Your argument seems to be at this point: ‘You ought to follow rules that have not, at any point, been explained to you clearly.’

“Also: there is a widely available PDF constituting what self-defence is permissible that’s been sitting in My Documents for years… it’s produced by the Home Office.”

I don’t doubt that for a moment, but I used self-defence legislation as one example of many, many laws. I agree that you do have access to all of British law, but whether you are able to understand much of legal documentation or indeed remember it is significantly more dubious.

Put simply: unless we have the full knowledge of all law, we can hardly be punished for transgression. The average citizen does not have the time or even mental capability to remember the whole of our law. The only failure of my ’small print contract’ analogy is that one has a choice to join a business. We are forced, through threat of imrisonment and fine, to adhere to government law and thus accept this small-print.

Not a very fair system, is it?

Let’s take the CEO example: is it really the job of the CEO to ensure every single employee is familiar with every single rule or policy created by the directors? No, of course not. Then why then is it this principle is somewhat adapted for the govt.?

Also: there is a widely available PDF constituting what self-defence is permissible that’s been sitting in My Documents for years… it’s produced by the Home Office.

Pav.

More seriously, I would posit that a ‘right’ implies some sort of ability to fulfil it. There’s no point bestowing the ‘right to read’ on a blind population, after all; in exactly the same way, the public are incapable of voting - in this sense, I define ‘voting’ to be ‘an informed decision’ rather than ’selecting a candidate’ - and therefore do not require the right.