Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Should judge have used c-word in court? BBC News" video.

The entire idea that ANYONE should show deference to these pompous, powder-haired buffoons sickens me. I show deference to people I respect (VERY few people), not someone who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth and has now clambered to the top of the heap. Nobody chooses to be a defendant in court, and if the judge can't show a bit of decorum and recognise the innate privilege of their position, then they have no right to be lecturing others about how to behave in civilised society.
1
I didn't vote to have courts represent me. Courts represent authority, not society. They represent the kind of people who decide that one should lose one's freedom for smoking marijuana, or not paying taxes, or breaking the millions of rules that they have deigned to create. I hold the entire system in complete contempt.
1
"but the majority of people who are convicted deserve to be convicted" How naïve are you? I never agreed to laws that tell me what drugs I can and cannot use, yet if I smoke pot, I can have my hard earned income, and my freedom taken away from me. I never agreed to laws that tell me how loud I can be, what times of day I can light bonfires on my own property, or how fast I can drive, yet all are illegal. I do not believe that I owe deference to ANYONE, but I will show courtesy as long as I believe that it is justified. Being forced into court under threat of violence (which is what ANY prosecution boils down to if you choose not to comply) is not justified, therefore respect is not justified.
1
I don't have contempt for human values. I respect love, loyalty, decency and courtesy. The "system" is nothing to do with those. Arresting a man for writing something rude about Muslims on Facebook is now part of the system. Some Islamic appeaser has decided that Muslim feelings are worth more than fairness and freedom of speech so now harsh language is an arrestable offence. I do have contempt for a system of oppression that is designed to enforce the arbitrary and constantly changing standards of a court system trying to appease a bunch of whiney SJWS, rad fems, corporates, and a government that routinely does not put the best interests of its citizens and electorate first. The system is not about justice or fairness, it is about control. But go on, try to make out that capitulating to that oppression makes YOU the civilised one. Until you fall foul of the system yourself.
1
I agree that the philosophy behind the law is sound, provided you accept that harmonious coexistence is more important than personal liberty. I do, but I point that out to illustrate that even one's philosophical starting position is not a given. In Germany, they have no speed limit on the autobahn, yet they manage just fine without killing each other. And if I want to harm myself, who is ANYBODY to tell me that is not my choice to do so? There can be a fine line between laws that facilitate peaceful co-existence, and laws that simply assert the mechanisms of the state, or worse still, the religious will of a particular sect. I don't know which country you come from, but if as I suspect, it's America, you guys are orders of magnitude more corrupt than here in the UK. I don't say that to one up you, but because you perhaps misunderstand British society, which has lots of checks and balances, particularly in politics, to minimise corruption. The majority of Americans want money out of politics, they want gun regulations tightened, they want all police to be accountable, and they want marijuana legalised. None of these things are happening because money equals power in the US. Thus, laws do NOT reflect the will of the people, rather they reflect the desires of the powerful. I'm reminded of the saying "Those who want to lead are those people who we should least wont to lead."
1
I think we more or agree with each other, so I'll wish you a good day.
1
Wow, posh, you must be a lord! :-)
1
lol - I'm honoured.
1