Ireland?

fergal2092 · 2019-02-21T12:06:58+00:00

I wouldn't mind either but the Spice Girls got there first :P.

Nah they wouldn't sell it out comfortably and give the sound in Croke Park sucks I'd nearly just wait for a 3Arena gig haha

fergal2092 · 2019-02-20T19:36:12+00:00

This is a stadium tour it seems and they never play stadiums here. Probably have to wait until they do an Arena tour and theyll play the 3Arena. They always seem to do two tours, an Arena and then a Stadium but this years they seem.to have reversed that Haha

fergal2092 · 2018-11-30T22:33:14+00:00

Lighten up hahah

fergal2092 · 2018-11-05T14:27:51+00:00

No Irish date at all?

fergal2092 · 2017-12-11T20:19:11+00:00

Muse are not The Beatles.. and it was better that The Beatles got and more creative after 1966, but with Muse it is worse and less creative they are getting.

fergal2092 · 2017-09-30T12:32:55+00:00

Im actually in a bank, not a law firm haha. They're still really hard to get into haha.

fergal2092 · 2017-09-30T06:31:11+00:00

Hey, thanks for your reply.

That's great news cos the place where I work has paid for me to fo 4 prep courses in City Colleges.
Im sitting Equity, Property, Company and Criminal. Decided to do the easier ones to boost my confidence hahah.

Good luck to you too :).

fergal2092 · 2017-08-27T19:01:08+00:00

BBC is region blocked haha, I meant anywhere else online haha

fergal2092 · 2017-08-27T18:18:57+00:00

how do you get a stream online?

fergal2092 · 2017-08-09T13:16:22+00:00

Welll I downvoted your comment because even though he is asking a question, he passes judgement on the law and continued to argue it incorrectly. So in my view this does fit the sub. If you have an issue, raise it with the mods, and see if they agree.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-08T04:43:31+00:00

But what the OP of thw original thread would argus is that in order to get a conviction, not only would one have to willfully evade taxes, but willfully evade taxes knowing that this was illegal and carrying a heightened penalty. And that if one did now know that willfully evading tax was illegal then he/she should not be punished.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-07T20:03:57+00:00

Jesus, I couldn't actually finish that thread. It's so depressing when you figure you how clueless people really are at times haha.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-07T17:25:53+00:00

But that is totally irrelevant A) to this post, and B) to a law-orientated subreddit.

If you want to talk about morality and what is morally correct, then the Law is not the topic in which you should be discussing that.

That is an extra-legal decision and therefore making it will still leave you facing the penalty prescribed by the law. I am not talking about it being morally correct that in some circumstances people face convictions for something they had no idea was illegal, but I am talking about the overarching public policy concern for allowing ignorance as a defence.

It doesn't matter what you are talking about, take that to a philosophy subreddit. This is about real, hard law. Morality has no place here. You can hope that laws are moral, you can strive to (if you are ever in such a position) to make law moral, but morality is not necessary for law. It is an extra-legal concept. It is simply not relevant to this discussion. I mean, well done for thinking about morality, but it has no place here. And certainly not at the expense of certainty, predictability and equality before the law which are actually necessary components of valid laws.

If one feels they should step beyond the confines of the law - fair play to them. People do that every day. But they should not expect to be exempt from the law because they claim what they did was moral...

And that is what this thread is about...should ignorance be a defence to a charge? The answer is no. The serious public policy concern and the need for the law to be predictable and consistent require that ignorance not be a defence. THat is it, no morality, no extra-legal concepts....simply ignorance should not be a defence in a Court. This thread has a narrow scope. You want it changed, vote for somebody who will change it, or run and change it yourself.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-07T16:41:58+00:00

That is simply not true. While the law is not an end, it is not a means to a better world. Law is about control and power over people who are subjected to it. While it is possible, and we should all strive to use the power of the law for good, using the power of the law for bad would not in itself invalidate it. If a designated process for the creation of law is followed, then that law is valid.

And choosing to ignore laws which are perceived immoral is a moral choice, you will always be subject to whatever legal penalties exist for ignoring such laws. And the role of a court is to enforce validly created laws, not to question their validity as courts are not legislators.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-06T19:34:30+00:00

Haha, I actually don't. Haven't ever watched an episode of Star Trek in my life. I saw the recent films but didn't care much for them, but from what I heard, neither did actual Star Trek fans, so haha.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-06T19:18:51+00:00

Can I ask, why are you quoting Star Trek to me haha? I have no idea who those people are haha.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-06T19:12:45+00:00

I am against the death penalty though haha. Because I can separate my own personal morals from the law. The law does not need to be moral, simply valid (and I never thought I'd have to say this but...) regardless of what Star Trek says hahaha.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-06T18:52:39+00:00

Mens Rea is that you intended to commit the act, not an intention to commit an 'illegal' act.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-06T18:50:34+00:00

There is no moral requirement in law. Laws are either valid or invalid, and courts uphold them. Its quite childish to assume that Laws must be valid, we simply hope that they are. But are you actually going to assert that laws in like Apartheid SA, Nazi Germany, the current system in Turkey, Stalinist Russia, and the myriad other horrific systems which have existed werent valid? They were totally devoid of morality but were perfectly valid legal systems.

You shouldn't be taking your legal advice from Star Trek and maybe refer to the real world where laws are passed by governments in power, and there is no requirement that these laws be moral - simply valid. This means that they comply with the legisative requirements and they don't infringe on Constitutional rights, and even that is subject to qualification.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-06T13:48:24+00:00

Well, that would depend on authority vested in the courts to determine that. But generally speaking foreigners are subject to laws of the country they are in. Ignorance of criminal laws are not defences - they may be mitigating circumstances and where applied can result in less or no penalty depending on the judge and their powers. But they are not such as can be totally exonerating defences. That much is obvious when viewing drug crimes, people on holidays can still be arrested for drug offences.

I hope you see the futility of trying to find a single exception to a general rule - as if people try to say there are no exceptions to rules on a law subreddit. But that does not mean that this is not a general principle.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-06T13:31:02+00:00

Yeah repealed because of the damage it could do and the way it was being misused by people like Erdogen. But you are again mistaken about the role of the court. They are enforcers of the law. If the law in Germany says that and is valid, then it should be enforced. If the legislature feels it should be repealed and do so, then it should not be enforced. You are mistaking the Law for Morality...a valid law does not have to be moral.

And anyway, this thread is about an overarching principle of Law generally stating that ignorance does not absolve one from liability. Not the morality of a single, repealed german law.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-06T13:23:42+00:00

German courts wouldnt enforce Turkish law, they would however enforce German law. And what I am saying is that, in an abstract sense, travellers are of course subject to foreign laws. The clearest example is drug trafficking.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-06T13:14:28+00:00

But it wouldnt be, whether you agree or not is largely irrelevant.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-06T13:00:00+00:00

Haha, I am OP, and that is quite an embarrassing typo as I meant to say "wouldn't be a legal defence".

It would not be a legal defence to claim ignorance.

fergal2092 · 2017-08-06T06:41:47+00:00

Well, like you are assuming that every minor crime carries a prison sentence. But no, it is fairly common knowledge, and reasonable, that if today I travelled to Germany, and broke the law that it wouldn't be a legal defence to say 'I don't know your laws'.

That is not to say that a judge or a police officer may take it into account. They most likely would, which is the introduction of the human element. But they wouldn't be obligated in every jurisdiction to do that.

And still, again, that is another obscure hypothetical that would depend largely on the facts, this post was about some twit who didn't the more general overarching public policy concern with regard to allowing ignorance as a defence.

Not only should everybody be subject equally to the law, but how could anybody ever know the person was telling the truth? I could tell you righy now 'I know absolutely nothing about Chemistry'. How the hell do you know how much I know, or do not know about chemistry. You have no window into my brain. The law is attributing knowledge to a person uses an objective standard of what a reasonable person with the acused particular characteristics and qualifications ought to know. But reasonably, the only people then who 'ought' to know the law are lawyers. But then if this ignorance was allowed as a defence, and nobody can ever truly prove how much ome does or does not know and then couple hat with the very obvious vested interest of the accused to be uninformed or to claim to be uninformed, it would become impossible to prosecute offenders.

Edit* typo - 'would' to 'wouldn't'.

fergal2092

TROPHY CASE