5 ms·

Since 2016, UK laws have not been recorded on vellum anymore [0] [0]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12149181/Thousand-year-old-tradition-of-printing-Br

Since 2016, UK laws have not been recorded on vellum anymore [0] [0]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12149181/Thousand-year-old-tradition-of-printing-Britains-laws-on-vellum-has-been-scrapped-to-save-just-80000.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12149181/Thousand-year...

toyg 7y ago
From the government that destroyed all Windrush records, comes another shocking tale of incompetence with malicious undertones. Laws are written down to make them as permanently-accessible as possible, which acts as defense against capricious rulers. Anything that makes them less permanent is a small blow to the rights of everyday people.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  Clearly we should start casting the laws into stainless steel plates.
  - toyg 7y ago
    That would be pretty cool... except it would require non-renewable sources and likely be more CO2-intensive and energy-intensive, so the window of opportunity for that switch has probably come and gone.
- johannes1234321 7y ago
  I would argue that a law that is so seldemly referenced that all copies are lost ceased to be valid. But I understand that the British system isn't built that way and instead of creating a consolidated "constitution" rather enjoy the fun of a Speaker citing some old precedent, which nobody can know about. True excitement.
  - stordoff 7y ago
    To which precedent to you refer? Most are catalogued in Erskine May.
    - johannes1234321 7y ago
      It seems many people were quite surprised about Bercow taking precedent from 1604, which seems to be from Erksine May. This precedent certainly doesn't come from vellum, which GP misses. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-parliaments-46810616 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-parliaments-46810616
      - OJFord 7y ago
        You seem to have confused a couple of things - or else posted the wrong link. The 'precedent from 1604' was that parliament couldn't be asked to vote twice on the same matter in the same sitting; but that isn't archaic and disused, it's common practice and Bercow (and other members) quoted numerous occasions on which speakers had disallowed votes on its basis. Your link is about Bercows 'unprecedented ruling' giving MPs more control over the business of the HoC, as opposed to the Government.
OJFord 7y ago
I thought that was rejected, and it was voted against (non-binding motion) though it seems they 'backed down' (2017), and now they are recorded on archival paper, and covered in vellum: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/anger-mps-bow-peers-pressure-end-500-year-old-tradition-printing/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/anger-mps-bow-pe... So, ok, thanks - I take back the 'not actually migrated' part, but I still think it serves as an example of not-technology lasting successfully for a very long time, and the replacement is... a different paper technology!

toyg 7y ago

From the government that destroyed all Windrush records, comes another shocking tale of incompetence with malicious undertones. Laws are written down to make them as permanently-accessible as possible, which acts as defense against capricious rulers. Anything that makes them less permanent is a small blow to the rights of everyday people.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
Clearly we should start casting the laws into stainless steel plates.
- toyg 7y ago
  That would be pretty cool... except it would require non-renewable sources and likely be more CO2-intensive and energy-intensive, so the window of opportunity for that switch has probably come and gone.
johannes1234321 7y ago
I would argue that a law that is so seldemly referenced that all copies are lost ceased to be valid. But I understand that the British system isn't built that way and instead of creating a consolidated "constitution" rather enjoy the fun of a Speaker citing some old precedent, which nobody can know about. True excitement.
- stordoff 7y ago
  To which precedent to you refer? Most are catalogued in Erskine May.
  - johannes1234321 7y ago
    It seems many people were quite surprised about Bercow taking precedent from 1604, which seems to be from Erksine May. This precedent certainly doesn't come from vellum, which GP misses. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-parliaments-46810616 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-parliaments-46810616
    - OJFord 7y ago
      You seem to have confused a couple of things - or else posted the wrong link. The 'precedent from 1604' was that parliament couldn't be asked to vote twice on the same matter in the same sitting; but that isn't archaic and disused, it's common practice and Bercow (and other members) quoted numerous occasions on which speakers had disallowed votes on its basis. Your link is about Bercows 'unprecedented ruling' giving MPs more control over the business of the HoC, as opposed to the Government.

OJFord 7y ago

I thought that was rejected, and it was voted against (non-binding motion) though it seems they 'backed down' (2017), and now they are recorded on archival paper, and covered in vellum: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/anger-mps-bow-peers-pressure-end-500-year-old-tradition-printing/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/anger-mps-bow-pe... So, ok, thanks - I take back the 'not actually migrated' part, but I still think it serves as an example of not-technology lasting successfully for a very long time, and the replacement is... a different paper technology!