![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Do not try to eat custard slices anywhere near a keyboard. Really.
I pottered into London last night to meet up with an old schoolfriend for tea. As usual, public transport did its best to make me late: train left late from Reading, was delayed due to a "bridge strike" (A what? Like the bridge just said "stuff this, it's long hours and I'm getting rained on, I want better pay"?), and then hung around waiting for a signal. Trying to get to Gloucester Road, I hung around on the platform at Paddington waiting for a tube. "This is a circle line train" said the tannoy; I hopped on. I got out at the station after High St Kensington: Earls Court. Not in fact a circle line train at all, then. Bastards, the lot of them.
Finally managed to meet up with Rachel, and found a decent pub - The... er... Hertfordshire ? Maybe ? Did reasonable food, and played Radiohead at us (and Alice in Chains, and Temple of the Dog, or so I was reliably informed). Pintwatch:[*] reluctantly concedes that £2.55 is not uncommon in London, and acknowledges that the beer (London Pride, though they had Wells' Bombadier on as well) was very nicely kept.
Rachel is one of those handy friends who pop up from time to time, and appears never to have been away. We went to school together, then diverged when I came down here to read maths at university, and she went to Leeds to do the same thing. We now have pretty much non-intersecting lives: I'm still indistinguishable from a scruffy student, for a start. She's a civil servant, statisticianing for the Dept. of Health, living in Otley with her fiancé and cats, and worrying whether her hanging baskets are being properly looked after while she's in London.
We wittered about nothing and everything, and generally set the world to rights. A fine evening, which then turned into a very long evening as I braved the trains to get home again.
This same topic has come up a few times in conversation with various people. (And from the looks of it,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
snow_leopard could do with knowing too :)
How do you find out what, exactly, the law says on a particular issue?
OK, so you can google. But any idiot can put stuff on a website... I want some form of reference whereby I can find out whether it's legal to chain my alligator to a fire hydrant in Carfax - and know that what I have found out is correct and definitive.
In particular instances, like, er... maybe your rights as a tenant, for example, you could probably go and find out from some form of housing association. But in the case of that old debate war-horse "is cannibalism legal?", where do you go to find that out?
People have suggested the Citizens' Advice Bureau, but I'm not sure they exist. The Oxford CAB is open every other second Thursday, between 11 and 11.15 am, if it's sunny (or something like that). They have hours when you can phone them, but they never answer their phone (believe me, I've tried).
Ignorance of the law is no defence against the law. Apparently. Which is a shame, in the circumstances...
[*] In answer tonarenek's enquiry of a while back, no, there aren't any particular guidelines for Pintwatch aubmissions. An ability to drink beer in sufficient moderation that you can remember its price, location and quality seems to be all that is required. Bitter only, though - if you happen to locate a hostelry selling Fosters at 25p a gallon, Pintwatch does not give a flying fairy. (Though Pintwatch's landlord may well want to be informed :)
Finally managed to meet up with Rachel, and found a decent pub - The... er... Hertfordshire ? Maybe ? Did reasonable food, and played Radiohead at us (and Alice in Chains, and Temple of the Dog, or so I was reliably informed). Pintwatch:[*] reluctantly concedes that £2.55 is not uncommon in London, and acknowledges that the beer (London Pride, though they had Wells' Bombadier on as well) was very nicely kept.
Rachel is one of those handy friends who pop up from time to time, and appears never to have been away. We went to school together, then diverged when I came down here to read maths at university, and she went to Leeds to do the same thing. We now have pretty much non-intersecting lives: I'm still indistinguishable from a scruffy student, for a start. She's a civil servant, statisticianing for the Dept. of Health, living in Otley with her fiancé and cats, and worrying whether her hanging baskets are being properly looked after while she's in London.
We wittered about nothing and everything, and generally set the world to rights. A fine evening, which then turned into a very long evening as I braved the trains to get home again.
This same topic has come up a few times in conversation with various people. (And from the looks of it,
snow_leopard could do with knowing too :)How do you find out what, exactly, the law says on a particular issue?
OK, so you can google. But any idiot can put stuff on a website... I want some form of reference whereby I can find out whether it's legal to chain my alligator to a fire hydrant in Carfax - and know that what I have found out is correct and definitive.
In particular instances, like, er... maybe your rights as a tenant, for example, you could probably go and find out from some form of housing association. But in the case of that old debate war-horse "is cannibalism legal?", where do you go to find that out?
People have suggested the Citizens' Advice Bureau, but I'm not sure they exist. The Oxford CAB is open every other second Thursday, between 11 and 11.15 am, if it's sunny (or something like that). They have hours when you can phone them, but they never answer their phone (believe me, I've tried).
Ignorance of the law is no defence against the law. Apparently. Which is a shame, in the circumstances...
[*] In answer to
narenek's enquiry of a while back, no, there aren't any particular guidelines for Pintwatch aubmissions. An ability to drink beer in sufficient moderation that you can remember its price, location and quality seems to be all that is required. Bitter only, though - if you happen to locate a hostelry selling Fosters at 25p a gallon, Pintwatch does not give a flying fairy. (Though Pintwatch's landlord may well want to be informed :)
no subject
Really ?
<looks very interested>
I might know her then. Any chance of a surname ?
Citizens' Advice Bureau
Having received legally-inaccurate advice from the Bethnal Green branch (concerning insurance), I personally no longer trust them. Thing is - they're run by volunteers who may or may not be good at their jobs.
no subject
Rachel Senior, she'd have joined at whatever standard-graduate-joining-grade-is in late '98/early '99.
no subject
Actually, given that I know her department is split between there and London, it's not at all implausible. Duh.
no subject
She's a bit on the young side for me to have met. I was promoted in 98 (six years after I was first an AS), but before then I knew a large proportion of the ASs (Assistant Statisticians) because I worked on a number of the department-wide groups.
Admittedly, I knew fewer of the non-London people though.
no subject
no subject
Definitely worth bearing in mind, though, thanks - after all, faced with Greene King, Youngs or Morrells it'd be GK any time :)
green kings
About as useful as tits on a bull, but...
It's a reasonable source for legal information in the US, or at least I've found it so. Of course, chaining your alligator to Carfax Tower would thus be beyond its scope, which means that you're not likely to find it useful. But there's a lot of solicitor's sites out there with 'fact sheets' that are quite nice.
In essence, though, if you could definitively find the legal position on a contentious issue simply and easily through the net, a lot of lawyers would be unnecessary. Indeed, this might be why constructing net-based legal advice systems is of such interest to me. :)
Re: About as useful as tits on a bull, but...
There are a couple of websites for practitioners but they are usually subsciption only and are too abstract for laymen. They have chunks of information and it is assumed that you already know enough to put them in the correct context. There is a fantastic website which gives you extracts from definitive cases but you would need a level of basic knowledge in order to understand some of them or to ensure that you understood exactly the point the case is trying to make.
I am sad to say that a net based legal advice system may work on a very basic level but for detailed and specific questions (about Crocodiles in Carfax) you will need to speak to a lawyer. Law just isn't often that simple (I wish it was someimes). Its a bit like being ill -I could go to a medical dictionary and look up my symptoms but it would be safer to go and see a doctor. Then it might turn out that was I thought was a cough is actually brochitus or something.
F.
Re: About as useful as tits on a bull, but...
Yup... I had a nasty idea this would be true. If I had a legal problem, I'd take it to a solicitor - it's just my rabid curiosity that's the problem. I want to know about consumer rights and cannibalism and crocodiles at Carfax and trespass and on-line contracts and eating dogs and branded pint glasses and speed cameras. But I don't need to know about any of them. So it'd be kind of like taking a series of imaginary diseases to a doctor - not to mention expensive.
Re: About as useful as tits on a bull, but...
That's why the question interests me, actually: because to do it would require (a) developments in artificial intelligence and neural networks and (b) a change in the nature of the law, including a simplification of it. One joke being that the first law computer would have to be named Justinian.
Law stuff
I think it was the Lexis-Nexis database. That or another 'brandname'.