UK PLC

I suppose if people are happy with their lot in life they do not question, but there are those who are not happy, so they either moan about it or question it.

What kind of person are you, is do you readily accept authority without question or do you question authority over you and just because something has been done in the past, there is a history for it, that is by no means an indication that that thing is correct, therefore authority should always be questioned.

As in the video linked, legalese the language of the law society is the problem, for it defies common language sense, anyone come across it, anyone fallen foul of it through failure to understand law terminology, for that is why we have lawyers many of whom take places in government, for us to understand what they are upto, we need guess what, their own kind to pay to get a glimpse of what they mean when they create documents we must adhere to in the language of legalese, or as another campaign calls it, gobbledygook

Plain English Campaign ;

http://plainlanguagecampaign.com/

So at the end of the day, it is upto yourselves what you believe, but all those forms you sign, software licenses you agree to to get at the goodies, do you really undertsand what is being said, for you will notice they are all written in legalese, the lawyers language, not yours.

But a question may be why does legalese exist, what is it's purpose, why a seperate language with different meanings, what is it designed to do ?

Mislead perchance ?

For unless you undserstand leagalese you are being mislead.

Wisegeek on the subject ;

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-legalese.htm
 
Why don't you study some law, and then come back and report your findings?

Funny how physicists using technical language is fine, but people in the law area needing very specific language are accused of attempting to obfuscate, when the intention is to allow clarity.
 
i dont think its the language thats the issue, obviously you need clarity when dealing in law. the problem is the police state ect being run as a corporation for profit, the point being made as a police man being different from a police officer. the whole system is being abused for profit.
why else would i have been thretend with prosecution for refusing to go to court as a witness even when i was the victim of the assalt. all the police were intrested in was prosecuting somone for proifit even if it was the victim.
the police seem to cause more problems than they solve and they obviously have good reason too.
 
lumos2000":2eq72919 said:
why else would i have been thretend with prosecution for refusing to go to court as a witness even when i was the victim of the assalt.
What's the background to that? What did they threaten to prosecute you with?
lumos2000":2eq72919 said:
all the police were intrested in was prosecuting somone for proifit even if it was the victim.
Who instigated the charge of assault?
 
lumos2000":qjjmye65 said:
i dont think its the language thats the issue, obviously you need clarity when dealing in law. the problem is the police state ect being run as a corporation for profit, the point being made as a police man being different from a police officer. the whole system is being abused for profit.
why else would i have been thretend with prosecution for refusing to go to court as a witness even when i was the victim of the assalt. all the police were intrested in was prosecuting somone for proifit even if it was the victim.
the police seem to cause more problems than they solve and they obviously have good reason too.

That sounds strange to me.

Care to give a bit of background, no details needed just an outline.

I am not poo pooing your point of view on this issue, it is just that in some ways the Law is as complex as neurosurgery, but no one complains neurosurgeons are trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes because they talk in jargon.

I certainly agree parts of policing in Britain are being run more with profit in mind than the public interest. Excessive speeding control for example.

It is an interesting area, bear in mind your day to day police personnel have little knowledge of the Law.
 
i gave the officer dealing with it all the information he needed to make an arrest but said that i didnet want to waste time going to court as it wouldent resolve anything, that evening he handed himself in and was charged with battery. there were two witnesses so it ended up going to court. it seemed as though once the prosess had begun there was no stopping it.
 
highlandsflyer":3r1cnf9x said:
I certainly agree parts of policing in Britain are being run more with profit in mind than the public interest. Excessive speeding control for example.
Depends on who's running the cameras, though, as to which pot the money goes to (eg scamera "partnerships").

One thing I was expecting, though - although recent times have shown something of a reversal - perhaps to the degree that fuel tax has - is that I was waiting for that point when they couldn't afford for drivers to stop speeding - they'd just strive to maintain it at a certain level, because they wouldn't be able to cater for the hole in revenue, were drivers to suddenly stop, or significantly reduce their incidents of speeding (well getting caught).
 
JohnH":2puto18h said:
I'm not a fan of these conspiracy theories -- I fear that you start off as as concerned citizen and get sucked in further and further, until the time comes when David Icke begins to make a lot of sense.... ;)

Indeed. The Daily Express seems to have been worryingly effective on this front re. hawking the whole "Diana Conspiracy" idea put forward by one of its proprietor's former Harrods-owning mates.

David
 
highlandsflyer":2yx2cvhy said:
Hey now, Diana's demise was mrrrrdrrrrrr.

It is no conspiracy theory.
Wasn't there a metaphorical grassy knoll and puff of smoke? (alleged white car and broken light?)

I guess foul play and conspiracy theories could be seriously shaken by the use of seatbelts that may well have made the difference between serious and minor injuries, though...
 
Back
Top