Classic British Flight Sim

Welcome to the USA where the inmates are running the asylum! This place has gone completely mad. A pervert has the right to do sh*t like this, but a woman would be charged with making a terroristic threat is she threatened to beat the cr@p out of the pervert for doing so. Fights that used to be settled by two kids on the school playground (after school) are now being settled by their whiney-baby parents in a court of law. Complete insanity! While I agree that laws should be worded carefully, you still need to be able to apply common sense to them because no law is perfect. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to Google "upskirt photos" to learn more about these crazy laws.

Brian

Paul.
accept my apology. I have no hard feelings toward you.


Joe

Have I just woken up after a long kip and it's actually April 1st?


Graham

airboatr wrote:Paul.
accept my apology. I have no hard feelings toward you.

Joe

And I apologise to you Joe. I was just a little intemperate there.

I don't know why but with all the horrible stuff going on in the World this particular thing just sickens me to my stomach. How a bunch of "judges" could vote 8-1 to all but endorse such a vile and personal violation, well, I just don't get it. Texas now has constitutionally protected perverts and how many other states will follow? Then it'll filter over here with this banana republic's slavish brown nosing of the States.

Still, there is an upside to the American legal system... I can sue McDonald's for selling me hot coffee

Paul

Garry Russell wrote:Seems it's a current Texas issue and the historic reference is to Boston...TBH I'm not confused by that or am I missing something.

The only thing I am confused about is that this is allowed...but in a country where it seems people have a right to be armed it is not surprising that oddities appear.

Quite right Garry.
Having thought more about it, I can see that I had the sequence wrong. It was the amendment that was refused in Texas. I wonder if it passed in other states.
The victims covered themselves from normal view. You'd think there was some aspect of invasion of privacy that could have been invoked, particularly as use of a camera is interpreted as "freedom of speech."
I wonder who they were trying to protect by writing a law covering naked and semi-naked people on federal property; naughty politicians working late, perhaps?

paulsl wrote:

airboatr wrote:Paul.
accept my apology. I have no hard feelings toward you.

Joe

Then it'll filter over here with this banana republic's slavish brown nosing of the States.

Paul

Fortunately, we do not have Courts with any constitutional powers in the UK, so that will not happen. Of course, we don't in fact have a constitution !