OK, let's take the loss of self-control, the jumping up and down, the smashing of all objects near to hand, the bright red face and mad staring bulging eyes, the spittle-splashed walls, the uninterrupted stream of foul-mouthed expletives...... for granted. I've done all that, notionally anyway.
Now that I have calmed down, notionally, I'd like to make a general comment on the operations of these shit-faced legal types—the ECJ's crooked judges—and those who made these twisted laws.
: In light of the subsequent criticism by RAENORTH ("the man") I have amended the sentence above so as not to let my loose spleen-venting misdirect. JA
I think it is useful to look at what is happening here by way of a mathematical parallel.
Here's a quick and dirty setting of some background.
For various reasons investigations into the foundations of mathematics really took off in the late nineteenth century and culminated, for the purpose here anyway, in the first half of the twentieth century. The upshot was that the whole of mathematics could be constructed as a so-called formal system
. In this case the formal system
consisted of: (1)
a set of axioms (Zermelo-Fraenkel, if you're interested), or postulates if you prefer, about basic entities (actually these are undefined as no one gives a damn what they “really” are, and to define them would involve an infinite regression anyway); and (2)
a system of logic, or rules of inference.
Theorems about, or relationships among, the basic entities (and subsequent entities defined from the basic entities) were then to be deduced (i.e. proved) by means of the system of logic. That was it. The whole of mathematics was subsequently (re)built on that foundation.
It should be mentioned that the basic entities, though undefined within the system, become defined when a particular application
of the system is sought. It is then up to the user (physicists, statisticians etc) to make sure his definitions (strictly, interpretations), which attach real-world meanings to the system's entities hold good. But that's outside the realm of mathematics.
Anyway, this enterprise was very successful and, incidentally, threw up some very surprising results, such as that not every true statement ('proposition' or 'theorem') made within such a formal system was deducible (provable) within the system, but these are not relevant to the point I want to make here.
One rather mundane* result, however, is relevant. It concerns the all-important consistency
of a system. A system is said to be consistent
if no contradiction can be deduced within it, and inconsistent
otherwise. If you can deduce both P and not P, where P is some statement, then that's a contradiction, and the system is inconsistent.
The point about an inconsistent
system is that then ANY statement can be deduced within it and so can its negation. Such a system is therefore completely useless as every statement is provable, including blatant falsehoods.
** (Incidentally, that any proposition can be deduced from a falsehood was also know to antiquity.)
Mathematicians were therefore very concerned to be sure their systems were consistent. But developments in that direction are another story.So what's all this got to do with the ECJ?Well, the legal types operate their legal system exactly as if it were an applied formal system in the sense above.
They 'deduce' their rulings from their 'axioms' (the basic laws, or whatever one might call them) and possibly from case law, or whatever, which ultimately, one presumes, was 'deduced' in the same way — i.e. with everything ultimately coming from basic laws.
However, unlike the mathematicians, these jokers make no great effort to ensure that the different laws are consistent. In fact, on the contrary, some of the laws are obviously inconsistent with others when they are made. Worse, they introduce new undefined terms willy-nilly (later to be 'interpreted' or 'clarified' by these mediaeval mystic judges). So what you have here is a complete dog's dinner of a system. And the plain fact is that any old rubbish can be 'deduced' (ruled) within it.
These crooks know only too damn well that their laws are exquisitely
inconsistent. They are inconsistent by design
. These slimy bastards and their nation-destroying eurocrat chums want the freedom to ‘deduce’ whatever they want, whenever they want. And that is the way they do it.
I wouldn't wipe my arse with the paper their judgements are written on. And neither should you.
It's worth noting that the more laws you introduce the greater the chance of inconsistencies arising, especially if you have no programme to eliminate them. On a mundane level, with such things as Statutory Instruments you come can across inconsistencies between them. These are 'resolved' by taking a case to court to get a poncy judge to pontificate on them and give his 'ruling', just like a witch doctor delivers his 'wisdom'. What a farce this whole primitive business is. And it really is primitive
In practice, the only way to resolve these issues is by having recourse to the spirit
of the law as it was intended
, taking into account the circumstances in which it was made and the circumstances for which it was drawn up. Rigidly holding to the letter of the law in changed (unforeseen) circumstances produces nonesense, which was NOT the intention, one presumes (or should one?), of the original drafters, but is nevertheless a 'technique' exploited by charlatans. Examples would include 19th century laws on asylum and (possible?) laws on nationality granted by virtue of place of birth. Mass transportation in those days just wasn't envisaged and so the practical drafting saw convenient and workable definitions, for those times anyway, could be had by what we now see as very simplistic means. The crooked legal voo-doo merchants seem always to be at pains to avoid mentioning such considerations though. Mention of them would serve only to defeat their attacks on the rest of us.
These people are fit only to be burnt at the stake.
* Not everyone at the time thought it was mundane. In fact, some didn't believe it. There's a story (apocryphal? probably not but I don't know) about Bertrand Russell, a prime mover in these developments, remarking that given any false statement he could prove any other statement whatever. McTaggart was incredulous and challenged Russell over the dinner table to prove that if 1+1 = 1 then he (Russell) was the Pope. After a moment Russell replied, "I am one, and the Pope is one. Therefore the Pope and I are one. So I am the Pope."
** For those who might be interested: Let the symbol → denote implication (i.e. meaning "implies"). If some proposition P and its negation, not P (written as ~P), are derivable within the system then given that P → (~P → Q) is a tautology for any propositions P and Q (i.e. it's always true whatever truth values P and Q take), it follows, with a couple of shots*** of modus ponens
, that Q is derivable too. And Q can be anything you like, such as "everyone must give me £1000 each year
" or "the whole world has a right to come to live in your house and you can't do a damn thing about it.... legally.
*** Like this:Shot 1:
P and P → (~P → Q) implies (~P → Q). [Assuming P is true/deducible, and it is—by assumption (of the contradiction). Ha ha.]Shot 2:
So ~P and (~P → Q) implies Q. [Again, if ~P is true/deducible, and it is—by assumption.]