Compers News Spot The Postie January...
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Examples of legislation brought in because of misconceptions
3 Answers
Not had much luck in Society & Culture, so thought I would try posting here instead:
I am looking for examples of legislation that has been brought in based on incorrect advice - eg it is illegal to use a mobile phone on a petrol forecourt despite there being no evidence to suggest that a mobile phone can cause any kind of ignition.
I am looking for examples of legislation that has been brought in based on incorrect advice - eg it is illegal to use a mobile phone on a petrol forecourt despite there being no evidence to suggest that a mobile phone can cause any kind of ignition.
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oneeyedvic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Try the Human Rights Act of 1998, Vic for starters.
This Act is largely based on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This was introduced after WW2 and was designed to prevent an over-zealous state taking advantage of vulnerable citizens.
As far as I was aware, upon its introduction there were few if any examples of the UK state mechanism oppressing or taking advantage of its citizens where redress was not already available elsewhere in UK law. On the few occasions that this was shown to be so, redress was available by the complainant applying for a review in the European Court. In short, the 1998 was completely unnecessary.
Since 1998 the rights and fundamental freedoms of large numbers of people in the UK have been gradually eroded by stealth, but the 1998 Act seems ill equipped to deal with those problems. It is, however, quite functional when it comes to protecting the interests of some minority groups who feel unable to comply with other UK laws with which the majority seem, if not happy, then willing to comply.
This Act is largely based on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This was introduced after WW2 and was designed to prevent an over-zealous state taking advantage of vulnerable citizens.
As far as I was aware, upon its introduction there were few if any examples of the UK state mechanism oppressing or taking advantage of its citizens where redress was not already available elsewhere in UK law. On the few occasions that this was shown to be so, redress was available by the complainant applying for a review in the European Court. In short, the 1998 was completely unnecessary.
Since 1998 the rights and fundamental freedoms of large numbers of people in the UK have been gradually eroded by stealth, but the 1998 Act seems ill equipped to deal with those problems. It is, however, quite functional when it comes to protecting the interests of some minority groups who feel unable to comply with other UK laws with which the majority seem, if not happy, then willing to comply.
Possibly an urban myth, but there was no age of concent for lesbians as Queen Victoria refused to accept such things could happen, so it only applied to homosexuals.
I would also suggest the legislation on the Poll Tax was incorrect advice (if indeed the advisor suggested it would all go swimmingly)
If you are looking for pure technical mistakes, I am at a loss, some reseach it the pharmaceutical to tobacco industy regulation may be fruitful
Is the mobile phone issue a law? It is supposed to be in case you drop it and it sparks as the battery falls off, but I agree it is crap law. THe one place I don't care if someone uses their phone (other than their house), and they are banned!
I would also suggest the legislation on the Poll Tax was incorrect advice (if indeed the advisor suggested it would all go swimmingly)
If you are looking for pure technical mistakes, I am at a loss, some reseach it the pharmaceutical to tobacco industy regulation may be fruitful
Is the mobile phone issue a law? It is supposed to be in case you drop it and it sparks as the battery falls off, but I agree it is crap law. THe one place I don't care if someone uses their phone (other than their house), and they are banned!
I have actually read the calculated odds of a phone combustion- I can't remember the exact number, but it was along the lines of 1 in 4x10(to the power of) -4. (I don't know how to make my keyboard express that in correct mathematical terms.) That said, my friend's father's phone did once combust when it was inside his pocket- it caused him second degree burns to his left thigh, so it can happen! I didn't realise that this was a law and not petrol station custom though.
I wouldn't have thought there were many pieces of legislation drafted in on a mistake of fact, as there is a lengthy consultation period and scrutiny of the bills. Mistakes as to the effectiveness of the resulting act however; that's a separate matter.
Perhaps the old law regarding illegality of suicide? Hardly a crime to tear apart the bonds of society.
I wouldn't have thought there were many pieces of legislation drafted in on a mistake of fact, as there is a lengthy consultation period and scrutiny of the bills. Mistakes as to the effectiveness of the resulting act however; that's a separate matter.
Perhaps the old law regarding illegality of suicide? Hardly a crime to tear apart the bonds of society.
1 to 3 of 3
