heh donut i didnt want to put it quite like that, but yeah ill try in future.
and andrewas european law in itself is new, that means when they "picked" or created the laws they wouldnt sift through 100000s of bylaws from different countries, they would make or modify the main ones in exsistence, bylaws dont even come into european union lawmaking, they have no place, EU overrules them most of the time if they do come up in a case, but as overall EU law there are none for specific cities etc, you got 1 eu law covering all, thats new and therefore they wouldnt have picked specific bylaws from countries, why bother? I dont know the process whereby they did build up the laws but im guessing they didnt go through 100s of thousands of different laws from all the countries, they took the best of what was on offer and modified it to suit, do people honestly believe trial by combat would have been selected by a panel of lawmakers and politicians as a viable 20th century device? If people believe that then they think less of politicians than i do [img]smile.gif[/img]
and borvik its not hard, epona must believe that i honestly didnt know laws were in exsistence from before 17th century, that would make me thicker and more retarded than most people alive, from my posts i am NOT thick and retarded, therefore logic dictates i cannot believe there were no laws before 17th century, i mean doh course there are! So thats why i didnt bother qualifying things like that before, i thought it was blatantly obvious to all concerned what i was saying
or did more people honestly believe i thought that there were no laws in existence before 17th century? purrrr-lease! If so i surrender to my stupidity and will live out my life as the village idiot where i will accept trial by wits from all comers and fail miserably...
gah gah gah n bah