x404.co.uk http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/ |
|
Horrendous Harmen Act http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=10824 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | cloaked_wolf [ Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:46 pm ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Horrendous Harmen Act | |||||||||
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-Act.html
|
Author: | Linux_User [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:47 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Horrendous Harmen Act |
Of course anyone who reads Private Eye will know that Paul Dacre - editor of the Daily Mail - will have good cause to oppose legislation such as this. Hell, even his Wikipedia entry holds information on his controversial management style. Curiously, the Guardian states that "ANYONE" can not in fact sue for "ANYTHING". Additionally, the Mail fails to mention that parts of the Act will not even be brought into force. Of course, I'm not surprised given the Daily Fail's reputation. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/ ... er-pay-gap http://careers.guardian.co.uk/careers-b ... uality-act |
Author: | Amnesia10 [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:02 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Horrendous Harmen Act |
As this is the Daily Fail why is this news? |
Author: | jonbwfc [ Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:38 am ] | |||||||||
Post subject: | Re: Horrendous Harmen Act | |||||||||
while I agree wit the rest of what you say - and there's definitely a huge degree of 'It's political correctness GONE MAD' in the daily fails reporting, the bare fact is if it's in the Act, it already has been 'brought into force'. Any part of an act can be applied at legal process at any point once it's an act (rather than a bill). It's not like there's some further 'implementation stage'. Once it's on the books, lawyers can argue for it in court and people can use it for legal redress. It's an oft used trick by government to bring something in and say 'Of course, we'll never/hardly ever actually use it' and then later you find out they actually use it all the bloody time. Stop & Search, RIPA.. it happens far too often. Plus it has to be said the wider ranging the powers of the act, the more likely there is for the 'law of unintended consequences' to get involved. As a famous protester said a few years ago "I don't want to hear that they won't do it, I want to hear that they can't do it." Also, from a purely logical viewpoint, any part of an act which you don't plan to enforce shouldn't be in the act in the first place. It's wasteful and it over complicates the statute books. It's also a sign of, generally speaking, badly written law that's been done in a hurry that almost always comes a cropper in the end. Jon |
Author: | Linux_User [ Sun Oct 03, 2010 6:40 pm ] | ||||||||||||||||||
Post subject: | Re: Horrendous Harmen Act | ||||||||||||||||||
No, that's not correct. Parts of (or even whole) Acts can in fact be passed by Parliament without being brought into force - most Acts will have sections that come into force upon receiving Royal Assent, but some will also have sections (or even the whole Act) which only come into force when a Commencement Order is made via Statutory Instrument. For example, the Easter Act of 1928 has yet to be brought into force, and there are numerous Acts from the Labour Government where sections have yet to be brought into force (the Enterprise Act springs to mind). The Human Rights Act of 1998 didn't come into force until 2000, the Freedom of Information Act (2000) until 2005 etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Act_1928 |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |