Template talk:English tort law

English 'tort law' - taught on the Edexcel BTEC HNC to students of Building Studies, (2001-2003), under the unit entitled 'Building Law', (and assumably all other students in design, technology, and architecture thereof also, as the rule of 'tort' or of the English 'tort law' is applicable now as part of the British Law as it ever was, and because this effects the rules by which everyone within each sector are supposed to follow, (having themselves been designed and based upon the outcome of such judicial cases as 'Rylands v Fletcher', a case which was used to explain the responsibilities of the land-owner, client, and the design team, as the laws had been set by the cases that had already been won in court, and which had set precedent for all following proceedings).

In the case of English Law - under the 'tort law' - it is possible to be charged with the crime of (gross) professional negligence, if it can be proven that any member of 'the design team', (i.e.), failed in their professional duty of care to consider all consequences of their actions, (or inactions thereof).

It is against the law in England, for decision makers to make unconsidered decisions - and to design in such a way, so as to result in the damage or damages of others. (I.E. If a senior politician, fails to take into account the negative ramifications of the new rules he designed -that release an energy flow - such as water, or nuclear pollutants, or equal, to cause damage to the neighbour, or land-owners, or the community that suffer as a direct consequence of their design, action, or lack-of-action.)

For example, (as per the lectures in this subject as taught in the Edexcel BTEC HNC in Building Studies), if a designer or decision maker, fails to take into account ALL the relevant information pertaining to any site (or all) in England, under English Law, then under this common (or civil) 'tort law', they can be taken to court and sued for the crime of their 'Professional Negligence'.

Example: While on the same course (in 2002), students were taught that 'ALL the signs' showed there would soon be a far (FAR) worse global economic recession than that of the early 1990s. (The bankers were continuing to sell debt as if it was a commodity that was fast going out of fashion.) As it was easy to see that 'ALL the signs' showed that the banker's own poorly designed economical balancing system was going to create world poverty, the bankers themselves could be held accountable for the act of (gross) Professional Negligence, (and all the senior politicians that allowed the levels of poverty and austerity to rise exponentially because of this serious design fault) - could ALL be charged similarly, under the same rule of tort law, for their own Professional Negligence, in allowing the bankers to continue to lend out more money than they had.

Example: It is not possible to sell seven eggs if there are only four eggs.

The global economic system is based on the value of commodities - in the purchase and/or sale of commodities, (and global commodities), including the value and worth of 'The Land' and 'property', trees, plants, hedgerows, vegetables, fruit, minerals, (and of course, this also includes nuclear power, GM, 'Fracking', quarries, and transportation).

In fact, it is currently considered that ALL commodities on Earth have some significant financial fiscal value upon 'The Stock Market' - and/or as traded by the traders within 'The Stock Market'.

According to the United Nations, in Spring 2011, the level of global over-demand for the remaining resources upon (and of) Earth, stood at 140%.

It is not possible to sell, trade, (or even to hand out freely), seven eggs if there are only four eggs - and yet that is exactly what the bankers have done, (and the senior cabinet members and MPs have allowed to continue to happen).

In this case, there was already sufficient evidence for the MPs and the bankers to halt all such debt-making policies - before the United Nations provided the 140% quotation, the SEI Reap Report had quoted levels had risen to 120%, (and also the MPs were supposed to be also similarly following the guidelines of: 'The Brundtland Report', (as well as 'The Reap Report'), 'The Egan Report', 'The Earth Charter', UK Planing Guidelines, UK Planning Law - which includes the English 'tort law', Human Rights Conventions, and (regardless of people's disfavour), 'Agenda 21', (which was adopted by the UK Government itself, after it's issue at The Earth Summit in Rio in 1992).

The current round of proposals by bankers, English MPs and the PM, have failed to meet the statutory rule of tort laws - not only leaving them guilty of (gross) Professional Negligence by the tort law, but also under the same rules of tort, (as taught), namely: Negligence, Breach of duty, Loss of chance, Loss of right, and even 'Eggshell skull', (due to the fact that the failure to protect the most vulnerable people in ALL society, lost them their chance/s, and lost them their rights - both of which also form to prove the 'Breach of duty' under the tort law to which this is relevant and refers).

N.B. As this was all taught in the lecture room over 10 years ago, it isn't possible to find all the original reference points as citations to this document - however, it is just as easy to revert back for cross-reference to the Wikipedia Pages on this subject, (already cross-reference), via []

N.B. In conclusion, the face that the effects of global recession WERE predicted in 2002 on the BTEC HNC in Building Studies - results in further damnation under the rule of tort law, as (according the the global debt clock of The Economist), the current figure of global debt now exceeds US$52.8Trillion - whereas at the time when the recession was first predicted in 2002, the total combined figure of debt globally stood in the region of circa US$22.2Trillion, (ergo by mathematical deduction, logic and reason, the bankers have cost the global population circa US$32.6Trillion - by their poor and shoddily designed architecture for the economics of the world order).

It is not possible to sell, trade, or hand out seven eggs if there are only four.

The United Nations quoted levels of over-demand had risen to 140% in Spring 2011, which effectively means that the bankers and politicians are trying to trade 40% more than there actually is - and, as their economical system works on accountancy whereby every single grain of sand and dust has a financial equivalent, they have over-sold Earth by 40% in 2011, resulting in the total figure of debt now well in excess of US$52.8Trillion, as shown on the global debt clock of The Economist: www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock - potentially balancing the equivalent on the scales reflective of figures of over-demand as seen publicly today. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:English_tort_law&action=edit&redlink=1#

The Bank of England proposals in the last quartile of 2011, (provided within their own PDF), detail that they propose to build their way out of the global economic recession by further expansion of the workforce, and (yet more) invigorated productivity - but this in itself actually contravenes the targets and principals as set out by the United Nations.

It isn't possible to continue to base an economy upon further expansion and increased productivity - when the economical banking system is dependent and based upon global resources - that are themselves over-demanded by 140% from the beginning of the same year the bankers proposals were made for this in 2011, (nor when the economic system itself is built upon and based upon the footing of debt - as it stands wobbling today because of it).

A boom and bust economy results in continued expansion of debt - because there is not a big black hole anywhere on Earth that ALL the written off figures of debt is thrown into, (ergo it is therefore stacked up like a mountain of coal, as each individual and/or politician and/or bank, continues to borrow more money against the already increased level of mountainous debt, (with figures already quoted).

Effectively, this is just inherited by all the most vulnerable people in England, the UK, and the entire world over - the 'whole world order' in fact, as ALL the little children stand to inherit a world full of debt, and absolutely NO planetary resources left for their own survival. (Children cannot live in a planet polluted by nuclear toxicity, nor can they eat all the sand of the 43% of Earth's surface now dehydrated and arid - nor can they drink the oceans, or water contaminated with chemical pesticides, chemical fertilisers, other chemical pollution or nuclear pollution.)

Under the tort law therefore, both the bankers and the politicians, are both potentially as guilty - of all charges as detailed above, under the English rule of tort law, (as taught). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:English_tort_law&action=edit&redlink=1#

(Article open for editorial - as always - via Wikipedia commons licence/s.)