oh, I saw that, even with minimum effort, they can dig their heels in and fight a clearly unwinnable case out to 3 trials over 4 years (and counting), all of which will have cost UMG $millions, none of which they'll see.
You have nothing to win, but a choice of how much you lose depending on how you choose to roll the dice. Why wouldn't you choose to limit your potential loss?
The fact that you can recieve a stuffer sentence for the same offence from a crown court rather than a magistrates court is just one more failing in the British justice system.
There was no jury. The BBC describes the 'chairwoman of the bench', which means that this case wasn't even tried by a qualified judge. Just three people virtually plucked off the street and given a couple of weeks training before being handed the power to screw someone's life up. This case seems to demonstrate most of the things wrong with the magistrates court system in the UK.
The point I was driving at is that anyone determined enough (like someone who's pissed off at being forced to work) can do you work of negative value. Here's an example from WW2 - an allied bomber got shot up by a German fighter on its way back from a mission. Miraculously, it survived, and when they got back to the airfield, they fished the German autocannon shells out of the fuselage. When they examined them, they found that where there should have been a detonator, there was a note, in Czech, saying "this is all we can do for you now".
Prompting my second question - can they ask more than once for the same volume? (and therefore the same key) I've had a glance through the legislation and I can't really tell or not, but since it's the same key, it would seem to be merely the continuation of the same offence, and therefore subject to double jeopardy. To quote myself - "anyone know?"
and then have to work for community services, such as IMBA, to keep trails maintained
Generally, forced labour is a bad idea, because for most tasks it's pretty trival to deliberately do a job so badly that it costs twice as much, and takes twice as long, to put it right than it would have taken for the state to employ someone to do it in the first place. To quote Lisa Simpson: "Eh, slave* labour, you get what you pay for". There's also the question of principle, of the state trying to derive productive work, so it doesn't have to pay for it to be done, from the group of people that the same state has defined as criminals
*yes, I know forcing criminals to work is an exception that most governments carve out for themselves in their laws outlawing slavery, but it's still forcing people to work without paying them which the fundamental definition.
However, it's 'cruel and unsual' punishment. Not 'cruel punishment' and 'unusual punishment'. It all depends on how you unpack the sentence - typically the courts have taken the view that the government should be given the freest hand possible.
If you can modify data on the computer, you have only to download the truecrypt source, change it to include a keylogger, compile, and swap the binaries.
But then English Heritage is a quango, not a private organisation - it's a government organisation which is supposed to look after England's* heritage.
I'm not saying that what they're claiming isn't moronic, but that this is probably not the best line of argument to oppose it with
*yes, in this context "England's" is correct - Wales has Cadw and Scotland has Historic Scotland which fulfill the same role inside their respective borders.
Yes, you could get 20-30 convictions, but those 2-5 year sentences would probably be concurrent. I'm not sure whether they can ask multiple times for the same volume either - anyone know?
Unless you think the entire war you're being sent to is illegal (and that it follows that the orders to participate in it are illegal). Then they refuse to consider the issue of the legality of the orders by calling it a political issue. Essentially, you can ignore an order which is illegal, but you may not question the legality of an order.
It's not as ludicrous as you think. Constitutionally, having a continuous (if powerless) non-politicised head of state (who is entirely seperate from the head of government) is a very good way of doing things.
He said 'up to'. And what 'up to' means is Medics & Architects.
Architecture is not a 3 year course, but a 7 year course. You read that right, seven years!
Medicine is a 5 year course - that's £50,000 absolute bare minimum given your numbers (rent is probably closer to £250 \month, that's in a not-particularly-expensive student city, before bills) and doesn't include likely half-rent over summer in the first 2 years, and then the fact that for years 3-4 you get virutally no time off during the summer so in reality you need 12 months rent, and no chance to have a summer job to offset any of that. As a medic you'll also need a shocking quantity of textbooks and various other things (like a life-size skeleton model and a stethescope), and during 5 years you'll probably need at least 1 new computer. Oh, and you'll be on placements which could be MILES away from where you're actually studying, so you'll probably need to own\insure\run a car.
How are we getting for £100,000 now?
Now imagine that you're not in a not-particularly-expensive student city, but in the really expensive one (i.e. London).
Think you could be pushing up to that 'up to £100k'? I think you could.
Yep, that's what I'm arguing for. Of course, if the county provided a fire service, there would be no need for the city to provide one (though they could). Alternatively, in heavily urbanised counties, the county fire department may just be a 1-man-1-day-a-week shell organisation which organises coverage with the cities for those outside any city boundaries.
But, I think state-level organisations are better - in the event of a major incident, you don't want to have dozens of squabbling single-firehouse individual fire departments to deal with if there's, say, an explosion at a major fuel depot.
How is this a case-in-point that fire departments who are paid for centrally and offer continous nationwide coverage are a bad idea? It seems to show pretty clearly that they're a very good idea.
Thankyou. It's the county that's primarily at fault here for not having county-wide firefighting arrangements. (and the state for not mandating that all counties must have such arrangements)
Although there's still something very disturbing about firefighters, with the means to put out a fire, allowing someone's house to burn down so as to make a point about why they should pay upfront.
So in one example only homes bearing a given plaque were covered, in the current example only homes within certain geographical limits are covered. It's not a difference which really affects GPs point.
Slashdot Mirror
Y will reduce house prices! (where Y can be absolutely anything)
He's a councillor, the extend of his legislating is probably about whether dogs fouling the verge should incur their owners a £500 or £1000 fine.
it's a good idea so long as you move on once someone with authority to tell you to go tells you to go.
oh, I saw that, even with minimum effort, they can dig their heels in and fight a clearly unwinnable case out to 3 trials over 4 years (and counting), all of which will have cost UMG $millions, none of which they'll see.
You have nothing to win, but a choice of how much you lose depending on how you choose to roll the dice. Why wouldn't you choose to limit your potential loss?
The fact that you can recieve a stuffer sentence for the same offence from a crown court rather than a magistrates court is just one more failing in the British justice system.
There was no jury. The BBC describes the 'chairwoman of the bench', which means that this case wasn't even tried by a qualified judge. Just three people virtually plucked off the street and given a couple of weeks training before being handed the power to screw someone's life up. This case seems to demonstrate most of the things wrong with the magistrates court system in the UK.
The point I was driving at is that anyone determined enough (like someone who's pissed off at being forced to work) can do you work of negative value. Here's an example from WW2 - an allied bomber got shot up by a German fighter on its way back from a mission. Miraculously, it survived, and when they got back to the airfield, they fished the German autocannon shells out of the fuselage. When they examined them, they found that where there should have been a detonator, there was a note, in Czech, saying "this is all we can do for you now".
Prompting my second question - can they ask more than once for the same volume? (and therefore the same key)
I've had a glance through the legislation and I can't really tell or not, but since it's the same key, it would seem to be merely the continuation of the same offence, and therefore subject to double jeopardy. To quote myself - "anyone know?"
So he was offered punishment A or punishment B.
And it's ok for punishment A to be cruel and unusual, so long as punishment B is merely heavy-handed?
and then have to work for community services, such as IMBA, to keep trails maintained
Generally, forced labour is a bad idea, because for most tasks it's pretty trival to deliberately do a job so badly that it costs twice as much, and takes twice as long, to put it right than it would have taken for the state to employ someone to do it in the first place. To quote Lisa Simpson: "Eh, slave* labour, you get what you pay for". There's also the question of principle, of the state trying to derive productive work, so it doesn't have to pay for it to be done, from the group of people that the same state has defined as criminals
*yes, I know forcing criminals to work is an exception that most governments carve out for themselves in their laws outlawing slavery, but it's still forcing people to work without paying them which the fundamental definition.
That's not a choice. Don't try to present it as one.
However, it's 'cruel and unsual' punishment. Not 'cruel punishment' and 'unusual punishment'. It all depends on how you unpack the sentence - typically the courts have taken the view that the government should be given the freest hand possible.
If you can modify data on the computer, you have only to download the truecrypt source, change it to include a keylogger, compile, and swap the binaries.
The banks will push for an exception for banks - they won't give two hoots about anyone else.
But then English Heritage is a quango, not a private organisation - it's a government organisation which is supposed to look after England's* heritage.
I'm not saying that what they're claiming isn't moronic, but that this is probably not the best line of argument to oppose it with
*yes, in this context "England's" is correct - Wales has Cadw and Scotland has Historic Scotland which fulfill the same role inside their respective borders.
Yes, you could get 20-30 convictions, but those 2-5 year sentences would probably be concurrent. I'm not sure whether they can ask multiple times for the same volume either - anyone know?
You should respect all authority like you respect fire: use it while it's useful, and extinguish it as soon as it's not - lest it get out of control.
Unless you think the entire war you're being sent to is illegal (and that it follows that the orders to participate in it are illegal). Then they refuse to consider the issue of the legality of the orders by calling it a political issue. Essentially, you can ignore an order which is illegal, but you may not question the legality of an order.
It's not as ludicrous as you think. Constitutionally, having a continuous (if powerless) non-politicised head of state (who is entirely seperate from the head of government) is a very good way of doing things.
He said 'up to'. And what 'up to' means is Medics & Architects.
Architecture is not a 3 year course, but a 7 year course. You read that right, seven years!
Medicine is a 5 year course - that's £50,000 absolute bare minimum given your numbers (rent is probably closer to £250 \month, that's in a not-particularly-expensive student city, before bills) and doesn't include likely half-rent over summer in the first 2 years, and then the fact that for years 3-4 you get virutally no time off during the summer so in reality you need 12 months rent, and no chance to have a summer job to offset any of that.
As a medic you'll also need a shocking quantity of textbooks and various other things (like a life-size skeleton model and a stethescope), and during 5 years you'll probably need at least 1 new computer.
Oh, and you'll be on placements which could be MILES away from where you're actually studying, so you'll probably need to own\insure\run a car.
How are we getting for £100,000 now?
Now imagine that you're not in a not-particularly-expensive student city, but in the really expensive one (i.e. London).
Think you could be pushing up to that 'up to £100k'? I think you could.
I know if it was me I would do anything in my capability to get my child back.
you've gotta do what you've gotta do.
That's pretty well what the other party thinks as well.
Yep, that's what I'm arguing for.
Of course, if the county provided a fire service, there would be no need for the city to provide one (though they could).
Alternatively, in heavily urbanised counties, the county fire department may just be a 1-man-1-day-a-week shell organisation which organises coverage with the cities for those outside any city boundaries.
But, I think state-level organisations are better - in the event of a major incident, you don't want to have dozens of squabbling single-firehouse individual fire departments to deal with if there's, say, an explosion at a major fuel depot.
How is this a case-in-point that fire departments who are paid for centrally and offer continous nationwide coverage are a bad idea? It seems to show pretty clearly that they're a very good idea.
Thankyou. It's the county that's primarily at fault here for not having county-wide firefighting arrangements. (and the state for not mandating that all counties must have such arrangements)
Although there's still something very disturbing about firefighters, with the means to put out a fire, allowing someone's house to burn down so as to make a point about why they should pay upfront.
So in one example only homes bearing a given plaque were covered, in the current example only homes within certain geographical limits are covered. It's not a difference which really affects GPs point.