The Todal wrote:
"Janitor of Lunacy" wrote in message
news

I remember David Penhaligon saying in the 1980s that while queuing
in the Division Lobby once, he noticed that all the statutes were in
bound volumes along its length. And also that those from 1980 to
1985 took up as much shelf space as those from 1066 to 1979.
So, all in all, a Sisyphean task.

David Penhaligon. An excellent MP.

"The major failure of the Minister has been his neglect to do
anything to deal with the problem of seat belt legislation or to
tighten up the drink and driving laws. I am not sure whether this is
not due to a failure on the part of the House since the issues
involved here clearly have majority support in the House. There is no
point in any party claiming special virtue on this subject because I
do not know of any party which is united on this issue. All parties
have their oppositions within them and my party is no different. It
is an appalling scandal and a sad reflection on this House that we
cannot enact legislation which the overwhelming majority of hon.
Members would like to see on the statute book."
David Penhaligon died in a car accident and it was found that he
hadn't fastened his seat belt.

You can vote for the law, you can understand its importance but you
can still end up breaking it.

I remember when he was elected President of the Liberal Party and presented
with his badge of office - a copy of Milton's "Areopagitica"- he said "There
was a time when I didn't know what an areopagitica was- and now I've got my
own!"

Great guy.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:31:10 +0100, Richard Miller
wrote:

In message , Aidy
writes
Yes, thanks for the insight. The point I'm sneaking up on, is whether
it's "reasonable" for the average person to have an awareness, or
knowledge
of all the laws that they could fall foul of (or commit, depending on
if it's possible to break the law by accident). Given the volume of
material
involved. Just as relevant, can or should a constable have this knowledge.

I think the gist is that law is based on the "reasonable man" principle.
Most people should know if their actions, or intended actions, are against
the law. Esp for the vast majority of crimes.

The overwhelming majority of offences require an intention to harm or
dishonesty as judged by the standards of a "reasonable man". So if you
don't intend to harm anyone and don't act dishonestly, you have a pretty
good chance of never committing a criminal offence - Road Traffic cases
excluded, of course.

1. Some things are only harmful in as much as the law says they are
harmful.

2. Dishonesty usually requires an element of unlawfulness: we're not
required to tell everyone everything.

So, except in obvious cases, it's still necessary to know whether
something is illegal to know that it is illegal.

So, except in obvious cases, it's still necessary to know whether
something is illegal to know that it is illegal.

But still very easy to know if you should be doing it, legal or not

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:17:53 +0100, "Aidy"
wrote:

So, except in obvious cases, it's still necessary to know whether
something is illegal to know that it is illegal.

But still very easy to know if you should be doing it, legal or not

Not much help where what you 'know' is right is clearly illegal.