--

So they're not just a bunch of sozzled old duffers...

Seems like the House of Lords is doing some good:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4616356.stm
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 18th, 2006
Can't fault them for that, but they still shouldn't exist.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 18th, 2006
Um, Mat--would you mind translating "sozzled"?

SPEAK ENGLISH, DAMN YOU!!! ;-) ;-)

g/d/r

P.S. Life looking a bit better today?
Permalink cubiclegrrl 
January 18th, 2006
Quiet woman. Before we resubsume you back into the empire.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 18th, 2006
Duffers? As in golfers?
Oh, and Colm: I, for one, welcome our new British overlords.
Permalink Star Wars Kid 
January 18th, 2006
Underpaid, undersexed, and--oh, never mind...
Permalink cubiclegrrl 
January 18th, 2006
Sozzled -- drunk, but not incapacitated.
Duffer -- someone or something that has the quality of being duff.
Duff -- useless, junk, rubbish.
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 18th, 2006
Mat: Ah. That makes sense. I've "sozzled" cookies in milk, but not to the point where they fall apart. Thanks for the vocabulary lesson.
Permalink cubiclegrrl 
January 18th, 2006
I guess the two uses of the word have a similar root -- a sense of "soaked in liquid"... :)
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 18th, 2006
> Underpaid, undersexed, and--oh, never mind...

And ain't going anywhere.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 18th, 2006
Sorry Colm, but I have never understood how an election process somehow confers legitimacy. It's like whoever shouts the loudest wins, only on a grand scale. The resulting decision is rarely any better arrived at.
Permalink Ian Boys 
January 18th, 2006
An election process isn't a very good democratic process, but that's still better than no democratic process at all.

Often the decisions aren't better than an autocratic process, but that's not really the point. The real, CRUCIAL point is that when the shit REALLY hits the fan you can kick the bastards who caused it out of power.
Permalink Colm O'Connor 
January 18th, 2006
Too bad we can't really throw a judge out of power.
Permalink Rick Tang 
January 18th, 2006
You can probably stop giving him cases.
Permalink Erik Springelkamp 
January 18th, 2006
That's why the Lords is a reforming house, if the Commons push it then whatever it is gets passed but the reforming and the time that adds to the process does surprisingly make for better laws.

Usually.

Disagreeing with judges is like disagreeing with doctors, interesting to do but in the end usually fatuous.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 19th, 2006
So Colm, how would you implement a "Don't be such a prat, think it through" function in a legislative body?

I agree if we were starting with a blank slate the noble lords wouldn't be something we'd invent - but experience has taught me to be careful about mucking about too much with things that actually work.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 19th, 2006
Sorry Colm, I tend to agree with the others. Once in the house of lords since you ain't bound to the party to get favours you can become an awkward cuss.
Since most of the Life peers got chucked out it's not a bad system.
As a chamber to delay poor legislation I like it.
By the same token, much as I don't like some of my MPs politics (Frank Dobson) since he isn't beholden to the Vicar anymore he isn't afraid to oppose the Vicar over civil rights, when I remember I use the faxyourmp website to send over my thoughts (last time over the 90 day detention stuff)
Permalink Peter Ibbotson 
January 19th, 2006
"Disagreeing with judges is like disagreeing with doctors, interesting to do but in the end usually fatuous."

It's much easier to punish a doctor.
Permalink Rick Tang 
January 19th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics