Comments by "Sammy B" (@sammyb1651) on "Connor Tomlinson" channel.

I'm sympathetic to a lot of the views expressed but I found the exchange at 32:11 absolutely extraordinary. He doesn't understand why he was asked to take that out? A provision which creates a legal obligation for a private citizen to report members of their own family for a criminal offence? On pain of criminal sanction? Really? Is he serious? Does he know anything about English law or culture? This is isn't Soviet Russia thank you very much. Appalling blindspot 'twixt interviewer and interviewee here. I actually had chills.
6
@BritishNaturalist-vb8hj No. What you're saying is wrong in fact and law. If you don't understand this (and why it's important) you're operating at a level that's simply too basic to seriously participate in a debate.👍 It's a very longstanding principle of English law that you are under no legal obligation to report other people's criminality. This is especially true of family members. Theres a very, very good reason for this and you depart from it at society's peril. I repeat: this is NOT Soviet Russia. You do not set a legal precedent compelling family members to inform on one another. A legal duty to report only arises in very particular cases (typically in public office, where a particular responsibility is assumed as part of an employment). This makes the man sound utterly clueless about very important tenets of British culture I'm afraid. I don't know what else to say.
2
@he1senbergshat78 Of course I would. I'd feel morally compelled to do so. It's the right thing to do. You're answering a completely different question and the man remains clueless I'm afraid.
2
32:11 You don't understand why he asked you to take that out? A provision which creates a legal obligation for a private citizen to report members of their own family for a criminal offence? On pain of criminal sanction? Really? Are you serious? Do you know anything about English law or culture? I'm sympathetic to a lot of the views expressed but I found this exchange absolutely extraordinary. This is isn't Soviet Russia thank you very much. Appalling blindspot 'twixt interviewer and interviewee here. I actually had chills.
1
@theinngu5560 It's the morally right thing to do but it absolutely should NOT be a legal requirement. He's lost the plot on this point and comes across as completely stupid. It's a very longstanding principle of English law that you are under no legal obligation to report other peoples criminality. This is especially true of family members. Indeed it was once the case that spouses could not be compelled to testify against one another in court cases. Theres a very, very good reason for this and you depart from it at society's peril. This is NOT Soviet Russia. A duty to report arises in very particular cases (typically public office, where the role is assumed as part of employment). Aside from that you leave well alone. It is a moral obligation. This makes the man sound utterly clueless about very important tenets of British culture.
1
@James-o2u9x On the contrary. I'm intensely relaxed about personal flaws. I think this is a seismic defect however. I understand why Connor doesnt understand the problem. He's a young man who doesnt know very much and is trying to signal to his interviewee that he's allied to him and his cause. I am absolutely astonished that a 67 year old accomplished English patriot doesn't understand the issue however. It was a horribly telling exchange.
1
@danielgreen4213 No again. Your'e wrong both in fact and in law. He's talking about a positive legal duty to accuse a (family member) of a criminal offence. Nothing to do with "aiding and abetting" them, which naturally, would be a crime in its own right. You can't alter the nature of his statement by adding clauses to it that were not present I'm afraid. He said what he said. I'm sorry but it not only exposes him, it exposes Connor and also the numerous commenters who don't identify a profound issue with it. If you create a law like this you change the nature of English law and society in a material way.
1
@DavidMartin-ym2te What you're saying betrays a fundamental ignorance of law. I'm not saying that to put you down, just explaining that you don't understand what you're talking about. It's one thing for punters on a YouTube channel to fail to understand the issue. For a sophisticated English patriot with aspirations of Parliament/PM however it is quite another. Frightening stuff.
1
I'm sympathetic to a lot of the views expressed but I found the exchange at 32:11 absolutely extraordinary. He doesn't understand why he was asked to take that out? A provision which creates a legal obligation for a private citizen to report members of their own family for a criminal offence? On pain of criminal sanction? Really? Is he serious? Does he know anything about English law or culture? This is isn't Soviet Russia thank you very much. Appalling blindspot 'twixt interviewer and interviewee here. I actually had chills.
1
@bigdig8119 Wrong in fact and law. You're showing very basic levels of ignorance.
1