Where is Liberty and freedom? Will it someday become extinct?

[godnotgod]

Um... yes, yes it really can.

Your rights can be taken away, but no one can take away your freedom.

 

[godnotgod]

Just a random thought here:

Alan Watts, the famous philosopher/spiritualist, once described one of the Chinese Emperors who had imposed so many laws about everything, that the dynasty he ruled over just collapsed. The dynasty that followed was ruled by an Emperor who imposed only a few laws. This dynasty was known as China's 'Golden Age'. I fail to recall the names of those Emperors and their dynasties. Anyone?

 

[godnotgod]

The legal standing of personhood, and the the status of human aren;t the same.

Using this definition, "personhood", I continue to point out the casualness of how this term is used. In a very specific and often used finding with a huge amount of case law to support it.

In most states, if not all, If I, plan to, then kill my pregnant wife, I will be charged with TWO murders. How is that possible if I didn't kill two people ? Why aren;'t all these double murder convictions overturned ?

Could it be that the definition of person ( and Blacks in in error, a newborn is a person, but cannot take up any responsibility) is strictly used ONLY for the purpose of abortion as was enumerated in Roe ?

I assure you it has been used as a defense in the double murder cases I cited, but those laws have never been found unConstitutional as far as I know.

I have provided a legal definition of 'person' via Black's Laws, which you rejected. But you have yet to provide one which is acceptable to you.

'Human' is a status? I thought it was a species.

An unborn fetus cannot speak, think, or act upon its own. It cannot navigate in the physical world; it is totally dependent upon it's mother for its life. It knows nothing of interpersonal relations with any other, other than its mother, which it is unaware of as another person. In fact, even after birth, the infant does not develop a sense of self until around 14 months. It's identity is given to it via social indoctrination and direct experience with the world it interacts with. It is not born with an identity, let alone having one as an unborn fetus. It has no sense of 'I'-ness. Where is 'person', either in the legal or non-legal sense?

As I pointed out, none of the Supreme Court judges allowed the term 'person' to be applied to the unborn fetus, which goes beyond abortion as a limiting factor.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, you are pro choice, the choice being killing and not killing, with the killing being acceptable.

He already told you over and over: it's about a woman's right to choose.

It's like if I point to the moon, but instead of you looking at the moon, you viciously attack the pointing finger, over and over again, ala Pavlov's dogs at the ringing of the proverbial bell. Shnap out of it, already! Cheez!

 

[oldbadger]

Which system ? You have two separate systems for criminal law ?

I can think of four quite separate and different criminal legal systems in the UK, it just depends where you happen to be. The description of criminal offences is so different as to be completely al;ien to each other. Honest.

Professional exactness, what is that when it is at home ?

It's best to follow (as closely as possible) exactly the same sequences of words and actions, every time. For that reason I didn't mind training commercial detectives in various parts of the UK in various methods and working techniques, but these same delegates needed further (or previous) training by people well used to detaining, arresting, questioning, writing and taking statements and the compilation of evidence in those particular areas.

Interview and interrogate when one is exchanging with a criminal suspect mean exactly the same thing. One is newer, one is older terminology.

It's all about mindset.
We just don't interrogate suspects here.
If you might ever watch our police on the streets in reality telly, you;'ll notice how differently they speak and react when compared to many US law enforcers.
In parts of the US police are allowed to provoke and entrap offences, arrest them, and then badger (!!) and hound them ........ over here police can only ask questions to discover names, addresses, and for reasons why out, doing what etc..... at the second that they discover enough information to believe that an offence has been committed then they arrest that offence and take it into custody where a sargeant decides how to proceed.

We don't arrest people in the UK....... we arrest OFFENCES.
It's all about mindset. Slowly you would leave words like interrogation behind, believe me, and if you didn't then you'd be easy meat for any defence barrister....... easy....

Rehabilitation has been studied in depth for years, it is essentially a myth. There are no significant differences in recidivism rates between being rehabilitated and punished. Rehabilitation costs more.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was made law in the mid 70's, and ever since then has been enforced. And after periods of months or years (according to some lesser offences with sentences of less than 2.5 years) a person's crimninal record is expunged, and although kept on record the offender may withold their past on some applications, but not on others.

We believe in Rehabilitation here.

Arrests without conviction are not passed on from one department to another via a ¨rap sheet¨. You may become aware of an arrest if an arresting officer in your dept. tells you, or you have personal contacts in another dept., but thatś it.

That's not what I believe.........., persons can be denied entry to various forces, employments and professions because of their past arrest records. ......... in some US States.

Not here........ and over here we do not have 'rap sheets'.

Yes, I am aware of your police scandal. Political correctness and bending over backwards to protect those who don´t deserve protection, so very sad.

Oh we do want to bend over backwards to protect people........ who are innocent here until found guilty.

Your Human Rights look very wobbly, truly.

In one of our countries here in the UK we even have a special court verdict separate from Guilty and Not Guilty. Where a jury is very troubled by a defendant or the details of the alleged crime(s) but where it has not heard enough clear proof of guilt, rather than deliver either Guilty or Not uilty verdicts it can declare 'NOT PROVEN' and the defendant is acquitted. But the case can remain open for retrial in the event that new evidence might bring a more final 'Not Guilty' or 'Guilty' verdict.

Earlier I wrote to another that our human rights and rules of evidence and behaviour look much better than the US provides............. it sure does look like it to me.

Who were your UK Law Lecturers FGS?[/QUOTE]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it is high time for someone to come forth on this thread and make the distinction between 'freedom' and 'license'. What say ye?

I know of several different senses for the word "license." Which one did you have in mind?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please reformat post 211 if you want a line item response, which is how I generally rebut arguments. An argument is defeated by showing that its claims of fact are inaccurate or incomplete, or that its conclusion doesn't follow from the preceding argument. The typical method is the one you chose when I first offered this argument - fail to address the argument completely and repeat the claim it refuted. Perhaps you can explain why you did that, and are still doing it with the rendering aspect of the argument.

So please address the entire argument. You can begin with the first claim: "Christians and Muslims each revere a Semitic desert god, Yahweh and Allah, that is an angry, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, capricious, prudish, strongman that requires worship and submission." You both have angry gods, authoritarian gods that want to micromanage your sex life and punish you for your defiance - a quality that manifests in the clergy of both religions as they imitate this behavior.

Next, how is this incorrect to you: "Believers of both attend temples (Mosques or churches) and obey paternalistic, misogynisitic clergy." Your response to that appeared to be, "Second, Christians worship in churches. At least Protestants have no obligation to follow anyone or anything but the teachings of Christ," but it's not clear that it does,

Picking a handful of the list of ideas and quibbling over irrelevant distinction such as messiahs isn't a refutation of the very long list of similarities and the implication that these two bodies of thought are extremely similar, irrelevant difference notwithstanding. Yes, Christians wear crosses and Muslims crescent with a star. You can list hundreds of irrelevant differences such as the different calendars they use.

Also, calling an argument like that a rant is not a rebuttal. It's the kind of thing you do when you get emotional, which I interpret as you feeling threatened or overwhelmed. When you are more confident,you are more civil.

And I hope you'll eventually addressed the rendering argument, which is the part related to the thread topic - liberties and freedoms, in this case, why Christians in the West enjoy more of them than Muslims living in many Middle Eastern states, the difference not being attributable to the two religions, which I have pointed out are essentially the same on paper, but due to the influence of humanism on one but not the other. The argument is that you could have exchanged their holy books, and Christians and Muslims would still be living more or less as they are now.

Also, creeping theocrcay in the States is a threat to freedom. The Christians want to return to something more like these Muslim states to the extent that humanist safeguards can be defeated.

You like to bandy the word ignorance about pretty glibly, but you've got a blinding, faith based, confirmation bias fitted firmly on your head keeping you in the dark. How else could you have written, "As already stated, your opinions about Christianity are devoid of fact, Of islam, I agree with most."

Apparently you think I nailed Islam with that list, but that it didn't come close to Christianity. You can see how it all applies to the Muslims, but have no idea where I'm coming from saying that those ideas apply to both religions.

Think for a moment. You're saying that I have captured Islam well with that description, but not Christianity. Yet I know Christianity much better, and I brought the same resources to the evaluation of each.

You didn't.

 

[shmogie]

I can think of four quite separate and different criminal legal systems in the UK, it just depends where you happen to be. The description of criminal offences is so different as to be completely al;ien to each other. Honest.


It's best to follow (as closely as possible) exactly the same sequences of words and actions, every time. For that reason I didn't mind training commercial detectives in various parts of the UK in various methods and working techniques, but these same delegates needed further (or previous) training by people well used to detaining, arresting, questioning, writing and taking statements and the compilation of evidence in those particular areas.


It's all about mindset.
We just don't interrogate suspects here.
If you might ever watch our police on the streets in reality telly, you;'ll notice how differently they speak and react when compared to many US law enforcers.
In parts of the US police are allowed to provoke and entrap offences, arrest them, and then badger (!!) and hound them ........ over here police can only ask questions to discover names, addresses, and for reasons why out, doing what etc..... at the second that they discover enough information to believe that an offence has been committed then they arrest that offence and take it into custody where a sargeant decides how to proceed.

We don't arrest people in the UK....... we arrest OFFENCES.
It's all about mindset. Slowly you would leave words like interrogation behind, believe me, and if you didn't then you'd be easy meat for any defence barrister....... easy....


The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was made law in the mid 70's, and ever since then has been enforced. And after periods of months or years (according to some lesser offences with sentences of less than 2.5 years) a person's crimninal record is expunged, and although kept on record the offender may withold their past on some applications, but not on others.

We believe in Rehabilitation here.


That's not what I believe.........., persons can be denied entry to various forces, employments and professions because of their past arrest records. ......... in some US States.

Not here........ and over here we do not have 'rap sheets'.


Oh we do want to bend over backwards to protect people........ who are innocent here until found guilty.

Your Human Rights look very wobbly, truly.

In one of our countries here in the UK we even have a special court verdict separate from Guilty and Not Guilty. Where a jury is very troubled by a defendant or the details of the alleged crime(s) but where it has not heard enough clear proof of guilt, rather than deliver either Guilty or Not uilty verdicts it can declare 'NOT PROVEN' and the defendant is acquitted. But the case can remain open for retrial in the event that new evidence might bring a more final 'Not Guilty' or 'Guilty' verdict.

Earlier I wrote to another that our human rights and rules of evidence and behaviour look much better than the US provides............. it sure does look like it to me.

Who were your UK Law Lecturers FGS?

[/QUOTE]
Mt knowledge of the British system is just that British, I know a bit about the Scottish system, but not much. As to how you allow sharia to apply, I have no knowledge, though I know you do in some fashion.

You seem to think that different states in the US have different systems of law, they don';t.. They may have different penalties, some minor offences may be described differently, but homicide, robbery, assault,battery, kidnapping, burglary, grand theft, embezzlement, and any other felony are consistent across the country.,

I don';t know where you get your information about US Officers, but you make a number of errors. First, Police procedures are standardized across the nation. Second, each state has a POST, Police Officer Standards and Training office which codifies Academy and ongoing training curriculum, Hours, and instructor standards.

As an example, the Dept of which I was Director, required a bachelors degree ( waived in very special circumstances), attendance at a 26 week full time academy, which was and is a stress academy. Meaning, pressure is put continually on the recruit in an effort to motivate them to quit. The stress in the field is not the place to determine if they can cope. After Academy completion they are teamed with a field training officer, who has the responsibility to supervise, observe, and mentor the Officer. Brief daily reports on the progress of the trainee are submitted, and a comprehensive weekly report is submitted with specific comments on contacts, corrections, and performance. The FTO can recommend field training for an Officer beyond the normal 26 week period, or, after 10 weeks, recommend that the Officer be terminated as unsuitable.

We do not arrest crimes, we arrest lawbreakers. You linguistic tricks here strike me as funny.

As I told you, a suspect has no obligation to answer any questions that we ask, other than name. If they ask for a lawyer, we cannot ask them one single question without their lawyer present.

We cannot incarcerate them for a period of time without charges as your police can, nor can we repeatedly speak to them after they have declined to make a statement as your police can. One can only be taken into custody if a crime has been committed and there is probable cause to believe the person arrested committed the crime. THere is no "helping the police with their inquiry's", you are either arrested for committing a crime or you are not arrested.

I can only assume you have been watching some 1930's movie when you say American Police can badger and entrap suspects. You cannot badger someone when you cannot speak to them. Entrapment is a clearly defined legal concept. No one can be convicted if their arrest was the result of entrapment. No arrest is valid if it is the result of entrapment. Use of entrapment by an Officer is grounds for dismissal.

You say our human rights as the police appear "wobbly". We say your intent to enforce the law fairly is "wobbly". We do not treat people differently, or carve out special treatment for certain people, because of ethnic background, or religion, as you do. The law applies equally to all, and if you break it, you go to jail. We don';t care that because dogs are unclean in your religion, so you killed one, we don't care, the cruelty to animals statute applies to you just like everyone else.

Sadly, your system, bends the law for certain groups, hence your rape scandal. muslims, muslim culture, bending the laws for them. Won't happen here.

The professor who lectured on the British legal system had been a ranking FBI agent who was seconded to Scotland yard for a year while one of their ranking detectives was seconded to the FBI. He had a US law degree and took British university legal courses.

 

[shmogie]

Please reformat post 211 if you want a line item response, which is how I generally rebut arguments. An argument is defeated by showing that its claims of fact are inaccurate or incomplete, or that its conclusion doesn't follow from the preceding argument. The typical method is the one you chose when I first offered this argument - fail to address the argument completely and repeat the claim it refuted. Perhaps you can explain why you did that, and are still doing it with the rendering aspect of the argument.

So please address the entire argument. You can begin with the first claim: "Christians and Muslims each revere a Semitic desert god, Yahweh and Allah, that is an angry, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, capricious, prudish, strongman that requires worship and submission." You both have angry gods, authoritarian gods that want to micromanage your sex life and punish you for your defiance - a quality that manifests in the clergy of both religions as they imitate this behavior.

Next, how is this incorrect to you: "Believers of both attend temples (Mosques or churches) and obey paternalistic, misogynisitic clergy." Your response to that appeared to be, "Second, Christians worship in churches. At least Protestants have no obligation to follow anyone or anything but the teachings of Christ," but it's not clear that it does,

Picking a handful of the list of ideas and quibbling over irrelevant distinction such as messiahs isn't a refutation of the very long list of similarities and the implication that these two bodies of thought are extremely similar, irrelevant difference notwithstanding. Yes, Christians wear crosses and Muslims crescent with a star. You can list hundreds of irrelevant differences such as the different calendars they use.

Also, calling an argument like that a rant is not a rebuttal. It's the kind of thing you do when you get emotional, which I interpret as you feeling threatened or overwhelmed. When you are more confident,you are more civil.

And I hope you'll eventually addressed the rendering argument, which is the part related to the thread topic - liberties and freedoms, in this case, why Christians in the West enjoy more of them than Muslims living in many Middle Eastern states, the difference not being attributable to the two religions, which I have pointed out are essentially the same on paper, but due to the influence of humanism on one but not the other. The argument is that you could have exchanged their holy books, and Christians and Muslims would still be living more or less as they are now.

Also, creeping theocrcay in the States is a threat to freedom. The Christians want to return to something more like these Muslim states to the extent that humanist safeguards can be defeated.

You like to bandy the word ignorance about pretty glibly, but you've got a blinding, faith based, confirmation bias fitted firmly on your head keeping you in the dark. How else could you have written, "As already stated, your opinions about Christianity are devoid of fact, Of islam, I agree with most."

Apparently you think I nailed Islam with that list, but that it didn't come close to Christianity. You can see how it all applies to the Muslims, but have no idea where I'm coming from saying that those ideas apply to both religions.

Think for a moment. You're saying that I have captured Islam well with that description, but not Christianity. Yet I know Christianity much better, and I brought the same resources to the evaluation of each.

You didn't.

Since you want specifics in responses, you had better give them in accusations. You gave nothing but your personal opinions on a plethora of issues. Quote scripture and verse from the NT, or give historical references for your accusations. Your opinions mean nothing, and false opinions can be dismissed with the same authority by true opinions.

I gave specifics, especially re sex and homosexuality in the Church, which contradicts in totality your opinion that Christians want control over those issues for everyone, you ignored that.

Further, I pointed out to you that the Republic was founded on the concept of no government religion, and this founding concept was by Christians, you ignored that, preferring to hold on to your cherished idea that Christians want a theocracy, never did, don't.

Once you understand that most of your opinions regarding Christianity are hollow, we then can move on to islam, and make a true comparison

If your purpose is to hurl empty slurs, then have me scuttle to prove them wrong, it ain't happening.

Either present specific points with supporting evidence, or this conversation is best ended.

 

[ronandcarol]

Where is Liberty and freedom?
As a whole, not in our human lifetime, as an individual, if you are in Christ you are as free as can be.
ronandcarol

 

[Poseidon Soter]

My sense is that you're not being sincere here - that this is a sort of low level trolling activity. What do YOU understand by "a total way of life" ?

Why do you think I am not being sincere??

I didn't use these words, you did, hence my question. That seems a reasonable ask on my part.

IMO it's a mistake to conflate values with dogma, no?

I think there's a fine line here for those practicing a faith (rather than thinking about these notions in the abstract).

Again, I suspect foul play on your part

I must confess, I'm perplexed at why you think so, or what you even mean by this.

let me ask you this, let's say you have a sanitized translation of the Quran, who do you think are "those who have gone astray" in the seventh verse. Because whoever "they" are, Allah is forever angry with them.

Sixth verse: Guide us to the straight path.
Seventh verse: The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favour, not of those who have evoked Your anger or of those who are astray.

Nothing about Muslims vs non-Muslims there. Nothing about Allah being forever angry with anyone there either.

Now, you'll get some Muslim scholars who interpret the first path to be that of Muslims, the second that of Jews, and the third that of Christians. But that is their interpretation. There's nothing in those verses about Allah referring to Muslims or non-Muslims specifically. There are plenty of Muslims who have made Allah angry by their actions and plenty who have gone astray.

Moreover, there are other verses in the Koran which speak of Jews and Christians (and 'Sabians') being rewarded by Allah.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Yep, in their own countryś the most illiterate, intolerant, violent people on the face of the earth.

If they are illiterate, how can they read the Koran and Hadith with understanding?

Most of the hadith and koran are blatantly obvious, not subject to interpretation unless the one doing the interpretation is an abject liar.

Except, a lot of Christians do the same thing with their Bible. Why should Muslims be held to a different standard?

If a muslim doesn´t accept the teachings of the founder of the religion, who says they must be followed to be a true muslim, are they muslims at all ?

Who has the better right to claiming they understand their faith, Muslims or non-Muslims? With the exception, perhaps (and only perhaps), of some non-Muslim scholars of Islam, I say the former.

 

[icehorse]

Seventh verse: The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favour, not of those who have evoked Your anger or of those who are astray.

Nothing about Muslims vs non-Muslims there. Nothing about Allah being forever angry with anyone there either.

Again, even given a sanitized translation, as one reads thru the book it's clear that Allah has concluded that it is the Christians and the Jews who have "gone astray". I suppose you could argue that (most?), Muslims know only the first Surah, but that's another stretch.

Isn't the OBVIOUS answer that in the first Suran - the 5-times-a-day prayer - the Quran declares that Allah is forever angry with Christians and Jews?

As for "forever', if you ask them (as I have many times), Muslims will tell you that the Quran is perfect, clear, unalterable and TIMELESS. If Allah is angry, he's angry forever - it's in the friggin' book.

This is not deep analysis on my part, it's just a common sense reading of the text.

If you disagree, then what perspective do you think one is supposed to take when reading the Quran?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Sounds like you are trying to argue something specific in a vague manner. Usually that isn't the best idea.

Sounds like you're projecting.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Again, even given a sanitized translation,

Arabic scholar, are you?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Your rights can be taken away, but no one can take away your freedom.

Imprisonment - Wikipedia

 

[shmogie]

If they are illiterate, how can they read the Koran and Hadith with understanding?



Except, a lot of Christians do the same thing with their Bible. Why should Muslims be held to a different standard?



Who has the better right to claiming they understand their faith, Muslims or non-Muslims? With the exception, perhaps (and only perhaps), of some non-Muslim scholars of Islam, I say the former.

The imam tells the majority illiterate ones what their books say. The NT is clear, as is the koran and hadith. I don´t understand their faith, I understand what the prophet wrote as from their god. If you read a sura in the koran, that says infidels should be beheaded, are you claiming you are incapable of understanding what is written and need a muslims interpretation ? How about in the hadith when ol mo is riding by on his horse, with his sword and covered in blood, when asked where he has been, he says killing infidels. You need a interpreter to tell you what this alleged eyewitness account means ?

 

[Curious George]

Sounds like you're projecting.

??

 

[icehorse]

Arabic scholar, are you?

Never said that, but I have compared several translations.

 

[oldbadger]

Mt knowledge of the British system is just that British, I know a bit about the Scottish system, but not much. As to how you allow sharia to apply, I have no knowledge, though I know you do in some fashion.

Don't know where you picked up that we 'allow sharia'.
Any person can arrest any person who commits, or is suspected of committing an Indictable offence. So if a group of Muslims see an indictable offence (one that can be tried in a Crown Court) then they can arrest the offence. It's nothing to do with 'sharia'.

You seem to think that different states in the US have different systems of law, they don';t.. They may have different penalties, some minor offences may be described differently, but homicide, robbery, assault,battery, kidnapping, burglary, grand theft, embezzlement, and any other felony are consistent across the country.,

I don't think anything.......... I can only guess at what your States do, but I have read that didn't States have differing legislation.

I don';t know where you get your information about US Officers, but you make a number of errors. First, Police procedures are standardized across the nation. Second, each state has a POST, Police Officer Standards and Training office which codifies Academy and ongoing training curriculum, Hours, and instructor standards.

You're repeating yourself.......... you've already written that all your States have the same systems of law.

As an example, the Dept of which I was Director, required a bachelors degree ( waived in very special circumstances), attendance at a 26 week full time academy, which was and is a stress academy. Meaning, pressure is put continually on the recruit in an effort to motivate them to quit. The stress in the field is not the place to determine if they can cope. After Academy completion they are teamed with a field training officer, who has the responsibility to supervise, observe, and mentor the Officer. Brief daily reports on the progress of the trainee are submitted, and a comprehensive weekly report is submitted with specific comments on contacts, corrections, and performance. The FTO can recommend field training for an Officer beyond the normal 26 week period, or, after 10 weeks, recommend that the Officer be terminated as unsuitable.

Interesting...................

We do not arrest crimes, we arrest lawbreakers. You linguistic tricks here strike me as funny.

Because you don't understand our laws here.
Any person can arrest an indictable offence here...... we arrest OFFENCES. You think that's clever talk because you don't know our law. Even if a child might commit an indictable offence here, a child under the age of criminal responsibility, any person can detain that child and call the police....... why? because we don't detain people, we detain OFFENCES!

It's not clever talk..... it's professional exactness, which you don't understand.

As I told you, a suspect has no obligation to answer any questions that we ask, other than name. If they ask for a lawyer, we cannot ask them one single question without their lawyer present.

You're repeating yourself.

We cannot incarcerate them for a period of time without charges as your police can, nor can we repeatedly speak to them after they have declined to make a statement as your police can.

Here you say that you cannot hold suspects.............

One can only be taken into custody if a crime has been committed and there is probable cause to believe the person arrested committed the crime.

...and here you say that you can!
And you call my talk clever.

THere is no "helping the police with their inquiry's", you are either arrested for committing a crime or you are not arrested.

Our police are allowed to invite anybody to come and speak with them. Anybody is allowed to help police with their inquiries. And if the police arrest a suspect who then wants to give them informations, then they might, just might, tell the media about it.

I can only assume you have been watching some 1930's movie when you say American Police can badger and entrap suspects. You cannot badger someone when you cannot speak to them. Entrapment is a clearly defined legal concept. No one can be convicted if their arrest was the result of entrapment. No arrest is valid if it is the result of entrapment. Use of entrapment by an Officer is grounds for dismissal.

Bulldust.
We watch 'Bait Car' filmed in two or three different States, and see it all.
You're havin' a laugh.......

You say our human rights as the police appear "wobbly". We say your intent to enforce the law fairly is "wobbly". We do not treat people differently, or carve out special treatment for certain people, because of ethnic background, or religion, as you do. The law applies equally to all, and if you break it, you go to jail. We don';t care that because dogs are unclean in your religion, so you killed one, we don't care, the cruelty to animals statute applies to you just like everyone else.

Anybody here can have their dog put down if they wish, that's true, but you mention 'in your religion' when talking to me.
And we notice on your animal cruelty channel how many times dogs are found chained up in back-yards for so long that the chains have become embedded in their necks. British Law bans unsupervised traces or running traces anywhere.

You're waffling....

Sadly, your system, bends the law for certain groups, hence your rape scandal. muslims, muslim culture, bending the laws for them. Won't happen here.

Huh? So far all the defendants who have had their cases dropped have been English and White.
Your agenda is flashing like a beacon now.

The professor who lectured on the British legal system had been a ranking FBI agent who was seconded to Scotland yard for a year while one of their ranking detectives was seconded to the FBI. He had a US law degree and took British university legal courses.

Is that how they got rid of him?
And what he told you about our criminal law was bunkum, really.