common sense in evidence – justice mill?

We are a communication affected group. We need communication to make logical sense. If something establishes something else as a fact, our communication can only go with that. It can never be expected to be communicated to us logically, that illogically a demonstrated evidenced fact shall not be allowed to count as one.

The good practical effect of this for civil liberties, is to entitle everyone to the same, in public situations that both we and everyone else can be in.

62d527c347b001b2b0144621cafe9a71          The Justice Mill is a Wetherspoon’s pub in Aberdeen, and some name it has. An industry producing justice it is not. In an aspie party, one of late twenties age got refused service there on grounds of suspected under 18 – late twenties, and has never had that happen before at this age. The manager held that it stood despite his adulthood being an obviously provable fact, from his concessionary bus pass. They are photographic, and only adults have them without Young Scot logos on. That is an item never issued to a child, never to anyone under 25 in fact, so it proves the holder is an adult. But he held that it a not valid age identifier by law.

Now this is not a simple matter of obeying the law, because law on a pub checking ages for service only arises when factual doubt exists. The question of law does not kick in at all until, and because, the pub has doubted the age. When the age is IN FACT FACTUALLY PROVED, BY ANY MEANS, the cause for tbe law to arise ceases to exist. It is counterfactual, a nonsensical behaviour in the face of facts, to hold that a factual proof of a fact does not count if it is not one of the forms of age identifier defined as “valid” by licensing law, and the person must still be treated as if they might not be adult !

This is not a line that you can make a successful logical communication of to us a communication troubled group, because it is illogical. It asserts that a known fiction must continue to be adhered to contrary to a known fact, because something had previously been suspected which is now disproved ! You were suspected therefore you must remain treated as if a now disproved suspicion is true, unless you have a particular valid identifier, though that would not happen if you had not been wrongly suspected in the first place !?!
Because that does not work as logical communication, it is completely unacceptable and a breach of care for our communication needs for anyone to call it “the way it is” or “legislation you can’t argue with it”.

Bookmark this or save its url, and use it as a resource, to cite against that system’s own VALIDITY and against anyone who argues for fatalism towards it. Use it against licensing authorities, or use it in support of anyone who comes up against an authority determined to be pigheaded against definitely demonstrable fact of adulthood, in such a situation. The point of rules setting standardly valid forms of identification is to define for cases of borderline uncertainty a set of types of document that carry no doubt. Anything that is in fact certain evidence results in the age not being in doubt and the possibility of breaking the age law not existing, ceasing to arise.

This is directed against workability of the licensing system in that unjust way, wherever this may happen and however often, more than against that particular pub. To balance the story, the manager there when we were leaving did seek to part politely and with apology for the more heated moments of logical clash there had been, it had not ended in a shouting match. But set against that is it being the only pub that has raised an age doubt at all to a man of late twenties age, and saying that common sense does not count.

28 Jan 2018