Apparently John I’ve-been-alright-up-to-now-so-I’m-going-to-ruin-it Reid is considering (consulting) on ways to stop people ‘getting off’ on legal loopholes. BBC News.

I’m going to put my neck on the line and say that, not only can it not be done, that it shouldn’t be done and that the need for it comes out of poor laws.

First, if there’s a legal loophole, as John Reid wants to describe it, then there’s either a mistake in the way the law(s) has been written or there’s a jolly good reason for it being there. If you try and close loopholes independently of the law itself then you are at risk of imprisoning people who, because this loophole is significant, would otherwise be free. Their liberty is being taken, not because they’ve committed a crime, but because John Reid thinks that that loop hole or this should be ‘closed’.

I’m no lawyer, and frankly I’m pleased about that because all lawyers seem to think the law’s ambiguity is a good thing — surely there should be no need for barristers (sorry for the earlier Americanism) if laws were written properly:

“It’s illegal to steal and the punishment for stealing is XX.”

That was easy wasn’t it! Cue barristers telling me how important it is that the law should need to be interpreted like some sick form of theology.

So I say to Reid, don’t close loopholes across the board, and don’t try. Correct your laws and don’t put that “law abiding majority” at risk of wrongful imprisonment so that you can cut corners and appease Daily Mail readers.


Posted In: Political, News and Politics, Labour, Libertarian, Liberty, Constitution, Police state, Democracy