> Get rid of jury trials for northern Ireland for a few years
I believe we still have Diplock courts. They were actually put in place because internment without trial was considered too draconian. The kind of thing that would never occur with a constitution (give me a G...)
> Californian cities can take their own people's guns away
How does that work? Is California accepting that the 2nd amendment put in the bit about a militia for a reason or something else? I mean, the US Constitution isn't meant to be a state by state menu is it?
> You have to have at least minimal evidence that somebody did something before you can ransack their house.
I believe you have to have reasonable cause. You don't actually need any evidence. And, as you point out, you've all had a few years to drum up some excuses when it becomes inconvenient.
I'm sure having a constitution is comforting and all but, in reality, you're in exactly the same boat as the UK and for exactly the same reasons. We have checks and balances too.
And when the state, in its infinite wisdom, chooses to bend them, we sometimes get quite annoyed (the UK version of angry).
Quite annoyed is a bit extreme. I'm miffed but annoyed? Rocking the boat mate.
Not having a written constitution isn't as bad as it seems. The government can't do what they want. The courts do rule against them.
We have quite a deep history of law that sets things out. Thousands of years. Sometimes we get silly things, like until recently pregnant women having the right to piss in a bobby's helmet, but it's very much a case of a complex set of rights wrestled from the ruling classes over those thousand years or so.
The government is in a precarious situation at the moment. They are extremely weak. It wouldn't take a whole lot to get this legislation outright neutered. If Tom Watson is working on it, I imagine Labour are doing just that.
I believe we still have Diplock courts. They were actually put in place because internment without trial was considered too draconian. The kind of thing that would never occur with a constitution (give me a G...)
> Californian cities can take their own people's guns away
How does that work? Is California accepting that the 2nd amendment put in the bit about a militia for a reason or something else? I mean, the US Constitution isn't meant to be a state by state menu is it?
> You have to have at least minimal evidence that somebody did something before you can ransack their house.
I believe you have to have reasonable cause. You don't actually need any evidence. And, as you point out, you've all had a few years to drum up some excuses when it becomes inconvenient.
I'm sure having a constitution is comforting and all but, in reality, you're in exactly the same boat as the UK and for exactly the same reasons. We have checks and balances too.
And when the state, in its infinite wisdom, chooses to bend them, we sometimes get quite annoyed (the UK version of angry).