2 ms·

Weird comment. I was actually claiming to have acted reasonably (because I understand the term), it was the poster before who claimed I had no right to make a

• chrisseaton 6y ago
  You asked why he didn't give a 'basic summary of what the new rules'. The rules are stay home unless you reasonably cannot do so. That's what he said. He didn't give a prescriptive set of rules because we live in a common law society. What else do you want? Stay home. Unless you reasonably cannot reasonably do so. If you have no common sense and aren't sure what is reasonable then you can argue it with a magistrate. Maybe err on the side of caution if you aren't sure?
  • jimnotgym 6y ago
    I would not argue a legal point with a magistrate, because magistrates are not lawyers and do not have legal qualifications. They are enthusiastic amateurs. They are a feudal hangover, and are just as likely to bang on repeatedly about how it has 'been this way for a 1000 years' than to offer you a learned opinion. It is unreasonably late and I'm done feeding trolls. Goodnight
    • chrisseaton 6y ago
      > I would not argue a legal point with a magistrate, because magistrates are not lawyers and do not have legal qualifications. They are enthusiastic amateurs. Well that's literally who'd you'd be arguing it with if someone disagreed! Whether you liked it or not! Seriously though - 'reasonable' - that's the only answer. Apply that test using your common sense. That's what common law and society asks you to do - be reasonable.