What a ridiculous statement that is. I hate it.

We all think we understand what is meant when people trot out this phrase; that some rules are not applicable all the time. For example some people think that it does not matter if you park your car in a ‘no parking at any time’ zone* and nip into a convenience store or takeaway food outlet at 18:00 on a Saturday evening. Your chance of getting a ticket is very low (at least in my town) as all the parking officers seem to fly back to their nests between 17:30 and 18:00.

So:

  • A ‘No ball games’ sign on the side of a block of flats with a football (soccer) goal spray painted on the wall.
  • ‘Clear up after your dog (penalty £100)’ signs on a path littered with what I hope are dog faeces.
  • ‘Max speed 20mph’ next to a resurfaced road.

…the list would be almost endless.

The problem with all of these is the general understanding that there is erratic enforcement and that some of these rules are apparently just petty bureaucracy - and once that understanding has taken hold in people’s minds all other rules become associated with them. The attitude that ‘as long as you can get away with it, it does not matter’ becomes normal.

Some important rules state:

  • that retailers and traders must not collude to fix prices… and the above attitude results in the ‘LIBOR scandal’.
  • that you have to be an equal opportunities employer… but your company still has mostly male managers and female PAs.

Of course, breaking any of the important rules is a criminal offence punishable by hefty fines or imprisonment but the attitude has been reinforced over many years that ‘rules are made to be broken (or bent just a little, nobody will find out, or if they do nothing much will come of it)’.

I’m not recommending some Orwellian dystopia where the slightest infraction of the rules results in your neighbours denouncing you as a criminal or sociopath or where extreme surveillance by ‘the authorities’ detects every offence. What I am saying is that we have far too many rules which are unimportant and unenforced or unenforceable or even that we have no intention of ever enforcing.

So rather than:

  • ‘No parking at any time’. How about ‘No parking 08:30 - 18:00’ and at other times ‘no parking in or opposite bus stops (because it blocks the road when the bus arrives)’?
  • ‘No ball games’. How about ‘Please don’t disturb residents.’ and providing some sort of goal structures not against the wall?
  • ‘School zone. 20mph’. What really? At 03:00 on a Sunday morning? How about ‘School zone. 20mph when lights flash’?
  • ‘Max speed 20mph’ next to a resurfaced road. How about ‘Warning, lose chippings’ and leave it to drivers to drive according to the conditions they find - like we are supposed to do all the time.

Once we have got rid of petty and pointless rules and have refined the remaining rules to achieve the behaviour that we actually do want then we should be able to make some progress in enforcing those rules. By enforcing the rules and not turning a ‘blind eye’ people’s attitudes to the rules will change over time. I’m not suggesting that there will be no more crime, there have always been and always will be genuine sociopaths who selectively break the rules to their own advantage - these are the people who need to be sent for re-education.

As for the dog mess, my view would be: If it’s on a path or park or playing field ‘Dog poo can spread serious diseases. Please clear up after your dog.’. If it’s deep in the woods next to the badger and fox faeces then leave it. Discuss.

Don’t break the rules.
If you don’t like the rules, change the rules.
If you can’t change the rules, change the rule makers.
Don’t break the rules.


* In the UK, ‘No parking at any time’ zones are usually marked by double yellow lines running along the side of the road. Although the exact meaning is slightly different it is perhaps pertinent to note that double red lines along the side of the road could be sensibly interpreted as: ‘No parking at any time. We really mean it this time’; an implicit recognition that double yellow lines are quite often ignored.

News today (26 Oct 2015) that a group has launched a ‘Legal challenge over change to ministerial code’.

According to the article, ‘Until last Thursday (22 Oct 2015), the ministerial code stressed the overarching duty to comply with the law “including international law and treaty obligations”. A new draft simply refers to a duty to comply with “the law”.’

So my question is if I do something (or neglect to do something) and so break international law in the UK have I ‘broken the law’; am I liable for prosecution in the UK in such a case? It’s quite simple really: is my behaviour subject to the scrutiny of a law court or not?

If, as I suspect, breaking international law would land me in a court in the UK then the former wording of the ministerial code is unnecessary embroidery. Otherwise perhaps instead the ministerial code should be expanded to require ministers to comply with ‘the law, including international law and treaty obligations, all local bye-laws, and parking restrictions from time to time in force’. Oh yes, and ‘Don’t swear at police officers. This rule must not be broken - we really mean it this time’.

Update 29 Nov 2015:

There’s a current television advert in the UK for the Microsoft Surface Pro 4 tablet/PC. The voiceover states that ‘to do great things you’ve got to break the rules’. If you look it up in written advertising the text reads ‘to do great things sometimes you have to break the rules’ and multimedia adverts apparently aimed at the US also use the latter phrase. I’m sure Microsoft and the authors of the advert don’t mean breaking important rules like laws, but only things like the ‘rule’ that computer users have come to believe that tablets and PCs are different devices for doing different things and a manufacturer would do well not to attempt to sell a combination device. This is not a rule; it’s a marketing opinion - and time will tell if it’s a particularly valid one.

I have to agree that many marketing so-called ‘rules’ are indeed made to be broken. For example throwing adverts or surveys up across what I’m trying to read online is very unlikely to make me want to buy the product or think highly of the company… I’ve had a brilliant idea: you could trash your competitor’s reputation by throwing out really annoying surveys or adverts apparently for their products. What’s that? It’s been done before? I’ll bet that breaks a real rule.

Instead of ‘to do great things sometimes you have to break the rules’, how about:

  • Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion. Jack Kerouac
  • Great things are done by a series of small things brought together. Vincent Van Gogh
  • All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honour, duty, mercy, hope. Winston Churchill
  • To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe. Anatole France

The trouble is these phrases won’t help sell many computers.

Update 28 Jan 2017:

Arghhh! Ban lorries from using car sat-navs, say councils.

No! We don’t need more rules! Enforce the rules that we already have. If an idiot drives a 37 tonne truck over a bridge rated for 3 tonnes which causes the bridge to be closed for ‘several months’ then there should be a bit more of a punishment than ‘a fixed penalty notice was issued’. If a truck blocks a village centre or gets stuck under a bridge due to the driver ignoring or failing to see or understand road signs then the driver and/or owners (ie actually their insurers) should pay for all the damage, the recovery operation, the loss of business and a penalty fine. If the ‘rules’ indicated by the road signs were properly enforced then truck operators would soon look to use sat-navs appropriate to their vehicles - even if the subscription were to cost a bit more than a standard car sat-nav. Incidentally, I understand that some large SUVs weigh more than 3 tonnes - that’ll be quite amusing if the Marlow bridge weight limit is enforced properly.

Update 10 Feb 2017:

A superb example of why introducing new rules is often not a great idea. US President Donald Trump has ordered that nationals of seven countries should not be admitted to the USA. This ban has been challenged in the courts as being unconstitutional (yes, applying US Constitution rules to non-US nationals). The problem is therefore that the new rule is considered by some to break some existing long-standing rules. What I believe Mr Trump should have done is enforce the existing US rules about care in issuing visas - to avoid the bad guys being able to pass the border controls. Some might point out that bad guys might get around this by illegally assuming the identity of someone who has already been granted a visa… but of course they might just as well assume the identity of someone from a non-banned country if Mr Trump’s ban does eventually get implemented.