We all know that ignorance of the law is no defence. So it
would seem reasonable that people should have, at least, a
passing familiarity with it.
Given that this country's been passing laws for 900+ years
does anyone have a view on how long it would take to actually
read them all?
As an easier option, how far back to most of the laws that
people generally get into trouble with, go? I'd guess maybe 20-30
years. So as a "lightweight" option, how many laws would
we be talking about - and how long to skim through that lot?

--
.. Pete Lynch I have learned from my mistakes and
.. Marlow ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly
.. www.pete-lynch.com --- Peter Cooke.

"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
We all know that ignorance of the law is no defence. So it
would seem reasonable that people should have, at least, a
passing familiarity with it.
Given that this country's been passing laws for 900+ years
does anyone have a view on how long it would take to actually
read them all?
As an easier option, how far back to most of the laws that
people generally get into trouble with, go? I'd guess maybe 20-30
years. So as a "lightweight" option, how many laws would
we be talking about - and how long to skim through that lot?

You presumably mean the criminal laws, that is the laws that impose criminal
sanctions. If you included other laws it would be quite impossible for
anyone to read all the laws, just as it would be impossible to read the
entire Oxford English Dictionary.

A good criminal law textbook would take no longer to read than "War And
Peace" and would give you sufficient basics to enable you to avoid
committing the most serious offences such as murder or rape or GBH. You
could then at leisure read up on all the various road traffic and
environmental offences. I suppose it will depend on whether you want to know
about all the criminal offences that anyone could possibly commit, or merely
those that are relevant to the way you live and work, as a specific
individual.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:19:00 +0100, The Todal wrote:

"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
We all know that ignorance of the law is no defence. So it
would seem reasonable that people should have, at least, a
passing familiarity with it.
Given that this country's been passing laws for 900+ years
does anyone have a view on how long it would take to actually
read them all?
As an easier option, how far back to most of the laws that
people generally get into trouble with, go? I'd guess maybe 20-30
years. So as a "lightweight" option, how many laws would
we be talking about - and how long to skim through that lot?

You presumably mean the criminal laws, that is the laws that impose criminal
sanctions. If you included other laws it would be quite impossible for
anyone to read all the laws, just as it would be impossible to read the
entire Oxford English Dictionary.

A good criminal law textbook would take no longer to read than "War And
Peace" and would give you sufficient basics to enable you to avoid
committing the most serious offences such as murder or rape or GBH. You
could then at leisure read up on all the various road traffic and
environmental offences. I suppose it will depend on whether you want to know
about all the criminal offences that anyone could possibly commit, or merely
those that are relevant to the way you live and work, as a specific
individual.

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.

While a "good criminal law textbook" may have the length you describe,
would it be accessible in terms of language and technical terms, to the
general public?

--
.. Pete Lynch I have learned from my mistakes and
.. Marlow ... I am sure I can repeat them exactly
.. www.pete-lynch.com --- Peter Cooke.

"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:19:00 +0100, The Todal wrote:

"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
We all know that ignorance of the law is no defence. So it
would seem reasonable that people should have, at least, a
passing familiarity with it.
Given that this country's been passing laws for 900+ years
does anyone have a view on how long it would take to actually
read them all?
As an easier option, how far back to most of the laws that
people generally get into trouble with, go? I'd guess maybe 20-30
years. So as a "lightweight" option, how many laws would
we be talking about - and how long to skim through that lot?

You presumably mean the criminal laws, that is the laws that impose
criminal
sanctions. If you included other laws it would be quite impossible for
anyone to read all the laws, just as it would be impossible to read the
entire Oxford English Dictionary.

A good criminal law textbook would take no longer to read than "War And
Peace" and would give you sufficient basics to enable you to avoid
committing the most serious offences such as murder or rape or GBH. You
could then at leisure read up on all the various road traffic and
environmental offences. I suppose it will depend on whether you want to
know
about all the criminal offences that anyone could possibly commit, or
merely
those that are relevant to the way you live and work, as a specific
individual.

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.

While a "good criminal law textbook" may have the length you describe,
would it be accessible in terms of language and technical terms, to the
general public?

"Police Law" by English and Card, available from Amazon, contains all the
law the average police officer needs to know, and is written in a way that a
police officer with the educational standards to be expected of such a
person, would easily understand.

"Criminal Law" by Card, Cross and Jones is geared more towards the law
student but anyone who has been educated to A level standard would have no
difficulty reading it.

You can find them on Amazon.

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.

Peter Lynch wrote:
We all know that ignorance of the law is no defence. So it
would seem reasonable that people should have, at least, a
passing familiarity with it.
Given that this country's been passing laws for 900+ years
does anyone have a view on how long it would take to actually
read them all?
As an easier option, how far back to most of the laws that
people generally get into trouble with, go? I'd guess maybe 20-30
years. So as a "lightweight" option, how many laws would
we be talking about - and how long to skim through that lot?

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.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:06:43 +0100, "Aidy"
wrote:

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.

I would say slightly differently. Most people should know whether a
particular action is *likely* to be against the law or not.

There are plenty of things that many average people believe to be
against the law but which are not, in fact illegal.

Many people believe that it is illegal to take photographs of children
you do not know, for example. How many people would know whether or
not it is illegal to give a child a cigarrette or bottle of booze? Or
whether it is illegal to go onto someone's land or into their house
without permission?

The law pertaining to self-defence is another area in which many
people are uncertain of what they may and may not do.

One big problem is that many people learn snippets of law from what
they see on the TV or at the cinema, which may be either complete
fiction or pertain to the law in a different country.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:41:24 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:


"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:19:00 +0100, The Todal wrote:

"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...
We all know that ignorance of the law is no defence. So it
would seem reasonable that people should have, at least, a
passing familiarity with it.
Given that this country's been passing laws for 900+ years
does anyone have a view on how long it would take to actually
read them all?
As an easier option, how far back to most of the laws that
people generally get into trouble with, go? I'd guess maybe 20-30
years. So as a "lightweight" option, how many laws would
we be talking about - and how long to skim through that lot?

You presumably mean the criminal laws, that is the laws that impose
criminal
sanctions. If you included other laws it would be quite impossible for
anyone to read all the laws, just as it would be impossible to read the
entire Oxford English Dictionary.

A good criminal law textbook would take no longer to read than "War And
Peace" and would give you sufficient basics to enable you to avoid
committing the most serious offences such as murder or rape or GBH. You
could then at leisure read up on all the various road traffic and
environmental offences. I suppose it will depend on whether you want to
know
about all the criminal offences that anyone could possibly commit, or
merely
those that are relevant to the way you live and work, as a specific
individual.

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.

While a "good criminal law textbook" may have the length you describe,
would it be accessible in terms of language and technical terms, to the
general public?

"Police Law" by English and Card, available from Amazon, contains all the
law the average police officer needs to know, and is written in a way that a
police officer with the educational standards to be expected of such a
person, would easily understand.

"Criminal Law" by Card, Cross and Jones is geared more towards the law
student but anyone who has been educated to A level standard would have no
difficulty reading it.

You can find them on Amazon.

Butterworths Police Law is pretty good and very understandable. The
only problem is one that I suspect most other references have this
past decade. That of having to glue in pages of notes as the
government alters the law on what has seemed at times a daily basis

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.
--
Richard Miller

"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.