Agree with that:up:
We're not getting anywhere so let's call it a day.
hah. You would be surprised to find out how bad the relationship between me and my dad actually is:dead:
That said, I truly believe in him being right on this one. I admit it wasn't smart to disobey the council representative and the police, but he was definitely in his right waving a flag.

You have a point , after all he is only repeatedly demonstrating that he doesn't understand the law and will not understand the law.
All he has to do is read the charge his father posted to see how wrong he has been all along.
For anyone interested in the charge its under article SR139 para1

you can't just let it go, can you? very well then, here we go again:yawn:
excuse me? I'm the only one who actually came up with some articles from the Dutch law. All YOU give as argument is "Of course it is". Now *I* am the one who doesn't understand the law?

If you did understand the law yourself so very well, it surely wouldn't have been too hard to come up with some articles to prove me wrong.

I admit the fact that I have been wrong about what he was charged with. Which is not my fault, because as you can see from the date my dad posted the final charge, I had already started this thread before that. I only had the information available at the time, and at that time my dad was initially charged with something else.

However, my main point is not, and has never been, the fact that he resisted arrest. My main point has always been that he did nothing to be rightfully removed from the town hall.
To counter my main point, you consistently say "It's against Dutch law and customs" but fail to produce ANY evidence for that. Is it very irreasonable to expect a native Dutchman to know more about the Dutch law and customs than an Irishman?
So who is more likely to be right here? Someone who has lived in the Netherlands his entire life, or someone who hasn't? You do the maths.

You'll find that Tribesman is a self proclaimed expert in all kinds of national legal systems but never provides anything of substance to back those claims up.

My advice to you is the same as for the other guy. Don't feed the troll.

Your father sounds like a true Dutch patriot. Good luck to him.

So his fathers summons detailing the charge and naming the law it is being brought under is of no substance.
It is you who is being the troll August. In fact you often troll by entering a debate where you know nothing of the subject and demonstrate that you have no intention of ever knowing anything about it.


You came up with a long pile of laws that your father is not being charged with.:rotfl2:
That happens to count for nothing, though it could be taken that you were attempting to deliberately mislead.

Irelevant. I asked you about what your father had posted and why it was not in line with your claims.
I asked you about the specific law.
You then claimed it was a diferent law and again repeated that I don't understand and was wrong.
The problem Darkfish is that you have repeatedly been shown to be wrong on just about every legal aspect of the case yet are insisting that you are still correct and its others who don't understand the law.


Results say otherwise.
Your maths was clearly faulty.
It appears that you were simply trying a bluff.

BTW ever heard of a loaded question?
Its very popular in certain circles.
Its very handy when you want an answer to something that you already know.
When the person questioned is unable to answer or comes up with a different answer it means one of two things.
Either they don't actually know what they are talking about or they are deliberately making stuff up.:hmmm:

that was what he was initially being charged with, and what I thought the charge still was when I posted.
The current charge has nothing to do with the reason why he was removed from the town hall. The current charge is, put simply, resisting arrest/removal. I have never ever denied that he did resist arrest/refused to leave.
My whole point is that he was unrightfully removed.
I did only once claim it was a different law, and that is when I became aware of the final charge instead of the initial one, after YOU posted the final charge. So YOU are the one that claimed it was a different law (though you were right on that)
I don't claim, and never have, you're being wrong on the matter of the final charge, after all he did resist arrest.

What I do claim you to be wrong on, is on the matter of if he was RIGHTFULLY removed.
shown? what do you mean "shown"? All you have shown is your great argument of "of course".
And again, you randomly throw around accusations without producing a shred of evidence. "Clearly" isn't exactly a good reason.:roll:
:nope:
I asked you "So who is more likely to be right here? Someone who has lived in the Netherlands his entire life, or someone who hasn't?". You were unable to come up with the right answer, so it means one of the following two things:
Either you don't actually know what you're talking about or you're deliberately trolling.:hmmm:

Ach - your quoting tribesman - and then ask if he is deliberately trolling.

Its tribesman - so the answer is an automatic yes. He has been challenged by numerous forum members to provide links/references on his various inane claims - and still fails utterly to do so. His theme is "I say this, so it must be so, and if you don't agree, I will ignore every point you make and hearken to some earlier arguement where I can take you out of context or ignore the reality that you might be researching an opposing view, all for the purpose of trying to discredit you."

Good advice that - Dont feed the troll. Iggy button is a great tool.

What a surprise , Haplo the troll popped up with nothing to say about the topic in question.

Darkside.
It really is a simple issue.
You keep going on about rights, that shows you donn't understand the law.
Your father had issues with the opinion of the council official, that shows he doesn't understand the law.

When you choose to go into a council meeting the only rights you have there are those the council says you have.
The only opinion on what is acceptable conduct in that meeting is the person whose job under law is to decide what is acceptable conduct.

The whole issue is that your father didn'tunderstand the law and didn't realise that the word of that "pesky official" is the only word that counts.

That is why he was arrested and charged with trespass(unlawful presence in a municipal building to be specific).
He gave up his right to freely wave his flag and to say what he likes the moment he walked into the meeting.....
It really is that simple, its very basic law.
From the moment that your father refused to do what the official told him he was commiting an offence.
Under Dutch law the official (who has no powers of arrest) is then obliged to call the police.

@Tribesman, unless you actually live in the Netherlands you don't have a clue how it works there.

the law in the Netherlands is so double-edged that the Criminal has more rights then it's victims.

HunterICX

Hunter, you are missing a vital word there.
Its a vital word that puts the kybosh onto Darfish's gamble on probability and maths.

No, but it can sometimes seem that way.

I am glad you used that word ....."criminal". Its criminal law, it ceased being civil law once he refused to obey the official.
Better tell darkfish as his "local expertise" has had him claiming irrelevant laws as proof.:up:

So I suppose one final question for darkfish, he should by now have realised that his father is guilty as charged and has no realistic defence.

If he now chooses to not pay the fine how long can he be sent to jail for?
I will even give you multiple choice to make it easier.
1 day
28 days
3 months
6 months
1 year
10 years
Hint(the answer is in the criminal code not the civil code)

ah yes, and of course you as a foreigner do know everything about the dutch law:yeah:

You claim to be an expert on the Dutch law, but all you can produce as evidence for your case is "of course it is", "irrelevant" and "I think you know nothing about the Dutch law so you don't understand the law"
while in fact you know nothing about it at all.
If this doesn't show how little in fact you know about the Dutch law, nothing does.
Here in the Netherlands we DO have the right to freely wave flags and banners:I really, really do not want to repeat things I've said a thousand times already.
Read this post, 1st line of the last paragraph.

this post, next to last paragraph.

One final question for you: do you even read my posts? There are things I've mentioned more than 5 times now, and it still seems you have never read them.
Have you got reading problems? or are you deliberately "forgetting" everything you don't like to read?

Daaamn, you two still going? :DL

Once again you make the obvious mistake.
Two simple questions.
How many countries have you lived in and how many different legal
and politcal processes in how many countries have you had to deal with?
The wonderful thing about being a foriegner is the amount of ****e you have to learn if you want to do business when living in foriegn countries.

Thats because its so obvious, your inability to understand your own laws(or even identify them) has been repeatedly proven by yourself.
Every time I push a question you fail.

You did it again.
Can you provide a picture of someone waving a banner after the "pesky clerk" has told them to stop or leave?

Read the law , it on your dads sheet. its also written plainly in the dutchcriminal code, its covered under Arnhems own municipal regs.

BTW the jail term can be 3 months .
Am I to assume you couldn't get the multiple choice question because you
don't know the law?
The maths on that one going by known knowns would suggest the probability is so high it is a dead cert.

The problem there is you keep on repeating things which demonstrate that you don't know the law.
Instead of just repeating them why don't you consider dropping the assumptions you have had from the moment your father was arrested and actually check properly.

You know what? to show the stupidity of your comments i'll just use YOUR answers this time:yeah:

Irrelevant:rotfl2:

The problem Tribesman is that you have repeatedly been shown to be wrong on just about every legal aspect of the case yet are insisting that you are still correct and its others who don't understand the law.:har:Of course not. And when the point is so basic then "of course" is entirely sufficient.:D

You demonstrate that you don't understand the laws or the rights concerning protest.:haha:

It appears that you were simply trying a bluff.:har:
Can you understand the rules concerning public meetings?
Can you understand the laws covering the rules?
It appears not.

Your maths was clearly faulty. :yeah:

You have a point, after all I am only repeatedly demonstrating that you don't understand the law and will not understand the law.:DOnce again you make the obvious mistake.
There lies one problem, your inability to understand Dutch laws(or even identify them) has been repeatedly proven by yourself.
It really is a simple issue that shows you don't understand the law.:har:

That happens to count for nothing, though it could be taken that you were attempting to deliberately troll.:rotfl2:


oh and of course you're gonna sue me for plagiarism now:yeah:

But my face is already painted! I am a Juggalo after all. ;)