71–80 of 158 posts
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.
This is a good reminder of how law is actualy created and works, and the what our legal foundations are, including the laws governing our rights and responsibilitys. The real thing to understand is that all law is arbitrary, and whatever possible balance and measure is included in existing law, and discussions about change and reform are always predicated on some imagined "justice" to be had, but no matter how "just"…
But, in the picture it seems to be a) hung higher than the scaffolding and b) too close to it to actually give vessels a chance to turn around.
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.
Bureaucratic tradition at its finest
It seems like the original idea here would be to hang the hay at slightly below the height of the next bridge. That way it serves as a physical indication that your vessel's too tall. But, in the picture it seems to be a) hung higher than the scaffolding and b) too close to it to actually give vessels a chance to turn around.
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...
Belief in other shared made up things like law and even money works that way, and most of the world -isms too
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...
Religion is what it replaced. Where one person, with a clique of courtiers who personally relied on him for power, enacted whatever took their fancy. Their word was power, whether it was starting wars or forging alliances with unsavoury countries - and woebetide you if you challenged it.
Like a bit of medieval cosplay sneaking into modern infrastructure work. A tiny reminder that history isn’t just in museums... it's literally hanging off our bridges.
the practice of "topping out" a new building can be traced to the ancient Scandinavian religious rite of placing a tree atop a new building to appease the tree-dwelling spirits displaced in its construction... The practice remains common in the United Kingdom and assorted Commonwealth countries such as Australia[7] and Canada,[8] as well as Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Iceland, Chile, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States. In the United States the last beam of a skyscraper is often painted white and signed by all the workers involved.[7] In New Zealand, completion of the roof to a water-proof state is celebrated through a "roof shout", where workers are treated to cake and beer.[9]
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...
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?)
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.
I was surprised (and then sad) at the realization that Bill Watterson is fading from the cultural ethos as I age.