Parents are not responsible enough

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

To care for friends children

And from the BBC

[Elliot Kane]

Even if they police officers, apparently, yes. Sooner this govt is gone the better.

[ss]

Big Brother just won't go away....

Are they just enforcing a 2006 law, or did they make it so they could enforce it..??

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

They did what this govenment's been so famous for doing - drafted a law, but didn't take the time to work out the loop holes/unintended consiquences.

[Elliot Kane]

Either that or the goal is to have a rule set in stone for everything. Which would not surprise me, with this lot.

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

which is the french system of law making, and IMO is to alien to our culture to be trying to introduce.

[Elliot Kane]

I think it's alien to ANY culture! Surely the French can't be THAT bad?

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

According to the french system of law making, if there isn't a specific law that covers what you've done, then it's not illegal.

Also in the french system of govenence, a magistrate is assigned to monitor each police case as it goes through, to ensure due process is followed. This means that when it finally gets to court (if it does) it's often a formality.

[Elliot Kane]

Sept 29, 2009 10:22:12 GMT Dark Phoenix Rising said:

According to the french system of law making, if there isn't a specific law that covers what you've done, then it's not illegal.

Um... Isn't that true of ANY legal system?

Also in the french system of govenence, a magistrate is assigned to monitor each police case as it goes through, to ensure due process is followed. This means that when it finally gets to court (if it does) it's often a formality.

That sounds like good sense. What am I missing that's so bad, here?

[Glance A'Lot]

Sept 29, 2009 11:02:53 GMT Elliot Kane said:

Sept 29, 2009 10:22:12 GMT Dark Phoenix Rising said:

According to the french system of law making, if there isn't a specific law that covers what you've done, then it's not illegal.

Um... Isn't that true of ANY legal system?

Also in the french system of govenence, a magistrate is assigned to monitor each police case as it goes through, to ensure due process is followed. This means that when it finally gets to court (if it does) it's often a formality.

That sounds like good sense. What am I missing that's so bad, here?

ad 1 - well, Prussia was renowned and infamous for anything being 'VERBOTEN" safe whatever explicitly was allowed.

ad 2 - in France there had been, at least in criminal investigations, the position of 'investigative judge', which, while efficient and practical, was critized as a lack of separation between executive and judicial powers.

I'm not sure whether that pertains to the topic however.

As a general comment - one should not apply the word of the law without considering its intent. And if the word defeats the intent, then something should be changed - fast.

Conceded, the latter is not an adjective generally attributed to bureaucrates. ;D

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

The english system of law is based on precedent, as such the laws that parliament draw up should be tight enough not to be abused, but not so prescriptive that the courts have no room to play, or for the law to evolve.

e.g. obsene publications act vs the extreme pornography act - In the former something comes under the act if it can be considered to "deprave and corrupt" the people that are likely to come across it, while in the latter, it doesn't matter if society moves on, the items in the act will still be illegal, and require a new law to change it.

[Elliot Kane]

Ah! You mean no room for interpretation of the law? OK, that system DOES suck!

Not sure 'investigative judge' sounds all that good, either. Where one person is judge AND jury, you have something perilously close to a police state.

[Glance A'Lot]

Well, not judge and jury - rather police with judicial powers (like search warrants).

The investigating judge is NOT in the formal trial, respectively doesn't sentence - but, as far as I know, the position has been abolished recently.

[kitty]

I don't get the article - two mothers shared childcare for the others kids and that's forbidden because it's counted as childminding, yes?

[Elliot Kane]

Yeah, Kit. They aren't registered as childminders on the official UK register, so because of one badly drafted law they aren't considered capable of looking after children. Even though they are both Mothers. Go figure...

[Hand-E-Food]

Oct 1, 2009 19:06:18 GMT kitty said:

I don't get the article - two mothers shared childcare for the others kids and that's forbidden because it's counted as childminding, yes?

It's more that the mothers looked after each other's kids in return for a reward. I'll look after you child in return for free child care. Stupid given that all parties involved are more than happy with the arrangement and know the state of each other's houses.

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

it's even more stupid if you consider that if they had swapped door keys, this whole thing would have been legal.