It says he can be expelled for disorderly behavior. If he isn't behaving disorderly, he can't be expelled.Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
It says he can be expelled for disorderly behavior. If he isn't behaving disorderly, he can't be expelled.
All alone on a ridiculous limb that I never claimed to have climbed on to? Stop strawmanning.
Even if we pretend disorderly behavior isn't wildly arbitrary, the Constitution says he can be *punished* for disorderly behavior. In a separate clause it specifies the criteria for expulsion. I will list those criteria here:
-with the concurrence of two thirds
end of list
happy to help
Hasta pronto, porque la vida no termina aqui...
America, stop pushing. I know what I'm doing.
If he isn't exhibiting disorderly behavior, he can't be punished for it. Infact, a member of congress has been expelled for disorderly behavior before. They got reelected right back in. Did Congress try to expel them again? Sure as fuck didn't.
Senior Member
There is no prerequisite of disorderly behavior for expulsion. They can expel anyone for ANY reason whatsoever, so long as they get the requisite 2/3rds votes to do so.
I don't use Lich. If you want to do business with me, contact me via PM, IG, or on AIM. Or maybe use smoke signals. Don't like it, get off of my lawn.
I understand your desire to rewrite the narrative in this thread and I'm certain you feel no one will bother fact checking but let me remind you that I simply told you that you were wrong and insincere and asked a few questions. You then went on a rant about how "callous, self righteous, pompous, arrogant and condescending" you thought I was. I suppose because I asked you for clarification on your opinion.
So really, the only one who has responded in an hysterical fashion is yourself. I know it's embarrassing to have it pointed out but be a man and own it.
Listen, I understand you are one of those unfortunate men who feels that any gains toward equality made by women is a loss for men and that any gains by minorities is a loss for the white man but what astonishes me is that you can't see that in yourself. Because let me tell you, you are completely transparent to the rest of us and all of your wordy rants have only served to reinforce my already low opinion of you as a moron with a thesaurus.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Edward R. Murrow
Funniest fucking post of the week.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Edward R. Murrow
Senior Member
I guess that couple of years working for the National Crime Agency were wasted then..?
Oh, well I guess in THAT role, you know all there is to know about criminal investigations..?Being in a management role in a call center...
Investigators should be entirely neutral with their believing/disbelieving switch. It is their job to gather evidence and present it before a Court. The problem is that they* act in such a way that they present as cynical and therefore dissuade victims from disclosing abuse and engaging in the criminal justice system.
* - there are of course areas where good practice is exercised. Usually in specialist sexual assault teams. The problem is that they are rarely the first point of call and PC Joe Blow on the front desk acting like a douche acts as sufficient demotivator for them to wait to speak to the people who know what they are doing.
Luckily, credibility with you comes fairly low down the list for victims of sexual abuse...unless it is someone you know...then shame on you for not being supportive to someone you know who has been sexually abused. Reporting abuse to the police is a terrifying experience. SOmetimes as terrifying as the abuse itself. There are a million and one reasons why someone might not report it to the old bill.
Senior Member
How is it more terrifying than announcing it to the world?
Last edited by drauz; 11-20-2017 at 03:12 AM.
Senior Member
At the moment there is safety in numbers, which adds support/removes doubt, so victims feel they are more likely to be believed. Things are in a strange place at the moment as well. There is an increase in people accepting that something might have happened, which is out of the norm, so people probably feel that now is a good time to talk about their own abuse - to anyone who will listen. There is still a huge difference between talking about it to people on social media or down the pub, than there is subjecting yourself to the inquisition and torture that is the criminal justice system. Not least because, on social media, you share as much as you want, when you want and how you want. When you report to the Police, you share everything, in the way they want and how they want. That lack of control is a big thing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
