Rewiring Sockets

[ban-all-sheds]

On the assumption that you disagree, what parts of the law do you feel says otherwise?

It is not the intent of the law.

It is clearly not the intent of the law.

Everybody recognises that it is clearly not the intent of the law.


And if you think that what courts do is to bend over backwards to scrupulously follow only "the letter of the law", and do not interpret what is written with a bias towards what was clearly intended then you are a fool, and should you ever be in court expecting to rely on it taking a blinkered approach to "the letter of the law" you risk being grievously disappointed.

 

[JohnW2]

It is not the intent of the law. It is clearly not the intent of the law. Everybody recognises that it is clearly not the intent of the law.

Intent is irrelevant if the law is written explicitly, clearly and unambiguously. Courts have the power to intertepret when differing interpretations are possible, but are powerless to do anything about clearly written law, even if they think it is badly written and does not reflect the probable intent of those who wrote it. Let's face it, if you were right, then 'unintended' loopholes in, say, tax legislation could never be taken advantage of - because courts could act on the basis of what they believed had been 'intended'.

And if you think that what courts do is to bend over backwards to scrupulously follow only "the letter of the law", and do not interpret what is written with a bias towards what was clearly intended then you are a fool ....

As above, they can only interpret if there is a lack of clarity in the actual words of the law - and, as I said before, this is often a frustration to the judiciary who would love to be able to do as you suggest in other situations.

... and should you ever be in court expecting to rely on it taking a blinkered approach to "the letter of the law" you risk being grievously disappointed.

I have fortunately never myself been in the position of having to significantly rely on anything a court did, but I have spent quite a lot of time in courts (and similar situations) over the years, and have seen what I describe above working in practice.

Do you really think that David Steel and all the MPs who voted for it had the 'intent' that the 1967 Abortion Act should effectively legalise 'abortion on demand'? I doubt that many people believe that was the intent, yet the courts have never tried to convict anyone based on their (probably correct) beliefs about the actual intent behind that legislation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Do you really think that David Steel and all the MPs who voted for it had the 'intent' that the 1967 Abortion Act should effectively legalise 'abortion on demand'? I doubt that many people believe that was the intent, yet the courts have never tried to convict anyone based on their (probably correct) beliefs about the actual intent behind that legislation.

Not an expert but...

...as this has not since been 'rectified' could we not legitimately deduce that that was indeed their intention?

 

[JohnW2]

Not an expert but... ...as this has not since been 'rectified' could we not legitimately deduce that that was indeed their intention?

Would you make the same deduction about intent in relation to the Abortion Act (which has gone 'unrectified' for some 45 years)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Not an expert but... ...as this has not since been 'rectified' could we not legitimately deduce that that was indeed their intention?

Would you make the same deduction about intent in relation to the Abortion Act (which has gone 'unrectified' for some 45 years)?

That's what I meant.

 

[JohnW2]

Not an expert but... ...as this has not since been 'rectified' could we not legitimately deduce that that was indeed their intention?

Would you make the same deduction about intent in relation to the Abortion Act (which has gone 'unrectified' for some 45 years)?

That's what I meant.

Oh, sorry, for some (not totally clear, in retrospect!) reason I thought you were refering back to the Building Regs situation.

In terms of the Abortion Act itself, I don't think that one can really make any such deductions. By the time it became clear how the Act was being widely used/interpreted, it had had so much sociological impact that it would have been incredibly difficult, and probably 'political suicide' to try to 'tighten it up'. You also have to remember that governments had always resisted attempts to get them to introduce abortion legislation (and theerfore would probably have been equally disinclined to get involved in any 'rectification') - that's why it had to wait for the Private Member's Bill introduced by David Steel. Over the years, many of those who were strong supporters/champions of introduction of the Act have expressed regrets at the way it was interpreted.

Kind Regards, John

 

[shapnacker]

Sorry for the late reply but I've been on holiday. Thanks for all of your help.