syne Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Ok clever guy. It's not 'VERY' different to a law. It's a written code that you have to follow. In a lot of countries there is no difference at all between statute law and case law. In the UK there isn't a massive difference, it's still a law, just a statute law and not a case/common law. The only difference is that a common law has been decided upon by higher courts and the lower courts must treat that principle as law. As an example, in England no Parliament and no monarch has ever made a law that it is illegal to murder someone. Instead, that principle of law has existed in the courts as case law since before records began. So yes, it IS in fact a law, it's a specific type of law and is not 'common' law, but it's still law. Law is just a general reference to a set of rules comprised by different laws INCLUDING statute law. Remember law is a very light word to use, it's more generic, 'laws of physics' for example. Is that a common law? No. It's nothing to do with law in the sense that you mean, but it's still called that. Just a quick reference point for you Three types of UK Laws: statute law—laws made by Parliament (or Congress) (all crimes and some civil matters fall under statute law) common law—inherited law that is not written down as legislation but is recorded as case law case law—judges' decisions in particular cases, both criminal and civil. I know hardly anything about law, but I'm pretty sure simple things like people drunk on the streets causing problems, people selling drugs, and other crimes like that are statute law (don't hold me to that) I only say that cos I'm sure that statute law is the only one that uses the legislation (like Section 45 of Lb under the misuse of 'whatever' act) and when you do see people getting arrested for stuff like that the police always read out what the offence is in that way. I've learnt a few things from this thread, mainly that there's more loons than I thought but I hope you've learned from this too Its a rule, that you agree to follow not have to. on this island(the uk is a different matter) its not Law that's the point, its statute 'law' If you want to sum it up into a nice bite sized sentence; (Common) Law revolves around harm and loss. if you cause harm or loss then you are bound by the law of the land to make good/suffer so the injured party isn't aggrieved anymore and everyone can continue as before. Most statutes are designed to prevent laws being broken but a lot of statutes are created to prevent people becoming unencumbered. Here's a question what is illegal or unlawful abut this, I get into my automobile travel at speeds of 110mph across England, get out go to bed? A. nothing. change the word automobile for car and travel for drive it then becomes illegal. but it is never unlawful because no harm or loss was caused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydeebee Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Its a rule, that you agree to follow not have to. on this island(the uk is a different matter) its not Law that's the point, its statute 'law' If you want to sum it up into a nice bite sized sentence; (Common) Law revolves around harm and loss. if you cause harm or loss then you are bound by the law of the land to make good/suffer so the injured party isn't aggrieved anymore and everyone can continue as before. Most statutes are designed to prevent laws being broken but a lot of statutes are created to prevent people becoming unencumbered. Here's a question what is illegal or unlawful abut this, I get into my automobile travel at speeds of 110mph across England, get out go to bed? A. nothing. change the word automobile for car and travel for drive it then becomes illegal. but it is never unlawful because no harm or loss was caused. Whichever way you look at it, it's STILL a law, a statute law. Did you or did you not say it's not a law? Does it matter? Whatever it is it shouldn't matter, why SHOULDN'T you fill it in, what harm is caused by you doing it, it's something that DOES help this country and you CAN be taken to court and you CAN be fined for not doing so, whether they do or not is a different matter but people shouldn't just refuse anyway, what reason do you have for refusing? I can guarantee there are many more good reasons for filling it in than there are for not filling it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syne Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Whichever way you look at it, it's STILL a law, a statute law. Did you or did you not say it's not a law? Does it matter? Whatever it is it shouldn't matter, why SHOULDN'T you fill it in, what harm is caused by you doing it, it's something that DOES help this country and you CAN be taken to court and you CAN be fined for not doing so, whether they do or not is a different matter but people shouldn't just refuse anyway, what reason do you have for refusing? I can guarantee there are many more good reasons for filling it in than there are for not filling it in. It's NOT a LAW, its a statute. They are different things. yes it does matter. Your not taken to court you are summoned,-which you can refuse if you wish-another difference. My point was really Why should I fill it in, everything in that census has been asked about me and has been given before. Why should I 'do as I'm told' I am not a child and do not appreciate being ordered or threatened regardless of the order or threat or 'who' is making them. No offence but you can't even guarantee what the census is or is not used for. There is no new info on that census, so there is no way it determines anything(esp' not for a decade in advance) I could have ten/thirty children in the next ten years. the census isn't going to affect how my local primary is funded that is going to be decided by current class sizes and new/lesser enrolments. Ditto for all other council services. and If the census was used in that way, can you imagine How much it would cost to try and predict what resource may or may not be needed with info that is that sparse. ~Register of live births and deaths is updated daily ~land registry updated daily ~council tax updated daily ETC ETC ETC census updated decade(ly) lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydeebee Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 It's NOT a LAW, its a statute. They are different things. yes it does matter. Your not taken to court you are summoned,-which you can refuse if you wish-another difference. My point was really Why should I fill it in, everything in that census has been asked about me and has been given before. Why should I 'do as I'm told' I am not a child and do not appreciate being ordered or threatened regardless of the order or threat or 'who' is making them. No offence but you can't even guarantee what the census is or is not used for. There is no new info on that census, so there is no way it determines anything(esp' not for a decade in advance) I could have ten/thirty children in the next ten years. the census isn't going to affect how my local primary is funded that is going to be decided by current class sizes and new/lesser enrolments. Ditto for all other council services. and If the census was used in that way, can you imagine How much it would cost to try and predict what resource may or may not be needed with info that is that sparse. ~Register of live births and deaths is updated daily ~land registry updated daily ~council tax updated daily ETC ETC ETC census updated decade(ly) lol It is a law, how many times. There are 3 types of law, statute is one of them! Just because it's not a common or case law it doesn't mean it's not a law! But by doing that you ARE acting like a child, more specifically a spoiled brat. "I don't want to do it because it doesn't do anything for me, I want to be difficult and different from most normal people." The government can use it if they wish as far as I'm aware, but it's ordered by some European thing, they have to give them certain information (presumably just about population) and they can't track every entrant to the UK, everyone leaving, where they are in the country etc etc specifically. They can do that on a short term arrangement but as time goes by they will be less and less accurate - again, presumably why they do it every 10 years. I do take on board your opinion, it's *slightly* less wacky than the other guys, you argue your points and answer questions! At last, a proper debate! At the end of the day, it's about what people think. It's ALL just opinion, obviously the reason we argue our point is because we firmly (rightly or wrongly) believe the information given can make a difference to where we live, I hope it does affect everything, including immigration, health etc but who knows, that's just what the government says, and your right, that is what we have been brought up to believe and I don't see why we shouldn't. But for the sake of filling in a few forms it really doesn't bother me whether they use it or not. I think (maybe I've read it wrong) but I take it you think it should be made more clear what happens with the information? Or you just disagree with it full stop? Again, I respect your opinion, you have a choice whether or not you fill it in that's not what we're debating about, it's why you shouldn't fill it in, it's happened for nearly 100 years now and maybe it's outdated, maybe there won't ever be another one, but I can't see that happening, I don't like it plainly because I don't think they should spend THAT amount of money to gain a very small amount of details. Even though from what I know they have to get it some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 It's NOT a LAW, its a statute. They are different things. yes it does matter. Your not taken to court you are summoned,-which you can refuse if you wish-another difference. My point was really Why should I fill it in, everything in that census has been asked about me and has been given before. Why should I 'do as I'm told' I am not a child and do not appreciate being ordered or threatened regardless of the order or threat or 'who' is making them. No offence but you can't even guarantee what the census is or is not used for. There is no new info on that census, so there is no way it determines anything(esp' not for a decade in advance) I could have ten/thirty children in the next ten years. the census isn't going to affect how my local primary is funded that is going to be decided by current class sizes and new/lesser enrolments. Ditto for all other council services. and If the census was used in that way, can you imagine How much it would cost to try and predict what resource may or may not be needed with info that is that sparse. ~Register of live births and deaths is updated daily ~land registry updated daily ~council tax updated daily ETC ETC ETC census updated decade(ly) lol The thing is, yes you have given information before, infact we are giving information about ourselves everyday. Do you show the same belligerence when opening a bank account? i bet not, you give them information about yourself, no more intrusive then that of a census. So why should we value a banks right to information for instance more than a govt. census designed to actually help society in the long run? The argument against filling out a census seems petty and childish when put in perspective. Paying lip service to 'individuality' or some sense of 'right' is only a token gesture at best in a society that requires passing of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syne Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 The thing is, yes you have given information before, infact we are giving information about ourselves everyday. Do you show the same belligerence when opening a bank account? i bet not, you give them information about yourself, no more intrusive then that of a census. So why should we value a banks right to information for instance more than a govt. census designed to actually help society in the long run? The argument against filling out a census seems petty and childish when put in perspective. Paying lip service to 'individuality' or some sense of 'right' is only a token gesture at best in a society that requires passing of information. A bank account is different, you are asking them for something. a contract. Being told you must do this or else! is not the same. My 'childish' behaviour only appears that way because it does not go along with what is wanted. It appears pointlessly difficult, contrary for the sake of it? But the point is I do not want to, so why should I ? Why is your 'want' any more deserving, why should what someone else wants me to do take precedence over what I want ? if I simply agreed, like most children do. Then would you call that childish? The census was not designed to help us in the long run It was designed to help royalty gain more of what 'their' subjects had ie to tax, in a world where slavery and fuedalism still reigned. Also as said many times over now, the info given in the census is not new, so why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syne Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 http://www.ukcolumn.org/articles/living-rule-law <-- more eloquent than me but I sing from a similar hymn sheet ifykwim. Statutes are not laws. That's why they are called 'acts' and parliament does not have the power to create laws. common law is based on natural (or gods) law and as such is not really up for re-interpretation. Hence the need for judges and juries (single or panels of) who can decide if, who and how a 'person' has been wronged and then allocate a suitable punishment. This is why only a court can fine you. it's why parking 'fines' are called fixed penalty notices, Its why statutes are often repealed because they are no longer relevant and are not about justice. Thats why I have the choice not to fill the census in because there is no harm in me not to do so, and I cause no-one loss either. If I do, then you need to charge me in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydeebee Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 I'll say it once again. They are a form of law. Just a different type of law to what you think, and you have got it a little wrong. Common law is law that has been passed through very high courts and has been decided that all lower courts should treat it as law. Statute law is there regardless and so it's dealt with case by case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 What the census and all the other 'things', rosa parks etc have in common is that they were all made for someone else's benefit and up until 'that' moment were accepted as the status quo by the vast majority. The census asfaik was designed with one purpose taxation for the king. I realise that times have changed but I don't believe that it is used for the purpose of allocating funds that simply doesn't make sense. the reason to bin the census is its an outdated and inefficient, expensive way of gathering a few details about the population that are already (mostly in the hands of the government in one form or another. I do wonder though what the govenment intends to do with the knowledge gained from asking about the central heating of houses? Rights been taken away? What about my right NOT to participate. It's not your worry or your decision to make, you are not in government because you are unelected. The central heating of houses. Sigh. You know the environment is a governmental concern as are methods of heating and energy usage. You seem to have very binary thinking. You can't see a reason despite it being obvious to me therefore it is a ridiculous question. Why are you automatically entitled to the right not to participate? Do you want to have the right not to pay tax because it will finance war? The right not to follow certain laws because you don't agree with them? Sorry but that's feeble individualistic reasoning and we live in a society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Its a rule, that you agree to follow not have to. on this island(the uk is a different matter) its not Law that's the point, its statute 'law' If you want to sum it up into a nice bite sized sentence; (Common) Law revolves around harm and loss. if you cause harm or loss then you are bound by the law of the land to make good/suffer so the injured party isn't aggrieved anymore and everyone can continue as before. Most statutes are designed to prevent laws being broken but a lot of statutes are created to prevent people becoming unencumbered. Here's a question what is illegal or unlawful abut this, I get into my automobile travel at speeds of 110mph across England, get out go to bed? A. nothing. change the word automobile for car and travel for drive it then becomes illegal. but it is never unlawful because no harm or loss was caused. You're dancing on the head of a pin now. If you were in court for speeding and that was your defence then you'd have no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.