O2: respecting your privacy...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:25:58 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>>> Mike Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> It is perfectly legal so long as the customer is given the opportunity
>>>>> to cancel without charge before the new terms apply to them.
>>>> And how is the customer given the opportunity? Not everyone has web
>>>> access - and I imagine most people have better things to do than check
>>>> online T&Cs everyday in any case.
>>>
>>> Web access is an irrelevance. You cannot be notified by web access
>>> because the web is "pull"-only medium. Notification must be "pushed",
>>> i.e. you must be given individual written notice (generally by post)
>>> of any change in T&Cs or the change cannot and will not apply to you.
>>>
>> Which they cannot do for PAYG phones, because they don't have a record of
>> the user. So presumably the T&C change can only apply to new and contract
>> phones?
>
>They may have a record of some PAYG users, and it *might* well be that in
>the box that came with your PAYG phone there is some small print that says
>that if you dont register, you implicitly agree to any new rules they come
>up with (or words to that effect)

this particular T&C change can only apply to customers whose details
they have anyhow.

But in general, I suspect that there will be a link to the T&C on any
card you buy to top up your credit, and you will be assumed to have
read the current ones each time you do so.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
All things are green unless they are not.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

---

› See More: O2: respecting your privacy...

Alex Heney wrote:

> But in general, I suspect that there will be a link to the T&C on any
> card you buy to top up your credit,

There isn't any mention of T&Cs on my T-Mobile top-up card. In any
case I've stopped using that card, now that I can top up using my
bank card at a cash machine by just typing in the phone number to be
credited.

> and you will be assumed to have
> read the current ones each time you do so.

On what basis could you be assumed to do that? That's as ludicrous as
assuming you re-read the Highway Code each time a new edition comes out
(bearing in mind also that you have no way of knowing when new editions
are issued).

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:34:25 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> But in general, I suspect that there will be a link to the T&C on any
>> card you buy to top up your credit,
>
>There isn't any mention of T&Cs on my T-Mobile top-up card. In any
>case I've stopped using that card, now that I can top up using my
>bank card at a cash machine by just typing in the phone number to be
>credited.
>
>> and you will be assumed to have
>> read the current ones each time you do so.
>
>On what basis could you be assumed to do that?

on the basis that as you make an individual decision each time you
buy, you can be assumed to have validated that decision by checking
the T&C applicable to your purchase.

Most people don't of course, any more than they do with most other
purchases. But there is an assumption that you have, and the T&C in
force when you buy the top up will be those that apply to your usage
of it.


> That's as ludicrous as
>assuming you re-read the Highway Code each time a new edition comes out
>(bearing in mind also that you have no way of knowing when new editions
>are issued).
>

Indeed. But you will be assumed to know the law wrt your driving, even
though you have no way of knowing when a new law comes out.

And if you don't follow the guidance in the current edition of the
highway code, you are likely to find yourself the one blamed if
anything goes wrong. Regardless of whether you had read that guidance
or not.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Make up a language and ask people for directions.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:34:25 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>> and you will be assumed to have
>>> read the current ones each time you do so.
>>
>>On what basis could you be assumed to do that?
>
> on the basis that as you make an individual decision each time you
> buy, you can be assumed to have validated that decision by checking
> the T&C applicable to your purchase.

I don't accept that. You buy the device (the actual phone) and accept
the T&Cs in force at the time you activate it when first connecting to
the network (there will be printed T&Cs in the box, presumably). What
you do subsequently, when you top up the charge, is simply buying more
"fuel" for your phone, which doesn't come wrapped in anything with
T&Cs printed on it, so your actual use of the device should always be
assumed to be on the original terms.

> Most people don't of course, any more than they do with most other
> purchases. But there is an assumption that you have, and the T&C in
> force when you buy the top up will be those that apply to your usage
> of it.

I don't believe there is such an assumption, nor even that there can be.

>> That's as ludicrous as
>>assuming you re-read the Highway Code each time a new edition comes out
>>(bearing in mind also that you have no way of knowing when new editions
>>are issued).
>
> Indeed. But you will be assumed to know the law wrt your driving, even
> though you have no way of knowing when a new law comes out.

No, you will not, and you can not. Same as with any other law, the
onus is on the legislators to ensure that those expected to abide by
them are made aware of them.

Driving is of course not a general but a limited right, i.e. a privilege
by licence. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any condition of the
licence to make every effort to keep abreast of achanges in the rules.

The licensing people do of course have details of every licensed driver
on file, so could easily mail them all individually to notify them of any
changes which are material enough to justify such a step. It's a matter
of some regret that driving licences, unlike vehicle licences, are not
renewable annually, since this would make such promulgations easier to
tack on to paperwork which is routinely mailed out anyway.

> And if you don't follow the guidance in the current edition of the
> highway code, you are likely to find yourself the one blamed if
> anything goes wrong. Regardless of whether you had read that guidance
> or not.

Rubbish.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:09:04 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:34:25 GMT, Ronald Raygun
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>>> and you will be assumed to have
>>>> read the current ones each time you do so.
>>>
>>>On what basis could you be assumed to do that?
>>
>> on the basis that as you make an individual decision each time you
>> buy, you can be assumed to have validated that decision by checking
>> the T&C applicable to your purchase.
>
>I don't accept that. You buy the device (the actual phone) and accept
>the T&Cs in force at the time you activate it when first connecting to
>the network (there will be printed T&Cs in the box, presumably). What
>you do subsequently, when you top up the charge, is simply buying more
>"fuel" for your phone, which doesn't come wrapped in anything with
>T&Cs printed on it, so your actual use of the device should always be
>assumed to be on the original terms.

It won't be.

You can "not accept that" as much as you like, but you would lose in
court if it came down to a court action to enforce the terms.

>
>> Most people don't of course, any more than they do with most other
>> purchases. But there is an assumption that you have, and the T&C in
>> force when you buy the top up will be those that apply to your usage
>> of it.
>
>I don't believe there is such an assumption, nor even that there can be.
>

Provided you have had reasonable opportunity to find out the terms in
force at the time of purchase, you *will* be assumed to have done so.


>>> That's as ludicrous as
>>>assuming you re-read the Highway Code each time a new edition comes out
>>>(bearing in mind also that you have no way of knowing when new editions
>>>are issued).
>>
>> Indeed. But you will be assumed to know the law wrt your driving, even
>> though you have no way of knowing when a new law comes out.
>
>No, you will not, and you can not. Same as with any other law, the
>onus is on the legislators to ensure that those expected to abide by
>them are made aware of them.
>

Utterly wrong, I'm afraid.

You may think that is unfair, but it is the case.

Surely you have heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no defence".
It is true.

>Driving is of course not a general but a limited right, i.e. a privilege
>by licence. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any condition of the
>licence to make every effort to keep abreast of achanges in the rules.
>

It is an absolute requirement that you drive within the law.
therefore, it follows automatically that you have a responsibility to
know what that law is.


>The licensing people do of course have details of every licensed driver
>on file, so could easily mail them all individually to notify them of any
>changes which are material enough to justify such a step. It's a matter
>of some regret that driving licences, unlike vehicle licences, are not
>renewable annually, since this would make such promulgations easier to
>tack on to paperwork which is routinely mailed out anyway.
>
>> And if you don't follow the guidance in the current edition of the
>> highway code, you are likely to find yourself the one blamed if
>> anything goes wrong. Regardless of whether you had read that guidance
>> or not.
>
>Rubbish.

Not at all. Absolute fact.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Oxymoron: Team of Independents.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:

> Surely you have heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no defence".
> It is true.

I have indeed but it is a myth. It cannot be true simply because it
is in general impossible to know what the law is, as there is too much
of it. In the specific case of driving, a licence is granted only
following a period of instruction and familiarisation and a test, not
only on the techniques involved but on the rules too. Therefore one
is expected to be broadly familiar with the laws which govern driving
(but still can never be expected to know in detail "what the law is")
*at the moment one passes one's test and is granted the licence*, but
one can never be expected to take active, never mind frequent, steps to
keep abreast of any changes in the rules.

It is the absolute responsibility of those who make/change the rules to
ensure those to whom they apply are made aware of them.

> It is an absolute requirement that you drive within the law.
> therefore, it follows automatically that you have a responsibility to
> know what that law is.

No, it does not. You have the responsibility to drive within the
laws *which you know*, but the laws change, it is someone else's
responsibility to make you know about them.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:56:54 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> Surely you have heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no defence".
>> It is true.
>
>I have indeed but it is a myth.

In that case, it is a myth subscribed to by all our lawyers and
courts.

Which makes it a rather true myth.

>It cannot be true simply because it
>is in general impossible to know what the law is, as there is too much
>of it.

Why does that mean it "cannot" be true?

It *is* true. That is the way the law works, and if you think it
cannot, then you could well find yourself in serious difficulty in
court one day.


> In the specific case of driving, a licence is granted only
>following a period of instruction and familiarisation and a test, not
>only on the techniques involved but on the rules too. Therefore one
>is expected to be broadly familiar with the laws which govern driving
>(but still can never be expected to know in detail "what the law is")
>*at the moment one passes one's test and is granted the licence*, but
>one can never be expected to take active, never mind frequent, steps to
>keep abreast of any changes in the rules.

Whether one *can* be expected to or not, in law one *is* expected to.

You may think that is unfair, and I am sure that many would agree with
you, particularly those who have been convicted of breaking laws they
never knew existed.

But fair or not, that is the law.

>
>It is the absolute responsibility of those who make/change the rules to
>ensure those to whom they apply are made aware of them.
>

Your opinion.


>> It is an absolute requirement that you drive within the law.
>> therefore, it follows automatically that you have a responsibility to
>> know what that law is.
>
>No, it does not. You have the responsibility to drive within the
>laws *which you know*, but the laws change, it is someone else's
>responsibility to make you know about them.

Your opinion.

Not shared by the lawmakers.

They usually *do* try to make sure that plenty of publicity is given
to significant changes in the law, but that is more because they are
trying to deter people from the action that has been legislated
against than because they feel they have any responsibility to make
people aware of the law.

Small changes, which are very frequent, will not be publicised in the
same way, and will very rarely indeed be notified individually, even
to vehicle keepers, never mind drivers.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Know what I hate? I hate rhetorical questions!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:56:54 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>> Surely you have heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no defence".
>>> It is true.
>>
>>I have indeed but it is a myth.
>
> In that case, it is a myth subscribed to by all our lawyers and
> courts.

I believe that itself to a be a myth too. Do you have evidence to
support this bizarre claim?

>>It cannot be true simply because it
>>is in general impossible to know what the law is, as there is too much
>>of it.
>
> Why does that mean it "cannot" be true?

Because it is self-evident that you cannot be expected to know that
which you cannot in fact know.

> It *is* true. That is the way the law works, and if you think it
> cannot, then you could well find yourself in serious difficulty in
> court one day.

That is *not* the way the law works. In most criminal matters, for
example, you are expected merely to be instilled by common sense and
reason. You will get into trouble if you go around stabbing people.
This is because you are expected to have been brought up properly to
know right from wrong, but without knowlege of the law as such.

Emphatically you are *not* expected to know that there is a law
which prohibits stabbing people, but you *are* expected to know (or
"feel") that it is wrong. You wouldn't want to find yourself on the
receiving end of a stabbing instrument, and for that reason you should
know that it is wrong to be at the, erm, transmitting end.

>> In the specific case of driving, a licence is granted only
>>following a period of instruction and familiarisation and a test, not
>>only on the techniques involved but on the rules too. Therefore one
>>is expected to be broadly familiar with the laws which govern driving
>>(but still can never be expected to know in detail "what the law is")
>>*at the moment one passes one's test and is granted the licence*, but
>>one can never be expected to take active, never mind frequent, steps to
>>keep abreast of any changes in the rules.
>
> Whether one *can* be expected to or not, in law one *is* expected to.

Nonsense. We the people have the right to expect the law to be
reasonable. What you propose is clearly completely unreasonable.

>>It is the absolute responsibility of those who make/change the rules to
>>ensure those to whom they apply are made aware of them.
>
> Your opinion.

Yes. Everybody's I would hope.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:52:12 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:56:54 GMT, Ronald Raygun
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>> Surely you have heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no defence".
>>>> It is true.
>>>
>>>I have indeed but it is a myth.
>>
>> In that case, it is a myth subscribed to by all our lawyers and
>> courts.
>
>I believe that itself to a be a myth too. Do you have evidence to
>support this bizarre claim?

This is just one recent case. A search through Bailii for the phrase
"ignorance of the law" will return hundreds of others.
<http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1996/725.html>
----------------------------------------
"Before a person can be convicted of aiding and abetting the
commission of an offence he must at least know the essential matters
which constitute that offence. He need not actually know that an
offence has been committed, because he may not know that the facts
constitute an offence and ignorance of the law is not a defence. If a
person knows all the facts and is assisting another person to do
certain things, and it turns out that the doing of those things
constitutes an offence, the person who is assisting is guilty of
aiding and abetting that offence, because to allow him to say, 'I knew
of all those facts but I did not know that an offence was committed,'
would be allowing him to set up ignorance of the law as a defence."
-----------------------------------------


>
>>>It cannot be true simply because it
>>>is in general impossible to know what the law is, as there is too much
>>>of it.
>>
>> Why does that mean it "cannot" be true?
>
>Because it is self-evident that you cannot be expected to know that
>which you cannot in fact know.
>

Why does that mean it cannot be true that ignorance of the law is no
defence?

The fact you cannot be expected to know all the law (even lawyers do
not know all the law) does not excuse you from breaking it.


>> It *is* true. That is the way the law works, and if you think it
>> cannot, then you could well find yourself in serious difficulty in
>> court one day.
>
>That is *not* the way the law works.

It is exactly the way the law works.

>In most criminal matters, for
>example, you are expected merely to be instilled by common sense and
>reason. You will get into trouble if you go around stabbing people.
>This is because you are expected to have been brought up properly to
>know right from wrong, but without knowlege of the law as such.
>

That will, in the majority of situations, keep you on the right side
of the law.

But when it doesn't, you *are* liable for breaking the law.

>Emphatically you are *not* expected to know that there is a law
>which prohibits stabbing people, but you *are* expected to know (or
>"feel") that it is wrong. You wouldn't want to find yourself on the
>receiving end of a stabbing instrument, and for that reason you should
>know that it is wrong to be at the, erm, transmitting end.
>

But there are *many* laws which are nowhere near as obvious as that,
yet we are all still supposed to obey them.


>>> In the specific case of driving, a licence is granted only
>>>following a period of instruction and familiarisation and a test, not
>>>only on the techniques involved but on the rules too. Therefore one
>>>is expected to be broadly familiar with the laws which govern driving
>>>(but still can never be expected to know in detail "what the law is")
>>>*at the moment one passes one's test and is granted the licence*, but
>>>one can never be expected to take active, never mind frequent, steps to
>>>keep abreast of any changes in the rules.
>>
>> Whether one *can* be expected to or not, in law one *is* expected to.
>
>Nonsense. We the people have the right to expect the law to be
>reasonable. What you propose is clearly completely unreasonable.


I am not proposing anything.

I am telling you what the facts are, whether you (or I) like it or
not.


>
>>>It is the absolute responsibility of those who make/change the rules to
>>>ensure those to whom they apply are made aware of them.
>>
>> Your opinion.
>
>Yes. Everybody's I would hope.

Yo will hope in vain.

Most people know that is simply not practical.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You have to be sharp to be on the cutting edge.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:52:12 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:56:54 GMT, Ronald Raygun
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It cannot be true simply because it
>>>>is in general impossible to know what the law is, as there is too much
>>>>of it.
>>>
>>> Why does that mean it "cannot" be true?
>>
>>Because it is self-evident that you cannot be expected to know that
>>which you cannot in fact know.
>
> Why does that mean it cannot be true that ignorance of the law is no
> defence?

Because one of the most fundamental principles governing criminal law
is the "mens rea" principle, according to which awareness that what one
is doing is wrong is an essential precondition to being found guilty
of an offence. From that it follows directly that the "ignorance is
no defence" mantra is untrue, because if you don't know that what
you are doing is wrong, *then it isn't*.

There are, admittedly, some offences which are abolute, but these are
very much the exception, and usually apply only in circumstances such
as where prior training has been involved which inter alia has sought
to make people aware of what the rules are that they are expected not
to break. Thus ignorance (or more often purported ignorance) of those
particular rules would not be an acceptable defence in such circumstances.
But as that is within the context of the exception of absolute offences,
the principle of logic known as "the exception proves the rule" tells
us that *in general* ignorance of the law *is* a valid defence.

Parking offences are a practical example of this. Where it can be shown
that the prohibition signs which the rules require to be displayed were
not in fact displayed, then illegal parkers can argue that they were not
aware that restrictions were in force in that particular time and location,
and then the "offenders" *do* get acquitted. It's called getting let off
on a technicality, the technicality in question here being an example of
the application of the principle that because the parker did not know or
could not have known (i.e. was ignorant of the fact) that restrictions
were in force at the time and place in question, is a complete defence
to the charge of illegal parking.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:53:38 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:52:12 GMT, Ronald Raygun
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:56:54 GMT, Ronald Raygun
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>It cannot be true simply because it
>>>>>is in general impossible to know what the law is, as there is too much
>>>>>of it.
>>>>
>>>> Why does that mean it "cannot" be true?
>>>
>>>Because it is self-evident that you cannot be expected to know that
>>>which you cannot in fact know.
>>
>> Why does that mean it cannot be true that ignorance of the law is no
>> defence?
>
>Because one of the most fundamental principles governing criminal law
>is the "mens rea" principle, according to which awareness that what one
>is doing is wrong is an essential precondition to being found guilty
>of an offence.

there are two things wrong with your statement.

1. Mens rea is not as fundamental as you think, since there are a
number of crimes which are "strict liability" - i.e. you can be guilty
of them without having had any intention to do them.

2. mens Rea does not mean what you think it does anyhow. It means you
must have had the intention of carrying out the act. It does not mean
you must have known the act was illegal, nor that you intended
breaking the law.


> From that it follows directly that the "ignorance is
>no defence" mantra is untrue, because if you don't know that what
>you are doing is wrong, *then it isn't*.

That would follow if you were right about the meaning of "Mens rea"
but you aren't, so it doesn't.


>
>There are, admittedly, some offences which are abolute, but these are
>very much the exception, and usually apply only in circumstances such
>as where prior training has been involved which inter alia has sought
>to make people aware of what the rules are that they are expected not
>to break. Thus ignorance (or more often purported ignorance) of those
>particular rules would not be an acceptable defence in such circumstances.
>But as that is within the context of the exception of absolute offences,
>the principle of logic known as "the exception proves the rule" tells
>us that *in general* ignorance of the law *is* a valid defence.
>

Total and utter bull****, to be rather more polite about it than it
deserves.


>Parking offences are a practical example of this. Where it can be shown
>that the prohibition signs which the rules require to be displayed were
>not in fact displayed, then illegal parkers can argue that they were not
>aware that restrictions were in force in that particular time and location,
>and then the "offenders" *do* get acquitted.

They do not get acquitted because they were unaware. they get
acquitted because the restrictions are only in force if the signs are
present.



> It's called getting let off
>on a technicality, the technicality in question here being an example of
>the application of the principle that because the parker did not know or
>could not have known (i.e. was ignorant of the fact) that restrictions
>were in force at the time and place in question, is a complete defence
>to the charge of illegal parking.


Wrong.

The technicality is that the regulations were not in force.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Do steam rollers really roll steam?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Ronald Raygun" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:[email protected]
> Alex Heney wrote:
>
> > Surely you have heard the phrase "ignorance of the law
> > is no defence". It is true.
>
> I have indeed but it is a myth. It cannot be true simply
> because it is in general impossible to know what the law
> is, as there is too much of it. In the specific case of
> driving, a licence is granted only following a period of
> instruction and familiarisation and a test, not only on
> the techniques involved but on the rules too. Therefore
> one is expected to be broadly familiar with the laws
> which govern driving (but still can never be expected to
> know in detail "what the law is") *at the moment one
> passes one's test and is granted the licence*, but one
> can never be expected to take active, never mind
> frequent, steps to keep abreast of any changes in the
> rules.

Hmm, well while I agree with the principle, the fact is that if you break
a law and the plod see you doing it, you'll get nicked and maybe banged
up. Telling the judge "I didn't know it was illegal" is unlikely to cut
any ice..!

Ivor

"Ronald Raygun" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:56:54 GMT, Ronald Raygun
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>> Surely you have heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no defence".
>>>> It is true.
>>>
>>>I have indeed but it is a myth.
>>
>> In that case, it is a myth subscribed to by all our lawyers and
>> courts.
>
> I believe that itself to a be a myth too. Do you have evidence to
> support this bizarre claim?
>

If what you said was correct, the prosecution wouldnt just have to prove
that you broke the law, but that you knew you broke the law, a rather more
difficult case entirely!! Luckily for us, they dont.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Alex Heney wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:53:38 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Because one of the most fundamental principles governing criminal law
>>is the "mens rea" principle, according to which awareness that what one
>>is doing is wrong is an essential precondition to being found guilty
>>of an offence.
>
> there are two things wrong with your statement.
>
> 1. Mens rea is not as fundamental as you think, since there are a
> number of crimes which are "strict liability" - i.e. you can be guilty
> of them without having had any intention to do them.

Indeed, as I have mentioned.

> 2. mens Rea does not mean what you think it does anyhow. It means you
> must have had the intention of carrying out the act. It does not mean
> you must have known the act was illegal, nor that you intended
> breaking the law.

You are mistaken. You would be right if the "rea" part of it were a
form of the noun "res" meaning "thing" or in this case "act" (in which
case "mens rea" would translate roughly as "mindful of the act", but
that translation is incorrect, and indeed cannot be correct because
of the grammar involved - it would need, I think, to be "mens rei"
instead). But it is actually a form the of the adjective "reus"
meaning "guilty". Hence "mens rea" translates as "guilty mind".
That is to say in order to be found guilty after the act, you must
have known you were guilty during (or indeed before) its commission.

It clearly does not make sense to talk about being guilty of something
which isn't in fact wrong, so the illegality of the act is implicit
in the word "guilty". That you committed the act intentionally, as
you say, is of course also a requirement of securing a conviction,
though even that doesn't seem always to apply (for instance if you
clobber a guard in order to knock him out temporarily while you get
on with a robbery, and he dies as a result of the injury, you will
be guilty of manslaughter even though it was not your intention to
slaughter the man).

>> From that it follows directly that the "ignorance is
>>no defence" mantra is untrue, because if you don't know that what
>>you are doing is wrong, *then it isn't*.
>
> That would follow if you were right about the meaning of "Mens rea"
> but you aren't, so it doesn't.

Thank you. Since your interpretation of the meaning is wrong, it does.

>>Parking offences are a practical example of this. Where it can be shown
>>that the prohibition signs which the rules require to be displayed were
>>not in fact displayed, then illegal parkers can argue that they were not
>>aware that restrictions were in force in that particular time and
>>location, and then the "offenders" *do* get acquitted.
>
> They do not get acquitted because they were unaware. they get
> acquitted because the restrictions are only in force if the signs are
> present.

It's more complicated than that. The restrictions are in force when
they are made by the appropriate traffic authority. The technical
requirements for signs form part either of the regulations themselves
or, more likely, of primary legislation which empowers the TA to put
such restrictions into force. The effect is that the technical
requirements, whenever not met, automatically disable the effectiveness
of the restriction on a case by case basis.

I'm not talking, by the way, of cases where the signs were never put
up in the first place, and therefore the restrictions have never been
in force at a particular site, but about cases where the signs were in
fact duly installed originally, but have subsequently either vanished
as a result of vandalism or accident, or have been rendered illegible
due to poor maintenance.

But these technical requirements aren't written into the legislation
for the fun of it, they have a purpose. That purpose, I put it to you,
is to simplify proceedings. Without the technicality being explicitly
written into the rules, I suggest that an "I didn't know restrictions were
in force there at the time" defence in the form of a no mens rea plea would
be equally as effective, but would place a much bigger burden on the courts
system to achieve. If it is written into the rules that it suffices to
show that signs were absent, this is much easier to deal with.

Tumbleweed wrote:

> If what you said was correct, the prosecution wouldnt just have to prove
> that you broke the law, but that you knew you broke the law, a rather more
> difficult case entirely!! Luckily for us, they dont.

The usual test, I believe, isn't whether you actually knew (which is
obviously impossible to prove) but whether you should have known, i.e.
whether a reasonable person would have known. I gather this is often
called the "man on the Clapham omnibus" test.