Evi Vile Ruthless, Malicious LYING Muslim

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I begin to see perhaps WHY your cops are so trigger happy...dead folks cant lie.......

They can't tell the truth, either.  Now you're getting it.

You ask why free speech is so inviolable in the US?  It is criminalizing politics.  Imagine if you could arrest and prosecute the opposition for defamation.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think that the security chap was hiding something when he was falsely accused of snatching a baby?

You're having a difficult time with abstract thinking, aren't you?  It has nothing to do with this situation.  In fact, it has nothing to do with who is right or who is wrong.  It has to do with preserving a structural right in the political system.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think our law is better.

Ignorance always wins.    Just stay in your country and we'll be ok.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're having a difficult time with abstract thinking, aren't you?  It has nothing to do with this situation.  In fact, it has nothing to do with who is right or who is wrong.  It has to do with preserving a structural right in the political system.



Ignorance always wins.    Just stay in your country and we'll be ok.

It's not ignorance, it's protecting people against malicious accusations. If you approve of spite, malice, and false accusations which can ruin people's lives, that's up to you, but don't try to claim that your way is better because it's not.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not ignorance, it's protecting people against malicious accusations. If you approve of spite, malice, and false accusations which can ruin people's lives, that's up to you, but don't try to claim that your way is better because it's not.

Let's see...hummm...false accusations vs. Hitler...tough choice.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Let's see...hummm...false accusations vs. Hitler...tough choice.

Are you suggesting that the security chap at Primark is like Hitler? How your mind jumps around.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you suggesting that the security chap at Primark is like Hitler? How your mind jumps around.

Abstract thinking doesn't come easy for you, so I'm trying to be patient.  Forget the security chap...we are discussing a principle.  

Without free speech, at some point someone is going to get the idea that you can jail the people who say what you don't like to hear.  That's political, and criminal law has no substantive place in political issues.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Abstract thinking doesn't come easy for you, so I'm trying to be patient.  Forget the security chap...we are discussing a principle.  

Without free speech, at some point someone is going to get the idea that you can jail the people who say what you don't like to hear.  That's political, and criminal law has no substantive place in political issues.

We do have free speech here, we just don't approve of malicious and false accusations against people. Do you not see the difference?

Lord Foul wrote:

parliamentary privilidge
and its civil equivalent

privilidge of court

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We do have free speech here, we just don't approve of malicious and false accusations against people. Do you not see the difference?

So you just pluck out the impartial jury, and go directly to handcuffs.    

Wouldn't it be fun to put Republicans in shackles?  They lie all the time.  Donald Trump started the vicious rumor that Jeb Bush is asleep.  Twenty years!!  

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

parliamentary privilidge
and its civil equivalent

privilidge of court

Special privileges for special people.  But fook the little guy...velly, velly British.

Lord Foul wrote:civil equivelent...

privilidge of court



and yes unless evidence was produced ...as in the case of this woman...there WOULD be a trial...obviously

but given the evidence of the dash cam...she would be treated as the ciminal she is there would be NO need for the cop to go to the expense and trouble of a civil suit for defamation the criminal system would bounce her

Lord Foul wrote:ALSO unlike the ridiculous laws YOU have even IF he managed to pay for a civil suit, the "recompense" he would get would be very small in comparison to the potential damage caused

lets face it if one of YOUR cops took out and won a civil suit , he'd be able to retire comfortably on the proceeds...

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:civil equivelent...

privilidge of court



and yes unless evidence was produced ...as in the case of this woman...there WOULD be a trial...obviously

but given the evidence of the dash cam...she would be treated as the ciminal she is there would be NO need for the cop to go to the expense and trouble of a civil suit for defamation the criminal system would bounce her

You don't know the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial?  Unbelievable.


I GENUINELY DONT SEE WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT....civil trials here are usually minor matters and dealing with things like injunctions over simple trespass....
they have to be called for by the person offended via the offices of either a barister (or someone who has "direct access") which is EXPENSIVE or via the so called "small claims courts" if its a monetary matter

making a malicious criminal complaint is a CRIMINAL matter....

Lord Foul wrote:ALSO unlike the ridiculous laws YOU have even IF he managed to pay for a civil suit, the "recompense" he would get would be very small in comparison to the potential damage caused

lets face it if one of YOUR cops took out and won a civil suit , he'd be able to retire comfortably on the proceeds...

and your point is??? you DO have the law that allows "unlimited liability" and "punitive damages" dont you....
granted that my be limited by the miscreants worth ..but non the less.......

Raggamuffin wrote:Slander would be dealt with in a civil trial. If there's no CCTV footage, someone would have to sue for slander if a false accusation was made. Most people don't though because it's expensive if you lose, or even if you win if the other party doesn't have any dosh.

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Slander would be dealt with in a civil trial. If there's no CCTV footage, someone would have to sue for slander if a false accusation was made. Most people don't though because it's expensive if you lose, or even if you win if the other party doesn't have any dosh.

which, one presumes, is why making a malicious criminal accusation is NOT a "civil matter" but a criminal one
, due to the potential consequences of such an accusation.

Raggamuffin wrote:Also, in the cases in this thread, the accusation was made to the police, so it wasn't just slander.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Also, in the cases in this thread, the accusation was made to the police, so it wasn't just slander.

Special status, special people.  And you see...it's a police issue.  What a coincidence.  

Lord Foul wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Special status, special people.  And you see...it's a police issue.  What a coincidence.  

doh!....


the complaint was MADE to the police....I.E it was reported as a crime

nothing to do with reported ABOUT the police

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Also, in the cases in this thread, the accusation was made to the police, so it wasn't just slander.

Special status, special people.  And you see...it's a police issue.  What a coincidence.  

Raggamuffin wrote:So is false accusation - ie, defamation - ever a criminal offence in the UK? I thought it was interesting that it is in Italy - Amanda Knox was convicted of slandering Patrick Lumumba, and was eventually given three years in prison for that offence.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So is false accusation - ie, defamation - ever a criminal offence in the UK? I thought it was interesting that it is in Italy - Amanda Knox was convicted of slandering Patrick Lumumba, and was eventually given three years in prison for that offence.

Yes, in post-war Europe there was a rush to pass legislation compromising freedom of speech, as if to hold up hands and say, Not Me!  They called it hate-speech legislation, but it was really focused on prosecuting Nazis after-the-fact.  But, unfortunately, it has set a precedent for monitoring and prohibiting certain kinds of other speech.  

This particular case is troubling because censorship is used not to punish those who would persecute the people without power (eg, the Nazis), but to prosecute those who would criticize the in-power faction.  The great fear, of course, is that some faction will eventually come into power, and then pass laws that would prohibit free and open political competition...starting with freedom of speech.  

We saw the beginnings of this with the Morsi government in Egypt, before the Egyptian military removed him from power: a government comes into power, then passes laws that prohibit free exchange of political ideas and suppresses competition of political parties.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, in post-war Europe there was a rush to pass legislation compromising freedom of speech, as if to hold up hands and say, Not Me!  They called it hate-speech legislation, but it was really focused on prosecuting Nazis after-the-fact.  But, unfortunately, it has set a precedent for monitoring and prohibiting certain kinds of other speech.  

This particular case is troubling because censorship is used not to punish those who would persecute the people without power (eg, the Nazis), but to prosecute those who would criticize the in-power faction.  The great fear, of course, is that some faction will eventually come into power, and then pass laws that would prohibit free and open political competition...starting with freedom of speech.  

We saw the beginnings of this with the Morsi government in Egypt, before the Egyptian military removed him from power: a government comes into power, then passes laws that prohibit free exchange of political ideas and suppresses competition of political parties.

I don't think it's censorship to expect people to tell the truth and not make up stories about the police trying to pull their headscarves off. She didn't just criticise the officer, she accused him of something he didn't do, and she did it out of spite because she didn't like being given a ticket.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's censorship to expect people to tell the truth and not make up stories about the police trying to pull their headscarves off. She didn't just criticise the officer, she accused him of something he didn't do, and she did it out of spite because she didn't like being given a ticket.

It's censorship anytime authorities use the threat of criminal law and force to prohibit speech.  The truth or falsity of the speech is a secondary matter, which is what the civil courts are for.

Speech is non-violent.  What do the police need the force of criminal law for generally...it's clear they are afraid they will be called out when they are wrong?  It's clear, they want people to shut up generally.  It's the mark of the closed society.

In an open society, like the US, it is clear that the authorities are not afraid to subject themselves to criticism.  They can be right or wrong, but free speech allows the question to be answered without resort to violence.

And yes, criminal law is synonymous with violence.  That is why demonstrations in a closed society, like the UK, often turn to violence.  Criminal law implies the option to force by the authorities.  Once the authorities resort to force, it turns violent.

Much of this was considered and evaluated by the forefathers in the US--men like Adams, Jefferson and Franklin.  Wasn't the Boston Massacre done by British troops?  We learned it's better to talk than shoot...and became an open society because of it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's censorship anytime authorities use the threat of criminal law and force to prohibit speech.  The truth or falsity of the speech is a secondary matter, which is what the civil courts are for.

Speech is non-violent.  What do the police need the force of criminal law for generally...it's clear they are afraid they will be called out when they are wrong?  It's clear, they want people to shut up generally.  It's the mark of the closed society.

In an open society, like the US, it is clear that the authorities are not afraid to subject themselves to criticism.  They can be right or wrong, but free speech allows the question to be answered without resort to violence.

And yes, criminal law is synonymous with violence.  That is why demonstrations in a closed society, like the UK, often turn to violence.  Criminal law implies the option to force by the authorities.  Once the authorities resort to force, it turns violent.

Much of this was considered and evaluated by the forefathers in the US--men like Adams, Jefferson and Franklin.  Wasn't the Boston Massacre done by British troops?  We learned it's better to talk than shoot...and became an open society because of it.

So then Quill, if a woman went to the police and accused a bloke of raping her, and it was lie because he'd turned her down or something, do you think that would be fine because it's "free speech" and she's entitled to accuse anyone of anything?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So then Quill, if a woman went to the police and accused a bloke of raping her, and it was lie because he'd turned her down or something, do you think that would be fine because it's "free speech" and she's entitled to accuse anyone of anything?

If you are asking hypothetically, in the US she will not be charged unless they can clearly demonstrate malice.  Malice is difficult to show because of intervening factors like perception and confusion.  Very often, it requires an admission of wrongdoing.

Even if a tape recording shows she is demonstrably wrong about the facts, that does not meet the malice standard.  Because it is a 'state of mind' offense, she would almost have to blurt out she made the accusation maliciously.

But fabricated hypotheticals tend to avoid the issue.  For example, this is not about a rape and physical assault.  This is about harm to reputation, and the indignity suffered is at best fleeting.  This is always the case with alleged reputation injury.  You have to weigh the prospects of a free and open society against a flighty insult, and an open society comes down on the side of free and open communication even in the face of the prospect of being wrong.

Moreover, when taking such a balancing approach, keep in mind that what is at stake is the very fabric of openness itself.  We are talking about a police officer here, with the very force to potentially destroy a free and democratic society.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time we saw that.  Fold that into the equation.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If you are asking hypothetically, in the US she will not be charged unless they can clearly demonstrate malice.  Malice is difficult to show because of intervening factors like perception and confusion.  Very often, it requires an admission of wrongdoing.

Even if a tape recording shows she is demonstrably wrong about the facts, that does not meet the malice standard.  Because it is a 'state of mind' offense, she would almost have to blurt out she made the accusation maliciously.

But fabricated hypotheticals tend to avoid the issue.  For example, this is not about a rape and physical assault.  This is about harm to reputation, and the indignity suffered is at best fleeting.  This is always the case with alleged reputation injury.  You have to weigh the prospects of a free and open society against a flighty insult, and an open society comes down on the side of free and open communication even in the face of the prospect of being wrong.

Moreover, when taking such a balancing approach, keep in mind that what is at stake is the very fabric of openness itself.  We are talking about a police officer here, with the very force to potentially destroy a free and democratic society.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time we saw that.  Fold that into the equation.

Forget state of mind, forget confusion, I said the woman lied and said a guy raped her when he didn't touch her. Do you think she should be allowed to do that under the banner of free speech?

The Muslim woman lied, and she knew she lied. She knew he didn't try to pull her headgear off - she lied. Why do you think that's OK?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Forget state of mind, forget confusion, I said the woman lied and said a guy raped her when he didn't touch her. Do you think she should be allowed to do that under the banner of free speech?

The Muslim woman lied, and she knew she lied. She knew he didn't try to pull her headgear off - she lied. Why do you think that's OK?

Now whose in favor of the exclusionary rule?  Lol.  If you forget about state of mind and confusion, you are no longer talking about real life.  In this case, the woman might have been confused or mistaken.  Without evidence of state of mind you can't make out the case.  You can't make those kind of guesses and say you have probable cause to allege a crime.

And keep in mind, the alleged harm is a flighty claim to a reputation injury.  I want to hear more about this cop's reputation.  Is he prone to violence?  What is the back story here?  Does he really have a 'good' reputation?

All of these issues would be aired in a civil trial.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Now whose in favor of the exclusionary rule?  Lol.  If you forget about state of mind and confusion, you are no longer talking about real life.  In this case, the woman might have been confused or mistaken.  Without evidence of state of mind you can't make out the case.  You can't make those kind of guesses and say you have probable cause to allege a crime.

And keep in mind, the alleged harm is a flighty claim to a reputation injury.  I want to hear more about this cop's reputation.  Is he prone to violence?  What is the back story here?  Does he really have a 'good' reputation?

All of these issues would be aired in a civil trial.

Quill, the Muslim woman said that the officer tried to pull off her headscarf. Now, no matter how "confused" she was, or how annoyed she was, there was no way that she could possibly have misconstrued any of his actions as trying to pull of her scarf. If he had touched it by accident, maybe she could have thought that, but he didn't.

There comes a time when you simply can't give someone the benefit of the doubt, and this was one of them. The woman lied.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would you need to know if the cop is prone to violence? You saw the video - did he look violent to you? You see, you are automatically blaming the cop and trying to find a way to excuse this woman. Luckily, the court didn't do what you did. What you're saying is that if he did something wrong before, well it's OK for her to accuse him of something he didn't do.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Quill, the Muslim woman said that the officer tried to pull off her headscarf. Now, no matter how "confused" she was, or how annoyed she was, there was no way that she could possibly have misconstrued any of his actions as trying to pull of her scarf. If he had touched it by accident, maybe she could have thought that, but he didn't.

There comes a time when you simply can't give someone the benefit of the doubt, and this was one of them. The woman lied.

And that time is before a civil court jury.  That's what the system is designed to do...consider these kinds of questions.  The issue is whether you do it the peaceful way, or with police batons.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why would you need to know if the cop is prone to violence? You saw the video - did he look violent to you? You see, you are automatically blaming the cop and trying to find a way to excuse this woman. Luckily, the court didn't do what you did. What you're saying is that if he did something wrong before, well it's OK for her to accuse him of something he didn't do.

Apparently the justification for the law under which the woman is being prosecuted is for protection of the reputation of the police in general, and the police officer specifically.  Is there injury to these reputations?  If not, the prosecution is unnecessary.

This is the law of Australia, designed and set up by the British.  We are not arguing the facts of the case so much as the legitimacy of the law.  The law's premise is that of a 'closed' society, in which one can be prosecuted for what one says...without harming anyone.  That is not acceptable to one from an open society.

I foresee big trouble down the road with the 'restricted speech' allowed by Europeans.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And that time is before a civil court jury.  That's what the system is designed to do...consider these kinds of questions.  The issue is whether you do it the peaceful way, or with police batons.



Apparently the justification for the law under which the woman is being prosecuted is for protection of the reputation of the police in general, and the police officer specifically.  Is there injury to these reputations?  If not, the prosecution is unnecessary.

This is the law of Australia, designed and set up by the British.  We are not arguing the facts of the case so much as the legitimacy of the law.  The law's premise is that of a 'closed' society, in which one can be prosecuted for what one says...without harming anyone.  That is not acceptable to one from an open society.

I foresee big trouble down the road with the 'restricted speech' allowed by Europeans.

Why are you talking about police batons?

Raggamuffin wrote:You keep talking about this as if it's a "free speech" issue. It's not - free speech generally refers to opinion, but this was a false accusation designed to get a police officer into trouble, possibly sacked or even prosecuted. I think the law is a good one.

There's no point in a civil jury in this case. What they could do? Tell the woman to pay the officer damages?

Raggamuffin wrote:I read that the Muslim woman got off on appeal because they couldn't be sure that the woman who made the complaint was the same woman - because she was wearing a face veil, so technically she's not guilty. She didn't get her costs paid though.

Why would some other woman pretend to be her though?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I read that the Muslim woman got off on appeal because they couldn't be sure that the woman who made the complaint was the same woman - because she was wearing a face veil, so technically she's not guilty. She didn't get her costs paid though.

Why would some other woman pretend to be her though?

It's a superfluous question.  The real issue is why did she face the chill of criminal charges for exercising nothing more than speech?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I read that the Muslim woman got off on appeal because they couldn't be sure that the woman who made the complaint was the same woman - because she was wearing a face veil, so technically she's not guilty. She didn't get her costs paid though.

Why would some other woman pretend to be her though?

It's a superfluous question.  The real issue is why did she face the chill of criminal charges for exercising nothing more than speech?

Stormee wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's a superfluous question.  The real issue is why did she face the chill of criminal charges for exercising nothing more than speech?

She lied on oath when she signed her statement of accusation against the police officer which is criminal amongst other things.

Original Quill wrote:

Stormee wrote:

She lied on oath when she signed her statement of accusation against the police officer which is criminal amongst other things.

Exactly my point: in the US she would not have to face criminal charges for having brought the complaint.  In an open society there is no such chill placed upon the process of seeking redress.

Lord Foul wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Exactly my point: in the US she would not have to face criminal charges for having brought the complaint.  In an open society there is no such chill placed upon the process of seeking redress.

even for something that is patently a lie and motivated out of criminal intent????

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

even for something that is patently a lie and motivated out of criminal intent????

What jury has declared it a lie?

It's a process, and you don't prosecute for engaging in a lawfully sanctioned process.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What jury has declared it a lie?

It's a process, and you don't prosecute for engaging in a lawfully sanctioned process.

A magistrate declared it was a lie in a court of law.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A magistrate declared it was a lie in a court of law.

Exactly.  Why was the magistrate even involved?  A civil complaint has no business being aired in a criminal court.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Exactly.  Why was the magistrate even involved?  A civil complaint has no business being aired in a criminal court.

Are you trying to tell people in another country how their country should be run?

Typical yank.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you trying to tell people in another country how their country should be run?

Typical yank.

Not at all,   I'm just explaining how the US is superior.  We left Britain behind for good reason.