(function() { (function(){function c(a){this.t={};this.tick=function(a,c,b){var d=void 0!=b?b:(new Date).getTime();this.t[a]=[d,c];if(void 0==b)try{window.console.timeStamp("CSI/"+a)}catch(l){}};this.tick("start",null,a)}var a;if(window.performance)var e=(a=window.performance.timing)&&a.responseStart;var h=0=b&&(window.jstiming.srt=e-b)}if(a){var d=window.jstiming.load;0=b&&(d.tick("_wtsrt",void 0,b),d.tick("wtsrt_","_wtsrt", e),d.tick("tbsd_","wtsrt_"))}try{a=null,window.chrome&&window.chrome.csi&&(a=Math.floor(window.chrome.csi().pageT),d&&0=c&&window.jstiming.load.tick("aft")};var f=!1;function g(){f||(f=!0,window.jstiming.load.tick("firstScrollTime"))}window.addEventListener?window.addEventListener("scroll",g,!1):window.attachEvent("onscroll",g); })();

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Almost enough to make one a Eurosceptic

ECHR rules that parent-in-law may 'marry' child-in-law, hitherto illegal in Britain.

'The Strasbourg judges said the British ban, although pursuing a legitimate aim of protecting "the integrity of the family", did not prevent such relationships occurring.'

Because obviously, if you can't completely and perfectly prevent bad things happening, you might as well not bother in the first place. Whyever didn't that occur to me before?

But, 'In a previous case, the UK Parliament had even declared that barring the marriage between in-laws "served no useful purpose of public policy."' Yes, because the integrity of the family and stability of society are just fancy madcap ideas, completely impractical...