Second: as noted by many who applied, any religious personal text plates, which aren't under this "god", have been wholly rejected. The reason: it's considered inflammatory (most likely to their religion).
'The state is allowed to shove the preferred religion of those running it down the throats of everyone else, but you're not allowed to even attempt to do the same with another religion'.
"Your expertise is only applicable when I say it is!"
'The global tech industry made around $3.7 trillion last year. They employ some of the brightest people on the planet.'
Now let's add the logical extension to that:
So when those bright people tell you something is impossible, maybe listen to them.
On one hand they claim the tech industry employs countless brilliant people, highly skilled on the subject. On the other hand they completely dismiss what those brilliant people are saying, insisting that despite knowing nothing at all on the subject they're sure that something that countless numbers of those people have claimed is impossible can be achieved if they'd just 'try harder'.
For heaping praise on the skills and knowledge of those employed by the tech industry, they sure seem to hold that very same knowledge in contempt.
'Conflict of interest', clearly only a concern for /lesser/ judges
Kavanaugh, of course, served as a White House lawyer and as Staff Secretary during the period when George Bush kept self-authorizing such a dragnet.
[A]s people cite from this language in the future, they should remember that of all the judges who reviewed this decision, only Kavanaugh had this kind of personal tie to the dragnet. And only Kavanaugh saw fit to weigh in.
It's a good thing there's no laws or rules regarding judges who have personal interest in the cases that come before them, as if there were, given the massive conflict of interest there, a more honest judge would have recused themself on the grounds of conflict of interest.
A judge with shares in an automobile manufacturing company shouldn't be judging laws related to it.
A judge that was instrumental in getting a specific law passed shouldn't be the one presiding over a case that's challenging it.
And a judge that was involved in the creation of a mass surveillance program should absolutely not be one of those involved in ruling on it's legality.
Yes I'd love for them to be told, "Yeah, you don't get to duck out of this that easy by just dropping the case, we're dragging you through the coals for this so you learn what not to do the next time it comes up."
No in the sense that it would need to be done without the presence of the victim, who may just want to get past the ugly incident, as it would be unfair to punish them as well. Dragging someone through a trial that they just want to forget about would be adding salt to the wound.
Re: Re: Re: Do you want to be shot in the left leg, or the right leg? 'Not being shot' is not an option
Yeah, that was pretty much the point I was trying to make. When the system itself is corrupted, the idea that voting means people 'get what they want' is absurd.
Last I checked most people probably didn't check a little box on the last few ballots that said 'YES, I would like my government to spy on me and do everything in it's power to make me less safe!' And yet, here we are.
I imagine it's a variant of 'contempt of cop', one of those 'laws' that the police don't want to bother the lawmakers with actually adding to the books, so they just 'enforce' it at their own discretion.
However, if you're looking for a more literal answer, widen the scope of the question a bit and in Spain at least the answer would be July 1st, 2015.
Had anyone from the civilian sector tried a similar stunt, they'd be looking at criminal charges for obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence.
Also of note, the fact that they were able to get away with such an action, and the IG basically just went with it, shows just how much power, authority, and most importantly oversight the IG actually has, and that amount would seem to be 'effectively none'.
NSW Council of Civil Liberties president Stephen Blanks said public confidence in the police was being "undermined" by an inability to acknowledge the occasions when "it does the wrong thing."
"How deep in police culture is this willingness to break the law?" he asked. "Even after they have been caught out, it would appear no adverse consequences are going to be suffered by those responsible because the illegal actions are supported by police at the most senior level."
No matter what the country, it seems the problem with the police remains the same. They care more about protecting their own, no matter how bad the actions are, than protecting their reputations and relationship with the public.
So long as they continue to prioritize protecting their own over protecting the public from their own, people will continue to be fully justified in not trusting them and wanting to have as little to do with them as possible.
For example if I claim to own Mickey mouse and I don't that's not penalty of perjury. If I claim to represent Disney when I don't that's penalty of perjury.
Meaning the 'penalty' clause is completely useless. Anything and everything can be demanded taken down, and when it turns out the one issuing the demands doesn't own the thing in question, they can just say 'I made a mistake'(or even better, 'My bot made a mistake') and it doesn't matter how much damage was caused, they're off the hook.
But I suppose that's what you get when the law is specifically written to be as one-sided as possible, where the penalties only go one way.
Doubt it, it seems like he just flat out doesn't understand the subject or cares to.
He's comparing disconnecting people from the internet based upon accusations to him taking away his kid's toys because he's watching YT vids instead of doing homework. That shows a glaring indifference and/or ignorance of just what all the internet is used for currently beyond just 'watching videos'.
“The Marshals hunt down and apprehend the most despicable and violent people. When you engage in that type of mission, it wasn’t intended to be pretty and it won’t be pretty,” Mr. Adler said. “We don’t want the great work the Marshals Service does to devolve into bad reality TV or a sequence of bad YouTube videos.
If the 'not pretty' stuff is what the suspect is doing/has done, then they should be all for it. More evidence, video this time, making it far easier to secure a conviction and put the 'despicable and violent' people behind bars.
Objecting to more evidence seems rather counter-productive, unless the 'not pretty' stuff is what the marshals are doing, in which case the videos are needed even more, to stop them from committing such actions. Just because the suspect may be 'despicable and violent', doesn't mean they get to return the favor.
Silly person, the laws don't apply to those that buy them and rule on them, they only apply to the little people. A company could have dozens of instances of someone, whether employee or not, using their connection for infringing activity, and you can be sure that they'd never lose their connection.
On the positive side, I'm sure that 90% of the LEOs out there are secretly thrilled that the rest of us are coming up with ways to start weeding out their asshole coworkers.
Highly unlikely. If they cared about removing the rot from within their ranks, they've had decades to do it. They haven't, which is one of the reasons such recording apps have been popping up, in an attempt to address the fact that police have shown no interest in holding their own accountable, which means if the public wants it done, they have to do it themselves.