Why do we invent laws?

God knows we have enough laws, rules, regulations don't we? I'm talking about the UK by the way - other countries may be more blessed. Perhaps you do live in that Utopia where there are but two laws: (1) don't hurt anybody and (2) don't steal their stuff. If so, do please let me know where it is.

 

Parliament is constantly passing new laws. If I could be bothered, I'd look up the figures for new laws passed each year but really it's too depressing. And what makes it even worse is that it's often not even parliament that's doing the legislating, at least not directly. What tends to happen is that a bit of "enabling" legislation is passed which then allows the government to enact dozens of subsidiary regulations at various points in the future without the tiresome need to have them actually approved by our glorious elected representatives. And worse again, they hardly ever repeal old laws so every year the towering mass of rules just gets bigger.

 

But despite this regulatory overkill that we find ourselves burdened with, we seem to love to invent non-existent laws. I can't be sure about this, but I reckon it's a peculiarly British hobby although I can't quite put my finger on the national trait that gives rise to it. Something to do with the orderly nature of our society, coupled with the general loss of autonomy (the "computer says no" generation) which makes us want to assert a position of power over others wherever possible. This latter facet of our character may be due precisely to this massive and recent rise in legislation as whenever there's a new law passed, that invariably means there's one more thing you can't do, hence your autonomy is chipped away and hence the need to invent a new power base for yourself.  So paradoxically, the more laws you have, the more people invent new ones, and vice versa.

 

Actually, when I say "power base" I'm making mountains out of molehills a little. The sort of fantasy laws I'm talking about are usually minor things but they just give the enforcer that little bit of a lift and make life just that little bit more annoying for the enforcee.

 

So what sort of things am I talking about then? Well this piece was partly inspired by a comment on another piece to the effect that people were fond of wrongly blaming "health and safety" for all sorts of mythical obligations. This is certainly true and the Health and Safety Executive actually have a "myth busters" page on their web-site I believe to combat this sort of thing. Well done them but unfortunately this category of invention is largely beyond their control. The problem here is the judges, and of course their best mates, the lawyers.

 

The judges are perhaps the best example of those who seek to over-assert themselves in the face of legislative wing-clipping. The more that the government says that there's no truth in such and such a rumour that you must do X or face the slammer, the more likely are the judges to award damages because someone tripped over a paving stone or ruined a blouse after spilling curry on it (the menu omitted to say "warning: some of this food may leave irremovable stains"). We used to have a good chuckle at how this sort of thing only happened in the USA (MacDonald's in hot coffee shock) but like most things American, we have imported it into the UK.

 

So thanks to our learned friends, insurance companies will put reams of stuff in the small print of their policies, compelling you to put warnings on your menus or coffee cups or whatever, failing which they will not pay out. Which could be very bad news indeed. This is what gives rise to the "got to do that, it's bloody health and safety" business, not the boys at the H&S Executive. Of course what people should really be saying is "got to do that, it's them bloody judges" but the effect's the same. 

 

But that's just one area. What else is there? Well I'm going to list a few things that pop into my head and will try and update in future posts. Do please add your own. In fact I feel a whole new web-site coming on! Let's hope someone's not got there first. Here goes:

 

1.  Tenancy agreements: I know a letting agency whose agreements provide for a witness signature but this is not required in the vast majority of cases. They know this but won't change it as they feel compelled to use a standard form provided by some trade association or other. Or perhaps they're just too lazy. Also, they think that landlords have to have insurance (they don't); that they have to provide copies of insurance documents to tenants (they don't) and that all electrical appliances have to be regularly tested (they don't).

 

2. I was once told by a work "colleague" that people were legally obliged to attend and pass some council-run course before they could drive a minibus. Not true. What makes it worse is that it's the nature of your licence which determines this but the person trying to boss me around didn't know this so could well have been sanctioning illegal minibus drivers.

 

3. Smoking in hotel rooms is illegal: not true. Hotel rooms are one place you can still smoke. Now, the hotel may impose its own smoking ban but that's a different matter - they shouldn't hide this behind those annoying "smoking in these premises is illegal" stickers they put up. Take a marker pen with you and write "not true" on them.

 

4. Pubs: one or two things here. "Kids under 18 can't drink alcohol". Not true. They can't legally be served alcohol but when you're 16 you can drink various alcoholic things with a meal. Also: "kids under 14 not allowed in pubs". Not true any more, although it used to be and some of us think it might be a good idea if it was again!

 

5. Smoking again: the smoking ban is an EU thing and applies across Europe. Not true. The rules vary from country to country. You can smoke in pubs in Belgium, under the very eyes of those swarming Eurocrats who hang out there. Maybe that's why.

 

6. You can't kill foxes: yes you can: they're a bloody nuisance. Just not with dogs.

 

7. All buildings which might be used by the public must have full disabled access, etc. Nope. The Disability Discrimination Act provides all sorts of get out clauses. We had premises used by the "public" for many years and we never did anything about disabled access nor, in fairness, did any council jobsworth ever tell us to.

 

Well that's enough to be going on with, more fantasy laws anon. In the meantime, I must get to work on that web-site and watch the £millions roll in...