User talk:ElectricLemon

I'd be happy to hear from you.

I agree, the wording is much tidier.

The term used in English law is 'excuse' and not 'justification'. A defendant is 'excuse'd of his responsibility for the offence if he is held to have been under duress, but it does not justify the unlawful act. It's nitpicking, but that's what common law is all about ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playelf (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academic writings tend to offer a broad spectrum of views on any issue, particularly when it comes to journals which are concerned with the quality of justification for a viewpoint rather than how correct it may be in practice. In either case, an academic critique of the law is not the law as it stands today and it is incorrect to state that duress is at this time (although it may be reclassified so in the future) a justification, when plainly in jugements such as most recently in R v Hasan and in R v Wilson that duress is refered too expressly as an excuse. In case it should interest you, obiter statements in the recent case of R v Wilson (2007) appear to be expressing the appeal court's displeasure with the hard line taken in Hasan and may well be the basis for some future appeal which might provide yet more clarity. I remain resolute that the wording 'excuse' as it is used in ratio decidendi, should be correct term applied in the article, rather than 'justification' which while there may be an arguement for is not the terminology being applied in practiced law today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.82.206 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My grammar is not up to scratch, I have a point that I want to get across, and need help to articulate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Discrimination_(EU_Law) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean4780 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the page Challenges to decisions of England and Wales magistrates' courts. I left a question for you at the talk page. Cheers. – Kaihsu (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]