Rage Online

&quotboris&quot wrote:The law's not a popularity contest, thankfully (otherwise we'd still have the death penalty and fox hunting and immigration would probably be illegal). A lot of laws are changed because of the power (usually financial) of professional lobbyists, not because of some cause capturing the imagination of a relatively small pressure group.

I think the first sentence needs an Oxford comma.

&quotMally&quot wrote:

&quotboris&quot wrote:The law's not a popularity contest, thankfully (otherwise we'd still have the death penalty and fox hunting and immigration would probably be illegal). A lot of laws are changed because of the power (usually financial) of professional lobbyists, not because of some cause capturing the imagination of a relatively small pressure group.

I think the first sentence needs an Oxford comma.

I think you're right, and if I was copy editing my own work I would have included one (I always do unless the company's house style precludes it), but as I was typing in haste I couldn't be bothered.

&quotAscension Ox&quot wrote:

&quotboris&quot wrote:

&quotAscension Ox&quot wrote: 4 Not enough people share your views about terracing. Otherwise the law would have been changed.

The law's not a popularity contest, thankfully (otherwise we'd still have the death penalty and fox hunting and immigration would probably be illegal). A lot of laws are changed because of the power (usually financial) of professional lobbyists, not because of some cause capturing the imagination of a relatively small pressure group.

Sorry, that's simplistic. If enough people feel strongly about an issue, things happen on a legislative front . And I can offer plenty of examples.

No, it's you who's being simplistic. I agree that quite often a populist movement can lead to legislative change, but to suggest that the latter is an inevitable effect of the former is simplistic, and often untrue (to whit, the examples I've already given and many others). I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, just that you would be wrong to assume that it automatically would happen just because people demand it.

&quotboris&quot wrote:

&quotAscension Ox&quot wrote:

&quotboris&quot wrote: The law's not a popularity contest, thankfully (otherwise we'd still have the death penalty and fox hunting and immigration would probably be illegal). A lot of laws are changed because of the power (usually financial) of professional lobbyists, not because of some cause capturing the imagination of a relatively small pressure group.

Sorry, that's simplistic. If enough people feel strongly about an issue, things happen on a legislative front . And I can offer plenty of examples.

No, it's you who's being simplistic. I agree that quite often a populist movement can lead to legislative change, but to suggest that the latter is an inevitable effect of the former is simplistic, and often untrue (to whit, the examples I've already given and many others). I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, just that you would be wrong to assume that it automatically would happen just because people demand it.

No, it's you who's being simplistic.

The FSF Safe Standing Report makes interesting reading.

As for good atmospheres, they almost always emanate from those standing at matches, as it did from the majority who were on their feet most of the game in the East Stand on Tuesday.

Those that stand should have a place where they can, those that want to sit should have the same. Simple.