21-08-12, 11:57 AM
They don't do it that way though Grahamm, if only they did.
They don't update the law by repealing the obsolete laws, they just add new statutes to cover recent technological changes. The original offence is left in place. That law is then there for them to fall back on if they want to be awkward. That's why you still hear of people being prosecuted under some obscure 1864 blah blah blah act.
As far as I know it is still an offence to push a perambulator on the pavement, or to not be in possession of a bow and three arrows for home defence, and all kinds of other archaic stuff. They don't repeal it, so theoretically they can still find a law to prosecute you under even if it's an obsolete one that has fallen into abeyance.
I'm still wondering about the TV license. Similarly the License is not paid for receiving TV channels, but for owning a television capable of receiving them. In today's world of streaming via internet direct to computer monitor technically you no longer need a TV license.
They don't update the law by repealing the obsolete laws, they just add new statutes to cover recent technological changes. The original offence is left in place. That law is then there for them to fall back on if they want to be awkward. That's why you still hear of people being prosecuted under some obscure 1864 blah blah blah act.
As far as I know it is still an offence to push a perambulator on the pavement, or to not be in possession of a bow and three arrows for home defence, and all kinds of other archaic stuff. They don't repeal it, so theoretically they can still find a law to prosecute you under even if it's an obsolete one that has fallen into abeyance.
I'm still wondering about the TV license. Similarly the License is not paid for receiving TV channels, but for owning a television capable of receiving them. In today's world of streaming via internet direct to computer monitor technically you no longer need a TV license.