One of the hallmarks of civilisation is said to be the rule of law. In a society where no-one is above or beyond the reach of the law, everyday life should be an invigorating autonomous experience......if the laws are just, and fairly applied. In my opinion, most modern societies have never achieved a true rule of law. Instead they have adopted the law of rules. Fundamental principles fall by the wayside as legislators busy themselves compiling lists of rules by means of which they wish to achieve some end. The end, however noble, becomes forgotten. The means become all embracing.

There is a multitude of laws, seemingly endlessly streaming from the UK Parliament, designed to achieve some social purpose. Often, for those involving finance, after careful and diligent debate among well meaning people, the sums of money, explicit in the rules pertaining to these laws, are derived to suit the moment. Yet once the law is passed, these sums of money often remain fixed, whether circumstances change or not. Quite independently of the original purpose of the law, such rules remain immutable, requiring yet another Act of Parliament to change the slightest thing. "As amended" is commonplace when referring to an Act.

To illustrate my point, consider the dog-licence fee. It remained 7/6d, or its decimal equivalent 37½p, for decades. Eventually the sum became so derisory that the whole concept was abolished. The reason for having a dog-licence had become lost in the mists of time. One could say: now look what a mess (literally) the country is!

Another remarkable example occurred in early 1997. A local council replaced a gate, leading from a children’s play area to a pedestrian rail crossing, with a stile. When local parents objected, the council official responsible claimed to have had no choice because "the law" insisted that rail crossings have the same means of access on both sides of the track. The other side had a stile, therefore the gate had to be replaced! "His was not to reason why". That was the law of rules taken to an extreme. He certainly did not pause to consider the reason why such a law had been framed in the first place. I can only guess(hope) that it was originally for safety. A person gaining access to the potentially dangerous crossing would be able to leave by a similar means. For example, a wheel chair could not negotiate a stile even though it had passed through a gate. Perhaps therefore a gate should have replaced the other stile, instead of what happened.

On a much grander scale, consider the European Community’s food mountains, wine lakes, and quota systems. "Europe must never again starve" was the panoramic aim of the original subsidy or control schemes. It has been forgotten. Instead, we concentrate on the "unfairness" to "our national interests" and squabble about the anomalous, seemingly unalterable rules which govern the accumulation and disposal of such surpluses. We have become a rule-based society, expert at managing artificial schemes, forgetting what we were really intending to achieve.

More generally we have allowed two illogical concepts to develop:

a. If you break the rules, you have broken the law. This is merely a trap for the innocent unwary.

b. If you do not break the rules, you have not broken the law. This is the master criminal’s charter.

I have been assured that, in the days of the British Empire, some of the colonies managed their legal systems better. Perhaps, when one believes one is starting from square one, one has more freedom to manoeuvre. The development of West German industry and industrial relations after WWII is an often quoted example of legislation from scratch.

An ex-colonial civil servant once described to me how the laws he was responsible for drafting were designed. They were divided into two parts. The first part addressed the fundamental aim, together with a list of objectives the achievement of which was considered necessary, or sufficient, or both, to fulfil that aim. In the second part there were the regulations or rules, the adherence to which it was expected would lead to the objectives being justly achieved and fairly administered.

The rules were certainly intended to be obeyed. Nevertheless they were subject to the overriding constraint that, if, by following a second-part rule to the letter, the spirit of the first-part law would be jeopardised, then the rule would be ignored in that instance, without necessarily creating a legal precedent. In other words, people were allowed to break a rule, even deliberately, if they were not breaking the law.

I cannot vouch for the historical accuracy of the above, but is a rational approach. It guards against oversights, or mis-drafting, in original rules, by allowing some flexibility for subsequent changes in society. I have seen government law drafters at work. I do not envy their task. I also have seen how devastating can be a small oversight in, or pedantic interpretation of, the rules. If the original purpose of the law were sacrosanct, there would later be fewer nugatory cases in the courts.

I would be in favour of extending this concept slightly, but significantly. If someone were to act in such a manner as to try to thwart the declared aim of a law, but nevertheless managed to avoid breaking the rules, that would still be considered an offence under that law. There would thus be no such thing as a loophole in the rules. Acquittals on a semantic technicality, or a verbal nicety, would become much rarer.

Such a legal system could work well only if the paramount aims and objectives of the laws are stated fully, and explicitly. Not only should no person be above the law, but no rule should be either. I regret that for many if not most laws today their aims are often implicit. Having to refer back to Parliamentary debates in order to accurately determine the will of Parliament is neither efficient nor always effective. The multitude of rules merely seem to embroil both the public and their lawyers, to the confusion of the former, and the profit of the latter.

It seems an unfortunate fact of life that it is easier to form a consensus on set of rules, than on a set of aims or principles. I may be considered cynical in suggesting that this is because in the negotiations, within a rule-making group, factions are intending to interpret the eventually agreed set of rules in the interest of their own implicit aims.

In similar contexts, one has only to observe the arguments that arise almost immediately some international treaty, or local industrial agreement, is signed or ratified, to see this phenomenon at work. Such negotiators see in the final communiqué only what they want to see. They persist with their "I’m OK, they’re not OK" attitude. For people to form a consensus of principle, as well as agreeing the rules of practice, the attitude "I’m OK, you’re OK" remains the most effective strategy for law making too.

In 1989, I recall being struck by a remark made by Lord Hailsham during a radio discussion. Towards the end, a consensus emerged among the participants that the best way to avoid, as opposed to solve, the problems they were debating was for all people to follow the "Golden Rule": "Love thy neighbour......". Lord Hailsham, as a Christian, agreed, but said that, of course, one could not make it the law. My immediate, and continuing reaction was "Indeed? Why ever not?".

As the fundamental logical principle for the survival of individuals, peoples, and the planet, it would make an ideal first element in any set of constitutional laws, written or otherwise. All further law, lore, and rules, would follow from this basic principle of mutual respect:

"We hold it self evident that all men are created equal...".

Haven’t you heard that somewhere before? We need to go further. Equal worth deserves equal respect. My draft constitution would begin along the following lines:

This is the first law:

There is no law with greater precedence than any other law, except numerically previous laws.

This is the second law:

All persons born alive are deemed of equal worth to humanity.

This is the third law:

All persons of such equal worth shall be due respect from all other persons.

This is the fourth law:

The relative value to humanity of any person shall be defined to be the money, or equivalent, acquired legitimately by that person by means of mutually respectful transactions with others.

This is the fifth law:

Every person shall contribute to society a proportion of the money, or equivalent remuneration, received from such legal transactions. This proportion shall be the same for all citizens, for all transactions.

It shall be determined and fixed from time to time by the governing body of the society, or nation, to which the citizen belongs and to which this tax is due. This may sound much like a tithe, but it is fundamentally different. It is not a wealth tax. It is not a tax on the purchaser. It is a once only single tax on the recipient of money, transaction by transaction. It is an all-embracing form of turnover tax.

This is the sixth law:

The governing body of each society or nation shall regard these tax revenues as "Insurance Premiums". Among other functions for which it may use its delegated powers, it will provide assistance to each and every citizen should any mishap occur that the citizen could not reasonably be expected to have foreseen.

It is a responsibility of government to decide, in advance, into which category such potential mishaps fall, the expected or unexpected. Any uncategorised mishap would be deemed to have been unforeseeable.

This is the seventh law:

In framing any legislation the governing body should explicitly separate the aims or objectives of the law from the rules or regulations designed to achieve it. If any discrepancy emerges between the aims and the rules, the aims will be considered paramount.

return to Contents

go to Crime

View my guestbook