dag

Thoughts and Prayers.

Prohibitions are not spells.

Law is not magic.

When you prohibit a thing, all that means is the thing may be attended by different legal consequences than before.

The thing is not extinguished by a mere prohibition: it can continue but in a different way with different (and unforeseen) effects.

Well answered.

Indeed.

And gods spare us, please, from the puff-pieces about how brilliant things are behind the scenes.

Consider literally the phrase "award a penalty".

Quite.

In general terms: passing a law against something is no more effective, by itself, than casting a spell against something.

Quite.

This is a v good point.

In my experience, the UK government is quite fond of banning / prohibiting things without making credible enforcement plans.
The result is often more sludge for those who follow the rules, and little effect on those who don't

There are many things which are rightly banned. Many prohibitions are in the public interest

But the notion that a ban, in and of itself, means the banned thing no longer exists or can happen again is false.

Sometimes there is a deterrent effect, otherwise you are just creating new consequences.

Prohibitions are not spells.

Law is not magic.

When you prohibit a thing, all that means is the thing may be attended by different legal consequences than before.

The thing is not extinguished by a mere prohibition: it can continue but in a different way with different (and unforeseen) effects.

No, just odd. But never mind.

What an odd reply.

Trump attacks ‘seriously woke’ Jaguar Land Rover as company names new CEO US president claims Britain’s largest carmaker is ‘in absolute turmoil’ and attacks firm’s rebrand

I worked as a holiday job as a cleaner at what is now Land Rover Jaguar, Solihull.

It is the least “woke” place in the entire universe, other than perhaps Tamworth.

www.theguardian.com/business/202...

Spot on.

I know the law and lore of the internet, and there be dragons.

Surely: Invitation to tweet.

That is not really the other [whatever], unless that job was about the law of contract.

You two stop teasing each other

"The postal acceptance rule is not about social media posts."

A law of contract that had few formal requirements and a flexible doctrine of consideration was not going to be fazed by eCommerce flapdoodle.

"Luton away"

*shudders*

Throwback to a law of contract webinar where the tutor struggled for 60 minutes trying to explain “digital contracts” that are “written in code” and “self execute”, and I don’t think she (nor whoever wrote the textbook) had a clue what they meant. Just glad it didn’t come up in the exam

“eContracts”

*shudders*

"eCommerce will revolutionise the law of contract," we were told twenty-five years ago, but the law of contract hardly noticed.

Ha ha, maybe.

"Artificial Intelligence will have an impact ten times greater than that of the Industrial Revolution," says somebody whose only knowledge of the Industrial Revolution must come from Artificial Intelligence.

In which LuthoReinsurance prevails.

“Why did I not think of this all along?”

On 4.

Scene: two groups of costumed superheroes at odds over public indemnity insurance premiums.

This is a thing of perfect beauty.