Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Yay, I've just learned another Bri'ish euphemism for enslavement.
Well, see, this just comes across as screening a sociopathic Royal for signs of remorse, or if they can comprehend that their actions are harming the fabric of society and need to be stopped.
They might have some kind of condition which prevents them from seeing this, such as narcissism, which would be easier to screen for if they used an external foible to highlight the logic.
The Magistrate only has that kind of discretion when it's a case involving a conflict between the Civil and Crown authorities. Ultimately the Magistrate makes a decision, and things shake out from there.
The scheme is that a giant company is doing controversial moves ON PURPOSE to remain as a "talking point", as if their game is like air & water for gamers worldwide.
If i had been the US President, i would have ordered a quick shutdown of anything related to GTA6. As a proper punishment for "trying to make colossal advertising by purposefully making controversies, even if that requires ruining a human being's life".
This IS serious stuff. Governments SHOULD take action against companies trying to artificially up the value of their products by trying multiple controversies related to their product(s).
That was the prime reason why i didn't touch GTAV (never bought nor played it in any machine nor accepted it as a gift). I am NOT joking.
We are all enslaved into the concrete blocks away from the world we are truly made from and dedicate our lives to keeping that concrete block to bind us from reality.
Right, that's the exact kind of situation that might cause a sting to occur.
It's harming the whole country when they do this, especially if they do it under the legal protections of the Crown.
It makes EVERYONE look bad.
No one on this forum can come up with a reasonable sentence for him. No one here has ever met him, has ever read any psychological report - nothing.
It all comes down to whether you trust the legal system or not. Clearly, there are some people who don't. The concerning thing, though, is how the same people are so misinformed about the UK. To say they have no idea what they are talking about is the understatement of the decade.
Personally, I know the UK well, and know, if anything, they have a remarkably lenient courts. Also, the aid that mentally ill people get is extremely sparse, so for anyone to get a recommendation that they need to be hospitalised for life is unusual. The lad must be seriously ill. He must be considered a severe threat to both himself and other people around him.
My own experience with this is that many people just have no clue how bad a seriously mentally ill person can be.
The idea that this sentence could be influenced by the monarchy or whatever, is just beyond ridiculous. Why not aliens? I mean, it's THAT ridiculous.
Outlining the circumstances of a Royal's crimes as plainly as possible for them to see, and then seeking their response, is an integral part of the legal system and of allowing them to defend themselves.
It's a very meticulous and careful process.
Whereas in the US this is basically thrown out the window, except in the case of Self Defense which is legally a type of insanity.
Well, see, again, you're not really getting it are you?
If this were a simple Civil case, the Magistrate wouldn't be able to declare sentencing by fiat like that. That's not how laws work; you can't just have singular individuals doing that kind of thing.
However the Monarchy is essentially immune to prosecution under Civil process, so if there's any kind of conflict between the two branches the Magistrate has to decide what to do on their own. With advice from both sides.
Then the authorities ultimately use their control over the establishment to see how the issue shakes out from each angle.
Lots of famous cases like this that I frankly don't remember because the UK doesn't really beleive in public records regarding these kinds of conflicts for salient reasons (mostly French people, but also Germans and Russians and various colonial forces trying to get back at the empire.)
Getting what? The argument makes no sense.
It doesn't matter what type of case this is, the Monarchy has absolutely nothing to do with it.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the UK legal system.
I'm afraid we're at an impasse; one of us can explain the correct process, and the other doesn't seem to be able to.
I encourage you to do your own research on the matter; it may be important one day.
Do you ever get bored of pissing logical and rational people off?
I never get bored of squeezing rats no.
A lot of them like it.
As for the second, a crime should only be judged on the intent and oppurtunity, not the motive. It should not matter WHY the defendant punched a guy in the face, robbed him, and/or stabbed him, it only matters he did it and the prosecution can prove he did so willingly and with knowledge he was doing one or all of those things. Whether he was motivated by personal dislike or not, should not matter, only what was done, exception being entrapment or self defense for obvious human rights reason. The U.S. not having this is why we don't have and can never have laws that say, punish someone because "the court believe you were motivated to harm X people," see Dankula.
Oh, you're confusing the two systems. The UK doesn't recognize self defense via insanity; that's a US position that was enacted because the alternative was removing people's ability to defend themselves from anyone.
The UK system is more nuanced, and our opinions as forumgoes are literally irrelevant to it, and if any ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ stupid BIS agents were here their only real job would be to obfusificate the legal system.
Again, the country's a walking crime against humanity and needs to be torn down. The Crown itself recognized it when they made the BIS Labor faction official.
If I recall correctly Dankula was stripped of title and exiled, and it's the long-term opinion of everyone that he should have been hung instead. I'm not really sure who that is though, so.