| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Reply to Bill McGunnigle ~ 'Ombudsman' | | Date: | Monday, April 23, 2007 16:14:19 (+1200) | | From: | William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4722 (written by Joe Thomson) |
Hi Joe
The question of land access under scottish law is quite complex
and interesting. Much of the access revolves around the "common land" that
was used by an entire Clan in the Highlands. The rank and file of the Clan
had free access to all clan lands, and could use the naturally occuring
plants etc for food. There were restrictions on certain types of game animal
and fish in which a clansman could take those animals to feed his family,
but could not sell them for profit. Today the "retainers" that manage the
lands of scottish nobility can still avail themselves of this priviledge,
but others need a license to do so. In the highlands of Scotland there are
no restrictions for access, but there are certain areas where public access
is forbidden because of Defence Department experiments on bacteriological
and chemical warfare during the 1930's 40's and 50's. The restrictions are
of safety reasons.
I believe the differences between English and Scottish law have
arisen because the Scots are more interested in determining the truth about
a matter whereas the English prefer the confrontational approach to these
matters. This was the system that was adopted by the founding fathers of the
USA. Both systems have their advantages and drawbacks, but, on the whole, I
think the Scottish system is a much fairer system, because it ensures that
the guilty cannot escape justice on the grounds of insufficient evidence to
convict. The concept of "reasonable doubt" being a reason to acquit an
individual does not exist under Scottish law.
Regards
Bill McG
From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Reply to Bill McGunnigle ~ 'Ombudsman'
> Thanks, Bill (McGunnigle). I thought I'd read somewhere you had an
> "Ombudsman" in NZ, but wasn't quite certain.
>
> In BC, the office hasn't exactly evolved as might be totally desirable.
> 'Governments' still control the budgetary purse-strings, and keeping the
> "Ombudsman" from being too much of a nuisance to them is simply a matter
> of
> witholding the financial 'means'.
>
> Very interesting, the differences between Scottish and English law. I
> believe Douglas made mention of some of the differences between how
> permitted activities on private land were regulated in Scotland vs.
> England
> in one of his later works, (in favour of Scotland).
>
> Regards,
> Joe
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message