Digital Dialogues - Law Commission Forum - Archive - Comments

ECA 1972

shiner — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:00:35 +0000

I WISH TO ENDORSE, SUPPORT WHAT ANNE PALMER SAYS, & WHY IT SHOULD BE REPEALLED

The rights granted to Civil Partnerships

Michael Shea — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:13:00 +0000

In granting homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples in respect of property rights, pension rights and inheritance rights, two new classes of people are now exposed as being unfairly disadvantaged. These are the so-called common law situations where one partner dies intestate or inadvertently leaves a will in place in favour of a long-departed ex-spouse, and cases where siblings have lived in a family home into their old age, with one being made homeless in order to pay inheritance tax on the other's portion of the property. This change would affect some 4,000,000 people.

Easter Act 1928

Andrew Bullock — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:06:55 +0000

I agree with the spirit of this posting and would like to add a further modest proposals of my own; viz the introduction of a statutory mechanism, retrospective in effect, whereby all statutory provisions would automatically be repealed unless brought into force within a specified period from the date upon which the act in which they were contained first received the Royal Assent. Such a provision would both promote certainty in, and reduce the volume of, statute law and would not (insofar as I can see) offend against any existing constitutional convention.

Accepted meaning of Insolvency rule 4.228 turned on its head

Dunem Good — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:43:22 +0000

I propose a change to the wording of Rule 4.228 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. A recent judgement (Churchill & Churchill Vs First Independent Factors) interpreted “with a view to being” as having effect to what is now. Whatever the precise English interpretation and I believe that as English is a live language the commonly and widely accepted interpretation should prevail, it is clear that for 20 years Insolvency Practitioners and their legal counsel have taken the view that while “with a view to being” clearly described future intention it had no bearing on the status at the time of sending of the notice referred to in the rule. Not only did this judgement dramatically change the long accepted interpretation it seems to me that it runs counter to the intent of the act and thus the will of parliament. It is clear that in dealing with the transfer of assets from the liquidating to the successor company, the purpose of this part of the act is to ensure that all the facts are made available to the creditors of the liquidating company so they may make an informed choice. In my view the interpretation in this judgement makes full disclosure of all the facts less likely as it forces the person who would normally be named in the subject notice not to be a director of the successor company and thus much less likely to be named in the notice. At the very least all that the judgement achieves, apart from a retrospective change in the accepted interpretation of the law, is to introduce some administrative gymnastics into the process and I cannot see how that will make things clearer.

Netting off problem

LincolnMan — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:50:36 +0000

I have also now made another worrying discovery, in that there appears to be no official body to monitor whether the police adhere to the 'netting off' rules, the rules that allow the police to take a percentage of the fines. This needs to be corrected immediately as part of the general review to ensure correct application of the law and the equipment.

In respect to the above

LincolnMan — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:46:17 +0000

In respect to the above post: The initial proposal in this forum was NOT about drink driving, this is a non relevant red herring, as no change of the law in this area is proposed. The issues under discussion are: 1. The use of S172 and the fact it amounts to a forced confession, with a criminal penalty if you don't confess., and therefore is a gross violation of human rights. 2. The use of the 'opinion' of two officers to convict for speeding, without no scientific verification of speed being needed. 3. The non-compulsion for the Police to stick by the ACPO guidlines in the use of equipment. 4. The charging of £10 (by using the Data Protection Act) by the police if accused person wish to see the evidence against them. This is also an abuse. 5. The use of letters that are threatening, bullying and abusive, and in some cases containing misinformation. All the letters use din the process need to be standard wording. Another issue is the use of biassed 'expert' witnesses by the police regarding operation and use of speed measuring equipment. The experts used are none other than the makers of the equipment, which makes there opinion worthless, since they are never going to admit there equipment is wrong. An Independent body that will test and give evidence regarding the accuracy, use and questionability of Speedmeter evidence needs to formed, to give an fair and unbiassed input when such evidence is disputed.

Traffic law

24601 — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:59:58 +0000

The drink-drive issue would be so much clearer if we operated a "zero tolerance" approach. Any amount of alcohol found in the bloodstream should result in punitive measures. Far too many people are ignorant to what the "safe limit" is. Answer: there is no "safe limit" - any amount of alcohol will affect coordination and response times. "Safe limits" don't factor in recent food intake, or effects of alcohol taken with other (prescribed) medication.

RE FEUDALISM?

Matthew Jolley — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:46:55 +0000

As you say, this project forms part of the Commission's current programme of law reform. Details of the proposed project, and the reasons why the Commission decided to consider the area, are set out in the 9th Programme document, available on this site. We have not yet started work on the project. We hope you will reply to any consultation in due course.

Threading

Nicholas Piska — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:46:57 +0000

We have made an alteration to the forum to allow 'threading' of comments. This means that if you reply to a comment your post will be indented and appear directly beneath the comment to which you are replying. This should make it easier to follow discussions relating to certain topics. Unfortunately, comments made prior to 16 February cannot be threaded and will remain in chronological order. Please let us know if you find 'threading' more convenient or if it causes you any problems by emailing edemocracy@hansard.lse.ac.uk Nicholas Piska Tenth Programme Team

The European Communities Act 1972

Anne Palmer — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:14:57 +0000

The European Communities Act 1972 should be repealed in full. It really is only through the coming of Internet that many people have realised the full contents of the Treaty of Rome. Without control of its borders, the United Kingdom is no longer a Country in its own right. Every Country has its own Constitution, the UK has its own Constitution yet it is as if we do not or that it has been destroyed. As the EU is planning the next 50 years, means that this Country will not have the ability to govern itself again.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972

Jeffrey Shaw — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:10:46 +0000

I agree with wwelton (post on 10 February). The UK's integrity is imperilled by the 1972 Act which: i. contorts Common Law to fit alien legal systems' jurisprudence (equally valid as those systems' might be); ii. politicises the UK judiciary, some centuries after establishment of democracy and judicial independence from political interference, by human rights neologisms that pre-suppose the initial absence of rights (ie European law systems deny all individual rights, so you are entirely unprotected unless the State condescends to give you some rights; UK law systems vest full power in individuals, unrestricted by limitations except where the law intervenes to impose a duty or limit the subject's freedom for the common good); and iii. adds nothing to our lives but removes a great deal.

Family Law (child contact)

Forseti — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:52:07 +0000

The postings on the Family Courts demonstrate three widely held but erroneous beliefs. The first is that fathers, particularly divorced fathers, invariably present a sinister threat to their children. Certainly a few do, no one can deny that child abuse happens, but the evidence – from the NSPCC, for example - shows that if anything children are at slightly greater risk of abuse from their mothers. The second belief is that contact is always granted to abusers. While orders for no contact are rare, many contact orders are for minimal levels of contact, often supervised in contact centres. Other orders are for ‘indirect contact’ by letter or email. All contact orders specify, not the minimum level of contact, but the maximum. Furthermore, only 20% of orders are fully complied with, and 60% are violated entirely and with impunity. The third belief is that there is a presumption of contact in the 1989 Children Act; there is in public law but not in private law which deals with contact orders. There is no evidence that most court-ordered contact is harmful to children; the claims made by Women’s Aid on the matter are wildly inflated and now discredited. The truth is that far too many children are losing parents in the Family Courts – both fathers and mothers – because of prejudice and ignorance. It is that which turns normal children into damaged adults.

Traffic Law

LincolnMan — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:20:25 +0000

In reply to Mags posts: >All drink drivers should be banned from driving for life. >This would make all drivers aware that drinking and >taking drugs when driving is not acceptable. This is draconian and excessive. The current laws are adequate, if they were applied properly and fairly. My request is for a review of the nature and application of the law by the Police . >All children from aged 3-16years should wear a cycle >helmet whilst on the road. >This should be enforced. You cannot enforce this because a) you cannot hold a child under 12 as criminally responsible. You would be forced to prosecute parents, who would respond by taking bicycles of children, who would then possibly start to ride them again as adults, with no compulsion to wear a helmet. Is this really what you set out to achieve? >This is a health and safty issue. >Because we do not enforce the wearing of cycle helmets >in the UK it makes us look as if we do not care about the >safety of child road users. I do not believe that compulsion is an answer, education is better, especially with children. Cycling Proficiency course in schools would be more productive. >Children that ride ponies or horses on the road have to >wear hard hats. But its not compulsory by law. Its part of the Horse riding circles culture, and has been taught, not imposed. We need a similar approach to children.

Traffic Law

mags — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:30:08 +0000

All children from aged 3-16years should wear a cycle helmet whilst on the road. This should be enforced. This is a health and safty issue. Because we do not enforce the wearing of cycle helmets in the UK it makes us look as if we do not care about the safety of child road users. Children that ride ponies or horses on the road have to wear hard hats.

Traffic Law

mags — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:25:45 +0000

All drink drivers should be banned from driving for life. This would make all drivers aware that drinking and taking drugs when driving is not acceptable.