Random Irritations

[Deleted member 16999]

What worries me is that a Government makes a law, but a judge can change it.
This goes on too much. I cannot believe that laws are being so badly written that a judge can so often say " The law is not as you acted on it, Mr Government. What this law really says is 'such and such'."

A judge is there to uphold the law, not to make it.

Surely that’s role of any independant Judicary? Otherwise Governments could right any law and expect to get away with it.
It may not be badly written, just not written good enough, think of Laws that have been changed after “clever” lawyers have got people off on technicalities.
The Judge isn’t making the Law, the Government will now review it and ensure it’s fit for purpose.

 

[Foxholer]

What worries me is that a Government makes a law, but a judge can change it.
This goes on too much. I cannot believe that laws are being so badly written that a judge can so often say " The law is not as you acted on it, Mr Government. What this law really says is 'such and such'."

A judge is there to uphold the law, not to make it.

I don't believe that's what happens! Certainly, judges don't change laws! Though their rulings can trigger a change to 'the law'!

Here's the (simplified) process as I understand it.
1. Government makes a law (or, as in England/UK laws evolve from precedent etc)
2. A case arises where the particular law(s) is/are/may be relevant.
3. Advocates (lawyers/solicitors) state arguments about which laws are relevant and which area/s is/are most important to the case.
4. Judge, as well as 'managing' the case, decides which of the arguments is the more convincing, so makes his/her ruling.

Should that process raise any issues that challenge the validity or implementation of any law, then it's up to Government to consider revising said law.

So while a Judge cannot change a law, his/her ruling CAN trigger a change (by Government) to the relevant law - or, indeed, a new one.
It's only Governments that can change laws!

 

[Foxholer]

A major road in my area is about to undergo a second disruption in order to extend the making of a cyclist path alongside the carriageway .
However, the number of cyclists who ignore its existence and still use the carriageway brings into question the wisdom of creating such a cycle way.
Or, rather, the lack of will to require cyclists to use it.
It isn't a question of "education", it's about a conscious choice to stay in the carriageway and the other traffic can manage its way around me.
I hope when these schemes are completed there will be a change to the Road traffic Act.

Perhaps, the cyclists 'ignore its existence' because it's not (yet) fit for purpose' and extending the cycle path would mean they likely use it. That certainly happened in my area - work apparently being constrained by budget!

 

[GB72]

I don't believe that's what happens! Certainly, judges don't change laws! Though their rulings can trigger a change to 'the law'!

Here's the (simplified) process as I understand it.
1. Government makes a law (or, as in England/UK laws evolve from precedent etc)
2. A case arises where the particular law(s) is/are/may be relevant.
3. Advocates (lawyers/solicitors) state arguments about which laws are relevant and which area/s is/are most important to the case.
4. Judge, as well as 'managing' the case, decides which of the arguments is the more convincing, so makes his/her ruling.

Should that raise process any issues that challenge the validity or implementation of any law, then it's up to Government to consider revising said law.

So while a Judge cannot change a law, his/her ruling CAN trigger a change (by Government) to the relevant law - or, indeed, a new one.
It's only Governments that can change laws!

This is pretty much it. The courts interpret the legislation and so effectively point out loopholes that may need closing.

Quite a bit of legislation globally has been written in a hurry and so there are bound to be loopholes here but it would seem, in this instance, that there is a disparity between what outcome is wanted at state and federal level. The state legilature wants him in as an integral part of the Open Tennis, the federal government see him as an anti vaxxer and would rather he was not in the country.

Irony this morning was that Farage was on soclal media supporting Djokovic against a country trying to enforce its national border.

 

[GB72]

I don't believe that's what happens! Certainly, judges don't change laws! Though their rulings can trigger a change to 'the law'!

Here's the (simplified) process as I understand it.
1. Government makes a law (or, as in England/UK laws evolve from precedent etc)
2. A case arises where the particular law(s) is/are/may be relevant.
3. Advocates (lawyers/solicitors) state arguments about which laws are relevant and which area/s is/are most important to the case.
4. Judge, as well as 'managing' the case, decides which of the arguments is the more convincing, so makes his/her ruling.

Should that process raise any issues that challenge the validity or implementation of any law, then it's up to Government to consider revising said law.

So while a Judge cannot change a law, his/her ruling CAN trigger a change (by Government) to the relevant law - or, indeed, a new one.
It's only Governments that can change laws!

Am I the only one (and I am not generally a conspiracy theorist) who sees the coincidence that he contracted covid (for a second time) with almost perfect timing to allow any quarentine period to pass and still apply for a visa for Australia using the exemption that he could not be vacccinated as he had recently had covid, an expemption that he would not have been entitled to if he had not contracted it a couple of weeks earlier. Oh, and he appears to have gone ahead wiht his usual press and PR Commitments whilst he had covid.

 

[Imurg]

Am I the only one (and I am not generally a conspiracy theorist) who sees the coincidence that he contracted covid (for a second time) with almost perfect timing to allow any quarentine period to pass and still apply for a visa for Australia using the exemption that he could not be vacccinated as he had recently had covid, an expemption that he would not have been entitled to if he had not contracted it a couple of weeks earlier. Oh, and he appears to have gone ahead wiht his usual press and PR Commitments whilst he had covid.

So cynical Greg...so cynical...
And probably not a million miles from the truth..

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Am I the only one (and I am not generally a conspiracy theorist) who sees the coincidence that he contracted covid (for a second time) with almost perfect timing to allow any quarentine period to pass and still apply for a visa for Australia using the exemption that he could not be vacccinated as he had recently had covid, an expemption that he would not have been entitled to if he had not contracted it a couple of weeks earlier. Oh, and he appears to have gone ahead wiht his usual press and PR Commitments whilst he had covid.

If he ends up staying I hope this line of questioning is put too him quite vehemently. It's either a smokescreen or he is utterly irresponsible. Neither are attractive options.

 

[Foxholer]

Am I the only one (and I am not generally a conspiracy theorist) who sees the coincidence that he contracted covid (for a second time) with almost perfect timing to allow any quarentine period to pass and still apply for a visa for Australia using the exemption that he could not be vacccinated as he had recently had covid, an expemption that he would not have been entitled to if he had not contracted it a couple of weeks earlier. Oh, and he appears to have gone ahead wiht his usual press and PR Commitments whilst he had covid.

Cynical indeed! Imurg beat me to it!
Fortunate coincidence is probably more likely though.
I'm still a little unsure whether he'll be able to stay, for a couple of reasons. 1. I believe the cancellation of his visa was deemed wrong because the required procedures were not followed properly. 2. I believe Federal government can cancel his visa at any stage anyway - though proper procedures must be performed.
I actually hope he IS allowed to stay - and successfully defends his title. Maybe not the best circumstances to 'break the record' but....

 

[Wilson]

This is pretty much it. The courts interpret the legislation and so effectively point out loopholes that may need closing.

Quite a bit of legislation globally has been written in a hurry and so there are bound to be loopholes here but it would seem, in this instance, that there is a disparity between what outcome is wanted at state and federal level. The state legilature wants him in as an integral part of the Open Tennis, the federal government see him as an anti vaxxer and would rather he was not in the country.

Irony this morning was that Farage was on soclal media supporting Djokovic against a country trying to enforce its national border.

Some of the replies to Farage's tweets are golden.

 

[Rooter]

As a former regular cyclist in London, many of the cycle paths seemed to have been designed by non-cyclists. They often felt like they put cyclists and pedestrians into more danger than just staying on the road. Some were downright crazy - two-way for cyclists on a road that's one-way for cars means drivers entering from a side road aren't used to checking in that direction. Most experienced cyclists I know would rather take their chances in a normal lane.

Yeh what Rich Says, some cycle ways are brilliant, but there are some near me I will not use. They either are curbed both sides, so collects leaves, gravel, broken glass and are death traps, or they cross side roads very badly making the cycle give way, or they are intersected by bus stops with fundamentally speed bumps in them which in theory allow the pedestrian to walk from pavement to bus over the bike path. They don't work for cyclists. So hopefully in the OP case, they are making it better which will see its use increase, which in turn hopefully might eek a few motorists out of their cars!! Hopefully with their kids, allowing the kids to bike to school, exercising and not polluting! Win-win!!

 

[Blue in Munich]

As a former regular cyclist in London, many of the cycle paths seemed to have been designed by non-cyclists. They often felt like they put cyclists and pedestrians into more danger than just staying on the road. Some were downright crazy - two-way for cyclists on a road that's one-way for cars means drivers entering from a side road aren't used to checking in that direction. Most experienced cyclists I know would rather take their chances in a normal lane.

As someone who had to look at and comment upon these sorts of schemes in a previous job there is nothing in that post I can disagree with. It often seemed to be the case that they were being done for the sake of being seen to do something rather than having any positive benefits.

 

[Orikoru]

Trying to find a new pedalboard - finally find one that looks around the right size, and it says "In Stock - due for delivery in May." Where the hell is it in stock but it takes you 5 months to get it here?? On Mars?

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Perhaps, the cyclists 'ignore its existence' because it's not (yet) fit for purpose' and extending the cycle path would mean they likely use it. That certainly happened in my area - work apparently being constrained by budget!

There will always be an "end" to the work(whereby the cyclist returns to the carriageway), it all cannot be done at once;but the cyclist should use what exists in the meantime.
It's the "Lycra' wannabe Tour de France riders that consciously refuse to use the cycle lanes that I see mostly.

 

[drdel]

Trying to find a new pedalboard - finally find one that looks around the right size, and it says "In Stock - due for delivery in May." Where the hell is it in stock but it takes you 5 months to get it here?? On Mars?

France

 

[Neilds]

Spending £400 on an Apple Watch and when it arrives, realising you have to spend a bit more to get a plug for the charger
I knew it needed a plug but assumed it was a normal USB connector and have loads of those plugs lying around. Apple. in their wisdom, have fitted the cable with a USB-C connector so new plug ordered and will need to wait until tomorrow to have a play with my new watch.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Spending £400 on an Apple Watch and when it arrives, realising you have to spend a bit more to get a plug for the charger
I knew it needed a plug but assumed it was a normal USB connector and have loads of those plugs lying around. Apple. in their wisdom, have fitted the cable with a USB-C connector so new plug ordered and will need to wait until tomorrow to have a play with my new watch.

Its annoying, they don't even include a charger with the phone now

However I'm told it's to save on waste .. less in landfill

That said it's not reflected in the price is it!!

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Surely that’s role of any independant Judicary? Otherwise Governments could right any law and expect to get away with it.
It may not be badly written, just not written good enough, think of Laws that have been changed after “clever” lawyers have got people off on technicalities.
The Judge isn’t making the Law, the Government will now review it and ensure it’s fit for purpose.

Hmmm....can't see the logic of first paragraph. Is it part of the Anarchist s charter??
People elect governments knowing they can and do make laws.
In such a system , there is an understanding that once in power, a government can make a law if it passes the democratic process.
So, -" governments could write any law and expect to get away with it"

That's what they are there for. It certainly isn't for anyone, or organisation, or judiciary to change that. Those last three have not been elected to do so.

 

[Foxholer]

There will always be an "end" to the work(whereby the cyclist returns to the carriageway), it all cannot be done at once;but the cyclist should use what exists in the meantime.
It's the "Lycra' wannabe Tour de France riders that consciously refuse to use the cycle lanes that I see mostly.

Not when it's dangerous to do so!
There's certainly a couple near me that I wouldn't use purely because of the danger at the end of the partially completed section! Basically, that danger means that the partially constructed cycleway is not fit for purpose, creating more danger than it reduces!

 

[Foxholer]

...
People elect governments knowing they can and do make laws.
In such a system , there is an understanding that once in power, a government can make a law if it passes the democratic process.
So, -" governments could write any law and expect to get away with it"

That's what they are there for. It certainly isn't for anyone, or organisation, or judiciary to change that. Those last three have not been elected to do so.

As I posted earlier, they don't! But they can certainly influence Government to change laws! The change to/scrapping of the Poll Tax was certainly not initiated by the government! Judiciary action (better described as Court action imo) simply highlights errors/loopholes/inconsistencies that have to be resolved by Government.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Hmmm....can't see the logic of first paragraph. Is it part of the Anarchist s charter??
People elect governments knowing they can and do make laws.
In such a system , there is an understanding that once in power, a government can make a law if it passes the democratic process.
So, -" governments could write any law and expect to get away with it"

That's what they are there for. It certainly isn't for anyone, or organisation, or judiciary to change that. Those last three have not been elected to do so.

I take it this is the first time you’ve heard of a Judge overruling a Government?