Reading doesn't want boaters anymore!

[NigelMoore]

But that's the basis of the legal system. If everyone; Corp, Gov or individuals followed the law exactly, there would be no need for courts.

 

Indeed. But – the courts are not just for determining issues of fact [as to whether or not there has been a breach of the law as understood by both parties]; they are there also, to interpret what exactly the law says, where disputed interpretations arise. That is where things get tricky.

 

Our legal system is still, in my opinion, amongst the finest and fairest in the world; however, as I see it, the judges have their own set of priorities.

 

First, they protect their own interests and position;

 

Second, they protect the status quo and position of the government, and,

 

Thirdly, they protect the interests of the populace in accord with the principles of jurisprudence.

 

That prioritisation can work against the strict impartiality they purport to maintain. However much, in other words, they claim otherwise, they are a human institution manned by humans.

[bassplayer]

Indeed. But – the courts are not just for determining issues of fact [as to whether or not there has been a breach of the law as understood by both parties]; they are there also, to interpret what exactly the law says, where disputed interpretations arise. That is where things get tricky.

 

Our legal system is still, in my opinion, amongst the finest and fairest in the world; however, as I see it, the judges have their own set of priorities.

 

First, they protect their own interests and position;

 

Second, they protect the status quo and position of the government, and,

 

Thirdly, they protect the interests of the populace in accord with the principles of jurisprudence.

 

That prioritisation can work against the strict impartiality they purport to maintain. However much, in other words, they claim otherwise, they are a human institution manned by humans.

It will always be human nature to look after you, your 'family' and friends first. It's when people go too far with it and cause misery and death to those outside their circle that it becomes wrong.

[Bobbydogs dad]

 

What a load of rollocks!!

Its called the law of the land, and although ignored, is still law. Legally, the act of treason still carries the death penalty, so we can hang the lot and start again!

[Alenafour]

Its called the law of the land, and although ignored, is still law. Legally, the act of treason still carries the death penalty, so we can hang the lot and start again!

 

that's just Graham Davis being his usual thoughtful self.

[Graham Davis]

Its called the law of the land, and although ignored, is still law. Legally, the act of treason still carries the death penalty, so we can hang the lot and start again!

 

Rubbish!!

 

 

that's just Graham Davis being his usual thoughtful self.

 

Can't help yourself, can you?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

OK, now to open up a can of worms!.... The government, by signing away powers to Brussels in the treaty of Versailles, the treaty of Nice, and the Maastricht treaty without proper consultation or a referendum (a legal requirement) under the terms of the magna carta 1215, have committed an act of treason against the state and therefore unfit to rule. The queen, who also gave her consent to this is also guilty of treason and as such is unfit to rule. This makes her government illegal and therefore we don't have to take any notice of them! How's that for anarchy!

This I believe is the load of old nonsense coming under the Freeman of the Land (FoTL )rubbish, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to ANYONE who has successfully used it as a defence, (Clue: No one has). Also if you like to point out specifically WHERE in the Magna Carta it makes any requirement to a referendum I'd be obliged.I was in Lincoln recently and picked up a copy and I cannot find any such reference. There ARE however some strange lines in it should you care to look them up beginning with "..No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman for the death of anyone except her husband..." what was this the original Sharia law? How about another cracking line, "...and if anyone dies owing a debt to the Jews his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt...." rather prejudicial to those of the Jewish faith I would suggest and finally how about "...Earls and Barons shall only be amerced by their peers..." so any caught fiddling their expenses could not be dealt with by the courts, you need to be careful what you wish for . I think you may find some of the Magna Carta has been superceded

 

Re:- Reading moorings (the original topic of this forum before it went off on a tangent) ... A local resident has been told by the local council jobsworth that there is a tug coming to tow our boats away. ..... Completely illegal!

Why bother towing away, if the land belongs to Reading Council and they have asked you to leave, if you fail to do so you are trespassing, it is lawful to remove you (so long as you are aboard, casting your lines would suffice)

 

Its called the law of the land, and although ignored, is still law. Legally, the act of treason still carries the death penalty, so we can hang the lot and start again!

Treason ceased to be a Capital offence under Section 36 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as did piracy), the information is out there if you can be bothered to look

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Indeed. But – the courts are not just for determining issues of fact [as to whether or not there has been a breach of the law as understood by both parties]; they are there also, to interpret what exactly the law says, where disputed interpretations arise. That is where things get tricky.

 

Our legal system is still, in my opinion, amongst the finest and fairest in the world; however, as I see it, the judges have their own set of priorities.

 

First, they protect their own interests and position;

 

Second, they protect the status quo and position of the government, and,

 

Thirdly, they protect the interests of the populace in accord with the principles of jurisprudence.

 

That prioritisation can work against the strict impartiality they purport to maintain. However much, in other words, they claim otherwise, they are a human institution manned by humans.

I may have a slightly different take on it than you, I tend to feel that our legal system is the finest that money can buy, and the more money you have the 'better' justice you will get. With the crippling of the Legal Aid system this is only going to get worse.

 

Perhaps you'd elaborate on how Judges protect their own interests and position? If a judge has any 'interest' in a case they are beholden to declare it and remove themselves from the case otherwise a mistrial will be declared at some later stage . They don't have to worry about their position since, once they've been installed it is almost impossible to remove them no matter how bad their judgements may be. Even if criticised at the Appeal Court their position remains fairly safe.

 

I would tend to agree with your second and third points.

[NigelMoore]

I think you may find some of the Magna Carta has been superceded

 

In fact the 1215 version of Magna Carta lasted a very short time only. The version that first entered the statute books was dated 1297. All but 3 clauses have been repealed; the live ones remaining are:

 

(I) Confirmation of Liberties

(IX) Liberties of London etc

(XXIX Imprisonment, etc

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents

 

The oldest still extant statute is that of Marlborough, dated 30 years earlier.

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

In fact the 1215 version of Magna Carta lasted a very short time only. The version that first entered the statute books was dated 1297. All but 3 clauses have been repealed; the live ones remaining are:

 

(I) Confirmation of Liberties

(IX) Liberties of London etc

(XXIX Imprisonment, etc

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents

 

The oldest still extant statute is that of Marlborough, dated 30 years earlier.

 

Yup, dead right, I don't think the original Magna Carta saw the year out before it was annulled by Pope Innocent III as John reckoned he had signed it under duress (as if ). I always find it interesting how people will claim 'it says in the Magna Carta' when they often don't have a clue WHAT it says in the Magna Carta. (marginally better than not knowing what Magna Carta means when you've on US TV!!, oh for a good education!!! ). When the Magna Carta refers to 'Freemen' it is as opposed to villeins and serfs to whom the Charter didn't apply.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[NigelMoore]

Perhaps you'd elaborate on how Judges protect their own interests and position? If a judge has any 'interest' in a case they are beholden to declare it and remove themselves from the case otherwise a mistrial will be declared at some later stage .

 

I am referring to the more general interests of the court system itself, rather than the individual interests of judges. They are very jealous of their position vis-a-vis government, and strongly defend their independence from Parliament. I am unconvinced that that independence takes much effect except where the courts’ own prerogatives are at stake.

 

You are of course correct that judges cannot sit in judgment in cases where they have an interest. It is a matter of interest to boaters that the classic case cited in support of the principle concerns the Grand Junction Canal.

 

The Lord of the Manor of Rickmansworth fought the GJCC for years over their right to use his land for the canal without paying him for it. While he was always right in law, he was found wrong in equity [and it was, besides, unlawful for him to block the PRN]. The GJCC obtained an injunction against him blocking the canal, which he promptly ignored. As a result, he found himself imprisoned for contempt.

 

While in prison, he somehow discovered that the Lord Chancellor presiding at his conviction was a shareholder in the GJCC, and he sued him for that breach of his terms of office. It was eventually agreed that Lord Cottenham should not have sat in judgment in the case – though he was cleared of doing so deliberately [it was felt that he was so wealthy that he probably had forgotten that he even had the shares].

 

Not that it did Dimes any good, other than the grim satisfaction of sending the Lord Chancellor into an early grave in mortification over the incident; Lord Cottenham was but one of [i think] five Lords sitting in judgment, all unanimous in their decision.

[NigelMoore]

When the Magna Carta refers to 'Freemen' it is as opposed to villeins and serfs to whom the Charter didn't apply.

 

Yes, it is curious how that aspect is glossed over. It highlights by way of contrast the superiority of Marlborough, in that while the nobles of Magna Carta were chiefly interested in the rights of the aristocracy, the Statute of Marlborough applied to “all his Subjects, as well high as low”.

 

It is why I am dismayed at the recommendations of the Law Commission to Parliament that all but the first clause of Marlborough should be repealed; it is the shining exemplar of English jurisprudential superiority, more deserving of the respect that the more restrictive Magna Carta is accorded.

[Steilsteven]

I do not own 2 boats. Short, sometimes sarcastic answers are are usually reserved for the 'waltons' of this world, the holier than thou people that make uneducated assumptions about people without actually taking the time to find the truth. With respect, you do not know me, or have made no attempt to, you don't know about my life, or the reasons behind me being 'stranded' in a dump such as Reading. Maybe next time you are passing, you will take the time to find out, the kettle is always on!

May I just, politely, ask why you consider yourself 'stranded', your engine always sounds fine whenever I'm there?

 

Keith

[Alan de Enfield]

May I just, politely, ask why you consider yourself 'stranded', your engine always sounds fine whenever I'm there?

 

Keith

 

Maybe he is 'stranded' there due to family, medical or employment reasons.

[bassplayer]

 

In fact the 1215 version of Magna Carta lasted a very short time only. The version that first entered the statute books was dated 1297. All but 3 clauses have been repealed; the live ones remaining are:

 

(I) Confirmation of Liberties

(IX) Liberties of London etc

(XXIX Imprisonment, etc

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents

 

The oldest still extant statute is that of Marlborough, dated 30 years earlier.

 

Whilst the history of law is fascinating I find it surprising how much effort and money goes into pushing a particular interpretation. In fact the more effort and money you throw at it, the more you can sway things to suit your agenda.

 

The problem of course is that it is all words at the end of the day! Reality is bigger than words...body language is bigger than words. I wonder how much longer the powers that be will be able to hide behind words?

[billS]

 

Maybe he is 'stranded' there due to family, medical or employment reasons.

 

The adjacent Thames and Kennet Marina appear very welcoming to liveaboards. I believe several other forum members live there.

[Steilsteven]

 

Maybe he is 'stranded' there due to family, medical or employment reasons.

 

Maybe, but that wouldn't explain why he's th​ere.

 

​​​​​​​​

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Whilst the history of law is fascinating I find it surprising how much effort and money goes into pushing a particular interpretation. In fact the more effort and money you throw at it, the more you can sway things to suit your agenda.

 

The problem of course is that it is all words at the end of the day! Reality is bigger than words...body language is bigger than words. I wonder how much longer the powers that be will be able to hide behind words?

Interesting argument you put if I may say so, Why do you feel that body language or reality are both bigger than words? They are both ephemeral and have little or no effect on the wider world. One's reality could change in a microsecond if for instance one was struck down by a stroke, the reality could then become the difference between independent living or 24 hour care but in the wide world it makes no real difference to anyone else (except perhaps for the few who would then need to care for you). If a Government were to reintroduce Capital Punishment (heaven forbid!) it would be mere words on a piece of paper but it would mean the difference between life and death for some.

 

If words are so insignificant why are we still living our lives by 'rules' that were laid down 800 years ago? No-one's 'reality' or 'body language' of 800 years ago has any relevance at all today.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Claiming that Treason is a Capital Offence or alleging that there is something in the Magna Carta about a referendum isn't an 'opinion' of any sort, it is basically posting lies as fact. To quote C.P.Scott, " Comment is free but Facts are sacred", and lies are not facts

 

Edited October 21, 2015 by GoodGurl
edited out quote

[Alenafour]

Claiming that Treason is a Capital Offence or alleging that there is something in the Magna Carta about a referendum isn't an 'opinion' of any sort, it is basically posting lies as fact. To quote C.P.Scott, " Comment is free but Facts are sacred", and lies are not facts

 

There is another interpretation....

 

...perhaps he's wrong.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

There is another interpretation....

 

...perhaps he's wrong.

I'll accept that he has an 'incorrect belief' perhaps lying was too strong a term .

 

What I find so frustrating is that at this time we have access to more information than we have ever had in history and yet people (often politicians) totally ignore what is available and put out their own 'facts' that are clearly wrong, they then become accepted as 'facts' (ask people how much of the benefit budget goes to the unemployed or what percentage of the UK population are Muslim and they will offer a massive over-estimate). It is almost as though we can just make up our own 'facts' now which, if they don't match the true figure the excuse becomes that the true figure is wrong.

[Bobbydogs dad]

May I just, politely, ask why you consider yourself 'stranded', your engine always sounds fine whenever I'm there?

 

Keith

[GoodGurl]

I have cleaned up this thread, can we please stop the bickering.

GG

[Bobbydogs dad]

The engine ticks over fine kieth, but under power caught alight last time out, probably due to a worn set of stem seals and a carbon build up in the exhaust manifold. Stranded means skint, or I would have a licence on my boat and move around a bit. Can't find work because I'm too old and too English, but still trying. Applied for a lock keepers job on the river wet, so with luck I'll be moving on soon, until then I either eat or cruise, not both.

[Bricksh]

There are mooring opportunities around which do not hog the main moorings outside the Tesco store. Why not be stranded there? I have been past on numerous occasions this year and been unable to moor, because of the inconsiderate mooring of yourself and the others currently on these moorings. Whilst I can sympathise with your personal circumstances I cannot understand why this can lead to such a selfish attitude to other boaters requirements to use these moorings.

[sueb]

Can't boaters double or treble moor?