09-05-2003, 06:45 PM
|
|
|
Wild Garlic
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
| I think you are wrting your own laws here - or painting them to suit
| your agenda.
Look, I have a copy of that Act on my bookshelves, and have read the
relevant sections. Have you?
I don't know what you believe to be the relevant section - I might well
have done, in whole or in part, either directly from the Act or as
comment in any of my commentaries and casebooks which incidentally show
just how interpretable the law is - and how one day's orthodoxy can be
overturned by precedent because one barrister takes a contrary view and
one judge (In a high enough court) is convinced.
If you look long enough you can always find something which *SEEMS* to
say what you want it to, (or don't want it to!), and if you scour
caselaw you will do the same. (See Tony Weir's excellent 'Casebook on
Tort').
Unfortunately, the law is enacted by politicians. It may be drawn up by
legally trained minds (though one often wonders) but the devil is in the
detail, and the devilish detail is often cobbled in as an Amendment and
nealy as often ends up as bad law, either because it can be used to
manipulate the intentions of Parliament, or because it is badly worded
and means everything to all men, and is thus a joy to all the legal
profession.
I wish I had more time to continue this discussion further, but I
haven't the time, most of my reference books are in store, and most
importantly, this isn't the place.
--
Tony
Replace solidi with dots to reply: tony/anson snailything zetnet/co/uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi
|