[LEAPSECS] ITU-R SG7 to consider UTC on October 4
Clive D.W. Feather
clive at davros.org
Mon Aug 9 06:46:22 EDT 2010
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
>> I am not a Danish lawyer, but such a "current view" would be unlikely to
>> sway the UK courts in the presence of clear legislative wording to the
> It would not be a UK court, but a Danish court, which is not a
> common law court,
I realize that. My point was simply that, for the law systems I know about,
an argument along the lines of "the legislation wasn't supposed to say
that" wouldn't get very far. I'm surprised that Denmark is different.
> and we have a constitution for Denmark that has
> relevant wording in it.
Pardon me for being confused, but I thought you were saying that Danish law
(or constitution, I'm unclear which) says that "time" means "mean solar
time". Are you saying that the constitution allows that wording to be
ignored because "current view" is that UTC is what was meant?
>> The EU directive does no such thing.
That was a separate point. You said that the EU directive redefines the
basis of legal time in Denmark (this was in the context of UT v UTC). There
is no wording in the Directive saying that, and I continue to take the
position that therefore it does no such thing.
> But even allowing for that, your argument is still bunk.
I completely disagree.
> No court, UK or DK, would take the case until you show you have
> standing to bring the suit.
That I do agree with. But it's irrelevant to whether my argument is right
Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: clive at davros.org | it will get its revenge.
Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer
Mobile: +44 7973 377646
More information about the LEAPSECS