Legislation.gov.uk carries most (but not all) types of legislation and their accompanying explanatory documents. For a full list of legislation types held on legisliation.gov.uk see Browse Legislation. For further details of how complete our data set is for each type, click on a legislation type from the Browse Legislation page and see the colour coded bar for each year.
All legislation from 1988 – present day is available on this site (see ‘What legislation is missing’ for details of any known legislation we do not carry)
There are no secondary legislation items (e.g Statutory Instruments) available before 1988 as they are not available in a web-publishable format.
Most pre-1988 primary legislation is available on this site. In some cases we only have the original published (as enacted) version and no revised version. This occurs if the legislation was wholly repealed before 1991 and therefore was not included in the revised data set when it was extracted from Statutes in Force. In other cases we may only have a revised version if the original (as enacted) version is not available in a web-publishable format.
Surely an opinion is not legally fucking actionable? Calling someone or something stupid is subjective and so not a fact.
When Councillor John Dixon called the Scientologists stupid, that was his opinion. If you put Scientology up against, ooh, I don’t know, any religion I could come up with, then it doesn’t look quite such a stupid thing to be dicking around with. Compare it to atheism and yes, it’s fucking stupid.
The same goes for design. The old addage of beauty being in the eye of the beholder is true. Take a look at this site. It’s Gordon Browns’ place on the web. Y’know, the ex-prime minister.
I apologise if I’m blunt, but this website is not befitting of a former Prime Minister. It has an unprofessional feel to it, and doesn’t portray the image of a statesman and one of Labour’s biggest figures.
Some other people think differently, like Tangent One who make the template for it. In fact they like it so much they are threatening to try and find a judge that likes Gordons’ site and fuck Luke for all he’s worth in a libel suit.
What the fuck has happened to make these people and entities think that a subjective opinion is actionable? Isn’t libel supposed to be about the mis-representation of facts? How can a design be factually good? Like hasn’t tried to present Tangent as trying to con Gordon Brown or any of they’re other customers, he’s just stated his opinion that they’re website template isn’t suitable for an ex-prime minister. Luke even states that Tangent make “some brilliant websites for the likes of Levi’s, Channel Five, Cadillac & Borders…”.
Tangent PLC’s executive director…
I really don’t like the prospect of either a public slanting match or legal action, but if I need to protect my company’s business and reputation, I will.
May humbly suggest two ways of protecting Tangents reputation, and hence business…
make better websites
do not threaten spurious legal action over opinion, especially on the internet. It has a habit of er, not going as planned
Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in his behaviour with regard to his election spending, does it? I wonder what he will be like as an MP once he gets settled with his feet under the table good and proper. Oh, and what a lovely little threat, too…
Either they [the electoral commission] will decide not to look at it – in which case you want to watch it. Or they will decide to look at it and give me a green light – in which case you want to watch it.
4. Griffin’s third public message, including fabricated ‘percentages’ of Barking & Dagenham’s non-white electorate along with the assertion that the BNP is the ‘British Resistance’. Believe or not, Griffin’s apocalyptic faux-Churchillian call to arms isn’t actually a spoof; he really did write this message.
and…
8. Just before Griffin was leaving the premises after the election results for Barking & Dagenham, he was confronted by Nick Lowles from Searchlight about the incident in Barking involving Bailey. Lowles’ impromptu confrontation with Griffin was captured on video. Griffin makes false allegations about the Asians carrying knives and also refuses to condemn Bailey’s actions (especially Bailey’s attempt to forcefully kick the Asian lying on the ground) despite being repeatedly questioned about the matter by Lowles. Also note Griffin’s Freudian slip when he refers to the [white] ‘British majority’ and then corrects himself by stuttering ‘minority’, along with his claim that the BNP now needs to change into a ‘civil rights’ organisation for them.
Go read and follow the links. It’s quite a mood-lifter.
So is Ming going to do it? That’s hard to say but there’s one strong point in his favour – his wife, Lady Elspeth, is never in a million years going to make an arse of herself on Twitter
Mrs Bercow has bugger all to with with House business, and neither will anybody elses spouse unless they are elected.
Maybe it would be a better course of action to look who is leading this and how much of an arse they are rather than their other halves before deciding which way to vote on Bercow.
… thinking about New Labour cheerleaders here, that they feel a bit betrayed by what the Lib Dems have done – getting a bit of power in return for shacking up with the Tories and biting the bullet on stuff they used to believe in.
Why do people feel betrayed?
The LibDems might have compromised on some stuff they believe in, not used to believe in but still do, in return for what? For getting some other stuff they believe in. What was the alternative? Being the third party in the parliament, or a smaller part in a coalition of even more competing voices in ‘rainbow’ coalition, with less say, and less chance to influence things.
Sometimes you have to get what you want in small steps. That is what the LibDems have done. They’ve looked at the bigger picture and thought they could get some stuff done now rather than wait bugger knows how long for the chance to do everything at once.
The Tories are going to do what is most important to them whether they have a junior partner or not. At least this way, with the LibDems in there as well, it’s not going to be all their way.
Betrayl? Look at the bigger picture without your parties blinkers on and it becomes anything but.
The electorate are cunts.
Yeah, I know that’s a big sweeping statement but how else can it be explained? Dr Evan Harris (Lib, Oxford West & Abingdon) lost his seat and Nadine Dorries (Con, Mid Beds) retains her seat with an increased majority. What sort of society are we living in that chucks out an MP that has a rational, evidence based approach to scientific issues? An MP that is against the encroachment of civil liberties and has a positive record on gay issues?
Whereas the other MP, Nadine Dorries has a provable track record of obfuscation and smears. Would rather listen to religious fundamentalists on public health issues because they say things that confirm her own prejudices and dismiss anything that doesn’t. An MP that would rather shout ‘stalker’ that engage in debate.
Where is the justice? Where is the sense?
Tim Ireland went to Flitwick to record and broadcast a hustings that Nadine Dorries was appearing at.
It didn’t quite go to plan, due to a couple of misunderstandings. Even leaving those misunderstandings to one side, the amount of vitriol spewed by Dorries in the form of lies and smears is incredible. All of which she is unable, to substantiate.
and Adam Crofts’ post. Adam was attending the hustings and is not associated with either Tim or Nadine.
(Special mention also goes to Chris Paul that somehow also got dragged in to all this even though he wasn’t present and coined the phrase ‘The Flitwick Flounce’.)
I don’t have a phobia about Tories. That would suggest an irrational response. I hate them for a reason. For lots of reasons, actually. For the miners, apartheid, Bobby Sands, Greenham Common, selling council houses, Section 28, lining the pockets of the rich and hammering the poor – to name but a few. I hate them because they hate people I care about. As a young man Cameron looked out on the social carnage of pit closures and mass unemployment, looked at Margaret Thatcher’s government and thought, these are my people. When all the debating is done, that is really all I need to know.
This is exactly why law should not be made from religious beliefs.
Lord Justice Law (do you reckon he changed his name just to be that cool?)…
In the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
