My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

News

Make it nice and easy to understand hey???

18 replies

QueenOfQuotes · 04/08/2005 23:00

"having information that they knew or believed might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of another person in the UK for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism, failed to disclose that information as soon as reasonably practicable to a constable"

That's what two sisters have been accused of re the london bombings - here


Now how many people here can honestly say that they understand all of that.

OP posts:
Report
kid · 04/08/2005 23:03

after reading it 2 or 3 times I think I understand it!

Report
CountessDracula · 04/08/2005 23:05

Yep, me too - actually that is pretty clear for legalese

Report
QueenOfQuotes · 04/08/2005 23:08

But why do they have to make legal jargon so blooming difficult? Imagine having that lot thrown at you 'verbally' by a police officer - I wouldn't have been able to give them any answers as I'd be spending the next 10 minutes trying to work out what they'd said/

Surely something along the lines of "witholding potentially vital information about the terrorist attacks from the police" might have been a little easier for all of those that don't have a degree in legal wotsits

OP posts:
Report
TwinSetAndPearls · 04/08/2005 23:12

It needs to be water tight so another legal professional can't help someone wriggle out on a technicality.

Report
CountessDracula · 04/08/2005 23:14

Yes they would say that, but in the formal charge they would have to use this all-encompassing language or risk it being thrown out for not doing so

Report
Tinker · 04/08/2005 23:15

It needs to attempt to cover every option.

Report
QueenOfQuotes · 04/08/2005 23:16

I know - just don't understand why what they tell the public (and probably the person being charged too) is so damned complicated

OP posts:
Report
alexsmum · 04/08/2005 23:18

because to dumb it down would be patronising?

Report
CountessDracula · 04/08/2005 23:19

because that is what they are charged with!

Report
CountessDracula · 04/08/2005 23:20

Imagine if they didn't have to - they could say

"well you have been very naughty girls" or something similar

they have to quote the letter of the law

Report
QueenOfQuotes · 04/08/2005 23:23

I don't see how making it easy for anyone being charged (regardless of education) to understand what they're being charged with is 'dumbing it down'.

OP posts:
Report
CountessDracula · 04/08/2005 23:24

~Surely it is their right to know what they are actually being charged with, not the interpretation of what they are being charged with of the person who is charging them IYKWIM

I'm sure they explained it in words of one syllable too.

Report
QueenOfQuotes · 04/08/2005 23:26

While I understand that when being charged they have to cover all 'aspects' of the law - I still don't understand the need to use the longest words in the dictionary to come up with the law in the first place

OP posts:
Report
Tinker · 04/08/2005 23:27

But they are the correct words. The accurate words.

Report
CountessDracula · 04/08/2005 23:28

QoQ face it, jurisprudence is not your bag

Report
QueenOfQuotes · 04/08/2005 23:33

Tinker - the English language is amazing you can't tell me that for all the "long" words that are written in the law books, there's no 'shorter' words which mean the same thing???


CD - I certainly conclude it is permissible not to acknowledge the phenomenon of the judicial dictionary

OP posts:
Report
Tinker · 04/08/2005 23:37

The words are not really that long are they? It's the sentence as a whole which makes it appear to be more complicated.

Report
serah · 05/08/2005 00:40

I think Queen of Quotes, that your dilemna over this matter could be dispersed, isolated, severed, and furthermore concluded by the statement commonly known as "the law is an ass" and a complicated one at that.

I understood it by the way because I work with legislation a lot, and that is bleeding impossible to understand too (unless you're me of course)

What was the prize for understanding it? Did I win???

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.