tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post5546894508949546976..comments2024-03-18T09:13:19.346+00:00Comments on panGloss: Incredulitypanglosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-65228656755708148542009-11-20T11:14:24.703+00:002009-11-20T11:14:24.703+00:00I somehow doubt that those members of the Commons ...I somehow doubt that those members of the Commons and the Lords with legal backgrounds would let pass a provision which allows governments to make radical changes on the suspicion of the possibility that there might be a contingency which has not hitherto arisen -- i.e., one can't make law addressed to hypotheses. This (<i>pace</i> my comment on your post yesterday about the Tories' general support for the Bill) is exactly the sort of thing the Lords will want to "scrutinise thoroughly" as part of the Conservative attempt to strangle Labour's last legislative programme, and thus one of the clauses which will most likely be jettisoned to get the Bill through as the moment of electoral dissolution approaches.<br /><br />None of which should stop people writing to MPs (and Lords) with legal backgrounds pointing out the wide-ranging stupidity of the draft amendments to the Copyright Act. And quoting gleefully from Stephen Timms's flounderingly incoherent interview in yesterday's <i>Grauniad</i> -- the man is so far up himself that he can't tell day from night.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198282862782542953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-44756848446837299212009-11-20T11:13:20.196+00:002009-11-20T11:13:20.196+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198282862782542953noreply@blogger.com