5 ms·

That's the British system working as designed. If there's a law, no matter how ancient, the British should comply. If a law needs to be changed, that's the Parl

by maratc 1y ago

That's the British system working as designed. If there's a law, no matter how ancient, the British should comply. If a law needs to be changed, that's the Parliament's job. Even the British courts, in sharp contrast to many other places, "deliver the law as it is, and not as we wish it to be" -- see for example [0] or [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owens_v_Owens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owens_v_Owens

breggles 1y ago
So, the full clause reads: "When the headroom of an arch or span of a bridge is reduced from its usual limits but that arch or span is not closed to navigation, the person in control of the bridge must suspend from the centre of that arch or span by day a bundle of straw large enough to be conspicuous and by night a white light." Does that mean the law is not being complied with, in this case, since the bales are hanging from adjacent bridges, not the "centre of that arch or span" itself?
- maratc 1y ago
  I think you'd need a couple of "solicitors" -- or maybe even "barristers" -- to decide on that. I'm neither :)
- ipsin 1y ago
  Thanks, I was annoyed that the article didn't cite the actual law in question, but the BBC comes in with "Port of London Thames Byelaws, clause 36.2" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmlrx89jdv2o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmlrx89jdv2o
  - maratc 1y ago
    The BBC also didn't call it "ancient," which would be questionable considering that the law is from 2012.
    - alexbilbie 1y ago
      Its an ancient practise, codified into law in 2012 when the regulatory framework was re-codified from multiple laws like Port of London Act 1908 as well as time immemorial acts like this.
      - danans 1y ago
        According to the article the original practice is medieval, not ancient. It's colloquial usage of "ancient" as in "my car is ancient" is a bit odd.
      - gjm11 1y ago
        Fun fact: in English law "time immemorial" has a very specific meaning: it means "any time before 1189". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_immemorial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_immemorial for more.
- red_admiral 1y ago
  Delays due to trucks striking bridges are a worldwide problem, at least in countries with railroads. Despite yellow black striped reflective panels and height warning signs and sometimes height detectors that trigger flashing red lights. Perhaps we should try a bale of straw next. The London Blackwall tunnel has a more modern take on checking height: https://maps.app.goo.gl/b5P5Td1hsuSjLU3w8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/b5P5Td1hsuSjLU3w8 traffic signals, barriers like at a railroad crossing, giant panels across the road at height, and a police car on standby to pull out and fine anyone that doesn't read the signs - I presume this happens often enough that they can justify the cost. But then the bale of straw applied to ships not vehicles and bridges not tunnels.
  - walthamstow 1y ago
    Your link shows the Dartford Crossing, an M25 bridge miles downstream of the City. The Blackwall Tunnel runs under the Thames at Greenwich and afaik just has the old school hanging metal blocks at height https://maps.app.goo.gl/N5xSF148ggLVTDtS8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/N5xSF148ggLVTDtS8 It doesn't surprise me too much that police are on standby, a closure of either tunnel or bridge has a major effect on traffic all over London
    - peteri 1y ago
      There are additional traffic lights on the blackwall tunnel further in and a slip road out that can be used for overheight vehicles. I do remember having a 10-15 minute wait once while they sorted things out when a lorry driver got caught. I'd have a feeling there are automated signs prior to the tunnel (or at least used to be) but I've not been through the tunnel for a year or so and things will have changed with the Silvertown tunnel opening. I have seen someone not paying attention at the Rotherhithe tunnel and the roof of their van was a mess (and they're going to pick up a fine probably due to restrictions, the 2 tonnes gross weight limit is lower than a lot of van drivers expect) Edit there were: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MP7fkhS394DJPQaZ9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/MP7fkhS394DJPQaZ9 If you zoom in you can see the overheight vehicle warning.
      - 1y ago
dghf 1y ago
In what places do courts ignore or modify law to deliver the result they prefer? (To be precise: where is that accepted practice, rather than aberrant behaviour by some judges?)
- maratc 1y ago
  Usually the judges do not "ignore or modify" the law, but rather "interpret" it in a creative manner. You might use, as an example, the question of "does the US Constitution guarantee the women a right to abortion." Some judges decided that it does, later some other judges decided that it does not. Considering the opposing outcomes to the same question, it's clear some of these were wrong.
  - userbinator 1y ago
    In the US, it's usually enforcement that's ignored.
    - AngryData 1y ago
      That is why everything is illegal 3x over. If they don't like you, you get farked. If they like you, they just ignore it.
  - ljm 1y ago
    Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. One could argue that 'a corporation has personhood' is a technical contrivance that tries to manipulate the letter of the law into achieving a particular outcome. Going with the spirit of the law instead, that argument would never hold water.
- davidw 1y ago
  The Supreme Court in the United States has been playing a looooot of "Calvinball" recently. They've never been completely immune from it, but it has gotten a lot more nakedly political.
  - DoingIsLearning 1y ago
rustcleaner 1y ago
>If there's a law, no matter how ancient, the British should comply. If a law needs to be changed, that's the Parliament's job. If that's not religion, I don't know what is...
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  Religion is notably harder to change than country laws.
  - shakna 1y ago
    The hundreds of Protestant sects all cried out in anguish. The Hindu cults just rolled their eyes. Most religions are relatively flexible around beliefs. It tends to be particular sects that aren't... But they don't speak for the rest.
    - prewett 1y ago
      I think you're conflating religious beliefs with ethics. You can't have a religion that is flexible on beliefs, otherwise it is not a religion, but the actual core religious beliefs are fairly limited. In Christianity, Jesus dying to reconcile the world to God is the whole point; without that it is something else. The whole point of Buddhism is that all emotions are pain, and that realizing that everything really nothing (since all composable things are impermanent and everything is composed) is the path to nirvana. All the other beliefs and ethics come out of this. But even "submarine" religions (ones that people do not think of as a religion) follow the pattern. Communists worship the State (or perhaps the Party), because the problem with society is the structure of society, so only the State can bring the salvation of equity. American Progressives worship sexual identity. Progressives are flexible--except if you don't accept a particular identity, think that gender is not malleable, refuse to use pronouns, etc. However, I think even "most religions" are not very flexible. 50% of the world's population are either Christian or Islam, and both are pretty prescriptive in the ethics.
      - shakna 1y ago
mr_toad 1y ago
> Even the British courts, in sharp contrast to many other places, "deliver the law as it is, and not as we wish it to be" The English practically invented the idea of common law. Even today there are still important legal principles based entirely on the decisions of earlier courts.
- Projectiboga 1y ago
  A formal UK Constitution doesn't exist and is a striking example of this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=The%20constitution%20of%20the%20United,unelected%20but%20can%20be%20overruled. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K... The constitution of the United Kingdom comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no official attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    In the US we only have a remnant of that in the Senate, in what has been popularly marketed as "the Nuclear Option." A Senator just makes a point of order that a Senate rule is the opposite of what it actually, verifiably is. The chair denies it, the Senator appeals the decision, and a majority of the Senate then overrules the chair. After this has happened, the rule just changes and whatever was not in order in the past is in order in the future (or vice versa.) In the Senate as in Parliament; the majority of Parliament is the law, it can't break the law.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  There are still important legal principles in the US and other places around the world based entirely on the decisions of earlier English courts. The first local decisions will reference English cases, and English legal experts often would have been consulted. Same thing with most of the world's parliaments and congresses having to reference English Parliamentary precedent in order to figure out how to operate themselves. The UK Parliament and courts may be terrible, but they invented the thing and we're forks.

by maratc 1y ago

breggles 1y ago

So, the full clause reads: "When the headroom of an arch or span of a bridge is reduced from its usual limits but that arch or span is not closed to navigation, the person in control of the bridge must suspend from the centre of that arch or span by day a bundle of straw large enough to be conspicuous and by night a white light." Does that mean the law is not being complied with, in this case, since the bales are hanging from adjacent bridges, not the "centre of that arch or span" itself?

maratc 1y ago
I think you'd need a couple of "solicitors" -- or maybe even "barristers" -- to decide on that. I'm neither :)
ipsin 1y ago
Thanks, I was annoyed that the article didn't cite the actual law in question, but the BBC comes in with "Port of London Thames Byelaws, clause 36.2" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmlrx89jdv2o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmlrx89jdv2o
- maratc 1y ago
  The BBC also didn't call it "ancient," which would be questionable considering that the law is from 2012.
  - alexbilbie 1y ago
    Its an ancient practise, codified into law in 2012 when the regulatory framework was re-codified from multiple laws like Port of London Act 1908 as well as time immemorial acts like this.
    - danans 1y ago
      According to the article the original practice is medieval, not ancient. It's colloquial usage of "ancient" as in "my car is ancient" is a bit odd.
    - gjm11 1y ago
      Fun fact: in English law "time immemorial" has a very specific meaning: it means "any time before 1189". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_immemorial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_immemorial for more.
red_admiral 1y ago
Delays due to trucks striking bridges are a worldwide problem, at least in countries with railroads. Despite yellow black striped reflective panels and height warning signs and sometimes height detectors that trigger flashing red lights. Perhaps we should try a bale of straw next. The London Blackwall tunnel has a more modern take on checking height: https://maps.app.goo.gl/b5P5Td1hsuSjLU3w8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/b5P5Td1hsuSjLU3w8 traffic signals, barriers like at a railroad crossing, giant panels across the road at height, and a police car on standby to pull out and fine anyone that doesn't read the signs - I presume this happens often enough that they can justify the cost. But then the bale of straw applied to ships not vehicles and bridges not tunnels.
- walthamstow 1y ago
  Your link shows the Dartford Crossing, an M25 bridge miles downstream of the City. The Blackwall Tunnel runs under the Thames at Greenwich and afaik just has the old school hanging metal blocks at height https://maps.app.goo.gl/N5xSF148ggLVTDtS8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/N5xSF148ggLVTDtS8 It doesn't surprise me too much that police are on standby, a closure of either tunnel or bridge has a major effect on traffic all over London
  - peteri 1y ago
    There are additional traffic lights on the blackwall tunnel further in and a slip road out that can be used for overheight vehicles. I do remember having a 10-15 minute wait once while they sorted things out when a lorry driver got caught. I'd have a feeling there are automated signs prior to the tunnel (or at least used to be) but I've not been through the tunnel for a year or so and things will have changed with the Silvertown tunnel opening. I have seen someone not paying attention at the Rotherhithe tunnel and the roof of their van was a mess (and they're going to pick up a fine probably due to restrictions, the 2 tonnes gross weight limit is lower than a lot of van drivers expect) Edit there were: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MP7fkhS394DJPQaZ9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/MP7fkhS394DJPQaZ9 If you zoom in you can see the overheight vehicle warning.
    - 1y ago

dghf 1y ago

In what places do courts ignore or modify law to deliver the result they prefer? (To be precise: where is that accepted practice, rather than aberrant behaviour by some judges?)

maratc 1y ago
Usually the judges do not "ignore or modify" the law, but rather "interpret" it in a creative manner. You might use, as an example, the question of "does the US Constitution guarantee the women a right to abortion." Some judges decided that it does, later some other judges decided that it does not. Considering the opposing outcomes to the same question, it's clear some of these were wrong.
- userbinator 1y ago
  In the US, it's usually enforcement that's ignored.
  - AngryData 1y ago
    That is why everything is illegal 3x over. If they don't like you, you get farked. If they like you, they just ignore it.
- ljm 1y ago
  Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. One could argue that 'a corporation has personhood' is a technical contrivance that tries to manipulate the letter of the law into achieving a particular outcome. Going with the spirit of the law instead, that argument would never hold water.
davidw 1y ago
The Supreme Court in the United States has been playing a looooot of "Calvinball" recently. They've never been completely immune from it, but it has gotten a lot more nakedly political.
- DoingIsLearning 1y ago

rustcleaner 1y ago

>If there's a law, no matter how ancient, the British should comply. If a law needs to be changed, that's the Parliament's job. If that's not religion, I don't know what is...

makeitdouble 1y ago
Religion is notably harder to change than country laws.
- shakna 1y ago
  The hundreds of Protestant sects all cried out in anguish. The Hindu cults just rolled their eyes. Most religions are relatively flexible around beliefs. It tends to be particular sects that aren't... But they don't speak for the rest.
  - prewett 1y ago
    I think you're conflating religious beliefs with ethics. You can't have a religion that is flexible on beliefs, otherwise it is not a religion, but the actual core religious beliefs are fairly limited. In Christianity, Jesus dying to reconcile the world to God is the whole point; without that it is something else. The whole point of Buddhism is that all emotions are pain, and that realizing that everything really nothing (since all composable things are impermanent and everything is composed) is the path to nirvana. All the other beliefs and ethics come out of this. But even "submarine" religions (ones that people do not think of as a religion) follow the pattern. Communists worship the State (or perhaps the Party), because the problem with society is the structure of society, so only the State can bring the salvation of equity. American Progressives worship sexual identity. Progressives are flexible--except if you don't accept a particular identity, think that gender is not malleable, refuse to use pronouns, etc. However, I think even "most religions" are not very flexible. 50% of the world's population are either Christian or Islam, and both are pretty prescriptive in the ethics.
    - shakna 1y ago

mr_toad 1y ago

> Even the British courts, in sharp contrast to many other places, "deliver the law as it is, and not as we wish it to be" The English practically invented the idea of common law. Even today there are still important legal principles based entirely on the decisions of earlier courts.

Projectiboga 1y ago
A formal UK Constitution doesn't exist and is a striking example of this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=The%20constitution%20of%20the%20United,unelected%20but%20can%20be%20overruled. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K... The constitution of the United Kingdom comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no official attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  In the US we only have a remnant of that in the Senate, in what has been popularly marketed as "the Nuclear Option." A Senator just makes a point of order that a Senate rule is the opposite of what it actually, verifiably is. The chair denies it, the Senator appeals the decision, and a majority of the Senate then overrules the chair. After this has happened, the rule just changes and whatever was not in order in the past is in order in the future (or vice versa.) In the Senate as in Parliament; the majority of Parliament is the law, it can't break the law.
pessimizer 1y ago
There are still important legal principles in the US and other places around the world based entirely on the decisions of earlier English courts. The first local decisions will reference English cases, and English legal experts often would have been consulted. Same thing with most of the world's parliaments and congresses having to reference English Parliamentary precedent in order to figure out how to operate themselves. The UK Parliament and courts may be terrible, but they invented the thing and we're forks.