British Law

Anybody know if some sort of online database/rough guide of what is legal/illegal in the UK exists?

Especially if its includes prosecution conseqeunces of those illegal actions.

IANAL, but legislation is here: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

Common law is more complicated and is why lawyers make a lot of money.

Why? What are you going to do?

What have you done?

But seriously here...

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

IANAL, but legislation is here: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

Common law is more complicated and is why lawyers make a lot of money.

Why? What are you going to do?

Buggar beat me to it.

Oh dear, I never anticipated this reaction.

I did nuthin, honest!

Seriously though, I just realised I have no clue of the legal system in this country at all even though I was born here. I found that alarming, almost wrong.

It seems the goverment is specifically out to get us by ways of ignorance. They make the law super complicated and hide it away. Then use the thing thats supposed to protect us, against us by controlling us through fear & lack of knowledge.

Its a lot like in the old days when reading the Bible was heresy.

I found out through a couple road accidents last year how little protected us cyclists are.

Id just be very interested in learning more about basic law, and on what grounds the police are forced to act.

That is all.

English law (NEVER British please) is not codified as many European legal systems are. All criminal law is, however, statute based apart from murder itself although much law relating to homocide (murder and manslaughter) is encapsulated in the Homocide Act. Statutes must, however, be read in conjunction with cases and with the general background of common law. Don't forget Stautory Instruments and by-laws which also may carry criminal sanction.

It took me six years to qualify as a lawyer. Most lawyers are, like me, highly specialised. There is simply too much law to encapsulate it easily and it changes very regularly.

If Dr. Carl Kennedy on Neighbours can perform neurosurgery 10 minutes after a shift in A&E why can't lawyers get me out of jail and do the conveyancing for the new house I would have to buy. (I'm not actually in prison.)

If Dr. Carl Kennedy on Neighbours can perform neurosurgery 10 minutes after a shift in A&E why can't lawyers get me out of jail and do the conveyancing for the new house I would have to buy. (I'm not actually in prison.)

Damn, our whole profession has just been sussed.

You could get a Blackwell's police handbook?

Includes lots on what they can and can't do when they, say, stop/search then find some illicit substances on you....

someone told me once that common law wasnt written down as such, its based on previous cases and the outcome? ..wonder if i could still get sent to Australia for stealing a chicken

If there are any laws that are still punished by deportation to Australia (apart from Australians overstaying their visas of course) it would be quite useful to know. It'd save a ton of cash.

It seems the goverment is specifically out to get us by ways of ignorance. They make the law super complicated and hide it away. Then use the thing thats supposed to protect us, against us by controlling us through fear & lack of knowledge.

Not really. In fact the relationship between government and law is a complicated one.

Up until recently, and still to a degree, the law was the reserve of the Lord Chancellor and his department (formerly the Lord Chancellors Department, then the Department for Constitutional Affairs) which has been effectively subsumed into the Ministry for Justice.

This department is quasi-autonomous from the government through a need to depoliticise the judicial process. As such the appointment to the position of Lord Chancellor is the responsiblity of the monarchal head of state, although this will currently be on the advice of the incumbent Prime Minister. Most importantly the autonomous status applies to that part of the department which is Her Majesty's Court Service.

The complexity of the law is due to a number of reasons, none of which can wholly be blamed on the government and which ever political party is incumbent at the time. Firstly we have one of the oldest judicial systems in the world, the roots of which can be identified to pre-date Roman occupation. Add to that the process of amendments and adjustments that has built up of the years through motions of public interest, public safety, national safety, political engineering and so on and the complications increase. Take, for example the machinations of the reformation era and centuries in the face of invasion by a hostile military force. Furthermore, the process of simplification and streamlining of the law is both complicated and expensive and thus there is a tacit prohibition on doing so without serving a particular over riding interest. Finally there is the adoption of a position in the European Union and the adoption of the the post-war UNDHR, both of which have legal ramifications. Actually that's not really a finally, just my own limits.

To claim that the government complicates the law and hides it away would be to imply a millenia long campaign of obfuscation and persecution of such intricacy that no civil service has every had the wherewithal or competency to acheive.

The main issue now is that, in the digital age that we are now in, is that the law simply isn't accessible in a communication format that we are now familiar with. It's is, ultimately, still access in weighty tomes in intracticable language and reference notes compiled by specialists.

I once shoplifted a copy of the Police And Criminal Evidence for a friend who was studying law. I almost wanted to be caught just for the neatness of it.

I don't know what any of this crap is everyone else is spouting on about, but I would say always use a disguise.

Firstly we have one of the oldest judicial systems in the world, the roots of which can be identified to pre-date Roman occupation.

Not quite. Our legal system is founded on Saxon law and pre dated the Norman Conquest.

... for a friend who was studying law...

Will, lawyers don't have friends.

Not quite. Our legal system is founded on Saxon law and pre dated the Norman Conquest.

I guess it's debatable on definitions.

Whilst the process of court has changed radically and continuously, there has always been a process of elder judiciary applying prescribed action against breaches of nessecary social conventions.

Will, lawyers don't have friends.

You saying I'm a lawyer?

I guess it's debatable on definitions.

Whilst the process of court has changed radically and continuously, there has always been a process of elder judiciary applying prescribed action against breaches of nessecary social conventions.

well in that case, Australia/USA etc have one of the oldest legal systems in the world, too.

True, except that Australia didn't even exist as a name, let alone an identified nation until the 1500's and America hadn't been around for much before that. 1492 springs to mind.

England, on the other hand has been identified as a nation for a bit longer and certainly the name has existed since around the 6th century.

True, except that Australia didn't even exist as a name, let alone an identified nation until the 1500's and America hadn't been around for much before that. 1492 springs to mind.

England, on the other hand has been identified as a nation for a bit longer and certainly the name has existed since around the 6th century.

927 actually, but if the odd 1000 years is debatable, I am sure we can gloss over 400 years.

1492 was when Columbus sailed to the American continent. The USA did not become a country for almost 300 years after that.

I am beginning to understand Platini's frustrations.

You saying I'm a lawyer?

Will, I would never insult you like that.

Will, I would never insult you like that.

Note the diplomatic skills of the lawyer. How would you insult him then? Just curious. ;)

It took me six years to qualify as a lawyer. Most lawyers are, like me, highly specialised.

...and this is why Clive rides around on a Glider and not a Specialized.

Not really. In fact the relationship between government and law is a complicated one.

Up until recently, and still to a degree, the law was the reserve of the Lord Chancellor and his department (formerly the Lord Chancellors Department, then the Department for Constitutional Affairs) which has been effectively subsumed into the Ministry for Justice.

This department is quasi-autonomous from the government through a need to depoliticise the judicial process. As such the appointment to the position of Lord Chancellor is the responsiblity of the monarchal head of state, although this will currently be on the advice of the incumbent Prime Minister. Most importantly the autonomous status applies to that part of the department which is Her Majesty's Court Service.

The complexity of the law is due to a number of reasons, none of which can wholly be blamed on the government and which ever political party is incumbent at the time. Firstly we have one of the oldest judicial systems in the world, the roots of which can be identified to pre-date Roman occupation. Add to that the process of amendments and adjustments that has built up of the years through motions of public interest, public safety, national safety, political engineering and so on and the complications increase. Take, for example the machinations of the reformation era and centuries in the face of invasion by a hostile military force. Furthermore, the process of simplification and streamlining of the law is both complicated and expensive and thus there is a tacit prohibition on doing so without serving a particular over riding interest. Finally there is the adoption of a position in the European Union and the adoption of the the post-war UNDHR, both of which have legal ramifications. Actually that's not really a finally, just my own limits.

To claim that the government complicates the law and hides it away would be to imply a millenia long campaign of obfuscation and persecution of such intricacy that no civil service has every had the wherewithal or competency to acheive.

The main issue now is that, in the digital age that we are now in, is that the law simply isn't accessible in a communication format that we are now familiar with. It's is, ultimately, still access in weighty tomes in intracticable language and reference notes compiled by specialists.

I had to google four words.
Somehow the idea of studying law part time was perhaps a half-baked one.