One thing I've noticed about British laws since I've lived in London (and it has to be noted that NZ law is originally based on British law) is that the British tend to legislate for specific instances rather than broader reasons.
An example for this is there are laws effecting parks...and laws effecting Royal Parks. Why do there need to be separate laws - stuffed if I know?!
This can be increasingly stupid when you start to wonder a) why the law wasn't implemented in a universal nature in the first place and b) that when it does need wider application it requires a new law (and all the legislative hassle to go along with it).
This has come to light recently in a spate of shootings in South London - we've had about 4 in the last few weeks. It has to be pointed out that British people (like NZ people) generally don't own guns and are not allowed to. This is so we don't go around shooting people all the time and generally works a treat.
Well, to address this spate of gun crime effecting mainly young men, the Prime Minister Tony Blair (and some other politicians) want to change an existing law which makes it possible to send a person to jail for 5 years if they are illegally carrying a gun. The existing law has the proviso that the law effects people over 21 (I'm guessing that that may be the case because you can't get a gun licence under 21).
Now, this law was most likely introduced to catch people who don't have a gun licence and can you imagine the law making process - "Hmmm, maybe we should let teenagers roam around with guns? That's OK isn't it?". So why with the age limit?!
Now they're talking about changing the law so the "limit" is reduced to being 17 years or older. When all the murders have effected people under 17! Are these people stupid or what?
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
Hindsight
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Despite thinking that George Bush was wrong all the way from the start (not that it makes any difference - I can't vote in the US) him losing the 2000 election (well, I mean, not stealing it) could have resulted in a few notable bad things happening.
Like having a Vice President and possible 2008 president of that prime example of the Democrat party - Joe Lieberman. What do you call someone who sounds, and acts, and votes like a Republican? A Republican - perfect for a Democrat Vice President and possible President. That was a lucky escape.
And the topic that is being brought up more and more - that if Bush hadn't screwed up the Middle East (well, made it more screwed up) and made the US economy a walking disaster area, the stage wouldn't have been set for needing alternative fuels - and for making those alternative energy supplies cost effective enough (or cost effective enough that your average Joe - obviously not Joe Lieberman) to put into practice.
Aren't we all lucky.
We'd probably be more lucky if Al Gore announced for 2008 (sans Joe) - and by "we" I mean a global "we". The "told you so" part of me can appreciate Bush's screw ups coming home to roost but having a failing US doesn't benefit the world in the least.
Despite thinking that George Bush was wrong all the way from the start (not that it makes any difference - I can't vote in the US) him losing the 2000 election (well, I mean, not stealing it) could have resulted in a few notable bad things happening.
Like having a Vice President and possible 2008 president of that prime example of the Democrat party - Joe Lieberman. What do you call someone who sounds, and acts, and votes like a Republican? A Republican - perfect for a Democrat Vice President and possible President. That was a lucky escape.
And the topic that is being brought up more and more - that if Bush hadn't screwed up the Middle East (well, made it more screwed up) and made the US economy a walking disaster area, the stage wouldn't have been set for needing alternative fuels - and for making those alternative energy supplies cost effective enough (or cost effective enough that your average Joe - obviously not Joe Lieberman) to put into practice.
Aren't we all lucky.
We'd probably be more lucky if Al Gore announced for 2008 (sans Joe) - and by "we" I mean a global "we". The "told you so" part of me can appreciate Bush's screw ups coming home to roost but having a failing US doesn't benefit the world in the least.
Pre-news
One thing that really irritates me about English news (and it probably happens elsewhere too) is what I call "pre-news".
This is characterised by news articles that start like "Today, Tony Blair will announce..." but instead of just giving a rough outline, it goes into complete detail about what he will announce (not speculative but accurate). You have to wonder why they actually have a press conference - why don't they just do the press release and be done with it?
I'd guess this will eventually mutate into "Next week, David Cameron will announce..." where, if the pre-announcement goes down particularly badly, they actually won't announce the announcement and go back to the drawing board and media organisations will stop reporting on the pre-news.
I hope so.
This is characterised by news articles that start like "Today, Tony Blair will announce..." but instead of just giving a rough outline, it goes into complete detail about what he will announce (not speculative but accurate). You have to wonder why they actually have a press conference - why don't they just do the press release and be done with it?
I'd guess this will eventually mutate into "Next week, David Cameron will announce..." where, if the pre-announcement goes down particularly badly, they actually won't announce the announcement and go back to the drawing board and media organisations will stop reporting on the pre-news.
I hope so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)