• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

We may have got a LulzSec Member...

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
AMDZen said:
Only if you're living in someone else's house and won't leave. And then you have to be tried in civil court since its not really against the law, or something.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not that, we do believe in innocent until proven guilty over here.
 
FDF12389 said:
http://www.chronicle.su/news/world-...eader-of-anonymous-amid-post-civil-war-fugue/

Very talented young member who pissed on too many other members. I see this situation as either:

1. Anonymous invented lulzsec and framed him
2. Authorities needed a fall guy and he was perfect
Click to expand...

You left out:
3. it's the real deal, but because you are either affiliated with the loosers in lulzsec, a member or a fan ot the loosers, you are posting false info to muddy the waters
 
HAL9000 said:
Nope, it's not that, we do believe in innocent until proven guilty over here.
Click to expand...

I know, thats what I'm saying. For squatters you go one step further even, since its already proven they are guilty they still get to chill in those nice digs with no repercussions.
 
AMDZen said:
I know, thats what I'm saying. For squatters you go one step further even, since its already proven they are guilty they still get to chill in those nice digs with no repercussions.
Click to expand...

How are they guilty? They have squatters rights...?
 
HAL9000 said:
How are they guilty? They have squatters rights...?
Click to expand...

Buwahahaha. See thats the issue with you brits. Even when you post exactly what I just said in different words, you don't get the point. Squatters rights.

Buwahahahaha

Any way, enough of that. Not like that one hasn't been done to death.
 
AMDZen said:
Buwahahaha. See thats the issue with you brits. Even when you post exactly what I just said in different words, you don't get the point. Squatters rights.

Buwahahahaha

Any way, enough of that. Not like that one hasn't been done to death.

Stupid fucking brits.
Click to expand...

So as I said, I'm right.

You claimed they were guilty.

I pointed out they were not guilty as they have squatters rights and so are not guilty of a crime as you stated below.

For squatters you go one step further even, since its already proven they are guilty
Click to expand...

You return with no argument.

I was right.
 
guyver01 said:
And therein is the problem.

SQUATTERS SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHTS

What about owners rights?

My house.
GTFO
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for squatters rights, I'm simply stating the fact that in the UK we believe innocent until proven guilty and squatters (in the UK) are guilty of no crime until it is proven they have committed one.
 
guyver01 said:
And therein is the problem.

SQUATTERS SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHTS

What about owners rights?

My house.
GTFO
Click to expand...

Personally, I think we need squatters rights. Raper's rights too. Why should that man be thrown out of that innocent girl? He just needed someplace to keep his dick warm. If the women uses that tazer, or even worse (shock) a gun to defend herself. She should be the one to go to jail. Not that poor rapis ... I mean squatter who was just trying to find a warm place for his penis.
 
AMDZen said:
Personally, I think we need squatters rights. Raper's rights too. Why should that man be thrown out of that innocent girl? He just needed someplace to keep his dick warm. If the women uses that tazer, or even worse (shock) a gun to defend herself. She should be the one to go to jail. Not that poor rapis ... I mean squatter who was just trying to find a warm place for his penis.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for squatters rights I'm simply stating the fact that you were wrong when you said that squatters in the UK are proven guilty of something and then let off.

guyver01 said:
Unlawful entry of private property

except in the UK... it defangs this common notion of privacy
Click to expand...

That's a debate for another time and not related to the argument I am making.
 
HAL9000 said:
I'm not arguing for squatters rights I'm simply stating the fact that you were wrong when you said that squatters in the UK are proven guilty of something and then let off.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. The difference is, if someone is in my house - they're guilty. And they'll never get the chance to defend themselves in the court of law because thats not going to be possible from the plot they occupy in the ground.
 
AMDZen said:
You missed the point. The difference is, if someone is in my house - they're guilty. And they'll never get the chance to defend themselves in the court of law because thats not going to be possible from the plot they occupy in the ground.
Click to expand...

OK...? How does that change the law in the UK and make your original statement correct. You were arguing about legality in the UK and whether we accept the statement innocent until proven guilty.
 
AMDZen said:
Somehow in the UK breaking and entering isn't a crime. Just like rape. Rape is not a crime.
Click to expand...

Except it falls under Trespass To Land..

Trespass to land involves the "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another". It is not necessary to prove that harm was suffered to bring a claim, and is instead actionable per se.

Land is defined as the surface, subsoil, airspace and anything permanently attached to the land, such as houses.

Except The UK de-balls this with laws that allow Adverse possession - a process by which premises can change ownership and it falls under Hostile or adverse use of the property – The disseisor entered or used the land without permission.
 
258Troll_spray.jpg
 
Lonbjerg said:
You left out:
3. it's the real deal, but because you are either affiliated with the loosers in lulzsec, a member or a fan ot the loosers, you are posting false info to muddy the waters
Click to expand...

Ummm no. Where did you get that from? It's the real deal? Sure it is, the cops don't even know who the fuck they caught.

I'm speculating that since:

He pissed off anonymous
They tracked him down and posted all his info
Then he was arrested, but as a member of lulzsec, not anonymous

That:

A. Anonymous set him up
B. The police needed a fall guy

These are fair and logical assumptions.
 
guyver01 said:
Gee... how does it feel?

You're always arguing about the legality of owning handguns.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm generally arguing about the morality of owning guns, but I don't make erroneous statements like saying

"In America there is no innocent until proven guilty because people who have guns are proven guilty and then let off to go around shooting people" which is the exact same sentiment that AMDzen tried to express about squatters.

AMDZen said:
I know, thats what I'm saying. For squatters you go one step further even, since its already proven they are guilty they still get to chill in those nice digs with no repercussions.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top