Enjoy your visit from the authorities, Suede.

>>74

Nothing in this thread is illegal in the United States or United Kingdom. I know it because of my learnings.

In b4 CID/FBI.

>>75
lulz, a man in the United Kingdom was fairly recently arrested and charged for posession of a David Hamilton photobook. So the first three pictures at least could very well potentially get people assraped in prison.

I know because of my learnings.

Well, I can't speak for Europeon law, but in America, David Hamilton has always been found to be Constitutionally-protected free speech. Constitutions -- maybe you should get one?

Also, I looked up the case you mentioned -- first, he was not convicted, he plea bargained like a dumbshit. Secondly, he was not charged with any kind of "child pornography", but simply with "indecency", which upon further research into British law, appears to have a rather broad definition which outlaws practically everything without taking age into account.

>>78
I'm pretty sure most European states posess a constitution, the UK included.

>>79

This coming from the person that said Europe has "states".

FAIL.

>>80
he used the word correctly. State has some alternate definitions (like any government regardless of how local can be called a state).

Many anarchists like to use the word "statist" to insult people.

>>81

In a loose definition. US is often referred to as the States from UK residents.

ITT: Anal people. Also, needs more anal.

>>79 Europeon states posess a constitution, the UK included

I'll give you $599 US dollars if you can post the complete text of the UK constitution, in its entirety, without including any extra text that's not in it.

>>83
That's silly. The UK consittution isn't a single document.

OH NO THE FIRST EUROPEAN NATION TO CODIFY A CITIZEN'S RIGHTS AND FORM A PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY IS DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY TO THE UNITED STATES. MORE AT ELEVEN.

>>84
P.S: US$599 is what, 80p?

>>85
$599 isn't enough to buy a PS3 with in England.

>>84 The UK consittution isn't a single document.

Okay, so it's more than one document. Prove it, post them. I don't think you have a Constitution, enjoy your tyranny.

gb2 history class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_constitution
proved you wrong.

>>89

Of course, the article actually says that the UK has no constitution, just a vague undefined set of laws & precedents -- nobody can really identify with any certainty what's part of the constitution and what's not, therefore, I still offer $599 US dollars two anyone who can post the complete text of the UK constitution. Of course, everyone so far has failed; not surprising that a person who's legally the property of the Queen has such deficient mental skills; slaves are not known for their intelligence.

>>90
I don't think you understand constitutional monarchy. Enjoy your ignorance.

>The UK has no single constitutional document comparable to the Constitution of the United States.
>It is therefore often said that the country has an "unwritten constitution".
>"unwritten constitution"
>"unwritten constitution"
>"unwritten constitution"

>I still offer $599 US dollars two anyone who can post the complete text of the UK constitution
>LOL IM SO CLEVER

>>92

So tell me, if you have three unwritten books and I give you five more unwritten books, how many books do you have?

If you answered anything other than "zero", you are a dumbshit.

"Unwritten" == "does not exist"

>COMMON LAW IS A LIE AND DOES NOT EXIST

>>94

Common law may exist as a legal concept, but it's far from being anything like an actual Constitution.

Political trolls are so boringly ignorant of common sense.

Magna Carta is the basis for every constitution that ever was written, it just isnt called constitution, because, well, the word didnt exist back then. Back then, it was called a charter. (Carta, in latin)

It has been reformed countless times, but like Theseus's ship, it is still the basis for all constitutional legislation in the UK.

The fact other contries have a single document called "the constitution" (which is never the only document in this country constitutional legislation) is due to the fact that once, someone refered to the many texts of England's government law as what "constitute" the covenant between people, government and the Crown, henceforth called the constitution.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing and frankly grasping at straws by holding to subtle technicalities you dont really understand.

>>96
Sage for lack of logical fallacies or ad hominem attacks. You, sir cracker, are on the wrong side of the hood.

>>97
And by sage I mean age.

>>96 Magna Carta is the basis for every constitution that ever was written

Well, since you consider Wikipedia to be Gospel Truth, let's see what the Gospel Truth is about the Magna Carta:

The repeal of clause 26 in 1829 was the first time a clause of Magna Carta was repealed. With the document's perceived protected status broken, in 150 years nearly the whole charter was repealed, leaving just Clauses 1, 9, and 29 still in force after 1969.

Oh wow, pwned. All it took were some acts of the federal government to override "the basis for every constitution that ever was written".

It's not a Constitution if it's not the absolute highest law of the land, not subject to the whim of the government, changeable only by the very strict amendment requirements that it lays out for itself.

The real Constitution can not be freely ignored, erased, rewritten, or changed at the whims of the federal government; amendment is only possible with the consent of a supermajority of the sovereign member states. But of course, if you live in a country with an unelected head of state supposedly backed by "divine right", then I'm sure that sounds pretty alien to you.

>>97 >>98

You're a Canadian. Your head of state is the Queen of England (although 95% of the people in your country don't even know who their head of state is). So it's not surprise that you and the other subjects in your quaint little vassalage have your nose up Elizabeth 2's snizz.

>>99
You walked right into this one...

>It has been reformed countless times, but like Theseus's ship, it is still the basis for all constitutional legislation in the UK.

And, might I add, a model to which every "constitution" refers to, directly or indirectly. The American founding fathers knew it, as much as the French first republicans did, since the magna carta was the first major reinterpretation of Roman law, the "Jus Commune" from wich "contitutio" is derived. Both the French and Americans borrowed extensively from English law, and knowingly so.

Here is the thing: every company, corporation or nation-state that undergoes constitution I.E. incorporates itself needs a charter. The name has changed, but the purpose is the same.

A "constitution" is a charter, nothing more and nothing less.

Now, the implementation of any charter differs greatly whether it is drafted in the 13th century or the 18th, and whether it is a federation, a confederation, a constitutional monarchy, a company or even a student union, but in essence it works the same.

The charter, or constitution, defines the limits of the governing bodies, and the rights of the governed bodies.

That hasnt changed since the Romans, and the magna carta is derived from that, just as much as the US constitution is. The magna carta was the first charter to ensure that emperors, or kings, or presidents couldnt just make up laws as they saw fit. They work the same, but with different names and different means. And to that you got to add the bill of rights, the habeus corpus provisos and a good number of other "constitutional" texts, both in the US and UK.

Take your elemental comprehension of constitutional law and ram them up your snizz. What you are doing is taking a soundbyte like "the UK doesnt have a text called THE constitution" and making some irrelevant argument out of it.

Go back to the school-yard to play with the other kids who say "pwned".

>>97
Any better?

>>100
Slightly. I'm stil waiting for somebody to tell me how they feel about Gordon Brown as the Prime Minister?

>>100

Okay, if you want to selectively redefine words to the point where they have no meaning, that's fine; makes it impossible to have a discussion, but if you want to act like a 5-year-old, go ahead.

But back in reality, the fact remains that all it takes is a standard act of Parliment to override or change the imaginary British "constitution", which is exactly the same thing as not having a constitution at all. It certainly sounds like Parliament is above the invisible constitution, meaning that the constitution is not the supreme law of the land, and thus worthless. In fact, it seems that Parliament is the supreme law of the land... except wait, according to your gospel truth website Wikipedia, Parliament serves only at the pleasure of the Monarch and can be dissolved, abolished, or replaced by the Monarch at any time. So it seems that you're really ruled by an unelected, hereditary, "divine right" king.

Just accept that you're not a free person, you live in a shithole, your government does not formally recognize basic human rights, and that you're a flaming retard, and get over it.

>>100

Also, England does not have judicial review -- a law that violates the invisible constitution can not be overturned by the courts, meaning the constitution is utterly without power or relevance.

To quote your favorite website Wikipedia:

• Parliament can make law concerning anything.
• No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
• A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is supreme law maker

If an invisible, imaginary, unwritten constitution can be freely violated at any time, then you do not have a constitution. Sorry.

>>96 Magna Carta is the basis for every constitution that ever was written

It's pronounced MAHN-ga, and it's Japanese, not British.

>>102 >>103

1) I am not British.

2) I dont care for wikipedia. You may have mistaken me for someone else, but then, you already have shown you are not above idle assumptions and self serving conclusions about things you have no way of knowing anything about.

3) Parliement, like congress is the only law maker. Courts dont make law, they interpret it. Also, I dont think you understand the concept of judicial review. The supreme court can send back a law to the legislator on a case they take on. There is no review per se.

4) Constitutional reform is in no way simpler in the UK than the US, but it does happen (the word amendment comes to mind), usually after much talk and very specific yet hard to attain voting conditions.

5) The Monarch has a theoritical overlook on parliement, but it is seldom used, and almost never was except in times of civil war. BTW, Presidents all over the globe can dissolve the House of Commons, congress or whatever flavor parliement they have, as well as suspending civil liberties, including in the US. It's included in the provisos of martial law. (Writ of Habeas Corpus? Executive orders?)

6) The US bill of rights is extremely similar to the UK one, and they have influenced one another for two centuries now.

7) You have no idea what you are talking about to a point where it is almost funny. Enjoy your delusions of absolutes and vague nationalistic assumptions.

>>105

FAIL -- in the United States, a court can declare a law unconstitutional. This is not possible in the UK; laws can not be struck down in the courts (only "interpreted"), on constitutional grounds or for any other reasons. Parliament can pass any law it wants, and the courts can not declare the law invalid -- so essentially, the so-called constitutional rights are meaningless, as there's no way to enforce them, except hoping parliament will be "courteous" enough to respect them. And that's really all it is, a courtesy.

In summary, you're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak.

>>106
Fuck this, it's pointless, you're just too dumb, or you just dont care.

I could go at length about the referal of laws contrary to the bill of rights to the judicial comitee of the privy council, or the need for the ratification of laws passed in the lower house by the upper house, it's all very complex, but it has the same effect: checks and balances.

But you dont care, or it's all beyond you. Either way, all you want to say is:

NYA NYA, OUR SYSTEM IS BETTER THAN THEIRS NYA NYA NYA.

Grow the fuck up.

>>107

You're the dumb one.

Maybe you should actually read/learn some things.

You'd have some credibility if you could actually back things up.

Name me ONE instance, just ONE, where a law in the UK was challenged in court as unconsitutional & overturned by the court? Just ONE.

I don't think you can. Enjoy your fail.

>>108
You're doing the same thing again. Fuck you are dumb, and obstinate.

Laws are not repealed in the courts (England doesnt have a supreme court, not yet anyway), they are refered by the courts to the House of Lords. There the Judicial comittee of the Privy Council (supreme court) takes the case and repeals,(declares it unconstitutional) the law, or not (parliement act) and sends it back to the lower house (congress) to be amended and re-ratified by the upper house (senate).

It's a little more complicated, the names arent the same, but in the end it has the same effect.

Just because you dont understand it and cant reconcille the different names and processes doesnt mean it does not exist.

So no, I cant name one instance where a law in the UK was challenged in court as unconsitutional & overturned by the court, but I can name more than one instance where a Parliement Act in the UK was refered by a court to the Judicial Comittee of the Privy Council, who repealed a section of it for contravening to the Bill of Rights.

See the controversial section 28 of the 1988 local government act for a recent example.

Go back to trolling the Tomas thread, this is just dumb and pointless.

>>109

NO YUO.

> they are refered by the courts to the House of Lords

Oh, so if the courts feel a law is unconstitutional, they call up the same people who passed the law in the first place and ask them politely to reconsider it?

Oh yeah, that makes sense.

So basically the courts have no power with regards to unconstitutional laws... if one is passed, they can do nothing but bitch about it to the same people who passed it in the first place.

> Go back to trolling the Tomas thread, this is just dumb and pointless.

I strongly resent the implication here.

God you're disingenuous. That's not how it works. You either know it, or dont care and just want the last word. Go troll somebody else.

You can have the last word if you want, it's meaningless with bad faith such as yours.

>>111

Nice "arguments" you put forward there.

Actually I don't see any arguments, just logical fallacies and personal attacks.

I guess that means you realized you don't have a case and you don't know what you're talking about?

Come back when you want to debate like an adult.

>>112
No, just that I realized that you have and will ignore any arguments that you cant distort into a soundbyte to promote you initial flawed affirmations, which you probably dont even believe yourself.

Like you ignored the "just ONE instance" you asked for once provided or like you distorted "Judicial commitee of the Privy Council" into "House of Lords" with no regards to what the line actually said, or how what it means is actually implemented.

Doesnt matter anyway, you dont care about Rule of Law, just about pointless arguments in a pointless debate, like some sort of a pointless game, designed to make you feel good about yourself, or maybe just alleviate your boredom.

All you want to do is to argue about something, using any argument you can think of, the less rational the better, to fuel an empty debate, that you think will get your "opponent" to "rage", for your amusement maybe, or to have the impression you have the upper hand on at least one person.

This is probably why you tried to start an identical thread on the first page, to see if you can drag someone else in your little game, since you have sensed that I dont want to play your childish game anymore.

This is also probably why you tried to infer that I cant debate like an adult, just in case you could get me to rage so I would get back in your dishonest trolling game.

There is no debating like an adult with you, only pointless arguments, in a pointless debate where you do everything you accuse others of:

>I guess that means you realized you don't have a case and you don't know what you're talking about?

Logical fallacy.

>Come back when you want to debate like an adult.

Personal attack.

To put it bluntly, and in your trolling terms: game over. If you want to think you have won, go ahead, but I bet it will leave you just as empty as any of your other troll endeavors.

Have fun with it.