posted by [identity profile] devilgate.livejournal.com at 04:05pm on 20/03/2006
I see what you're getting at, but I read it as:

((may not create a new offence) OR (increase the penalty for an existing offence)) so that it is punishable...


These lawyers need a programming language.

Anyway, inasmuch as there is such thing as the UK blogosphere, it is alight with discussion of this; or, to put that another way, I have mainly been focussing my attention on discussion about it recently. And the general understanding of that clause seems to be as I described it. But IANAL, of course, and quite possibly, neither is anyone else whose posts I've read.

But above all (and this applies to your next comment, too): if the bill is enacted, it will be possible for ministers to modify that act (that legal programming language will have to support recursion, obviously). So any limitations and safeguards written into the bill have to be considered as irrelevant for our democratic safety.

Reply

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

September

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
    1 2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30