Keith Woods remained adamant yesterday that his right to fight a champion nominated by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was still valid under European human rights legislation. He said it would have been a “reasonable” way to settle the matter.
Magistrates sitting at Manchester Crown Court on Friday had accepted his offer to take on a clerk from the BBC with “samurai swords, Ghurka knives or heavy hammers”. Unfortunately, the BBC’s health and safety policy restricted them in the process of nominating a champion to fight Mr Woods and had to concede the case against him. The BBC also had to bare all the costs of the case and pay Mr Woods compensation for his time spent dealing with the matter.
This news has been going viral because there is now a legal way to avoid paying for the much despised TV Licence in the UK. The BBC has been trying to keep this story from going mainstream because it will alert the world that you dont have to pay your TV Licence.
or an earlier story from 16 Dec 2002
A court has rejected a 60-year-old man's
attempt to invoke the ancient right to trial by combat, rather than pay a
£25 fine for a minor motoring offence.
Leon
Humphreys remained adamant yesterday that his right to fight a champion
nominated by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) was still
valid under European human rights legislation. He said it would have
been a "reasonable" way to settle the matter.
Magistrates
sitting at Bury St Edmunds on Friday had disagreed and instead of
accepting his offer to take on a clerk from Swansea with "samurai
swords, Ghurka knives or heavy hammers", fined him £200 with £100 costs.
Humphreys,
an unemployed mechanic, was taken to court after refusing to pay the
original £25 fixed penalty for failing to notify the DVLA that his
Suzuki motorcycle was off the road.
After
entering a not guilty plea, he threw down his unconventional challenge.
Humphreys, from Bury St Edmunds, said: "I was willing to fight a
champion put up by the DVLA, but it would have been a fight to the
death."
Trial by combat: Deciding a man’s guilt or innocence in the eyes of the gods by having two other men hack each other to pieces. It tells you something about the gods."
Trial by combat: Deciding a man’s guilt or innocence in the eyes of the gods by having two other men hack each other to pieces. It tells you something about the gods."
—Tyrion Lannister, Game of Thrones
Traditionally, this is one of the three
basic ways of resolving a conflict or disagreement between two
individuals or legal entities, the other two being Trial By Ordeal, and
Trial by Arbitration (the only one recognised by modern democracies, and
for which we have plenty of coverage already).
The idea behind it is very simple, which is probably why it's been used by numerous cultures throughout history: someone is accused of a crime, or two parties are descending into conflict over a matter of opinion or policy. In order to resolve this issue with the minimum of bloodshed, an individual is chosen to represent each side, and they fight. Winner takes all.
This works, supposedly, because Right Makes Might. Whichever side is in the right will win a fight, either because Good Hurts Evil, or because of some kind of divine intervention. Naturally, this idea is passé now, and so the trope is associated with medieval and fantasy settings.
Note that there is no need for either the accused or the accuser to fight for themselves. Just as often, they will choose a champion to fight on their behalf, which is arguably good, because otherwise bullies could handily go around accusing pipsqueaks of crimes against them and beating them up for the recompense, although the less physically imposing antagonists are not forbidden from having his/her more dangerous minions fight on his/her behalf.
This also says a lot about characterization of those who partake in the death match since an accused protagonist generally doesn't allow others to risk death on his/her behalf, but would rather fight his/her own battles.
Alternatively, another heroic character vouches his/her own life in defense of the accused, especially if said accused is unable to fend for him/herself.
On the other hand, many antagonists are all too selfishly willing to avoid severe injuries or death from combat by having a more physically inclined minion to fight on their behalf. Note also that these fights don't necessarily have to end in death, though they often do, especially if the accused is suspected of a capital crime.
If the trial takes place between representatives of opposing armies, you have a case of Combat by Champion. If the two are fighting over an insult, it's going to be a Duel to the Death, with all of the Throwing Down the Gauntlet, etc. Be aware of the difference between this and Duel to the Death. Although they are similar and in many cases overlap, this is always sanctioned by the pervading culture whereas a duel is sometimes illicit. Also, the way of engaging a trial is different.
Whereas a duel can be arranged entirely between the conflicting parties, a trial must be instigated at the behest of some authority figure (who will preside over the fight like a referee and may him/herself serve as champion, especially if he/she is of a Proud Warrior Race), and there have to be witnesses to verify how things went down.
Personally, my wife does not allow me to fight any more
Cheers
The idea behind it is very simple, which is probably why it's been used by numerous cultures throughout history: someone is accused of a crime, or two parties are descending into conflict over a matter of opinion or policy. In order to resolve this issue with the minimum of bloodshed, an individual is chosen to represent each side, and they fight. Winner takes all.
This works, supposedly, because Right Makes Might. Whichever side is in the right will win a fight, either because Good Hurts Evil, or because of some kind of divine intervention. Naturally, this idea is passé now, and so the trope is associated with medieval and fantasy settings.
Note that there is no need for either the accused or the accuser to fight for themselves. Just as often, they will choose a champion to fight on their behalf, which is arguably good, because otherwise bullies could handily go around accusing pipsqueaks of crimes against them and beating them up for the recompense, although the less physically imposing antagonists are not forbidden from having his/her more dangerous minions fight on his/her behalf.
This also says a lot about characterization of those who partake in the death match since an accused protagonist generally doesn't allow others to risk death on his/her behalf, but would rather fight his/her own battles.
Alternatively, another heroic character vouches his/her own life in defense of the accused, especially if said accused is unable to fend for him/herself.
On the other hand, many antagonists are all too selfishly willing to avoid severe injuries or death from combat by having a more physically inclined minion to fight on their behalf. Note also that these fights don't necessarily have to end in death, though they often do, especially if the accused is suspected of a capital crime.
If the trial takes place between representatives of opposing armies, you have a case of Combat by Champion. If the two are fighting over an insult, it's going to be a Duel to the Death, with all of the Throwing Down the Gauntlet, etc. Be aware of the difference between this and Duel to the Death. Although they are similar and in many cases overlap, this is always sanctioned by the pervading culture whereas a duel is sometimes illicit. Also, the way of engaging a trial is different.
Whereas a duel can be arranged entirely between the conflicting parties, a trial must be instigated at the behest of some authority figure (who will preside over the fight like a referee and may him/herself serve as champion, especially if he/she is of a Proud Warrior Race), and there have to be witnesses to verify how things went down.
Personally, my wife does not allow me to fight any more
Cheers
No comments:
Post a Comment