"Neue Arbeit" loves creating new laws

#2
it has been a symptom of systematic nannying govs, i sometime wonder if Thatcher had it right......

although in the interest of impartiality under the Tories were the poll tax, failed joining of E.R.M. and the retardedly draconian criminal justice act.
at least the dodgiest part of the 2001 anti-terrorism act was struck down at the Belmarsh decision. but 90 days is proposed again for the next parliamentary session.....
 
#3
As farmers we know only too well :(
The regulations pile on us are nothing normal at the minute,
Everyone used to laugh at the state of agriculture in the USSR,
were the Soviets dictated every little thing to their farmers. Well
we aren't far of that :(

Recent reg's without notification, since August no soil or stone's may be removed from a field without prior notice to the DOE and a licence to be purchase :(
Removing stones from a field happens quite a lot as we plough them, so at every stage we are going to have to buy a licence.

Another thing is hedges, as part of health and safety in the summer months we are required to cut the hedges along roadsides, which we have done for generations. But recently we have been warned that we must not cut the top of the hedge only the side, without purchacing another licence of course :(
I pity this nation in a few years time, as they are only starting :(
 
#4
Odd, ain't it, that in well over 2000 new offences, that 'taking the country to war on the basis of lies', 'appeasing terrorists' and 'taking from charity and profiting from being the PM's wife' all failed to make it to the statute book.
 
#5
You have to wonder why they thought it necessary to specifically outlaw causing a nuclear explosion. Presumably the property damage, serious injuries and deaths resulting were not felt to be grounds for conviction under previous laws...

(Where does that law leave the RN if they have to use the instant sunrise machines, by the way?)
 
#6
The Nuclear explosion one is curious.

One would think that kiling several thousand people would cover most aspects of what is criminal about that.

(Where does that law leave the RN if they have to use the instant sunrise machines, by the way?)
That is tony's retirement plan, Nuking somewhere on the day he signs out of hte office and then trying each and every member of the crew as war criminals to keep him and cherie in clover.
 
#7
Juvenal said:
(Where does that law leave the RN if they have to use the instant sunrise machines, by the way?)
Don't worry, they thought of that:

Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998

1. - (1) Any person who knowingly causes a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to a nuclear weapon explosion carried out in the course of an armed conflict.
And as long as you plead guilty you'll out in 6 years anyway.
Or claim that you unwittingly caused the nuclear explosion and you're off the hook.
 
#8
Ekman said:
Juvenal said:
(Where does that law leave the RN if they have to use the instant sunrise machines, by the way?)
Don't worry, they thought of that:

Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998

1. - (1) Any person who knowingly causes a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to a nuclear weapon explosion carried out in the course of an armed conflict.
And as long as you plead guilty you'll out in 6 years anyway.
Or claim that you unwittingly caused the nuclear explosion and you're off the hook.
I wonder if a human rights lawyer would have the gaul to use that one if Al quida ever did the unthinkable in this country.

Wouldn't suprise me.
 
#9
Interesting that the Home Secretary is still pushing for 90 days detention for terrorist suspects.

The South African Police had also successfully lobbied for 90 days during the war with the ANC. 90 days was based upon a medical recommendation since it was found that wounds caused by torture healed after this time and it was therefore difficult and sometimes impossible to bring cases of torture before the South African Courts which, even during the apartheid years, were still relatively independent since most of the physical evidence required of an independent medical assessment which would have been required by the court had simply vanished.

Be afraid - be very afraid!
 
#10
Juvenal said:
You have to wonder why they thought it necessary to specifically outlaw causing a nuclear explosion. Presumably the property damage, serious injuries and deaths resulting were not felt to be grounds for conviction under previous laws...
"Health and bloody Safety", probably!
 
#11
This lot are terrible. They can't manage and their answer to any problem is to legislate.

There ought to be a law against it.



I am obliged to collect my coat on the way out.
 
#12
Iolis said:
Interesting that the Home Secretary is still pushing for 90 days detention for terrorist suspects.

The South African Police had also successfully lobbied for 90 days during the war with the ANC. 90 days was based upon a medical recommendation since it was found that wounds caused by torture healed after this time and it was therefore difficult and sometimes impossible to bring cases of torture before the South African Courts which, even during the apartheid years, were still relatively independent since most of the physical evidence required of an independent medical assessment which would have been required by the court had simply vanished.

Be afraid - be very afraid!
Interesting comparison, Iolis. I've always thought that this 90-day caper was to pick people up on suspicion and then give the Old Bill plenty of time to knock together a passable stitch-up while said "terrorist suspect" has no access to any legal help or representation.

It's only a matter of time before they start lobbying heavily for that old favourite the Diplock court. After that, it'll be summary punishment on the street by the Old Bill and our grandchildrens' grandchildren will be saying to their children: "Y'know, back in the first half of the 20th Century, there was once a free land, a really free land. It was called Russia!

MsG
 
#13
Ekman said:
Juvenal said:
(Where does that law leave the RN if they have to use the instant sunrise machines, by the way?)
Don't worry, they thought of that:

Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998

1. - (1) Any person who knowingly causes a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to a nuclear weapon explosion carried out in the course of an armed conflict.


Nuclear bombs are now illegal? Bugger, bugger, bugger.

Damn those pesky politicians, outwitted again. It means I can't use this now...







Still, it'll free up space for the mower.
 
#14
Awol said:
Ekman said:
Juvenal said:
(Where does that law leave the RN if they have to use the instant sunrise machines, by the way?)
Don't worry, they thought of that:

Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998

1. - (1) Any person who knowingly causes a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall apply to a nuclear weapon explosion carried out in the course of an armed conflict.

Section 1 worries me a bit. Does this mean only on the UK mainland or does it mean anywhere at all in the world?
Not that I am going to be testing my own nukes any time soon but it does mean that the country can never test a nuke, suppose we would have to give it to the French to test for us....
 
#15
Interesting fact I was told yesterday.

In her years in office, Maggie T (love her or hate her) raised an average of 4 Acts per year in the HoP.

In his tenure, Bliar has raised an average of 40!!

The new Companies Act going through at the moment was so badly drafted initially that it so far has over 400 ammendments!!!!!!
 
#16
Doesn't suprise me in the slightest.

After all its so much easier to roll out new legislation with the associated media fanfare as the solution to all ills (this week anyway) than it is to actually enforce existing laws that already cover the problem.

As the old saying goes "all mouth and no trousers" or something like that.

Then consider the number of "jobs" created to "police" these new laws. The number of solicitors/lawyers/barristers finding their potential workbase blossoming.....
 
#17
If you think it is bad at the moment, you aint seen nothing yet!

Wait until this rather innocuously named Bill is enacted.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/146/06146.i-ii.html

The 'burden' which a Minister of the Crown may be empowered to remove without reference to Parliament will be the inconvenient burden of due process before a court of summary jurisdiction and may well include inconvenient juries returning inconveniently perverse verdicts such as 'not guilty' before the Crown court.

Just a few examples. Ask yourself what 'administrative inconvenience' means under clause 1(3)(b). You can bet that a Minister will find any constraints upon his powers as 'administratively 'inconvenient' and note the weasel wording of clause 1(4), which seeks to limit and then to grant the powers he needs!

More than one Home Secretary has found judgements of the court in detention and asylum cases highly 'inconvenient'.

The Bill, in it's present form confers upon him to impose criminal penalties of up to 2 yeas imprisonment and a fine will match the powers of a magistrate and beyond.

The general thrust of legislation, be it primary legislation like that above, or subordinate legislation made by Ministers is to circumvent the judicial process and provide for summary dealing not by an independent Magistrate or circuit judge who may impose upon officials the burden of having to produce evidence; rather it is to provide for summary dealing outside of the judicial process by officials, be they Ministers, council officials or anyone else who such powers are conferred upon.

Imagine being awarded an on the spot fine by a Council Official for failing to separate your rubbish or dropping litter with no recourse to the court. Imagine the same power given to some official in the CSA who has the same powers including the power of arrest! Now imagine that official under pressure from central or local government to meet his revenue raising targets in favour of the Treasury or Kocak Government finance! Imagine as a consequence a fine for dropping a cigarrette end in your front garden!

Think it cannot or will not happen? Think again!

We already have a system where the criminal burden of proof has been sidelined for the lower civil standard in which courts can now jail a person for up to five years for breaching an ASBO given on a mere balance of probabilities, for activities that were not criminal. Imagine this power being given to an official instead of a judge!

Dictatorships rarely openly abolish an independent judiciary but they will subvert them and this is one way of doing it by way of enacting legislation which simply sidelines it!

It is not just the courts being sidelined, it is Parliament itself with the most enourmous powers being handed to the Executive!

Other Bills being laid before Parliament have equally innocuous sounding names or enacted for one stated purpose but containing powers to produce and effect quiet different from the stated purpose. One obliges internet providers to put technical measures in place to prevent access to sites containing child pornography. Good you might think, about time to, until you actually read the powers given to a Minister under the Bill in which he can place similar obligations on providers for 'any purpose'. In other words, he can change the purpose. Now imagine providers being told to put measures in place to block access to other sites they do not like, such as this one, or blogs which seriously criticise the Government or it's officials! or seek to place information in the public domain which might embarrass the government politically!

Other harmless looking Bills are simply amending those which contain manuscript amendments to existing Acts which mean little to the layman when read of themselves but more often then not they either increase the powers contained in the original Acts they seek to amend or remove or reduce the protections the original Act extended to prevent the official abuse of power.

Most Bill before Parliament helpfully contain explanatory notes which are carefully word-crafted to avoid the full implications of the provisions contained in the Act or Bill which are little more than the official version of a glossy sales brochure designed to sell it to the public and lazy MPs who vote on it who would rather read the explanatory notes with their eulogistic commendations of the various sections of a Bill than to actually spend time reading the provisions of the Bill, or bothering to give or hear evidence from Standing Committees.

Of course, in our open system you can actually read all Acts and Statutory instruments from 1996 onwards on line - there are thousands of them!

Problem is of course you can read the Act on line in it's unamended version issued at the time of it's enactment then you are faced with the task of finding the amendments to it among the hundreds of thousands of statutory instruments and subsequent Acts and you will be extremely lucky if you succeed. There is no publicly accessible version of 'Halsbury's Laws' where you can read the law at a glance. The access that sort of information on line, you need to be a professional with access to LEXIS/NEXIS and pay the equivalent of a second mortgage by way of subscription. - or you are a newspaper editor with the resources to place such information in the public domain which will be forgotten about by the time of the next day's headline.

Thus, although the law appears to be publicly accessible - it is not. Access is effectively denied despite the appearance of being open.

Now your beginning to get some slight inkling of how democracy in this country has been thoroughly subverted and strangled!

Regards and best wishes
Iolis
 

Latest Threads

Top