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&#39;t make law addressed to hypotheses. This (<i>pace</i> my comment on your post yesterday about the Tories&#39; general support for the Bill) is exactly the sort of thing the Lords will want to &quot;scrutinise thoroughly&quot; as part of the Conservative attempt to strangle Labour&#39;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&#39;s flounderingly incoherent interview in yesterday&#39;s <i>Grauniad</i> -- the man is so far up himself that he can&#39;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