Reply #216: Ms Curling makes an interesting point [View All]

[Febble]

that seems to be at the root of a number disagreements that have emerged recently on DU, by contrasting litigation with legislation as approaches to effecting reform. I have been struggling to understand the opposition to HR550 by Land Shark and others, as I could see no mechanism by which legislation could hinder rather than help the cause.

OK, now I think I see it:

The difference appears to be that on one side we have those who actually value the law as it stands, because the abuses they want to eradicate are currently in violation of it (and lawsuits are therefore possible), and on the other side we have those who want to change the law so that abuses are less likely to happen.

And so we have Land Shark tilting at Curling and VTUSA (who support the legislative approach), but not at BBV (which opposes the proposed legislation), even though both VTUSA and BBV appear to have received donations from Curling.

Is this the real difference here? Is this at the root of the HR550 debate? Is the perceived problem with HR550 that it would make litigation against abuses more difficult?

In which case, could we have that debate, instead of this one?