U.K.: "The British Gun Closet"

[agricola]

don,

thats the thing. they dont govern - all they are are lawyers arguing a case.

Your rationale would suggest that the lawyer who defends a rapist is a rapist themselves- he/she is paid by the rapist, speaks for the rapist and protects the rapists rights in Court.

 

[Mk VII]

The King is not above the law - he is subject to the judgements of the courts as is any other citizen, even though it is nominally 'the King's Justice'. And it has been that way ever since Henry II set up the circuit court system and promised to be bound by it's judgements, although various monarchs have broken the undertaking down the centuries. Before that, if you wanted justice you had to seek out the King and petition him personally, which was time consuming for both parties.
Parliament is above the law, inasmuch as Parliament is the supreme arbiter of its own actions and it's decisions 'are not to be questioned or disputed in any place' [Bill Of Rights]. The original reason for this was to prevent its decisions being overturned by a justice suborned by the King.
The decisions of government ministers are subject to review by the courts, because the Minister acts not in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, although he is usually that as well, but as a Minister of the Crown appointed, nominally by the King, in practice by the Prime Minister, using the Royal Prerogative.
The CPS, also known as the Can't Prosecute Service and the Cr*p Prosecution Service was set up a few years ago following some high-profile miscarriage of justice cases. Previously such decisions had been in the hands of the police. The CPS is supposed to form an independent judgement as the whether a prosecution would be 'in the public interest'. They pay peanuts and, consequently, hire monkeys.

 

[Don Gwinn]

No, my argument would not suggest that. My argument would suggest that if you're a lawyer who only practices on behalf of one client, then when you speak in an official capacity on behalf of that client in court, your statements do in fact reflect upon your client.

If a lawyer worked for Time magazine full time, then when he made statements in court on behalf of Time magazine, they would be assumed to reflect Time's attitude.

But a lawyer who works for the government is not assumed to be carrying out the wishes of that government when he makes statements in court?

It's ridiculous. He works only for them. He does their bidding. He said this in his official capacity while acting on their behalf. If it had not reflected the attitude of the government he would have been reprimanded or fired.

 

[agricola]

don,

thats exactly what you are saying though judging by your example. someone who exclusively defends murderers condones murder?

the CPS is an independent body that prosecutes criminals. it is not the Government.

 

[FPrice]

agricola...

"thats exactly what you are saying though judging by your example. someone who exclusively defends murderers condones murder?"

You are misrepresenting what Don said in a most grievous way. He said nothing of the sort. The defense attourney works for his/her client, they represent that client in a court of law, they speak for that client, but they do NOT necessarily condone the crime. Rather, in the theory of the law, they are giving their client the opportunity for due process under the law. In order to condone the murder (in your example) they would have to admit that their client actually committed the murder.

In the same manner the prosecutor works for the government, and since they work for the same exclusively they are in theory and practise representing the government. It matters not that they are hired, not elected, they ARE a part of the government. Pure and simple.

Attempting to mis-represent Don's arguement is a sure sign that you know you have lost this arguement and have to resort to evading the issue.

 

[agricola]

fprice,

In the same manner the prosecutor works for the government, and since they work for the same exclusively they are in theory and practise representing the government. It matters not that they are hired, not elected, they ARE a part of the government. Pure and simple.

except that they dont work for the Government- they work for the CPS. Had the original author said that the prosecutor from the CPS had stated that the perp in that case was "an unmitigated thug" then I'd have not raised the point - but he didnt. He stated that the Government had called the man an "unimitigated thug", which is clearly not the case.

You are misrepresenting what Don said in a most grievous way..

the "misrepresentation" was deliberate, since it was originally argued as:

To me, it seems patently obvious that if the CPS is in charge of and responsible for prosecuting the people accused of breaking "the government's" laws and it is paid for out of "the government's" budgets with money paid to "the government" in taxes, then it is clearly part of "the government."

a defence lawyer for a fixed client (ie one that doesnt use the Duty Scheme) is:

I) responsible for defending the defendant accused of breaking the law by his or her actions;

II) is paid for from the defendants purse;

III) with money the defendant has earned, possibly from crime;

using his methodology (which is flawed) the defence lawyer condones (and is therefore a part of) the defendants actions. thats stupid - and shows the poor judgement of people who would label a prosecutor as a government mouthpiece.

the CPS dealt with one million cases of all kinds last year. does what the prosecutor state in each case become "government policy"?

doesnt the fact that this debate has stretched over two pages on account of the (seemingly only) discrepancy you have found in my critique of the original article suggest instead that its you who've lost this one?

 

[SDC]

By your definition, Agricola, the SS troopers who loaded people into boxcars bound for Auschwitz "didn't work for the government" either; they only worked for their immediate supervisor.

 

[agricola]

no, they worked for the SS which was clearly responsible for the majority of the Holocaust.

have you just invoked Godwins Law?

 

[FPrice]

agricola...

"doesnt the fact that this debate has stretched over two pages on account of the (seemingly only) discrepancy you have found in my critique of the original article suggest instead that its you who've lost this one?"

Nope. Just another example of how you fail to read how this has progressed. YOU seem to be the only one with your opinion. Many people have tried to point out the error you seem bound and determined to perpetuate. But, that is your right. Your right to be wrong if you so choose.

I have to give you credit for your courageous defense of an obviously incorrect stance. Not many people would continue to debate and evade the way you do after so many examples disproving what you are trying to prove.

No one has ever said that the prosecutor is THE government. We have repeatedly stated that the prosecutor REPRESENTS the government in the court and his statement echoes what seems to be your government's attitude towards honest citizens who try to defend themselves against criminals.

"the "misrepresentation" was deliberate,"

Finally, we agree on something.

 

[FPrice]

agricola...

"have you just invoked Godwins Law?"

Probably more like "agricola's law".

 

[agricola]

fprice,

No one has ever said that the prosecutor is THE government.

noone except Kopel in the original article, that is.

its worth noting that of the two people here that state the CPS is independent of HMG, both of them are British, while those who state that the prosecutor is a government mouthpiece are all rebel scum

btw the prosecutor does NOT represent the Government in court. He or she represents the CPS. The difference is important to this debate.

oh and http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GodwinsLaw

 

[FPrice]

agricola...

"noone except Kopel in the original article, that is."

No one except the most inept of readers would try to say that Kopel said that the prosecutor is THE government. So that is your first and most basic error.

"while those who state that the prosecutor is a government mouthpiece are all rebel scum"

If this was supposed to be an insult, it failed. Please note that these "rebel scum" kicked the ever-loving you-know-what out of the most powerful nation on earth at that time!

Or does your history books gloss over this point?

 

[FPrice]

Godwin's Law:

Humor attempting to fool people and pose as logical argument.

 

[agricola]

fprice,

kopel's exact words:

...a brick was prosecuted and called "an unmitigated thug" by the government

my statement was initially that Kopel had said that the Government had stated this, wheras it was in all likelyhood the prosecutor who had uttered the phrase. You now state:

No one except the most inept of readers would try to say that Kopel said that the prosecutor is THE government. So that is your first and most basic error.

Kopel's statement is clear and unequivocal.

Oh and the rebel scum statement was a joke, hence the winking smiley next to it. Though if you can type No one except the most inept of readers would try to say that Kopel said that the prosecutor is THE government. So that is your first and most basic error. after arguing that the prosecutor IS the government for the past two pages then its not surprising that the joke is lost on you.


(which means sad btw)

(which means "joke")

 

[FPrice]

agricola...

"kopel's exact words:"

And since the prosecutor represents the government, through whatever guise you may want deny it, his words and meaning were clear. Especially given the British government's attitude over the past few years.

"after arguing that the prosecutor IS the government for the past two pages then its not surprising that the joke is lost on you."

Well, British humor has always left me cold. With the possible exception of "Red Dwarf". I always thought that Arnold Rimmer was a very good representation of the typical British bureaucrat. Function without thought. (oh, almost forgot the smiley!)

Oh, and "Solo" was very good also. Red Dwarf paid homage to the star when they mentioned orbiting a moon which bore an amazing resemblance to Felicity Kendall's bum.

 

[MeekandMild]

Aggie, is this the only way you can find attention in your life? I mean this constant masochistic argument about the existance of something you've never experianced. Surely you can't be getting anything from all this?

Maybe you'd be happier watching the tellie, going on line for some fish and chips or going down to the pub for a pint or whatever they do on your cell block? Maybe find a girl who has most of her teeth and try to make some little Aggies? With all the folk you say agree with you on everything surely there is someone?

Sometimes it seems that we are a cluster of folk all gathered around a blind man, teling him 'yes, just open your eyes', but it really doesn't help with the blind you know. It would be easier to just tell him, 'yes you're right' and leave him alone to experiance the sunset in his own demented way.

 

[agricola]

meek,

you forgot the warm beer, but otherwise you got all the other stereotypes in. btw the spelling is "telly". in case you havent noticed it the debate is over the British criminal justice system, and the reason why one remains here is because 90% of the stuff that passes for news from these shores that you read is utter nonsense, and its not surprising that you view my country in the way that you do.

fprice,

for the last time, the only body that the prosector represents is the CPS. if you want to drag the government into this, then the body closest to the Government is the Court, which at the end of the day decides whether its (in reality the Crown's) laws have been breached.

 

[FPrice]

The British Government: The Legal System

For those who are curious, the following site has some good information on how various portions of the British Government are organized.

http://www.britannia.com/gov/gov8.html

A cursory reading seems to indicate that Britannia.com considers the British Legal system to be a portion of the British government.

 

[HankB]

I've got it! I've got it! I've watched this thread, and taken part in it, and after reviewing our articulate island-dweller's arguments, it came to me . . . we Yanks aren't debating with a blind man, as MeekandMild suggested - no indeed; we are actually having a debate with Baghdad Bob!

 

[Don Gwinn]

What does the word "govern" mean in your world, sir, and how is it possible that the definition excludes the act of enforcing a government's laws?

 

[Ryder]

Hi

Kind of a confusing jumble of wordplay and I don't see the relevance of a lot here to the prime debate of gun ownership for self defense... But this caught my eye:

agricola:

also I presume that anyone with a weapon for self defence has never been injured or killed ever with that weapon? sometimes you cannot defend yourself, for whatever reason. why then oppose a method that has proven time and time again its use?

The first part of this statement is supposed to be a justification for why people can't be allowed to defend themselves with weapons? Because somebody may have EVER had their own weapon used against them? I don't get it, that has nothing to do with me and my circumstances. Why would I not sometimes be able to defend myself? I should not be allowed the opportunity to even try? I don't get it. Sounds like you are implying that since some people lack the will to defend themselves and would rather submit to the mercy of a criminal I would also be that way? There are such people but that's where freedom of choice comes in. Many here in the states have rejected the notion of concealed carry because of this. Nobody is forced to carry a weapon here.

As for the last sentence in your quote, again I must admit I don't get it. What other method do you refer to that has proven itself time and time again against immanent violence? You certainly can't mean the deterence factor involved where a criminal thinks you might have a weapon since you have precluded that possibility over there.

Kind regards

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Ryder, I think this by Aggie:

also I presume that anyone with a weapon for self defence has never been injured or killed ever with that weapon? sometimes you cannot defend yourself, for whatever reason. why then oppose a method that has proven time and time again its use?

Was a reply to this by Meek:

Well if soemone wants to perpetrate a serious crime on me I dont want it DETECTED then solved next week. I might be dead next week of multiple stab wounds or baseball bat injuries to the head. I want it STOPPED with immediate knockdown! Let the criminal suffer while I'm still alive to watch it.

Which was a reply to this by Aggie:

CCTV has proven time and time again its usefulness in the detection of crime, including very serious crimes.

So I guess next time your life is in danger just close your eyes and say: The cameras will protect me, The cameras will protect me. Clear as mud?

 

[0007]

Thanks guys, I needed a little humor in my life after the root canal this morning...

 

[agricola]

don,

the only group that the prosecutor represents is the CPS. For Kopel to state that the government called that man "an unmitigated thug" is clearly misleading and its to your discredit that youre attempting to evade this error, as well as all the other errors within the article, especially given the frequent critiques of percieved "anti-gun" media here. once again, if Kopel had said that the prosecutor had said "an unmitigated thug" then we wouldnt be having this debate - but he didnt say that, and he said what he said for the effect that it would have.

FWIW the CPS is part of the Criminal Justice System, an independent body of the Home Office. As said before, that doesnt mean it is "the government" any more than a lace is a shoe.

I seem to remember debates on TFL that went like this - the rape/attempted rape statistics debate, the Lott "inaccuracies" debate and so on. I also remember being proved right on those threads.

sergeant bob,

the point was that those posters wanted to ditch CCTV, which has demonstrated repeatedly its use in solving crime. my contention was that you dont write off RKBA because crime is still committed against armed citizens, crime will and has always occured and will always occur. You'd all argue that RKBA reduces crime; I argue that CCTV reduces crime AND provides evidence after the event. Its likely that no amount of RKBA would have saved James Bulger, or stopped the RIRA bombers at Ealing or Birmingham, or prevented David Copeland from planting his nailbombs in Brick Lane and Soho - but in each case CCTV was vital to the conviction of those murderous vermin.

 

[Mk VII]

Americans are familiar with the concept of a District Attorney who is a political appointee and who can expect to lose his job with a change of Administration, but such a creature is unknown in this country, for better or worse.
Is 'the public interest' identical with H.M Government's interest? I recall an argument some year or two ago in the papers about a statement (can't remember the context) from some civil servant who argued that it was. But the proposition was highly controversial and did not command general support.