DeletedUser6695
Guest
Their education, god.
He's not trying to show off that he is education. :icon_wink:
WUT?
Their education, god.
He's not trying to show off that he is education. :icon_wink:
Their education, god.
He's not trying to show off that he is education. :icon_wink:
You realise he was being sarcastic, aye?
Without condom: Ugh... if I was 14 and the girl I had sex with had a baby, I could support the baby with the money I had.
The first and most common are Bye-laws. These are laws such as Dog litter fines, created by local councils and businesses. Cheap to create.
The second are statutory laws. Example: The Road Traffic Act - These are laws created in Government.
The third is Case Law (common law). Judges make these laws. Considering the media attention and controversy surrounding the sex thing the likely way to create the law here is getting it to the supreme court. Which would take many years.
1) There are 3 types of law in Britain.
Considering that you're an idiot, I'll have to point out that such a law will have to be passed through either parliament or Court. I'm guessing you'd understand why it would take millions if not tens of millions for it to be passed through court? Oh ofcourse not, you're a fool.
Many many years = Many many fees.
Although it's possible for ministers to amend laws - Which technically would be happening, nobody other than mancunia would think that situation is even plausible. The law would be discussed (In considerable length) in the Commons. They will then vote on it, the law will then go to the House of Lords. Then they vote on it. Finally the law will need the Queens signature. This would not cost less than a million.
2. Erm... My scenario did not include anyone underage (Lrn2Read) It included the inevitable mess with the "bands" proposed.
Why don't you:
- Do your research
- Read what you're replying to.
- Make sense. "Why don't you check the HUGE truth"? WTH does that even mean. You mean whole truth? idk.
List of legal battles costing 10s of millions.
I'd have thought you'd learn from your mistakes after I completely tore your nasty ignorant flame to shreds. Yet you're still trying to grasp on to the tiniest details your pathetic head deems incorrect. I once again urge you to RESEARCH before you argue, as it is quite obvious you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about.
I can already predict what his next stupid flame is. Just to save me time, I'll give the fool a little clue. Re-read what it is you're trying to expose.
I urge someone cleverer to debate with me. Going around in circles and explaining basic stuff to a fool isn't exactly my strong suit; as you can probably tell.
lol... A retard is someone that claims a) then support his claim with something that relates to B)....
Matt?.. you decide
Matt claims: It would take millions to pass a law
Matt then supports this claim with: List of legal battles costing 10s millions...
Now, I'd never call anyone a retard...
But surely someone that isn't a complete idiot understands that a court rules based on the laws that exist. The cost of creating a law, is no where near a million... A study in America found the cost to be less then $1,000, obviously the process in the Britain is different but as the founding fathers based the American government and legal system on the English system any sane person can understand why it would not cost 100,000 x more in the uk...
If Matt, in your unclear what you meant to say was that the total cost of a change to the law can be in the millions then yes, it can...
So lets not have any laws as they cost too much money...
Now that would be a retarded thing to say...