Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kennyc
Uh, No. Illegal is illegal.
|
a void is a void
if there is no law
precisely forbidding something it
is allowed
analogous appliance of law is only allowed
in favour of the deliquent, not against him.
everything else would be against
- nulla poena sine lege and
- in dubio pro reo
and thus contrary to the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 6 (2) & 7 (1)
(I'm pretty sure, that the common law contains these elemental principles as well, but since it is not my domain I will not comment on this - especially because it is of no importance for the case presented since the country in cuestion is not covered by the common law.)
you have already proven your
enormous ignorance as far distinguishing between differences in legal terminology by persisting on a theft definition for infridgement.
the only thing you achieve with such
unreflected and uninformed postings is:
- making a fool of yourself
- making everybody with just a iota of legal education (or 3 handfulls of common sense) bleeding from their eyes when they read this rubbish.