Doing anything soon to be illegal in the UK

Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

MoonGateClimber
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 30 Apr 2013
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 181

11 Jan 2014, 6:59 am

I wonder if the British read Ayn Rand.

Quote:
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Jan 2014, 1:33 pm

If I did not know better I would figure this to be a Daily Onion pseudo story.

ruveyn



Marky9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,625
Location: USA

22 Jan 2014, 1:30 pm

I would love to see a video of what Edina Mansoon from Absolutely Fabulous would say about this.

I am reminded of her courtroom rant to only tax stupid people because most laws are passed to protect stupid people from themselves, aka the Stupid Tax. :)



justkillingtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,892
Location: Washington, D.C.

22 Jan 2014, 1:47 pm

Marky9 wrote:
I would love to see a video of what Edina Mansoon from Absolutely Fabulous would say about this.

I am reminded of her courtroom rant to only tax stupid people because most laws are passed to protect stupid people from themselves, aka the Stupid Tax. :)


Eddy and Patsy! That was one of my favorite episodes.


_________________
Impermanence.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

22 Jan 2014, 3:37 pm

Just hang on a minute.

The Common Law has included the tort of nuisance for centuries. Occupiers of land have always (since the tort was first created) had the ability to sue for actions which affected their quiet enjoyment of their land. So why should this legal privilege be restricted to those wealthy enough to avail themselves of the civil courts?

Similarly, injunction has existed as an equitable remedy for centuries in order to prevent behavior that is reasonably likely to injure an interest of the applicant. Again, why should this equitable remedy be limited to those wealthy enough to avail themselves of the courts?

There is nothing in these injunctions which is novel, other than making them more accessible (which should be a positive step, surely). What will remain to be seen is whether the courts are able to manage applications for these orders in a fashion that will make them effective, without imposing unreasonable burdens on applicants.


_________________
--James


Mitrovah
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 343
Location: Iowa USA

22 Jan 2014, 8:09 pm

Magneto wrote:
According to the Guardian, it's soon to be codified in law that magistrates can invent new laws.

Quote:
The bill would permit injunctions against anyone of 10 or older who "has engaged or threatens to engage in conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person". It would replace asbos with ipnas (injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance), which would not only forbid certain forms of behaviour, but also force the recipient to discharge positive obligations. In other words, they can impose a kind of community service order on people who have committed no crime, which could, the law proposes, remain in force for the rest of their lives.

The bill also introduces public space protection orders, which can prevent either everybody or particular kinds of people from doing certain things in certain places. It creates new dispersal powers, which can be used by the police to exclude people from an area (there is no size limit), whether or not they have done anything wrong.

While, as a result of a successful legal challenge, asbos can be granted only if a court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that antisocial behaviour took place, ipnas can be granted on the balance of probabilities. Breaching them will not be classed as a criminal offence, but can still carry a custodial sentence: without committing a crime, you can be imprisoned for up to two years. Children, who cannot currently be detained for contempt of court, will be subject to an inspiring new range of punishments for breaking an ipna, including three months in a young offenders' centre.


If the issue can't be resolved through political means - if the bill passes and is not repealed - then I suppose we shall have to take action which sidesteps it. Say, the development of technically privatised public space, collectively owned by a multitude of shareholders throughout the community but open to anyone.


Im glad to see a country has finally decided to outlaw politicians and children