Purpose Of The Running Record Assessment: Fill & Download for Free

A number of years ago I testified on behalf of the defence as an expert witness in a Crown v. the accused in an invitation to sexual touching and possession of child pornography case in a Canadian criminal court.Those are pretty serious charges and someone that engages in such behaviour should be separated from society for an extended period of time and then monitored afterwards.The police investigation started with a complaint by the mother to NCMEC that the accused had tried to lure her daughter into sexual relationship.When the Toronto police obtained a warrant and seized the accused’s computer they found evidence that he used the IRC online name in the mother’s complaint and they found hundreds of child porn images. Resulting in the charges.So why would I act for the defence?When I was first asked, I was given all kinds of assurances that the accused was innocent even though the police had seized his computer and found hundreds of images and had evidence that he had chatted online with an underage girl.I explained that I would examine the images of the hard disk that the police forensic team had prepared and I would examine the evidence submitted by the girl’s mother and then make my decision as to what assistance I would provide.At first it was extremely challenging to perform my examination. The police would not release a copy of the disk image, and rather insisted that I use their computer equipment using their software at their premises.I tried working in a tiny windowless room at one of the precincts on their laptop running their software - a copy of Encase on a Windows machine. Yuk. Severely limiting. Not only that the officer entered the room every 5 minutes to ‘chat’ and I would stop what I was doing, and turn the laptop away from him.What a joke. They claimed that I could not be in possession of the image as that would be a crime. Uh.. no it wouldn’t. The act specifically allows possession.Section 163.(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence(a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.The defence lawyer was able to win a motion allowing me proper access to the evidence and I was given copies of the drive image to examine using my own tools and software. However the forensic team Sgt told me that he disagreed with the ruling and could have me arrested if I was ‘caught’ with the evidence.I knew it to be bs, but for quite some some time while working on the case I kept a copy of that section of the criminal code in my car and in my office.Since the girl’s mother has presented evidence of what she purported to be logs of an online chat I requested an image of her hard drive as well. The police refused as that they claimed would create a hardship for the victim.Hardship - Huh?I testified in a motion that since she was out of the country, she was in the U.S., that the police in that state could assist if require and all that really needed to be done, if both the Crown and the defence agreed, was to take the machine to a local computer shop and ask them to install a new drive of the same size and copy the contents across so they could continue to use their computer. Then to put the original disk in a box and ship it to the good Sgt of the Toronto Police along with a signed statement from the technician that he did that without making any deliberate changes to the original contents.The judge was pretty agreeable to that but the crown argued against it. I testified that it was the best evidence but I was prepared to offer my assessment of the printed logs and my assessment of the transcript of the mother’s testimony.The judge ended hearing only my assessment of that. No copy of the victim’s disk was ever obtained, nor required.In the end, I had the image of the accused’s computer and photocopies of the victim’s log and the transcript of the mother’s testimony.Let’s start with the ‘log’. It was doctored. It was not a real log from IRC. It certainly looked like one, but there were inconsistencies from what an actual log produced by the IRC client she was using and what was presented. Moreover, she ended up referring to a different conversation log in her testimony, one that had time stamps. The one originally submitted to NCMEC had no timestamp. That was a setting in that software. On or off. Moreover in the testimony she and the girl testified that they had never chatted with the accused before that conversation, yet..At the start of the log there was a line item..“nickname of the accused” is online.That meant that the user of that IRC client had created an alert to notify them when the accused came online in IRC. Interesting.I proposed to the court that a more likely scenario was that the mother had set a trap for the accused. Set the alert so she would know he when he was online, enter into a chat with him, and then fabricate a conversation.edit added: this gave the mother the IP address and a date and time when he was online. Subsequent warrant and examination of the accused’s ISP’s records identified him as the user of that IP address at the time.To demonstrate, I fabricated a fictitious log for the court involving an online chat between Hamlet and Horatio. With time stamps.I read Hamlet in open court. How cool is that?It had also been presented into evidence that the mother worked for a local ISP and had taken some computer forensic courses.I testified that I could not theorize motive for a deception other than perhaps some prior online argument of some unknown nature but that the mother certainly had method and opportunity to deceive.The judge asked me what I would look for if I had access to the mother’s hard drive. I explained how a filing system works and how logs are created with sequential allocations to a file entry and that I would expect to find only one version of a legitimate log, even if copies were made. But I would expect to find multiple versions of this log since I believe it to be true that it was fabricatedThe Crown eventually in his own statements referred to “the less than compelling evidence of the mother”, but the Crown still had the huge amount of irrefutable evidence of the possession charge.Now.. what about those hundreds of child pornography images?Yes, they existed. There were two sets.One set existed in a download directory for IRC. Virtually all were deleted. The ones that weren’t were quite new to the directory. I examined the IRC configuration and found that the accused’s IRC would auto-accept sent files from anyone.This guy’s machine had a huge number of images and files of all description in that directory and it appeared that he would go in maybe once a week and delete everything he did not want and move off what he did.No child pornography images were moved to other directories and the vast majority had already been deleted. I theorized that the ones that were not deleted simply had not been reviewed yet; and moreover the files that were deleted would have become unretrievable over the natural course of operating the computer.Now then, the other set.These were all in the browser cache, and they were virtually all thumbnail images. Hundreds of them. But..When I examined the raw browser history logs I found an interesting timeline.The accused was searching for different music genres for download. Several times during a one session he followed links that appeared to be for downloads of music but were for porn. Porn of every type imaginable.Several of these pages had large numbers of thumbnails. What was interesting is the time spent on the pages before the user attempted to go to another site or page. Seconds.It was also interesting that several of the pages caused new browser windows to open with more porn.In total, there was a 15 minute period on one day when all of the images that the Crown submitted as evidence were downloaded into the cache of the accused’s browser. Moreover it was doubtful that the accused even realized the full extent of the images since as I showed the court that one had to scroll down on the pages to see the thumbnails as across the top were simply more ads for more sites.I also testified that over the natural course of operating the computer these thumbnails would have been deleted by the browser and would have never been retrievable by the user.The judge had more questions for me in his attempt to understand the situation more clearly. The defence lawyer sat back and was feeling pretty good.The Crown and the good Sgt sat there clicking their pens for quite some time.The Crown ended up asking the court for a stay of prosecution in exchange for an undertaking by the accused to promise not to engage in chats with underage girls for the purposes of exploitation.This could have had a terrible ending for the accused. If he could not afford the professional fees that I charged, or could not afford a decent lawyer he would have been found guilty or he would have just plead guilty.A follow up, I saw that Sgt a few days later and he told me he was still positive that the accused was guilty and that I helped a guilty man go free. I asked him if he had any other evidence except that which I showed was all bs, and he said no, but he knew he was guilty. Guilty of what I wondered aloud.Sorry for any typos - written on my phone.

The Ranger PFT? As in this one?This isn't the official test for the 75th Ranger Regiment, who are the actual Army Rangers. We go much harder than that. Most people would have a tough time with the Ranger PFT, but the PFT is for Ranger School (NOT related to the 75th Ranger Regiment). For most Rangers, you should be able pass to pass this without much trouble even with a bad hangover and without 3 days of sleep. We only do the PFT in RASP in the beginning to weed out the weak, and later when attending Ranger School.Here is what you'll be doing as the 75th Ranger Regiment's official fitness test:Ranger Physical Assessment Test (RPAT). The purpose of this test is to measure all components of fitness (strength, endurance, movement skills), using tactically relevant tasks.CONDITIONS: Given Ranger Body Armor (25lb vest), MICH helmet, and an obstacle course with a minimum of a 1 mile marked track, a 185lb Skedco, 20-foot fast rope apparatus, 20-foot caving ladder apparatus, and an 8-foot wall.STANDARDS: Complete a 3-mile run and the combat focused PT course in less than 1 hour.1. Conduct a 2-mile run wearing ACUs, boots, RBA and MICH helmet.2. After the completion of the run, climb the 20-foot fast rope and do a controlled descent.3. Drag a 185-pound SKEDCO litter 50 yards, turn round and drag it back 50 yards to the start point.4. Next, climb a 20-foot caving ladder and climb back down.5. Then sprint 100 yards, turn around, sprint back 100 yards.6. Scale an 8-foot wall.7. Conduct a 1 mile run wearing ACUs, boots, RBA and MICH helmet. Time stops when you cross the line.But we're not done yet! Within 3 days of the RPAT, Rangers must complete the RAW Physical Assessment Protocol as well:Broad Jump- Tests pure power relative to body weight. Ranger Average- 7’8″ Ranger Record- 10’6″5-10-5- Measures speed and agility. Spring 5 yards, touch the ground, sprint back 10 yards, touch the ground then sprint back 5 yards to finish. Ranger Average- 5.13 Ranger Record- 4.26Pull-ups. Chin over bar and full arm extension.Ranger average- 14 reps Ranger high- 38 reps3-Rep Max Deadlift- testers are allowed to use hex bar. Ranger average- 325# Ranger Record 635#Metronome Pushup- one second down, pause, one second up, pause. Ranger average- 40 reps. Ranger record- 90 reps300-yard Sprint- Treadmill, track or 25 yard space. Ranger average- 68 sec. Ranger record- 57 sec.Heel Clap- Hang from pullup bar, raise your legs and heels over the bar.Ranger average- 13 reps Ranger high- 35 repsContrary to popular belief, not all SOF operators are “thin and wiry”, or super big bodybuilders- though we do have those archetypes walking around. We have to have full spectrum fitness, being big, strong, fast, have lots of endurance…whenever people say, “they look like the average person”, this is misleading. You will absolutely tell that they are athletes, especially in this day and age.*just some examples of Rangers you can find in any platoon.

Their views were very much the opposite of what most of you would expect, though actually remarkably sociologically consistent. Lenin would run into this problem 140-some years later.British other ranks, like lower class and rural people have typically been in nations everywhere and in all times, were rather socially conservative, and so generally despised the Rebels as traitors, cowards and drunkards. The Rebels’ slogans about taxes and representation met with derision from privates and NCOs, who paid much heavier taxes as residents of the United Kingdom, and who didn’t think that the rather limited representation they received under the corrupt borough system was anything to rebel over.This was true even, and actually, especially of the very British subjects you’d think would have sympathised with the Rebels the most: the Irish and Scottish. The Scottish, despite the recent rebellion of 1745, actually flocked to the recruiters in greater proportion than their English or Welsh counterparts. Highlanders, the very people who had supported Bonnie Prince Charlie the most, were the very kind of Scotsman most eager to apply, despite the fact that the speaking of Gaelic was still restricted, and kilts and bagpipes banned to all but the Highland regiments of the British Army. In fact, even those who had been sent to America as indentured servants for fighting in the ’45 Rebellion, and their families, flocked to the King’s colours to serve in Loyalist regiments. In Britain, multiple new Highland regiments were raised to accommodate all the Scotsmen eager to put down the rebellion.Ireland had always been a major recruiting area for the British Army, with about a third of British soldiers being Irish. Aside from a multitude of Irish regiments, Irishmen found their way in large numbers into the English, Scottish and Welsh regiments too. The outbreak of rebellion did nothing to stem the flow of Irish recruits. One Irish soldier, Thomas Sullivan, who fought with Burgoyne’s expedition and subsequently accepted the American proposition to switch sides once a prisoner, wrote a book about his experiences, and recorded why he’d accepted the Rebel offer: he felt that his demotion from corporal to private, and loss of the his coveted post of battalion clerk, had been an excessive punishment for his theft of some mutton, rather than him having any special fervour for the Rebel cause.Many of Sullivan’s fellows instead risked death to escape their confinement and travelled many miles across an unfamiliar land to rejoin their regiments. Others simply used the Rebel recruitment offer as a chance to gain some pocket money and get back to their real regiment. Of the 2,500 British soldiers that accepted the Rebel offer, the vast majority absconded with their enlistment bounty and returned to British service, causing Washington to ban any further attempts to recruit British prisoners.Sullivan recorded that his fellow British soldiers were “…inveterate against the rebels, on account of their ambitious designs.”General Sir John Burgyone, when being questioned during the Parliamentary enquiry into the loss at Saratoga/2nd Freeman’s Farm, was asked if reluctance on the part of his troops to fight the colonists had played a part in the defeat. This would have been a fine opportunity for Burgoyne to make himself look good at the expense of his troops, by blaming his defeat on their lack of motivation, but he did no such thing, asserting that their loyalty was never in doubt, and having earlier written that he did not wish “to convey any suspicion of backwardness in the cause of the government among the soldiery, which ignorant people in England are apt to imagine.”Major the Honourable Charles Stuart recalled that “The Guards, on their arrival, were ordered to land and refresh themselves after a tedious voyage, but they desired to be led on directly to action, in resentment of the atrocious insults to their King and country. Their impatience was beyond expressing, when they were told of some indignities lately offered to the statue of the royal sovereign in New York.”Both rebel prisoners and British soldiers themselves would both record that the latter frequently took the opportunity to lecture their captives on the badness of their cause and the impropriety of fighting against their King.The opinion of the common soldier toward the Rebel cause may be further attested by their reaction to Parliament’s Conciliatory Resolution. This resolution, which attempted to accede in large measure to the demand of “No Taxation Without Representation” stated:“Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that when the Governour, Council, and Assembly, or General Court, of any of his Majesty's Provinces or Colonies in America, shall propose to make provision, according to the condition, circumstances, and situation of such Province or Colony, for contributing their proportion to the common defence, (such proportion to be raised under the authority of the General Court, or General Assembly of such Province or Colony, and disposable by Parliament,) and shall engage to make provision also for the support of the Civil Government, and the Administration of Justice, in such Province or Colony, it will be proper if such proposal shall be approved by his Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament, and for so long as such provision shall be made accordingly, to forbear, in respect of such Province or Colony, to levy any Duty, Tax, or Assessment, or to impose any farther Duty, Tax, or Assessment, except only such Duties as it may be expedient to continue to levy or to impose for the regulation of commerce; the nett produce of the duties last mentioned to be carried to the account of such Province or Colony respectively.”Leaflets with this printed upon it were put up wherever Howe’s army went. However, as Howe’s Hessian aide-de-camp, Captain Friedrich von Muenchhausen noted: “The common English soldiers are so angry about the Act of Parliament on non-taxation, etc., which is posted here that they tear down these proclamations during the night.”As a British contractor at New York stated: “The contempt that every soldier has for the American is not the smallest. They cannot possibly believe that any good quality can exist among them”Their conviction for their cause was such that of the seven soldiers of the Light Company of the 46th Foot wounded at Harlem Heights it was said: “not one of whom would would suffer themselves to be taken precipitately off, and some continued to fire after being severely wounded.”On the withdrawal to Perth Amboy in June 1777, Howe having failed to force Washington to battle, Captain von Muenchhausen noted that “the passing troops looked quite sullen because of the march back.” An anonymous officer recalled during the same march that the withdrawal “made our brave fellows almost gnaw their own flesh out of rage”, while being ferried to Staten Island, further from the Rebels filled them with “mortification and resentment.”The real feeling and disdain with which British soldiers fought their American foes was far in excess of anything they felt towards French soldiers. Indeed, Washington was irritated that when the French arrived, British officers sent out flags of truce so they could deliver the latest gazettes for their French counterparts to read, and that parleys for an assortment of reasons were far more common between Briton and Frenchman than between Briton and Rebel.British troops had even more disdain for Rebel officers than their other ranks. John Adlum, a rebel militiaman captured at the storming of Fort Washington recorded how a British soldier took the time to explain to him that unlike British officers, Rebel officers were no good ‘because there is but very few of them that appear gentlemen, consequently they cannot have a proper sense of honour.”Many British officers, such as Francis, Lord Rawdon, thought as their troops did: “Indeed, I can only hope that we shall soon have done with these scoundrels, for one dirties one’s fingers by meddling with them.”However, the higher one got in the ranks of the British Army, the more likely one was to find sympathy for the rebels. There were three reasons for this. First, many of the more senior officers like Sir William Howe had fought in the French and Indian War alongside some of the very people who commanded the Rebel troops. Many of these men were greatly reluctant to fight against men who, less than two decades before, had been their comrades-in-arms against the French. Jeffrey Amherst had refused command of British forces in America, and Sir William Howe had reluctantly accepted only at the personal request of King George.A second factor was Masonic ties. Many senior British officers, and most of the leaders of the rebellion were senior Freemasons, and these officers did not particularly relish bearing arms against their fellow Masons, doing so only out of a sense of duty.Contrarily, the war could, at the political level, also be characterised as a feud between the Grand Lodge Masons who had been Royalists in the last English Civil War, and subsequently fled to America, where they became the aristocracy of the 13 Colonies, such as Washington and the original 32 signers of the Declaration of Independence, on the one hand, and the Scottish Rite and “new’ Grand Lodge Masons who had fought on the Parliamentarian side, now governing Great Britain. The majority of the leaders of the Revolution, and especially those 32 signers, whose very number was of Masonic significance, were all both Freemasons and descendants of the great Norman baronial families, forming very much an “American aristocracy” that largely governed the political and financial life of the 13 Colonies. Nonetheless, both parties were determined to have a very much more restrained and gentlemanly feud than had prevailed in Cromwell’s day.A third factor was upbringing and education. British officers tended to be educated men, brought up in the Enlightenment principles increasingly popular as the century came to a close. Thus, many of the rebels’ espoused ideals about freedom and self-determination resonated with such men. As a particularly ironic example, young Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton, a man unfairly vilified by American propaganda as “Bloody Tarleton”, had spent his time before the war in London in a gambling house amongst his politically radical friends, the very sort of people Thomas Paine kept company with, and at the close of hostilities, Tarleton made friends with Washington, Jefferson and other senior revolutionaries.This is another general demographic truth which Lenin would experience in Russia 140 years later. The educated middle and upper class have, in most times and places been more interested in and sympathetic towards social reforms and the notion of individual rights. Lenin had expected the farmers and workers to join him, but they largely yawned and went back to their traditional, Orthodox ways, while the university educated and intellectuals flocked to him. So it was in 18th Century Britain.As far as their view of the enemy as soldiers, British soldiers, who routinely won battles heavily outnumbered by the Rebels, also very definitely thought of themselves as absolutely superior soldiers to their Rebel opponents. The general consensus was the Rebels could not and would not fight unless they had superior numbers and the advantage of terrain. The exceptions to this rule were so infrequent as to be considered the exceptions that proved the rule.Speaking of Hessian and British troops alike, Captain von Muenchhausen recorded that: “Everyone in our army wishes the rebels would do us the favour to take their chances in a regular battle. We would surely defeat them…Every soldier serves with joy.”Major Frederick Mackenzie of the elite 23rd Royal Welch Fuzilieers mused that: “Having seen on every occasion what wonders are done by the British troops, against very superior numbers of the rebels, it is to be lamented, that of late we have never had it in our power to attack them when there was any kind of equality.”Speaking of the Rebel militia, Brigadier Hugh, Lord Percy observed: “They are, moreover, trained four times in each year, so that they do not make a despicable appearance as soldiers, though they were never yet known to behave themselves even decently in the field.”[Emphasis in original.]Regarding their opinion of the enemy as drunks, Lieutenant Loftus Cliffe summed up a commonly expressed view when he wrote that the Battle of Harlem Heights was “an opportunity of showing the difference of British and American spirit. Every one of the enemy’s killed and wounded stunk infamously of rum. Their canteens still contained the remains of sheer spirits, even their officers were in this manner urged on; when ours…had not, I dare say, drank their allowance of grog, which is fours waters to a good deal less than a half pint of rum.” [Emphasis in original.]Rebel officers were especially noted for their intoxicated state. This tended to attract the disdain of both officers and other ranks of the British Army, no mean feat given their own reputation for drinking, which their German allies in turn complained about.One should not be fooled by post-war American mythology, largely written in the 19th and 20th centuries with the express purpose of glorifying the Revolution, about how British troops conducting themselves in action. The following accounts will demonstrate both actual British tactical behaviour, and the causes for their feelings of smug superiority as fighters. The Light Infantry and Hessian Feldjaegerkorps, supported by Grenadiers, did a disproportionate share of the fighting, with companies even of line infantry operating as independent tactical units, and these, typically 30–40 strong, were no larger than modern platoons, and were often trained to operate in smaller tactical units under sergeants as well. Nor, in most cases could larger units operate in mass in such terrain had they desired to.As the Journal of the Feldjaegerkorps recorded of the Battle of Brandywine: “We could not see the 2nd Battalion of Light Infantry (the nearest supporting unit on their right flank, itself operating by companies) because of the terrain, and while we received only a few orders, each commander had to act according to his own best judgement.”Thomas Anburey, a “gentleman volunteer*” with a grenadier company at Hubbarton, where 1,030 troops of Simon Fraser’s Advanced Corps faced 2,000 Rebels under Ebenezer Francis, Nathan Hale and Seth Warner, noted that: “the woods were so thick, that little to no order could be observed in advancing upon the enemy, it being totally impossible to form a regular line.” Anburey’s grenadiers had to scale a sheer cliff under fire to get at the Rebels atop it, but despite the odds, and Rebel abuse of a white flag, where they ambushed grenadiers who tried to accept their faked surrender, the British and Brunswick troops suffered 49 killed and 141 wounded against 150 Rebel dead, 457 wounded and taken prisoner, and another 230 under Nathan Hale captured unhurt.*(A ‘gentleman volunteer’ was an individual of sufficient education and bearing to be construed a ‘gentleman’ but without the means to purchase a commission, who applied for permission to serve with a regiment until an ensigncy was vacated. They would serve as private soldiers, but mess with the officers. When an officer died on campaign, others would be promoted to fill the vacancy without purchase, causing an ensigncy to become vacant, and this was given to a gentleman volunteer.)Sergeant Roger Lamb of the 23rd Royal Welch Fuzileers, observing a single company of the British Guards advancing to attack the Virginia militia regiment opposite at Guildford Courthouse, recorded: “The reader may perhaps be surprised at the bravery of troops, thus with calm intrepidity attacking superior numbers, when formed into separate bodies, and all acting together; but I can assure him this instance was not peculiar: it frequently occurred in the British army during the American War.”Captain William Dansey, leading the 33rd Foot’s light company foraging in New Jersey in 1777: “I faced two hundred of the rebels with my company only in a wood, for two minutes, myself not twenty yards from some of them, and received all their fire. Our friends thought we were cut to pieces. Another company joined me and I drove the rebels and had only one man wounded in the arm. We killed six and wounded sixteen of them. I was so near as to call to them, “By God, my lads, we have you now” in the hopes they would be bullied into surrender, but that would not do: they answered me with a heavy fire. However, when I got my men to the trees round about me, and the other company coming to my support, I bullied them another way. Seeing them smug behind trees and showing no disposition to run, and too many of them to charge (as we were rather too thin), I cried as loud as I could hollow, that they might be sure to hear me, “By God, soldiers, they run, have at them my brave boys” which had the desired effect. One thought the other had run, and they all set off as if the Devil drove them. We cleared the wood of them and they never shewed themselves within shot again that day.”Lieutenant Loftus Cliffe of the 46th Foot, speaking in admiration of his battalion’s light company under Captain Matthew Johnson, recorded: He (Johnson) being used to woods fighting, and having a quick eye, had his company down in the moment of the enemy’s ‘present,**’ and up again at the advantageous moment to fire, killed several, and had not a one of his company hurt during the whole time he drove the enemy before him.”**(’Present’ was the 18th century command for taking aim, so here he indicates that just as the Rebels aimed, Johnson had his man throw themselves prone to dodge their fire, then stand to return their own, much as the Royal Highland Regiment had done at Fontenoy in 1745.)The Rebel tendency to attack Loyalists whether they bore arms or not, to hang them, threaten their families, and to destroy their homes and steal their property attracted considerable disgust from British troops, which tended to encourage British soldiers to retaliate by looting and burning Rebels’ dwellings. British officers were constantly having to threaten their men with the British Army’s customarily harsh penalty (hanging) for looting, to get their troops to refrain from their vengeance. British troops were especially appalled when Rebel arsonists burned down much of New York City, with one such Rebel murdering his own wife when she tried to put out his fires. British officers were only able to capture 40 of the 200-some Rebel arsonists found, because their enraged troops preferred to throw them alive into their own fires.Another aspect of the American Rebels which aroused scorn was the issue of slavery, and American treatment of blacks in general. British soldiers from high to low tended to regard slavery as a barbarous institution, proud that “England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in”, hence anyone who set foot on it’s shores must be free. The case that had made slavery illegal in the United Kingdom proper had occurred in 1772, when a Boston customs officers had attempted to recover his escaped slave in London, but Lord Chief Justice William Murray, Lord Mansfield, had ruled that of slavery: “It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.” In other words because no law existed specifically legalising slavery in the United Kingdom, it must by it’s nature be illegal, all the more so because the only case extant, from 1569, had also ruled against it.Slavery persisted in Britain’s colonies, but that American Rebels could cry about their oppression while keeping slaves smacked of utter hypocrisy to British soldiers of every rank, who took delight in freeing slaves wherever they went, many of whom used their new freedom to enlist in the British Army.A third factor attracting British derision were American battlefield habits such as pretending to surrender, then firing on the party that came forward to accept it, such as Thomas Anburey recorded. Abuse of parley was one of the most heinous violations of the honourable conduct of war in Europe, and the frequency with which Rebels did this caused many British troops to deny quarter to those they regarded as treacherous savages. Another Rebel practice which British troops thought little better of was a habit many militia had to fire upon British troops just before they came into bayonet range, then quickly throw down their weapon and seek mercy. British soldiers found this despicable and cowardly, and were again not always inclined to grant such mercy.Thus, while many senior British officers such as Howe saw their opponents as misguided fellow gentlemen seeking to exercise their rights as free Britons, or as Masonic rivals playing a sort of chess game, other British officers and the overwhelming majority of NCOs and other ranks saw the Rebels as hypocritical traitors, and what was more, as cowards who only dared to face them when stronger in numbers, positioned in advantageous terrain and stiffened with strong liquor.