Not exact matches
Elected houses have to pander to the
public, the
public are generally stupid; in return for a vote politicians set aside all petty considerations (like the
law, morality, basic human
decency and common sense) and pass stupid, kneejerk, dangerous
laws (the only people to disagree with Her Majesty's government passing dangerous
laws in the name of anti-terrorism were a bunch of out - of - touch 90 - year - old judges, who have been replaced by a tame political supreme court).
In that case, where the defendants had been convicted on two counts of conspiracy to corrupt
public morals and conspiracy to outrage
public decency in respect of the publication of a magazine which contained advertisements inviting readers to engage in homosexual acts, the House of Lords was split about whether a common
law offence of conspiracy to outrage
public decency existed.
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the
law relating to the offence of outraging
public decency had developed in such a way that the offence was confined to those instances where the necessary lewd act had been witnessed by at least one person, and the
public nature of the offence was only satisfied if, in addition, at least one other person either had or could have seen the act.
The two person rule in respect of establishing the
public element of the offence of outraging
public decency contrary to the common
law can be satisfied if there were two or more people present who were capable of seeing the nature of the act, even if they did not actually see it.
The defendant was subsequently convicted of committing an act of outraging
public decency contrary to the common
law.