View Single Post
Unread 13 Dec 2006, 11:54   #50
lokken
BlueTuba
 
lokken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.lokken has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: The Christmas Repeal

I'd go for the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act.

One of the worst and most rushed bits of legislation out there, nailing a few civil liberties, has resulted in a pretty botched job in tackling terrorism as they just bunged it all in with no thought to structure or indeed thinking whether the system that would result in prosecuting/dealing with terrorism would actually be easy to understand and execute. Absolutely ignores the fact that the point of terrorists is that they don't obey laws and giving them more to break isn't going to help and just hands the government stacks of unnecessary powers. But it looks and sounds great.

Although large parts of the sexual offences act 2003 are what I'd call counterproductive, considering the old law was more than adequate and at at time when the courts had concluded that subjectivity was the way forward in the criminal law instead of objectivity. The courts took many years considering this issue, in several different areas of the law. The government decided to 'get tough' on this area and passed an act that made all these years of consideration by judges and law lords wasted breath. Sadly there was something more pressing coming to mind so this piece of tat will stay.

The Parliament Act would have been an interesting choice, but although the Lords generally have a lot more time to think about these things and often have an opinion of great value, they can be rather pig headed about things because it doesn't stop the wise elders* from being old farts too. The thing about the Parliament Act is that it's a useful piece of kit to push things through of national/constitutional importance. Something as trivial as the Hunting Act did not warrant it's use in my opinion, especially when a large part of the reason the labour party wanted it was to just get at the old conservatives on the opposing bench. What a spiteful way to pass legislation. The way a government uses the Parliament Act tells you more about the government than the Parliament Act.

*yes this is a generalisation deal with it.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

Last edited by lokken; 13 Dec 2006 at 12:14.
lokken is offline   Reply With Quote