Theyre having a laugh, arent they?
Discussion
(re posted cos i dropped it in the wrong forum...doh!)
Question.
How many laws are there in the Undemocratik Republik of Blairistan?
I know that theres a minimum of 3000 of the buggers that 'ol teflon tone introduced since he scammed his way to power, but, prior to that event, how many existed?
I ask because im perplexed, confused and disorientated with the following.
If ignorance of the law is no defence, can someone, anyone explain to me HOW THE BLUE F@CK are we supposed to know all these laws?
WTF are we?
Are the powers that be just taking the piss comprehensively or what?
Ya see, i dont understand how we can have so very many laws with one of them decreeing " Ignorance of the law is no defence".
Really? How the F@CK does THAT work then?
Just HOW are we supposed to know whats "illegal" in Bliars Palace of Turds and whats deemed "dandy"?
It seems very, very odd, stupid, immoral even to introduce so many laws and yet claim, (its like a get out of the small print clause) that ignorance is no defence.
To aquaint oneself with the entire contents of the lawbooks would take a millenium (and then some!), and im really, really sorry, but F@ck it! I just dont have THAT long left!
"And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt."
Can anyone else see the perversness,the sickening nature of all this or am i having a paranoid delusion?
Question.
How many laws are there in the Undemocratik Republik of Blairistan?
I know that theres a minimum of 3000 of the buggers that 'ol teflon tone introduced since he scammed his way to power, but, prior to that event, how many existed?
I ask because im perplexed, confused and disorientated with the following.
If ignorance of the law is no defence, can someone, anyone explain to me HOW THE BLUE F@CK are we supposed to know all these laws?
WTF are we?
Are the powers that be just taking the piss comprehensively or what?
Ya see, i dont understand how we can have so very many laws with one of them decreeing " Ignorance of the law is no defence".
Really? How the F@CK does THAT work then?
Just HOW are we supposed to know whats "illegal" in Bliars Palace of Turds and whats deemed "dandy"?
It seems very, very odd, stupid, immoral even to introduce so many laws and yet claim, (its like a get out of the small print clause) that ignorance is no defence.
To aquaint oneself with the entire contents of the lawbooks would take a millenium (and then some!), and im really, really sorry, but F@ck it! I just dont have THAT long left!
"And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt."
Can anyone else see the perversness,the sickening nature of all this or am i having a paranoid delusion?
deltafox said:
Can anyone else see the perversness,the sickening nature of all this or am i having a paranoid delusion?
The latter.
The thing with most laws is they're the to prevent inequity and unfairness and to protect us from ne'er-do-wells.
Some of them are a load of balls though, solely introduced to plug loopholes in what used to be the best legal system in the world. Loopholes that exist because badly written laws were pushed through with little forethought or consultation.
tigger1 said:
deltafox said:
Can anyone else see the perversness,the sickening nature of all this or am i having a paranoid delusion?
The latter.
The thing with most laws is they're the to prevent inequity and unfairness and to protect us from ne'er-do-wells.
Some of them are a load of balls though, solely introduced to plug loopholes in what used to be the best legal system in the world. Loopholes that exist because badly written laws were pushed through with little forethought or consultation.
My point (apologies if im wrong)which you have missed was how are we supposed to know all these laws? Its ridiculous!
If "ignorance is no defence" then that implies we MUST aquaint ourselves with ALL the laws that "govern" us.
How is that possible? Most of us have no interest in what the law says because there are so many of them we cant possibly know them. Itd take us a lifetime to become knowlegeable of them all.
Ignorance of the law is to my mind therefore a valid defence, because unless you know the laws, you will be in breach of them, sooner or later.
The situation is crazy, its like something out of a fiction based horror novel.
There are a lot of things that can happen or that people can do (or not do), so we need a lot of laws to cover as many eventualities as possible. Unfortunately people generally can't be relied upon to either behave in a "lawful" way, or take their punishment when they do things wrong, which is why loopholes need closing lest people try to wriggle through them.
There aren't many laws that are counter-intuitive, in that you wouldn't know that doing something was wrong. If you follow the norms and rules of society, it's highly unlikely that you'll fall foul of the law.
There aren't many laws that are counter-intuitive, in that you wouldn't know that doing something was wrong. If you follow the norms and rules of society, it's highly unlikely that you'll fall foul of the law.
It seems utterly idiotic to me that we have all these laws and yet id say a good 99% of the population have almost no idea what most of them are, or how they affect them.
The way i see it, maybe we should have a set of simplified laws such as, if it aint on the ok list then its illegal.......... Oh i think thats what theyre trying to do.....make everything illegal.
Just dosent compute, what a stupid situation compounded by the decree that "ignorance of our 10 billion laws isnt a defence"....id like to know what they were thinking when that bit of kak was drafted in.....
The way i see it, maybe we should have a set of simplified laws such as, if it aint on the ok list then its illegal.......... Oh i think thats what theyre trying to do.....make everything illegal.
Just dosent compute, what a stupid situation compounded by the decree that "ignorance of our 10 billion laws isnt a defence"....id like to know what they were thinking when that bit of kak was drafted in.....
Andrew D said:
walking about in a T-Shirt with F
K! written on the front can reasonably be expected to offend people
K! written on the front can reasonably be expected to offend peopleso what? you cannot protect society against 'being offended' or you'd have to ban comedy - oh yeah right the're already working on that. i can't think of much im offended by except perhaps the most corrupt, morally bankrupt, two faced, incompetent, toadying, weasel b@stards in the country legislating to make me live like a decent human being. w@ankers
francisb said:
Andrew D said:
walking about in a T-Shirt with FK! written on the front can reasonably be expected to offend people
K! written on the front can reasonably be expected to offend peopleso what? you cannot protect society against 'being offended' or you'd have to ban comedy - oh yeah right the're already working on that. i can't think of much im offended by except perhaps the most corrupt, morally bankrupt, two faced, incompetent, toadying, weasel b@stards in the country legislating to make me live like a decent human being. w@ankers
Hear Hear!
P.S. you forgot to metion they're
sfrancisb said:
Andrew D said:
walking about in a T-Shirt with FK! written on the front can reasonably be expected to offend people
K! written on the front can reasonably be expected to offend peopleso what? you cannot protect society against 'being offended' or you'd have to ban comedy
And there's a difference between freedom of expression (wearing a heavy metal T-Shirt with the Crucifixion on it), and deliberately trying to p*ss people off. It doesn't seem to me that the craze for French Connection FCUK shirts was motivated by personal taste to wear that particular slogan.
Andrew D said:
And there's a difference between freedom of expression (wearing a heavy metal T-Shirt with the Crucifixion on it), and deliberately trying to p*ss people off. It doesn't seem to me that the craze for French Connection FCUK shirts was motivated by personal taste to wear that particular slogan.
well i agree. but i object to that sanctimonious bunch of pr1cks in westminster trying to legislate agaist what any normal person would describe as behaving like a d1ck head. a good example of which might be wearing a "fcuk you" t-shirt, because, like, thats so clever, innit. the problem is you end up with a load of crap PC laws; witness the freedom of speech/religious hatred bill http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4666908
Andrew D said:
What for? Public Order Section 5?
FPN; Law not mentioned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/le
And, for the very idea of a fine for offending people: you live in a democracy and have every right to be offended.
Cock off, and take your lying, shitbag, PM with you.
and I am trying to offend you, which ought to be perfectly legal.
francisb said:
Andrew D said:
And there's a difference between freedom of expression (wearing a heavy metal T-Shirt with the Crucifixion on it), and deliberately trying to p*ss people off. It doesn't seem to me that the craze for French Connection FCUK shirts was motivated by personal taste to wear that particular slogan.
well i agree. but i object to that sanctimonious bunch of pr1cks in westminster trying to legislate agaist what any normal person would describe as behaving like a d1ck head. a good example of which might be wearing a "fcuk you" t-shirt, because, like, thats so clever, innit. the problem is you end up with a load of crap PC laws; witness the freedom of speech/religious hatred bill http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4666908
Sorry, first post here, finally something irritated me enough to warrant comment...
Can you honestly tell me there is a good reason not to prevent people from abuse on the basis of their choice of religion?
What exactly is a "normal" person in your view?
IMHO, the vast majority of people who complain about "crap PC" laws etc. are just selfish and narrow minded - never having been the victim of racist, sexist, bigoted or other discrimination its very easy to complain... Frankly the limitation of your right to be a bigoted
is in my book (as another voter) an easy sacrifice to protect people from vicitimisation. Like the average Daily Mail reader, even if the "PC" laws in the UK were struck down tomorrow you'd probably still think it was "outrageous" that women are treated as second class citizens in Saudi Arabia...
Aubec.
Freedom of expression vs. giving offence. Now there's a theme for the present day. The trouble is, there are people and groups who take offence when none was intended.
I think that the principle of laws reflecting general attitudes and commmon sense is a good one but we've moved away from that. I would agree that the more recent laws, intended to "send a message" rather than actually do any good, are great examples of this. They seem to be more related to thought crimes but they have high police focus because it's the government's will that they should (not dictating to the police, obviously, but which CC would lose his chance for a peerage by ignoring which way the political wind blows?).
I think that the principle of laws reflecting general attitudes and commmon sense is a good one but we've moved away from that. I would agree that the more recent laws, intended to "send a message" rather than actually do any good, are great examples of this. They seem to be more related to thought crimes but they have high police focus because it's the government's will that they should (not dictating to the police, obviously, but which CC would lose his chance for a peerage by ignoring which way the political wind blows?).
grumbledoak said:
Andrew D said:
What for? Public Order Section 5?
FPN; Law not mentioned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/le
And, for the very idea of a fine for offending people: you live in a democracy and have every right to be offended.
Cock off, and take your lying, shitbag, PM with you.
and I am trying to offend you, which ought to be perfectly legal.
But your post nicely (if inadvertantly) illustrates the reason why the law exists. It's the intent that counts, as you can't be convicted it you didn't intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Inadvertantly offending the over-sensitive isn't a problem. But deliberately acting to harass, alarm or distress people is an anti-social act that shouldn't be allowed, as you're protected in law from the natural consequence (a good kicking).
Hi Aubec, i realise that your post wasnt directed at me, but i have a habit of diving in and answering anyway.....
Debate it, its something that the powers that be would rather we didnt do and will likely legislate against very shortly. Therell likely be an FPN for it too.
Hmmm why not? All fair game to me, all religions are.
Define "abuse". Is that defined as telling a joke that involves a muslim? Or a catholic maybe?
Makes no odds to me, theyre all muppets.
I would suppose a "normal" person is someone who fits in the herd, has similar views to a majority etc.
I dont buy into this statement. Is it selfish or biggoted or even narrow minded to complain about your freedoms that were in existence long before the likes of Bliar et al were even an itch in daddies pants, are being eroded to the point that you cannot say out loud anything that "may offend" another group? (usually "ethnics" of one type or another). How long before its an offence to think it?
It IS an outrage that women are treated as second class citizens in Saudi.
Its even more of an outrage that similar attitudes are prevalent in the immigrants that call themselves "british".
But thats another argument altogether from the current one which is, How on earth can we be aware of all the laws being introduced let alone understand them all?
My original point being that ignorance is no defence, but obviously its a crass law that dictates such a thing.
We cant possibly be aware of all these laws- how many of the 3000 introduced since stazi Bliar and co re-elected themselves do you actually remember? I cant think of any off the top of my head.
Couple or ten of interesting quotes.
The more laws and order are made prominent,
The more thieves and robbers there will be.
Written laws are like spiders' webs, and will like them only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful will easily break through them.
Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.
He is barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.
My current favorite: "It is the rare fortune of these days that one may think what one likes and say what one thinks. "
Aubec said:
Sorry, first post here, finally something irritated me enough to warrant comment...
Debate it, its something that the powers that be would rather we didnt do and will likely legislate against very shortly. Therell likely be an FPN for it too.
Aubec said:
Can you honestly tell me there is a good reason not to prevent people from abuse on the basis of their choice of religion?
Hmmm why not? All fair game to me, all religions are.
Define "abuse". Is that defined as telling a joke that involves a muslim? Or a catholic maybe?
Makes no odds to me, theyre all muppets.
Aubec said:
What exactly is a "normal" person in your view?
I would suppose a "normal" person is someone who fits in the herd, has similar views to a majority etc.
Aubec said:
IMHO, the vast majority of people who complain about "crap PC" laws etc. are just selfish and narrow minded - never having been the victim of racist, sexist, bigoted or other discrimination its very easy to complain... Frankly the limitation of your right to be a bigoted is in my book (as another voter) an easy sacrifice to protect people from vicitimisation.
I dont buy into this statement. Is it selfish or biggoted or even narrow minded to complain about your freedoms that were in existence long before the likes of Bliar et al were even an itch in daddies pants, are being eroded to the point that you cannot say out loud anything that "may offend" another group? (usually "ethnics" of one type or another). How long before its an offence to think it?
Aubec said:
Like the average Daily Mail reader, even if the "PC" laws in the UK were struck down tomorrow you'd probably still think it was "outrageous" that women are treated as second class citizens in Saudi Arabia...
Aubec.
Aubec.
It IS an outrage that women are treated as second class citizens in Saudi.
Its even more of an outrage that similar attitudes are prevalent in the immigrants that call themselves "british".
But thats another argument altogether from the current one which is, How on earth can we be aware of all the laws being introduced let alone understand them all?
My original point being that ignorance is no defence, but obviously its a crass law that dictates such a thing.
We cant possibly be aware of all these laws- how many of the 3000 introduced since stazi Bliar and co re-elected themselves do you actually remember? I cant think of any off the top of my head.
Couple or ten of interesting quotes.
The more laws and order are made prominent,
The more thieves and robbers there will be.
Written laws are like spiders' webs, and will like them only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful will easily break through them.
Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.
He is barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.
My current favorite: "It is the rare fortune of these days that one may think what one likes and say what one thinks. "
Andrew D said:
(if inadvertantly)
No, quite intentional.
But my intent was to educate, or at least draw attention to something - you cannot possibly know my intent any more than I can tell how thin your skin is. You can exaggerate the resultant mental trauma / distress every bit as much as I can lie about my motivation.
To legislate on the basis of imagined loss or damage is bonkers.
Andrew D said:
francisb said:
Andrew D said:
walking about in a T-Shirt with FK! written on the front can reasonably be expected to offend people
K! written on the front can reasonably be expected to offend peopleso what? you cannot protect society against 'being offended' or you'd have to ban comedy
And there's a difference between freedom of expression (wearing a heavy metal T-Shirt with the Crucifixion on it), and deliberately trying to p*ss people off. It doesn't seem to me that the craze for French Connection FCUK shirts was motivated by personal taste to wear that particular slogan.
So you're not sure of this which illustrates the OP's point,how are we supposed to know the foibles of every law in the land?
esselte said:
So you're not sure of this which illustrates the OP's point,how are we supposed to know the foibles of every law in the land?
"I'm not sure" was my diplomatic way of saying "I don't think". So no, you can't know all the laws, which is bad. But you can avoid getting busted (generally) by not doing things that you would seem to a rational person to be "wrong".
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff