Jump to content

Covid Deniers and Anti Vaxxers


John Wright
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

The way I explain common law to those who are not familiar with the concept is that we have the written law (contained in statutes) and the decisions made by the courts which interpret how those statutes are applied.  It is these decisions that become common law. 

When you hear a legal professional referring to the judgements in previous cases that is common law.  They are trying to show the judge that the facts of their case are similar or the same to a previous case which has the outcome they want.

Not all court decisions become common law though.  In my field a decision at an Employment Tribunal does not become common law, however, a decision at an Employment Appeal Tribunal does (although that can be overturned in higher courts).

No. Completely wrong. Previous decisions are precedent, that can  be  decisions about what a statute means and how if applies or deciding what the common law is, and how it applies. Whether the precedent binds and must be followed depends on level of court and tribunal

As for common law in employment tribunals, what you describe is binding precedent. One employment tribunal can’t bind another.

Employment tribunals apply common law all the time. For instance most of the rules of contract formation are common law.

The clever answer would be that we don’t have common law in the Island, nor Magna Carta. We have Breast Law and the Act of Settlement.

The Act of Settlement is possibly more important than Magna Carta. Magna Carta was revoked by the pope and then re-enacted by parliament several times. Very little is left. It only applied between the King and his major barons. Not to little ordinary people. 

The Act of Settlement was between the Earl of Derby and the ordinary people, it arose out of land rent reforms after the Civil War. Derby got higher rent, the tenants got what was effectively freehold inheritable land. Important in an agrarian society.

in England, for ordinary people the much more important charter was the Charter of Forests, about the same time as Magna Carta. Parts of the Forest Charter were still in force in 1971

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simplest way to explain the difference between common law and staute law is (1) that common law is what the courts (ie judges) have said or decided the law is, (2) that staute law is law made or passed by Parliament - or whatever the appropriate legislative assembly is, and (3) if statute law conflicts with previous common law decisions, then statute law  takes priority and overrides the earlier common law.  It's this last bit (3) that freemen on the land ignore or completely fail to understand when they bang on about common law.

Generally, if someone either raises Magna Carta in support of their position or they tell you that staute law can't overturn common law, you know you are talking to someone who is way out of their depth and might well be heading for serious trouble with the law.

The legal systems of some countries don't have what we would recognise as common law, and the laws in those countries are basically all codified in what we might recognise as statutes.  Whether freemen on the land "eccentrics" exist in non-common law jurisdictions I don't know, but I suspect they can't as they'd have nothing to base their deluded arguments on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

The legal systems of some countries don't have what we would recognise as common law, and the laws in those countries are basically all codified in what we might recognise as statutes.  Whether freemen on the land "eccentrics" exist in non-common law jurisdictions I don't know, but I suspect they can't as they'd have nothing to base their deluded arguments on.

Non-common law jurisdictions tend to have written constitutions which all other laws operate under and the equivalents in such countries, notably the US, base their delusions on their 'constitutional rights'.  Of course as far as they are concerned the constitution reads "You can do whatever you like and everyone one else has to do what you like as well".

To some extent the whole 'freeman of the land' nonsense (which has zero historical basis) is an attempt to mimic the US and  its relationship to its constitution.  So it's really the other way round with then making common law into a pseudo-constitution, which as you say is legal nonsense.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Non-common law jurisdictions tend to have written constitutions which all other laws operate under and the equivalents in such countries, notably the US, base their delusions on their 'constitutional rights'...

But remember the US (like most of the rest of the english speaking world and some former British colonies - with possibly the usual exception of Scotland) is still a common law system - their constitution doesn't alter that. 

I don't know anything about the growth of FMOTL idiocy, but I suspect its roots lie in shysters making up get out of jail free cards to sell to gullible and vulnerable people (like in the Tame-elf thread) with a dash of conspiracy theory thrown in.  Lots of fertile ground for that sort of guff in the States whether they have a written constitution or not.

(I must say I didn't realise until I read John Wright's post that the island isn't a common law jurisdiction.  Perhaps somebody needs to quietly point that out to Courtney Heading - or whatever his name is... )

Edited by Ghost Ship
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghost Ship said:

But remember the US (like most of the rest of the english speaking world and some former British colonies - with possibly the usual exception of Scotland) is still a common law system - their constitution doesn't alter that. 

I don't know anything about the growth of FMOTL idiocy, but I suspect its roots lie in shysters making up get out of jail free cards to sell to gullible and vulnerable people (like in the Tame-elf thread) with a dash of conspiracy theory thrown in.  Lots of fertile ground for that sort of guff in the States whether they have a written constitution or not.

(I must say I didn't realise until I read John Wright's post that the island isn't a common law jurisdiction.  Perhaps somebody needs to quietly point that out to Courtney Heading - or whatever his name is... )

Common law in the US is mainly restricted to individual States, the point is that the Constitution is supreme.  Though of course that Constitution is self-limited to what it can do in States there's definitely a hierarchy.  In the Island as elsewhere, statute law automatically over-rules common law.

Scotland very much does have common law in active use, much more so than England I suspect, with some of the offences with splendid Scots names such as Hamesucken or Latin ones such as Plagium.  I seem to remember John saying that Manx Common Law had been superseded (or rather consolidated into statute) in the 19th century, but I think there is still some civil common law around. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Common law in the US is mainly restricted to individual States, the point is that the Constitution is supreme.  Though of course that Constitution is self-limited to what it can do in States there's definitely a hierarchy.  In the Island as elsewhere, statute law automatically over-rules common law.

Scotland very much does have common law in active use, much more so than England I suspect, with some of the offences with splendid Scots names such as Hamesucken or Latin ones such as Plagium.  I seem to remember John saying that Manx Common Law had been superseded (or rather consolidated into statute) in the 19th century, but I think there is still some civil common law around. 

I think that’s a complete mischaracterisation, Roger, as far as the US is concerned.

The Constitution is born of common law, it’s a common law document, full of common law ideas and principles, and it’s interpreted and applied using common law methodology and procedure.

And the interplay between the US constitution and the constitutions of its constituent states is one of the biggest areas of common law growth.

Theres also an interesting interplay between that and the laws of states that don’t have a common law background.

Common law changes, but change is glacial. The constitution is a living thing. 

Much Scots non statute law is Roman Dutch inspired with its own common law over lay.

Its only Manx Criminal law that was codified. But even now common/breast law principles fill in some gaps.

And don’t forget civil law code napoleon legal systems have their own judge made law of interpretation, filling in the gaps, application of the code. This judge made law has a sort of common law effect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

The lack of consistency in these nutcases' arguments is comical. 

Hope she gets equal arms though, must be tricky riding horses with unequal arms. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

A rather strange statement from Mrs Megson given the amount of time she has spent in the Manx Courts in recent decades.  Here's a recent appearance on Judgments where she is demanding that she has the right to appeal to the Privy Council against her landlord throwing her out because she hadn't paid the rent (there are another seven entries regarding this case alone).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

A rather strange statement from Mrs Megson given the amount of time she has spent in the Manx Courts in recent decades.  Here's a recent appearance on Judgments where she is demanding that she has the right to appeal to the Privy Council against her landlord throwing her out because she hadn't paid the rent (there are another seven entries regarding this case alone).

Wow, she is special. 

I am amazed how tolerant High Baliff seems to be.  Perhaps she actually finds it amusing?

I've found that people only really tend to get angry when they know they are arguing against the truth.  Would explain why the normals don't seem to get as wound up as these Anti-Vaxxer/Conspiracy theorists do when arguing the other way... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...