12/29   http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051229/od_nm/britain_party_dc
        The article above says certain areas require more claims than
        others. Does the insurance company have a right to charge
        your premium based on location, and if so, does it have a
        right to charge different based on last names (like scotsman)?
        In the US, you're not allowed to use things like sex, religion,
        age, and race, but what about the UK?
        \_ Question 1. Sure it can, it happens all the time.
           Question 2. Don't know, UK isn't a constitutional government
           AFAIK, but since it's the origin of common law I would assume
           you can't (whole concept of being a subject to the crown with
           certain inalienable rights per magna carta).
           \- um i think there is a fair amount of confusion in various
           \- hello i think there is a fair amount of confusion in various
              comments above like "in the US you are not allowed to
              use [sic] things like [list]" and "UK [sic] isn't a
              constitutional government". also it seems like you are
              alluding to the notion of what is called "sovereign immunity"
              although i am not sure what you point is about "common law"
              and the "magna carta". you may wish to see the very fine book
              The Law of the Land, by Charles Rembar. some random comments:
              \_ Well, for starters, the U.S. law (at least that which is
                 not covered by the Constitution expressly) is derived
                 originally from English Common Law. English Common Law
                 isn't exactly written down, but is based on accepted
                 traditional legal practices and case precedent. This is
                 in contrast to what's called "continental law" which
                 is more "rule-based." What this translates into is that
                 the common law systems, such as the U.S. and commonwealth
                 countries the system is often based on the adversarial system,
                 the oppossing parties essentially run the trial while the
                 jurist ensures that the proceedings are run in accordance
                 to procedure (either civil or criminal, etc.). In the
                 continental system the jursist supposedly has a much more
                 active role. In real life I doubt that the systems differ
                 much in modern day contexts. The amount of standardized
                 procedure in the U.S. has resulted in what I like to call
                 "form based law," in which we are innundated with Judicial
                 Council forms, especially for things like divorces or
                 DUIs. I'd say that 90% of the law that I do is routine, and
                 I'm sure it's very similar throughout the world (I know for
                 a fact that patent law certainly is). As for the magna carta,
                 it basically set a precedent for the limitations of
                 government through the use of a contract, so it is significant
                 in the tradition of our modern day democratic institutions,
                 as such a copy is prominently displayed in DC next to the
                 constitution (at least when I was visiting it).
                 \_ You are confused about so many areas of legal history
                    and terminology this is no longer worth talking about.
                    e.g. common law is characterized by being "judge made"
                    based on actual cases ... in contrast to code/civil
                    law, which is statue-based by a committe or
                    legislature or some other codifying authority. the
                    english may not have a WRITTEN constitution but
                    they are a constitutional govt ... in their case
                    the line between parliamentary statue and "rights
                    under the const" are a little vague ...  this is
                    hard to talk about without going into great
                    detail. for example there is an act on Habeus
                    Corpus which is reasonably comparable to the HC
                    section in the us const. however the document
                    known as the "Bill of Rights" in english history,
                    is not comparable to the US Const's BoR. comments
                    like "English Common Law isn't exactly written down"
                    is ridiculous. If you want to see where the Rule in
                    Hadley v. Baxendale comes from, you can actually read
                    the decision Hadley v. Baxendale ... some of it is
                    based on custom which dont flow from a single
                    authoritative document, but the huge body of
                    prior cases are written down.
              1. you may wish to look up "adverse selection" in the context
              of insurance markets and premiums. there are consequences for
              not allowing insurance companies to not consider all relevant
              factors. also there are indirect ways to influence your insured
              pool ... like having your office on the 8th floor of a bldg
              with no elevator [ok this may violate ADA, but you see what i
              mean ... efficiency and "public policy" both play roles in
              shaping the insurance business] 2. you can discriminate based on
              some of the factors you list, but different factors requires
              different levels of "scrutiny" [which means different levels
              of justification and narrow tailoring]. also this obligation
              doesnt apply to all occasions. you can invite whomever you want
              to your house for poker and beer, but if you apply for a alchol
              lic to run a booze operation, you may not be able to keep certain
              people out. BTW, i think english law begins before the magna
              people out. 3. i think english law begins before the magna
              \_ I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but I
                 never implied that english common law started with the
                 magna carta. English common law started much further back,
                 and even has historical roots all the way to the Roman
                 occupation. My point was that England is not a constitutional
                 democracy (it never was), and it has the concepts that are
                 embodied within the U.S. model (the constitution and the
                 subsequent bill of rights) through tradition. However,
                 not having things written down did apparently pose problems,
                 as can be evinced by the subsequent misunderstandings which
                 led to the revolution.
                 \_ You are confused about so many areas of legal history
                    and terminology this is no longer worth talking about.
                    Also you are changing your vocabulary ... you say
                    "const govt" above and then use "constitutional democracy"
                    later. yes, they are certainly different.
                    England was essentially a different country [or arguably
                    wasn't really a country] much before the Norman Conquest so
                    the Roman stuff isn't even worth talking about. I think
                    it is fair to say English law really begins to take on
                    its own identity starting with Henry II.
                    I do agree there has some continental style "codification"
                    of various areas of the law in the US sign on to various
                    "uniform" standards for tort/contract/business practices
                    etc.
              carta ... henry ii, the parent of king john, has an important
              legacy in english law [post norman conquest].
              people out. BTW, i think english law really does begin before
              the magna carta ... henry ii, the parent of king john, has an
              important legacy in english law [post norman conquest].
              YMWTS, the book referenced at: ~psb/MOTD/EnglishLegalHistory.ref
              As the Times Literary Supplement says "it is the standard".oktnx.
                 \_ Again, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here,
                    but apparently you're trying to interject something
                    what appears at best tangential information. Anyway,
                    I'm sure that individuals who are actually interested in
                    this can do their own research.
                    \- the last bit was just for the humorous review from
                       AMAZONG. but ti does discuss the great Assize of
                       Clarendon, the "census projects", and the Magna Carta
                       (although i ends before the Magna Carta story really
                       plays out, which it does for +50yrs after 1215, into
                       at least the reign of H3.).