For each new repeal two old laws

The basic problem is that ancient and fundamental moral and control laws have been superseded by more and new laws. The old laws remain even if useless. By adhering to a rule of one in – two out, lawmakers have to think very hard about amending an existing law or having to repeal two other laws. The more laws there are the more it satisfies lawyers who deal in words, not deeds. In other words if a law is deemed to be broken it is the lawyers who interpret the meaning of words as they aim to undermine the opposition’s arguments. Yet it is the deed – the event that matters not how it can be twisted in word or opinion to align with a law. In other words, use plain English and less words and laws. Finally, how can any constable understand the tsunami of laws being introduced in the criminal world? How can doctors and nurses understand the hidden meanings of laws pertaining to every day clinical care if they are constantly looking over their shoulder to read the latest text on law, not care? Lets face it most laws a re not a necessity – they are there because a) politicians respond to newspapers by making a new law, rather than ensuring an old one works well and b) both politicians and law makers never perform deeds – they use words as their sole tool of the trade and so believe that more words is more clever when actually the reverse is true.

 

So, repeal laws on a 2:1 basis to an introduced new law, laws in plain English and no law to be written unless the law writer has good practical experience of what the law is about.

Why does this idea matter?

Too many laws and too many complex wordy laws means that the average person [the common man] whom the law actually affects cannot understand or apply it. Further, the word burden defeats nearly every professional except the wordsmiths who craft laws. Law is about common sense and if a law is redundant then it should be removed. However, there is an excess of new laws without repealing old useless laws. So, the word burden upon the populace is extreme and only lawyers profit – those who manipulate word meanings in context.

 So it is not a specific plea, but a general plea for less out of date laws. By all means, as in NHS Trust policies invoke a review [out of date] date, so that an old law that is not reviewed ceases to be on the statute by default. Laws are not permanent in a changing dynamic society

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*