Ministers' Expenses: This is Beyond a Joke

[moorfield]

I tried running a few names through a porn star name generator :

Tony Blair - Don Looselips
Gordon Brown - Gunnar Slamm
Harriet Harman - Slappy Strokum

Hmm, not bad. I wonder how Geoff Hoon comes out:

Geoff Hoon - Geoff Hoon

Tony Blair = Tory in lab
Geoff Hoon = Oh, gone off!

[centurian]

It is misleading for you to describe such a situation in those terms, it begs the question: by using the word "crimes", you are asking for your claim to be granted before discussion.

However, you make a good point: I might be against retrospective legislation because it is wrong in principle, but you can probably stir up Joe Public into approving of it when it brings about something that he wants; or disapprove of it in the opposite case.

I actually toned down my original post, but to pose a couple of much more loaded, emotive questions...

Are you saying that you support any paedphile that can find a loophole in the law, and you would campaign for his rights to be able to abuse children without any punishment (PS. That statement could be made even more loaded/emotive)

What if your mortgage company found a loophole meaning they could simply take your house off you and kick you out on the streets (even if you are not in arrears) and you would receive nothing. Would you support retrospective legislation to "realign the situation to what people believe to be the the current status quo" or just shrug and accept that it was within the rules at the time.


Okay, these are two very extreme examples and I think they are close to 0% likely to occur. But the point is that any absolute statement (i.e. "no retrospective legislation in any cases") always has it's limits - it's just a case of whether you've gone far enough to hit them.

To re-iterate, I don't think BN66 is anywhere near those extremes, but I don't see the world in a black-and-white fashion either.

[expat]

I actually toned down my original post, but to pose a couple of much more loaded, emotive questions...

Are you saying that you support any paedphile that can find a loophole in the law, and you would campaign for his rights to be able to abuse children without any punishment (PS. That statement could be made even more loaded/emotive)

What if your mortgage company found a loophole meaning they could simply take your house off you and kick you out on the streets (even if you are not in arrears) and you would receive nothing. Would you support retrospective legislation to "realign the situation to what people believe to be the the current status quo" or just shrug and accept that it was within the rules at the time.


Okay, these are two very extreme examples and I think they are close to 0% likely to occur. But the point is that any absolute statement (i.e. "no retrospective legislation in any cases") always has it's limits - it's just a case of whether you've gone far enough to hit them.

To re-iterate, I don't think BN66 is anywhere near those extremes, but I don't see the world in a black-and-white fashion either.

What's a "loophole"? A law that doesn't say what you thought it should say? So you would change it retrospectively so that it doesn't matter what the law said, it acts as you would like it to.

There is a reason why that is seen as a very slippery slope, a slope away from rule of law, and towards arbitrary authority: because that is exactly what you are proposing.

[Cyberman]

Another little known fact is that all stamp duty on second property purchases for MPs is refundable. No wonder they don't mind sticking up this market-killing tax in just about every budget !!

[centurian]

What's a "loophole"? A law that doesn't say what you thought it should say? So you would change it retrospectively so that it doesn't matter what the law said, it acts as you would like it to.

There is a reason why that is seen as a very slippery slope, a slope away from rule of law, and towards arbitrary authority: because that is exactly what you are proposing.

You're using semantics to dodge the point.

Okay, in my original post instead of the word "loophole", use the term "Previously unexploited point of law" or "Obscure point of law" and the point of my post holds true - what would your personal limit be before you would change your viewpoint.


But yes, if 99.9999% of people believe that's how a law should work, but someone can identify a "loophole" (or whatever term you use), then I simply don't have a problem with the elected representatives retrospectively "clarifying" it. I'm truly sorry if that offends you, but that's how I feel about it and I'm entitled to my own opinion

That doesn't mean I feel it should happen in every case. In fact I feel it should only happen in truly exceptional cases (and I would be prepared to consider the notion that BN66 should not be exceptional). But I just don't subscribe to the idea that it should never happen because there are always extreme exceptions to every case/scenario.

Life isn't about the 1s and 0s that most of us on this board deal with every day.

[AtW]

I liked it how he lived for security reasons in another place but rented his house to someone else - nice decoy, I wonder if that renter knew the score!

[expat]

You're using semantics to dodge the point.

Okay, in my original post instead of the word "loophole", use the term "Previously unexploited point of law" or "Obscure point of law" and the point of my post holds true - what would your personal limit be before you would change your viewpoint.


But yes, if 99.9999% of people believe that's how a law should work, but someone can identify a "loophole" (or whatever term you use), then I simply don't have a problem with the elected representatives retrospectively "clarifying" it. I'm truly sorry if that offends you, but that's how I feel about it and I'm entitled to my own opinion

That doesn't mean I feel it should happen in every case. In fact I feel it should only happen in truly exceptional cases (and I would be prepared to consider the notion that BN66 should not be exceptional). But I just don't subscribe to the idea that it should never happen because there are always extreme exceptions to every case/scenario.

Life isn't about the 1s and 0s that most of us on this board deal with every day.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and I do see the reason in it. Im am merely expressing my contrary opinion. I could reasonably level some of your charges back at you: you say that I am using sematics to dodge a point, but I say that you are using it to pretend that your point is made.

in my original post instead of the word "loophole", use the term "Previously unexploited point of law" or "Obscure point of law" and the point of my post holds true

Yes indeed; but replace "loophole" with "unintended statement of the law" and it is not nearly so self-evident that it must be changed retrospectively. If you remove the emotive language from your argument then it falls down.

As for life not being about 1s and 0s: sometimes it is; that is called "principle".


Note: I do not of course mean the "principle" that it's morally acceptabl for someone to do wrong because the law mistakenly failed in its intention to outlaw this or that deed; I mean the principle that the rule of law demands that the government and the courts rule by the law, not by arbitrary judgements. That is a vital principle, and worth sacrificing a few individual court cases to, because it is at the root of our democracy and freedom. Some principles are worth the inconvenience.

[centurian]

As for life not being about 1s and 0s: sometimes it is; that is called "principle".

And I do appreciate people have their principles.

Maybe I have a negative view of the world, but I find principles are bounded by the situations and scenarios people are in - they sound hard and fast, but they are not immovable objects - it is merely just a case of how much pressure needs to be applied before they get moved - a bit like "code freezes".

[minestrone]

They really have been ripping the Michael out of it. They run a government which has tax employees that will quite happily argue my mobile phone expenses but get to buy second homes which they never use then get to make profit from it.

I do not argue against the right to pay for a second home for someone who lives up north but London MPs should not have a second home.

What really pisses me off is that they are saying that the person who leaked this information should be charged.

[Doggy Styles]

Tony Blair = Tory in lab

complete and utter c***