On 16 Sep, 09:11, BrianW  wrote:
> On 16 Sep, 08:13, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 Sep, 09:03, BrianW  wrote:
>
> > > On 15 Sep, 07:47, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > > On 14 Sep, 23:05, BrianW  wrote:
>
> > > > > On 14 Sep, 07:51, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > These are all just criminal damage. E.O.S.
>
> > > > > > You are just saying that because you fear for your car.
>
> > > > > > Well not according to a growing legal precedent. It seems judges and
> > > > > > juries are finally revolting against increasingly repressive UK laws
> > > > > > which makes political dissent illegal.
>
> > > > > A jury verdict doesn't create a precedent.  Each jury is required to
> > > > > come to its own decision on the facts presented to it, and is not
> > > > > bound in any way by what a previous jury, on another set of facts> > > > > decided.  Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of how the
> > > > > legal system works.
>
> > > > Pot kettle. You are surely not trying to claim that previous cases do
> > > > not set legal precedences? Where else would they come from then?
>
> > > Legal precedents in English criminal law come from judges' decisions
> > > in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords. Basically, if a defendant
> > > considers that the judge at his trial summed up the law wrongly in his
> > > summing up to the jury, he can seek leave to appeal.  Alternatively> > > if the prosecution considers that the summing up was wrong, it can
> > > appeal (the defendant's acquittal is unaffected, but the law can still
> > > be clarified).
>
> > > The Court of Appeal (or House of Lords, if it gets that far) looks at
> > > what the judge told the jury, and decides whether it reflects what the
> > > law is (or should be - that is how the common law system advances).
>
> > > > You
> > > > are obviously not aware that there are also non-binding precedents.
>
> > > Er, I am, but a jury won't get told "10 juries before you convicted on
> > > similar facts".  The law comes from the judges, not from juries.
>
> > > > Add that to your abysmal lack of knowledge.
>
> > > Lack of knowledge being a law degree and 7 years working as a lawyer,
> > > right?
>
> > Well you should be up to tackling this one then. Suppose E-ON takes
> > the case to appeal and loses, will that then set a precedent?
>
> Yes, possibly, as I said above.
>
> >Or, if
> > there is no case at all how can there then be an appeal or a
> > precedent? There has to be a case in the first place for a precedent
> > to exist, as I claimed, semanticist.
>
> What on earth are you talking about?  The problem is that you don't
> understand what "precedent" means in the common law context.
>
"In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case
establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body
adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts."

Note the use of the words 'case' and 'court' which you are obviously
attempting to avoid.
>
> > BTW, congrats on avoiding personal abuse and wrong attributes in your
> > post this time around. You seem to be learning at last.
>
> <snigger>
>
> By wrong attributes, do you mean calling you Mr Bollen, Mr Bollen?
>
See what I mean? You have a very strange obsession.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.