Changes to the law

[mr.hobblesworth]

I actually think that I'd support the rationing of food. In fact, **** that, I'd ration everything! Get your broken telly fixed, repair your clothes, share your car, mash and freeze those rubbery potatoes. Obviously I've not thought it through (!) but the west consume and throw away an unsustainable amount of stuff. I also need to work out how to limit people to one child but I'll leave the details of that for my trusty Minister for Long-term Sustainability to sort out.

[Andyregs]

I'd also ban the sale of any meat or animal by-product that didn't meet strict ethical standards.

 

So we'd ban the sale of meat then?

[Paul6754]

Laws dont prevent people doing something they shouldnt.

 

So why do "civilised" countries have laws and generally why in "non-civilised" countties are there no laws or the rule of law has often broken down.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Laws (or rather the prospect of being convicted and punished for breaking them) do deter and allow a framework for conviction and punishment..but the existence of laws does not prevent anyone from doing what they should not according to the law..you can still choose to break the law.

 

We have laws to define the boundaries of what "we" consider acceptable behaviour and what we do not....the law tells people something is not acceptable but doesn't actually prevent them from doing the unacceptable...whether what they did was legal or not has to be tried in a court of law and then it has to be decided are they the guilty party..has a law been broken and did the accused break it.

[Paul6754]

For the umpteenth time I'm not concerned with "today" I am concerned with the future use of this information.

 

For the millionth time the laws will only get tighter,, its already happening!

 

 

The child will assume that who raises it are its parents cos those raising it don't doubt that they are its parents

 

Eh? A 1 year old (for example) would have a say?

 

This is a flimsy straw man argument, tangential at best. The chances of the wrong baby been given to parents in the UK is infinitesimal and if it were to happen the sooner it is fixed the better and if that involves DNA then to the vast majority of human beings that would be a very good thing indeed.

[Bea Smith]

Better is very subjective.

 

Yes, absolutely.

Which is why I made a second post saying that I should have said 'better for me'

 

As pointed out by J Aitch, loved ones is important, possibly crucial, but let's make it easier by saying we are allowed to take them with us and they want to go.

 

After that, believe it or not, climate comes into it a fair bit. I could tolerate Iceland or Norway but not Malaysia, Indonesia or Turkey (picked fairly randomly) - I cant stand humidity, and however wonderful life was in other ways, would not be able to enjoy it if it were constantly humid.

 

After that, many things come into play.

 

Mr Beagle says-

 

Britain would be up there on anyones list I would think, despite the current political turbulence. I'm thinking in terms of tolerance, social care, infrastructure.

 

They aren't three criteria I'd prioritize if I was moving abroad though, each to their own.

 

- and rather frighteningly (joke) I tend to agree. It would make it easier, as we are all lazy, to go somewhere where English was either the first language or widely spoken.

I couldn't live in most of the USA,(NW and NE coasts, ie Washington, Oregon or Northern California or New England) possibly if the overall leadership improved dramatically, but Canada has some attractions.

If I had to live in South America, climate would make Argentina and Urruguay and Chile the only options, and in AFrica all but South Africa would stifle me. So of course nearly all of Asia would be difficult too.

 

I did find Estonia a nice country but worry about its' future - NATO have renaged on keeping a 'buffer zone' and are provoking Russia into a 'Ukraine' scenario where there could be war forced on people who have got along together fine for decades.

At least warmonger John McCain won't be going there to stir up illegal regime change as he did in Ukraine though !

[JOHNNYAITCH]

For the millionth time the laws will only get tighter,, its already happening!

 

Is umpteenth bigger than millionth? :) Not sure..let's act as though it isn't

 

 

For the "million and 1th" and last time..I don't trust govts etc not to use DNA for other purpose in the future. I don't and I won't trust them..not that I'll be around necessarily when they do start abusing DNA info.

 

This is a flimsy straw man argument, tangential at best.

 

Make your mind up and stick with it..how can it be either of those thimngs when I started it?

 

The chances of the wrong baby been given to parents in the UK is infinitesimal and if it were to happen the sooner it is fixed the better and if that involves DNA then to the vast majority of human beings that would be a very good thing indeed.

 

I know the risk is small, tiny even, I've never claimed otherwise and I totally accept in the vast majority of cases it's good that the child is with its biological parents cos in the vast majority of cases they would be together. This is clearly about when they are not

 

Just accept it..it's a small risk but without the DNA being available it would not happen..I'd say 99.99 % of human beings can see that.

 

I'm not going to continue to repeat myself

[Bea Smith]

I would also upgrade the bus system into communities at a minimal charge for use [50p?] on a very regular basis.

Banning gratuities would also be on my list.

None UK residents to pay full cost of any medical care needed but keep reciprocal agreements with europe.

Scrap nuclear defence options completely.

Embark on a massive home building scheme [not massive homes] 1,2,3 bedroom homes no higher than 4 floors all with a balcony and secondary escape.

Scrap HS2, redevelop the rail network to enable more trains and routs.

I would also be tempted to scrap the NHS and develop a new NHS based on what the need would be in 20 years and update yearly based around customer/patient care... but thats one hell of a big project.

 

 

I'd agree with a lot of that, but given what happens to smller projects that fail, usually due to totally incompetant Systems and Business Analysts in the NHS and elsewhere your last suggestion would probably result in an unintentional but just as horrific genocide as has ever been seen.

In fact virtually everything they try to change - from Council Tax to Poll tas, from dole to Universal Credit, from DLA to PIP, - it ALWAYS takes years longer, and costs many times the original budget whilst so-called experts decide what they think people want and therefore must have, and it is a disaster.

For that reason I'd agree with you on HS2 as well, it will go up in price and take longer and in fact trains will probably have been replaced by the time it is implemented.

Gratuities- that's tips, right ? No, not unless you legislate to ensure that the people who literally will starve without them are paid a fair wage so don't need them.

Pleasantly surprised to see you scrapping nuclear defence and encouraging home building - though not to the extent of destroying all wildlife.

[geosname]

So why do "civilised" countries have laws and generally why in "non-civilised" countties are there no laws or the rule of law has often broken down.

 

The law is just a framework, it tells us what we can not do without punishment and then tells us what the punishment can be.... most people do not break the law because they choose not to.

The law doesnt prevent you from committing a crime, it defines the crime you have committed and determines the punishment... the fear of the punishment may be a deterrent.

If you are a criminal it may not be much of a deterrent... or perhaps you think you will get away with it.

The law simply [although not simply] defines what society thinks is not acceptable behavior

[geosname]

I'd agree with a lot of that, but given what happens to smller projects that fail, usually due to totally incompetant Systems and Business Analysts in the NHS and elsewhere your last suggestion would probably result in an unintentional but just as horrific genocide as has ever been seen.

In fact virtually everything they try to change - from Council Tax to Poll tas, from dole to Universal Credit, from DLA to PIP, - it ALWAYS takes years longer, and costs many times the original budget whilst so-called experts decide what they think people want and therefore must have, and it is a disaster.

For that reason I'd agree with you on HS2 as well, it will go up in price and take longer and in fact trains will probably have been replaced by the time it is implemented.

Gratuities- that's tips, right ? No, not unless you legislate to ensure that the people who literally will starve without them are paid a fair wage so don't need them.

Pleasantly surprised to see you scrapping nuclear defence and encouraging home building - though not to the extent of destroying all wildlife.

 

I have never been in favour of nuclear arms.

I would scrap gratuities simply because people rely on them and force the employer to pay a decent wage... if they didnt I would charge the employer 100 quid for every minute they failed... a sort of pay the going rate [which I would set] or pay more for the privilege of not doing so.

I think there is enough industrial waste land to build enough social housing.... empty factories, derelict buildings etc

[Bea Smith]

The law is just a framework, it tells us what we can not do without punishment and then tells us what the punishment can be.... most people do not break the law because they choose not to.

The law doesnt prevent you from committing a crime, it defines the crime you have committed and determines the punishment... the fear of the punishment may be a deterrent.

If you are a criminal it may not be much of a deterrent... or perhaps you think you will get away with it.

The law simply [although not simply] defines what society thinks is not acceptable behavior

 

 

I don't agree that most people don't break the law because they choose not to. Just about everyone would break some laws if the deterrant/ chance of getting caught were not there.

I am sure there are people wo would stop hunting of animals for instance, if they knew they would not be punished - I am sure in 2008 many people would have liked to go into RBS and other banks and tar and feather (ior worse) the million-pound sharks who caused the financial crisis.

Vigelante groups already do things to paedos and others, wrongly in my view, that's what courts and the law are there for. Endless examples - but are we going to end up with a semantics problem, playing with words on this one ?

[Andyregs]

Laws dont prevent people doing something they shouldnt.

 

You seriously think that there wouldn't be more crime if all laws were just abolished?

[geosname]

I don't agree that most people don't break the law because they choose not to. Just about everyone would break some laws if the deterrant/ chance of getting caught were not there.

I am sure there are people wo would stop hunting of animals for instance, if they knew they would not be punished - I am sure in 2008 many people would have liked to go into RBS and other banks and tar and feather (ior worse) the million-pound sharks who caused the financial crisis.

Vigelante groups already do things to paedos and others, wrongly in my view, that's what courts and the law are there for. Endless examples - but are we going to end up with a semantics problem, playing with words on this one ?

 

Possibly... you refer to punishment which isnt really part of the law because that would infer the none independence of the judiciary... the law simply tells us what we can not do without punishment of some sort... the sentencing guidelines [thats the key word] determine the range of punishment but the judge decides in the end.

[geosname]

You seriously think that there wouldn't be more crime if all laws were just abolished?

 

Thats not what I said

[geosname]

If you find a coin in the street and keep it... is it a crime?

If you take an envelope or a paper clip from work for your own personal use is it a crime?