Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Common law applies until a piece of statute law replaces it. Occasionally you'll hear a judge remind a barrister that "there is law on this" - meaning statute law, which replaces the common law based on precedent.

Statute law is to a large degree fixing the patches in common law.

I saw a report earlier this week about some of these fuckwits entering a bookshop and berating the owner for insisting on masks. They then quoted the usual bollocks about being free men and being able to do what they wanted. When one of the watching customers cried that they were a disgrace, these fine yeomen then threatened to string the customer up like Mussolini from the nearest lamp post as they were a traitor.

I think at this point, I would have found the nearest volume of the Complete Oxford Dictionary and bludgeoned the fuck out of the twat.

The rozzers need to take these twats seriously before someone gets hurt.

From Kev's post:

...entering a bookshop and berating the owner for insisting on masks. They then quoted the usual bollocks about being free men and being able to do what they wanted...

Are they Marxists? Do they believe property is theft?A bookshop is not a public place. It is private property which the public are admitted to, and the owner / proprietor of such property has the right to impose whatever rules they want. The fweemin on da larnd have the option to either suck it up and do as the owner / proprietor says, or not enter the premises.

Malc is correct in saying the police need to take these cretins seriously - anyone that pigshit thick and offensive is asking for a serious beating. So, to protect decent citizens from charges of public order offences and assault, they need to deal with the morons. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I now learn that they attempted to 'occupy' the Science Museum.
I have no idea why, except that it says 'Science' outside and that seems to inflame them. No, really.

It is utterly beyond belief.

We really haven't moved all that far from the eighteenth century, have we. Joseph Priestly would recognise these idiots in an instant.

My cricket bat is twitching.

Am I right here, it’s okay for a cake shop to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, but not for a book shop owner to ask people to wear masks in time of a global pandemic

I suspect that the infectious gammon that threatened the bookshop owner wouldn't agree about the cake, either. I suspect they think the baker was right.

Cognitive dissonance/Dunning Kruger/LOTS/TAPS

I would also suggest that their idea you can do what you like on private property might be at odds with their belief in being able to shoot burglars.

Watchman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:23 pm Am I right here, it’s okay for a cake shop to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, but not for a book shop owner to ask people to wear masks in time of a global pandemic

A shop, contrary to what lots of people seem to believe, is private property.
We have no more right to enter them than we do someone's home.
Customers are allowed to enter only with consent of the owner (unless they are a police officer or bailiff with a warrant). A shopkeeper can stipulate any terms they like for customers to enter their premises, provided those rules are applied equally to everyone and don't single out protected groups.
Therefore, "everybody has to wear a mask" is fine, regardless of what current government COVID rules say. Not serving people because they are gay - is not fine because that's discrimination.

I suspect if a shopkeeper blew one away with a shotgun on the basis that he feared for his life they'd soon be looking to the police, although a lynch mob would be more likely.

Oblomov wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:59 pm

That picture's usually followed by a smug looking white cat.

40,000 followers isn't much once you discount bots, duplicates and rubberneckers there for shiggles.

Piers Corbyn:

"We take to the streets.

Take down the vaccination centres

And take down the town halls."

Compare and contrast to Trump who 'merely' told his followers to march on the Capitol building.
In context, "take down" sounds far more threatening than "march on".
Why isn't Piers Corbyn under arrest for incitement?

Oboogie wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:54 pm Piers Corbyn:

"We take to the streets.

Take down the vaccination centres

And take down the town halls."

Compare and contrast to Trump who 'merely' told his followers to march on the Capitol building.
In context, "take down" sounds far more threatening than "march on".
Why isn't Piers Corbyn under arrest for incitement?

Because here, unlike in Trump's America where you can buy assault weapons in Walmart, P. Corbyn's unhinged followers will be armed with precisely buggerall.

I'm pretty sure that in a confined space either brother could easily bore you to death.

Watch the video, they are not all frail and harmless and it only takes one to beat or stab a nurse (or a politician) to death whilst the police are busy trying to control the crowd.
Thomas Mair wasn't exactly a fine physical specimen but he didn't need to be.
How many of Trump's mob were carrying firearms?

MI5 would do well to be all over these nutters like the cheapest of suits.

The killing of Lee Rigby and the stabbing of Stephen Timms are two more examples of lunatics not needing firearms to wreak havoc.