhower, was all for using the civilian population of Germany as slave labour. He was also the person ultimately responsible for the fact that the civilian population was rationed food at 800 calories per day whilst the occupying forces were getting 4500.
5) I don't know if you'd call turning most the eastern Europe into communist dictatorships 'treating enemy countries well'. They also had an horrific rate of survival for captured PoWs.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, so you don't actually have the right to not be wrongly imprisoned?
on (2), the state needs to pay out compensation for those wrongly imprisoned, and bill the ex-judge to make it back. The kids (and their families) should not have to go without actually recieving due compensation because the ex-judges clearly won't have enough assets to compensate all of them.
they could argue it, but do you really think that an organisation the size of the BBC doesn't have some pretty rabid lawyers of its own?
I think his point is that they could offer the service for $500 less, if they didn't have to recover the cost of drawing up specifications for the customer, which company X doesn't have to recoup owing to having the good fortune to have been asked second.
that's a sure-fire way to not sell anything. Seriously, are you really Wirt in disguise?
sorry, "though they may be sound"
Oh, I read the article as "technological arguments, though sound, won't stop the legal system being 100% broken."
how about navy-surplus artillery?
what I despair at is that fact that the ECHR gave them a round drubbing, and told them to scrub the database, and within 24 hours some government talking-head was on the airwaves saying that they weren't going to do it.
Not only do the people of this country continue to have their rights violated, but the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for the government's inevitable fine from the court.
They did it when they were told that they had to let prisoners vote as well.
Personally, I reckon the Human Rights Act was just a cunning ploy. Now the human rights question is tested in the British courts, they find in favour of the government, the ECHR rules against the government, the government gains some legitimacy in ignoring the ECHR because there was been judgements on the case in the highest court in the UK (the Law Lords) which gave a contrary result.
In the past, people had to go to the hassle of going straight to Europe, but at least the government had no leg to stand on for disputing the ECHR's judgement.
Except in the UK, where it's a public servant with little or no training who, in some instances, actually has more power than a real police officer.
the other countries break them out by force. Once anyone involved in detaining individuals outside of jurisdiction knows that they have a 50% of getting a bullet in the head from some special forces, you'll soon see a complete inability of governments to actually get anyone to detain people for them. Especially when the people doing the detaining are not soldiers, but ordinary police officers and prison warders - these people did not sign up for the risk of being placed in genuine danger of their lives.
No, it will become known quickly that your management believes that they have the right to eject people early after taking their money, and you'll be out of business in a month. Once the message that people can and do get burned in your establishment gets around, they won't want to take the risk.
well, yeah, they shouldn't argue that point in the aisles - they should take as much time as legally possible to leave, and make as much disturbance in doing so as they can. The more the theater's heavy-handed tactics cost them in their ability to retain custom, the better. That and the very direct financial cost of losing a lawsuit if they refuse to make a refund. You don't pay for a ticket to be let in, and allowed to stay for as long as the management see fit - you pay to be let in, and stay for the duration of the movie.
And look at it this way, $22 for 2 people is $11 each, that's about 1 hour's wages (i.e. not a lot of money) for 2 hours of movie. For that $11 you get to watch the movie on a 20' - 30' screen with a massive surround-sound system. Guess what the trade-off is? You have to deal with the great unwashed. You don't like it; buy a large TV, a sound system & a blu-ray player and put it in a dedicated room in your house and watch it there. No public for you to worry about, but it'll cost you a not-insignificant amount of money to achieve.
That or you book the movie theater out - if you don't want to deal with other people, don't go to public places where there are, guess what, other people.
Maybe it was different 40 years ago. 40 years ago people were more restrained in their behaviour walking down the street too. People are now diffrent, people will do what suits them, and if you don't want to deal with them, they expect YOU to go out of YOUR way to avoid it, not happily allow you to restrain them to levels that you're happy with. Public places are not your personal fifedom of tranquility.
And just for the record, I don't talk on my mobile in movie theaters, I make triple-sure that mine is off normally, if I even bring it. I also find other people talking on their to be annoying, but I don't for one minute delude myself into thinking that gives me the right to try and have them removed.
And are you free to sit in the movie theater with binoculars? They enhance your enjoyment of what you've paid for, and the only way they affect others is that they're vaguely aware that you have binoculars, and they don't.
I think you'd agree that in that situation the theater's only recourse would be to require you to leave, and refund your money.
I like Wesnoth, but whenever I start to get into it and feel "hey, this is a really well put together, prefessional-quality game" something monumentally stupid happens, and all the warm fuzzy feeling that I had towards it fades away into thinking "another open-source project that hasn't quite made it".
You sound like Gul Dukat - no-one (not even the French) will give you unconditional surrender until you've torn their country limb-from-limb, and there's no-one really left in any position to give that surrender. (Take Germany, World War II. There were at least 6 surrenders in the last weeks of the war - 3 of them after Donitz gave the allies the unconditional surrender that they wanted - by the time he was forced to give that surrender he wasn't in control of a functioning country that he could actually tell to lay down their arms)
Nothing that's actually recogniseable as an organised country has ever given an unconditional surrender, and people who make such demands know it.
How would unconditional surrender of a complete country go?
You tell me to surrender. My country is intact, my leadership is still there, my cities still stand, my infrastructure still works, my army is still a fighting force if I tell it to fight. What happens now? Your army just rolls in and seamlessly takes over the reigns of government, shoots me and my cabinet and carries off any of the women that they want? When you give someone unconditional surrender, you hand them the freedom to do that.
Unconditional surrender is when you're kicking someone on the ground and they're begging you to stop. If you go up to someone and deamand unconditional surrender, it's like you're telling them to lie on the floor so you can kick them if you want. You condemn someone for refusing and tell them that it's their own fault if they got a harder kicking because you had to knock them down first?
Unconditional surrender is no choice at all
Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation. Being a member of Al-Qaeda is an offence in itself. Is being a member of SHAC an offence in itself?
I don't know for sure, but I don't think it is - a large number of their members may be involved in criminal, specifically terrorist, activities, but that doesn't make them as a whole a terrorist group, and it doesn't make anyone who isn't opposed to them as much as you are fair game for extrajudicial punishment.
Obstructing the police is a crime, refusing to assist with an investigation isn't. Even if you can, and the police know that you can, it's still not illegal for you to refuse.
The police may take extrajudicial action against people who refuse to assist them, but that's supposed to be illegal (hence; extrajudicial), and I'm suprised that you seem to be cheering the idea on.
In a democracy, everyone should shield everyone else from law enforcement. Nothing will walk you into tyrrany faster than a population who are willing to shop each other.
Actually, legally, you are supposed to have the choice. If something has changed since 1998 (when I last knew for sure), I'd like you to quote the law which criminalises simple failure to hand over information.
Also, "you can be prosecuted" is weasel words - can you be sucessfully prosecuted? Or can you be prosecuted by an embittered prosecutor who wants to pin something on you for not helping them, thus giving rise to a sucessful countersuit for malicious prosecution?
Not really, the police have very little interest in how much collateral damage they do. If 50 sites are hosted on one server, they'll still take the whole server to get one. If you have many machines and a central repository of disk images for virtualised servers, they'll take the repository. If you have two repositories which mirror each other, they'll take both so as to make sure they're genuine mirrors. If you keep the two machines at seperate sites, there's nothing to stop them getting two warrants and siezing them simultaneously.
Amount of financial damage that will be caused by a raid is not a consideration - to the police you're guilty until proven innocent, and if you're guilty you deserve everything you get.
On the one hand, it makes sense, since people would just start protecting stuff with solid-gold padlocks. On the other hand, a hell of a lot of damage can be caused over the pettiest of investigations without any deliberate attempt to artifically increase the damage caused, and there's the ever-present risk of a warrant being treated as carte-blanche to break stuff.
Bad idea, it's often the addition of costs that hammer people convicted of petty crimes. They also get down-played when the result of the trial is reported. If person X is fined £50 for littering, few people are likely to think that lenient (I personally think that's on the borderline of excessive for petty littering), but so it is duly reported in the newspapers that person X was fined £50 for littering.
Now we add your plan; even the most basic investigation and prosecution (including prosecutor time in constructing the case) could easily come to over £2000. All of a sudden, person X is stuck with a bill of £2050 for petty littering, but the papers may well report only that they were fined £50 for littering, and everyone goes on thinking that the courts are giving out even-handed justice.
If 'society' wants to protect itself from litterers, then 'society' can pick up the tab.
Alternatively, whatever the level of the fine, it goes towards to cost of the investigation, not straight to central funds, and the level of the fine is to be decided as it is now, and not dictated by how much the investigation cost.
Andy Robbins is a police officer, he's not (normally) entitled to privacy as regards being identified in connection with his work as a police officer. The British Police Force is not quite the STASI yet.
You think SHAC is odious, GP thinks SHAC is odious, I think SHAC is odious. Perhaps Indymedia doesn't think they're odious, the fact that you condone the police harassing them (and causing damage to their operation that costs real money to put right) because of that viewpoint is the exact problem that GP is complaining about.
But that doesn't sound like what's happened here - it sounds like the police got their warrant, 'searched' for evidence by emptying every filing cabinet onto the floor, picked up the receptionist's PC, and left.
Or just take the notes home at the end of the lecture and keep them at home. What are they going to do? Deamnd that you bring the notes in so they can be destroyed? And what are they going to do when you don't? Raid your house?
Certainly, the useful value of my university education is in the 8 box files full of notes that I can refer back to when I need to.
If there were enough Jerusalems to go around, it might solve the problem.
In response to your passive solution, US$600b worth of land-based CIWSs could entirely surround Gaza and do a fair job of stopping the rocket fire, without the need for dismantling Berlin.
1) "You're responsible for my reaction to what you did". Wrong. You are responsible for what you do. I'm not going to say that the United States was evil in nuking Japan, given the callous disregard that all sides had for civilian life during that conflict, but trying to say that the Japanese essentially nuked themselves is ridiculous.
2) The whole "comply with demands that we're making in the full knowledge that you won't be willing\able to comply with them, or else" pretext for attacking someone is how the first world war kicked off too.
3) The US took as much part in the Dresden raid as the British (and, infact, changed their bomb mix to be more effective at city-wide destruction than normal)
4) After the war, the US commander, Eisenhower, was all for using the civilian population of Germany as slave labour. He was also the person ultimately responsible for the fact that the civilian population was rationed food at 800 calories per day whilst the occupying forces were getting 4500.
5) I don't know if you'd call turning most the eastern Europe into communist dictatorships 'treating enemy countries well'. They also had an horrific rate of survival for captured PoWs.
You mean PIN-locking them?