Where should the spirit be?
Are limits there for a reason, are the limits wrong, should limits be only enforced in certain circumstances?
What about the NIP Laws, how well should they be enforced?
What about the law generally?
How do we decide which laws to obey and which not?

http://www.rmbconsulting.co.uk/

Sorry to sound like Von, but the law is the law, and should be obeyed - there are no right or wrong laws, only laws. If the majority do not like a law then they have the power to get such law repealed by their elected representatives - the fact that it is unpopular does not justify breaking it.

[tongue in cheek] your stance reminds me of the bad taste joke "9/10 people enjoy gang rape" [/tongue in cheek]

Every democracy has a system. We vote for our local MPs. They choose who should be prime minister.
Our equivalent of president is Queen.
If we dont like that we hold a revolution.

Last time we tried it, we got fed up after a few years and brought a King back

Agree absolutely, but usually when you vote for a party you know who the prime minister will be, and if you don't like the proposed prime minister, you don't vote for his corresponding candidate. For example, Neil Kinnock never got in because the voters thought he was a prat and hence didn't vote for the local Labour candidate. There are many people who think that a good PM is better than a good local candidate and will vote as such.

As a side-bar to this thread, does anyone else think that separating the role of PM (President?) from the election of local MP's would be a good idea?

The law is inflexible as in the case of red light cameras and the prosecution of drivers who move through them to allow emergency vehicles to pass. I therefore don't apply the 'spirit of the law' to anything, I merely follow it slavishly and for example don't move if there is a red light camera and an emergency vehicle as the highway code tells me to.

Marvellous world we live in isn't it? No need for common sense to be applied at all.

Not really true - the Queen is almost entirely a figurehead (when was the last time she DIDN'T rubber-stamp anything the PM took to her?) and ceremonial in her duties. Further, our PM is the one who goes to international summits and meets with other heads-of-state.

I'd suggest that we could devolve the role of PM suitably to have it subject to a separate election, have Parliament themselves elect a cabinet from among their members (or at least nominate candidates for the PM to choose from), and not substantially change the way the country works. That would have the advantage of making MP's a LOT more beholden to their constituents...

if you were to make an honest mistake and were taken to court for breaking a tax law for example whould the judge let you off as you had complied with the "Spirit of the law"?

Good luck with that one.

Every day people are found guilty on a technicality and Van and all his pals will turn up on here and say the "the law is the law" and is not open to interpretation to suit the individual.

Black and White.

Now we see thatthe boot in on the other foor wrt Peter winning his highcourt case and now everyone wants to talk about the "Spirit of the law"

If you return a NIP 2 days late will the SCP still allow your conditional offer as you had complied with the spirit of the law?
Or would the remove the conditional offer and take ytou to court, even if you could prove that it ws posted within the prescribed time?


bks to Spirit!
The SCp and CPS will use everything available to them to get you to roll over and find you guilty and ignore the rules when and if it suits then , so all is fair in love and war!
If you can get off you should.

The Queen meets with foreign digniataries and has all of that too, although quite a lot of it is delegated to her government- a system of government where the members are elected by the people, and those members choose the PM.
If we don't like the PM our members have chosen we can boot them out pretty soon.