Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

What is Britain's worst law

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    marijuana is illegal for deeply dubious reasons
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
    You don't need to be 18 to drink, you need to be 18 to buy alcohol or to drink it in a licensed premises.
    Yeah, I'm sure most people can guess that's what I meant I've edited it anyway.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovefoxxx_93)
    The old ones that nobody's bothered to get rid of but still stand. Something about it being legal to shoot a Scot if he's carrying a bow and arrows around York. Or something ridiculous like that.
    You never know when that might come in handy
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpicyStrawberry)
    Yeah, I'm sure most people can guess that's what I meant I've edited it anyway.
    The funny thing is that in Scotland I can drink with a meal, yet in England I'd need to be accompanied by an adult
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Apparently:

    The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the King, and the tail of the Queen.

    It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing.

    It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour.

    A ban on the use of any slide upon ice or snow (Town Police Clauses Act 1847)
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Not exactly a law but the fact when someone gets sentenced for lets say 6 years in prison it actually means 3.

    Also the lack of free speech. People being imprisoned for saying offensive things is ridiculous.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
    I suggest you actually read up on healthy and safety and human rights laws before you slate them. Honestly you are a prime example of someone that regards everything you read in the daily mail as fact. Much of the times the so called "human rights laws" that are protecting prisoners aren't even anything to do with the human rights act and are infact a totally different issue!
    I've read the Daily Mail twice, and I think it's terrible but I have to agree with this guy. Perhaps you should stop assuming things? Conservative (small c) opinions don't go hand in hand with poor taste in newspaper.

    Take the case of Abu Qatada. Because of the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights), he couldn't be deported.

    This IS to do with the HRA (Human Rights Act 1998), sort of, because the HRA allows British courts to enforce the ECHR.

    Technically he could have appealed to the ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights) anyway if the HRA wasn't in place.

    The whole idea of foreign politicians that haven't been elected by British voters dictating our laws is barbaric in my opinion.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It is illegal to hang a bed out of a window.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Human rights, I hate them! It annoys me so much that murderers, rapists, terrorists etc are allowed to stay in our country and pose a risk to us just because they are "scared" to go back to their home country. Also the stupidest thing I have ever heard is that a murderer was spared prison, because his child would have no father if he got sent down... Should have thought of that before you bloody killed someone!!!

    Argggh I can go on such a long rant about human rights, I'll spare you the boredom


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
    I know exactly what you said. Criminals or not, you honestly think it's ok for criminals to be tortured, they are not allowed a right to fair trial? What if they had been convicted wrongly, or possibly be wilfully convicted of a crime they didn't commit? What if one day you or someone close to you is mistakenly convicted of a murder, would you not want a right to appeal. Would you not want to feel safe in the knowledge that although you are being punished and socially reformed in jail (because that's the whole point of our judirical system) at least you wont be made a slave or tortured or never get a retrial or will be sent to your death.
    If our juridical system cannot stand by what is morally right and lead by example then why should the rest of us. Even if that means a terrorist isn't exradited to a country where we know they will be tortured and killed. Human rights should apply to everyone or apply to no one!
    I respect your point that "human rights should apply to everyone" etc. I still don't think you fully get what I am trying to say. If someone is inticing hatred and racism in our own country, and has committed murder and terrorist acts because of their extreme views, I think that we should be allowed to deport them - to protect our right to safety.
    If we have the choice, between protecting the interests of an openly racist murderer or protecting the safety of the innocent people he wants to harm, SURELY the lesser of the two evils is to deport the one criminal? In both cases human rights will be impacted on in some way, either to us or him. In such cases, is it not logical that the rights of the innocent be respected before the rights of the guilty?

    Please don't apply what I am saying to other situations. I am talking PURELY about murderers, terrorists, rapists, etc, who face deportation and resist citing human rights.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Also not a law but I hate that you get twice the sentence if the crime was racially motivated, so if a white person kills a black person they would get twice as long as if it was another white person, basically saying their life isn't worth as much.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilie18)
    You have no idea what I read, so don't get your knickers all in a twist and call it crappy.

    Well, you clearly didn't read my reply properly at all, did you? :rolleyes: If you had, you'd have seen that I clearly stated "Human Rights - for criminals". As in, I feel it is unjust to fight for the rights of murderers, terrorists and rapists. Someone who commits murder takes away their victims most fundamental human right, the right to live. So why should we then do everything we can to ensure HIS human rights are not infringed upon in any way?

    I don't mind that you disagree with me, it's great that everyone has different opinions, but at least make sure that you understand what I am saying before you try to counter it with your argument!
    I agree with Dostoyevsky when he said that one can tell how civilised and humane a society is by how it treats its criminals.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zeke53in)
    Cannabis being a Class B drug :rolleyes:
    Beaten to it.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilie18)
    I respect your point that "human rights should apply to everyone" etc. I still don't think you fully get what I am trying to say. If someone is inticing hatred and racism in our own country, and has committed murder and terrorist acts because of their extreme views, I think that we should be allowed to deport them - to protect our right to safety.
    If we have the choice, between protecting the interests of an openly racist murderer or protecting the safety of the innocent people he wants to harm, SURELY the lesser of the two evils is to deport the one criminal? In both cases human rights will be impacted on in some way, either to us or him. In such cases, is it not logical that the rights of the innocent be respected before the rights of the guilty?

    Please don't apply what I am saying to other situations. I am talking PURELY about murderers, terrorists, rapists, etc, who face deportation and resist citing human rights.
    We do have the right to deport a criminal. Also if the person is thought to be a danger to the public that probably means they are in jail and the public is protected. So no, human rights are only impacted one way if the criminal is sent to a country to be tortured and killed.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Out of interest, do you know if these antiquated laws would actually stand up in court if the situation ever arose?
    I'm no legal expert but I doubt it!

    Though I do like the one where, if there are no toilets around, a pregnant woman is allowed to ask a policeman for the use of his helmet. Might try that one out in the future!


    (Actually that's just an old wives tale. Though when I googled it I found a policeman on a police forum asking if it was true :facepalm:)
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by don_lad_)
    marijuana is illegal for deeply dubious reasons
    They were at least better than the ones used in America for it, though, such as:

    "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men" - Harry J. Anslinger.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lovefoxxx_93)
    I'm no legal expert but I doubt it!

    Though I do like the one where, if there are no toilets around, a pregnant woman is allowed to ask a policeman for the use of his helmet. Might try that one out in the future!


    (Actually that's just an old wives tale. Though when I googled it I found a policeman on a police forum asking if it was true :facepalm:)
    Actually I think the law goes further than than and if you are pregnant you are allowed to urinate anywhere in public.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatPerson)
    According to a Telegraph article I read a while ago, it's illegal to die in parliament and it's treason to turn a stamp upside down.
    Yeah, commoners arent allowed to die in royal premises. So if you die in westMinster palace, st Thomas' hospital is put as your place of death on your certificate.

    In parliament you're also not allowed to use names, eat, have alcohol (unless you're the chancellor at the budget i think) and your sword must be left in the cloak room.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emilie18)
    For me, not one law in particular, just two broad areas:-


    - Health and Safety. It has gone MAD. Kids no longer allowed to play with conkers or climb in trees etc.
    Sorry but these health and safety guidelines and laws are there because the people have allowed them to be. For example, idiots who claim so much on insurance etc (this is only one example remember, I don't mean they're all I place for this reason) are the ones who force the government to create such laws. It's the people who are asking for these. There's even barriers around massive holes in the roads because people in the past have fallen in them. If that kind of thing didn't happen, there'd be no need for a government to introduce laws to prevent it.
    It's for your own safety. Sorry.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpicyStrawberry)
    It's perfectly fine to sit on a bus travelling the same speed as a car but you don't need a seatbelt,
    To be fair, that's not as far fetched as it seems; buses obviously have a lot more mass than do cars; this means that in a crash at the same speed, the bus would typically be better off because it would decelerate from said speed a lot more slowly and thus produce a lot less forward G-forces. Also note that buses aren't allowed to go any faster than 50mph; this has a bigger effect than one would think, according to Wikipedia, a person is 3.5 times more likely to survive a crash at 50 than 60.

    If you've noticed, bus seats are quite cramped; this is in fact intentional; it allows the seat ahead of you to cushion you should you actually get flung forward, and also as exits are a lot farther away from the occupants than car doors, the few seconds needed to take off the seat belt could be the killer in certain emergencies (e.g. them going into a lake, the engine blowing up, etc.).

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 11, 2012
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Join the TSR Halloween party...if you dare!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.