• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

having a blonde moment

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by SandyDown
    In a moment of insanity you may think its right, but have your daughter or your wife/sister standing next to you when you are doing it.. then you'll instantly know its not right
    Say I firmly believe it's right. In fact, I've raised my daughter to be a nudist, because it's so natural.
    Autom...Sprow...Canna...Tik banna...Sandwol...But no sera smee

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by WageSlave
      Say I firmly believe it's right. In fact, I've raised my daughter to be a nudist, because it's so natural.
      yes but have you dangled your willy at her(your daughter)??? if so then you are Pedophile my dear

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by SandyDown
        yes but have you dangled your willy at her(your daughter)??? if so then you are Pedophile my dear
        Hmmm....wouldn't say that necessarily follows. But what the heck. I don't have a point anyway, just bored
        The moral of the story is; don't dangle the old fella in the frozen foods department of Tesco
        Autom...Sprow...Canna...Tik banna...Sandwol...But no sera smee

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by Rebecca Loos
          Sorry guys, there is one thing I just cannot understand: how can retrospective legislation be valid?
          It isn't in criminal law, according to Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (quoted reluctantly, because I don't believe the UK should have signed up to the wretched thing) and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

          The last example I recall of blatant retrospective criminal liability is about ten years ago when some guy raped his wife, at a time when at common law this was not considered rape. I forget the exact details, but after the case came to court (as assault?) the House of Lords ruled that this principle no longer applied and that a retrospective charge of rape was justifed. Morally perhaps slightly so, but a disgusting pervertion of legal principle all the same.

          In taxation matters the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 allows taxes to be raised before legislative authority is given (although I'm not sure where the government would stand if they failed to obtain that authority).
          Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

          Comment


            #25
            I think generally it is recognised that laws should not be retrospective. I guess more recently humans rights law would also make it difficult. The counter-examples I know of are (surprise surprise) in the area of tax.

            In the mid-1980s a tax case was appealed and to the surprise of everyone (Inland Revenue, lawyers and accountants) it was held that the law actually said something different to what they all thought it did. The law was amended with a couple of years retrospection to say what everyone believed it had said in the first place. This didn't really hurt anyone, because they had already all been complying with what the law was amended to say.

            Secondly (and I bet this is what is really being talked about here) towards the end of last year the government anounced that tax-avoidance schemes would from then on be shut down retrospectively. If you assume that people know what a scheme is and when they are about to use one, then you could say that they have been warned in advance, so althought the law will technically be retrospective, the retrospection doesn't really cause unfairness. The government also made it compulsory for tax-avoiders and their advisers to inform them immediately when using a scheme, and (I think) provide them with full details of it. The bean-counters main complaint about this is that it is not clear-cut to decide what a scheme is.

            Comment


              #26
              The only reason I don't dangle my willy in Tescos is that I could not stand the shame of knowing I would probably do it for hours and nobody would notice.

              I agree totally (with R's original post) it is totally undemocratic that anyone should be penalised for following a lawful activity. One of the many things that sucks about government and the law. (Come to think of it, all of it sucks except para 18, section 1V of the Importation Of wild Birds Act 1987).
              bloggoth

              If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
              John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by BlasterBates
                I'm afraid not Rebecca...

                if the government brings in a law that people shorter than 5' 8'' must pay a tax retrospectively for the last 300 years then that's the law.

                I actually think that such a law is a good idea

                Where you have a chance, is when it contradicts another law.

                By the way what did they change?
                Is that with or without your shoes on?

                There used to be a "convention" that no law was backdated, but that seems to have been abandoned by the current government
                Last edited by hattra; 22 July 2005, 13:28.
                Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by Rebecca Loos
                  Guess away!

                  OK, seriously: let's say that you are working and paying your taxes as per legislation at a given date.
                  Then the IR changes the rules (note: it is not a re-interpretation of existing laws I am talking about, but a change in the law itself) and decides that it will be retroactively applied. If you are caught by the new rules, for a period where it was legal, surely that can be challenged?!
                  Sounds like you need to take this to the European Court and tell them this is a infringement of your human rights. I guarantee you that the Euro Court will find in your favour!

                  Mailman

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Sounds like you need to take this to the European Court and tell them this is a infringement of your human rights. I guarantee you that the Euro Court will find in your favour!

                    Mailman
                    Cool...... I am saved then.
                    Chico, what time is it?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X