Author: iamking

perjury (n.)

late 14c., “act of swearing to a statement known to be false,” via Anglo-French perjurie (late 13c.) and Old French parjurée “perjury, false witness,” both from Latin periurium “a false oath,” from periurare “swear falsely,” from per “away, entirely” (see per) + iurare “to swear” (see jury (n.)). Related: Perjurious.

frivolous (adj.)

mid-15c., from Latin frivolus “silly, empty, trifling, worthless,” diminutive of *frivos “broken, crumbled,” from friare “break, rub away, crumble” (see friable). In law (by 1736), “so clearly insufficient as to need no argument to show its weakness.” Related: Frivolously; frivolousness.

nation (n.)

c. 1300, nacioun, “a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language,” from Old French nacion “birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland” (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,” literally “that which has been born,” from natus, past participle of nasci “be born” (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

The word is used in English in a broad sense, “a race of people an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family and speaking the same language,” and also in the narrower sense, “a political society composed of a government and subjects or citizens and constituting a political unit; an organized community inhabiting a defined territory within which its sovereignty is exercised.”

In Middle English it is not easy to distinguish them, but the “political society” sense emerged by 16c., perhaps late 14c. and it has gradually predominated. The older sense is preserved in the application of nation to the native North American peoples (1640s). Nation-building “creation of a new nation” is attested by 1907 (implied in nation-builder). Nation-state “sovereign country the inhabitants of which are united by language, culture, and common descent” is from 1918.

A nation is an organized community within a certain territory; or in other words, there must be a place where its sole sovereignty is exercised. [Theodore D. Woolsey, “Introduction to the Study of International Law,” 1864] 

Quantitative Easing

Quantitative easing, also known as large-scale asset purchases, is a monetary policy whereby a central bank buys predetermined amounts of government bonds or other financial assets in order to inject liquidity directly into the economy. An unconventional form of monetary policy, it is usually used when inflation is very low or negative, and standard expansionary monetary policy has become ineffective. A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying specified amounts of financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply. This differs from the more usual policy of buying or selling short-term government bonds to keep interbank interest rates at a specified target value. Expansionary monetary policy to stimulate the economy typically involves the central bank buying short-term government bonds to lower short-term market interest rates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Necessity in English criminal law

In English law, the defence of necessity recognizes that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. There have been very few cases in which the defence of necessity has succeeded, and in general terms there are very few situations where such a defence could even be applicable. The defining feature of such a defence is that the situation is not caused by another person (which would fall under either duress or self-defence) and that the accused was in genuine risk of immediate harm or danger.

For the most part crimes that could be justified as necessary are minor in nature, such as driving over the speed limit to reach medical care, or damaging property to escape a fire. In almost all cases where a serious crime has taken place, necessity is unlikely to be a successful defence as courts have mostly taken the view that directly harming another person could not be justified even by extreme circumstances unless it directly prevented immediate serious harm or death.[1] Even if a person were already likely to die, and their death would allow others to survive, killing them is not necessary until the point where harm is imminently likely to occur to the others and if that harm is not immediate, then necessity cannot apply. As such the circumstances where necessity could apply to a serious crime are extremely narrow, involving two or more people in an immediately life-threatening situation where only one could survive. Even in this situation, as the law does allow for a person not to take actions that would save another person if to do so would put their own life at risk, it is seldom strictly necessary for one person to kill another, one allowing the other to die in the course of the situation, then saving themselves.

The Crown Prosecution Service has historically chosen to exercise its discretion not to prosecute those cases where it believes potential defendants have acted reasonably in all the circumstances, and as such where necessity is a strong defence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_English_criminal_law