a story of patriotism...

Besides, the official wasn't even in his right to instruct my dad to leave

Yes he was.
Thats his job, keeping order in meetings.

refusing to follow instructions of an official is not called "disturbing the peace" or anything.

Of course it is.

aaargh! please don't make me sum up every single article of the Dutch law! I've got other things to do than copy-translate-pasting it all onto subsim!

Its easy, the person claiming to be your father posted the writ on that blog you linked to. The specific crime is listed at the bottom.

"a 'prohibited place' is any place that's indicated as prohibited under the Law for Protection of State Secrets"

A prohibited place is any place covered by laws and by-laws....like a government building, though even a public park or road can be a prohibited place.

I fully agree on that one.
But:
1) I fail to see how anyone can possibly be annoyed by seeing a flag

You keep on going on about "the flag". It has nothing whatsoever to do with the flag, it is entirely about his conduct.

2) As I have said (and repeated until the end of ages it seems to me) it is completely legal to display any flags/banners and stuff. So even if anyone somehow felt annoyed by the flag, my dad was allowed to display it.

Again, it has nothing to do with the flag.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes he was.
Thats his job, keeping order in meetings.

He cannot simply throw out anyone he doesn't like. He must have a good reason first to do so. which he didn't have cause all my dad was doing was holding up a flag.

Of course it is.

Well, "of course" isn't exactly a good argument, is it? where I come up with laws and such to prove my point, everything you can think of in response is "of course".

Its easy, the person claiming to be your father posted the writ on that blog you linked to. The specific crime is listed at the bottom.

Erm, the specific crime is only listed once, in the center of the article. Namely: "ordeverstoring", translated as simply "disruption".
I don't know what you read at the bottom of the page, but it wasn't the "specific crime".

A prohibited place is any place covered by laws and by-laws....like a government building, though even a public park or road can be a prohibited place.

didn't I just show you the article that shows it isn't? "verboden plaats"="prohibited place"=what I just described.
Nothing more. A place with a "do not enter - private property" sign is not called a "verboden plaats".
It might be in the Irish law, but in the Dutch law there's a difference.

You keep on going on about "the flag". It has nothing whatsoever to do with the flag, it is entirely about his conduct.

That's what it MUST be about cause that's all my dad was doing at the time, holding up a flag. He wasn't shouting, he wasn't fighting, he wasn't doing anything but holding up that flag. How can you possibly maintain the flag had nothing to do with it?



PS - as a "friendly reminder": let's keep this thread civil and not start name-calling as has happened when I had a similar discussion with OneToughHerring. So far everything's fine so let's keep it that way

It is not an article of trespass. All these articles are part of "Disturbance of the peace". Trespassing is an entirely different part of the law.
Also, check my previous post (which you may not have read yet by now), the 'trespassing' described is not the 'normal' trespassing but a special case.

"A special place" like in a council meeting after being told to leave
So unlawful presence in a room dedicated to the public service....with a doubled up charge possible as he not only remained after the representaive of the council asked him to leave, he remained after the representative of the police commisioner asked him

Well, "of course" isn't exactly a good argument, is it?

When the point is so basic then "of course" is entirely sufficient.

where I come up with laws and such to prove my point, everything you can think of in response is "of course".

There lies one problem, you are claiming its one of a long set of laws, the person claiming to be your father in your link says it is one specific law which is not on your list.

Erm, the specific crime is only listed once, in the center of the article. Namely: "ordeverstoring", translated as simply "disruption".
I don't know what you read at the bottom of the page, but it wasn't the "specific crime".

Sorry you have to go to the follow up story where the person claiming to be your father posts the two letters he recieved from the public prosecutor
The first deals with the basic prosecution and the option of paying the fine. It contains a summary of the charge and the article of law it is under.
The second is the summons with the date of the court appearance and the specific details of the charge.

didn't I just show you the article that shows it isn't? "verboden plaats"="prohibited place"=what I just described.
Nothing more. A place with a "do not enter - private property" sign is not called a "verboden plaats".
It might be in the Irish law, but in the Dutch law there's a difference.

See above.

That's what it MUST be about cause that's all my dad was doing at the time, holding up a flag. He wasn't shouting, he wasn't fighting, he wasn't doing anything but holding up that flag. How can you possibly maintain the flag had nothing to do with it?

Because the flag is only incidental, the prosecution has nothing to do with the flag, it is entirely to do with a failure to comply with the law and procedure.

[DarkFish]

When the point is so basic then "of course" is entirely sufficient.

If the point were so basic, then why didn't you come up with some articles from the Dutch law, like I did?
Because there are no articles that state such a thing.

Sorry you have to go to the follow up story where the person claiming to be your father posts the two letters he recieved from the public prosecutor
The first deals with the basic prosecution and the option of paying the fine. It contains a summary of the charge and the article of law it is under.
The second is the summons with the date of the court appearance and the specific details of the charge.

ah thanks. I was not aware of this, they must have charged him with something else than they initially planned to do then.

So let's forget about the disruption of the peace then.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

"A special place" like in a council meeting after being told to leave

nope, not that kind of "special place". But since it appears he's been charged with something else after all let's forget about this.

So unlawful presence in a room dedicated to the public service....with a doubled up charge possible as he not only remained after the representaive of the council asked him to leave, he remained after the representative of the police commisioner asked him

As I said, the representative of the council shouldn't have asked him to leave as he was doing nothing wrong.
It would have been 'smarter' to comply, yes, but my dad did nothing wrong and so had every right to be there. You can blame him for his stubbornness but nothing more.
If this ever gets to court, I'll be eager to know how the prosecutor wants to claim my dad was rightfully thrown out of the town hall.

Because the flag is only incidental, the prosecution has nothing to do with the flag, it is entirely to do with a failure to comply with the law and procedure.

The prosecution in itself has nothing to do with a flag, no, but my dad had every right to be there. Raising the flag was the event that eventually caused all the trouble. And raising a flag is no good reason to remove someone from the town hall.

If the point were so basic, then why didn't you come up with some articles from the Dutch law, like I did?
Because there are no articles that state such a thing.

I asked you to state the article, the crime you thought it was is covered by disturbing the peace....because its a catch all charge that covers many things. Like not doing what an official tells you to do is an action likely to lead to a disturbance of the peace......continuing to not do what you were told is an actual disturbance of the peace.
They could have had him on both grounds and he is equally guilty of both according to what he says on that blog and what you have written here.

ah thanks. I was not aware of this, they must have charged him with something else than they initially planned to do then.

yes its basicly illegal trespass on municipal property....because the public gallery has rules and he wouldn't follow them so he lost his legal right to be there.

nope, not that kind of "special place". But since it appears he's been charged with something else after all let's forget about this.

See above.

As I said, the representative of the council shouldn't have asked him to leave as he was doing nothing wrong.

The person whose descision it is thinks otherwise. So did the police. so does the public prosecutor

It would have been 'smarter' to comply, yes, but my dad did nothing wrong and so had every right to be there.

but my dad did nothing wrong and so had every right to be there

but my dad had every right to be there.

A whole series.
Can you understand the rules concerning public meetings?
Can you understand the laws covering the rules?
It appears not.
But as an experiment, if your father doesn't have a decent lawyer for advice and so decides to go to court and tries to avoid the consequences of his actions can you stand up in the public gallery of the court and repeat his actions and see which laws they throw at you?
Because in that case they can throw not only the trespass and the breach of peace they can also hit you with a charge of contempt.

[Platapus]

Tribesman, how about letting it go?

Darkfish has already admitted to not including all the facts in his original posting. This is his father we are discussing. Of course Darkfish will be on the side of his father, what kind of son would not back up his father?

He is emotionally involved in this case (as he should).

This constant back and forth between you two is not solving anything. Neither one of you appears to be willing to change your opinions (nor should you).

Why don't we just wish Darkfish's father well and hope that the judicial system there works and justice is served?

Just a suggestion.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Tribesman, how about letting it go? [...] This constant back and forth between you two is not solving anything. Neither one of you appears to be willing to change your opinions (nor should you).

Why don't we just wish Darkfish's father well and hope that the judicial system there works and justice is served?

Agree with that
We're not getting anywhere so let's call it a day.

Of course Darkfish will be on the side of his father, what kind of son would not back up his father?

hah. You would be surprised to find out how bad the relationship between me and my dad actually is
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.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I asked you to state the article, the crime you thought it was is covered by disturbing the peace....because its a catch all charge that covers many things. Like not doing what an official tells you to do is an action likely to lead to a disturbance of the peace......continuing to not do what you were told is an actual disturbance of the peace.
They could have had him on both grounds and he is equally guilty of both according to what he says on that blog and what you have written here.

do you still maintain he's guilty of disturbance of the peace? I posted the Dutch law concerning that matter, did you read it or not?

yes its basicly illegal trespass on municipal property....because the public gallery has rules and he wouldn't follow them so he lost his legal right to be there.

even if he would have been legally removed, it would have been a different law he broke.
In the case you mention, you could be charged with TRESPASSING. Not with disturbance.

Let me write it down clearly one more time for you:
if someone is on a place he shouldn't be, he's TRESPASSING.
you are ONLY 'disturbing the peace' if you are at a place where some STATE-SECRETS are. It's in the LAW, LITERALLY, exactly like that, so please don't tell me this isn't true.

See above.

See above.
And my previous post.
And the post before my previous post.
And the post before that.
And even one more post before that.

The person whose descision it is thinks otherwise. So did the police. so does the public prosecutor

The person whose decision it was did indeed think otherwise, that's the point. But whatever he thought, he was not in his right to remove my dad. See below. The police are just called like "hey, there's someone here who doesn't want to leave, take him!". They do their job and take him out. It's not their responsibility to ask why exactly the person in question gets thrown out.

Can you understand the rules concerning public meetings?
Can you understand the laws covering the rules?

yes, I can, and I do.
You clearly don't even know these laws, at least not the Dutch laws concerning public meetings.

This is another thing I've said many, many and even manier times before. It is legal and widely accepted in the Netherlands to wave banners, flags, anything you want as long as it isn't anything offensive.
In my dad's case, if he had hold up a banner saying "death to all muslims" or something, it would have been rightful to remove him.
A flag can hardly be seen as offensive however. I can't remember the last time I were offended by seeing the Dutch flag, but it sure is a hell of a long time ago.

But as an experiment, if your father doesn't have a decent lawyer for advice and so decides to go to court and tries to avoid the consequences of his actions can you stand up in the public gallery of the court and repeat his actions and see which laws they throw at you?

Of course not. It wasn't exactly a smart thing to do from my dad, refusing to leave, so of course I ain't gonna do that.

If your dad jumps off the roof of his house, will you do the same and follow him?
Same thing, a stupid and potentially harmful decision.

Tribesman, how about letting it go?

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

Arnhem, 28 januari 2010
De officier van justitie,
Aan bovenbedoelde gedagvaarde persoon wordt tenlastegelegd dat
hij op of omstreeks 25 januari 2010 te Arnhem, wederrechtelijk vertoevende in een voor de openbare dienst bestemd lokaal, te weten de raadszaal van het gemeentehuis, zich niet op de vordering van de (door of namens de) bevoegde ambtenaar H. Th. van Haarlem (hoofdinspecteur van politie) en/of H. F. G. Bergefurt (beveiliger, belast met toezicht op de openbare orde in de raadszaal) aanstonds heeft verwijderd;
art 139 lid 1 Wetboek van Strafrecht