Remove all laws of the land. Replace by rules.
Discussion
I don’t know if this is my own brilliant idea, or I’m pinching from someone who’s already thought of it.
At midnight on the 31st December 2014, all the laws of the land are rescinded. Replaced by Rules. Which means if you break a rule, you will be hauled up to be judged as to whether the breaking of that rule is detrimental to society. And punished accordingly. So something like:-
Rules
For the obedience of fools
The judgement of wise men.
As an example, of you travel at 31mph on a 30mph zone, you’ve broken a rule. You haven’t committed an automatic offence. You are then judged on the consequences of breaking that rule. So doing 31mph along an empty street at 1:00am isn’t considered detrimental, thus no punishment. However, do 70mph at 9:00am down the 30mph high street, and you are sent to the colonies as punishment.
Over to you guys now for this to be shot down in flames I suspect. BV is going to love this one. He’s going to tell me Laws are really rules, as they have to be interpreted upon by learned gentlemen.
At midnight on the 31st December 2014, all the laws of the land are rescinded. Replaced by Rules. Which means if you break a rule, you will be hauled up to be judged as to whether the breaking of that rule is detrimental to society. And punished accordingly. So something like:-
Rules
For the obedience of fools
The judgement of wise men.
As an example, of you travel at 31mph on a 30mph zone, you’ve broken a rule. You haven’t committed an automatic offence. You are then judged on the consequences of breaking that rule. So doing 31mph along an empty street at 1:00am isn’t considered detrimental, thus no punishment. However, do 70mph at 9:00am down the 30mph high street, and you are sent to the colonies as punishment.
Over to you guys now for this to be shot down in flames I suspect. BV is going to love this one. He’s going to tell me Laws are really rules, as they have to be interpreted upon by learned gentlemen.
emmaT2014 said:
The OP is one of those simpletons on TOWIE and I claim my £5.
OP - Perhaps you should arrange a referendum and seperate from the UK just as the rest of the TOWIE type dicks have done.
With a post like that, it's obvious you're going to be an invalueable contributor to PH postings. Those that don't stretch you intelect to much, that is.OP - Perhaps you should arrange a referendum and seperate from the UK just as the rest of the TOWIE type dicks have done.
tenpenceshort said:
robinessex said:
With a post like that, it's obvious you're going to be an invalueable contributor to PH postings. Those that don't stretch you intelect to much, that is.
Intellect is obviously in short supply here. Your OP is the stuff of primary schools. HTH.
ts have arrived. Nothing sensible to say, so I'm out of here. Can't be bothered anymore.Breadvan72 said:
Or post-doctoral:-
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Shap...
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/FACULTY/RARNESON...
... but most likely post pub.
Been waiting for you BV !!! Actually, post pub. Except one of the contributors is er, a solicitor !!! He did't actually think it was an unreaonable suggestion. Explorers in the 18th centurary found that was how the 'uncivilised' tribes discovered in Africa and other countries managed for a 1000 years or so. The tribe chief administered 'justice' on a 'wise man' principle. Of course, they were all savages, and didn't know what they were doing !!!http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Shap...
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/FACULTY/RARNESON...
... but most likely post pub.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Sunday 14th September 20:11
sherbertdip said:
robinessex said:
Over to you guys now for this to be shot down in flames
Why get so pissy and throw a tantrum, you asked for responses expecting to get laughed at, you were!BV, you haven't let me down. Exactly the answer I expected. What set me off wondering this in the first place is, if you read as many PH posts as I have in the past 2 yrs, is the number of agrieved posters who complain they have broken a law, and get clobbered, but the circumstances don't justify automatic punishment. And of all the laws PH'ers get pissed of about, it's speeding, which is why I gave it as an example. A simplistic case of course.
Breadvan72 said:
Try stabbing someone to death. The legal effect of doing so depends on the circumstances. Anything from life imprisonment to nothing. For utilitarian and resource reasons, some rules are more flexible than others.
You may find what I say predictable, but it's also right. Your suggestion is "get rid of extant laws and replace them by, er, some other ones". In fact, your suggestion appears to be yet another in the endless line of poor old oppressed middle class motorist rants about speeding. You don't really want to abolish the while law of contract, or land ownership, or theft, or copyright etc, etc. You just want to change the law on speeding, which some people think is the most important thing in the World, but not everyone does.
Incorrect BV. I just used speeding as a simplistic case. I do realise that in most serious/complex cases, mitigating circumstances are very much considered. I'm just more concerend that with the increase in survelance, that we are going to be convicted of offences automatically, and without consideration of the circumstances. In the past, when BIB were more prolific, a motor offence, although commited, would often result in a stern telling off by Mr Plod, and don't do it again comment, and you were on your way. It seems we are, as a society, moving away from this.You may find what I say predictable, but it's also right. Your suggestion is "get rid of extant laws and replace them by, er, some other ones". In fact, your suggestion appears to be yet another in the endless line of poor old oppressed middle class motorist rants about speeding. You don't really want to abolish the while law of contract, or land ownership, or theft, or copyright etc, etc. You just want to change the law on speeding, which some people think is the most important thing in the World, but not everyone does.
Breadvan72 said:
So, if this thread really isn't about speeding, what do you propose as a replacement for the offer and acceptance rules in the law of contract? What's your suggested new rule for industrial design rights? Have you a worked out replacement for the law on local Government finance? What's the new system for oil and gas regulation? etc...
Well obviously, with a law degree gained at the bar of the George and Dragon, I am fully qualified to answer that !!!!!!!! Haven't got a clue. However, I did download the idiots guide to contracts off the net a while ago, and maybe BV can comment on this? Despite both parties signing a contract, if any of the terms and conditions turn out to be biased in favour of one of the signatories, the other party can apply to the court to have that particular condition chucked out. e.g. it's not worth the paper it’s written on. Is that an example of ‘wise men’ in action?Breadvan72 said:
robinessex said:
...Despite both parties signing a contract, if any of the terms and conditions turn out to be biased in favour of one of the signatories, the other party can apply to the court to have that particular condition chucked out. e.g. it's not worth the paper it’s written on. Is that an example of ‘wise men’ in action?
Sounds like the pub version pf contract law. There is no such general rule, and in most contexts a contract cannot be set aside just because it favours one party more than the anther. Broadly speaking, however, a consumer may not be bound by an unfair term.Cooperman said:
So a society with no laws, just some general 'rules' which would be open to interpretation by sundry judges, recorders, magistrates, et al.
Sounds like a lawyers' paradise with broadly similar cases being 'tested' in different courts and getting different results, then subsequent interminable appeals with no basis of established case law to fall back on.
That would mean that the 'judges' set the actual laws to suit their views on life and fairness, rather than a solid basis of justice based on hundreds of years of historical judgements with all the checks & balances which have become enshrined in our society.
And all because someone doesn't like being controlled in the way they drive a car.
The car bit is a red herring. I only used it as an example because this is a car orientated forum.Sounds like a lawyers' paradise with broadly similar cases being 'tested' in different courts and getting different results, then subsequent interminable appeals with no basis of established case law to fall back on.
That would mean that the 'judges' set the actual laws to suit their views on life and fairness, rather than a solid basis of justice based on hundreds of years of historical judgements with all the checks & balances which have become enshrined in our society.
And all because someone doesn't like being controlled in the way they drive a car.
Devil2575 said:
robinessex said:
Breadvan72 said:
So, if this thread really isn't about speeding, what do you propose as a replacement for the offer and acceptance rules in the law of contract? What's your suggested new rule for industrial design rights? Have you a worked out replacement for the law on local Government finance? What's the new system for oil and gas regulation? etc...
Well obviously, with a law degree gained at the bar of the George and Dragon, I am fully qualified to answer that !!!!!!!! Haven't got a clue. However, I did download the idiots guide to contracts off the net a while ago, and maybe BV can comment on this? Despite both parties signing a contract, if any of the terms and conditions turn out to be biased in favour of one of the signatories, the other party can apply to the court to have that particular condition chucked out. e.g. it's not worth the paper it’s written on. Is that an example of ‘wise men’ in action?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff