If the cops are rushing off to a job and they witness infringements on the road, of course they can’t act on them there and then. Although they could take a rego number and act later in some instances.

It is not just road rules and it is not just the police that have an element of unscrupulous behaviour. It is probably all regulators that do this.

With the regulation of environmental laws for example, there is often a real problem with a developer or landholder trying to know just what applies. What is written in law and what is actually regulated is again often somewhat different.

People often have to read between the lines to judge what is acceptable and what isn’t. Then they might find that what has been acceptable for others to do, they’ll get stung for! But they might also find that if they stick to the absolute letter of the law while everyone else around them hasn’t, they’ll be placed at a distinctive disadvantage.

One of my main gripes is that there is a real slackness about the whole business. Every attempt should be made to keep the written law in line the practiced law, and to express to the public just exactly what realty applies.

Ludwig,

I'm guessing you're a moderate, law-abiding citizen. I was brought up the same way, so I can see the merit in your argument from your POV.

>>For example, the police have this great catch-phrase; ‘Every K over is a killer’. But they don’t police the speed limit at face value, they allow a considerable leeway, which by all indications seems to be 10kmh over on the open highway and in most situations. Speed-measuring devices don’t have a 10kmh error margin. So what’s their thinking?<<

I reckon the police's thinking - even if it is an afterthought - is that whenever they draw a firm line in the sand, there will always be those that go right up to it and continually probe to see where they can get away with breaking it. By not having that firm line in the sand - eg the speed limit in a particular traffic zone is 60 km/h with a 5 km/h leeway - the police keep people guessing as to whether they will strike. It's the threat of getting caught that has a bigger effect on the general motoring public than actually getting caught.

In a perfect world where people were not racing around everywhere in their cars, I think your solution would be the correct one. In an imperfect world, the cops have probably worked out that being unpredictable works best (for them). My guess is if the cops have a hard-and-fast rule, it wouldn't be long before everyone saw that the emperor had no clothes at which point the line in the sand would be serially breached and the roads would even more quickly descend into chaos.

Skeptic and Examinator, my PhD is not on this topic. I merely said that in the course of writing it I had cause to think about what law can achieve. There's no need to be rude and unpleasant.

For what it's worth, I am proposing a radical change to the law in my PhD to try and make it more fair, but I had to think very carefully about whether the change would actually achieve what I wanted it to achieve, otherwise there's really no point.

Thank you, Ludwig, for reading this piece in the spirit which it was intended.

As for the use of a pseudonym - well, as other commenters have pointed out, there are genuine reasons why a person might want to use a pseudonym. I stand proudly by my opinion.

But thats just the point Legal Eagle - you aren't standing by your opinion. You are hiding behind a pseudonym.

And from my standpoint its mildly offensive on a website where almost every single other opinion writer publishes their pieces under their real name.

To be honest I don't buy the argument about negative consequences. I just don't think that on a website like OLO, which has specific rules designed to cool down discussions, that anybody is going to go and egg your house or do anything else. To start with they'd need to know where you live. Even so, though there are a few weirdos around, Australia doesn't really have that type of democracy. People might disagree with you. They might be rude and belittle your work. But they won't harm you.

Leaving aside this article, what if a person posted a really contentious piece on immigration under a pseudonym and a vigourous forum debate then took place over the next few days. You can imagine the type of debate that might ensue. What if the writer of the piece was then exposed as Pauline Hanson? Would some of the forum posters feel cheated? - They probably would.

I think that using a pseudonym enables you to hide away from genuine criticism. You can publish a piece that is half thought-out without any negative consequences because it isn't being published in your name. You can also say things that you would not ordinarily say, because anonymity means that you don't have to own your opinion. Thats not intellectual bravery - thats cowardice. At least, thats how I see it.

David, I understand your point of view. If I had an ongoing job rather than random contract work at the discretion of various universities, I'd be more than happy to post under my real name. But I do not, so for the moment I will remain pseudonymous. I've explained to OLO why I wish to remain pseudonymous. They know my real identity, and respect my wishes.

I assure you that I treat anything I say as something written under my real name.

See this post I wrote last year about online identities and the risks attached: http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2009/04/22/through-a-glass-darkly/

Also have a look at the NightJack case, upon which I commented on last year: http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2009/06/18/anonymous-no-more/

I think Justice Eady's observation in the Times case is the perfect counterpoint: " It is very often useful, in assessing the value of an opinion or argument, to know its source. …[O]ne may wish to apply greater caution or scepticism in the case of a person with “an axe to grind”. For so long as there is anonymity, it would obviously be difficult to make any such assessment."

Its hard to argue that the Night Jack case was wrongly decided - the Constable was using his position to disclose confidential information for personal gain (the online readership) and he then tried to rely on confidentiality (?!) to remain anonymous.

I would see it differently regarding the employment issue. If you were writing quality opinion pieces on OLO that might actually be quite respected by a Head of School at an Australian law school. After all, it does tick the box for community engagement. Profile counts - and some academics have already used OLO and their own blogs very astutely to impress their universities. Also, an academic is a public intellectual.

In the other link you provided, the online activities of those posters did genuinely go to credibility. But they were of a very different nature to the genuine type of writing on current affairs that you are engaging in here. But its up to you I guess. But for my part I always give short shrift to anything written anonymously unless its some kind of genuine insiders account (which isn't the case here).