Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who
happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a
13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
So how does the law deal with someone who insists on being a "woman"
who puts their penis inside a girl without their consent ?
All this "debate" has done is ensure that I now don't trust reporting in criminal cases. Although my spidey senses have been honed to spot the
elision around pronouns and other parts of speech to spot a trans actor
at the heart.
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who
happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a
13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who
happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a
13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape. So how does the law deal with someone who insists on being a "woman" who puts their penis inside a girl without their consent ?
All this "debate" has done is ensure that I now don't trust reporting in criminal cases. Although my spidey senses have been honed to spot the
elision around pronouns and other parts of speech to spot a trans actor
at the heart.
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24930914.woman-accused-sex-assault- children-appears-court
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvqu84t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who >>>happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a >>>13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a
penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvqu84t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who
happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a
13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a
penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who
happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a
13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
So how does the law deal with
someone who insists on being a "woman" who puts their penis inside a girl without their consent ?
All this "debate" has done is ensure that I now don't trust reporting in criminal cases. Although my spidey senses have been honed to spot the
elision around pronouns and other parts of speech to spot a trans actor
at the heart.
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24930914.woman-accused-sex-assault- children-appears-court
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who
happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a
13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a
penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvqu84t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who >>>>happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a >>>>13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a >>penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
Try reading what you just quoted.
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvque13.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvqu84t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who >>>>>happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a >>>>>13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a >>>penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
Try reading what you just quoted.
I did so I could decide what to quote, it's pretty clear to me.
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvque13.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvqu84t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who >>>>>>happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a >>>>>>13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a >>>>penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice." >>>> >>>>https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
Try reading what you just quoted.
I did so I could decide what to quote, it's pretty clear to me.
But somehow you didn't spot the logic error - that the purported
conclusion of the sentence does not follow from its premise? It
assumes that a woman cannot have a penis, which is legally false.
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvque13.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message >>>><slrnvqu84t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who >>>>>>happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into >>>>>>a
13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a >>>>penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice." >>>> >>>>https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
Try reading what you just quoted.
I did so I could decide what to quote, it's pretty clear to me.
But somehow you didn't spot the logic error - that the purported
conclusion of the sentence does not follow from its premise? It
assumes that a woman cannot have a penis, which is legally false.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvquu7t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvque13.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvqu84t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who >>>>>>>happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a >>>>>>>13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a >>>>>penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice." >>>>> >>>>>https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
Try reading what you just quoted.
I did so I could decide what to quote, it's pretty clear to me.
But somehow you didn't spot the logic error - that the purported
conclusion of the sentence does not follow from its premise? It
assumes that a woman cannot have a penis, which is legally false.
Logic has nothing whatsoever with the truth or falsity of either
premises or conclusions.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvquu7t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvque13.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvqu84t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who >>>>>>>happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a >>>>>>>13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a >>>>>penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice." >>>>> >>>>>https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
Try reading what you just quoted.
I did so I could decide what to quote, it's pretty clear to me.
But somehow you didn't spot the logic error - that the purported
conclusion of the sentence does not follow from its premise? It
assumes that a woman cannot have a penis, which is legally false.
Logic has nothing whatsoever with the truth or falsity of either
premises or conclusions.
All women have beards*. Socrates had a beard. Therefore Socrates was a
woman.
A perfectly valid argument.
bb
* Doubtless due on the Statute Books by 2028
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvquu7t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvque13.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message >>>>><slrnvqu84t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who >>>>>>>happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into >>>>>>>a
13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a >>>>>penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice." >>>>> >>>>>https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
Try reading what you just quoted.
I did so I could decide what to quote, it's pretty clear to me.
But somehow you didn't spot the logic error - that the purported
conclusion of the sentence does not follow from its premise? It
assumes that a woman cannot have a penis, which is legally false.
I expect they are working on common sense definition, women do not
have penises.
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvquu7t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvque13.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message
<slrnvqu84t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who >>>>>>> happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into >>>>>>> a
13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a >>>>> penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice." >>>>>
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
Try reading what you just quoted.
I did so I could decide what to quote, it's pretty clear to me.
But somehow you didn't spot the logic error - that the purported
conclusion of the sentence does not follow from its premise? It
assumes that a woman cannot have a penis, which is legally false.
I expect they are working on common sense definition, women do not have penises.
On 14 Feb 2025 at 18:59:22 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvquu7t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvque13.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message
<slrnvqu84t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who >>>>>>>> happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into >>>>>>>> a
13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a >>>>>> penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice." >>>>>>
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
Try reading what you just quoted.
I did so I could decide what to quote, it's pretty clear to me.
But somehow you didn't spot the logic error - that the purported
conclusion of the sentence does not follow from its premise? It
assumes that a woman cannot have a penis, which is legally false.
I expect they are working on common sense definition, women do not have
penises.
Then why did the same parliament pass the GRA? To say that they can.
By the way, a fundamental problem with the GRA is working its way
through the courts and will probably result in Parliament having to
amend it for human rights reasons; apparently there is no provision in
it for a person to change their mind after receiving a GRC (gender recognition certificate) and legally go back to their original sex.
People being what they are it seems an absurd omission not to have anticipated this problem arising.
On 2025-02-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2025 at 18:59:22 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvquu7t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message <slrnvque13.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 in message
<slrnvqu84t.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who >>>>>>>>> happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into >>>>>>>>> a
13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
That isn't a "legal fact" at all.
CPP guidelines:
"Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a >>>>>>> penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
Try reading what you just quoted.
I did so I could decide what to quote, it's pretty clear to me.
But somehow you didn't spot the logic error - that the purported
conclusion of the sentence does not follow from its premise? It
assumes that a woman cannot have a penis, which is legally false.
I expect they are working on common sense definition, women do not have >>> penises.
Then why did the same parliament pass the GRA? To say that they can.
By the way, a fundamental problem with the GRA is working its way
through the courts and will probably result in Parliament having to
amend it for human rights reasons; apparently there is no provision in
it for a person to change their mind after receiving a GRC (gender
recognition certificate) and legally go back to their original sex.
People being what they are it seems an absurd omission not to have
anticipated this problem arising.
I imagine they would have expected people to re-run the process
in the opposite direction, to undo it.
On 14 Feb 2025 at 20:33:10 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
By the way, a fundamental problem with the GRA is working its way
through the courts and will probably result in Parliament having to
amend it for human rights reasons; apparently there is no provision in
it for a person to change their mind after receiving a GRC (gender
recognition certificate) and legally go back to their original sex.
People being what they are it seems an absurd omission not to have
anticipated this problem arising.
I imagine they would have expected people to re-run the process
in the opposite direction, to undo it.
IANAL of course, but my understanding is that some wording in the GRA
makes this impossible. Otherwise presumably they would have.
On 2025-02-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2025 at 20:33:10 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
By the way, a fundamental problem with the GRA is working its way
through the courts and will probably result in Parliament having to
amend it for human rights reasons; apparently there is no provision
in it for a person to change their mind after receiving a GRC (gender
recognition certificate) and legally go back to their original sex.
People being what they are it seems an absurd omission not to have
anticipated this problem arising.
I imagine they would have expected people to re-run the process in the
opposite direction, to undo it.
IANAL of course, but my understanding is that some wording in the GRA
makes this impossible. Otherwise presumably they would have.
I don't immediately see anything in it to make it impossible. Perhaps it
is one of those situations where judges interpret a statue in a way
which would come as a great surprise to the people who wrote it.
On 2025-02-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2025 at 20:33:10 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
By the way, a fundamental problem with the GRA is working its way
through the courts and will probably result in Parliament having to
amend it for human rights reasons; apparently there is no provision in >>>> it for a person to change their mind after receiving a GRC (gender
recognition certificate) and legally go back to their original sex.
People being what they are it seems an absurd omission not to have
anticipated this problem arising.
I imagine they would have expected people to re-run the process
in the opposite direction, to undo it.
IANAL of course, but my understanding is that some wording in the GRA
makes this impossible. Otherwise presumably they would have.
I don't immediately see anything in it to make it impossible. Perhaps
it is one of those situations where judges interpret a statue in a way
which would come as a great surprise to the people who wrote it.
IANAL of course, but my understanding is that some wording in the GRA
makes this impossible. Otherwise presumably they would have.
I don't immediately see anything in it to make it impossible. Perhaps it
is one of those situations where judges interpret a statue in a way
which would come as a great surprise to the people who wrote it.
Given how many alleged barristers there are in the commons, and we
actually have former judges in the house of lords it takes a special
level of incompetence to achieve that.
To the degree that as a "customer" of parliament, I would want a refund
in my taxes for them getting it so wrong.
On 14/02/2025 10:31 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
Or not.
In another angle on the trans "debate", it seems that a "woman" who
happens to have a penis is being charged with putting that penis into a
13 year old girl.
It's a legal fact that only "men" can rape.
It isn't. Not even with the new-ish legal definition of rape.
A woman who assists a rapist to commit the crime (presumably in one or
more of a number of different ways), is guilty of rape.
So how does the law deal with
someone who insists on being a "woman" who puts their penis inside a girl
without their consent ?
As a rapist?
All this "debate" has done is ensure that I now don't trust reporting in
criminal cases. Although my spidey senses have been honed to spot the
elision around pronouns and other parts of speech to spot a trans actor
at the heart.
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24930914.woman-accused-sex-assault-
children-appears-court
A woman who, acting alone, used a device to penetrate the vagina of a
female, of any age, is guilty of rape.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape
Section 1, Sexual Offences Act 2003
QUOTE
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
    (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of
    another person (B) with his penis,
    (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
    (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to
all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain
whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on
conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
ENDQUOTE
Don't worry about the use of "his" (especially given that the offender
is referred to as "person").
According to Copilot:
QUOTE:
The Interpretation Act 1978 provides guidance on this matter. According
to Section 6 of the Act:
"In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears, words importing the masculine gender shall include females."
ENDQUOTE
In message <vopp3a$1nfbe$20@dont-email.me>, at 10:08:42 on Sat, 15 Feb
2025, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
IANAL of course, but my understanding is that some wording in the GRA
makes this impossible. Otherwise presumably they would have.
I don't immediately see anything in it to make it impossible. Perhaps it >>> is one of those situations where judges interpret a statue in a way
which would come as a great surprise to the people who wrote it.
Given how many alleged barristers there are in the commons, and we
actually have former judges in the house of lords it takes a special
level of incompetence to achieve that.
Many of the barristers in the Commons have demonstrated shocking
ignorance of the law,
when I've had reason to be involved in
discussions. As for the Judges, they don't generally get involved in the day-to-day scrutiny of every bill going through the House of Lords. That would be a fulltime job several times over.
The way it normally works is "pressure groups" examine bills which they
have an interest in, and if they feel amendments are required will
approach individual members (mainly of the Lords) to persuade them to
support [and in the limit speak in favour of] them.
Again, that's a lot of work, and sadly many of the people doing it
aren't very good it at.
To the degree that as a "customer" of parliament, I would want a
refund in my taxes for them getting it so wrong.
You aren't a customer of Parliament, even if could make a tenuous case
for being a customer of the Government.
On 15/02/2025 12:24 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vopp3a$1nfbe$20@dont-email.me>, at 10:08:42 on Sat, 15 Feb
2025, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
IANAL of course, but my understanding is that some wording in the GRA >>>>> makes this impossible. Otherwise presumably they would have.
I don't immediately see anything in it to make it impossible. Perhaps it >>>> is one of those situations where judges interpret a statue in a way
which would come as a great surprise to the people who wrote it.
Given how many alleged barristers there are in the commons, and we
actually have former judges in the house of lords it takes a special
level of incompetence to achieve that.
Many of the barristers in the Commons have demonstrated shocking
ignorance of the law,
Practitioners tend to specialise.
No-one can have a complete enough knowledge of "the law" to be able to >scritinise every Parliamantary Bill unaided.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:33:37 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,398 |