 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/12/13 18:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:44:15 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>
>> The English law making it an offence to be an incorrigible rogue has
>> been repealed :-) I can now walk down the street without fearing a tap
>> on my shoulder.
>
> Sounds like trouble is afoot. :)
>
> Jim
>
<innocent face>
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:34:46 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
> By the time they get me to court, it will no longer be an offence.
I don't think that's how it works, though. It's about whether the law
was in force at the time of the offense.
Maybe different in the UK?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:35:55 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
> <innocent face>
Whose? ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/12/13 21:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:34:46 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>
>> By the time they get me to court, it will no longer be an offence.
>
> I don't think that's how it works, though. It's about whether the law
> was in force at the time of the offense.
>
> Maybe different in the UK?
>
> Jim
>
Good question. Any lawyers on the forum?
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/12/13 21:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:35:55 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>
>> <innocent face>
>
> Whose? ;)
>
> Jim
>
Look at Stephen :-)
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/12/2013 8:34 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> By the time they get me to court, it will no longer be an offence.
As Jim says...
And who says that the beaten hulk will get to court? ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/12/2013 9:57 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 13/12/13 21:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:35:55 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>>
>>> <innocent face>
>>
>> Whose? ;)
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
> Look at Stephen :-)
>
Innocent as the day is long (not counting that it is mid December).
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/13/2013 04:59 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/12/2013 9:57 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 13/12/13 21:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:35:55 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>>>
>>>> <innocent face>
>>>
>>> Whose? ;)
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>
>> Look at Stephen :-)
>>
>
> Innocent as the day is long (not counting that it is mid December).
>
Hmmmm ... doubt it ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/12/2013 10:04 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>> Innocent as the day is long (not counting that it is mid December).
>>
>
> Hmmmm ... doubt it ;-)
Not counting this and that, I am.
At least I've never been up before the beak.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:57:42 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
> On 13/12/13 21:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:35:55 +0000, Doctor John wrote:
>>
>>> <innocent face>
>>
>> Whose? ;)
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
> Look at Stephen :-)
[guffaw]
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
