So — yuou want o abolish the fsa? They might not be the best but its better than nowt.

I am not sure what you meant about the schools – do you want schools to use unqualified teacher?

It may well be actually illegal anyway – I am fairly sure its a statutory requirement for teachers to be qualified. Not a code of conduct but a legal requirement to have properly qualified staff

the raft of regulations yo want to get rid of? What are they?

Reality is they are operating against regulation/best practice but not illegally.

lolwut? Regulation is secondary legislation – it is law.

Can I legally bugger my wife now? Suppose I should wake her up and ask her – might have to make her breakfast first!

richcc – Member
Can I legally bugger my wife now? Suppose I should wake her up and ask her – might have to make her breakfast first!

Are you sure you're on the right thread? 😆 Was that supposed to be a PM?

lolwut? Regulation is secondary legislation – it is law.

So why is nothing done about it under the law?… like I say 'toothless'.

BTW Regulation is NOT law, you're correct that it backs up law. Penalties usually being fines for contravention with the threat of prosecution for non compliance. The cynical amongst us (i.e. me) 😉 would argue that control of everything through regulation creates manifold revenue streams. Fantastic for the 'state', not so good for the freedom of the individual.

My argument is to clear out all the self serving 'toothless' pseudo law enforcement agencies, which are largely useless, and bring everyone under the rule of law (which incidentally has always been there). It has become ingrained in our culture to 'ban' everything that may be seen as a threat rather than deal with the issue with the instruments that we already have.

We are still awaiting examples of these mythical bodies

Ofsted
FSA
HSE
Defra…

Ofstead. So who is going to regulate schools then? Or are you going to allow anything to happen? Who sets the curriculum and does inspections?

HSE – don't be bloody ridiculous. HSE do a fantastic job. Investigations into accidents to reduce further accidents amongst otyher things

Completely ridiculous.

All of those organisations have serious and useful functrions that would have to be done by somone or standards would drop

somone or standards would drop

'cause standards have significantly risen have they? We increasingly pander to the lowest common denominator which has a counter effect, a sort of backward benchmarking of behavior if you will.

Working at Height Regs. Absolute joke!

All of those organisations have serious and useful functrions

Yeah keeping adenoidal jobsworth 'officials' in expensive (to the taxpayer) non jobs. Widespread regulation acts as a barrier to business making UK plc uncompetitive in a global marketplace. I agree that we need some regulation and control but we already have that enshrined in law.

Anyway, just my opinion, no need to get het up comrade!

HSE – don't be bloody ridiculous. HSE do a fantastic job. Investigations into accidents to reduce further accidents amongst otyher things

and many of the things attributed to being because of HSE are myths – coming from others who have misread situations – and try to back up their position by blaming it on the HSE

Jackson – its that you are talking so much piffle.

Without offstead who will inspect schools? Or will you let them go uninspected so we don't even know which ones are doing badly?

Ridiculous.

Safety regulations make us uncompetitive? Well compared to china where they dojn't mind killed the workforce perhpas.

Again – without HSE how is going to investigate workplace accident\
?

I'm not talking about completely removing them, rather scaling them back and staffing them with personnel that have real authority under the law (that is already there). They should have a real appreciation of law, ideally, solicitors specializing in a particular area.

HMRC is an example of an agency that has real power. They are not drowned in a sea of regulation. They are staffed by forensic accountants and specialist lawyers, and they work to the law that has been statute for a very long time… "don't pay your taxes and you shall be liable"

TJ – I agree that HSE do a superb job, and that most of the ridiculous health and safety stuff reported in the newspapers is either untrue or mis-reported. However that doesn't mean there aren't some significant regulations that are poorly thought out and over-rigorously applied – the working at height regulations JP mentions is a good one.

Back to more general stuff, I'd like to repeal the law which says we have to implement every regulation from Brussels strictly without the use of any discretion and common sense. I presume we must have a specific UK law about this, given they seem to be rather more lax in other countries.

So why is nothing done about it under the law?… like I say 'toothless'.

BTW Regulation is NOT law, you're correct that it backs up law.
You're talking through your pants, I'm afraid, and are simply demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.

– Regulations are law: if you break them, you can be punished by the state. If they weren't law, they couldn't serve as the basis for state action – they'd be no more effective than you or I writing a list of dos and don'ts.

– It is not true that regulations only result in fines.

– "The law" isn't just primary legislation passed by Westminster. There's secondary legislation, common law (judge-made law), customary international law…

– The purpose of secondary legislation is for the Parliament to authorise someone to make rules on its behalf so it doesn't have to waste its time getting buried in minutiae. As a hypothetical example, Parliament decides that it is necessary to control Car Safety. It has two choices: either it can pass primary legislation that regulates every single aspect and standard that it wants to see, and every time a change has to be made, a whole new act has to be put through Parliament, sucking up a significant proportion of the legislature's time. If a new type of windscreen glass gets developed and it needs to be approved for installation in new cars, Westminster would have to pass a Windscreen Approval Act. Or Parliament can dodge all that fannying around and can say "We authorise the Car Safety Authority to make regulations for the purpose of ensuring the safe design and manufacture of cars". The fact that a legal obligation unilaterally imposed by the state is achieved secondary legislation (regulations made by the Car Safety Authority) instead of primary legislation (regulations made made by Parliament) doesn't make it any less "the law".

HMRC is … not drowned in a sea of regulation…they work to the law that has been statute for a very long time

Now you're really showing your ignunce – there's probably no part of government activity that is more technical, more driven by non-primary legislation regulation/guidelines and more rapidly changing that tax collection! Tax legislation is massive and constantly changing – which is why those who really understand often have both an accountancy degree and a law degree.

do you want schools to use unqualified teacher?

If he wanted his kids to be taught by unqualified teachers, he'd pay extra and send them private, surely…

Konabunny – can I ask what legal training you have? Or do you just believe the rhetoric that most closely matches your own view. It is you who appears ignorant.

Regs. merely back up the law. They are not law in themselves, hence are 'toothless' instruments in dealing punitively with a particular issue. You try and prosecute somebody for the breaking of regulation.

If he wanted his kids to be taught by unqualified teachers, he'd pay extra and send them private, surely…

So its not 'against the law' for unqualified staff to teach? Funny that.