Just why?
Why do we have this mind-numbing series of statutory provisions, listing 37 thousand factors that a court must take into account before it can decide whether or not to blow its nose? Admittedly, it's not just family law that shows this trend, but that's the subject that I'm trying to avoid doing by writing this, so it shall bear the brunt of my wrath.
Everyone who's ever studied law knows that everything turns out much more interesting when Parliament buggers off and leaves the courts to get on with things. MPs, by definition, are dull people. If they were interesting, they'd be barristers.
If a court comes up against a thorny problem that it can't resolve according to the existing law, its usual response is to invent some fiendishly clever mechanism of avoiding the rule and getting the result they want. It might be completely insane or have more holes than the Pope, but it's a bloody sight more interesting than another five thousand page statute setting out in minute detail what should happen in every circumstance that could possible occur, in this universe or any other, ever.
So, in summary. Courts good, politicians bad. And don't do family law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for the heads up warning Mr. Tickner!
I also couldn't help but notice that the once ample proportions of your blog seem to have shrunk down somewhat. It may now be in danger of falling below its ideal BMI, so I'd watch out! You wouldn't want an anorexic blog.
It's this newfangled Blogger Beta, it's reset my template! I shall have my revenge...
Post a Comment