In message 01c974bc$f7a79b00$LocalHost@default, Michael R N Dolbear
writes

Ian Jelf wrote
[off topic]
In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights
Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the
Disability Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could
answer that question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before

finding out whether it was illegal or not.

No way of avoiding a court decision but you don't have to risk
prosecution.

Given that it was a criminal matter, I can't see how I could have
"tested" anything without an attempted prosecution.

Consider the court applications about what "assisted suicide" means and
whether buying a ticket to Switzerland is "aiding and abetting".

Can you just go to a court and ask them to rule on something before
(possibly) committing an offence, then? I assume that's likely to be
an expensive process?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In message , Andrew Heenan
writes
[still off topic]

"Ian Jelf" wrote :
In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights
Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the Disability
Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could answer that
question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before finding out
whether it was illegal or not.

That's been a feature of English law since approximately 1066
Laws are usually made for specific purposes, but the phrasing tends to pull
in related items that may require the courts interpretation as to whether or
not the law really applies in that case.

Then the phrasing should be clearer.


Virtually all new legislation has areas that need 'testing'

Well, I for one didn't want to be the guinea pig.


. A good example
is the business of banks routinely overcharging customers as the mood takes
them - it's been tough to get a ruling because whenever someone tries to sue
under a recent act of parliament, the banks keep settling out of court (I
wonder why? Thieving *******s!).

Isn't that a Civil matter, though?


And it's all cash in hand by the million for squads of lawyers ...

Quite.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

There is an update of the great article on the topic from
theticketcollector, it seems the DfT are looking to reinstate the
service!!!!

http://theticketcollector.wordpress....rvice-part-ii/

Ian Jelf wrote

Michael R N Dolbear writes

Ian Jelf wrote
[off topic]
In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights
Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the
Disability Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court
could
answer that question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted
before

finding out whether it was illegal or not.

No way of avoiding a court decision but you don't have to risk
prosecution.

Given that it was a criminal matter, I can't see how I could have
"tested" anything without an attempted prosecution.

IANAL but there are ways. I think the below was a Judicial Review
against the Crown Prosecution Service / DPP on their prosecution
policy, pressure groups have sued to get a declaration that something
was illegal and should be considered for prosecution and in reverse if
someone was making threats to prosecute if you do something you can try
for a declaration that no offense will be committed.

Consider the court applications about what "assisted suicide" means
and
whether buying a ticket to Switzerland is "aiding and abetting".

Can you just go to a court and ask them to rule on something before
(possibly) committing an offence, then? I assume that's likely to
be
an expensive process?

The Courts don't like hypotheticals but since the ECHR/ Human Rights
Act 1998 and indeed before under the common law a sufficiently unclear
law may not be enforcable. If the point looks important you may be able
to get a "pro bono" lawyer to do it free or cheap ("Freedom to cycle",
below).

Some coverage at

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports

Google [ "Joshua Rozenberg" site:telegraph.co.uk] for a selection,
example, on topic for the NG.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...uarozenberg/27
12798/Do-you-need-police-permission-to-cycle-down-the-streets-now.html

(Whether a regular cycle ride with no fixed route is a "procession"
that requires notification to the police).

--
Mike D

On 7 Jan, 14:38, "John Rowland"
wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5462099.ece

Did anything happen yesterday (Tuesday)?
Was there a flood of unwashed fighting to board at Ealing Broadway?

wrote ...
There is an update of the great article on the topic from
theticketcollector, it seems the DfT are looking to reinstate the
service!!!!
http://theticketcollector.wordpress....rvice-part-ii/

No, they're not.
They're looking to remove the story from the news. That's all.

If they say they intend to reinstate (with no specifics at all), who can
prove them liars?

£15 to a charity of your choice (not Boris), says nothing *significant* will
happen for a year or more (probably much more, but bets go stale!), though
there may be a few more 'hints' as the story gently dies.

It's sound policy to start from the assumption that the DfT is lying, until
you get evidence to the contrary. Much safer than assuming they speak the
truth. These are the people who ordered FGW to return a dozen 158s to the
lessor, then blamed GWT* when the service collapsed. And there's 357 other
examples of micromismanagment, all 100% denied by the DfT, even to
parliamenary committees.
--

Andrew
"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

*But don't take it that I'm defending FGW; they're a bunch of idiots, too.
But on that one point, DfT is to blame.