There should bloody well be a law against it !

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#1
If there were anyone with the slightest possible doubt as to whether The Glorious Leader and his running dogs should be voted out as soonest, I've reproduced an article from today's Telegraph.

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/...1701.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/11/17/ixop.html

The Telegraph said:
With all these laws, our precious liberty is going up in smoke
By Philip Johnson
(Filed: 17/11/2004)

It is said, though less often now than it used to be, that the basis of English liberty is the rule of law, under which everything is allowed unless specifically prohibited. According to A V Dicey, the 19th-century constitutionalist, this was one of the features that distinguished England from its continental counterparts, where people were subject to the exercise of arbitrary power and were proscribed from actions that were not specifically authorised.

Effectively, this principle limited the scope of the state to intervene in people's lives. Law set the boundaries of personal action but did not dictate the course of such action.

The announcement yesterday that smoking in most public places is to be made an offence, presumably punishable by a fine, is the latest addition to a lengthening list of things that were once allowed but are now to be criminalised.

Some of these, such as the compulsory wearing of seat-belts in cars and a requirement to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike, predate the Blair government; but, since 1997, the pace of proscription has grown alarmingly.

When the current parliamentary session ends tomorrow, there will be several new offences. Under the Children Bill it will be a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to smack your own child if a visible mark is left as a result.

The Housing Bill will make it an offence to place your own home on the market without first spending £600 or more on a home information pack, though the House of Lords was last night making an 11th-hour attempt to remove this compulsory provision from the legislation after it was re-inserted by MPs.

By February, or within a few years, depending on what happens in Parliament this week, it will be a crime to mount a horse and ride off in pursuit of a fox.

Since 1997, it has been a criminal offence to possess any handgun, even a .22 calibre, for sporting purposes. An individual whose most aggressive instinct is to fire at a target can no longer do so in this country, even under licence.

Those who wish to pursue their sport must practise abroad. Not only has the ban on handguns failed to reduce armed crime, it also means that if London hosts the 2012 Olympics, it will be staging at least three competitions for which the equipment will be illegal in this country, and special dispensation will be needed for shooters.

Since June, it has been illegal to own a horse, donkey or a Shetland pony without obtaining an ID card for the animal to ensure it does not poison anyone who eats it. In order to allow the country's horse owners time to comply with this law, its full force will not be deployed until February.

At the last count, for we are a law-abiding nation, 400,000 owners had registered their animals, paying £50 or more for a 20-page document that must include a description drawn up by a vet, who, understandably, charges for doing so.

If you own a stables with many horses, this is a significant burden. If you merely have a moth-eaten nag at the end of the field, where it has been at pasture for many years, it is the height of madness.

Failure to get the "passport'' will mean a £5,000 fine or three months' imprisonment, or both, on summary conviction. On indictment - in other words, if the "offence'' is persistent - there is a two-year prison term.

Yet, at the same time, the Government has introduced a new regulation whereby a thief who steals goods worth £200 or less from a shop will not automatically be arrested and taken to the police station but handed an £80 fixed penalty notice, without any criminal record provided it is paid on time.

So, you can go to prison for not getting a horse an ID card when it has been perfectly lawful to own an animal without state interference since our forebears painted their faces blue. But if you are a thief, expect a rap on the knuckles, apparently because it takes up too much police time to deal effectively with "low-grade" shoplifters.

When Tony Blair came to power, it was lawful, if not advisable, to use a mobile phone to make or receive a call while driving.

Now, it is an offence to use a handheld phone or similar device, with a fixed penalty of £30 or a fine of up to £1,000 if the "offender'' takes the case to court and loses. This applies even if the car is not moving but if the engine is running.

Even teenage "canoodling'' is now criminalised under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which forbids under-16s from engaging in any sexual activity, though police and prosecutors have been issued with guidance to ignore the law where it seems to them appropriate to do so.

A solicitor, writing to this newspaper recently, told how he had to deal with the case of two teenagers arrested on suspicion of mutual indecent assault, following a complaint by social workers. The case was dropped, though the children had to spend time in custody late at night.

From the beginning of this month, it has been an offence, punishable by a £5,000 fine or six months' jail, to set off a firework after 11pm, a particularly objectionable and anti-social thing to do, but one that has not been a crime until now.

From next August, as a result of an EU directive accepted by our government, an estimated 5,000 vitamin and mineral supplements will become illegal. Any shopkeeper who continues to sell them will be committing a criminal offence.

Until now, at least it has not been an offence simply to exist; but the Identity Card Bill in next week's Queen's Speech will mean that, from 2007, everyone renewing a passport will be issued with a compulsory ID document and their details entered on a national register.

Failure to obey will mean a £2,500 fine.

You may think that one, two or even all of these new offences are justified and appropriate. We have all been tempted, when confronted with behaviour we do not like, to say that "there should be a law against it''. Well, now there is.
Does this mean that 'New Labour' believes that it can glean more votes from thieves than the law-abiding ?
 
#2
nothing new there cuts 8O

in their first 4 years until from election til November 2001 labour had changed/made 14,600 legislations that did not need ratified by the House of parliment.

I shudder to think how many the total is now, Bliar wants to be remembered in history, he will be..as the PM who ruined the UK.

what is even more strange is how the amount of "OLD" labour MP's who have let him get away with his republican actions. just shows that IMO no politician is in it for any other reason as their own gatutious welfare
 
#3
Left the shlt hole a year after this bunch of cnuts got into power. Haven't been back since. It looks like it has only got worse.

We all sit on here and critisise (SP? beer :? ) places like Zimbabwe for becoming a third world dictatorship but hey have a look closer to home. :( 8O

Democracy pah.
 
#4
Bliar is a control freak. Treats the country en masse as if we are too stupid to realise what he is doing. Pure frightening arrogance. He tries to be all things to all men and not a grain of truth in any of it.
 
#5
Cuts,
You're pushing against an open door here as I suspect the columnist is with Telegraph readers. Unfortunately, in the wider world, most people think those laws are a good thing, if they think at all that is.

What is needed is a law against footie, I'm a Celebritiy etc, or soaps. Then they may wake up - probably be too late but you never know.

Meantime everyone, write or fax your MP

www.faxyourmp.com/

Remind them of the Party's three slogans in Orwell's 1984 - (or should it be New Labour?)

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Sh1t! how prophetic is that - twenty years late but fcuking right-on.

They've got to GO - NOW - ASAP
 
#6
I agree that the tendency of a labour govenrment is to impse more rules and beaurocracy in order to justify their existence. For this i despise them with a passion.

Despite this, the article in the telegraph is flawed. A number of its points are either inaccurate or just plain wrong!!

For one, whilst it may infringe on a number of peoples rights to impose a smoking ban, it will also help a huge number of people (by preventing them suffering from passive smoking which kills 1000 anually). Again this is a tough one to decide, but i think it is worth banning it (as long as individuals are allowed to smoke outside or in their own house with now further inteference)

Anothe point is that despite what labout and the glorious leader do to ban hunting with dogs, it WILL NOT make it illegal to chase a fox using horses!!

Also, it is not illegal to own a .22 rifle (although it may be illegal to own a .22 handgun) and it is not illegal to shoot them at a shooting range!

The telegraph is normally a very high quality paper with a conservative/anti labour slant (which cant be a bad thing!!!) However, when they make silly petulant and ill-informed statements like this it detracts from their normally high quality arguments.

Raise the bar Mr Telegraph editor (or else you will soon be like the socialists that you despise!!)

Agent smith
 
#7
I tend to agree with Agent Smith.

Whilst it shouldn't have taken a law to prevent some idiot driving with his phone glued to his ear it has (I know many still do). It also shouldn't have taken a law to make people wear seat belts or crash helmets to stop them dying, - but it did.

There is a need to be cognisant of the British approach to stable door legislation. We sink ferries that sail with their doors open, we burn down football stands etc. with the attendant large loos of life. And then we make it illegal!!

If they're reactive they get it in the neck, - if they try and stop it before it happens they get it in the neck!!

In no way can I be considered a Labour apologist, - I hate them with a vengence - but there does need to be a balance.
 
#8
Agent_Smith said:
Also, it is not illegal to own a .22 rifle (although it may be illegal to own a .22 handgun) and it is not illegal to shoot them at a shooting range!

Agent smith
But it doesn't say that it's illegal to own a .22 rifle! RTFA! It says it's illegal to own any handgun for sporting purposes, which is almost totally correct. A 100% correct formulation is that it's illegal to own any cartridge handgun for sporting purposed, since muzzle loaders are still permitted.

As for the smoking ban, I'm in 2 minds about it. My ideal solution would have been to offer pubs & restaurants etc. a tax break to go smoke free, rather than to make it obligatory. But Gordon would never allow that, would he? :roll:

Also, has anyone else spotted that in the last couple of years, politicians have started to refer to themselves as "lawmakers"? This indicates to me that they consider their job to be simply the making up of new laws. Man-hammer-problem-nail.
 
#9
Rudolph_Hucker said:
Whilst it shouldn't have taken a law to prevent some idiot driving with his phone glued to his ear it has (I know many still do). It also shouldn't have taken a law to make people wear seat belts or crash helmets to stop them dying, - but it did.
But these laws do not need to exist! If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, you can only hurt yourself. Likewise riding without a seatbelt in the front of a car (but in the back of the car you can kill the person in the seat in front of you so that should definitely be illegal). The government does not have a duty to protect you from yourself. There is a duty to educate people about the dangers and advise them to buckle up / put on a helmet, and then Darwin will do the rest... Likewise drugs - provided your use has no impact on society, I feel you should have the right to put whatever you want into your body. If you go off & steal to fund your habit, then the book should be thrown; it's the difference between stock traders taking a bit of speed to help their concentration, and professional junkies beating up old ladies for their pension books.

The current crop of bureaucrats do not understand the difference between hazard and risk: many things are a hazard, but they do not necessarily constitute a risk. For instance, petrol is a hazard (can be used for arson), but normal use of it creates very little risk. Therefore, anyone over 16 can buy petrol. If we focus simply on the hazards associated with petrol, then we would ban it.

Bar stewards, the lot of them :evil:
 
#10
stoatman said:
Rudolph_Hucker said:
Whilst it shouldn't have taken a law to prevent some idiot driving with his phone glued to his ear it has (I know many still do). It also shouldn't have taken a law to make people wear seat belts or crash helmets to stop them dying, - but it did.
But these laws do not need to exist! If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, you can only hurt yourself. Likewise riding without a seatbelt in the front of a car (but in the back of the car you can kill the person in the seat in front of you so that should definitely be illegal). The government does not have a duty to protect you from yourself. There is a duty to educate people about the dangers and advise them to buckle up / put on a helmet, and then Darwin will do the rest...
You only quote the bike and seatbelt laws, carefully avoided the mobile 'phone one. As we all know, it's not just the numpty using the 'phone that could be at risk in that case.

I personally think the anti-smoking legislation will open a flood gate or two for lawyers [rant on] blod sucking scum[/rant off] later on when Mrs. Bliar wants ie when she's fed up with doing HR wastes of time and public money.

stoatman said:
[ 100% correct formulation is that it's illegal to own any cartridge handgun for sporting purposed, since muzzle loaders are still permitted.
A more correct (110%?) formulation would be delete sporting purpose and insert target shooting sports
 
#11
[quote="scaliebackA more correct (110%?) formulation would be delete sporting purpose and insert target shooting sports[/quote]

Cue semantics: The only acceptable uses for handguns now are:
Study (Sec. 7)
Humane destruction of animals (Sec. 3, IIRC)
Film & theatre (blanks only, obviously, in suitably converted wpns)
none of which are sporting... You were never allowed to hunt with them anyway...

Re: mobile phones - Sorry, wasn't avoiding it, I'm so mentally chinstrapped at the moment it's like I've got tunnel vision, & it didn't cross my mind. It's rather like drink driving, actually:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/199825_celldrive16.html
and I think it should be treated as such...
 
#12
stoatman said:
scalieback said:
A more correct (110%?) formulation would be delete sporting purpose and insert target shooting sports
Cue semantics: The only acceptable uses for handguns now are:
Study (Sec. 7)
Humane destruction of animals (Sec. 3, IIRC)
Film & theatre (blanks only, obviously, in suitably converted wpns)
none of which are sporting... You were never allowed to hunt with them anyway...
Ooohh, incorrect oh stoaty, try humane despatch, starting races. 7(3) allows firing, come on.......

You could hunt with them, if the Police thought you had a good reason to do so 8O
 
#13
scalieback said:
Ooohh, incorrect oh stoaty, try humane despatch, starting races. 7(3) allows firing, come on.......

You could hunt with them, if the Police thought you had a good reason to do so 8O
Sorry, forgot starting races... Bugger. But, although part of Sec. 7 allows firing, it does not allow firing for sport, only firing for study. After every shoot you have to record vast reams of data on bullet, load, conditions, group dispersion, shot locations etc. No competition, no shooting just for fun.

And no, hunting is totally verboden with handguns - even the long, 24" barrelled long range pistols in rifle calibres (you can shoot a deer with a .243" 16" bbl iron sighted rifle, but not with a .243" 24" bbl scoped T/C Contender). Handgun hunting, however, is very popular in the States, which is why the ridiculous .500 S&W revolver was produced.
 
#14
stoatman said:
scalieback said:
Ooohh, incorrect oh stoaty, try humane despatch, starting races. 7(3) allows firing, come on.......

You could hunt with them, if the Police thought you had a good reason to do so 8O
Sorry, forgot starting races...
and trophies of war

stoatman said:
And no, hunting is totally verboden with handguns - even the long, 24" barrelled long range pistols in rifle calibres (you can shoot a deer with a .243" 16" bbl iron sighted rifle, but not with a .243" 24" bbl scoped T/C Contender). Handgun hunting, however, is very popular in the States, which is why the ridiculous .500 S&W revolver was produced.
stoatman said:
You were never allowed to hunt with them anyway...
You were using past tense, as was I. You could probably get the Contender if it had the stock. Then again, what's that classified as? I'd refrain from anything to do with what the cousins call huntin' 8O
 
#15
Yup, and I forgot trophies of war acquired before 1.1.1946... Sorry :roll:

I remember a discussion on Cybershooters about the possibility of hunting in the UK with a Sec. 1 LBR / LBP, and that it's still banned. But I could be wrong, and would be delighted to read a cite from somewhere that says you can...
 
#16
stoatman said:
Yup, and I forgot trophies of war acquired before 1.1.1946... Sorry :roll:

I remember a discussion on Cybershooters about the possibility of hunting in the UK with a Sec. 1 LBR / LBP, and that it's still banned. But I could be wrong, and would be delighted to read a cite from somewhere that says you can...
I'd be more interested in something that says you can't, being British/UK law and all that :wink:
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#17
scalieback said:
I'd be more interested in something that says you can't, being British/UK law and all that :wink:
Good point Scalieback.

Although I imagine The Glorious Leader and his lickspittle minions would much prefer the German principle ! It would bring us closer into the european fold - or should that be corral ?
:wink:
 
#18
scalieback said:
I'd be more interested in something that says you can't, being British/UK law and all that :wink:
Good point... The Home Orifice guidance to police does not say either way (I don't think they've even considered it), and the guidance if full of both cans & can'ts (unlike the statutes!)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/policeguide.pdf

I'll ask a copper on Cybershooters...
 
#19
right then lets ban all cars, motorcycles,....in fact anything that may damage someone else by their use?(imagine all the road rage going on when the those gasping are heading to the nearest safe place to have a ciggie :wink: ) I also think this is a good time to become an anger management consultant..i should make millions :!:

now when we have all given up smoking because we are not allowed to, and we all live longer, who is going to pay? where are the successive governments going to get the money from in taxes?
 
#20
Like everyone above, who has the right to tell me to do anything! What I eat smoke drink etc, as is common thought, we all know if even for a week we all gave up using our cars, smoking and drinking that the economy would be fcuked. I'm getting more annoyed about the stealth taxes like that SORN thing, I have just been whacked with a fine for that, on phoning them up sayin "I am a self employed landscape gardener, its winter, my van is buggered on the drive so even if there was work i can't go and do it, and you are charging me for the privelage of loss of income and having my own vehicle on my own land!" now how the fcuk is that legal. Should be wearin black masks and stripey t's cnuts!!!!!!!!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
seaweed The Book Club 0
Ciggie The NAAFI Bar 58
TheresaMay The NAAFI Bar 189

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top