On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 11:18:13 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 11:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> >
> > One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
> > if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
> The usual complaint of one who has leaned too far to the right and has
> fallen over mentally.

Rightarded.

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <6e5oshd79ehhhl9cs0lamsdjmgi6frnnvn@4ax.com>
> Scott wrote:
>
>> On 21 Jan 2023 12:23:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>>
>>>> The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
>>>
>>> You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification,
>>> doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
>>
>> You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>
> No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
> indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>
Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groups
who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.

On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 11:27:04 UTC, Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:22:45 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >On 21/01/2023 11:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> >>
> >> We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
> >> constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
> >
> >As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one
> >can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to define
> >it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
> >unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
> Do we not have common law either then?

Yes we do, but it is not codified either.

Over the centuries more offences have become codified Offences Against the Person 1861, Theft 1968 and so on.

The common law offence / tort of assault can still be charged or sued for.

On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 13:21:56 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 12:27, MB wrote:
> > On 21/01/2023 10:00, Scott wrote:
> >> Actually, a lot of it probably is written - just not all in one place.
>
> > I am no expert on the Consitution but I think the diifference is that
> > our one is more flexible and relying on precedent but ones like the US
> > one are inflexible and almost worshipped like the muslims with their book.
> If the US constitution had been any good it wouldn't have needed so many
> amendments.
>
> --
> Max Demian

SO many? Ten in its first year and about one every fourteen years since

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 09:34:28 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
<notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 11:27:04 UTC, Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:22:45 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> >On 21/01/2023 11:14, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We don't have a written constitution but we certainly have a
>> >> constitution, which is evidenced in writing in many ways.
>> >
>> >As already explained to you, we don't have a constitution because no-one
>> >can define unambiguously what it is. You are welcome to try to define
>> >it, but I bet you can't come up with a definition that is both
>> >unambiguous and widely agreed upon.
>> Do we not have common law either then?
>
>Yes we do, but it is not codified either.
>
>Over the centuries more offences have become codified Offences Against the Person 1861, Theft 1968 and so on.
>
>The common law offence / tort of assault can still be charged or sued for.

I was being facetious.

On 21 Jan 2023 17:24:14 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 in message <6e5oshd79ehhhl9cs0lamsdjmgi6frnnvn@4ax.com>
>Scott wrote:
>
>>On 21 Jan 2023 12:23:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 21/01/2023 in message <tqghj0$2iqgn$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>>>The sooner we sell off he BBC the better.
>>>>
>>>>The sooner you understand the British system of government the better.
>>>
>>>You have said you are not a "lawyer" (which is an American qualification,
>>>doesn't exist in the UK) and boy does it show.
>>
>>You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>
>No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.

In what way does this make it an American term?

On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:

SNIP
> >
> >You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
> No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
> indication of the qualifications or role of a person.

In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in Scotland) and notaries.

In the UK, but not the US, an attorney is any person legally empowered by another person or company to act on their behalf e.g. https://www.gov.uk/power-of-attorney

> --
> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
> Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it.

On 21/01/2023 17:31, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 11:18:13 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 21/01/2023 11:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> One of many, many reasons. It's lack of impartiality being the main one,
>>> if it leant any further to the left it would fall over.
>>
>> The usual complaint of one who has leaned too far to the right and has
>> fallen over mentally.
>
> Rightarded.

LOL!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/01/2023 16:24, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh2ta$2llac$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:
>
>> Here’s what the general population think
>>
>> https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right
>
> Interesting, probably reflects the insidious socialist propaganda
> machine that is out in force.

You're beginning to be as childishly paranoid as Bob LieToThem.

Stay in after school and write out 100 times: "I must come to terms
with reality. There is no 'insidious propaganda machine out in force'!"

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/01/2023 17:49, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>>>
>>> You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>> No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>> indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>
> In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in Scotland) and notaries.
>

we also have other lawyers

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 21/01/2023 16:28, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh3kq$2louj$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Overall the BBC is pretty well balanced, and is immeasurably more so
>> than yourself.
>
> Presumably that is just your opinion (which you are entitled to of
> course) since it is not supported by fact.

On the contrary, someone else has already supplied a link to the
relevant facts, which were that the modal result of those actually
expressing an opinion, 27%, is that the BBC is generally neutral, that
that figure is more than double the next, and that that figure when
combined with the "Don't know"s make up a majority of the respondents.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/01/2023 16:38, Scott wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:43:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 21/01/2023 11:27, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> Do we not have common law either then?
>>
>> See section 'Common law and statute':
>>
>> https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/topics/the-english-legal-system/
>
> Thanks. Looks much the same principle as the constitution, which you
> say does not exist

Common law exists, being routinely applied in the courts, but if you
can't tell me what the constitution actually is, how can you claim we
have one?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 16:38, Scott wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:43:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 11:27, Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do we not have common law either then?
>>>
>>> See section 'Common law and statute':
>>>
>>> https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/topics/the-english-legal-system/
>>
>> Thanks. Looks much the same principle as the constitution, which you
>> say does not exist
>
>Common law exists, being routinely applied in the courts, but if you
>can't tell me what the constitution actually is, how can you claim we
>have one?

Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.

On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2023 16:38, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:43:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/01/2023 11:27, Scott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we not have common law either then?
>>>>
>>>> See section 'Common law and statute':
>>>>
>>>> https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/topics/the-english-legal-system/
>>>
>>> Thanks. Looks much the same principle as the constitution, which you
>>> say does not exist
>>
>> Common law exists, being routinely applied in the courts, but if you
>> can't tell me what the constitution actually is, how can you claim we
>> have one?
>
> Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.

It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 16:38, Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:43:54 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21/01/2023 11:27, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we not have common law either then?
>>>>>
>>>>> See section 'Common law and statute':
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/topics/the-english-legal-system/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. Looks much the same principle as the constitution, which you
>>>> say does not exist
>>>
>>> Common law exists, being routinely applied in the courts, but if you
>>> can't tell me what the constitution actually is, how can you claim we
>>> have one?
>>
>> Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
>
>It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.

No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.

On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
>>
>> It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
>
> No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.

"The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and
precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the
12th century and was called “common” because it applied equally across
the whole country."

Seems clear enough to me.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:37:26 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
>>>
>>> It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
>>
>> No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
>
>"The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and
>precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the
>12th century and was called “common” because it applied equally across
>the whole country."
>
>Seems clear enough to me.

Not to me. I don't see how this differs from the constitution, which
is equally derived from custom and precedent and applies equally
across the country. It may have originated in a different century but
this does not alter the principle.

You seem to be making the argument that because there is no single
codified written constitution, somehow we do not have a constitution
yet common law that has evolved in exactly the same way exists as a
body of law.

Let me attempt to illustrate by example:

If I ask you: what is the common law in relation to playing bagpipes
in my garden on the sabbath where the sound of the bagpipes can be
heard inside the church, I hope you would reply that I would require
to consult a person qualified in that area of law for advice.

If you were to ask me what the constitution says about whether a
person could serve as PM in the House of Commons and also be a member
of the House of Lords, I would reply that you would require to consult
a person qualified in that area of law (ie, a constitutional lawyer)
for advice.

As the saying goes, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
it's probably a duck. Just as our body of constitutional law is a
constitution.

On 21/01/2023 in message <tqh7i1$2me1r$1@dont-email.me> Tweed wrote:

>>>You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>>
>>No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>>
>Solicitors and barristers are sub groups of lawyers. There are other groups
>who are neither but are still lawyers. Lawyer is an umbrella term.

The umbrella term in the UK was always "the legal profession". I'd be
interested to know what the "other groups" are.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his
life.
(Jeremy Thorpe, 1962)

On 21/01/2023 in message <879oshtihfvi6ks747l6ksr5ohi5g3ll1k@4ax.com>
Scott wrote:

>>No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>
>In what way does this make it an American term?

In America you can qualify as a "lawyer" then either act as what we call a
solicitor (generally working in an office) or what we call a barrister
(who has the right to address a court) and who usually works in a narrow
highly specialised field.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
By the time you can make ends meet they move the ends

On 21/01/2023 in message
<94e0772c-d2a4-f52c-d5db-c13abe1a2299@outlook.com> Robin wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 17:49, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>>>
>>>>You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>>>No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>>
>>In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in
>>Scotland) and notaries.
>>
>
>we also have other lawyers

Be interested to know who you feel falls in that category.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Have you ever noticed that all the instruments searching for intelligent
life are pointing away from Earth?

On 21/01/2023 20:01, Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:37:26 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2023 19:09, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/01/2023 18:52, Scott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:44:00 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Question for you the - please tell me what the common law is.
>>>>
>>>> It's explained in the link I've already given, that's why I gave it.
>>>
>>> No, your link tells me how it operates not what it is.
>>
>> "The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and
>> precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the
>> 12th century and was called “common” because it applied equally across
>> the whole country."
>>
>> Seems clear enough to me.
>
> Not to me. I don't see how this differs from the constitution, which
> is equally derived from custom and precedent and applies equally
> across the country. It may have originated in a different century but
> this does not alter the principle.

The so-called constitution has not yet been defined in unambiguous and
exact terms in the way Common Law has above.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/01/2023 in message
<e2cdbaa3-25e4-4cfc-92b5-91eeecb9c1e9n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

>On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 17:24:17 UTC, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>SNIP
>
>>>
>>>You sure you are not thinking of 'attorney'?
>>No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>>indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>
>In England we have qualified solicitors, barristers (advocates in
>Scotland) and notaries.
>
>In the UK, but not the US, an attorney is any person legally empowered by
>another person or company to act on their behalf e.g.
>https://www.gov.uk/power-of-attorney

I know nothing about Scottish law, my studies were English law only.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it

On 21/01/2023 21:05, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 21/01/2023 in message <879oshtihfvi6ks747l6ksr5ohi5g3ll1k@4ax.com>
> Scott wrote:
>
>>> No. In the UK we have solicitors and barristers so "lawyer" gives no
>>> indication of the qualifications or role of a person.
>>
>> In what way does this make it an American term?
>
> In America you can qualify as a "lawyer" then either act as what we call
> a solicitor (generally working in an office) or what we call a barrister
> (who has the right to address a court) and who usually works in a narrow
> highly specialised field.

To begin with, you were just childishly pedantic about the meaning of
'lawyer' because you couldn't find a more cogent argument against the
substantive argument over our so-called constitution. Now that various
people have corrected you, including informing you that the term
predates the founding of the United States, you're just being childishly
stubborn in adhering to a lost argument.

When you're in a hole, stop digging!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 21/01/2023 17:46, Scott wrote:
> In what way does this make it an American term?

I looked in the OED and did not see any suggestion that either LAWYER or
ATTORNEY are Americanisms. They might have slightly different meanings
there but they have history of use in English.

On 21/01/2023 16:44, Scott wrote:
> An added factor you appear to be overlooking is the effect of
> devolution in Scotland and Wales.

What effect? Both have their own channels opting out from network.
They do not make as many programmes as the national networks but that is
to be expected with their smaller size and so smaller licence income.

The Scottish commercial TV channel seem to produce even fewer programmes
for local viewing.