Emma wrote on Nov 27
th, 2015 at 12:00am:
Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 26
th, 2015 at 11:47pm:
Same thing - you listen to a version of events - then the other version of events - then you decide on the hard evidence, and impartially.... rather than in accordance with some dogma.
Regardless - nowhere in the Rule of Law is there any provision for the instruments of law to impose sanction on a person not guilty of anything on fact.
The style of thinking that has lead to the current predisposition to convict on accusation - and any sanction of the Law is a conviction and must be properly based thereon - came upon us from the British Prevention of Terrorism Act, which permitted restrictions on personal movement and association purely on a suspicion.
Such things properly belong in the Dark Ages - and generate the same response as they did then - revolt and insurrection and retaliation and eventual beheading of the government.
(told you I've been watching Judge Deed again).....
Yeah I like Judge John Deed too. And you know what Grappler..? I very much doubt he would have any similar ground with you. You and he would NOT be on all four paws.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b5f30/b5f30dd6bbb08cafe41c471423c2b7f39b008b3f" alt="Sad Sad"
( see My hi-light above of your words)
You seem to be saying that no validity attaches to DV orders, or police intervention in cases of domestic violence, because...????
all women are liars..? all cases are suspect because a woman says something?
Judge Deed lives in the real (TV) world, unlike yourself, by your own offerings.
I do not SEEM to be saying there is no validity in law for 'domestic violence orders' - I am saying categorically that no court in this land has any right to impose a sanction on any person not found guilty of a genuine offence.
There is no validity for police over-reaction - and remember I've cited already that in over 300,000 callouts to NSW Police in 2011, only 5000 charges were laid, many of which would likely be 'usual suspect' charges such as 'resist arrest' (you can't resist arrest if you are not being arrested for a genuine offence), 'assault police' with no harm to said police... etc, etc - and said police can only act in the event of a genuine offence, and not on some emotion based allegation.
The end run around the Rule of Law that is the reality of 'domestic violence orders', is nothing more than that - an end run around the Rule of Law and deliberately designed to offer to the instruments of the state some unearned right to attack an individual on an ideological basis.
Unless and until a genuine offence supported by provable evidence - to the proper standard of Law - has been committed - the instruments of the State have no right to impose legal sanction on an individual.
It is not merely sufficient to assert something - in Law it must be proven to the proper standard, and thus 'domestic violence orders' fail the test of Law.
Even on the 'balance of probabilities' there is still a requirement for proof that will indicate some genuine concern. It cannot simply be open-ended to suit an ideology.
That was the province of the NAZIs and the Stalinists, and of every violent and oppressive State in history...