Heartland

nodubmanshouts wrote:

What century are you living in, dude?

The one after the Criminal Justice Act was enacted!

'The' Criminal Justice Act? Which one, pray? And whose?

James Blast wrote:has drink been taken Bastard, I'm sure that was meant as humour, sorry humor

It's humour, Mr. Blast, although I do appreciate that there are those who think otherwise. Persecution of any stripe is not a good thing, but at least if you're honest about it people know where they stand. Albion never made any bones about not allowing catholics, women, or non-property owners to vote, go to university, or run for office. Not anything to be proud of, but it was the law and it was adhered to.
Some countries (and I'm not singling any out here) make great play about freedoms and rights but manage somehow to make exceptions for, for example, people of a darker hue. This seems a little odd to me - but yes, drink has been taken.

"THE" Crimincal Justice Act, normally refers to the 1994 UK one, or specifically "The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994" to give it its correct name (or at least it did when I was in the UK).

It received a lot of criticism at the time it was going through the legal process, not least for dumbing down the right to silence and stupid-ness about making dance music illegal.

Though this has got me wondering what was in the other ones too... Wikipedia lists quite a few.

nodubmanshouts wrote:"THE" Crimincal Justice Act, normally refers to the 1994 UK one, or specifically "The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994" to give it its correct name (or at least it did when I was in the UK).

It received a lot of criticism at the time it was going through the legal process, not least for dumbing down the right to silence and stupid-ness about making dance music illegal.

Though this has got me wondering what was in the other ones too... Wikipedia lists quite a few.

It's a general descriptive attached to a plethora of specific acts, as you've found, and in common use in the UK, Eire and the US. Have to admit I wasn't paying all that much attention to UK politics in 1994 (inasmuch as I was at the time living out of a van on the road much of the time, and my concerns were a lot more...shall we say immediate?).

But in terms of that specific one (with which I am now familiar) - the difference resides primarily in the fact that things get enacted on a national level in Britain that are more likely to be state or municipal issues in the US. Seattle has been going through an endless battle - or perhaps it's better characterised as an endless series of skirmishes - over the exact same nonsense for longer than I've lived here, which totals 11 years now. So America is only off the hook to the extent that it's left those decisions to more local government - but those decisions can be every bit as repressive.