Page 4 of 5

Re: Freeman On the Land - RIP

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:09 am
by atticus
Yes. It was a very full moon last night.

Re: Freeman On the Land - RIP

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:16 am
by 3.14
Smouldering Stoat wrote:The above post appears to be a load of words chosen at random, with some punctuation marks and smilies thrown into the mix.

Is anyone able to explain it?

manic phase?

Re: Freeman On the Land - RIP

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:37 am
by dls
Is anyone able to explain it?


God, no. It is best left like a blind man, triumphant over all he can see - and alone.

Re: Freeman On the Land - RIP

PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 6:48 pm
by Spankymonkey
Freemanry, and all other pseudo-babble cults, are a mental illness. The disjointed, incoherent way they write, is how they think. I actually pity its members. I'm surprised no psychiatrist has ever bothered to study them yet, to find out what's really wrong with them.

Re: Freeman On the Land - RIP

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:48 am
by BakersDozen
Didn't the freeman argument start in the 60s or 70s in the USA and died down a bit?

Anyway if memory serves me right, didn't Townsend Thorenson use the legal fiction argument for the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster?

I have no idea what came of that one?

Re: Freeman On the Land - RIP

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:54 am
by Smouldering Stoat
No. I lost a good friend on the Herald, if you are going to use it for some kind of deranged point you can fuck right off.

Re: Freeman On the Land - RIP

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:21 am
by BakersDozen
Smouldering Stoat wrote:No. I lost a good friend on the Herald, if you are going to use it for some kind of deranged point you can fuck right off.


My deranged point is???

As for your rudeness in telling me to **** off is uncalled for.

All Im saying is if anyone has the time to check the court records is that Townsen Thorenson tried to use a legal fiction argument as part of their defence.

Re: Freeman On the Land - RIP

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:04 am
by atticus
Memory serves you wrong.

Re: Freeman On the Land - RIP

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:04 pm
by BakersDozen
atticus wrote:Memory serves you wrong.


ok i was researching corporate manslaughter and found this


Further headway was made some thirty years after this pronouncement when, following the capsizing of the Herald, the prosecution of P & O Ferries confirmed that it was possible to charge a company with corporate manslaughter. In this case, not only the company was charged but in addition, its seven directors were also charged with corporate manslaughter. An actual corporate conviction, however, was still yet to come. The judicial inquiry severely criticized the management of P & O European ferries and the jury at the inquest returned verdicts of unlawful killing of 187 cases. Eventually in June 1989, the Director of Public Prosecutor launched prosecution against the company and the seven individuals. However, the trial collapsed after Turner J directed the jury to acquit the company and the five most senior individual defendants. The principal ground for this decision relating to the case against the company was that in order to convict the company, one of the individual defendants ‘identified’ with the company would himself have to be guilty of manslaughter.

Based on the above, the rule established appears to be that, that in order to convict a company (which obviously as a legal fiction lacks any mind of its own), it was necessary to find an individual whose acts and intention can be attributed to it. For corporate manslaughter to be established, this individual must have been:
the ‘directing mind’ of the company in this area; and
himself grossly negligent.

Re: Freeman On the Land - RIP

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:33 pm
by atticus
Which has naff all to do with Freeman woo.