The law is an awl.

An awl is a long pointed instrument. Hence it can also be used to inflict as little or as much pain as the user who wields it sees fit.

And if law can be so vague as be rejuggled to read as awl, the effect is the same.

Driving on the phone isn't dangerous

I would like to know if Joyce is right, because that makes the specific case cited very different and pretty clear cut.

I have Bluetooth handsfree, on the presumption that it is 'legal'. But I have to confess that I don't think my attention to driving is a good compared to without. Obviously. So it is, at the very least 'more dangerous'. However, the same can be said for having a passenger in conversation. Maybe even worse as one tends to glance across. So one gets into areas of relativity and practicality.

Hence I merely respond, in agreement, only to the point you make: 'Either hands-free phones are legal to use or they are not.'

I have major concerns with this, and a lot of other driving-related 'laws'... AND others across every aspect of one's existence in this blighted isle, where there are way too many grey areas of definition that somehow can get escalated to perfect clarity to impose fines and/or prosecutions if the authorities feel so disposed.

It used to be 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. I'm sorry, but if the law is incapable of making itself clear such that the law-abiding can know how to obey it... THAT is inexcusable.

Beats me

Prostitution nonsense

As far as I can gather, almost all new legislation is either ineptly drafted or very cleverly designed such that no one can have a hope in h*ll of knowing what is or isn't 'legal', thereby giving those of a mind to to abuse/exploit such vagueness carte blanche to do what the like, when they like with whom they like... 'Hignorance of the lore 'his no excuse'. Usually for money. Prostitutes seem paragons of virtue in comparison. But at least you know where they, and you, stand, if you get my drift.

And yet some in power and media commentators still wonder why many hold the law, those who draft it and those who claim to uphold it... in total contempt.

Indy Letters

Just walk away, Renee

Seems I am not the only one who is thinking the number of 'laws' where the definitions of what is legal or not are vague at best is getting out of hand:

More nonsense laws

No one is doubting the severity of what is being talked about, and the need to address it, where possible, but I have seen a definition of manslaughter as the following and have no reason to doubt it:

"the unlawful but not deliberately planned killing of one human being by another"

And it's hard to reconcile that with a '...but it's OK if...' in the manner proposed.

Indy - New murder laws 'may send wrong message'