5 ms·

The article and the headline do not mention it, but FYI, this takes place in the United Kingdom.

• cube13 14y ago
  Came here to post that. It would be nice to mention it in the title, since it's buried in one of the links to the actual judgements.
  • tomku 14y ago
    Generic titles get more clicks, because the reader needs to click through and read the article to find out whether they're affected by the ruling. For the most clicks, headlines need to be specific enough to pique your interest, but vague enough that you can't feel satisfied that you know the whole story just from the headline. I can't say whether the submitter consciously considered that or not, but this story's headline is a great example of how well it works.
  • rickmb 14y ago
    Yeah, it's really annoying that those foreigners don't clearly state that something doesn't take place in the US. Or isn't that what you actually meant?
    • daxelrod 14y ago
      No, it's annoying when HN submission titles don't clearly state what jurisdiction articles about law apply to. I would personally have the same objection regardless of the article's nationality.
    • cube13 14y ago
      No. While I am from the US, it's difficult to tell exactly where in the entire world this court case applies to. If it was clearly stated that this was in the UK in the article, I wouldn't have that much of an issue. Unfortunately, the only way to actually figure out that this was in the UK(as opposed to any of the other Commonwealth states that use similar court systems) was to go to the subsequent articles linked in TFA.
      • ColinWright 14y ago
        > If it was clearly stated that this was in the UK > in the article, I wouldn't have that much of an issue. Clearly, because while the US doesn't take any notice of anything anyone else does, anything done in the US eventually applies to everyone else in the world. Therefore everyone in the world has to take notice of everything that happens in the US, while people in the US don't have to care or notice about anything outside.
        • cube13 14y ago
          Given the terminology used in the article, this could have been in Austrailia or New Zealand. Both countries use a similar court system(High Court->Court of Appeals->Supreme Court). Between those two, the UK, and the US, the only place it was obvious that it could not have happened in was the US. Here, the term "High Court" usually applies only to the Supreme Court. EDIT: It's also worth noting that it actually matters where in the UK this decision was made, as pointed out by cstross here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4251141 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4251141
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• cstross 14y ago
  More specifically, it takes place in Scotland. Which has a very different legal system from England and Wales (or anywhere else, for that matter). Primary legislation from 1707 through 2000 was enacted in Parliament in London, but the judicial system itself is based on Roman law rather than Common Law or the Napoleonic Continental System. This affects me (I'm in Edinburgh and so is my colo server). You, whoever you are, are probably safe.
  • mtgx 14y ago
    If it's based on the Roman Law, then precedent is pretty much irrelevant right? So we just have a judge without any common sense here, and most likely this won't be repeated in other such cases.
  • w1ntermute 14y ago
    > the judicial system itself is based on Roman law rather than Common Law or the Napoleonic Continental System Says on Wikipedia[0] that it's a hybrid of Roman and English law. Why did they even use Roman law at all? The Roman Empire had been gone for several centuries, and England was in control after the 1707 Acts of Union, so it's surprising they didn't reform the system to follow English procedures. 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_law
    • rmc 14y ago
      Why did they even use Roman law at all One of the difference between Roman (aka civil) law and English (aka common) law is the that precent matters differently. Lots of countries in Europe are based on civil aka Roman law. The Act of Union in 1707 Scottish law was guaranteed to continue after the union, that was a demand. Why didn't they change it? Probably for the same reason the USA adopt Mexican law? Why should they? It's a different country with different legal systems.
      • bdunbar 14y ago
        Probably for the same reason the USA adopt Mexican law? Bad analogy. The US and Mexico are not connected by an Act of Union. And actually - parts of Mexican law were incorporated by states in the Southwest, where they made sense: primarily land-use and water rights. It's a different country with different legal systems. Act of Union - as I read it - united Scotland and England into the same Kingdom. You guys shared a flag, your armies are the same, the currency is the same. A difference with no distinction. Now, a prickly Scot could want to keep his oddball legal system and more power to him. But don't get all irate if the rest of the world looks at that choice and wonders that two countries that share currency, an army, a monarch, and etc should not also share the same legal system.
• ColinWright 14y ago
  Doesn't matter any more, because now instead of highlighting the point in the article that really matters, it's now been given the even more unenlightening title of the article itself.