|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 05:16 AM EST |
wasn't it actually an EU court which just happened to be sitting in (great)
Britain? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 08:06 AM EST |
I always get the two mixed up. My bad.
Wayne
http:// madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Oops - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 02:18 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 04:59 PM EST |
And England isn't in Britain? The difference between an English court and a
Scottish court might matter if this were a point of law that differs between the
two, but AFAIK, it wasn't. Broadly speaking, "British court" was
correct. It was a court in Britain. England, specifically, but nevertheless,
still British. All of England is part of Britain.
I understand wanting to keep track of your national identity, but I think the
argument is backwards here. Using "England" to refer to Britain is
wrong. Describing something in England--or Scotland--as British is not. England
is not Britain, but it is British, and an English court is, at least in common
parlance, a British court.
(As long as we're picking nits.)
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
