Michal 'Hockey Stick' Mann getting defensive after being cleared of scientific misconduct.
-
riced wrote:
A new legal defense (?): the person I committed a criminal act against was a criminal, therefore, it's perfectly acceptable to commit a criminal act against them.
That is the basis of law. How else would the courts be able to lock people up or fine them?
riced wrote:
I call this a criminal search for evidence.
You can call it what you like, its the victors that write the history.
riced wrote:
Does not follow
Issues like this need to be open to public scrutiny.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
That is the basis of law.
Have you actually read what I wrote? You are saying that because e.g. Jeffrey Archer was a criminal it is perfectly acceptable for me to e.g. steal his money. And in fact the law would condone it.
fat_boy wrote:
You can call it what you like,
It's not only me that calls it criminal it's also the law since it's an offense in the UK.
fat_boy wrote:
Issues like this need to be open to public scrutiny.
Still does not follow, even though I concur.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
That is the basis of law.
Have you actually read what I wrote? You are saying that because e.g. Jeffrey Archer was a criminal it is perfectly acceptable for me to e.g. steal his money. And in fact the law would condone it.
fat_boy wrote:
You can call it what you like,
It's not only me that calls it criminal it's also the law since it's an offense in the UK.
fat_boy wrote:
Issues like this need to be open to public scrutiny.
Still does not follow, even though I concur.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
Have you actually read what I wrote? .
Yes, althogh its relevance is questionable. Taking someones possesions, or depriving them of their freedom is a crime. Unless its done by the system as punishment for comitting a crime. Therefore, when someone commits a crime, they deny themselves the same rights as the rest of us. So Jones, who had committed a crime, has no right to bitch about stolen emails. And Mann, by assoociation, had better keep quiet too. As for who or what the 'system' is, thats open to debate, but not the rest.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
riced wrote:
Have you actually read what I wrote? .
Yes, althogh its relevance is questionable. Taking someones possesions, or depriving them of their freedom is a crime. Unless its done by the system as punishment for comitting a crime. Therefore, when someone commits a crime, they deny themselves the same rights as the rest of us. So Jones, who had committed a crime, has no right to bitch about stolen emails. And Mann, by assoociation, had better keep quiet too. As for who or what the 'system' is, thats open to debate, but not the rest.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Therefore, when someone commits a crime, they deny themselves the same rights as the rest of us.
That presumably includes anyone who has e.g. exceeded the speed limit since they have committed a crime.
fat_boy wrote:
So Jones, who had committed a crime, has no right to bitch about stolen emails.
And by extension someone who has e.g. exceeded the speed limit has no right to bitch about their car being stolen or their emails being hacked.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Therefore, when someone commits a crime, they deny themselves the same rights as the rest of us.
That presumably includes anyone who has e.g. exceeded the speed limit since they have committed a crime.
fat_boy wrote:
So Jones, who had committed a crime, has no right to bitch about stolen emails.
And by extension someone who has e.g. exceeded the speed limit has no right to bitch about their car being stolen or their emails being hacked.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
That presumably includes anyone who has e.g. exceeded the speed limit since they have committed a crime.
No, speeding and other car related offenses are not criminal. Well, at least in the UK. I wouuld imagine this is the same across the board otherwise many of us would have 'criminal' records. Which is clearly stupid.
riced wrote:
And by extension someone who has e.g. exceeded the speed limit has no right to bitch about their car being stolen or their emails being hacked.
See above. I can see you put a lot of thought into this. But yes, the person who doesnt pay their roadtax has their car stolen by the police and it gets crushed, at least in the UK. The person who parks illegally has their car stolen and they have to pay to get it back. etc etc etc
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
riced wrote:
That presumably includes anyone who has e.g. exceeded the speed limit since they have committed a crime.
No, speeding and other car related offenses are not criminal. Well, at least in the UK. I wouuld imagine this is the same across the board otherwise many of us would have 'criminal' records. Which is clearly stupid.
riced wrote:
And by extension someone who has e.g. exceeded the speed limit has no right to bitch about their car being stolen or their emails being hacked.
See above. I can see you put a lot of thought into this. But yes, the person who doesnt pay their roadtax has their car stolen by the police and it gets crushed, at least in the UK. The person who parks illegally has their car stolen and they have to pay to get it back. etc etc etc
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
No, speeding and other car related offenses are not criminal.
They are - in English law committing a crime means breaking a law for which some public body can exact a penalty. (This distinguishes it from breaking a law that can give rise to personal actions e.g. a tort.) Speeding, and other related road traffic offenses, are breaches of such laws since they give rise to penalties imposed by the authorities.
fat_boy wrote:
the person who doesnt pay their roadtax has their car stolen by the police
This is not stealing if the police have the legal right to take possession. It is only theft if the police do not have the legal power to seize the car and do so without the owner's consent.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
No, speeding and other car related offenses are not criminal.
They are - in English law committing a crime means breaking a law for which some public body can exact a penalty. (This distinguishes it from breaking a law that can give rise to personal actions e.g. a tort.) Speeding, and other related road traffic offenses, are breaches of such laws since they give rise to penalties imposed by the authorities.
fat_boy wrote:
the person who doesnt pay their roadtax has their car stolen by the police
This is not stealing if the police have the legal right to take possession. It is only theft if the police do not have the legal power to seize the car and do so without the owner's consent.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
No, its not a criminal offence, unless its DD, or somesuch that actually endangers lives. The rest, speeding, redlights and so on are NOT criminal. Go look it up, my wife was in the filth for 6 years.
riced wrote:
This is not stealing if the police have the legal right to take possession. It is only theft if the police do not have the legal power to seize the car and do so without the owner's consent.
Like I said, debate the body that has the authority but do not debate the fact that removing someones goods or their liberty is a crime, unless enacted by that authority. So 'right' makes a crime a non crime. Get it?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
No, its not a criminal offence, unless its DD, or somesuch that actually endangers lives. The rest, speeding, redlights and so on are NOT criminal. Go look it up, my wife was in the filth for 6 years.
riced wrote:
This is not stealing if the police have the legal right to take possession. It is only theft if the police do not have the legal power to seize the car and do so without the owner's consent.
Like I said, debate the body that has the authority but do not debate the fact that removing someones goods or their liberty is a crime, unless enacted by that authority. So 'right' makes a crime a non crime. Get it?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
The rest, speeding, redlights and so on are NOT criminal.
These are not civil offenses, and you claim they are not criminal, so which branch of the law do they fall under?
fat_boy wrote:
my wife was in the filth for 6 years
Relevance?
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
The rest, speeding, redlights and so on are NOT criminal.
These are not civil offenses, and you claim they are not criminal, so which branch of the law do they fall under?
fat_boy wrote:
my wife was in the filth for 6 years
Relevance?
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Go look it up. I am not a lawyer, I am sure you can find a term somewhere.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Here's a summary that starts with your original post. Premise 1: If someone commits a criminal act then it is acceptable to commit criminal acts against him. Premise 2: A criminal act is one that breaks a law and results in removal of property or harm against the person. Premise 3: Breaking a law does not mean a criminal act has been committed (e.g. speeding, and excluding civil law such as tort or contract). Conclusion: Jones broke the law therefore it is alright to commit a criminal act against him. By Premise 2: The law Jones broke was the FOI. Such a breach does not result in loss of property or harm, so Jones did not commit a criminal act. By Premise 3: The fact that Jones broke the FOI does not mean Jones committed a criminal act. So the conclusion fails to hold even if Premise 1 is true. So your assertion that Jones deserved having his emails hacked is based on an invalid argument. This is the case a fortiori if Premise 1 is denied. For your further information. Driving without insurance, driving over the speed limit and various other driving offenses are criminal offenses under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended in 2006). However, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act defines how certain criminal offenses (and common law offenses) should be dealt with. Some by arrest, some by remote detection and, quite frequently, detected non-recorded. You do not get a criminal record for any offense for which you are not arrested and subsequently charged with it. You may have a PNC record created, or even a crime report, however you will not have a 'record' which you need to declare when a CRB check is being done. So, as far as the law is concerned, committing a crime does not always result in a criminal record. But the converse holds, i.e. having a criminal record means you have committed a crime.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Here's a summary that starts with your original post. Premise 1: If someone commits a criminal act then it is acceptable to commit criminal acts against him. Premise 2: A criminal act is one that breaks a law and results in removal of property or harm against the person. Premise 3: Breaking a law does not mean a criminal act has been committed (e.g. speeding, and excluding civil law such as tort or contract). Conclusion: Jones broke the law therefore it is alright to commit a criminal act against him. By Premise 2: The law Jones broke was the FOI. Such a breach does not result in loss of property or harm, so Jones did not commit a criminal act. By Premise 3: The fact that Jones broke the FOI does not mean Jones committed a criminal act. So the conclusion fails to hold even if Premise 1 is true. So your assertion that Jones deserved having his emails hacked is based on an invalid argument. This is the case a fortiori if Premise 1 is denied. For your further information. Driving without insurance, driving over the speed limit and various other driving offenses are criminal offenses under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended in 2006). However, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act defines how certain criminal offenses (and common law offenses) should be dealt with. Some by arrest, some by remote detection and, quite frequently, detected non-recorded. You do not get a criminal record for any offense for which you are not arrested and subsequently charged with it. You may have a PNC record created, or even a crime report, however you will not have a 'record' which you need to declare when a CRB check is being done. So, as far as the law is concerned, committing a crime does not always result in a criminal record. But the converse holds, i.e. having a criminal record means you have committed a crime.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
No, breaking the the FoI act is criminal aparently. Jojnes only got off due toi a technicality, now being changed. That he later 'lost possesion of' or 'had stolen' emails that pertained to the breaking of the FoI act could be considered a non criminal act in that it provided proof of his criminal act.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription