In article ,
"Jim Webster" wrote:

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening BAC wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...

: A can only cause B to do something directly if he eliminates B's
: freedom of action - e.g. by drugging or hypnotizing him - otherwise
: B's actions are the result of B's choices.

: So who was responsible for the killing of Charles 1, Cromwell and the
: co-signatories of the death warrant, or the executioner who did the
: deed (history seems to blame Cromwell)?

I don't know. Did the executioner act freely?

Generally speaking I would blame whoever *commits* the act of violence -
rather than anyone who told them to do it - or paid them to do it.

you attitude is at odds with English law

Not just English law, virtually every legal system will prosecute anyone
who incites or pays others to commit acts of murder as if they too had
committed the act - even international law. Isn't that what the
Nuremburg Trials established - that the leaders ordering the killings
were as guilty as those who committed the acts?

In article , Tim Tyler wrote:

In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:


: behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace, causing an affray,
: manslaughter, plus several different H&SE regulations, the breaking
: thereof could still land you in jail

Not from shouting in a theatre.

Try shouting 'Bomb!" in a theatre in Belfast and see how far your
'Freedom of Speech' gets you.

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes
:Jim Webster wrote or quoted:
snip

: Paying someone else to kill a third party sounds like an action to be
: held responsible for to me.

Whereas to me the only thing that distinguishes it from a gift is
words - and convicting people on the basis of things they have said
seems like a dangerous violation of freedom of speech to me.


So, in your view, was King Henry innocent in respect of Becket's murder?
He
didn't physically do the deed, but he incited his henchmen to do it.

wasn't his fault, he was from a dysfunctional family

Jim Webster

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message
...

snip

Lying is - for the most part - permitted and tolerated by the legal
system -

Interesting viewpoint. Have you some examples of situations where lying is
knowingly permitted and tolerated by the Courts?

other than party political manefestos obviously

Jim Webster

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" wrote in message
...
: In uk.rec.gardening Michael Saunby wrote:

: : But your thinking, that it is only the person who does the final
(or
: : initial in the case of farming) act is the only one to blame
silly.
:
: I'm not sure that's a sentence.
:
: Anyway, contrary to what you seem to be saying above, I certainly
don't
: think there should be any blame attached to growing and selling
crops.

: Even when using pesticides?

Well - /if/ they poison people that's a bit different.

they didn't poison anyone, the pesticide did. Anyway it was all the
fault
of
the manufacturer.


Surely, the poison was self administered?

yes, but we have to leave them someone to sue, everyone has a right to be a
victim of something other than their own ostentaious stupidity

Jim Webster

"T N Nurse" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim Tyler wrote:

In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:


: behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace, causing an affray,
: manslaughter, plus several different H&SE regulations, the breaking
: thereof could still land you in jail

Not from shouting in a theatre.

Try shouting 'Bomb!" in a theatre in Belfast and see how far your
'Freedom of Speech' gets you.

not very far with no knees :-((

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Tim Tyler" wrote in message ...
In uk.rec.gardening Oz wrote:
: Tim Tyler writes
:Jim Webster wrote or quoted:
snip

: Paying someone else to kill a third party sounds like an action to
be
: held responsible for to me.

Whereas to me the only thing that distinguishes it from a gift is
words - and convicting people on the basis of things they have said
seems like a dangerous violation of freedom of speech to me.


So, in your view, was King Henry innocent in respect of Becket's murder?
He
didn't physically do the deed, but he incited his henchmen to do it.

wasn't his fault, he was from a dysfunctional family


LOL! That sums up Norman-English mediaeval monarchy rather nicely, IMO.

On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 10:12:35 +0100, T N Nurse
wrote:

In article , Tim Tyler wrote:

In uk.rec.gardening Jim Webster wrote:


: behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace, causing an affray,
: manslaughter, plus several different H&SE regulations, the breaking
: thereof could still land you in jail

Not from shouting in a theatre.

Try shouting 'Bomb!" in a theatre in Belfast and see how far your
'Freedom of Speech' gets you.

Probably ignored and/or told "Shut up!".

--
Peter Duncanson
6 miles south of Belfast