Monday, 17 May 2010

Just for fun

A. P. Herbert

Uncommon Law, Rex v Haddock: Is it a free country?, 5, pp24-29.

A misleading case when Haddock is arrested for jumping into the River Thames from Hammersmith Bridge. When questioned to motive, Haddock replies "For fun". The judge sums up: "The appellant made the general answer that this was a free country and a man can do what he likes if he does nobody any harm.... It cannot be too clearly understood that this is not a free country, and it will be an evil day for the legal profession when it is... and least of all may they do unusual actions "for fun". People must not do things for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament."

PS. Could someone let Tower Hamlets know that Labour LOST the election?

Meanwhile, on Planet Zog

All parents should allow health inspectors into their homes to check that windows, doors, cupboards and stairs do not pose a danger to children, it was claimed.

No, really.


OldSlaughter said...

Ah, Herbert.

The master.

To the courtroom as Wodehouse is to the Country House

Anonymous said...

Actually, Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98 establishes that the country is, in a fundamental sense, free because a citizen is entitled to do anything he pleases provided it is not proscribed in law; by contrast, the state is forbidden from engaging in any activity except that which is specifically allowed by law.

To some extent this is restated in Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] Ch. 344 where Lord Megarry specifically stated that the UK "is not a country where everything is forbidden except what is expressly permitted: it is a country where everything is permitted except what is expressly forbidden".

Catflap said...

There is no law against being a cunt and as a result we have loads of cunts in this country.
Bring in a law that makes being a cunt an offence.
Those of us who aren't cunts know who the real cunts are and could be employed in the C.I.D.
'Cunt Investigation Department'.

Catflap said...

A Cunt could be defined in law as a private individual who half a dozen people or more agree is a Cunt.
For Cunts in the public eye a majority vote would be needed so as Cunts couldn't accuse an innocent person of being a Cunt.
Monbiat V Clarkson

Monbiat and other tree huggers accuse Clarkson of being a Cunt.
This would trigger an Xfactor style telephone vote in which case Monbiat would come out as the Cunt.

I rest my case m'lord.

bofl said...

just been to the gym.......

the owner was having a small nervous breakdown......the cause? health and safety....

apparently if he sees someone doing an exercise incorrectly he then has to tell them and show them the right way to do it........

if they persist in doing it incorrectly.....
this is where it gets really funny.apparently he then has to ask them to leave!

i wonder how many £millions it costs to implement each of these phuqwit instructions?

as for the labour wasters........
if they have plunged us into an enormous black hole then i do not see why the public should be held to ransom.surely the deliberate destruction of govt. (our) funds and resulting enslavement of the uk people is treasonous?

apparently it is possible to seize the money and assets from blair,brown.balls.darling and all the other hoons need to face lordships like the one for prezza,the worlds only failed bulimic.(what a disgrace)

seize all of their assets and use their money to start paying off the debt..........THEY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH IT!

will dave have the balls?

Anonymous said...

@ bofl

Health and Safety are talking out of their arses. In common law jurisdictions, there can be no delictual liability for a pure omission - which means, you are not liable if you see someone doing something dangerous and fail to stop them.

We have case after case (after case after case) in which the courts in every part of the UK uphold the principle that you are in no way responsible for any negligent actions taken by a third party. The infamous Maloco v Littlewoods [1987] SC (HL) 37, which is a Scots case accepted in English law, confirmed that, even if the negligent act of a third party is taking place on your property, you are not liable for it.

Ampers said...

It's rather sad really. It means that if I killed John Prescott or the ex Labour Prime Minister (do you know, I honestly can't remember his name for the moment) for fun, it would not be an acceptable reason.

Ampers said...

Gordon Brown, Just remembered!


bofl said...


very interesting indeed.....

h+s think like most other boards,quangos,phuqwits etc that their word is gospel......or even above the law?.

(see police,tax officials,mps,lords,bbc etc)

i had to suffer a whole day lecture last year from a was the worst day of my industry built on nonsense........

sure we do not want people being hurt or killed at work........but as usual they treat us like 2 year olds.she got really excited when she stated that 'working at height means anything off the ground.even 1 inch'........

i believe she gets well paid too..just to rub it in....

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Holborn

“The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said that every family with sons and daughters under the age of five should agree to a home safety assessment.”

Will those families with only sons or daughters under the age of five be exempt? How Nice.


Anonymous said...

H&S checks for all families - another piece of Labour shit & CMD & Clegg need to get rid of. Noticed the thing about 'private companies' carrying out the checks for the PCTs. Another round of expensive 'jobs for the boys' quangos - managed, no doubt, by the Labour fuckwits who lost their troughing jobs recently.... I think we need a cull.

Anonymous said...

I see Tower Hamlets are also looking for a Business Analyst to work on setting up & installing a package called 'Framework' which is, no doubt, another snooping DB. I'm very tempted to apply & then, if I get the job, f*** them over completely.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails