The Law of Unintended Consequences – politicalbetting.com

System · January 8

The Law of Unintended Consequences – politicalbetting.com

Our Parliament is filled with new MPs with little or no experience of how to legislate. Or experience of the consequences of getting new laws wrong. There is, however, one law they need to understand above all….

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles · January 8

I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.

DavidL · January 8

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers in parliament.

Or at the very least on a generous consultancy.

viewcode · January 8

I remind you of my ongoing recommendation that Parliament should be much bigger: 900 at mine, ideally 3,000. It would increase the chance of competent oversight.

Taz · January 8

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.

Belinda from Carlisle endorses this comment.

MaxPB · January 8

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.

If only there was a Cambridge educated lawyer in charge who could show us the way to do it. Oh right.

bondegezou · January 8

viewcode said:
I remind you of my ongoing recommendation that Parliament should be much bigger: 900 at mine, ideally 3,000. It would increase the chance of competent oversight.

The Commons is already bigger than the legislatures of most countries of a similar size.

biggles · January 8

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers in parliament.
Or at the very least on a generous consultancy.

I’m confused. Two lawyers appear to have agreed on a proposal and suggested we implement it without saying “on the other hand XYZ” and refusing to commit.

That has never happened to me at work.

Next thing you’ll be telling me you aren’t both billing me for reading your posts.

MaxPB · January 8

Very good header @Cyclefree, I'll repeat my own post on the subject of unintended consequences wrt the OSA 2023

Final post on the free speech subject from me - the reason I know the new laws will end up being a disaster is the same reason the hate speech laws have ended up being a disaster. The police are incentivised to chase arrests and conviction stats not to solve actual crime. That means a new law which allows them to log a lot of arrests and boost their stats, pushing speech that might be perceived as potentially harmful into criminal justice system will result in people getting arrested and convicted with these weak "crimes" because individual police officers will chase their stats to earn promotions and pay rises.

So whatever the drafting intends, whatever the the spirit of the law might intend, the end result will be police officers chasing easy arrests and convictions for things people write on the internet and to avoid being arrested people like OGH and other people who run small time forums/blogs/comment sections in the UK will close up shop or only allow the most milquetoast of commentary.

Fishing · January 8

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.

I think a better solution is Peter the Great's, when he visited London from Russia and saw the swarms of lawyers in the Inns of Court:

“Lawyers!” exclaimed Peter, “What is the use of so many? I have only two in my whole empire, and I mean to hang one of them as soon as I return.”

biggles · January 8

On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.

TimS · January 8

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
Belinda from Carlisle endorses this comment.

Time to draw a circle in the sand under that one.

Malmesbury · January 8

Excellent as ever @Cyclefree

The very worst kind laws are those that hand over huge chunks of definition of what the law actually means to regulatory bodies. Who can then define what it means free of any oversight or constraint.

Malmesbury · January 8

Fishing said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
I think a better solution is Peter the Great's, when he visited London from Russia and saw the swarms of lawyers in the Inns of Court:

“Lawyers!” exclaimed Peter, “What is the use of so many? I have only two in my whole empire, and I mean to hang one of them as soon as I return.”

Useless fellow - why leave a job half done?

SouthamObserver · January 8

Good article.

Out of interest, is it a potential infringement of the Online Safety Act to forbid discussion of things? Could someone argue that they have been harmed by having perfectly reasonable content they posted removed or that they were harmed because they were denied access to this perfectly reasonable content?

williamglenn · January 8

TimS said:

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
Belinda from Carlisle endorses this comment.
Time to draw a circle in the sand under that one.

Too much of a fire risk if they leave a light on in the Commons.

RobD · January 8

SouthamObserver said:
Good article.

Out of interest, is it a potential infringement of the Online Safety Act to forbid discussion of things? Could someone argue that they have been harmed by having perfectly reasonable content they posted removed or that they were harmed because they were denied access to this perfectly reasonable content?

Can someone be harmed by nothing?

Fishing · January 8

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.

I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.

MaxPB · January 8

SouthamObserver said:
Good article.

Out of interest, is it a potential infringement of the Online Safety Act to forbid discussion of things? Could someone argue that they have been harmed by having perfectly reasonable content they posted removed or that they were harmed because they were denied access to this perfectly reasonable content?

If you take the broadest definition of how it's written, probably yes. It's completely ridiculous.

noneoftheabove · January 8

viewcode said:
I remind you of my ongoing recommendation that Parliament should be much bigger: 900 at mine, ideally 3,000. It would increase the chance of competent oversight.

Would it? Too many cooks spoil the broth and all that.

My suggestion is to get MPs to specialise. So cabinet ministers need 3 years experience as junior minister/shadow/select committee before they can serve. Get 30 MPs really understanding health, another 30 on justice, another 30 defence etc.

TimS · January 8

Important topic for this afternoon: how far North will the snow from this channel low reach? Nothing here in SE London yet or at my East Kent weather station, but the radar is showing quite a lot of snowfall over the South Downs.

Cyclefree · January 8

biggles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers in parliament.
Or at the very least on a generous consultancy.
I’m confused. Two lawyers appear to have agreed on a proposal and suggested we implement it without saying “on the other hand XYZ” and refusing to commit.

That has never happened to me at work.

Next thing you’ll be telling me you aren’t both billing me for reading your posts.

I'm very happy to send you an outrageous invoice.

MaxPB · January 8

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:
Good article.

Out of interest, is it a potential infringement of the Online Safety Act to forbid discussion of things? Could someone argue that they have been harmed by having perfectly reasonable content they posted removed or that they were harmed because they were denied access to this perfectly reasonable content?
Can someone be harmed by nothing?

"Seen as potentially harmful" is the issue. Banning discussion of a topic could be seen as potentially harmful at least one person.

TimS · January 8

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
Belinda from Carlisle endorses this comment.
Time to draw a circle in the sand under that one.
Too much of a fire risk if they leave a light on in the Commons.

A bit of summer rain should extinguish it.

DavidL · January 8

On the Terminally Ill Bill we have had a very difficult experience. My Mother in law, who suffered from vascular dementia, collapsed on New Years day. When she arrived at hospital we were told she was "seriously ill" and unlikely to recover. She was unconscious.

The position adopted by the medics was that any proactive care was likely to be intrusive and very unlikely to produce results. She was on oxygen and on New Years Day the family agreed to that being withdrawn. We were told she was then likely to "pass" (the word die is strenuously avoided) "within minutes". She had been given a substantial portion of morphine to ease her passage.

7 days later, around 4am yesterday, she did indeed die. In that 7 days she received medication to keep her "comfortable", that is unconscious. She received no fluids. It was extremely hard for all of us, particularly my wife and her granddaughters in attendance.

Trying to take a step back I believe that the medical advice was correct. I think that the doctors were correct to focus on her pre collapse "base line". There was no question that her quality of life had been deteriorating.

I was concerned that so little interest was shown when she seemed to be close to consciousness at times. The speed at which further painkillers were provided troubled me, particularly in the first ward (the second, a ward dealing with elderly patients, was much better). The fact is that an entirely healthy person would have met their demise using the form care she was provided with. Simplistically, she was dying of thirst and hunger. This happened because our medical staff are terrified of being seen to "cause" the death. It was traumatic. I only hope she had no awareness of it although there was some response at times to hymns and classical music that visitors played for her.

This seemed to me to be the worst of all worlds not only for the dying but also for the living. It would be a scenario that the bill would have absolutely no relevance to and it may be thought to make the bill redundant and pointless given that our doctors can facilitate (if not "cause") death so easily. We need to be a lot less coy about accepting that humans sometimes need to be put to sleep for exactly the same reasons as animals that we also care for. I accept that. But the current Bill is simply not the answer.

Stuartinromford · January 8

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
Belinda from Carlisle endorses this comment.

Is there another lawyer saying that we want the same thing?

DavidL · January 8

biggles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers in parliament.
Or at the very least on a generous consultancy.
I’m confused. Two lawyers appear to have agreed on a proposal and suggested we implement it without saying “on the other hand XYZ” and refusing to commit.

That has never happened to me at work.

Next thing you’ll be telling me you aren’t both billing me for reading your posts.

Has the bill not arrived?

Taz · January 8

UK Athletics Ltd and its former head of sport have been charged with manslaughter following the death of Paralympian Abdullah Hayayei, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

Be interesting to see the details behind this and why the charge has come about.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/uk-athletics-and-its-former-head-of-sport-charged-over-paralympian-s-death/ar-AA1xbfkR?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=1b2d921807534588afe09695595bd2a1&ei=19

CharlieShark · January 8

Typically good header. Yes, it will all go wrong.

Interesting exchange in Holyrood, with some unusual questions from Craig Hoy. Have to read between the lines what has been going on.

https://x.com/markthehibby/status/1877000324965122104

viewcode · January 8

...

TimS · January 8

On topic, as someone who has to interpret and try to give guidance on the vast rafts of tax legislation that get added to the code here and around the world every year, I am always coming across the law of unintended consequences. Cyclefree's point about the worst laws being those that are vaguely drawn but then cushioned with vast amounts of guidance also rings true.

What I would say, though, is that our traditional principles-based tax legislation is a whole lot better than the highly prescriptive approach to tax law taken by the Americans (whose code makes ours look like a short pamphlet), or the ridiculous lengths that some go to - notably the Australians - to stuff their guidance with as many examples as possible of things they don't like. Most new UK tax law, while not perfect, is reasonable by international standards.

Stuartinromford · January 8

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.

There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.

rkrkrk · January 8

Lawyers are well represented in Parliament, and we have once again a legal PM.
The labour cabinet has Lammy, Starmer, Mahmood as lawyers, possibly others.
I'm not sure we need more tbh.

Cyclefree · January 8

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.

I was a government lawyer for a while. By chance I found myself doing an investigation into unlawful behaviour by a government department, which was working hand in glove with a respected charity to prosecute people. Unfortunately for them, both the government department and the charity were breaking the law in doing so. And were none too pleased when I told them so. "That girl is not going to stop me doing what I want" was what the relevant official raged. Well I did. And that was how my career started. (It had very vague echoes of the PO case.)

I did draft a statutory instrument about the use of PCB's on the hulls of boats - to stop their use as they damage sea life. But however useless government lawyers may be, they are not the ones drafting legislation - that is down to Parliamentary Counsel - and it is quite a skill. The reason the laws are so poor is because (a) of poor confused vague instructions from Ministers and (b) a failure to think through the implications, as well as a lack of effective scrutiny.

Sean_F · January 8

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.

“A lawyer with his briefcase can steal as much as hundred men, armed with guns.”

Imagine 650!

Taz · January 8

vf.politicalbetting.com

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
“A lawyer with his briefcase can steal as much as hundred men, armed with guns.”

Imagine 650!

And has a far better chance of getting away with it too !!!

SouthamObserver · January 8

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:
Good article.

Out of interest, is it a potential infringement of the Online Safety Act to forbid discussion of things? Could someone argue that they have been harmed by having perfectly reasonable content they posted removed or that they were harmed because they were denied access to this perfectly reasonable content?
Can someone be harmed by nothing?

If I post something that I consider to be entirely reasonable and perfectly lawful and it is removed then I might feel I have been harmed - especially if the content was visible for a while. The inference that those who read it might draw from the removal is that it was removed because what I had posted was harmful. That inference harms me.

williamglenn · January 8

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
“A lawyer with his briefcase can steal as much as hundred men, armed with guns.”

Imagine 650!

That was the sales pitch they gave to the Mauritian government.

Mexicanpete · January 8

Stuartinromford said:

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
Belinda from Carlisle endorses this comment.
Is there another lawyer saying that we want the same thing?

Their lips are sealed.

SouthamObserver · January 8

TimS said:
Important topic for this afternoon: how far North will the snow from this channel low reach? Nothing here in SE London yet or at my East Kent weather station, but the radar is showing quite a lot of snowfall over the South Downs.

Sleet on the East Devon coast.

TimS · January 8

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.

If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?

OldKingCole · January 8

Some, at last of the 'confusion' is caused, I suspect by the 'difficult' language used. I'm aware of a group of senior citizens who are extremely concerned about this and and consequently trying to make the language used in legislation less, perhaps, opaque. Their leaders thoughts can be understood perhaps, by part of his website introduction, viz:
"How can things be improved? You may have heard about “Citizen Scientists” who are being recruited to help scientists analyse the huge amounts of information being gathered by recent advances in the technology employed. So, can “citizen legal advisers” be employed from the ranks of the U3A to help draft and propose improvements to legislation? While some knowledge of legal matters would be required in the team, there is a great need for some people to review legislation and comment along the lines of “I don’t understand this – it needs to be rewritten in a way that lay people can understand”.

Have a look at u3acommunities.org; improving legislation.

rottenborough · January 8

Krugman on why US longer term bond rates higher?

"Which brings us to #3: increases in long-term rates, like the 10-year Treasury rate, might reflect the horrible, creeping suspicion that Donald Trump actually believes the crazy things he says about economic policy and will act on those beliefs."

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/is-there-an-insanity-premium-on-interest?r=fysdp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

Cyclefree · January 8

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.

We ask ourselves the following questions before embarking on yet another law (from a previous thread):

Instead of assuming that there is a problem, that this problem is so serious that it requires a new law and that this law is the right one, we ask -

1. What exactly is the problem this law is intended to solve?

2. Is it really the case that the problem - clearly defined - cannot be addressed by existing laws or other measures?

3. Is the problem sufficiently serious to warrant change?

Some problems are ones which cannot easily be solved or at all or are inherent in the tensions between conflicting interests. A bit of realism to counter the “There should be a law against it.” tendency in voters and politicians is needed.

4. Will legal change resolve or alleviate the problem? Will it create other problems instead? Is what is proposed a proportionate way of resolving or mitigating the problem?

5. What are the consequences, especially the unintended ones? Do they harm the interests of others? Or other important requirements? It is essential to assess the disadvantages and the harms done. If so, how bad are these? Can these be easily mitigated? If not, is it really worth going ahead or are there another measures which might work better?

AnneJGP · January 8

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:
Good article.

Out of interest, is it a potential infringement of the Online Safety Act to forbid discussion of things? Could someone argue that they have been harmed by having perfectly reasonable content they posted removed or that they were harmed because they were denied access to this perfectly reasonable content?
Can someone be harmed by nothing?

Lack of appropriate medication.

Cyclefree · January 8

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?

Mothers.

Cyclefree · January 8

AnneJGP said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:
Good article.

Out of interest, is it a potential infringement of the Online Safety Act to forbid discussion of things? Could someone argue that they have been harmed by having perfectly reasonable content they posted removed or that they were harmed because they were denied access to this perfectly reasonable content?
Can someone be harmed by nothing?
Lack of appropriate medication.

Or food and water.

OldKingCole · January 8

SouthamObserver said:

TimS said:
Important topic for this afternoon: how far North will the snow from this channel low reach? Nothing here in SE London yet or at my East Kent weather station, but the radar is showing quite a lot of snowfall over the South Downs.

Sleet on the East Devon coast.

Sleet expected here shortly, becoming heavy as the light goes.

biggles · January 8

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
“A lawyer with his briefcase can steal as much as hundred men, armed with guns.”

Imagine 650!

I don’t think lawyers exist as people. Just units of billable hours.

SouthamObserver said:

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:
Good article.

Out of interest, is it a potential infringement of the Online Safety Act to forbid discussion of things? Could someone argue that they have been harmed by having perfectly reasonable content they posted removed or that they were harmed because they were denied access to this perfectly reasonable content?
Can someone be harmed by nothing?

If I post something that I consider to be entirely reasonable and perfectly lawful and it is removed then I might feel I have been harmed - especially if the content was visible for a while. The inference that those who read it might draw from the removal is that it was removed because what I had posted was harmful. That inference harms me.

I hope the mods appreciate the mental restraint required to not do the cheap joke and flag this post.

TimS · January 8

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.

650 Andrea Leadsoms.

OldKingCole · January 8

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.

Margaret Thatcher was a mother.

williamglenn · January 8

https://x.com/davidrkadler/status/1877015898705252786

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum responds to Trump on his proposal to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico — and points to a 17th century map of greater México.

“We are going to call it América Mexicana. It sounds pretty, no?”

biggles · January 8

Cyclefree said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
We ask ourselves the following questions before embarking on yet another law (from a previous thread):

Instead of assuming that there is a problem, that this problem is so serious that it requires a new law and that this law is the right one, we ask -

1. What exactly is the problem this law is intended to solve?

2. Is it really the case that the problem - clearly defined - cannot be addressed by existing laws or other measures?

3. Is the problem sufficiently serious to warrant change?

Some problems are ones which cannot easily be solved or at all or are inherent in the tensions between conflicting interests. A bit of realism to counter the “There should be a law against it.” tendency in voters and politicians is needed.

4. Will legal change resolve or alleviate the problem? Will it create other problems instead? Is what is proposed a proportionate way of resolving or mitigating the problem?

5. What are the consequences, especially the unintended ones? Do they harm the interests of others? Or other important requirements? It is essential to assess the disadvantages and the harms done. If so, how bad are these? Can these be easily mitigated? If not, is it really worth going ahead or are there another measures which might work better?

My pet hate is ultra specific legislation brought in to make a political point when the underlying is de facto already unlawful.

FrankBooth · January 8

I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?

Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?

Cyclefree · January 8

OldKingCole said:

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.

OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.

As described here - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/battleaxe-alan-bennett-matriarch-extinction

Jonathan · January 8

More lawyers locked up in the Commons means fewer lawyers out in the streets where they can get up to who knows what.

Sunil_Prasannan · January 8

What Cyclefree said

Cyclefree · January 8

Jonathan said:
More lawyers locked up in the Commons means fewer lawyers out in the streets where they can get up to who knows what.

Writing headers wanting fewer laws. The absolute bloody nerve of them......

Pulpstar · January 8

FrankBooth said:
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?

Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?

Wasn't it brought in to protect children, but the result is it's essentially infantilising (At best) the entire internet ?
Well except the internet is always going to be a bit of a 18 rated place as it doesn't revolve around the UK, so we end up with the ludicrous spectacle of senior police officers calling for extradition of US citizens because they've been a bit spicy with their tweets.

Australia's approach is better imv.

Cyclefree · January 8

biggles said:

Cyclefree said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
We ask ourselves the following questions before embarking on yet another law (from a previous thread):

Instead of assuming that there is a problem, that this problem is so serious that it requires a new law and that this law is the right one, we ask -

1. What exactly is the problem this law is intended to solve?

2. Is it really the case that the problem - clearly defined - cannot be addressed by existing laws or other measures?

3. Is the problem sufficiently serious to warrant change?

Some problems are ones which cannot easily be solved or at all or are inherent in the tensions between conflicting interests. A bit of realism to counter the “There should be a law against it.” tendency in voters and politicians is needed.

4. Will legal change resolve or alleviate the problem? Will it create other problems instead? Is what is proposed a proportionate way of resolving or mitigating the problem?

5. What are the consequences, especially the unintended ones? Do they harm the interests of others? Or other important requirements? It is essential to assess the disadvantages and the harms done. If so, how bad are these? Can these be easily mitigated? If not, is it really worth going ahead or are there another measures which might work better?
My pet hate is ultra specific legislation brought in to make a political point when the underlying is de facto already unlawful.

About 80% of most laws then .....

ydoethur · January 8

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.

Not biologically possible for me to be a mother…

WhisperingOracle · January 8

Christine Hamilton I remember published her Bumper Book of British Battleaxes, which she advertised on Have I Got News For You.
Possibly back in the 'nineties, or a bit more recently.

noneoftheabove · January 8

biggles said:

Cyclefree said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
We ask ourselves the following questions before embarking on yet another law (from a previous thread):

Instead of assuming that there is a problem, that this problem is so serious that it requires a new law and that this law is the right one, we ask -

1. What exactly is the problem this law is intended to solve?

2. Is it really the case that the problem - clearly defined - cannot be addressed by existing laws or other measures?

3. Is the problem sufficiently serious to warrant change?

Some problems are ones which cannot easily be solved or at all or are inherent in the tensions between conflicting interests. A bit of realism to counter the “There should be a law against it.” tendency in voters and politicians is needed.

4. Will legal change resolve or alleviate the problem? Will it create other problems instead? Is what is proposed a proportionate way of resolving or mitigating the problem?

5. What are the consequences, especially the unintended ones? Do they harm the interests of others? Or other important requirements? It is essential to assess the disadvantages and the harms done. If so, how bad are these? Can these be easily mitigated? If not, is it really worth going ahead or are there another measures which might work better?
My pet hate is ultra specific legislation brought in to make a political point when the underlying is de facto already unlawful.

I concur, we should make that illegal.

Sunil_Prasannan · January 8

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.

As described here - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/battleaxe-alan-bennett-matriarch-extinction

Mum just called me a 50 year-old man-child! (don't ask!)

But I think this most unfair - I don't turn 50 for another 10 months!

williamglenn · January 8

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.

As described here - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/battleaxe-alan-bennett-matriarch-extinction

Whatever happened to the archtype of the battleaxe? It seems to have been displaced by 'Rachel from accounts'.

Sunil_Prasannan · January 8

ydoethur said:

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Not biologically possible for me to be a mother…

You never heard of the term "Pregnant People"?

WhisperingOracle · January 8

williamglenn said:

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.

As described here - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/battleaxe-alan-bennett-matriarch-extinction
Whatever happened to the archtype of the battleaxe? It seems to have been displaced by 'Rachel from accounts'.

I always thought Maggie Smith was especially good, as this archetype.

biggles · January 8

noneoftheabove said:

biggles said:

Cyclefree said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
We ask ourselves the following questions before embarking on yet another law (from a previous thread):

Instead of assuming that there is a problem, that this problem is so serious that it requires a new law and that this law is the right one, we ask -

1. What exactly is the problem this law is intended to solve?

2. Is it really the case that the problem - clearly defined - cannot be addressed by existing laws or other measures?

3. Is the problem sufficiently serious to warrant change?

Some problems are ones which cannot easily be solved or at all or are inherent in the tensions between conflicting interests. A bit of realism to counter the “There should be a law against it.” tendency in voters and politicians is needed.

4. Will legal change resolve or alleviate the problem? Will it create other problems instead? Is what is proposed a proportionate way of resolving or mitigating the problem?

5. What are the consequences, especially the unintended ones? Do they harm the interests of others? Or other important requirements? It is essential to assess the disadvantages and the harms done. If so, how bad are these? Can these be easily mitigated? If not, is it really worth going ahead or are there another measures which might work better?
My pet hate is ultra specific legislation brought in to make a political point when the underlying is de facto already unlawful.
I concur, we should make that illegal.

Needs a regulator with wide ranging powers.

williamglenn · January 8

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
Belinda from Carlisle endorses this comment.

Talking of Belinda from Carlisle, why don't they don't make pop stars like that anymore? Maybe Trump's victory in the culture wars will usher in a new era of optimistic American pop culture.

david_herdson · January 8

Very good article, as usual from Cyclefree.

I'd add one other point, which is the increasing use of 'not illegal but you can't do it anyway, or if you do, we'll record it and you'll be screwed' type regulation. As with the non-crime hate incidents noted above.

TOPPING · January 8

Cracking entertainment on X where Owen Jones is getting a shellacking for being a Zionist Israeli stooge.

TOPPING · January 8

On topic the most obvious example of legislation misuse is when Walter Wolfgang was thrown out of the Labour Party conference in 2005 and detained under Section 44 of the recently introduced Terrorism Act 2000.

Pagan2 · January 8

I remain of the opinion bills should start off at legalese

First develop a proposal, amend with use cases specifying what should happen in each case. Both the proposal being written in plain english. When mps are satisfied they have covered enough examples pass it to the civil service to turn into the legalese.

This way at least all non lawyer mp's will understand it and what is being passed as will the general population. It will make the whole process of legislation more transparent. Also the use cases developed can be used for guidance in court.

david_herdson · January 8

On topic, does anyone know what the specific clause/s is/are that regulate the provision about individuals being protected from perceived harmful content on the internet?

It's a monster piece of legislation with 119 references to harmful (almost all of which are in the context of harmfulness to children) and 196 references to harm, which I really don't want to plod through as well.

TimS · January 8

WhisperingOracle said:

williamglenn said:

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.

As described here - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/battleaxe-alan-bennett-matriarch-extinction
Whatever happened to the archtype of the battleaxe? It seems to have been displaced by 'Rachel from accounts'.
I always thought Maggie Smith was especially good, as this archetype.

Another view of the battleaxe archetype is that it's a harmful stereotype, as expounded in this recent book.

https://www.waterstones.com/book/hags/victoria-smith/9780349726984

williamglenn · January 8

david_herdson said:
On topic, does anyone know what the specific clause/s is/are that regulate the provision about individuals being protected from perceived harmful content on the internet?

It's a monster piece of legislation with 119 references to harmful (almost all of which are in the context of harmfulness to children) and 196 references to harm, which I really don't want to plod through as well.

It's the long harm of the law.

Mexicanpete · January 8

williamglenn said:

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
Belinda from Carlisle endorses this comment.
Talking of Belinda from Carlisle, why don't they don't make pop stars like that anymore? Maybe Trump's victory in the culture wars will usher in a new era of optimistic American pop culture.

The Gogos started life as punks and Circles in the Sand was reflective rather than a joyous pop anthem. She did of course marry Morgan Mason, a senior Reagan staffer.

Otherwise I'll have a pint of whatever you are drinking.

LostPassword · January 8

FrankBooth said:
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?

Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?

The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.

The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.

WhisperingOracle · January 8

williamglenn said:

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.

As described here - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/battleaxe-alan-bennett-matriarch-extinction
Whatever happened to the archtype of the battleaxe? It seems to have been displaced by 'Rachel from accounts'.

Thinking about it, I think it's because the archetype combined two things that are slightly put of fashion.

A hint of the stiff upper lip, but also combined with something distinctively female, which is nowadays not an idea that is sufficiently credited, or also out of fashion.

Margaret Rutherford was wonderful , as some of these characters.

Sunil_Prasannan · January 8

Mexicanpete said:

williamglenn said:

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
Belinda from Carlisle endorses this comment.
Talking of Belinda from Carlisle, why don't they don't make pop stars like that anymore? Maybe Trump's victory in the culture wars will usher in a new era of optimistic American pop culture.
The Gogos started life as punks and Circles in the Sand was reflective rather than a joyous pop anthem. She did of course marry Morgan Mason, a senior Reagan staffer.

Otherwise I'll have a pint of whatever you are drinking.

How about "Heaven is a Place on Earth"? Or "Leave a Light on for Me"? Or "I Get Weak"?

WhisperingOracle · January 8

TimS said:

WhisperingOracle said:

williamglenn said:

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.

As described here - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/battleaxe-alan-bennett-matriarch-extinction
Whatever happened to the archtype of the battleaxe? It seems to have been displaced by 'Rachel from accounts'.
I always thought Maggie Smith was especially good, as this archetype.
Another view of the battleaxe archetype is that it's a harmful stereotype, as expounded in this recent book.

https://www.waterstones.com/book/hags/victoria-smith/9780349726984

I've yet to see thar, but I have a feeling that it will confuse anything distinctively female as a sexist stereotype, which is a common error.

Pagan2 · January 8

LostPassword said:

FrankBooth said:
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?

Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.

The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.

Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.

The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.

Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press

Taz · January 8

TOPPING said:
On topic the most obvious example of legislation misuse is when Walter Wolfgang was thrown out of the Labour Party conference in 2005 and detained under Section 44 of the recently introduced Terrorism Act 2000.

For heckling Jack Straw !! Never knew he had been detained. Disgraceful.

What about anti terror legislation used to seize Icelandic bank assets after they collapsed ?

kinabalu · January 8

williamglenn said:

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I think the only solution to this is more lawyers to become MPs.

Just imagine a Commons made up of 650 lawyers.

Heaven on Earth.
Belinda from Carlisle endorses this comment.
Talking of Belinda from Carlisle, why don't they don't make pop stars like that anymore? Maybe Trump's victory in the culture wars will usher in a new era of optimistic American pop culture.

I can certainly report an uptick in the amount of "free speech" in the men's locker room at my gym since Nov 6th.

viewcode · January 8

LostPassword said:

FrankBooth said:
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?

Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.

The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.

I think I've said it before, but the cure to this problem is not hamfisted legislation designed to hide or deprecate data whilst ignoring brigading, but to outlaw algorithm-driven social media whilst allowing subscription-based social media. The data still exists, it is still accessible if you look for it, but it's slower and allows for reflection.

Taz · January 8

Pagan2 said:

LostPassword said:

FrankBooth said:
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?

Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.

The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.

The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.

Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press

And a part of this is the mainstream media/legacy media wanting to put the boot into the new media which is gradually supplanting it.

FrankBooth · January 8

Is it me or are we lacking polls at the moment?

Cyclefree · January 8

TimS said:

WhisperingOracle said:

williamglenn said:

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.

As described here - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/battleaxe-alan-bennett-matriarch-extinction
Whatever happened to the archtype of the battleaxe? It seems to have been displaced by 'Rachel from accounts'.
I always thought Maggie Smith was especially good, as this archetype.
Another view of the battleaxe archetype is that it's a harmful stereotype, as expounded in this recent book.

https://www.waterstones.com/book/hags/victoria-smith/9780349726984

Battleaxes were respected. Or feared. There was an element of authority about them. The point about the Hags book is that the use of such insults is a way of diminishing the value and authority of older women - not just by men but by younger women as well.

numbertwelve · January 8

FrankBooth said:
Is it me or are we lacking polls at the moment?

For the time of year, it’s not very surprising. But I would hope more VI polls (from more pollsters) come through in 2025 than what we had post GE.

TOPPING · January 8

Surely the archetypal battle axe is/was Margaret Rutherford. Oh and Alastair Sim while we're at it.

ydoethur · January 8

FrankBooth said:
Is it me or are we lacking polls at the moment?

Wasn't that the point of Brexit?

TimS · January 8

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

WhisperingOracle said:

williamglenn said:

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.

As described here - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/battleaxe-alan-bennett-matriarch-extinction
Whatever happened to the archtype of the battleaxe? It seems to have been displaced by 'Rachel from accounts'.
I always thought Maggie Smith was especially good, as this archetype.
Another view of the battleaxe archetype is that it's a harmful stereotype, as expounded in this recent book.

https://www.waterstones.com/book/hags/victoria-smith/9780349726984
Battleaxes were respected. Or feared. There was an element of authority about them. The point about the Hags book is that the use of such insults is a way of diminishing the value and authority of older women - not just by men but by younger women as well.

Yes, I think it's essentially a polemic against the Karen slur. I've not read it, only read the reviews.

williamglenn · January 8

Lay Newsome for the nomination next time?

https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1877033120463233070

Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!

WhisperingOracle · January 8

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

WhisperingOracle said:

williamglenn said:

Cyclefree said:

OldKingCole said:

Cyclefree said:

TimS said:

Stuartinromford said:

Fishing said:

biggles said:
On topic (excellent header) this is one of the reasons I keep wondering about moving the executive out of Parliament altogether. It might encourage proper scrutiny if that was how even the government benches had to make a name for themselves.
I doubt it.

The Americans have powers that are about as separate as practicable, and their legislation is just as poorly drafted and loophole-ridden as ours.

A lot of the problem isn't so much the scrutiny, though obviously that's important - it's the extremely poor early drafts written in government departments. In neither the UK nor the US do the best law students go into government work - when you can earn four times as much at a white shoe law firm or in house in an investment bank, why would you? And those few that do are mostly just using it to build their contact lists for later employment as lobbyists or in house. So government lawyers do, with honourable exceptions, tend to be the dregs of the profession.

At least that was my experience from my time in government.
There's probably a chunk of that- though it takes us back to the possiblity that we are getting exactly the quality of public service that we are willing to pay for (taking pay, pensions and working conditions as a whole).

But also- are we expecting laws to do something that can't be done? The ideal is to perfectly demarcate acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that's just not possible. No, I don't know what we do about that.
If it's about demarcating acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, then surely a parliament of 650 school teachers would be ideal. Are you and @ydoethur ready to step up and do your duty?
Mothers.
Margaret Thatcher was a mother.
OK OK - mothers like me. Or my own mother. Or any of my aunts. They never stood for any nonsense at all. Battle axes - in short.

As described here - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/battleaxe-alan-bennett-matriarch-extinction
Whatever happened to the archtype of the battleaxe? It seems to have been displaced by 'Rachel from accounts'.
I always thought Maggie Smith was especially good, as this archetype.
Another view of the battleaxe archetype is that it's a harmful stereotype, as expounded in this recent book.

https://www.waterstones.com/book/hags/victoria-smith/9780349726984
Battleaxes were respected. Or feared. There was an element of authority about them. The point about the Hags book is that the use of such insults is a way of diminishing the value and authority of older women - not just by men but by younger women as well.

I would say it's also because there is an increasing problem with the idea of any female characteristics that are not socially imposed.
That also relates to the trans debate, I would say , too.

TimS · January 8

ydoethur said:

FrankBooth said:
Is it me or are we lacking polls at the moment?
Wasn't that the point of Brexit?

No, it was about phasing out cheques.

Cyclefree · January 8

Pagan2 said:

LostPassword said:

FrankBooth said:
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?

Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.

The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.

The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.

Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press

There are many reasons why people commit suicide. There is rarely just one cause and those charities dealing with it always advocate caution about blaming it on one factor alone. Sad as that case was, we only heard the father's story. It is understandable why he might blame what his daughter was seeing online for her death. But that avoids asking some other tough questions about what else was going on and why she was spending so long online. And - brutal as this might sound - is one sad case a sufficient basis for a law which has 241 sections, 12 parts and 17 schedules and still requires loads more regulations and guidance?

williamglenn · January 8

TimS said:

ydoethur said:

FrankBooth said:
Is it me or are we lacking polls at the moment?
Wasn't that the point of Brexit?
No, it was about phasing out cheques.

Dyson supported it to get rid of slow vacs.

Cyclefree · January 8

TOPPING said:
Surely the archetypal battle axe is/was Margaret Rutherford. Oh and Alastair Sim while we're at it.

Thora Hird beats both of those.

Pagan2 · January 8

Cyclefree said:

Pagan2 said:

LostPassword said:

FrankBooth said:
I'll admit to having been lazy on this one. I don't fully understand the OSA in detail. But the first question I would ask is - What problem is it intended to solve? Child pornography? Kids being psychologically damaged by online content? Political manipulation? Lies? Defamation?

Would the Labour Party be facing legal action for the video they posted on tiktok containing a song with 'questionable' lyrics?
The motivation was the suicide of a teenage girl, where it emerged that she'd been encouraged to commit suicide by people online. So there's a pretty clear example of very serious harm following from people's actions online.

The legislation does not seem to be laser-focused on that level of seriousness of harm.
Lots of things cause suicide, job loss, divorce, being a sub postmaster etc....should we make those illegal too? Suicide due to bullying has always been with us long before the days of social media. The OSA is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in respect of that.

The truth is the bill is about one thing and why we see it's like in many countries. Prior to social media publishing was a one to many thing and governments could control what people had information on. The internet ruined that for them and ever since they have been seeking a way to put the genie back in the bottle.

Of course the internet like everything powerful is a two edged sword and along with more information comes more misinformation. However we always had that too from the main stream press
There are many reasons why people commit suicide. There is rarely just one cause and those charities dealing with it always advocate caution about blaming it on one factor alone. Sad as that case was, we only heard the father's story. It is understandable why he might blame what his daughter was seeing online for her death. But that avoids asking some other tough questions about what else was going on and why she was spending so long online. And - brutal as this might sound - is one sad case a sufficient basis for a law which has 241 sections, 12 parts and 17 schedules and still requires loads more regulations and guidance?

I as I stated believe its more about governments wanting to control what can be said on this new fangled internet thing. This is why we also see bills in australia and KOSA in the usa. All along the same lines. These bills will I am fairly sure be augmented over time till we little people are locked back in our box and not able to question things

numbertwelve · January 8

williamglenn said:
Lay Newsome for the nomination next time?

https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1877033120463233070

Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!

The Democrats need to avoid nominating Californian party establishment types next time round in any event.

Malmesbury · January 8

a

williamglenn said:
Lay Newsome for the nomination next time?

https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1877033120463233070

Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water, from excess rain and snow melt from the North, to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way. He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn't work!), but didn't care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid. I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!

Will stagger, nay astonish, some.

But the above statement by Trump is bullshit.

The Law of Unintended Consequences – politicalbetting.com

Comments