Abandon All Fear

What nobody else seems to be saying…

Posts Tagged ‘gavin ayling’

[Legalities] Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

Posted by Lex Fear on February 27, 2009

Gavin Ayling thinks the law should be written in plain English. I’d like to expand on his post. I’ve always been amazed at this legal principle that underlines society.

Since there are so many laws and regulations to follows wouldn’t many of us be ignorant until pulled up on one?

And yet how many times have we come up against authorities themselves who play upon our ignorance and ignore the laws meant to keep them in check?

It seems to me laws have been crafted as to cover every tiny possibility and remove as much discretion as possible for a judge to employ. I think an efficient and humanitarian society should look to reducing laws and regulations as much as possible – wording them so that they cover a ‘multitude of sins’ rather than every single little possibility. This would then assure people of (a) their rights and (b) their responsibilities.

For example, what is the point of having a Racial and Religious Hatred Act, a Protection from Harrassment Act, a Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, a Criminal Justice Act, an Anti-Social Behaviour Act, a Female Genital Mutilation Act (yes, there is one), a Sexual Offenses Act, a Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act, a Violent Crime Reduction Act, plus hundreds of others I cannot be bothered to reference (but you get the picture).

All of the above acts deal with or touch on violence of some sort. Obviously we could say most reasonable people are not the violent type so many of these rules won’t apply, but this is just an example.

What this tells me is at least one of the following reasons,

  • The lawmakers are too lazy, or braindead, to check if something is already covered in exsisting law
  • The existing law was not good enough
  • The law was created for political expediency, not for genuine practical reasons
  • There is money to be made in lawmaking

Is not violence or harrassment against a black person as bad it is against a white person? A gay person or straight person? A child or adult? An immigrant or local? A man or woman?

Does this also mean that any minority not covered by this existing legislation is at risk from lawful violence?

“Your honour, I would like to point out that the man my client attacked is a narcoleptic and is therefore not protected by any existing legislation. My client was therefore acting in a lawful manner and I would request this case is thrown out.”

Would it not be a better society if lawmakers actually tried to include the widest possible interpretation when crafting legislation? Then, leave it for the judges to interpret and decide if a law had actually been broken or not.

What’s wrong with, for example, a law that states “You shall not inflict violence upon another person”. It would then be for a judge and jury to distinguish between a bloody beheading or a playful punch and award compensation and punishments on a scale.

“To make laws that a man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.”
– Elizabeth Candy Stanton

People do not exist for laws, laws exist for people and politicians need to get it into their head that society cannot be controlled or coerced into being happy and nice to each other, but most of us are capable of telling right from wrong. No-one needs to consult various regulations and acts each day before leaving their house to ensure that they don’t commit an offence. It’s time for better laws, not more laws.

, , , , , , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Advertisements

Posted in Absolute Power, Bollotics, Doublethink, Justice & Mercy, Minitruth, Non-Compliance, Pharisees, Realpolitik, Tick-Box Culture | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

[Budgeting] Economics

Posted by Lex Fear on March 21, 2007

I find myself looking rather ironically at the Prime Ministers Chancellors budget announcements for a number of reasons.

1) It is the first time in my life, I find myself on the slight benefit side of a budget announcement, though I consider other members of my family who have not done so well.

2) It is interesting (but none-the-less welcome) to see that it is mostly Tories who are pointing out how Browns budget switcheroo affects the poorest tax-payers of society:

Gavin Ayling
Guido Fawkes
18 Doughty Street
Iain Dale
Praguetory

Meanwhile The Man Who Would Be King provides a link to Virtual Economy 2002 where you can play at having a go at your own budget. I had a go and I think I fixed it. Most notable changes:

Reduced the rate of income tax (percent) : 6
Reduced basic rate of income tax (percent) : 10
Reduced higher rate of income tax (percent) : 35
Increased basic rate threshold (£pa) : 2,400
Increased personal allowance (£pa) : 6,000
Increased personal allowance for over 65s(£pa) : 8,000
Value Added Tax : abolish it
VAT on fuel (percent) : 0
Duty on tobacco per pkt 20 (pence per pkt 20) : triple it!
Duty on a pint of beer (pence) : double it!
Extra duty on a bottle of wine : triple it!
Extra duty on a bottle of whisky (pence) : triple it!
Extra duty on petrol per litre(pence) : abolish it!
Lowered vehicle excise duty (£p.a) for cars above 1,400cc : 50
Reduced base rate of interest : cut by 1/4 point
Increased department of health : increase by 10%
Increased department for education and employment (DFEE): increase by 5%
Increased the ministry of defense : increase by 1%
Increased child benefit (per child) : 30
Lowered child benefit (extra for first child) : 2
Increased basic state pension : 100

Looking at the generated charts my changes brought about:

  • Economic growth boom 2003-2007 with a sharp decline by 2010
  • Steady increase in national income up to 2009
  • Sharp drop in unemployment to -7% I think that’s a record- companies can’t find enough employees- wages rise.
  • Inflation takes a nosedive in 2004- banks are actually paying interest instead of charging. lots of mortgage and equity release buyers, who are then made bankrupts in the 2000% rise over next 4 years.
  • government debt drops from current 40% to 10% by 2009 (after a small rise).
  • The exchange rate tanks… can anyone explain what this means?
  • To summarise everyone benefits- single, family and pensioners apart from unemployed couples with 2 children who are finding an increase in tax on tobacco and alcohol…

…however… I would like to point out that not all unemployed people, on benefits for whatever reason, drink, smoke and breed like rabbits. Many decent people have no choice but to rely on benefits, but are ultimately more responsible than the cocaine-snorting upper-middle classes.

See everyone can be stereotyped.

Posted in Absolute Power, Bollotics, Financial Terrorism, Justice & Mercy, Londonland, Profiteering, Realpolitik, Wealth Creation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

[Ethics] Political Science

Posted by Lex Fear on March 11, 2007

Gavin Ayling throws down the gauntlet in response to a comment left On his blog.

To which I left the comment:

“I heard a little while back (sorry no sources- top of my head) that some Christian activists had registered a patent for human-mice chimera.

It was actually a well-calculated move to force the governments hand and stimulate a debate. It was borne of a concern that if we don’t debate these things now, we will slowly fall into these things as a society unaware.

I would guess that this one is probably someones thesis that has been passed on by word of mouth and become itself a sort of mutation.

Mice, rice whatever, I think scientific experiments need to have 2 things in place – a purpose and sanctity of human life.”

To which the Councillor replied:

“I agree that we need to have a debate! Inevitably, though, I don’t agree with the need for a purpose.

Much experimentation that has led to world-changing discoveries have no purpose. Trips to Titan, for example, have no purpose at all — they burn through lots of money and find out fascinating stuff, but there’s nothing out there we could remotely use.

I also am not sure about the “sanctity of human life”. Yes life is special, but human life is no more so. I can see massive societal problems were we able to make all children of similar [insert criteria here] and the idea of fully developing a chimera (which at the moment is not proposed or possible) should send a shudder down anyone’s spine…

But at the same time, we shouldn’t think that same-species genetic modification is significantly different to forced hybridisation or selective breeding (it isn’t) and we shouldn’t be afraid of things without good reason… Going faster than 50mph, remember, will suffocate you!”

I do not want to be drawn out into a lengthy debate and assume neither does Gavin, for which I have utmost respect. So instead I’m simply going to offer some examples:

What happens when science (research) does not have a purpose?

What happens when science doesn’t have a conscience (respecting sanctity of human life)?

Posted in Blogidarity, Morals & Ethics, Religion & Science, Warring Memes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »