Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
User avatar
By Propwash
#1771593
eltonioni wrote:The Law should be tested as often as reasonably possible to make sure that it's fit for purpose. This application has the sniff of unintended consequences being opened up that the applicant might come to regret. There's no public mood for exceptions for groups who think they are a bit special.

Unfortunately, whilst I agree with your sentiment, and without referencing this particular case, recent history of judicial decisions in which (what most people would regard as) common sense was pitted against claims brought under the Human Rights Act, the final judgements were invariably in support of the claimant. The suffocating embrace of the HRA is to blame for much of today's public disquiet with our legal system, and for that much of the blame must lie with a judiciary which has been eager to push the boundaries of what the original text was intended to protect. (IMHO).

Nothing is more corrosive to a fair functioning judicial system than activist judges.

Others may disagree. :wink:

PW
eltonioni liked this
By Bill Haddow
#1771600
Propwash wrote:recent history of judicial decisions in which (what most people would regard as) common sense was pitted against claims brought under the Human Rights Act, the final judgements were invariably in support of the claimant. The suffocating embrace of the HRA is to blame for much of today's public disquiet with our legal system, and for that much of the blame must lie with a judiciary which has been eager to push the boundaries of what the original text was intended to protect. (IMHO).


PW


The taxpayer pays for the court and judge(s), the taxpayer pays for the government's legal team, and usually the taxpayer pays for the claimant's legal team. It is barking, of course, but the legal trade lap it up and have no appetite to change it.

I'd like to know, as far as the broader legal system is concerned, how often leave to appeal is refused and how often granted. Just curious.

Bill H
By johnm
#1771601
If you think legal aid is a gravy train for lawyers go and buy and read "The Secret Barrister" it is a real eye opener.
User avatar
By Pete L
#1771608
After a long time when I didn't much mind, I think the distinction I make now is between barbarism and humanity.

All of the world's major religions have form for trying to impose their point of view on others. A few seem to have got over the habit.

The worst treatment you can expect from the C of E these days is a slightly damp child and a naff cup of tea whereas as a state we still choose to tolerate ritual slaughter of animals and MGM. I'd start with legislative consistency against barbaric practices and other public harms- make the law genuinely blind to religion - while not outlawing the right to spout gibberish - we all do that and the charitable aspects of religion are hard to replace. This is one of the times when they will be topping up the charity coffers and taking away the group hug will damage that. But there should be no special treatment for faith and this is an example.

The police throughout this have tried to remind us they police by consent - the problem is the consent not the police. Without a more cohesive society signed up to common standards that isn't going to get any easier. Something a little closer to France makes more sense to me than encouraging the formation of Ottoman style millets by neglect.

This was kindly - big church shares:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52780600
lobstaboy liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
#1771618
Pete L wrote:The police throughout this have tried to remind us they police by consent - the problem is the consent not the police. Without a more cohesive society signed up to common standards that isn't going to get any easier. Something a little closer to France makes more sense to me than encouraging the formation of Ottoman style millets by neglect.


You might be a little less inclined to your view if you had just had 2months of "police state" here in France. In normal times I had not given much thought to the differences between our two countries, and the way Europe is policed by state laws that say "you are allowed to do x,y,z" compared to the UK/Scandinavian model of police by consent and laws that only prohibit certain things otherwise you are free to do as you wish... Quite frankly this last 2 months has been a bit of an eye opener for me. I think I said way back on the main c19 thread how un-nerving it is to be stopped, quizzed and asked for your ID & permission papers etc on a regular basis for absolutely no reason - no matter how polite the chap is. Its something Ive only come across before when working in what most would regard as "dodgy" countries around the world.

I feel lucky I live in a rural area and the weather is nice down here, there are worse places to be in "confinement"...

Regards, SD..
By JoeC
#1771648
Bill Haddow wrote:
JoeC wrote:All seems rather reasonable and British. Man takes issue to court to argue case and loses.

In the meantime thousands flock to beaches and flout reasonable rules yet are not subject to such outrage.


The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 Section 5 (5) & (6) require closure of places of worship. That is a rule.

People going to the beach alone, or in a discrete group of members of the same household, are taking exercise. Specifically permitted in Section 6 (2) (b). If others are doing the same, it is no more of a "gathering" than being on a bus or train with a bunch of strangers is. What rule is being flouted?

Bill H


Read any number of news items.

Scotland

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... e-52747041

England

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.esse ... 149886.amp

I don’t understand the outrage with someone who isn’t breaking the law but wants to have it changed and when denied that change continues not to break the law.

Yet no concern with the hundreds maybe thousands who are breaking the rules and are even defended above despite the visual evidence and police comment that they are in the wrong. :?
lobstaboy liked this
By Bill Haddow
#1771666
JoeC wrote:
Bill Haddow wrote:
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 Section 5 (5) & (6) require closure of places of worship. That is a rule.

People going to the beach alone, or in a discrete group of members of the same household, are taking exercise. Specifically permitted in Section 6 (2) (b). If others are doing the same, it is no more of a "gathering" than being on a bus or train with a bunch of strangers is. What rule is being flouted?

Bill H


Read any number of news items.

Scotland

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... e-52747041

England

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.esse ... 149886.amp


Joe, I prefer to read what the law actually says, rather than what journalists, police officers, politicians, and the unco guid wish it would say.

JoeC wrote:I don’t understand the outrage with someone who isn’t breaking the law but wants to have it changed and when denied that change continues not to break the law.

Yet no concern with the hundreds maybe thousands who are breaking the rules and are even defended above despite the visual evidence and police comment that they are in the wrong. :?


No problem with anyone seeking to use peaceful means to have the law changed. What "rules" are the "hundreds maybe thousands" actually breaking?

Bill H
By JoeC
#1771680
[quote="Bill Haddow”] Joe, I prefer to read what the law actually says, rather than what journalists, police officers, politicians, and the unco guid wish it would say. [/quote]

Sorry Bill that doesn’t make sense. How can reading a law inform you as to whether people are breaking it?

Do you genuinely believe that the hundreds on Scottish and English beaches are all maintaining the 2 metre rule? Have you seen the pictures, or even walked the streets recently?
By Bill Haddow
#1771694
JoeC wrote:
Sorry Bill that doesn’t make sense. How can reading a law inform you as to whether people are breaking it?

Do you genuinely believe that the hundreds on Scottish and English beaches are all maintaining the 2 metre rule? Have you seen the pictures, or even walked the streets recently?


OK, tell me, chapter and verse, which section(s) of which law(s) were being broken. What is this "2 metre rule"? The only reference I can find in the regulations (in the Welsh version, it may be in others too) is a requirement on the manager of premises to take reasonable steps to ensure that users of the premises stay that distance apart. There is no rule (i.e. piece of legislation) requiring me to stay 2 metres apart from anyone else in a public place.

It seems it is not just Euro legislation that people love gold-plating.

Bill H
By Bill Haddow
#1771743
JoeC wrote:Edit: that sounds rude. I meant those who need to have a law to follow advice or directions are part of the problem.

Still stay safe!


No offence taken, Joe. I am now shielding and have observed social distancing, as it seems common sense. My point is that many people seem to think it is a legal requirement, which it isn't.

Bill H
JoeC liked this
By johnm
#1771744
eltonioni wrote:There’s little, if any, evidence that being near other people outdoors transmits C19 infections. The same is not true indoors.

The Law reflects that.


Have you got any references for that assertion? I have found some articles that debate the longevity of aerosols and suggest they live long indoors but not outdoors presumably because of air movement aiding dispersal outdoors.....