Messages

I love slaine's toes!

Yeah, hope it all works out. That sounds terrible that they just made up stuff, but I know it happens quite a bit.

I hope you used felt tips on the original and did not just go that on computer

I'd rather listen to TS than The Political Thread these days. That probably casts me in an awful light but I know what I mean.

I like them both. i also love Cursed Edge.

Entertaining episode, gentlemen. Liked the Collector's Corner bit -- great to hear Mr Wells' enthusiam for 2000ad shine through! Keep up the good work.

More collector's corner was a direct response to your feedback! We listen to our listeners!

I used to think 'hip to be square' by Huey Lewis was saying 'Hit the B Square'. i spent ages pondering on its meaning.

Welcome back!

Waiting to hear what you are getting your family for Christmas this year? 2000ad tshirts again?

2000ad on tv in the 1990s - it is a painful watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJyEByvEMeM

It is a great piece. Artists can be so hard on themselves!

Lovely


I have stolen your scan of that one and put it up on my blog! You should have watermarked it!

Lovely. A real shame you have written your name on it with a marker though!

Mark Evanier is an excellent writer and I thought the books was excellent

The Miracle = Even my nostaglic Queen love won't make me go there again!

I really love the Miracle and Innuendo.

Actually Shark speaks a form of truth . . . However I would say.


"On the face of it, this is just a story about an ongoing process that happens all the time - clearing out the clutter from the statute books. (When I say 'all the time' I don't mean daily, weekly or even annually - but often.) New legislation, being couched in more modern terms, addressing more modern sensibilities and taking into account the contemporary state of custom, case law, previous legislation, modern attitudes and tradition, is often "better" than old, outmoded legislation. Modern legislation, having the benefit of history behind it, can say the same thing but say it better. It's a story about how efficient our legal system is."


I'd say it's a slow news day.




"Firstly, the title of the piece uses the word "Law" instead of the word "Legislation" (even though this is corrected in the sub-heading), perpetuating the myth that law and legislation are the same thing - which they are not."

Probably just a lazy journalist.


"THOU SHALT NOT KILL is law"

It is religion not law.

In fact killing is allowed under many circumstances in the UK murder definition which only outlaws unlawful killing: abortion, switching off life support, war. If all of those were precluded by law then many people would be criminals.

", NO GUNS is legislation. Law is the most basic foundation of right and wrong - so simple that even children intuitively understand it - that sense of justice residing in us all. It can be called God's Law, Natural Law* or Common Law."

However this moral law is different depending on the society. Hans Kelsen calls this Grundnorm in his pure theory of law.

"Legislation began as man's attempt to codify Common Law - after all, even though everyone knows you shouldn't kill anyone sometimes it's unavoidable and even necessary, so legislation was needed to sort out the details of what is and isn't murder. "

Common law is the law made by judges. It is superseded by legislation.

"This is why legislation can be so complex and tangled and self-contradictory and an ass."

Legislation is like that because we have historically approached law with a literal approach to statutory interpretation. Whereas a purposive approach would look at the spirit of what the underlying purpose of the legislation was trying to achieve, english judges have twisted the words of the legislation to mean what they thought it should do to achieve their form of justice. This is often the case due to historical and political reasons and is part a result of the separation of powers in the UK. It is a long and interesting topic.


"Thou Shalt Not Kill is easy to understand but when you start adding things to it (thou shalt not kill unless you're defending yourself, or a soldier, or an official executioner) it soon gets very, very complicated indeed."

I could deal with those 3 exceptions
.
"So, that's the first and most obvious thing I saw, which ties in with the second - the myth that new legislation always trumps old law (if it didn't, how could they repeal anything, right?) which is not the case at all. New legislation may trump old legislation but Common Law trumps the lot - because Common Law is what legislation is trying to codify and the very foundation upon which all legislation is built. Legislation legalising murder could be passed tomorrow but it would have absolutely no effect on the Common Law forbidding murder that we all know instinctively."

We have legislation that provides defences for forms of killing, and that allows for abortion. Legislation supersedes common law.
.
I'd love to write more but I'm on the nightshift and have to go to bed. Maybe I'll write some more in the morning so - keep that tinfoil hat handy!
.
"*Natural Law is not to be confused with the "law of the jungle" or "survival of the fittest" but rather that Law which comes naturally to human beings. Whether that Law is instilled in us by a deity or as the result of millions of years of instinct, behaviour and learning is immaterial because, whether we believe in God or not, we all know what is fundamentally Right and Wrong. This is the law which is part of our nature, what I call 'Common Law.'"

Natural law is a jurisprudential concept.

If you try to apply moral absolutes to human behaviour you will get nowhere as they change over time.

Another interesting fact about debt collection agencies is that many of them *purchase* debts from suchlike as the utilities companies and so on for pennies in the pound. The agency then goes after people for the full amount or more, thus making a profit.
.
However, even in legislation (Bills of Exchange Act 188?), as soon as the debt collection agency buys your debt from whomever, they have technically discharged that debt for you. As you owed the utilities company money, for instance, as soon as they sell that debt to a third party (with whom you have no contract or agreement) then you're in the clear. The utilities company has been paid for the debt, technically clearing it. The debt collection agency takes a punt, just like buying shares, and if you know a little law and take the initiative from the start, they cut their losses and leave you alone.
.
The best part, though, is writing them amusing letters using the same robust and demanding style they do. They demand, I demand, each ignores the other's demands and the one with the most ink wins. It can be quite fun.

What they generally purchase is a portfolio of debt for a percentage of the debt based on its perceived recovery. I have never heard of that being a discharge of the debt, it doesn't sound likely though.

I had a look online and there are loads of sites about it written in a sort of cod legalese which seem to fundamentally misunderstand how courts work so I gave up.

I guess it must remain a mystery. I'll have a chat to my debt collection friends if I remember to and let you know.