There you go again. Everything you don't like is labeled "Irrelevant".
Very easy way to 'prove' your right: "I have got no evidence for my case whatsoever, but if I label all your evidence as 'irrelevant' you haven't got any either":yeah:

yeah it seems so. He refuses to read my posts, forcing me to repeat everything a thousand times. Meanwhile he's drifting away from my point, ignoring everything I say and attacking me on newly made up topics I never talked about. He's both accusing me of having said things I've never said, and purposely ignoring relevant things I *have* said.
yes actually I have. As his repeatedly asking already answered questions shows, Tribesman proves unable to read my posts. So what's the point in answering more of his questions if he doesn't read them anyway?

For gods sake Darkfish why can't you understand?
There is only one thing that is relevant.
You must know what it is
Its on your fathers charge sheet.

One thing matters , that is the law.
The only thing that matters is the opinion of the person who decides what is acceptable.
Its in national law , its in municiple law , he is apponted by the municipality under their laws reinforced with national laws.
On a cartoon scale that peskiy clerk is Judge Dread...as far as meeting go that ar e under his remit "his word is law"

As said before , if you doubt me on some basis of Dutch law then tell your father to not pay the fine.

The ball is in your court.
Similar to what your father was told .
put up or shut up:yeah:

But hey you had enough opertunities for that and chose to do neither, since every question I ask you about Dutch law you fail, to answer or give an answer that is irrelevant under Dutch law.
(for those in doubt can you compare civil law with criminal law) (in the netherlands of course as some of you may never have lived there)

if your answer does not answer the question it is irrelevant.
If I ask you under which law you have the right to wave a flag in a meetinfg about planning permission and your answer is ...the law is "child protection" it "clearly " demonstrates you don't know what you are talking about.
When you insist that your selection of laws that are not applicable in the situation(in the main, not by even a huge stretch of the imagination) are the laws you knowe and the lkaws that are applicable then you demonstrate that you don't know the law.

I could have said "clearly" without any further comment.
Butr every time you hasve chosen to make "clearly" that much clearer for anyone whom is willing to look.

Can I ask again....... as it is a long time since you and your father specificly talked about the prospect......Have you talke to a lawyer ye as us damn foriegn micks(of my generation) being a nation of people who go outr foriegn don't understand foriegn laws.

But come on Darkfish , you want probabilities and Maths , on specifics how many council meetings in how many countries all with their own process have I had to go through?

Yeah you have lived where you live all your life and appear to have done very little.
Can I make a guess (just for the purpoose of demonstration)on how many meetings of you local council you have attended?
Can I make a guess on how many planning meetings you have attended?
Is it none?
None before your dad got into trouble?
None whatsoever?
None in the slightest?
OK I went to one but knew that what the nasty little "official" said was law?

Interesting questions ain't they.
But its Ok I expect your normal answer.
I don't know your laws because "currently" I live in Ireland
(notice a word there Hunter:har:)
I don't know your laws because I ain't been applying for and objecting to developments across the continent and into other continents in the slightest for many many years.
I just bin sitting here in backwards Ireland working for nothing but taxing and waiting to die
But on a european range avoid Spain both parts of former Czechlands, don't go any where near N. Cyprus even as a tax scheme and be very very careful where there is the possibility of Russian involvement(as in the latter the law don't count for bugger all)(which is a warning for any of you Brits who think you may make a penny on the olympics)(or Poles with the Soccer...but I think most of them Poles with a chance of competing got suckered out to Europes second miracle...iceland.

Still , one last chance.
Ain't I a gem. Generous to a fault:har:
Darkfish, my likes and dislikes of Dutch law concerning municipal meetings on the subject of planning permission are not even mentioned, they have not come into play once in the slightest.
You are the one that is letting personal emotion cloud the issue
I do not give a flying Dutchman about your fathers views on planning.
I do not give a fig about the crazy turk nationalists who want the project(don't tell skybird though as you know what his fetish is like).
The only issue here is Dutch law , dutch law concerning conduct in municpal buildings.


The only opinion that matters in this respect is the opinion of the official that told your father to shut up or leave.
He is the law period, at that instant he is the be all and end all as far as legal beghavior is concerned.
Ignore the law at your peril as ignorance of the law is no defence.
So either your father knew the law and ignored it.....which means he is guilty
Or he didn't know the law but wrongly thought he knew the law better tnan the legal fella whose job is the law...which means he is guilty.

Now you may maintain that the law is wrong(which you havn't as you maintain that the law isn't the law)
You could take it toi parliament, you could take it to your queen.....but if you go in their buildings and to do anything after the offiacial tells you not to do it then you id buggered(ubntil you change the law...dutch law that is ...the law of the Netherlands...where I don't live anymore as I is errrrrrr....Irish who don't be knowing nothing so we don't because we currently reside in errrrrr...Ireland....:rotfl2:)


BTW Darkfish if what you write has already been addressed then you don't have to repeat it , repeatingf it just shows that you don't understand why what you wrote is wrong.
If you repeat it 5 times it shows that you really don't understand.
When you repeat it even after it is simply explained you are showing a real problem .
As a sample look at breach of the peace.
Such a catch all wide ranging charge that covers both the civil code and criminal code in about 4 dozen instances.

What did you say about that single piece of legislation again and again?

It's awesome how much time people have to discuss the important topics of the day.

Listen, I ain't stupid enough to keep answering people that refuse to even look at my answers so the next two are the last ones that you'll get from me.
You can keep on trolling this thread to oblivion but I don't see any point in continuing answering your posts if you keep on trying to derail this thread.
and this answer shows you haven't read any of my posts, as what I've been repeating all the time is NOT ABOUT LAWS but about WHAT MY MAIN POINT IS, so it's something I CANNOT be wrong about.

You keep on addressing the issue of "What's on your fathers charge sheet", while that's NOTHING I have EVER denied, or EVER claimed the police to be wrong about.

To quote myself here for a minute: "Meanwhile he's drifting away from my point, ignoring everything I say and attacking me on newly made up topics I never talked about. He's both accusing me of having said things I've never said, and purposely ignoring relevant things I *have* said."
wrong on all your assumptions.

Now.. see ya!http://www.kattensite.be/forum/image.../icon_wave.gif

Ah , so those you listed off my list were wrong off, which leaves the last one.
It was your first time, I hope you enjoyed it.


Is that why you insist your father could wave a flag under law?
From the very start and consistantly throughout the topic you have insisted your father had the legal right to do what he was doing.
Its Dutch law:rotfl2:

Your main point is that your father is allowed to wave a flag as its his right so he did nothing wrong.
Which is where you are wrong as that comes down to a matter of law.

An interesting side note though.
There was a topic the other week about someone being bailed.
It that case it meant they was released from police custody at hte time they had to be released from police custody
When your dad got released from Police custody after 20 hours how on earth did you think that meant they had nothing and the charges would be dropped?

Are you related to OTH?

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

probably not but they're certainly good friends:yeah:

Has he seen a lawyer yet Darkfish:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

Snestorm, hows your long discredited 1930s form of nationalist patriotism going?
Did you get excited when someone mentioned waving flags?

I am not going to have to step in here again am I?

This one is super exciting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWxJHVGIIc8

small update, got a call from my mom today, it appears my dad has brought the case to court, and has WON THE CASE!!!:woot:

He doesn't have to pay the fine. He is on a short probation however for disobeying the council official.
Next time he's ordered to do this or that he'd better listen:)
It does show however he was in his right to wave the flag, and the council official should not have ordered him to lower it.

Justice has been served!:yeah:


Now what's with a certain member of my ignore list who proclaimed to know the Dutch muncipal laws all too well?

I don't get it, how can he be on probation if what the council official asked him to do had no legal background?:06:

Well, he's on probation for disobeying the council officer/police. Even though it had no legal background, he should have obeyed the officer, especially so when the police came to assist.

How it is that he gets a probation, while still winning the case - don't ask me, I'm no judge:88)

I think he's pretty much on everyone's ignore list by now... :DL

Congratulations to your old man :up:

LOL :DL

Thanks for sharing the good news.
I'm happy for both him, and your country.

Caps Lock strikes again.:har:
Since he was charged for not obeying the council official and is now on probation for not obeying the council official then he didn't win the case.

He didn't win the case, thats why he got probation:har:

The legal background is the law your father was charged with and convicted of which says the court clerk must be obeyed on matters of public order in council meetings.

:rotfl2:
You display your ignorance of the law, he was found guilty.

Still, congratulation on him "winning" the smaller penalty of probation for being guilty of breaking the law rather than the option of the fixed fine for being guilty of breaking the law.

I see that a certain member from my ignore list just posted here.
Without reading his post, I guess that he's simply denying all I've said, probably saying my dad is guilty after all, proclaiming he knows better what happened in the trial than I do, and probably something more about me supposedly not knowing Dutch laws and customs.


Am I right?:DL

Perfect:yeah: He makes it so easy
After all you cannot get a court to sentence you to probation unless you are found guilty:rotfl2:

This is the price of having an ignore list, and the reason why I don't have one.