| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 105270 | 2009-11-25 09:47:00 | Unsworn Police | Sweep (90) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 833518 | 2009-11-25 09:47:00 | home.nzcity.co.nz Retrospective legislation goes through. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 833519 | 2009-11-25 10:42:00 | What do they swear to do anyway? | qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 833520 | 2009-11-25 10:48:00 | My main point is that they were not really Police Officers and therefore did not have the power of arrest or to breath test you or to issue infringement notices and etc. Now do you get it? |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 833521 | 2009-11-25 10:54:00 | As long as they didn't abuse the power they thought they had during that period, I don't care, really. | qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 833522 | 2009-11-25 11:16:00 | As long as they didn't abuse the power they thought they had during that period, I don't care, really. So I therefore assume you approve of retrospective legislation then. Take the following case and see what you think. http://www.darntonvsclark.org/ |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 833523 | 2009-11-25 11:19:00 | Meh can't be bothered reading that case, but I fear it's an apple vs oranges thing. | qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 833524 | 2009-11-25 11:28:00 | Meh can't be bothered reading that case, but I fear it's an apple vs oranges thing. Well I guess your sig says it all for you anyway. You're simply indifferent. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 833525 | 2009-11-25 11:42:00 | Meh indeed. :D | qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 833526 | 2009-11-25 17:25:00 | So I therefore assume you approve of retrospective legislation then.[/URL] I don't agree at all with retrospective legislation. However, you would have to be pretty silly not to agree with the law being passed. The people who had been arrested/convicted by any of the police who I believe were sworn in by the wrong person could have opened a real can of worms. Unjustifably so on a technicality IMHO Ken :2cents: |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 833527 | 2009-11-25 21:10:00 | I don't agree at all with retrospective legislation. However, you would have to be pretty silly not to agree with the law being passed. The people who had been arrested/convicted by any of the police who I believe were sworn in by the wrong person could have opened a real can of worms. Unjustifably so on a technicality IMHO Ken :2cents: I agree with what you say. However even Greg O'Connor had no idea this legislation was being passed. BTW many a Court case has been dismissed on technical grounds. It would appear that Parliament can pass retrospective legislation any time it wants to and has done so previously. It also brings up the point that if the Police as a body can't understand the implications of legislation and follow the correct procedure then what hope is there for us lesser mortals. Take ( for example ) Winston Peters getting into the next Parliament and getting a law passed that makes all immigrants without citizenship illegal aliens and then deports them. Now I would not think that would actually happen but the fact remains that it could. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||