The following post was originally called, simply, "Hee haw! Hee haw!" Then it started getting comments... Just a dribble... All selling something or other. One common factor was, that the items on sale had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the post. Several of the "comments" had almost identical wording, also nothing to do with the topic of the post.
I tried rejecting the comments but felt that this would simply prove to the spammer that the blog was live. Now I am trying something different: Just one post gets most of the spam hits so I will delete that one post. With luck, an auto-spammer will lose track of my blog... for a while, at least.
To reduce the nuisance of spam, I will delete a post. Rather than lose the warm feeling of having vent my spleen... the rant is posted again, below. If it looks familiar -- blame your own, excellent memory :-) But if you read this re-posting to the end, you will find an extra Footnote, relating the old post to a recent court case.
email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
Loophole logic
"Charges against developer fail" says The West (28 Feb 08). Yet another prosecution case collapses due to "justice" being replaced by "law".So what went wrong?
Well, you see, David McKenzie was asked about his knowledge of the South-West Regional Planning Committee. He most properly answered no, never heard of it, never tried to influence its outcomes, never asked my mates to sort it out. Well, how could he have heard of the South-West Regional Planning Committee? It doesn't exist!
Of course, if the CCC had asked him, What do you know about the South-West Region Planning Committee -- he would have replied, oh, them, yes, I was discussing them the other day with my paid propagandists, asking if we could fix them up...
Did you spot the subtle difference?
You and I, in any conversation, would be able to understand that Regional and Region are much the same, a slip of the tongue. As reasonable people, we would understand what was meant. After all, the spoken word is fluid and flexible. We can even -- if we try -- understand a New Zealander.
But property developers are a breed apart. They -- and their lawyers -- speak only one language: the legal loophole.
Speed trap
In the same edition of The West is the continuing story of the LTI 20-20 Ultralyte speed gun.Sixteen years ago, WA Police were allowed -- by publication in the Government Gazette -- to use the LTI 20-20 speed gun. Some time later, they adopted the LTI 20-20 Ultralyte speed gun.
Oops!
The two speed guns may use exactly the same technology -- no-one has questioned that -- but there is that different name. The Ultralyte is a new model. It may work but no-one cares... The name is different so it is not fit for use.
Oh, my apologies... I should not be treating this as a fine example of the stupidity of the law. "It's a very serious issue..." according to Mr Crispe the lawyer.
Say no more.
Loosen the law to tighten it up
The aim of a detailed law is, to allow for loopholes.If a law says, You shall not drink alcohol and then drive -- it means, you can smoke cannabis, snort cocaine, inject peanut paste (it's been done!) and then drive. By naming one drug as illegal, all other -- not named -- drugs become legal.
The law should say, You will not drive while affected by anything which could make your driving skills less than the level at which you gained your drivers licence.
If a law says, you shall not drive with a blood alcohol content of more than 0.08 -- that means that any other blood alcohol level is now legal. Some people are affected more than others, by a given level of alcohol.
The law should say, You will not drive while affected by anything which could make your driving skills less than the level at which you gained your drivers licence.
What are we trying to stop? Bad driving caused by something that you ate or drank or snorted or injected -- or whatever. Once I try to list it, I am opening the way for a new legal loophole. What about the person who drove while asleep?
The law should say, You will not drive while affected by anything which could make your driving skills less than the level at which you gained your drivers licence. That's what we want from such a law. That's what the law should say.
Laws should cover what we want. A complex and detailed law simply opens the way for legal loopholes.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
Footnote, April 2010
Notice the similarity of these naming quibbles, to the recent case of the Thornlie tree man?Richard Pennicuik came down from his tree and went to court. He has been unemployed for a while, it's unlikely that he can afford a good lawyer. If he does get fined for attempting to protect his tree, I would guess that cumulative fines of tens of thousands of dollars will send him broke. Pennicuik tried several arguments to defend himself against the L-A-W law...
Pennicuik claimed that the court charges did not in fact refer to him. Court papers had written his name incorrectly.
Did Liz Langdon, the learned magistrate, consider the case of David McKenzie and the South-West Regional Planning Committee? Did that noble expert in the law consider that "very serious issue" of correct naming raised by Mr Crispe the lawyer? Did she hell!
The magistrate told Pennicuik to go away and stop wasting the court's time. She suggested that Pennicuik should get legal advice on his absurd submission.
One law for those rich enough to afford a nit-picking lawyer. Another, stop-annoying-me-because-I-am-the law, for real people.
Can you afford to go to court to defend what you believe is right?
No comments:
Post a Comment