<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The cost of legislation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crookedtimber.org/2004/05/07/the-cost-of-legislation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/05/07/the-cost-of-legislation/</link>
	<description>Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 22:06:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robin Green</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/05/07/the-cost-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-27637</link>
		<dc:creator>Robin Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2004 10:47:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1526#comment-27637</guid>
		<description>Hmm. The government seems to say the law will never be enforced against teenagers kissing or touching.But I wonder if they would now allow, say, a Tatu concert, seeing as Tatu often engage in kissing on-stage and are (or were) underage - and seeing as how that makes their show in a way premissed on an act which is now illegal under British law.Of course, some might say that banning Tatu concerts is a good idea.More seriously, I can sympathise with the government here. They&#039;re trying to avoid child abusers being able to get off via loopholes.As with abortion, it&#039;s impossible to draw a universally-applicable and universally-acceptable moral line on underage sexual activity - so context-sensitive discretion needs to be exercised by the CPS and by courts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Hmm. The government seems to say the law will never be enforced against teenagers kissing or touching.But I wonder if they would now allow, say, a Tatu concert, seeing as Tatu often engage in kissing on-stage and are (or were) underage &#8211; and seeing as how that makes their show in a way premissed on an act which is now illegal under British law.Of course, some might say that banning Tatu concerts is a good idea.More seriously, I can sympathise with the government here. They&#8217;re trying to avoid child abusers being able to get off via loopholes.As with abortion, it&#8217;s impossible to draw a universally-applicable and universally-acceptable moral line on underage sexual activity &#8211; so context-sensitive discretion needs to be exercised by the <span class="caps">CPS</span> and by courts.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Idiot/Savant</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/05/07/the-cost-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-27636</link>
		<dc:creator>Idiot/Savant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 23:47:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1526#comment-27636</guid>
		<description>So, does this mean that it will be illegal for politicians to kiss babies?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>So, does this mean that it will be illegal for politicians to kiss babies?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mdog</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/05/07/the-cost-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-27635</link>
		<dc:creator>mdog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 21:17:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1526#comment-27635</guid>
		<description>The above quote about mutually agreed apon, non-exploitive sexuality would be awesome if it came from anywhere other than the state.  sexual respect is way too important to let the government fuck it up.  eg look at hate crimes legislation: written with liberatory intentions and now used against anti-capitalist, earth and animal-liberation direct actionists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>The above quote about mutually agreed apon, non-exploitive sexuality would be awesome if it came from anywhere other than the state.  sexual respect is way too important to let the government fuck it up.  eg look at hate crimes legislation: written with liberatory intentions and now used against anti-capitalist, earth and animal-liberation direct actionists.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bryan</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/05/07/the-cost-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-27634</link>
		<dc:creator>bryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 18:39:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1526#comment-27634</guid>
		<description>damn that ashcroft. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>damn that ashcroft.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jdw</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/05/07/the-cost-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-27633</link>
		<dc:creator>jdw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 17:44:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1526#comment-27633</guid>
		<description>_What the hell is going on over there? What is the driving social force or logic behind this nonsense?_Seems pretty forward-thinking to me.  A spokesman:&quot;We accept that genuinely mutually agreed, non-exploitative sexual activity between teenagers does take place and in many instances no harm comes from it.&quot;Can anybody imagine an American politician saying that?  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><em>What the hell is going on over there? What is the driving social force or logic behind this nonsense?</em>Seems pretty forward-thinking to me.  A spokesman:&#8220;We accept that genuinely mutually agreed, non-exploitative sexual activity between teenagers does take place and in many instances no harm comes from it.&#8221;Can anybody imagine an American politician saying that?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Farber</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/05/07/the-cost-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-27632</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Farber</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 17:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1526#comment-27632</guid>
		<description>&quot;This isn’t the sort of thing I would have associated with Blair, but I’m a very casual observer, from quite afar, of British politics.&quot;It&#039;s most assuredly the sort of thing associated with the Right Honourable David Blunkett, and, indeed, you&#039;ve not been paying attention to the Home Offices&#039; many moves to restrict civil liberties and remove protections from law, ever since Blair came into office.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;This isn&#8217;t the sort of thing I would have associated with Blair, but I&#8217;m a very casual observer, from quite afar, of British politics.&#8221;It&#8217;s most assuredly the sort of thing associated with the Right Honourable David Blunkett, and, indeed, you&#8217;ve not been paying attention to the Home Offices&#8217; many moves to restrict civil liberties and remove protections from law, ever since Blair came into office.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Farber</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/05/07/the-cost-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-27631</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Farber</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 17:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1526#comment-27631</guid>
		<description>I posted about this &lt;a href=&quot;http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_amygdalagf_archive.html#108360858461746601&quot;&gt;four days ago&lt;/a&gt;.  I commend Avedon Carol&#039;s (a founder and speaker for &lt;i&gt;Feminists Against Censorship&lt;/i&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sideshow.free-online.co.uk/smay04.htm#041359&quot;&gt;comments&lt;/a&gt; to you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I posted about this <a href="http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_amygdalagf_archive.html#108360858461746601">four days ago</a>.  I commend Avedon Carol&#8217;s (a founder and speaker for <i>Feminists Against Censorship</i> <a href="http://www.sideshow.free-online.co.uk/smay04.htm#041359">comments</a> to you.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DJW</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/05/07/the-cost-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-27630</link>
		<dc:creator>DJW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 15:34:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1526#comment-27630</guid>
		<description>What the hell is going on over there? What is the driving social force or logic behind this nonsense? This isn&#039;t the sort of thing I would have associated with Blair, but I&#039;m a very casual observer, from quite afar, of British politics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>What the hell is going on over there? What is the driving social force or logic behind this nonsense? This isn&#8217;t the sort of thing I would have associated with Blair, but I&#8217;m a very casual observer, from quite afar, of British politics.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin @ RSR</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2004/05/07/the-cost-of-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-27629</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin @ RSR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2004 13:41:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1526#comment-27629</guid>
		<description>You make some excellent points.  This reminds me of the campaign finance reform bill... both parties expected the courts to deal with the more devious and egregious parts of the law... instead,, the courts have upheld some of the most ugly parts of the bill.  The point here: separation of powers is proscribed for tension not assumption and fixing.  The system depends on each branch functioning honestly for their own perceived interests, with no pretense.  It just doesn&#039;t work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>You make some excellent points.  This reminds me of the campaign finance reform bill&#8230; both parties expected the courts to deal with the more devious and egregious parts of the law&#8230; instead,, the courts have upheld some of the most ugly parts of the bill.  The point here: separation of powers is proscribed for tension not assumption and fixing.  The system depends on each branch functioning honestly for their own perceived interests, with no pretense.  It just doesn&#8217;t work.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

