61–70 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The BBC also didn't call it "ancient," which would be questionable considering that the law is from 2012.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?)
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.
we have a bridge near where i live that can use such a warning crash barrier. you'd think they'd install one after 65 bridge strikes in the last few years. their solution was to build a a stronger bridge, rofl. i guess at this point it's a cherished tradition :D. there's probably a youtube mashup of all the phone-recorded strikes. https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2025/05/20/box-truck-hits...
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 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owens_v…
If that's not religion, I don't know what is...
Reminds me of the fact that for 500 years everyone graduating with a BA from Oxford had to swear that they would never agree to the reconciliation of Henry Symeonis, despite no one having any idea who he was for most of that time.
Yes! I was disappointed to learn when I graduated with my BA that this oath was no longer required. However, I continue refuse to reconcile with Henry Symeonis. It's only been 800 years, you never know when it might be important. After all, the Anglo-Portuguese is still in force 650 years on!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Often, these things are utilitarian, not mystical. So my educated guess: Back in the day, the main problem was river mariners getting hurt by bridge arches that were lower than expected, and the bale of straw was a 'soft buffer' - better to get your head hit by a swinging bale of straw than a rock-solid bridge.
More likely that a bale of hay was simply a conspicuous but lightweight thing that was easy to get your hands on back in the day.
Aside: Although the article makes the same mistake, hay and straw are not the same thing. Hay is dead green grass-like plants. Straw is dead brown grass-like plant matter that has finished it's lifecycle and used up all the sugars and things in it. Hay gets moldy more easily but has nutrients for animals while straw does not decompose as quickly.
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 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owens_v…
>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...
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 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owens_v…
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?)
The core issue is that no Constitution, in fact no law or decree at all can account for all possibilities that real life offers, and so all the bodies of law are up for interpretation all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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...
Religion is notably harder to change than country laws.
Most religions are relatively flexible around beliefs. It tends to be particular sects that aren't... But they don't speak for the rest.