Die and you're under arrest! Britain's most stupid laws

[snopes]

Queen Elizabeth II's speech in the British parliament may have been routine but at least nobody got bored to death. That would have been against the law.

Dying in parliament is an offence and is also by far the most absurd law in Britain, according to a survey of nearly 4,000 people by a television channel showing a legal drama series.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071106...t_071106191929

[Tarquin Farquart]

Other rules deemed utterly stupid included one that permits a pregnant woman to urinate in a policeman's hat

That seems fairly practical to me, were one caught short.

[Andrew of Ware]

I thought a lot of these laws had been repealed, but the list was compiled by the Law Society (according to the BBC) so it must be correct.

This has been mentioned by myself (and others) in various threads:

10. It is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls of York, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow (2%)

Good to see it creeping into the top 10.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware

Good to see it creeping into the top 10.

Yes, but the bit they thought was stupid was that he had to be carrying a bow and arrow.

[RainyDaze]

Rather sick if this is still on the books. I can just picture a would be murderer handing a bow and arrow to an unsuspecting, but probably confused, Scotsman and then killing him.

[keokuk]

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart

That seems fairly practical to me, were one caught short.

I'm just curious about how they happened to develop such a law. Was there a huge outbreak of pregnant women going to the bathroom in policemen's hats that led Parliament to decide it was time to take a hard line on the issue?

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware

I thought a lot of these laws had been repealed, but the list was compiled by the Law Society (according to the BBC) so it must be correct.

If you read it carefully it doesn't actually say that - it says that the poll was carried out by UKTV Gold using a shortlist, then at the end it says:

The Law Society last year revealed other bizarre UK laws still in existence on the statute book.

They included a ban on firing a cannon close to a dwelling house (Met Police Act 1839); a ban on the use of any slide upon ice or snow (Town Police Clauses Act 1847); and the prohibition of driving cattle through the streets of London (Metropolitan Streets Act 1867).

I don't think the Law Society list is anything to do with this story; all the bizarre laws they "revealed" seem relatively sensible, and they give references to the specific laws, which are conspicuously absent from the shortlist. The Law Society list is a reference to an exhibition described in this article, I think. Only two of the items from the polled list are mentioned - the sharing of the whale (apparently dating from 1324) and the one about it being forbidden to wear armour in the Houses of Parliament (from 1279). (eta) Hmm, I'm not even sure that that information actually comes from the Law Society exhibition as The Times implies. Here's a press release about the exhibition: "The material comes from the Law Society library's Statute collections, which date from 1603 to 1898. It includes a number of curious Acts, dating back as far as the sixteen hundreds ..." - it doesn't sound as though they had sources going back that far.

In fact, the shortlist looks as though somebody ripped it out of an email. We've definitely discussed the topless women in a tropical fish shop before.

I thought it might be from Dumb Laws.com, but they only list one of those - the armour one, although they say "since 1313" . They give a BBC reference for it... Only the date, though, 17 Nov. 1999, which doesn't help to find the story itself.

[Andrew of Ware]

Thanks for the info Richard. The date 1999 is interesting because I know that was when a lot of Britain's archaic laws were repealed en masse. So perhaps a lot of them have now gone. In addition, I am sure that a lot of them will have superceded by other Acts of parliament (such as the shooting a Scotsman one).

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by keokuk

I'm just curious about how they happened to develop such a law. Was there a huge outbreak of pregnant women going to the bathroom in policemen's hats that led Parliament to decide it was time to take a hard line on the issue?

I think it was the best receptacle around. Let's face it, you're not going to get as much liquid in a flat cap!

[VeebleFetzer]

Originally Posted by keokuk

I'm just curious about how they happened to develop such a law. Was there a huge outbreak of pregnant women going to the bathroom in policemen's hats that led Parliament to decide it was time to take a hard line on the issue?

I don't believe there is such a law. I can't find a reliable cite at the moment, but as I remember it, in the late 19th century, laws were passed making it an offence to urinate in the street (prior to the introduction of modern sanitation and public lavatories, this had been common). An exemption was allowed for pregnant women, who, it was realised, may be more likely to be “caught short” due to their condition. A woman in such a situation was also allowed to ask a policeman to use his cape (which was a part of the uniform at the time) to shield her modesty.

[Rebochan]

Wow...I just want to hop a plane to Liverpool and check out the tropical fish stores just to see if there's some abundance of topless women inside.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Rebochan

Wow...I just want to hop a plane to Liverpool and check out the tropical fish stores just to see if there's some abundance of topless women inside.

When I last went to Liverpool someone told me about that law, leering appropriately.

[Eddylizard]

Damnit, I've only bee to Liverpool twice, and never saw any tropical fish stores. Time was tight though, and I never strayed much beyond my digs in Edge Lane.

[nancyfancypants]

Am I the only one who sees numerous possible Python sketches in these? (Especially with the Scotsman/bow and arrow thing!)

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Damnit, I've only bee to Liverpool twice, and never saw any tropical fish stores. Time was tight though, and I never strayed much beyond my digs in Edge Lane.

I've been to Birkenhead a couple of times, but I assume the rule doesn't apply there.

[VeebleFetzer]

It's worth noting that the BBC article now does not mention policemen’s helmets, and bears this footnote:

* This is an amended version of an earlier story which included several examples of laws from the survey which we have been unable to verify, and these have been removed.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by VeebleFetzer

I don't believe there is such a law. I can't find a reliable cite at the moment, but as I remember it, in the late 19th century, laws were passed making it an offence to urinate in the street (prior to the introduction of modern sanitation and public lavatories, this had been common). An exemption was allowed for pregnant women, who, it was realised, may be more likely to be “caught short” due to their condition. A woman in such a situation was also allowed to ask a policeman to use his cape (which was a part of the uniform at the time) to shield her modesty.

Even in my lifetime, (born early 60s) I remember women were not commonly seen pregnant in public. I imagine in Victorian England they would have been shoved out of sight completely.

[stalker]

7. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the king, and the tail of the queen

After that whale died when getting lost swimming up the thames, no wonder the Queen's been walking a bit funny.

[VeebleFetzer]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Even in my lifetime, (born early 60s) I remember women were not commonly seen pregnant in public. I imagine in Victorian England they would have been shoved out of sight completely.

Really? I was born in ’62, and that doesn’t agree with my memories at all – there seemed to be pregnant women everywhere. There used to be more effort to disguise pregnancy, I know that, or at the very least not flaunt it (tch… young women these days, what is the world coming to?).

I think, though, that even in Victorian London, it would have been only the upper middle class and above who could afford to confine a woman for the duration of her pregnancy, even if they wanted to. The working classes were lucky if they had a roof over their heads – the majority of women would have been forced to continue working as long as they were able.

[Canuckistan]

[pedant]

Isn't it stupidest? Not most stupid?

[/pedant]