More Dumb English/Scottish laws!

In England and Scotland

A life sentance is 25 years (like in Australia)
It is illegal to sell Cigarrettes to under 16's (but there is no law to stop the children from Smoking them, or giving them to children)
It is illegal for shops to sell a single cigarrett on it's own. (This is here to try and stop children from buying cigarrettes, as it is preumbed they would not be able to afford full packs)
Approximatly 60-70% of petrol (gas) prices is Tax.
It is Illegal to honk the horn of your car, while the car is parked.
It is illegal to deface the queens head on a coin or banknote.

In England (i'm not sure about Scotland) there are complicated Alchahol laws, though I think they may be going to change

It is illegal to give an under 5 Alchahol
You may give an over 5 Alchahol though not let them get drunk
Children under 16 are not allowed in pubs, but are allowed in pub gardens and resteraunts ajacent (and often ajoined) to the pub.
16-17 year olds are allowed to buy shandy and soft drinks in a pub.
16-17 year olds are allowed proper beer and other Alchahol drinks in a pub if the purchaser is 18 or over and it is to be drunk with a full meal.

Betting shops must cover their windows so people can not see in.
The prosecution in a trial do not by law have to give any evidence recieved to the defence (this lead to many mis-carrages of justice and may be changed in some way)
It is illegal to publish hard porn, but not to own it. (I don't think this is dumb)

------------------
In France they almost banned English words from their language! If they had Le Shuttle would not have been allowed to be called this.

This led to a proposal by an English MP to ban all French words, if both sides had introduced this law what would the cross channel ferry companies, airways and the Le Shuttle of called themselves?

[This message has been edited by Andy Cryer (edited July 02, 2000).]

Yea, that gas tax is really bad. Even though us Americans are complaining about the "high" gas prices, from the supposed "gas shortage" (I guess no one ever knew that the US really has a stockpile of oil/petroleum that they are reluctant to use), the price of gas in England is twice, maybe three times more.

The law on betting shops is now been repeeled and they are allowed to have open windows.not many men happy about this change in the law as now their wives can see them having a bet.
lol.

------------------
Sony

In scotland you can be proven guilty with not enough evidence to convict. The crime still goes on your permanent record. Surely this means you are not guilty if they can't prove it.

------------------
Man who stands on toilet high on pot!

I stand corrected...the gas price in England right now is between $5 and $6 per gallon (a lot more than it is where I live in the US). The citizens in the UK are trying to get the tax on the gasoline lowered, but the government is claiming that the tax is for some reason irreplaceable in terms of generating revenue. Go figure

Gas prices in the US are relatively cheap as a car is seen as a virtual necessity. Other, more densely populated, developed nations tend to have superior public transport networks, making cars a luxury, so they (and their fuel) are taxed as such.

------------------
ŽO‰YˆÀ?j

In the UK they let public transport run down and now are not putting money back into public services, so now there is no real alternative to the car in most cases

Why is it that UK railways are expected to turn a profit when motorways and highways are not?
Dumb.
It costs 500 Yen to travel from Yokohama to Tokyo by train (about 30 mins.), but 1,200 Yen to make the same journey in the comparative luxury of a car.
I think that's fair enough.

------------------
ŽO‰YˆÀ?j

The difference is you have to pay for your car, and not the train.

------------------
Co-Owner
Bueno Technologies

If A member of paliment says "I Spy Strangers" during a sitting of the souse of commons, everybody must leave the building except for the MPs, and the sitting continues in private. I think this dates back to the civil war in the 1600s when the King sent spys to parliment. Somebody said it fairly recently, and it still gets enforced...

Originally posted by EvilPunk:
If A member of paliment says "I Spy Strangers" during a sitting of the souse of commons, everybody must leave the building except for the MPs, and the sitting continues in private. I think this dates back to the civil war in the 1600s when the King sent spys to parliment. Somebody said it fairly recently, and it still gets enforced...

The "Strangers" rule is much more recent than that. It dated from WWII and was to counteract spies from being able to listen in to the policies and speeches. Now it is used as a method of filibustering.

The petrol duty is kept high by various protocols (Kyoto being a major one) which the US disobeys. In my opinion petrol duty should be higher.

The tories sold off the public transport architecture (apart from the rail which was merely franchised) and so petrol duty can't be diverted there.

The protests were against every democratic principle and I condemn them here.

On another note, the alcohol and smoking rules are sensible. It allows the use of certain drugs should the parent or guardian deem it permissable. Pubs aren't drinking places anyway (they are social houses) which is why the landlords have the drunkeness rules.

The TV license is sensible too and it gives us 6 channels without commercial interests (BBC ONE, BBC TWO, BBC Choice, BBC News 24, BBC Parliament, BBC Knowledge). The BBC has been responsible for some of the best programmes in the UK (Monty Python, Ab Fab, Blackadder, Red Dwarf, Have I Got News for You, Dinnerladies and many more)

*breathes heavily*

Sorry for the long post. Some laws may seem stupid but even now they have very good reasons. The TV Licence is enforced viciously by using Tempest detector vans, it is hardly dumb.

[Scotslaw]

Originally posted by tripod2000:
In scotland you can be proven guilty with not enough evidence to convict. The crime still goes on your permanent record. Surely this means you are not guilty if they can't prove it.



Care to give an example, cos I can't think of an instance of that happening, especially since scotland has far more stringent corroboration requirements than england does. i've just seen far too many obviously guilty people get off because there wasn't enough evidence to convict. are you perhaps thinking of the not proven verdict, where there isn't enough evidence to convict you, but the court still reckons you did it? The effect is still the same as a not guilty verdict, as the person goes free with no criminal record, but a not proven verdict is a stain on the character as it always leaves that air of suspicion.

The penalty for murder in the UK is far less severe because there is not so much of a problem as in America. This is probably because killing Welsh is legal in Chester, and killing Liverpuddlians is legal in Bournemouth. This cuts down on the number of killings that the courts can actually punish the assailant for, because most of them are legal.

As the the thing about the petrol, our country would be f**king poor if it wasn't for the fact that they tax us to sh*t.

Actuely Britain is one of the lowest taxed countries in Europe, if not the lowest. I think income tax may even be lower than it is in the US.

[Scotslaw]

Originally posted by Andy Cryer:
I think income tax may even be lower than it is in the US.

We get taxed at 10% on the first £1500, 23% on £1500 to £28 000, and 40% on £28 000+. What are the rates in the US? We also get charged VAT (value added tax) on most items at 17.5% (except on domestic fuel, which is taxed at 5%) with very few VAT exempt or zero-rated items.

Then there's capital gains tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty (taxation on documents), vehicle excise duties (road tax), national insurance contributions, insurance premium tax, landfill tax, and lets not forget highway robbery tax, aka the tax on petrol, currently running somewhere about the 60% mark (I think, but don't quote me on that!).

Viva la fuel protesters!

Man, England does have MUCH more taxes than the US. The state taxes are around 5% per person, depending on income, and federal tax is, on average about 20%. The big thing is, we get deductions for LOTS of things, like children, education expenses, etc., so many people only pay 15% or less for both taxes combined. The tax that most foreigners find odd about the US is that our sales tax isn't included in the price of an item, so something that may cost $1, is actually $1.07 after sales tax. The gas tax however, is much lower in the US, with the price now being about $1.50 per gallon, max, which is equivalent to less than one pound in Britain.

------------------
Co-Owner
Bueno Technologies

Originally posted by Jeff:
Man, England does have MUCH more taxes than the US. The state taxes are around 5% per person, depending on income, and federal tax is, on average about 20%. The big thing is, we get deductions for LOTS of things, like children, education expenses, etc., so many people only pay 15% or less for both taxes combined. The tax that most foreigners find odd about the US is that our sales tax isn't included in the price of an item, so something that may cost $1, is actually $1.07 after sales tax. The gas tax however, is much lower in the US, with the price now being about $1.50 per gallon, max, which is equivalent to less than one pound in Britain.


There are reasons why taxes in england are higher. Last I heard the U.S had 300 million people? (I'm not 100% on that) England has about 60 million people whold you rather have 1 pound from 1 person or 1 penny from 1000 people? There are diffeerences in Government spending but on average there is more spending per head in England than the U.S so the higher tax rate is needed (there is no NHS in the U.S is there?)of corse this dosn't meen I have to like it!


------------------
'Never build a dungeon you wouldn't be happy to spend the night in yourself, the world would be a happier place if more people rememberd that.'
Lord Vetinari
(Guards! Guards!- Terry Pratchet)

If there are more ppl in the USA there are more people to provide for thus taxes should be higher. But in the US they do not have an NHS and the don't have to give £20 million a day to the EU (Britain being a net looser plus a £35 billion anual trade deficit with the rest of the EU). We also have to pay the pensions of an ageing population.

Fuel Tax = 75% cost of fuel

these figures are from http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/rates/index.htm

This is the tax on income
£0 - £1500 10%
£1501 – £28000 22%
over £28000 40%

[b]allouncesp[\b]
Personal allouence (???)
Marrage couples allounce (removed)was 10%
Childrens Tax Credit
widow’s bereavement allowance
Blind persons allouance
Loan relief
Tax relief on mortgages (abolished)


other taxes
Capital gains tax (10% TO 40%)
rates for trust (25%)
inheritance tax (40%)
National Insurance (10% aprox and from what i can understand)
tax rate on savings (20% of interest)
tax rate of dividends (10% of income from em)
Stamp duty (to complicated to put here. See http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/rates/stamprates.htm (has nothing to do with postal stamps)

VAT (17.5%) (not on fuel & clothing, not sure about food)

This government is a Stealth Tax and Spend government, instead of increasing income tax like Labour governments usually do, they have abolished allounces, put tax duty up on fuel and put taxes here there and everywhere.

Under Labour
The average Briton pays £350 more every year on petrol or desiel.
University grants scrapped in favour of loans and you have top pay part of the tuition fees.
Also the other taxes have added somewhere between £600(i believe) off an average families budget every year.

If they cut the red tape there would be more money, there is too much paperwork at the moment, if it was cut we would see more police officers (as they would not be at their desks filling out forms all day) and would save money overall.

Also in the USA you have to pay for the whole medical cost of hospital treatment, full tuition fee costs for university, (here its something like £1000 out of £30000 that you pay). And there are other things we pay through are taxes for that the people over the big pond have to pay directly for.


[This message has been edited by Andy Cryer (edited October 07, 2000).]

Actually we don't pay our full cost of tuition for universities, as long as you attend a state-school in your home state. A part of your state income tax provides for this. State schools average no more than $5000 a year for tuition, while private schools can range beyond $30,000. Also, in my home state of Georgia, there is a scholorship program called "Hope" which covers all tuition expenses excluding books and other supplies assuming you have good enough grades.

As for the health care, that is a major expense not provided for by income tax, but at the same time, handling these expenses through private insurance agencies cuts the time in which service is rendered. In Britain you may be on a waiting list for a year or more for a particular non-life-threatening expense, whereas in the US, going through a private company, you may only have to wait a week, max.

------------------
Co-Owner
Bueno Technologies

[/b][/QUOTE]
There are reasons why taxes in england are higher. Last I heard the U.S had 300 million people? (I'm not 100% on that) England has about 60 million

[/B][/QUOTE]

I hope you what you really wanted to put was Great Britain, beacause there are also three other countries(SCOTLAND, IRELAND and WALES) The total population of GREAT BRITAIN is around 60 million.

But i do agree that the reason why taxes are higher is because there are less people in britain than the USA.

"This government is a Stealth Tax and Spend government, instead of increasing income tax like Labour governments usually do, they have abolished allounces, put tax duty up on fuel and put taxes here there and everywhere."


Yeah sure the management's bad but who put them in? People are naturally greedy and don't enjoy playing income tax. If Labour had not played the game like Tories they wouldn't have got in.

You gets what you pays for, matey, and anything's better than the right wing scum that sit in opposition.

------------------
We're the Sweeny, son and we haven't had any dinner. You kept us waiting. So unless you want a kicking you'll tell us where those photographs are.

[cleoeo]

My Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax, State Income Tax and Federal Income Tax take 28% of my paycheck. Next I pay property tax, State and Local sales tax, gas tax, booze tax, and cigarette tax. Add in my drivers license, car registration, boat registration, sportsman's license, State and National Parks stickers, Federal and State waterfowl stamps, and boat ramp fees. Toss in a sidewalk assessment. Tip fees at the dump. Tire disposal tax. The list is endless. I'm not so sure that the taxes are higher for the Brits. I'm willing to pay the taxes but I get disgusted at times when the Government wastes my money on dumbass programs like subsidies to tobacco farmers at the same time they're funding public anti-smoking campaigns and taxing smokes. Jesse Helms has gotta go.

Scottish criminal jurisprudence has three verdicts:

Guilty.
Not Proven.
Innocent.

Guilty corresponds to US Guilty.
Not Proven corresponds to US/English Not Guilty.
Innocent has no correspondance in US/English jurisprudence.

That's right, in the USA, the courts CANNOT declare someone innocent. They can only declare that someone cannot be proven guilty.

[Idnew]

Was wondering where all the new members were hiding. Welcome To All Of You Be sure to join us over at the Everything Else Forum.

------------------
The only time the world beats a path to your door is when you are in the bathroom

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Homework Help (http://www.brainmania.com/)

for the guilty even if not proven, even though it is enforced, far too many ppl are getting away with their crimes. i live in scotland, and loads of rape cases that go to court about 1% get convictions. they should change the law too, for at the mo, at accused can stand for him/her self, and cross examine the accusesie. now, this happend, and the victen was a 5 year old lassie, who was humilated in front of the whole court, by her attacker. this is a stupid law, and should be changed!

[paulgro]

I agree with you, that's not right. She shouldn't of had to suffer anymore. I just don't know if you can take his right away to defend himself even if he is scum.

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://pub20.ezboard.com/bferretscomputerstuff)

[RubberDucky]

i have to say thats pretty.....

dumb

http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/cool.gif http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif

[Lis]

*nods at Ducky for lack of a better word*

[Serendipity]

There have been similar cases of rapists defending themselves and victimising the victim from the dock. Sick but legal. It's been in the media lately, so it should change.

[This message has been edited by Serendipity (edited February 14, 2001).]

[~wildangel~]

I think thats horrible that there getting away like that...proven innocent, that's really sad http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif Hope they don't repeat it numerously (which they probobly do)

------------------
My site! (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/fairmayden.html)

[paulgro]

In this country it can't change. Would go against the Bill of Rights. The only thing you can do is prepare the victim the best you can...

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://pub20.ezboard.com/bferretscomputerstuff)

[Ada_Doom]

Just out of interest, are those accused of murder allowed to defend themselves? Obviously, they can't cross-examine their victims, but they could cross-examine their victims familes.

[paulgro]

Anyone is allowed to defend themselves, but you're a fool if you do it.

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://pub20.ezboard.com/bferretscomputerstuff)

[Serendipity]

Remember OJ? After confirming his name he didn't say a word for months during his trial.

What the hell is Alchahol?

haha

[Scotslaw]

Originally posted by Bryan Maloney:
Scottish criminal jurisprudence has three verdicts:

Guilty.
Not Proven.
Innocent.

Guilty corresponds to US Guilty.
Not Proven corresponds to US/English Not Guilty.
Innocent has no correspondance in US/English jurisprudence.

That's right, in the USA, the courts CANNOT declare someone innocent. They can only declare that someone cannot be proven guilty.



Yeah, kind of.....
Under Scots Law, the three verdicts are Guilty, Not Guilty, and Not Proven. Guilty and Not Guilty are exactly the same as Guilty and Not Guilty verdicts in any other legal system. The Not Proven verdict is unique to the Scottish system, but has all the effect of a Not Guilty verdict.

Originally, Scotland only had two verdicts: Proven and Not Proven. Either the prosecution had proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt, or it hadn't. In one case however, a jury declared that not only had the prosecution not proven its case, but that they believed the accused was not guilty of the crime (ie, he was innocent of the crime). Thus the alien concepts of guilty and not guilty were imported from English Law into Scots Law. Previously Scottish courts wouldn't touch the moral verdicts of guilty and not guilty, as that was the providence of a man's conscience and his creator. But they started to get used more and more, the Proven verdict was abandoned, but for some inexplicable reason the Not Proven verdict was kept.

At no point has Scotland had a verdict of "innocent". Interestingly enough, given the great displeasure most people display at the continued existence of the Not Proven verdict, it is also known as "that !%!%!%!%!%!%!% verdict", a phrase coined by Sir Walter Scott.

Man, I can't believe its been October since I last checked the boards! Got too caught up in doing my (now finished) final year dissertation.

Be seeing you.

[RockBottomDLux]

now you have to worry about taxes (in the us, at least)

------------------
Keep rollin', rollin', rollin', rollin'......or what ever you are doing!

<quote>In England (i'm not sure about Scotland) there are complicated Alchahol laws, though I think they may be going to change

It is illegal to give an under 5 Alchahol
You may give an over 5 Alchahol though not let them get drunk
</quote>

England and Scotland differ in licencing laws to a very great degree. Pubs tend to close much later 1am or 2am or later still in cities, in England it tends to be 11pm unless its a club. Needless to say, there are similarities too. One main difference in Scotland was that it was only a few years ago when off licences and supermarkets were legally allowed to sell alcohol on Sundays (I remember many years ago not being able to buy drinks on New Years Eve because it fell on a Sunday). Thats changed now.

US law differs a great deal too here - you can get married 3 years before you can drink alchol legally (now THATs dumb http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif ) In Scotland you can get married at 16 (with no parental consent needed) and not be able to legally buy a drink until your 18, which is still fairly dumb. BUT, if you're over 5 years old and at home, you can drink anything you like perfectly legally, its up to your parents to control your consumption then. (Under 5 would be grounds for child abuse though http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif )

<quote>
The prosecution in a trial do not by law have to give any evidence recieved to the defence ...
</quote>

They do in Scotland. As highlighted in the libyan pan-am bomb trial in Holland. It was covered by Scots law, as the plane crashed in lockerbie, South Scotland.
Other law diferences are jurys have 15 members rather than 12, so you cannot get a 'hung' jury. The not proven verdict as mentioned by others, which to my mind is very sensible as it allows for retrials when more evidence comes to light - a not guilty verdict would mean no retrial.
Above all else though, the difference between Scots law and English/US are the words mentioned elsewhere here 'jurisprudence' which means a case is judged individually, it CANNOT be based on cases that were a bit like it, unlike England/US where lawyers argue for days that 'Kramer vs Kramer 69' is similar to 'Johns vs Simpson 95' - this is called 'precedence' and is pretty dumb if you ask me. (forget just laws i just said your whole legal system was dumb...oops ;])

back to the topic though...

One law in Scotland which is on this site as dumb is

* Trespassing on other peoples land is legal

this is a stupid statement - first, because a law that doesnt exist cant be said to be 'legal' and secondly the principle behind the 'law' is quite sound. Freedom of Movement - Scotland is a free country and we can travel around it, why should some landowner stop you getting where you want to go ? However, land owners are protected - anyone causing a disturbance on your land can be charged with 'Breach of the peace' and anyone damaging your property i.e. by walking across crops, can be charged with 'criminal damage' - its a very biased view to say 'trespassing is legal' but then most laws from other countrys are presented as 'Not US laws so they must be strange' - many of them have very valid reasons. The thing about laws are , its only when the majority start breaking them (or an elite minority) that governments bother to change them, but if it aint broke - dont fix it.

[Scotslaw]

Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe:
Above all else though, the difference between Scots law and English/US are the words mentioned elsewhere here 'jurisprudence' which means a case is judged individually, it CANNOT be based on cases that were a bit like it, unlike England/US where lawyers argue for days that 'Kramer vs Kramer 69' is similar to 'Johns vs Simpson 95' - this is called 'precedence' and is pretty dumb if you ask me.


"Jurisprudence" is the science of the law, and entails the various theories of what makes law "law", whether there is a moral obligation to obey law etc, it does not mean that a case is judged individually. The doctrine of precedent is part of Scots law as well. We quote past cases. That ensures the stability and continuance of the law, and that the law is not arbitrary, which is a very valuable aspect of the law, its continuity and relative predictability. To continually arbitrarily decide cases would be violative of the rule of law, which exists to protect the public from aribitrary judicial and legislative action.


Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe:One law in Scotland which is on this site as dumb is

* Trespassing on other peoples land is legal

this is a stupid statement - first, because a law that doesnt exist cant be said to be 'legal' and secondly the principle behind the 'law' is quite sound. Freedom of Movement - Scotland is a free country and we can travel around it, why should some landowner stop you getting where you want to go ? However, land owners are protected - anyone causing a disturbance on your land can be charged with 'Breach of the peace' and anyone damaging your property i.e. by walking across crops, can be charged with 'criminal damage' - its a very biased view to say 'trespassing is legal' but then most laws from other countrys are presented as 'Not US laws so they must be strange' - many of them have very valid reasons. The thing about laws are , its only when the majority start breaking them (or an elite minority) that governments bother to change them, but if it aint broke - dont fix it.


I'm sure I've posted this before, and I even thought it was to this thread, but I can't see it, so I will post it again. Trespass in Scotland is not "legal", but this is not because a law that does not exist cannot be said to be legal, as Dreadful Scathe said. Trespass is illegal in Scotland. It is just not a criminal offence, and there is a difference between something not being a criminal offence, and not being illegal. Trespass is a civil offence (unless you do damage on the land when it then becoms criminal trespass). The remedy for trespass is to get an interdict against the tresspasser from the Courts. If the trespasser continues to trespass after that, then he is committin a criminal offence by breaking the interdict, and you may have him arrested for that.

Originally posted by cleoeo:
......

I'm willing to pay the taxes but I get disgusted at times when the Government wastes my money on dumbass programs like subsidies to tobacco farmers at the same time they're funding public anti-smoking campaigns and taxing smokes. Jesse Helms has gotta go.[/B]

The EU are as bad. They are bringing in rules to require packets of cigarettes to have something like a third of the packet covered with very strong anti-smoking slogans whilst at the same time subsidising tobacco growers in some EU countries.

[Ada_Doom]

A fair point, well made. Welcome Martin!

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

Originally posted by Scotslaw:
I'm sure I've posted this before, and I even thought it was to this thread, but I can't see it, so I will post it again. Trespass in Scotland is not "legal", but this is not because a law that does not exist cannot be said to be legal, as Dreadful Scathe said. Trespass is illegal in Scotland. It is just not a criminal offence, and there is a difference between something not being a criminal offence, and not being illegal. Trespass is a civil offence (unless you do damage on the land when it then becoms criminal trespass). The remedy for trespass is to get an interdict against the tresspasser from the Courts. If the trespasser continues to trespass after that, then he is committin a criminal offence by breaking the interdict, and you may have him arrested for that.
In England and Wales, trespass is a civil offence, not a criminal offence. So if in england, you trespass on someone else's land, you cannot be arrested. Another interesting one is that, if you occupy a building for 12 years, you can claim ownership. This has happened a couple of times when local councils have failed to deal with squatters and ended up losing houses worth many thousands of pounds.

[paulgro]

Welcome to dumb laws, AndrewR


------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://www.alferret.co.uk/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi)

[Ada_Doom]

Welcome Andrew! You another Brit? I always thought the squatters law was quite fair really. Nice to know that you can beat the system sometimes!

------------------
Heaven is where the police are English, the cars are German, the chefs are French, the lovers are Italian and everything is organised by the Swiss. Hell is where the chefs are English, the police are German, the cars are Spanish, the lovers are Swiss and everything is organised by the Italians.
The man is a God (http://www.jpwsfc.org)

[This message has been edited by Ada_Doom (edited July 09, 2001).]

[RayH]

In California, we have a law regarding ADVERSE POSSESSION. Basically, if you occupy a property (squat) AND pay the taxes on that property for FIVE YEARS, you can claim the property under adverse possession.

Recently, some squatters took possession of property in San Francisco is a reasonably good neighborhood. Apparently the heirs to the property, each knew of it, did nothing to maintain or pay the taxes on it. Squtters managed to take it through adverse possession. The property is worth in excess of $1 million right now!

[Neppy]

This thread is over a year old. I just thought that was interesting.

------------------
Mustard The Spice King
Reigns over the spice rack proud
Bow to him, pepper
------------------
Mustard Heiku

Originally posted by Ada_Doom:
Welcome Andrew! You another Brit?
Yep.

Heres a topical news item on the so called "dumb law" for Scotland - it may even seem dumb but the right to freedom should be valued above all else
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1439000/1439785.stm

[Ada_Doom]

I think it's appalling that people are so obsessed by having their little bit of Britain all to themselves that they can't allow people to go for rambles across it. Admittedly there are some rambler's who leave litter and don't shut gates, and let their dogs worry sheep and whatever, but why should the few spoil it for the majority? And as for Skibo, in my experience, fanatical readers of "Hello" and people who like to walk for miles over muddy fields are very rarely one and the same. I'm sure all the people who took part in the mass trespasses of the 1930's didn't imagine for a moment that we would still be having the same argument 70 years later.

------------------
Heaven is where the police are English, the cars are German, the chefs are French, the lovers are Italian and everything is organised by the Swiss. Hell is where the chefs are English, the police are German, the cars are Spanish, the lovers are Swiss and everything is organised by the Italians.
The man is a God (http://www.jpwsfc.org)

[Serendipity]

Well said Ada, and Welcome Scathe! http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif a very good point. No, that law does not seem dumb to me. Mind you, I heard a satirical comedy show on Radio 4 describe "The Militant Ramblers", a pressure group who demand the right to roam absolutely anywhere! Through people's living rooms, wherever...
How's Edinburgh at the moment?

[Sephirstein]

<i>Jesse Helms has gotta go.</i>

He may be an idiot on most counts, but he's the strongest Taiwan supporter in US history. That alone makes him useful to the cause of good.

As for laws against selling alcohol on Sunday, all I can say is "why"? We live in a SECULAR society, and as such, should not incorporate Christian mores into common law. If a business wants to sell alcohol on Sunday, we should **** well let them. Free enterprise is part of a secular state, religious laws are not.

And forcing pubs to close at 11 PM is ridiculous...FAR too early...But at least you Brits don't have rednecks forcing people to close video stores at midnight for no apparent reason.

well logically, this covers all outcomes...

Originally posted by Bryan Maloney:
Scottish criminal jurisprudence has three verdicts:

Guilty.
Not Proven.
Innocent.

Guilty corresponds to US Guilty.
Not Proven corresponds to US/English Not Guilty.
Innocent has no correspondance in US/English jurisprudence.

That's right, in the USA, the courts CANNOT declare someone innocent. They can only declare that someone cannot be proven guilty.

I believe the Scottish law system aviods making "sex laws" http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/eek.gif. Is this because there afraid of putting to many people in jail? As far as I know public nudity is mildly encourged http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif. This has me wondering about the gasoline laws. Are they trustworthy or just stealing money?

In Wales, licencing laws are different (despite being officially covered by english law):

Children aged over 14 are allowed into pubs unaccompanied, but are not allowed to go over to the bar.

14-17 year olds are allowed to buy any alcoholic drinks (provided it is with a full meal) - there is no requirement for them to be with anyone over 18 to do so.

Does anyone else think this is crazy???
(NB: don't blame the Welsh Assembly)