how manys acts and statutes are there active altogether?

[toggle]

8 million? I take it that figure was plucked from someone's arse?

Looking at this page, the number of acts passed per year between 1800 and 2014 varies from 0 to 69, and seems to average around 30 a year in the last century or so, more like 10 a year the century before, and something like 3 per year before that.

so I'd estimate it would be somewhere in the region of 4000-6000 acts in total.

a lot of the older acts would be stuff that is now repealed, or no longer active because they were private acts, stuff like railway acts that were set up for specific lines and no longer mean anyhting after the land for the line was purchased

 

[free spirit]

and support. ive only been studying law for almost yr now. that right studying! not trained. im studying the law of the land for myself. if the uk is a free country, then is the ultimate test. enjoy

you probably need to learn to write first.

 

[free spirit]

a lot of the older acts would be stuff that is now repealed, or no longer active because they were private acts, stuff like railway acts that were set up for specific lines and no longer mean anyhting after the land for the line was purchased

true, didn't mean to imply they were all active.

 

[tbtommyb]

Pretty spot on guess, by the way - 5662.

Bear in mind that is primarily SIs.

 

[equationgirl]

Bear in mind that is primarily SIs.

Even so it's nowhere near 8,000,000.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The government's recent Red Tape Challenge looked over the statute book and got rid of a few, there's probably a total somewhere there.

If there are loads of ancient laws that nobody bothers about any more, wouldn't it create more red tape to find them all and pass new legislation to repeal or amend them than to just ignore them?

 

[SpookyFrank]

oh right. so do u know or are u just being a complete bellend. do u think its not common law land?

Like your average freeman, I know precious little about British law. Unlike your average freeman, I don't make any claims to the contrary.

 

[tbtommyb]

If there are loads of ancient laws that nobody bothers about any more, wouldn't it create more red tape to find them all and pass new legislation to repeal or amend them than to just ignore them?

You can hoover up lots of things in one. I think there's a repealing bill going through parliament now. and as mentioned above they can't be simply ignored.

but yeah the whole thing has taken a lot of resources.

 

[SpookyFrank]

You can hoover up lots of things in one. I think there's a repealing bill going through parliament now. and as mentioned above they can't be simply ignored.

but yeah the whole thing has taken a lot of resources.

Oddly enough I actually read that bill. Someone linked to it on here with a claim that it gave MPs powers to repeal any law they wanted at any time, which it didn't. All the laws being repealed seemed like pretty good examples of pointless or horribly outdated legislation, but then I didn't trawl through every last one and I wouldn't be surprised if they've done away with a few laws which certain business interests might have found an undue hindrance to their activities.

 

[tim]

Like your average freeman, I know precious little about British law. Unlike your average freeman, I don't make any claims to the contrary.

You're not a freeman you're just a number!

 

[tbtommyb]

Oddly enough I actually read that bill. Someone linked to it on here with a claim that it gave MPs powers to repeal any law they wanted at any time, which it didn't. All the laws being repealed seemed like pretty good examples of pointless or horribly outdated legislation, but then I didn't trawl through every last one and I wouldn't be surprised if they've done away with a few laws which certain business interests might have found an undue hindrance to their activities.

I think when it was introduced there was a plan to give ministers the right to repeal things, but that idea died in committee.

The idea itself is pretty sound, it just comes down to whether you see a rule as holding back business or providing some kind of protection. and that goes well beyond the rtc.

 

[bopalot]

have yous watched the court vids yet.

 

[free spirit]

have yous watched the court vids yet.

oh, I see, this is just a thread about how clever you are on your videos is it?

sorry to disappoint you, but if you're trying to argue some bollocks about there being no common law on cannabis cultivation then you're badly wrong. There's both statute law and common law on it, common law being derived from the precedent set in the courts, and there's fuckloads of precedent for people being sent down for cultivating cannabis.

 

[free spirit]

fair enough though, it probably will boggle the minds of some magistrates who aren't used to having their authority challanged, and potentially you might get away with it as nobody can be arsed to put the effort in to tackling your arguments or something.

 

[free spirit]

To which I answered, that true it is that every precedent hath a commencement; but when authority and precedent is wanting, there is need of great consideration, before that any thing of novelty shall be established, and to provide that this be not against the law of the land: for I said, that the King cannot change any part of the common law, nor create any offence by his proclamation, which was not an offence before, without Parliament.

In case you weren't aware of it, that's the point where the highest common law court (Kings Bench) removed the right of the monarch to make laws by themselves, and confirmed the right of Parliament to change common law with the approval of the Monarch, in the case of Proclamations from 1610.

Which essentially is where all this common law bollocks comes completely unstuck, and where the supremacy of parliamentary approved statute law over previous common law was originally confirmed.

Not that I agree with the drugs laws, but attempting to argue against them on the basis of their illegitimacy stands as much chance of being charged with wasting police time as it does of getting your off IMO.

ps prior to this common law applied only until the King unilaterally decided to make a new law up that suited them better. Parliamentary democracy is supposed to provide us with at least some level of protection against this, and means to change it... though the entire system is pretty shit at providing those safeguards, it's probably better than living in a royalist dictatorship.

 

[bopalot]

wot are u talking about? can u tell me the differnce between legal and lawful? if i was wrong then how comes crown court judges are running out of courtrooms.

 

[bopalot]

and when was i claiming how clever i was being aswell. ur tryin to make ur self sound clever when ur coming across as a complete douche. so u think statutes override common law?

 

[classicdish]

so u think statutes override common law?

From Leeds university website:

"Comparing legislation with common law, statutes generally have the power to change the established common law, but the common law cannot overrule or change statues. A statute can only be overrruled or amended by another, later statute. This relationship reflects the legal and political doctrine known as Parliamentary Sovereignty - the recognition and acceptance that Parliament is the supreme law-making authority in the land. However, that authority may not be absolute - it has been limited by the relationship with the European Union, and the importance of principles such as the recognition of individual freedoms, democracy and governmental accountability may place further limits on its exercise. Nevertheless, save for these possible limits in extreme circumstances, the judges must normally apply statutes, even if they are contrary to established common law. The task of the judge is to interpret and apply the statute - they cannot disregard it or declare it to be "unconstitutional". In many other jurisdictions, the judges do have this power to override statutes by declaring them to be inconsistent with the written constituion. This happens in the United States..."

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/sls.htm

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/browse

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi

 

[DotCommunist]

wot are u talking about? can u tell me the differnce between legal and lawful? if i was wrong then how comes crown court judges are running out of courtrooms.

gagging for a slash probably

 

[Roadkill]

fair enough though, it probably will boggle the minds of some magistrates who aren't used to having their authority challanged, and potentially you might get away with it as nobody can be arsed to put the effort in to tackling your arguments or something.

Or just bang him up for a few days for contempt of court.

 

[killer b]

I think bopalot has definitely found his/her spiritual home here.

 

[Roadkill]

sorry to disappoint you, but if you're trying to argue some bollocks about there being no common law on cannabis cultivation then you're badly wrong. There's both statute law and common law on it, common law being derived from the precedent set in the courts, and there's fuckloads of precedent for people being sent down for cultivating cannabis.

Yes, like this idiot, who was lucky to get away with a suspended sentence.

A MAN tried to call the Queen and Prime Minister David Cameron as witnesses after he was caught growing cannabis in his shed.

Dean Marshall, who once played in tribute band Faith No More-ish, was caught growing 26 cannabis plants in his shed at his home in Preston.

...

However, Marshall claimed he was not guilty because he was a member of the group Freemen of the Land and did not recognise Britain’s laws.

Now, after a jury dismissed his claims, Marshall has been given a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, and has been ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

ive only been studying law for almost yr now. that right studying! not trained.

Don't give up the day job

 

[DotCommunist]

Faith No More-ish

 

[Nylock]

Bloody freemen on the land.... Luckily, after initially falling for their guff, a mate of mine learned that they were dangerous bullshitters before things went as far as they did with Mr. Faith No More-ish...

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Faith No More-ish

I bet he was Big Jim Martin.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

I'm grazing my goats in the park & they are shitting everywhere, Its the law.

Lorry drivers can stop anywhere & piss over their nearside wheel, this has been legal since horse drawn waggon drivers were allowed to do it in about 1642.

I can also drive my pig herd into Tescos & allow them to eat the fruit & veg because it used to be common land.

 

[SpookyFrank]

have yous watched the court vids yet.

I watched the video of you in the interview room (well I skipped the bits I've heard repeated verbatim a dozen times before before, which was most of it) and I'd say the key take-home message of it is that you started the interview in police custody and, after lots of mumbo-jumbo, you were still in police custody. The only thing you've done is confirm for the record that you were growing cannabis. This is what we call a zero sum gain.

Even if you people are right about all this stuff, you're not of course but even if you were, do you really think that the justice system will allow itself to be derailed so easily? It's not a question of who is in the right, it's a question of who is in control. They are in control, you are not. If they want to put you in prison they will do so.

People talk about 'common law' as if there was once a set of laws created by and for the common man, and that these were usurped by corporate laws which only apply to those who are somehow tricked into submitting to them. First of all, no hierarchical society would allow the plebs to decide what the laws are. Since long before there were paper and pens to write laws down with society has been hierarchical. Secondly, no ruler or government would create laws which only work on an opt-in basis, because if people were willing to voluntarily do as they were told there would be no need to draft laws in the first place.

Yes it would be lovely if you could get caught with a flat full of hydroponics and talk your way out of it. Yes it would be nice to score some points against the people who control our lives. Yes it's nice to think about some mythical time in the distant past when the only laws were about not murdering people and not talking in the cinema once the movie's started. Sadly wanting these things to be true doesn't make it so, as even a little bit of research outside of the freemen circle-jerk will soon reveal.

The best way to avoid the long arm of the law has always been the same: don't get caught.

 

[el-ahrairah]

i hope that if i ever needed a lawyer i'd get at least a semi-literate one that knew how the law worked.