I want to be this spry at 60

[andrewas]

Grungi, it says he thought the law was "still valid under European human rights legislation", not that it was a European law. Means the law could be from anywhere, its just not contradicted under European law.

[Grungi]

european human rights legislation is european law, anyhows the main point is all of the laws created for europe are recent ones, impossible to have european laws for a time when there was no europe [img]tongue.gif[/img] thats the point im trying to make, trial by combat would be long gone in any european country by the 1960s, ancient implies at least over 200 years (in my mind over 1000 but for arguments sake 200) which is before europe as any kind of legislative state was formed

[Grungi]

ah just understood what you meant with that, yeah i see your point but it still doesnt hold, england the last duels were way before the DVLA was created, or anything else, so yet again its blatantly a mickey take, or attempt to trick the european courts, theres no laws in england even town bylaws predating about the 17th century.

[Epona]

Originally posted by Grungi: theres no laws in england even town bylaws predating about the 17th century.

Sorry but that's bollocks.
There was plenty of legislation when Britannia was a province of the Roman Empire. After that we had Saxon laws. During the later medieval period there were laws and courts.

We also have a long tradition of Trial by Combat in England, which is of course not used now. The charter of Henry I exempted citizens (freemen) of London from having to engage in trial by combat.

This following reference to trial by combat in use in England is taken from the Leicester Borough archives and dates from AD 1253 (transcribed from Latin by Mary Bateson, ed. Records of The Borough Of Leicester):

"Inquisition made by the jurors named below, that is, William of St. Laud, Willard de Lincoln, William Baudewin, Alexander Debonere, James Motun, William Gamel, William Hod, Peter Palmar, Nicholas le Burgeis, Robert Drueri, William Loueman, William Balle, Henry fitz Richard, Ralph Fode, William le Chapmon, and Thomas Geram, concerning the payments called gavelpence and pontage, by what right and for what reason they were first given and taken.

Who say under oath that, in the time of Robert de Medland, earl of Leicester, it happened that two kinsmen – that is, Nicholas son of Hakon and Geoffrey son of Nicholas of Leicester – made wager of battle for a certain piece of land, concerning which they were in a legal dispute. They fought from just after dawn until noon and beyond. As they were engaging in combat together in this way, one of them drove back the other as far as a certain small ditch and, as [the other] stood at the edge of the ditch and risked falling into it, his kinsman said to him: "Careful you don't fall into the ditch that is behind you". And there was at once such a great outcry and uproar from those sitting and standing around that their noise was heard by the earl as far away as the castle; he then made enquiry why there was such a clamour, and was told that two kinsmen were engaged in judicial combat over a piece of land and that one had driven the other back as far as a certain small ditch, and as the one stood at the edge of the ditch and risked falling into it, the other warned him."

[Cloudbringer]

Thanks Epona! That was pretty interesting! I love finding old documents and seeing how they recorded daily life! LOL, wonder if the guy with the traffic ticket knew he was almost in the ditch with his outrageous requests?!

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Grungi: gah there is no ancient european law, by definition the european courts of justice arent ancient, its a relatively new thing, there is NO ancient law cos the laws are new, 1000 years ago there was no european court of law, it was feuding countries and states right up until the 1st world war before we even had a semblance of a european united front, therefore logic dictates that there cannot be an ancient european law of any description.... pretty infallible logic if you ask me, normally id listen to other p.o.v but in this its static. It said in european law, and thats what its talking about, and european law is a recent thing. So unless someone seriously thinks that 30 years ago trial by combat would be considered as a viable european law thats the only way it can be true.

European laws are an amalgam of various countries' laws, with extra bits added on. Laws like 1000 year-old trial by combat laws that are there merely as an anomoly.

It is entirely possible there is a European Law that protects a person's right to a reasonable settlement of a dispute, according t the laws of his own country. This would be a European Law protecting the Trial By Combat law of 1000 years ago, simply because the coujntry in question (England) still had said law on the books.

[ 12-18-2002, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Bardan the Slayer ]

[Indemaijinj]

Even if trial by combat was a legitimate way of solving a case
the clerk was not acting on his own volition. He was simply carrying out the policies of the state. Since the state is his superior it would be a trial by combat of this man against the state.

The state could then chose a professional soldier as a champion for the duel.

[Grungi]

epona you misunderstood me again so no its not bollocks its just me assuming people can read between the lines

there are no laws in england predating 17th century or thereabouts STILL IN USE TODAY.

i missed that out, but if you didnt realise im not an idiot and well know that there have been laws about since barely after caveman times, i kinda assumed people would realise what i meant, obviously i have to (no offense) dumb down what im saying and include every point.

and european law is an amalgam of country law but it was made by sane individuals between roughly the 60s and now, so come on do you really think they'd include a 1000 year old trial by combat law? im assuming not, if someone can prove me wrong i would LOVE to see it, just so i can splutter aghast at the awesome stupidity of the european law makers [img]smile.gif[/img] (im being serious, prove me wrong and i will love it, will keep me laughing for weeks)

[andrewas]

Grungi, it is my understanding that a law stands until specificaly repealed by the rulers of a nation. Therefore, there could be any number of laws that have fallen into misuse, but have never officialy been repealed and are therefore technicaly still in effect. I would be surprised if the european law makers had taken the time to hunt down every single bylaw from way back when to make sure they really want to include it.

[Grungi]

oh god i gotta qualify that again before the next person says im talking bollocks....

there are no laws in england predating 17th century or thereabouts STILL IN USE TODAY (which have not been heavily modified according to the law in recent times)

ie yes there was a law say about not killing people in your own tribe back in just after caveman times, and obviously that translates to the murder laws nowadays but in between its changed heavily to reflect the times it was around the 17th century when parliament etc really started churning out the laws (and weirdo bylaws) so it was around then when a lot of laws stuck which we will still use today in some circumstances mainly because they were reasonably civilised and had alot of the same morals used today.

right there we go qualified, now id appreciate people NOT saying im talking bollocks until they have fully understood my post.