MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Sarah Whitby takes oath as Falklands, South Georgia Senior Magistrate
Sarah Whitby was officially sworn in as the Falkland Islands Senior Magistrate at a ceremony at Government House. Mrs Whitby, previously Crown Counsel for Civil and Safeguarding, will fulfill the role of Senior Magistrate and Coroner for the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, and the British Antarctic Territory, as well as acting Judge for the Falkland Islands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSo, they “self govern” themselves but this feather man appointed from London as “governor” of the colonial regime, appoint this wig lady from Britain to decide if islanders break the “law” at crossing the street. Wow.
Jan 28th, 2020 - 01:56 am - Link - Report abuse -4She took her oath in front of the governor, that doesn't mean he appointed her.
Jan 28th, 2020 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Canada, Australia etc also have governors but because they are independent they choose their own instead of London doing it.
Liberato - So Argentina would be so much better.......
Jan 28th, 2020 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0RMN, that's a whole other can of worms. Argentina has a completely different legal system, if the Falklands switched then no one currently living there would be qualified to practice law, if they didn't then no lawyers from Argentina would be able to do the job, and it wouldn't make sense to appeal cases to a higher court. I don't know what effect it would have on ordinary people, but the courts in Argentina aren't exactly free of corruption.
Jan 28th, 2020 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Demon Tree, if you google it you will find easy that it is the “governor” in the name of the queen, who appoint the SM.
Jan 28th, 2020 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -4In fact my comment was not to compare Argentina and british legal systems, just stablishing a thruth. That the Islands are not self governed as they presume.
The same happens in Education, Health, defence, the executive, the economy, etc.
A lie, even well presented and with manners is still a lie.
A colonial regime in Malvinas, with inmigration and economy meticulously controlled. Where a national flag of a sovereign nation is confiscated and publicly prohibited. Where the seas that suround them are only kept under control by a de facto military force and not by international law. A disgrace of a population that wants to live on South Americans islands without being south americans.
Ah but liberato, you forget a crucial thing, immigration is controlled, yes, by the islands, I can’t go and live in the Falklands and I’m British, however a Falklander can come live in Britain. I’m perfectly fine with it ofc.
Jan 29th, 2020 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse +1The “Colonial” governor doesn’t actually have any power, they are representatives of the Crown, which in this context is the government of the United Kingdom.
You state that a national flag is prohibited? Evidence? References? Sources? I haven’t seen anything that suggests that flags are banned.
They want to live on those islands because they want to, that makes them Anglo South American, not Spanish South American like you Argies, infact the Argies are the chief reason they don’t want to be associated as “South Americans” because most SA country governments are complete dog shit.
I won’t go into the bullshit about the territorial waters and military force since for god sake man, there are UN resolutions saying it’s British...
Appointments are made in the Queen's name, as they are in the UK.
Jan 29th, 2020 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse +3The islands are not fully self-governing. If they were, they would be entirely independent. Under the UN, the UK as an Administering Power, has a duty to lead its territories to a 'full-measure of self-government.” That is a process that has been taking place, very slowly, since the 1840s. It continues.
Your last paragraph is complete nonsense Liberato. Both immigration and the islands' economy are controlled by the Legislative and Executive Councils. The offensive flags of a would be thief are not regularly confiscated, though they should be. Falklands seas are patrolled by Falklands fisheries protection vessels. All under the control of the FIG. All perfectly legal under international law. Indeed, the UN requires the UK as the Administering Power to protect the resources of the Falklands NSGT for the sole use of the people of that NSGT.
The only disgrace is that South America attempts to impose its will over British Islands 300 miles from that continent. You should be ashamed.
Liberato, it says in the job advert that recruitment is via the Falkland Islands Government:
Jan 29th, 2020 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/vacancies/SenMagFI
For the rest, what Roger said. The FIG makes the day to day decisions in most areas, but the UK government has the power to overrule them. For example, recently MPs in the UK wanted to force the various overseas territories to follow financial transparency laws. It doesn't really affect the Falklands, but some of the other OTs are tax havens and they objected very loudly.
Roger Lorton, your countrymen always said to the UN that the Malvinas regime only rely on the UK on defense and foreign relations, but you admit the uk controls its judiciary too. Its a little step forwards. Not bad.
Jan 29th, 2020 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Inmigration: more than 90% of british origins. Even if in census now they are not questioning on the origins but more on the “feelings” of identity.
Econom: http://www.fihplc.com/company-profile/about.php
The FIH control the economy directly or indirectly in the islands along with the british colonial regime.
The national flag of any nation ON any nation is not confiscated and cannot be confiscated. at least on any democratic and free territory. The Islands political situation is recognized worldwide as in a colonial situation, ergo anything could happens.
It is funny that you believes the UK comply with Decolonization Committe.
So South America attemps to impose “its will” over a territory considered a british colony since 1833?.
DemonTree, Administration of Justice Ordinance 1949 - Falkland Islands ...:
http://www.fihplc.com/company-profile/about.php
PART III MAGISTRATE'S COURT: quote: “There is hereby constituted a court subordinate to the Supreme Court to be called the Magistrate's Court, which shall consist of and be held before a Senior Magistrate appointed by the Governor for this purpose.”
Libby - Look up the word 'rely'. The Falklanders are only 'dependent' upon the UK for defence and foreign relations. However, until such time (?) as the Islands seek independence, they are subject to some oversight by the Administrative Power - the UK. Crown appointments are merely made in the same as in the UK.
Jan 29th, 2020 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +290%? So what. The FIG control immigration, not the UK. Who they admit is up to them. Why would it be otherwise?
The Argentine flag can only be confiscated when it is used to threaten disorder. If I had my way, it would be banned from entering that territory entirely. Its very presence is an insult.
The Islands are recognised world-wide as a UN NSGT and a British BOT. Nothing will now happen to change that UNLESS the islanders decide to do so.
The UK does not attend or co-operate with the C24. The UK DOES comply with live UN resolutions with regard to human rights and self-determination. The UN has not issued a resolution for 31 years about the Falklands.
Considered to be a British possession since 1766 and a British colony from 1841. Now, of course, an NSGT and BOT.
The Supreme Court OF THE Falkland Islands. Even the Great God Wiki knows that -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Falkland_Islands
Try searching on 'Supreme Court'.
Roger Lorton, i dont get it. Have no idea what you ment. You said the “Falklanders” are only 'dependent' upon the UK for defence and foreign relations but “until such time” (independence?) they are subject to some oversight by the Administrative Power?.
Jan 30th, 2020 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse -1The british colonial regime in the c24 claim they self govern themselves!!. That only rely on the UK for defence and foreign relations but there is no islander lawer and no islander judge but lawers and judges brought from london that decide if a vehicle crossed a red light, (which there isnt even a red light in there).
So if a penguin is shot by a resident, that resident would be judged by somebody named by the “governor”, which means by the UK.That does not seems some oversight by the Administrative Power at all. Dont you think?.
Quote1:“90%? So what. The FIG control immigration, not the UK. Who they admit is up to them. Why would it be otherwise?”
If 90% of a population in a colony, SAYS they control inmigration, but not the UK, which is the origin of that 90% of the population of the colony It is obvious that the UK will say it is up to them.
Quote2: “The Argentine flag can only be confiscated when it is used to threaten disorder”.
To “avoid disorder” the british forces confiscated many argentine flags, which is not the same thing.
Quote3: “The Islands are recognised world-wide as a UN NSGT and a British BOT.”
Correction, the Islands are recognised world-wide as a UN NSGT,a British BOT and as part of Argentina. But politically, At the United Nations it is recognized as a Non self-governing territory. A territory, in a colonial situation under a decolonization process by the UNDC that examine the application of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (GA resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.
So, a NSGT. In pure english, a colony.
Quote4:“Considered to be a British possession since 1766 and a British colony from 1841”.
A british possession since 1766????.
You don't get it? That, I am afraid, is very apparent.
Jan 30th, 2020 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse +1This quote is from the statement made to the C24 by MLA Edwards in 2019, the last time that the representatives of the Islanders spoke to the Committee:
“The Territory was effectively self-governing and economically self-sufficient and passed its own laws. The United Kingdom assisted with foreign affairs and defence, the latter of which was only a necessity because of the 1982 conflict.”
The full UN record can be found here in Spanish - https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3828996?ln=en
With a small population, the Islanders need to employ expertise from outside. Hardly unusual. The Governor does not 'judge' anyone. Not his role. Criminal acts are tried through the courts, not by the Governor.
The FIG controls their immigration. As the UK controls its immigration. As Argentina controls its immigration. Each makes its own decisions as to who gets to stay. Each has different criteria. The last Falklands census stated:
“4. Diversity
- 43 per cent of the total usual resident population were born in the Falkland Islands. Of the 1,823 people born elsewhere; 48 per cent were born in the UK, 17 per cent in Saint Helena, 11 per cent in Chile, and the remaining 24 per cent were born in one of a range of 56 different countries.”
Please provide some evidence for the confiscation of Argentine flags.
No, the islands are not recognised world-wide as part of Argentina. Quite the contrary. If the world did hold such a view, there would be a UN resolution. That has been no UN resolution since 1988.
An NSGT is not a colony. If it was, it would be called a colony. The UN designated certain territories as Non-self governing because they are not yet independent. Res 1514 is the basis of decolonization as it supports the right of self-determination. The Falklanders have that right, and as part of the decolonization process can decide their own future. What happens will be up to the islanders to decide.
Yes. 1766
Roger Lorton, the MLA Edwards you quote, is Roger Edwards? , the one that moved to the islands after being 40 years an European living?(in Britain of course!!!).
Jan 30th, 2020 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse -1After saying this obviousness, his words are exactly my point.
And here comes the excuse that they are so few....
So they are so few, that needs that lawers from Britain enact their laws, and constitution. They are so few, that needs judges from London to decide if someone break the law. They are so few that needs teachers from Britain to teach them geography and History. They are so few that governors, judges, Doctors, engineers, soldiers, assembly members like Mr Edwards here, all have to be imported from London to assist this few “people”. But, they claim at the same time that only rely on the UK on defense and foreign relations in this colony regime.
quote:“The FIG controls their immigration”. Again, like i explained before. 90% of the population of a colony CLAIMS they control their inmigration.
Without going to the census, taking your numbers:
-“43 per cent of the total usual resident population were born in the Falkland Islands” mostly of british origins.
“Of the 1,823 people born elsewhere; 48 per cent were born in the UK”. Which, if you add the mostly of british origins that were born in the islands....
“17 per cent in Saint Helena”, mostly of british origins that add the equation...
So, like i said, and the several census said: 90% of population in Malvinas are of british origins.
The political definition the United Nations use to refers to the islands is Non Self-Governing Territory. Which is only used to refers to territories with a colonial status and under a United Nations decolonization process and under a UN list of territories under decolonization.
List of NSGT, which, even in the link says decolonization:
https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt
guess who is on the list?. I just cant believe i have to explain it to you the most basic.
Roger Edwards is a Falklander. End of. Your point is ridiculous. How long he has been a Falklander is irrelevant.
Jan 30th, 2020 - 05:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, they only rely upon the UK government for defence and, increasingly less, foreign representation. They do not rely upon the UK for teachers, lawyers etc. The FIG can employ who it wishes and from any nation it wishes.
90% Can you not read? 48% are islanders. 48% are from the UK. Of the rest, 17 per cent are Saints. 11% Chileans, and the remaining 24% from 56 different countries. Try harder Libby. Try to read. Islanders are only British 2nd.
NSGTs are listed for decolonization, not recolonization. The UN has no remit or power to resolve sovereignty arguments. The Falklands are listed as NSGTs, with the right of self determination. The UN recognises this.
I just can't believe I have to explain to you the most basic .... facts.
Liberato, that is how it works in the UK, too:
Jan 30th, 2020 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse +2“Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by The Queen by the issue of letters patent, on the advice of the Prime Minister, to whom a name is recommended by a special selection commission. The Prime Minister is required by the Constitutional Reform Act to recommend this name to the Queen and not permitted to nominate anyone else.”
Judges are appointed by the Queen, but the Queen doesn't get to choose who she appoints. The Queen also appoints the Prime Minister, who actually runs the country, but she appoints who Parliament will vote for. It's different to a republic but the Governor is not in control, any more than the Queen is.
As for lawyers, teachers etc, they don't need to import them from the UK, it could be any country with a similar law or education system. Could be most of the Commonwealth, or other BOTs like Saint Helena, but I bet the UK is most common.
Are immigrants allowed to serve in Congress in Argentina? I know they can't become President.
Here we go again!
Jan 30th, 2020 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I don't think Liberato will ever get what Roger and Demon Tree are saying, which is a shame as it is the truth. Incidentally Liberato, although the laws on the islands may appear similar to those of the UK they most certainly are not the same. Lawyers on the islands have to work with local laws.
Roger Lorton, the british excuse for not decolonize and not negotiate sovereignty with Argentina is that for the british, there is another people living in Malvinas. A People different to those living in the UK.
Jan 30th, 2020 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Ergo, If you Cant demostrate the most simple logic of your argument that is, that there is a different people in Malvinas to those living in the UK, the self determination excuse will be over and there would b not a third party in this sovereignty dispute, that the UK refuse to negotiate becouse the “islanders” do not want to.
Mr Edwards, if lived half of his life in Britain, will not betraye his nation for becoming a third party. The same with more than 90% of the population that are of british origins.
I don’t see what you dont understand about the origins of the population of the Islands. You deny more than 90% of the population are of british origins?. Is that it?.
quote:“NSGTs are listed for decolonization, not recolonization”. Well you fist denied that the NSGT are territories under decolonization, which means they are colonies. Now you assume they will be recolonized. I respect your opinion, but i suggest that lets first decolonize Malvinas and then we see. Dont forget the UK have another nine territories to decolonize. Most of them with no sovereignty disputes.
Demon Tree, i underestand the difference on how a Parliamentary Monarchy works and how a Republic works but it is not about the forms. Its about reality. The reality is that the UK refuse to negotiate the sovereignty dispute saying: “There is another people there with self determination rights, so ask them, not us”. But when you look at those islands, You don’t see another nation. The same happens to the UN on this matter. It is a british trick to keep the sun up on their empire I guess. Of course but when there is a british interest in rent a territory unoccupied they forget about that charade of “there is another people there with self determination rights”.
Independence must be a question between the people of a colony and the colonial power. If the Falkland Islanders want independence the UK should of course give them independence. But there is also a third part, Argentina, claiming the territory. The so called “kelpers” know, that if the UK should ever leave the islands Argentina will immediately take over. 3000 inhabitants cannot defend themselves against 44 000 000 Argentines. Therefore they need the UK and the BFSAI as a deterrent. Why are really some overseas territories of European countries still classed as “colonies”, but others are not? France has 83 500 square kilometers (the size of Austria) on the South American continent. But that seems to be O.K. Nobody really talks about that, but the “Malvinas Question” is always on the agenda.
Jan 30th, 2020 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Liberato
Jan 30th, 2020 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +1As long as you understand that the governor appointing a judge is the form, and the reality is the local government picks the judge. When people say the Falklands are self-governing, they mean the FIG runs the islands, decides policy, makes the laws. They control immigration, set fishing quotas, all that stuff as Roger said. But they do all that because the UK allows them to. Tomorrow the UK could say “No, we are taking over”, and run everything from London. That is why they are still on the UN's list to be decolonised.
As for being different people, most people living in the 13 colonies in North America were from Britain. They thought of themselves as British citizens. Didn't stop them fighting a war for independence. I think something similar happened in Argentina with Spain. With such a small population it's more debatable, and independence not feasible. I bet they wouldn't vote to become part of Britain, though.
DemonTree, it depends on your point of view. What is for you the “local government”?. The MLA Roger Edwards, the royal marine that was born in 1946 in Brinkworth, North Wiltshire, UK and lived 40 years in the UK?. The governor that is “imported” and named from Britain?. The military the same. Or perhaps the judges and lawers that are contracted in the UK?. The teachers that are also contracted in the UK?.
Jan 31st, 2020 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse -1Tell me who is precisely who writes the laws? MLA Roger Edwards? the governor? the judges or the lawers that came from Britain?.
The Falkland Islands now supports assisted dying for the terminally ill
Jan 31st, 2020 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse -1https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/news/falklands-vote-for-assisted-dying-motions/
they voted this law and I suppose that it is at this moment a reality, since they voted
Libby - MLA Edwards is an Islander. What or where he was before is of no relevance. He is a citizen of the Falkland Islands.
Jan 31st, 2020 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse +1The Governor represents the Queen, as do all Britain's Governors throughout the world.
The military is there because the neighbour cannot be trusted.
The judges and lawyers are employed by the FIG, as judges and lawyers are employed in the UK by the UK government.
Teachers are often home-grown but some may be employed from any country in the world.
Falklands laws are made by the Falklands legislature, which is the Falklands Legislative Assembly. It's in the name It's also in the Constitution.
;-)
With a population of just about 3000 they cannot recruit all professionals among themselves. They depend on the possibility to employ doctors, teachers, lawyers &c, &c from the UK or other Commonwealth countries. If Argentina took over all those would be replaced by Argentines, with quite another language, culture &c. That would really be a “colonial situation”.
Jan 31st, 2020 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse +1Liberato
Jan 31st, 2020 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse +1I mean the MLAs collectively. IIRC nowadays the governor attends meetings to advise but doesn't have a vote. I don't know anything about Roger Edwards, but the Islanders must have voted for him. If they think he or any other MPLAs are loyal to London instead of representing their interests the voters can kick them out at the next election.
And I don't know exactly how it works, but if the MLAs want to pass a law on eg assisted dying, I assume they get a lawyer to write it up for them and then check they are happy with it before voting. As I said, the governor does not get a vote and nor does the military. Who writes laws in Argentina? Do the deputies (or the President?) do it themselves or do they employ lawyers to do it?
I'm surprised they passed a law allowing assisted dying though. It's still illegal in the UK; people have gone to jail quite recently for it and I thought the Falklands was generally more conservative.
Dt
Feb 01st, 2020 - 02:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I'm surprised they passed a law allowing assisted dying though. It's still illegal in the UK; people have gone to jail quite recently for it and I thought the Falklands was generally more conservative.”
From my total ignorance, I ask?
I understand that they voted to tell uk that they would agree with that law.
Someone can answer?
I think you're right. They haven't actually passed a law, and it sounds more like they want to encourage the UK government to do it than take action themselves. Bit of a cop out, if they really wanted to they could copy the law in Canada or somewhere that already legalised it.
Feb 01st, 2020 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Liberato
Feb 01st, 2020 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The seas that suround them are only kept under control by a de facto military force and not by international law” If they were in violation of any 'international law' you would readily show it. The fact that you don't is proof that they are not.
“For not decolonize” The UK and the FI are in complete compliance with their UN Charter obligations, including meeting the requirements of 'self determination'.
The Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands has today (Thursday 26 July 2018) voted to support a motion that terminally ill residents should have the right to die at a time and place of their choosing, subject to robust legislation and safeguards. A second motion stated that should assisted dying legislation be introduced in the UK, the Falkland Islands would consider adopting it. Both motions passed by four votes to three with one abstention.
Feb 01st, 2020 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +1https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/news/falklands-vote-for-assisted-dying-motions/
It was a motion, not a Bill.
dt
Feb 02nd, 2020 - 03:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0if you can dictate your own laws and you are independent from the judicial point.
and the British judges are only here to judge based on local justice
Why would you make a motion on this subject?
Simple question, can you pass this law without the uk ok?
no es muy complicado lo que pregunto
Guillote
Feb 02nd, 2020 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's complicated.
As I understand it they don't need permission from the UK to pass laws, and the laws there aren't necessarily the same as in England (don't know of any specific examples, but I have a feeling gun laws are less strict there?)
However, they can't pass just any law they like. For example, the UK is signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, and this also applies to the Falklands. So they wouldn't be allowed to pass a law to eg legalise the death penalty, as this is forbidden by the ECHR.
Whether the UK can pass laws for Overseas Territories is something that came up recently due to the Panama Papers. This article says it is technically possible:
http://theconversation.com/why-british-law-doesnt-necessarily-apply-in-overseas-territories-57748
So far as I know the FIG could pass a law on assisted dying without an okay from the UK, but I'm not an expert, so I can't say for certain, sorry.
RL
What's the point of motions then, and of this one in particular?
DT - I think that motions are a way of expressing a preference without actually having to commit to legislation.
Feb 02nd, 2020 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This line in that article I linked probably applies to the Falklands: “Some follow English law more closely because producing your own legislation can be an expensive business.”
Feb 02nd, 2020 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This issue can't be a priority for them, I doubt even 50 people die per year. But do you know of any examples where the laws are different there?
I have not considered a comparison, although I am told that a number of statutes differ from the UK counterpart. Perhaps one day, I'll find the time. The statute law database can be found here - https://www.legislation.gov.fk/
Feb 02nd, 2020 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I must away. Back in 8 hours or so ;-)
0/10 usability, couldn't find the information I was looking for. Why are laws always written in such a horrible opaque format so no normal person can tell if they are breaking them or not?
Feb 02nd, 2020 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also, you live in a really annoying timezone, sleeping the evening away. ;)
Good morning. It is annoying. Were you looking for something specific. Having spent half my life with statutes, I may be able to find it.
Feb 02nd, 2020 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From my ignorance, it gives me the impression, without wanting to offend anyone, that they can and I don't know the legal term, to regulate British laws.
Feb 03rd, 2020 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0They could regulate a British law in which cases and how assisted death is applied. but they cannot vote the law itself, unfortunately we are only talking about the subject ourselves and no islanders or MLA.
RL
Feb 03rd, 2020 - 06:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was trying to find out if civilians can own handguns of some sort, if appropriately licensed etc. Don't know if they followed the UK in banning them after Dunblane.
Guillote
There are a few Islanders who post, but none very often any more. I think one is an ex-MLA.
Falklands Firearms legislation is here - https://www.legislation.gov.fk/download/pdf/c4f015c4-cc4b-40d9-a6ca-4e1cc8f9ca56/a25687ad-4b5b-4265-9e73-08e5314ed9c4/fiord-1987-4_2019-07-01.pdf
Feb 03rd, 2020 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0If memory serves, it looks very similar to the original 1968 Firearms Act in the UK, but I do not see any particular prohibition on handguns. The UK law prohibits firearms on the basis of barrel length in section 5 of the 1968 legislation as updated. I cannot see a similar provision in the Falklands legislation.
Amongst other differences between English (I use the term “English” as opposed to UK since legal system vary across the UK) law and Falkland law is that the Falklands uses a different set of legislation around mental health. Whereas England uses the Mental Health Act (1983), the Falkland's has it's own Mental health Ordinance. Road Traffic laws are different too.
Feb 03rd, 2020 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have no doubt that the legislation on weapons is different in different parts of the UK, since the legislation in London is different from that of Stanley. Who can think it could be the same. Has no sense.
Feb 04th, 2020 - 02:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Traffic laws are also different. I have no doubts about that.
dt
I don't know the subject in depth but I don't see anyone wanting to tell me why a motion and not a law.
What do you think about this?
Gullible, I did say. I repeat - I think that motions are a way of expressing a preference without actually having to commit to legislation.
Feb 04th, 2020 - 05:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0RL
Feb 04th, 2020 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There's a section on prohibited weapons and ammunition, but it just gives the penalties and doesn't specify what is prohibited. Unhelpful.
Guillote
Yeah, weapons laws are different in Northern Ireland, and several other laws too. The NI assembly can pass their own laws on the rare occasions when they actually agree enough to form a government...
Roger is probably right about why it's just a motion. They support the idea in principle but it's not worth the time, effort and expense to make their own law. I bet most of the cases where the law differs are because the UK government changed something and the FIG did not.
DT - section 2 defines 'prohibited weapons'
Feb 04th, 2020 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“prohibited weapon” means-
(a) any firearm which is so designed or adapted that if pressure is applied to the trigger,
missiles continue to be discharged until pressure is removed from the trigger or the
magazine containing the missiles is empty;
(b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any
noxious liquid, gas or other thing; or
(c) any class or description of firearm or weapon that the Governor may by Order in
Council designate as a prohibited weapon
Unlike UK legislation is does not include any firearm based upon barrel length.
Ah, yeah. Guess I was right then. Interesting that the Governor can prohibit weapons, would that be a way to override the government?
Feb 05th, 2020 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!