Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
In Charge Of The Law.
22 Answers
If you were given the chance to pass just one law, what would it be?
If you were ever given the chance to repeal just one law, what would it be?
If you were ever given the chance to repeal just one law, what would it be?
Answers
// As a result of modern forensic technology I'd re-introduce // well the defects in the cases will persist - and are getting worse - such as failure of disclosure Just to excoriate - that is like saying - the Great War - the Lions ( that would be likes of you Chilldo) were led by donkeys ( the Ruperts - god knows what they are called now) and the second world war was...
09:15 Sat 17th Nov 2018
I think I would like to see prison sentences adjusted for serving the full term of the tariff and no time off for good behaviour, but time added on for bad behaviour.
And a repeal? The exclusion of listed buildings from minimum energy efficiency laws that condemn tenants to cold expensive properties. English Heritage are a farce.
And a repeal? The exclusion of listed buildings from minimum energy efficiency laws that condemn tenants to cold expensive properties. English Heritage are a farce.
This would be expensive but I would make it mandatory that anyone carrying a blade, gun (imitation or real) or corrosive substance without proper cause receives a minimum 5 year prison sentence and anyone with that person a minimum 2 year prison sentence whether they were aware or not.
I would also make it illegal for a pedestrian to cross the road without paying proper attention because they are looking at their phone screen.
I would repeal the current child employment laws and allow 12 year olds to do suitable work for 4 hours a week.
I would also make it illegal for a pedestrian to cross the road without paying proper attention because they are looking at their phone screen.
I would repeal the current child employment laws and allow 12 year olds to do suitable work for 4 hours a week.
// As a result of modern forensic technology I'd re-introduce //
well the defects in the cases will persist - and are getting worse - such as failure of disclosure
Just to excoriate - that is like saying - the Great War - the Lions ( that would be likes of you Chilldo) were led by donkeys ( the Ruperts - god knows what they are called now) and the second world war was much better as lessons had been learnt and we were better led
er yeah
Over the Birmnibgham non-bombers - Lord taylor when asked if he would apologise to them for presideing over a complete charade said: [no he wouldnt because]
'it's not his fault if the police choose to lie to him'
My law - deffo
Theland single thread a day censorship [limitation thereof] bill 2018
short form - shall be known as The Theland Gag
well the defects in the cases will persist - and are getting worse - such as failure of disclosure
Just to excoriate - that is like saying - the Great War - the Lions ( that would be likes of you Chilldo) were led by donkeys ( the Ruperts - god knows what they are called now) and the second world war was much better as lessons had been learnt and we were better led
er yeah
Over the Birmnibgham non-bombers - Lord taylor when asked if he would apologise to them for presideing over a complete charade said: [no he wouldnt because]
'it's not his fault if the police choose to lie to him'
My law - deffo
Theland single thread a day censorship [limitation thereof] bill 2018
short form - shall be known as The Theland Gag
// I would repeal the current child employment laws and allow 12 year olds to do suitable work for 4 hours a week.//
well there's a thing - what we really miss is - - - child labour. - coz yeah evryone knows they are never exploited. You didnt vote for Brexit by any chance did you?
yeah - a law to make pi equal to three
( been done before folks)
well there's a thing - what we really miss is - - - child labour. - coz yeah evryone knows they are never exploited. You didnt vote for Brexit by any chance did you?
yeah - a law to make pi equal to three
( been done before folks)
// I would also make it illegal for a pedestrian to cross the road without paying proper attention because they are looking at their phone screen. //
no surely
illegal for a pedestrian to cross the road without burying their faces in their phone screen.
jesus it would cut down the pedestrian menace
( that was pedestrian and not paedophile innit)
I still think pi at fwee wins
no surely
illegal for a pedestrian to cross the road without burying their faces in their phone screen.
jesus it would cut down the pedestrian menace
( that was pedestrian and not paedophile innit)
I still think pi at fwee wins
-- answer removed --
//...if in court all your previous would be read out BEFORE the trial//
No, that pre-judges the case, Cinders. The jury will know[i that the accused is a a villain, shrug shoulders and find for the prosecution. But it doesn't [i]necessarily] follow that the "known"" villain was guilty in the particular case, which should be determined by evidence. Some of us remember the "George Davis is innocent" campaign whch ruined the Headingley test match. That was all about "fabricated" evidence as I recall.
But I understand your point. For a jury to acquit somebody because the evidence presented didn't meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, and then to find that the man they've acquitted has a long record of similar offences would sipp some of them off, wouldn't it?
Maybe if a jury is hung, or undecided they might request the defendant's criminal history.
Don't know how the jurists might view that suggestion. They have funny principles sometimes. Take this piece of nonsense from the famous 18th century jurist stone who said "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Why ten rather one or a thousand you might adk. The often quoted "principle" has a metaphorical decency, but, like other moral metaphors ("turn the other cheek") is impossible to apply literally without contradicting the principles they are trying to assert. The only way to guarantee that an innocent man is not charged and convicted is to prosecute nobody.
No, that pre-judges the case, Cinders. The jury will know[i that the accused is a a villain, shrug shoulders and find for the prosecution. But it doesn't [i]necessarily] follow that the "known"" villain was guilty in the particular case, which should be determined by evidence. Some of us remember the "George Davis is innocent" campaign whch ruined the Headingley test match. That was all about "fabricated" evidence as I recall.
But I understand your point. For a jury to acquit somebody because the evidence presented didn't meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, and then to find that the man they've acquitted has a long record of similar offences would sipp some of them off, wouldn't it?
Maybe if a jury is hung, or undecided they might request the defendant's criminal history.
Don't know how the jurists might view that suggestion. They have funny principles sometimes. Take this piece of nonsense from the famous 18th century jurist stone who said "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Why ten rather one or a thousand you might adk. The often quoted "principle" has a metaphorical decency, but, like other moral metaphors ("turn the other cheek") is impossible to apply literally without contradicting the principles they are trying to assert. The only way to guarantee that an innocent man is not charged and convicted is to prosecute nobody.
