Random Facts.

[SCAFC Chimp]

In Celtic Britain it was illegal to kill honey bees

It should be illegal everywhere since they are necessary for our survival and rapidly nearing extinction.

With that out of the way

Calculations say that humanity and most of the life on earth will die 3 years after bees go extinct.


Also this topic has been done like a zillion times do we really need another one?

Your fact is slightly frightening...

OT: The stig knows two facts about ducks, and both of them are wrong

 

[Muramasa89]

Elvis and Empress Catherine the Great of Russia had at least one thing in common: both died on the toilet.

She collapsed on her toilet, after a stroke, and cared for in her bed. It is there she met death.

OT: The whip was the first invention (approx 7000 years ago, made in China) to break the sound barrier.

 

[Sikachu]

I've been studying it for 4 years and have actually looked it up in one of my books. You CAN use this as a defence to murder and it is a complete defence (if successful, it equals full acquittal). My lecturer has a PHD so I am pretty sure she knows what she is talking about, same goes for the tour guides in York, not that they have PHDs, but I think they know what they are talking about. Also, my lecturer didn't actually tell me about it, she gave everyone in my class a sheet with funny laws on it, it was on there.

So how do you think that defence would interact with HRA1998? You think that s.1(a) pointing to Art. 2 ECHR would allow it to stand? Or do you think it might be impledly repealed until tested, where the High Court would most likely make it explicit?

 

[Lust]

Your odds of dying are 1:1

One of my favorite facts.

 

[dragonslayer32]

I've been studying it for 4 years and have actually looked it up in one of my books. You CAN use this as a defence to murder and it is a complete defence (if successful, it equals full acquittal). My lecturer has a PHD so I am pretty sure she knows what she is talking about, same goes for the tour guides in York, not that they have PHDs, but I think they know what they are talking about. Also, my lecturer didn't actually tell me about it, she gave everyone in my class a sheet with funny laws on it, it was on there.

So how do you think that defence would interact with HRA1998? You think that s.1(a) pointing to Art. 2 ECHR would allow it to stand? Or do you think it might be impledly repealed until tested, where the High Court would most likely make it explicit?

The Human Rigts Act although European, can still be overruled by British law depending on what the H of L say. The likelyhood is that they would go with the HRA, especially with the introduction of the supreme court but until a case comes up and the law is overruled, it is technically still legal and is a genuine plea to murder.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia is the fear of long words

the average cherryblossom falls with 5cm per second

on a mans head 30-60 metres of hair is growing every day

the war between england and sansibar lastet 38minutes


the empire state building had a docking point for airships for some time, it was used only once

 

[Sikachu]

I've been studying it for 4 years and have actually looked it up in one of my books. You CAN use this as a defence to murder and it is a complete defence (if successful, it equals full acquittal). My lecturer has a PHD so I am pretty sure she knows what she is talking about, same goes for the tour guides in York, not that they have PHDs, but I think they know what they are talking about. Also, my lecturer didn't actually tell me about it, she gave everyone in my class a sheet with funny laws on it, it was on there.

So how do you think that defence would interact with HRA1998? You think that s.1(a) pointing to Art. 2 ECHR would allow it to stand? Or do you think it might be impledly repealed until tested, where the High Court would most likely make it explicit?

The Human Rigts Act although European, can still be overruled by British law depending on what the H of L say. The likelyhood is that they would go with the HRA, especially with the introduction of the supreme court but until a case comes up and the law is overruled, it is technically still legal and is a genuine plea to murder.

So now I know that you are either lying about studying law or very incompetently taught. The Human Rights Act 1998 was an Act of the British Parliament that was enacted in order to enshrine in our domestic law the protections offered by the European Convention on Human Rights and give people redress based on those rights in our domestic courts, rather than having to go to Strasbourg. When you say "technically still legal" do you imagine that someone who committed that act and attempted to use your law as a defence would get off? Because the superseding legislation is pretty unambiguous when it says

1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Perhaps you haven't encountered the doctrine of implied repeal - I advise that you look it up.

 

[dragonslayer32]

I've been studying it for 4 years and have actually looked it up in one of my books. You CAN use this as a defence to murder and it is a complete defence (if successful, it equals full acquittal). My lecturer has a PHD so I am pretty sure she knows what she is talking about, same goes for the tour guides in York, not that they have PHDs, but I think they know what they are talking about. Also, my lecturer didn't actually tell me about it, she gave everyone in my class a sheet with funny laws on it, it was on there.

So how do you think that defence would interact with HRA1998? You think that s.1(a) pointing to Art. 2 ECHR would allow it to stand? Or do you think it might be impledly repealed until tested, where the High Court would most likely make it explicit?

The Human Rigts Act although European, can still be overruled by British law depending on what the H of L say. The likelyhood is that they would go with the HRA, especially with the introduction of the supreme court but until a case comes up and the law is overruled, it is technically still legal and is a genuine plea to murder.

So now I know that you are either lying about studying law or very incompetently taught. The Human Rights Act 1998 was an Act of the British Parliament that was enacted in order to enshrine in our domestic law the protections offered by the European Convention on Human Rights and give people redress based on those rights in our domestic courts, rather than having to go to Strasbourg. When you say "technically still legal" do you imagine that someone who committed that act and attempted to use your law as a defence would get off? Because the superseding legislation is pretty unambiguous when it says

1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Perhaps you haven't encountered the doctrine of implied repeal - I advise that you look it up.

You don't understand. The origional law is still in play so if I shot a Scotsman in those circumstances, it would not class as deprivation of life, unlawful violence or murder as it is still legal to do so. I could quote thousands of cases now when someone has done something thought to be illegal but the court decided it was not. Just for fun, I think I will go with Slingsby. In this case, a man met a woman in a night club and took her home. He then penetrated her anus and vagina with his fingers, which she fully consented to. However, the ring he had on his finger cut her inside and because of this, she died. Now, depriving someone of life he has done which would make him guilty of murder but her consent acted as a full defence which meant a full acquittal. The Scotsman law (not it's true name)works like the defence of consent.

Also, it is totally legal until overruled, which can not fully happen until a case comes up; at whick point parliament can still side with you as they decide what laws overrule other laws. Or at least they used to before the introduction of the supreme court. With the supreme court, like most other people studying law, I don't know what the fuck will happen as it was only introduced a few years ago.

 

[Harley Q]

- penicilline was found by accident when Alexander Fleming came back to his lab after a while of absence and saw that, in stead of most of the petri dishes, the one with the penicilline didn't contain any fungus around it.

Penicilline was re-discovered by Fleming, the Arabs had been using it for years, they used to rub the mould from the saddles onto their thighs. This was at least several hundred years before Fleming.

 

[Harley Q]

When Michael Jordan first applied to play
basketball at Laney High School, Wilmington NC, the coach told him he
was too short.

The Yo-Yo originated as a weapon in the Philippine Islands during the sixteenth century.

Envelopes were first introduced into the Oscars in 1941

Until the English Civil War mince pies were baked in the shape of a crib with a little pastry baby jesus on top.

 

[Optimus Hagrid]

The sound of a door sliding open in Star Trek was made by sliding paper into an envelope.

 

[Sikachu]

I've been studying it for 4 years and have actually looked it up in one of my books. You CAN use this as a defence to murder and it is a complete defence (if successful, it equals full acquittal). My lecturer has a PHD so I am pretty sure she knows what she is talking about, same goes for the tour guides in York, not that they have PHDs, but I think they know what they are talking about. Also, my lecturer didn't actually tell me about it, she gave everyone in my class a sheet with funny laws on it, it was on there.

So how do you think that defence would interact with HRA1998? You think that s.1(a) pointing to Art. 2 ECHR would allow it to stand? Or do you think it might be impledly repealed until tested, where the High Court would most likely make it explicit?

The Human Rigts Act although European, can still be overruled by British law depending on what the H of L say. The likelyhood is that they would go with the HRA, especially with the introduction of the supreme court but until a case comes up and the law is overruled, it is technically still legal and is a genuine plea to murder.

So now I know that you are either lying about studying law or very incompetently taught. The Human Rights Act 1998 was an Act of the British Parliament that was enacted in order to enshrine in our domestic law the protections offered by the European Convention on Human Rights and give people redress based on those rights in our domestic courts, rather than having to go to Strasbourg. When you say "technically still legal" do you imagine that someone who committed that act and attempted to use your law as a defence would get off? Because the superseding legislation is pretty unambiguous when it says

1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Perhaps you haven't encountered the doctrine of implied repeal - I advise that you look it up.

You don't understand. The origional law is still in play so if I shot a Scotsman in those circumstances, it would not class as deprivation of life, unlawful violence or murder as it is still legal to do so. I could quote thousands of cases now when someone has done something thought to be illegal but the court decided it was not. Just for fun, I think I will go with Slingsby. In this case, a man met a woman in a night club and took her home. He then penetrated her anus and vagina with his fingers, which she fully consented to. However, the ring he had on his finger cut her inside and because of this, she died. Now, depriving someone of life he has done which would make him guilty of murder but her consent acted as a full defence which meant a full acquittal. The Scotsman law (not it's true name)works like the defence of consent.

Also, it is totally legal until overruled, which can not fully happen until a case comes up; at whick point parliament can still side with you as they decide what laws overrule other laws. Or at least they used to before the introduction of the supreme court. With the supreme court, like most other people studying law, I don't know what the fuck will happen as it was only introduced a few years ago.

I do understand, you're just wrong. The original law isn't "still in play" because it has been impliedly repealed by superseding laws such as the HRA1998. Slingsby wasn't a murder case, the guy was acquitted of manslaughter as the injury and death were clearly accidental and unintended. Seriously, you need to pay more attention to detail. FYI, you can't give legally valid consent to murder, or even most of what would be considered GBH.

Out of interest, where are you studying?

 

[Gigaguy64]

Did you know?....

You will swallow an average of 8 Spiders while you sleep during 1 year?

Not a true fact. Created by a journalist, ironically, to dispute made up facts.

Dang it...
Oh well.
Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[nick n stuff]

the Beatles were turned down by record companies on the basis that 'guitar bands are old news' on multiple occasions.

Aerosmith's 'Dude (looks like a lady)' is about Motley Crue's Vince Neil

I'm fucking awesome...and modest

 

[dragonslayer32]

I've been studying it for 4 years and have actually looked it up in one of my books. You CAN use this as a defence to murder and it is a complete defence (if successful, it equals full acquittal). My lecturer has a PHD so I am pretty sure she knows what she is talking about, same goes for the tour guides in York, not that they have PHDs, but I think they know what they are talking about. Also, my lecturer didn't actually tell me about it, she gave everyone in my class a sheet with funny laws on it, it was on there.

So how do you think that defence would interact with HRA1998? You think that s.1(a) pointing to Art. 2 ECHR would allow it to stand? Or do you think it might be impledly repealed until tested, where the High Court would most likely make it explicit?

The Human Rigts Act although European, can still be overruled by British law depending on what the H of L say. The likelyhood is that they would go with the HRA, especially with the introduction of the supreme court but until a case comes up and the law is overruled, it is technically still legal and is a genuine plea to murder.

So now I know that you are either lying about studying law or very incompetently taught. The Human Rights Act 1998 was an Act of the British Parliament that was enacted in order to enshrine in our domestic law the protections offered by the European Convention on Human Rights and give people redress based on those rights in our domestic courts, rather than having to go to Strasbourg. When you say "technically still legal" do you imagine that someone who committed that act and attempted to use your law as a defence would get off? Because the superseding legislation is pretty unambiguous when it says

1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Perhaps you haven't encountered the doctrine of implied repeal - I advise that you look it up.

You don't understand. The origional law is still in play so if I shot a Scotsman in those circumstances, it would not class as deprivation of life, unlawful violence or murder as it is still legal to do so. I could quote thousands of cases now when someone has done something thought to be illegal but the court decided it was not. Just for fun, I think I will go with Slingsby. In this case, a man met a woman in a night club and took her home. He then penetrated her anus and vagina with his fingers, which she fully consented to. However, the ring he had on his finger cut her inside and because of this, she died. Now, depriving someone of life he has done which would make him guilty of murder but her consent acted as a full defence which meant a full acquittal. The Scotsman law (not it's true name)works like the defence of consent.

Also, it is totally legal until overruled, which can not fully happen until a case comes up; at whick point parliament can still side with you as they decide what laws overrule other laws. Or at least they used to before the introduction of the supreme court. With the supreme court, like most other people studying law, I don't know what the fuck will happen as it was only introduced a few years ago.

I do understand, you're just wrong. The original law isn't "still in play" because it has been impliedly repealed by superseding laws such as the HRA1998. Slingsby wasn't a murder case, the guy was acquitted of manslaughter as the injury and death were clearly accidental and unintended. Seriously, you need to pay more attention to detail. FYI, you can't give legally valid consent to murder, or even most of what would be considered GBH.

Out of interest, where are you studying?

Yes sorry, you are right, that was a manslaughter case, it has been 3 years since I done criminal law. You can't give consent to murder of HBH s.18, I think s.20 you can, not sure. Besides, that was just to make a point, but I fucked up. I admit, I was wrong about that but the scotsman law still stands, trust me, it can still be used as a defence if the circumsatnces are right. I have actually finished my studies now, I studied at Sunderland, not that that has anything to do with it. Why do you ask?

 

[p3t3r]

In the dictionary, yes. In the language, no. The longest word is the chemical name of titin, the largest known protein in existence, which has over 180,000 letters (I forget the actual number)

we forgive you for forgetting the name you probably would have spelled it wrong anyways

 

[Bluesclues]

Bees kill more than anything at the beach... I think.

"at the beach" is slightly incorrect. SHARKS yes, but there's also jellyfish, morays, sea cones, sea wasps(most potent poison on earth belongs to this creature btw), marine cobras, stonefish, sea lions, poisonous coral. . . the list goes on and on. The sea's a pretty poisonous place.

Actually there are less than one hundred shark attacks per year worldwide. In fact, since 1580 there have been 2251 shark attacks and only about 20.6% of them were fatal. More people die from falling coconuts than shark attacks.

Shaving cream in fact does nothing to help the shaving process.

Shave without shaving cream. Lets see how it goes.

I shave without shaving cream all the time. It really does nothing different. Now, shaving without wetting your face is a different story.