archaic laws and rules

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

recycled

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
4,278
I think it is about time the archaic laws of this country need to be updated.
The only laws getting updated are those concerning cars and drivers why?
When the Highway Code was made no mobile phones existed. Now there are laws covering that.
Now there are proposals to increase fines to £100 and a whole host of car offences
. Laws that prevent courts from naming under aged kids because they are too young are archaic.
If someone decides to roll a man into a fire for a happy slap he should be dealt with and not protected.
When these laws were made, kids were not shooting each other.
Now that they are, the laws should move along with the time. or is there something with the law for car drivers only.
Does anyone else agree?
Rant over.
 
I think it is about time the archaic laws of this country need to be updated.
The only laws getting updated are those concerning cars and drivers why?


Does anyone else agree?
Rant over.

Not me; New laws


From that article - Creating a nuclear explosion was outlawed in 1998.

Just in case you thought you might get away with it.
 
Last edited:
good but the only ones rigorously and ruthlessly enforced are the motoring ones.
basically if there is only one copper left in the station ,i doubt if he will be arresting someone for a noisy alarm, i have called them several times for that, they could not be bothered, but if you are doing 30.0000000146 mph in a 30mph,(slight exaggeration) say your prayers
 
Guy makes a very valid point and the amount of new legislation is crazy, but has the law regarding rape been reviewed?

By this I mean; can a child under the age of 14 be convicted of rape?

Can a child under the age of ten commit crime?

These are laws that were passed when perhaps our children matured at an older age??

REgards
John
 
I hope I have explained my query but to clarify it.

It was always the law that a 13 year old boy that rapes a woman and makes her pregnant could not be charged with rape or I believe any other very serious sexual offence because the law of our land deemed that a 13 year old is NOT capable of performing this act. This was not debatable and not open to discussion. A child under the age of ten CANNOT by law be prosecuted for committing any criminal act, so we could give a nine year old a gun and let them run amok and they cannot commit a single crime! This to me needs reviewing in a sensible manner and not straight after a very serious crime has been committed.

I am NOT talking about the naming of children as this I believe is legislated for?

Regards
John
 
Or, as one ruling from the Army states"

Beds will be MADE UP as LAID DOWN in STANDING ORDERS !

Don't know if this is still used though.
 
Not me; New laws


From that article - Creating a nuclear explosion was outlawed in 1998.

Just in case you thought you might get away with it.

I shall sleep sounder in my bed tonight, knowing that the law protects me. And also that the stout yeoman of the constabulary will be on hand if required to issue me a crime reference number, should a miscreant create a nuclear explosion in my vicinity; thereby necessitating a claim on my buildings insurance..

Cheers,

Gaz
 
John,

I think you are correct - no criminal responsibility attaches for acts committed by any child under 10 years of age.

As to your example re rape, I think that arises from the time when we had a presumption that no child under 14 was criminally responsible, which was abolished sometime in the 90's.

That presumption was abolished well after the convictions of the 10 year old boys in the Bulger case - a case where the presumption was 'displaced'.

So now, I think anyone over 10 can theoretically be convicted of any offence, no-one under 10 of any offence.

In your example, [the gun], surely the person who gave the gun to the child would be liable for any offence he encouraged or instigated? - but not the child itself.
 
I shall sleep sounder in my bed tonight, knowing that the law protects me. And also that the stout yeoman of the constabulary will be on hand if required to issue me a crime reference number, should a miscreant create a nuclear explosion in my vicinity; thereby necessitating a claim on my buildings insurance..

Cheers,

Gaz

:D :D :D Nice one Gaz
 
In your example, [the gun], surely the person who gave the gun to the child would be liable for any offence he encouraged or instigated? - but not the child itself.
Thanks very much for the very helpful reply and yes in my example of the gun, the responsible adult would be responsible and the under age child would probably be put into care?

Thanks again
Regards
John
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom