"X's Law", good and bad

[Bletchleyite]

(Parliament by contrast often does act on emotion - hence all the misguided "X's Laws" that have been popping up of late!)

Its somewhat off-topic but I think you might need to justify that statement! I’m directly related to someone whose life has been saved due to one of those laws (in a medical sense) and indirectly to someone who was left with permanent life-changing disabilities due to an incident that would have probably been prevented by a similar law, had it been in place at the time.

It was a slightly flippant comment, but seeing as it probably justifies its own thread.

Most of the "X's Laws" I've heard of were in my view brought in on the emotional basis of this:

Public: Something must be done!
Govt: This is something?
Public: That'll do.

The most recent example of this is Martyn's Law which has introduced a load of quite highly onerous rules on venues which by and large won't prevent terrorist attacks but do make attending such events a lot more hassle particularly by public transport (e.g. arbitrary bans based on sizes of bag which aren't in the law but have spread because of guidance around it). That doesn't mean to say that nothing was necessary nor that all of that law is bad (some parts of it aren't), but the likely outcome of this law is just that there will be fewer events and those which do happen won't be as easy to attend, plus there will be fewer free events due to the costs of managing security.

But aside from the practicalities, I don't agree with the nomenclature. Legislation should only ever be made on an objective basis, never on the basis of emotion (which is why I hold a very strong view that the victims of a particular crime should never be directly involved in legislating about it, though their opinions should of course be canvassed alongside those whose activities would be curtailed by those laws) and drafted by people who have no personal involvement on either side to keep things pragmatic. And thus the term "X's Law" should never, ever be used. It's a nasty Americanism that seems to have come over here, alongside a load of other nasty Americanisms like excessive litigiousness.

I don't know about the specific one you're referring to but perhaps you could give some detail?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Thanks for that. In terms of the nomenclature I kind-of agree, but that doesn't automatically mean the content of the law is incorrect. Perhaps I’m just resigned to the modern day reality of nonsensically named stuff (Boaty McBoatface etc…)

I will actually hold my hand up and say I was referring my personal experience to Martha’s Rule, so not technically a law per se, which entitles medical patients (or their family/career) to an urgent second opinion by a rapid response care team. The legal status is still under debate - I.e. what happens if a hospital says ‘no’, etc. But it is certainly a very important improvement in safety that has come directly out of a particular patient death and should be enshrined in law hopefully one day soon.

Perhaps in a medical sense the ‘name’ part makes it easier to remember, for those who in a moment of potentially extreme stress need to urgently invoke it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I will actually hold my hand up and say I was referring my personal experience to Martha’s Rule, so not technically a law per se, which entitles medical patients (or their family/career) to an urgent second opinion by a rapid response care team. The legal status is still under debate - I.e. what happens if a hospital says ‘no’, etc. But it is certainly a very important improvement in safety that has come directly out of a particular patient death and should be enshrined in law hopefully one day soon.

That does sound good.

Perhaps in a medical sense the ‘name’ part makes it easier to remember, for those who in a moment of potentially extreme stress need to urgently invoke it?

Possibly so. Of course that doesn't apply in the case of terror related prosecutions, where reference to the correct name of the law is going to be prevalent aside from in the tabloid press.

 

[deltic]

Its the knee jerk reaction to often a one off event that is of more concern. The requirement for a second staircase in blocks of flats is a classic where the additional cost is estimated at £2.7bn over 10 years for just £9m worth of benefits. The new legislation is brought in often as a result of a one off event which is highly unlikely to occur again.

 

[Sakuradori]

And thus the term "X's Law" should never, ever be used.

Completely agree. I think "Natasha's Law" is a brilliant, overdue piece of legislation (prepackaged food has to list every single ingredient and allergen), but this idea of the name of the law being based on a real person, especially after tragic circumstances, feels to me like it's going to be taken advantage of before too long. Imagine someone pushes a terrible bill into Parliament, but the media runs a campaign disparaging everyone opposing it because "how could they do this to poor xyz".
Edit: I don't even think "Food Information (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019" is all that bad a name to require a nickname

 

[Bletchleyite]

Edit: I don't even think "Food Information (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019" is all that bad a name to require a nickname

The sensible thing to refer to that law colloquially as is probably something like "food allergy law/regulations". Keep it simple.

I do agree with that law by the way (not least because I do have allergies and it's helpful for me to just be able to read labels rather than having to constantly faff about asking people about it).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2025 ==

Its the knee jerk reaction to often a one off event that is of more concern.

I am inclined to agree, but...

The requirement for a second staircase in blocks of flats is a classic where the additional cost is estimated at £2.7bn over 10 years for just £9m worth of benefits. The new legislation is brought in often as a result of a one off event which is highly unlikely to occur again.

...we require multiple exits for office buildings. Should we not afford the same protection to those who live in Council flats?

Having said that, compartmentalisation (which is required for only having one exit) is fine as long as you don't put petrol soaked matchwood up the side of buildings. And there are other mitigations like positive pressure in stairwells to prevent smoke ingress.

 

[Annetts key]

Most of the "X's Laws" I've heard of were in my view brought in on the emotional basis of this:

Public: Something must be done!
Govt: This is something?
Public: That'll do.

The most recent example of this is Martyn's Law which has introduced a load of quite highly onerous rules on venues which by and large won't prevent terrorist attacks but do make attending such events a lot more hassle particularly by public transport (e.g. arbitrary bans based on sizes of bag which aren't in the law but have spread because of guidance around it). That doesn't mean to say that nothing was necessary nor that all of that law is bad (some parts of it aren't), but the likely outcome of this law is just that there will be fewer events and those which do happen won't be as easy to attend, plus there will be fewer free events due to the costs of managing security.

But aside from the practicalities, I don't agree with the nomenclature. Legislation should only ever be made on an objective basis, never on the basis of emotion (which is why I hold a very strong view that the victims of a particular crime should never be directly involved in legislating about it, though their opinions should of course be canvassed alongside those whose activities would be curtailed by those laws) and drafted by people who have no personal involvement on either side to keep things pragmatic. And thus the term "X's Law" should never, ever be used. It's a nasty Americanism that seems to have come over here, alongside a load of other nasty Americanisms like excessive litigiousness.

Yes, agree. Laws named after victims and in reaction to the pain of the relatives/family/friends of victims may sound like a good idea at the time, but may well result in problems later on.

The relatives/family/friends of victims often want to do something meaningful after the death of their loved one. But we should be very careful with this route to adding or amending our laws.

The point of a law is that it is for the general good of the people of the country. Laws should not be brought in for the sake of individual situations where the benefit is limited compared to other factors.

And there is no point in putting in place laws that either won't normally be enforced due to a lack of resources or because enforcing them is unpractical.

 

[deltic]

...we require multiple exits for office buildings. Should we not afford the same protection to those who live in Council flats?

Having said that, compartmentalisation (which is required for only having one exit) is fine as long as you don't put petrol soaked matchwood up the side of buildings. And there are other mitigations like positive pressure in stairwells to prevent smoke ingress.

Not sure that we do require multiple exits for office buildings - it depends on a number of factors, including maximum distance to an exit.

 

[brad465]

The 100ml liquid rule, if it fits this description, is the worst for me. Not just because of the inconvenience (although improved scanning technology is slowly seeing this rule phased out), but because it was brought in off the back of a terrorist plot that didn't even happen, because, would you believe it, our counter-terrorism was strong enough to proactively thwart it. Everything was working fine, yet authorities panicked and brought this restriction in for flights. If something needed doing to improve things, it should have been to further invest in counter-terror teams to make sure they remain resourced and effective.

If anything, I'd say also this rule gave terrorists a win, because we were scared into introducing a freedom-restricting rule that may also have encouraged them to push harder in future, rather than a "you will not destroy our way of life" and carry on as before.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In terms of the naming side of it, at least we havent followed the US where everything seemingly has to be some kind of acronym (e.g. Patriot act and similar).

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

In terms of the naming side of it, at least we havent followed the US where everything seemingly has to be some kind of acronym (e.g. Patriot act and similar).

The Riot Act?

 

[Tetchytyke]

anything, I'd say also this rule gave terrorists a win, because we were scared into introducing a freedom-restricting rule that may also have encouraged them to push harder in future

Maybe I’m too cynical, but I don’t think the airlines were particularly devastated that that rule came in. Helped them sell hold baggage at an inflated fee.

 

[brad465]

Maybe I’m too cynical, but I don’t think the airlines were particularly devastated that that rule came in. Helped them sell hold baggage at an inflated fee.

And WHSmith and other providers of refreshments could charge passengers over a barrel with products that won't pass airport security.

 

[Fragezeichnen]

I'm reminded of this interesting blog post about "Harper's law", which aimed to make a life sentence mandatory for causing the death of an emergency services worker, regardless of whether there was an intent to do so. As the OP mentioned, this law also was widely criticised by the legal profession as a populist, emotional reaction to a single case.

 

[brad465]

I'm reminded of this interesting blog post about "Harper's law", which aimed to make a life sentence mandatory for causing the death of an emergency services worker, regardless of whether there was an intent to do so. As the OP mentioned, this law also was widely criticised by the legal profession as a populist, emotional reaction to a single case.

An example you've reminded me of, is the law to force convicted criminals attend court for their sentence, after Lucy Letby refused to attend court to hear her life sentence given. Literally one (albeit notorius) killer not attending court led to widespread outrage over it, conveniently forgetting that, however wrong this behaviour is, compelling someone to hear their sentence in court could lead them to throw a hissy fit, disrespect court proceedings and in turn disrespect the victims, which would be worse than if they hadn't turned up in the first place. This might work where sentences can be changed with menaingful impact, but life sentence recipients have nothing to lose.