Ford Anglia Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 That's what New Labour have put on the statute books since 1997. And that DOES NOT include any EU legislation.Frightening. It's apprently a 25% increase on the previous ten years.But of course, our civil liberties aren't being eroded. Walter Wofgang, anyone?And NO, this didn't come from any newspaper........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gastines Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Read it as well but worth remembering that most M.P.'s Politicians are ex Lawyers/Barristers and one has to keep the cash flow healthy. Cherie Blair obviously does well out of the Human Rights issues.Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre ZFP Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 No that can't be right ...... I remember a commitment to 'Reduce red tape and legislation' Or did I dream it ?I have this theory that the only way that a 'Career' back-bench politition can be noticed by the Front Bench (and possibly the Constituent Party) is to introduce Bills to the house so while some things are worthwhile, a whole lot are for job enhancement.I really am a terrible cynic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Petomane Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 Many Acts of Parliament are non-controversial legislation, often bills sponsored by MPs for their local authorities, or for river or harbour authorities etc. Others, like the Finance Act or the Armed Forces Act are designed to prolong existing legislation. This "seven and a half new laws" doesn't mean anything until you analyse it. I find that the people who shout loudest about nanny states and government interference are also the first to ask "what are they(ie, the government) going to do about it?" as soon as something goes wrong. And no, I'm not a Tony Blair fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Avery Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 [quote user="Ford Anglia"] That's what New Labour have put on the statute books since 1997. And that DOES NOT include any EU legislation.[/quote]So what??Isn't that what governments do? Didn't a couple of airpanes hit a building in New York in 2001 and 57 people get killed on the London Underground or have you forgotten about that? So come on, how manyof these laws in your opinion were unnecessary then?Post edited by moderator in accordance with Code of Conduct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 This thread has been pruned and re instated. Apologies to those that have had reasonable posts deleted but I'm afraid the software does not allow us to 'cherry pick' posts for deletion.Further posts to this thread should be kept within the Code of Conduct. Failure to do this will result in the thread being permanently deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Anglia Posted June 5, 2007 Author Share Posted June 5, 2007 [quote user="Ron Avery"][quote user="Ford Anglia"] That's what New Labour have put on the statute books since 1997. And that DOES NOT include any EU legislation.[/quote]So what??Isn't that what governments do? Didn't a couple of airpanes hit a building in New York in 2001 and 57 people get killed on the London Underground or have you forgotten about that? So come on, how manyof these laws in your opinion were unnecessary then?Post edited by moderator in accordance with Code of Conduct[/quote]Forty-three[:P]I can't win. If I refuse to post when I'm insulted, or someone is rude to me, I get pilloried.When I DO post, my posts are deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Posts are only deleted when they are contrary to the Code of Conduct.If everyone sticks to the issues rather than trying to insult the person posting a different view then we should all get along just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Anglia Posted June 5, 2007 Author Share Posted June 5, 2007 Agreed, and I promise NEVER to rise to any more insults, veiled or otherwise.Any chance we could have a "smiley" that rolls it's eyes? I find THAT one very useful against keyboard warriors on another forum.[:P] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 [IMG]http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i278/Michaeleff/smiliefrvnad.gif[/IMG] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 [quote user="Le Petomane"]Many Acts of Parliament are non-controversial legislation, often bills sponsored by MPs for their local authorities, or for river or harbour authorities etc. Others, like the Finance Act or the Armed Forces Act are designed to prolong existing legislation. This "seven and a half new laws" doesn't mean anything until you analyse it. [/quote]The Finance Act is a replacement each year, for the Finance of the previous year: this is an annual process after the budget and inended to encapsulate the desired changes to Taxes management Act, ICTA, Capital Taxes Act, Capital Allowances Act et al.Thus they are not "new" by definition.Periodically, statute such as the Companies Act is revised, mainly where SIs (Statutory Instruments) cannot be employed to create the desired amendment/s.It is a fact that from Thatcher's 1979 parliament onwards, the UK has created more new statutes than ever before. Indeed, a new political ethos seems to have taken root (from Thatcher and slavishly emulated by Blair) that if there is a problem, create a new act of parliament to solve it! Notwithstanding of course, that there was extant legislation and it was either not being applied or not being applied correctly or well.This is particularly true with public order offences, for example.Still, it seems that some are happy with politicians and the state of the UK. Makes one wonder really why they came to France?[IMG]http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i278/Michaeleff/smiliefrvnad.gif[/IMG] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Petomane Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Are you suggesting that Brits who settle in France do so because they are dissatisfied with their own country? Not so in my case. Is it the case with most of the members of this forum? I have grumbles about life in Britain, and about life in France. I've lived in Germany, Bulgaria (under Communism) and the Middle East. All these places had their drawbacks. I'd probably find things to complain about in Utopia, Nirvana and Shangri-La. And it's not because I'm particularly picky. It's human nature. To come back to the original thread, I'd be interested to know which particular laws Gluestick thinks are unnecessary? Let's have chapter and verse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 [quote user="Le Petomane"]Are you suggesting that Brits who settle in France do so because they are dissatisfied with their own country? [/quote]Well, if this is not the case, perhaps we'd better re-phrase the statement to read " Most brits who leave the UK to live in France and are members of fora about France are not happy with the UK which is why they left!"Or perhaps they are telling porkies when they post?Amyone, like myself and spouse who have to regularly travel to and work in London might have a specific and quite vituperative perspective![quote] To come back to the original thread, I'd be interested to know which particular laws Gluestick thinks are unnecessary? Let's have chapter and verse! [/quote]Well this one could run and run!Let's be simplistic, or we will finish up both Googling UK government sites and checking Hansard, SIs, and etc! And bore the other members rigid!Public Order legislation. ASBOs for example.Visit any magistrates court: listen. Walk along any main city street: listen and observeFor many years it has been a public order offnce to: spit; swear and blaspheme; behave in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace; gather and/or assemble in such a manner as to cause other membersof the public distress or to cause them to have to walk in the highway, because assembled groups are blocking the footpath and thereby causing an obstruction. (Hint: try this in France when the CRS are about! [;-)]).And so on infinitum or perhaps ad naseum.Are the extant laws and statutes (bearing in mind some eminate from Common Law, not parliamentary statute) being applied? Answer No.So, why will any new laws be applied any better? Why will they work more effectively? So why bother?(Cynically, apart from the usual claims of "Look what we have achieved!").Which was really, Ford Anglia's point in the first place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.