Even the British courts, in sharp contrast to many other places, "deliver the law as it is, and not as we wish it to be" -- see for example [0] or [1].
"When the headroom of an arch or span of a bridge is reduced from its usual limits but that arch or span is not closed to navigation, the person in control of the bridge must suspend from the centre of that arch or span by day a bundle of straw large enough to be conspicuous and by night a white light."
Does that mean the law is not being complied with, in this case, since the bales are hanging from adjacent bridges, not the "centre of that arch or span" itself?
Perhaps we should try a bale of straw next.
The London Blackwall tunnel has a more modern take on checking height: https://maps.app.goo.gl/b5P5Td1hsuSjLU3w8 traffic signals, barriers like at a railroad crossing, giant panels across the road at height, and a police car on standby to pull out and fine anyone that doesn't read the signs - I presume this happens often enough that they can justify the cost.
But then the bale of straw applied to ships not vehicles and bridges not tunnels.
It doesn't surprise me too much that police are on standby, a closure of either tunnel or bridge has a major effect on traffic all over London
I'd have a feeling there are automated signs prior to the tunnel (or at least used to be) but I've not been through the tunnel for a year or so and things will have changed with the Silvertown tunnel opening.
I have seen someone not paying attention at the Rotherhithe tunnel and the roof of their van was a mess (and they're going to pick up a fine probably due to restrictions, the 2 tonnes gross weight limit is lower than a lot of van drivers expect)
Edit there were: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MP7fkhS394DJPQaZ9 If you zoom in you can see the overheight vehicle warning.
I question who approved that the main lanes ahead of your link have 2.8m/9ft limits but the police warning says vehicles over 4m/13ft will be stopped. Can I take my 10ft truck through or not?
I'm starting to feel a tiny bit of sympathy for drivers that get confused by this.
Blackwall seems also to have two sets of lights and barriers, and an off-ramp in between. That's probably for fire safety too to close and evacuate the tunnel and get the emergency services in, but I imagine it's used for height detection too if a loud CLUNK on your truck cabin isn't enough.
As an aside, the person who signed the original heights as (13ft)(4m)(9ft)(2.8m) needs to learn a bit about UI design. Yes, two lanes, but the gap between the central two signs is far smaller than to the other sign for the same lane. Also 4m is just over 13 ft 1 inch, which there'd be space to include as there's already a 0 on the leftmost sign (and from the rightmost we see that decimals are allowed on signs). Guess we're going to rely on the CLUNK after all.
I also imagine it wasn't cheap doing this, but apparently as long as people can get away with something there is always those that will try, regardless of how it impacts others.
The English practically invented the idea of common law. Even today there are still important legal principles based entirely on the decisions of earlier courts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K...
The constitution of the United Kingdom comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no official attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.
After this has happened, the rule just changes and whatever was not in order in the past is in order in the future (or vice versa.) In the Senate as in Parliament; the majority of Parliament is the law, it can't break the law.
Same thing with most of the world's parliaments and congresses having to reference English Parliamentary precedent in order to figure out how to operate themselves. The UK Parliament and courts may be terrible, but they invented the thing and we're forks.
For all intents and purposes, every precedent and matter of jurisprudence can be resolved by referring only to Common Law. It would be rather exhausting and absurd to try and reach back past 1066 AD because things have changed, a lot.
Now in terms of forking Roman Law, there are other legal systems which are not directly related or derived from British Common Law. Especially the Napoleonic Code, which influenced Italy, which in turn influenced Catholic Canon Law. So here we have another lineage and a deeper "fork" from Roman Law where British Common Law doesn't really figure.
Also someone commented with a non sequitir about "antidisestablishmentarianism". I'd just like to point out that that word refers to revocation of things like the 1st Amendment and support for the Established Church laws, because it's "anti-dis" double negative.
If you want to talk about the United States' 1st Amendment, "disestablishmentarianism" is the term used to describe how the Founding Fathers set up the States without those meddling bishops.
(To be precise: where is that accepted practice, rather than aberrant behaviour by some judges?)
One could argue that 'a corporation has personhood' is a technical contrivance that tries to manipulate the letter of the law into achieving a particular outcome. Going with the spirit of the law instead, that argument would never hold water.
I was surprised (and then sad) at the realization that Bill Watterson is fading from the cultural ethos as I age.
Most of what happened before 2000 doesn't seem to exist in cultural memory.
It's not quite true that nothing that happened before 1950 exists at all. But you're not going to find many people who are interested in the art, music, literature, design, or architecture of earlier decades - never mind centuries.
It's as a big a break as there was in the 60s. For that generation the 50s were still an influence, but anything earlier pretty much just disappeared.
Watch whatever today's kids watch.
On the other hand, I had to ask them what a Kirby was. I'm still not sure but I know it's pink.
It’s pining for the fjords!
I suppose some of the jokes depend on cultural things that might not be taught as well anymore, like the Trojan Horse. But most of it is about human nature, so it seems like that should hold up.
> Well I didn't vote for him
to which I naturally replied
> You don't vote for kings!
and the next comment was an antimonarchist slamming me for being a royalist toady.
The core issue is that no Constitution, in fact no law or decree at all can account for all possibilities that real life offers, and so all the bodies of law are up for interpretation all the time.
The issue highlighted by, say, the Owens vs Owens example, is that the law as it stood was clear and not open to interpretation, though obviously unfair. The law needed to be changed, which required parliament.
There are vague rights in the constitution.
It could be a disaster for the courts to interpret them too literally (Is literally any weapon OK in the 2nd? Does free speech include a mob boss ordering a hit?) and constitutions are really hard to amend, so heavy interpretation is a nessessary evil.
if the 2nd amendmend was literally interpreted it would be (quoting from memory) “in order to form a well-ordered militia the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”
As in you cannot infringe the right to bear arms in a well ordered militia, but gun ownership might be regulated for example by the militia organization owning the arms. Nothing would speak against codifying in law what constitutes a well-ordered militia, etc.
And the 2nd actually reads (if you fix its grammar since it's ungrammatical by the standards of the modern English language) "since the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" — now notice that it's a conditional rule, and its premise in "since..." is no longer true, militias are not necessary for the security of a country; and so the conclusion should lose its power. And arguably it's what the Founders intended: if they meant it as an absolute rule, they would've omitted the first part of it and would have simply stated that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", period.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
It's the only amendment that comes with a justification so it's unusual but there's nothing in the text that limits the right to the listed justification.
I don't agree at all that this is a case of creative reading. The actual text of the amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Note that the text does not say "in order to" or anything like that, which is why interpretation of this amendment gets controversial. Was the intent that bearing arms is only a right insofar as people are part of a local militia? Was the intent that people must have the right to bear arms and the militia was simply cited as one example of why? It is genuinely unclear from the text, which means that no matter what we do we have to layer our own interpretation on top. That doesn't mean anyone is reading the law creatively, that's just the unfortunate facts of having to deal with an unclear text.
Historically, not owning a sword or longbow could get you in legal trouble in some cities and time periods, since it meant you weren't capable of helping defend the city. I'd say that in the spirit of the law, it should mostly allow the ownership of useful infantry weapons, or dual purpose ones (hunting rifles?), rather than self defence pistols.
But the US interprets it differently because the constitution is a bit vague, the constitution is hard to change, and practicalities and politics exist.
The United States. E.g. ‘the switch in time that saved nine,’ Wickard v. Filburn, Obergefell v. Hodges, Gonzales v. Raich and so forth.
If that's not religion, I don't know what is...
Most religions are relatively flexible around beliefs. It tends to be particular sects that aren't... But they don't speak for the rest.
But even "submarine" religions (ones that people do not think of as a religion) follow the pattern. Communists worship the State (or perhaps the Party), because the problem with society is the structure of society, so only the State can bring the salvation of equity. American Progressives worship sexual identity. Progressives are flexible--except if you don't accept a particular identity, think that gender is not malleable, refuse to use pronouns, etc.
However, I think even "most religions" are not very flexible. 50% of the world's population are either Christian or Islam, and both are pretty prescriptive in the ethics.
You are close to something. You've found the division between worldview, and religion. A worldview is bigger, and is individualistic - but generally founded upon tenants shared by others. "a framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it as a social reality."
I will say: There is no accepted definition of a religion. There are hotly debated definitions, but no concrete and agreed formation of what it constitutes.
However, generally speaking, a religion is a set of socio-cultural systems, generally tied to a set of beliefs, that tend to have supernatural or spiritual elements. However - the systems are essential, the beliefs are not. [0] Many agnostics and atheists follow religious practices, and form their own religions. There are Christians who do not believe in Christ.
Because the core of a religion is social and cultural, it greatly varies in time and place. The Christianity of Early Rome would be unrecognisable to most Christians today. The religion has changed almost every single practice, over time, because of the cultures that have influenced it today. [1]
[0] An example would be "Jewish Atheism". It is a religion, with practices and rites, but it does not carry with it supernatural or spiritual beliefs. Another would be "Mainline Protestant Buddhism", also known as Secular Buddhism.
[1] An example of one of the most important rites in early Christendom that is no longer regularly practiced in Rome, would be the washing of feet. The host welcomed their guests on their knees, caring for them. Society moved on, shoes and roads changed, it no longer became necessary, and the religion changed around it.
Belief in other shared made up things like law and even money works that way, and most of the world -isms too
Religion is what it replaced. Where one person, with a clique of courtiers who personally relied on him for power, enacted whatever took their fancy. Their word was power, whether it was starting wars or forging alliances with unsavoury countries - and woebetide you if you challenged it.
antidisestablishmentarianism
That is for the removal of the Church of England as the religion of England, but it’s along those lines.
But it doesn't matter anyway - the UK is a pretty atheist society and getting more so... Those who self-describe as "atheist" in the census:
2001: 15.9%
2011: 25.7%
2021: 37.8%
In Scotland, figures are higher with a majority of the population now describing themselves as atheist (51.1%)
And these figures are only for people who describe themselves as atheists, not just agnostic. The number of people saying they believe "in god" was only 16%, and expanding that to "any god" bumped it to 27%, according to a YouGov poll in 2020.
Also, the most irreligious government ever is the most-recent one, with 40% of MPs opting to make a secular affirmation of service rather than swear a religious oath.
Basically the god-squad is done in the UK, it's just a matter of time - which is odd for a place with an official state religion, as opposed to somewhere like the USA which is officially non-affiliated with any religion, but has "christians" who wouldn't recognise Jesus unless he was white, toting an uzi, and telling them to give him money now to get a great afterlife - "prosperity gospel" my arse.
(Figures from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_Kingd...)