Extraordinary rendition: Difference between revisions

Extraordinary rendition (view source)

Revision as of 18:28, 19 July 2021

50 bytes added , 19 July 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 These, we submit, are much better, distinctions; more conducive to a frustration-free working day, whether it is primarily concerned with semolina or credit risk management.<ref>I am indebted to [http://barnsleyfc.org.uk/threads/sago-semalina-tapioca-and-rice-pudding.16005/ an enlightening discussion on the difference between semolina, sago and rice pudding dating from 2006] I happened upon while browsing the Barnsley Football Club’s fan forum recently.</ref> They promise helpful, practical advice on how to go about one’s day, should you come across something that might or might not be a legal fiction. ''Do not make sago-pudding out of a [[SICAV]],'' for example. ''Do not try to close-out a [[Pantomime dromedary|dromedary]]''.
-But we can imagine someone saying “I know very well zebras are not companies. I do not need a legal opinion for that. It is the very nearness of these things to being companies, given that in law<ref>Well, in metaphorical fact, at any rate, “[[for the purposes of]] this opinion”.</ref> they are not companies, that makes the definition necessary and helpful.”
+But we can imagine someone saying “I know very well zebras are not companies. I do not need a legal opinion for that. It is the very ''nearness'' of these company-like things to being companies, whereas in law<ref>Well, in [[Metaphor|metaphorical]] fact, at any rate, “[[for the purposes of]] this opinion”.</ref> they are not, that makes this sort of definition necessary and helpful.”
-Just so. But still, let us draw nearer, for there is “helpful” and there is “torturing the sinews of logic for no good reason”. To do that we must leave pure, [[tedious]], black-letter law and get our hands dirty with ''set theory''. Buried in that dense list of ''almost-but-for-present-purposes-not-quite'' companies, is another negative: “alternative investment funds subject to the AIFM law ''other than UCI''”. The author has already told us that UCIs — even those that are, in fact, companies — for the purpose of this opinion are not “companies”. But around these non-companies, there is a penumbra of similar, but different entities: things that are ''like'' UCIs, but are ''not'' UCIs. These fringe entities — even though they, too, might actually ''be'' companies, are not “companies” either. We are left with a logical structure which stretches the Euclidean idea of [[Space-tedium|space tedium]] so profoundly I have struggled to render it in plain English:
+Just so. But still,  there is “helpful” and there is “torturing the sinews of logic for no good reason”. Let us draw nearer and have a look.
+To do that we must leave pure, [[tedious]], black-letter law and get our hands dirty with ''set theory''. Buried in that dense list of ''almost-but-for-present-purposes-not-quite'' companies, is another [[negative]]: “[[alternative investment fund]]s subject to the AIFM law ''other than UCI''”.
+The author has already told us that UCIs — even those that are, in fact, companies — for the purpose of this opinion are not “companies”. But around these non-companies, there is a penumbra of similar, but different entities: things that are ''like'' UCIs, but are ''not'' UCIs. These fringe entities — even though they, too, might actually ''be'' companies, are not “companies” either. We are left with a logical structure which stretches the Euclidean idea of [[Space-tedium|space tedium]] so profoundly I have struggled to render it in plain English:
 {{Quote|''Investment funds which are not non-companies by dint of being investment funds, and might otherwise be companies, do not count as companies after all, and therefore should be treated as non-companies anyway.''}}