Wednesday, October 05, 2005
LAW GONE TO THE DOGS
Law has gone to the dogs
Oct 1 2005
By The Journal
Whatever your views on fox hunting, no-one can argue that the current legal situation is a sensible one.
For a variety of reasons - many of them based purely on the need for political expediency within the Government ranks - we have been left with a piece of legislation which is full of loopholes.
We now face a winter of "cat and mouse" between hunters and anti-bloodsport campaigners.
And quite how the police are going to enforce this new legislation has still not been properly established.
So the hunters are determined to continue with their sport and the protesters are equally determined to stop them.
This, however, was the situation this time last year.
It says a lot - and none of it very complimentary - about the Government's legislative procedure that so little has changed.
We have effectively been left with a law that is both difficult to enforce and toothless, even if one could turn out police officers at every meet.
And all because our Prime Minister threw the hunting-with-dogs bill to his backbenchers as a political sop.
You do not need to be particularly for or against hunting to recognise the nonsense of this.
Poorly framed legislation is worse than no legislation at all because it will simply waste more people's time as one group tries to enforce it and the other attempts to circumvent it.
In such situations, the law has to be clear and well-framed.
This law is not.
It is likely, however, to stand as a monument to the folly of allowing political expediency a role in our law-making process.
And that is not a satisfactory situation - wherever you happen to stand on this particular debate.
Oct 1 2005
By The Journal
Whatever your views on fox hunting, no-one can argue that the current legal situation is a sensible one.
For a variety of reasons - many of them based purely on the need for political expediency within the Government ranks - we have been left with a piece of legislation which is full of loopholes.
We now face a winter of "cat and mouse" between hunters and anti-bloodsport campaigners.
And quite how the police are going to enforce this new legislation has still not been properly established.
So the hunters are determined to continue with their sport and the protesters are equally determined to stop them.
This, however, was the situation this time last year.
It says a lot - and none of it very complimentary - about the Government's legislative procedure that so little has changed.
We have effectively been left with a law that is both difficult to enforce and toothless, even if one could turn out police officers at every meet.
And all because our Prime Minister threw the hunting-with-dogs bill to his backbenchers as a political sop.
You do not need to be particularly for or against hunting to recognise the nonsense of this.
Poorly framed legislation is worse than no legislation at all because it will simply waste more people's time as one group tries to enforce it and the other attempts to circumvent it.
In such situations, the law has to be clear and well-framed.
This law is not.
It is likely, however, to stand as a monument to the folly of allowing political expediency a role in our law-making process.
And that is not a satisfactory situation - wherever you happen to stand on this particular debate.
