Law reform
In the rather repellent terminology so beloved of the apparat, "the Law Commission launched an interactive web discussion forum which gives both key stakeholders and the public the opportunity to discuss areas of the law which are in need of reform". In my lexicon, 'a stakeholder' is Peter Cushing when he is taking on Christopher Lee.
Anyway, I have peered at said forum, and there is not a lot going on as yet (and I doubt that there ever will be - unless the solipsistic bores who infest the petitions site discover it) , with one entry an extended rant about the Child Support Agency, and one character who wants two bites at the cherry, including a demand that the inactive Easter Act of 1928, 'which deems that Easter Sunday should be fixed as the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April' is in need of urgent repeal. What a great use of everyone's time... The second demand is still more curious - "Consolidate ALL pre-1901 Acts as first step towards condensing legislation into more modern (language/layout) and shorter corpus". The first step would take many, many lifetimes to achieve, and I think would only begin to be appropriate as part of some Year Zero programme. As to the latter, I am more than somewhat disgusted - does everything have to be reduced to noddy language because the populace is so thorougly dumbed down?
Anyone interested in suggesting a few rather more worthwhile endeavours?
Anyway, I have peered at said forum, and there is not a lot going on as yet (and I doubt that there ever will be - unless the solipsistic bores who infest the petitions site discover it) , with one entry an extended rant about the Child Support Agency, and one character who wants two bites at the cherry, including a demand that the inactive Easter Act of 1928, 'which deems that Easter Sunday should be fixed as the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April' is in need of urgent repeal. What a great use of everyone's time... The second demand is still more curious - "Consolidate ALL pre-1901 Acts as first step towards condensing legislation into more modern (language/layout) and shorter corpus". The first step would take many, many lifetimes to achieve, and I think would only begin to be appropriate as part of some Year Zero programme. As to the latter, I am more than somewhat disgusted - does everything have to be reduced to noddy language because the populace is so thorougly dumbed down?
Anyone interested in suggesting a few rather more worthwhile endeavours?
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, February 06, 2007 at 6:36 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Wish you hadn't mentioned the cursed feministic CSA, Mr. C, otherwise known as the SS.
Croydonian asks: "... does everything have to be reduced to noddy language because the populace is so thorougly dumbed down?"
No,it's not necessary at all. The populace isn't the faintest bit interested in our laws. Not when there's reality TV and the footie.
The Law commssion has urgent business to attend to.
It must find a way to keep these second rate lawyers employed so that they stop ending up as third rate politicians.
C, in your genius do you happen to know how many ex-lawyers are currently MP's?
I would not claim genius...
I can investigate - an awful lot of them are still practicing....
I did a small test by looking at the A surnames - two 'out' lawyers of 18. Not all of them have wiki biographies that say, however. I may well wade through all 650 or whatever and do a breakdown of last known non-parliamentary job.
Before I do (and it will take a lawwnnnng time), anyone interested?
Parliament was better when it was part time and lawyers could practise law at the same time as being MPs. Now only the failed or small-time lawyers (e.g. Hazel Blears) end up in Parliament as the successful ones can't take the pay cut!
I am interestd, but mainly becuase it was a follow-up to a post of mine ranting at lawyers that I could not really be bothered with when I saw how long it would take.
» Post a Comment