82,891
edits
Extraordinary rendition: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
None of these things are like companies in any way. We feel their very non-“companyness”, when compared to things that the learned author has in contemplation, helps a novice reader construct the sorts of categories that companies do and do not fall into. 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]]''. | None of these things are like companies in any way. We feel their very non-“companyness”, when compared to things that the learned author has in contemplation, helps a novice reader construct the sorts of categories that companies do and do not fall into. 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]]''. | ||
These, we submit, are much better, distinctions | 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> | ||
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 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.” | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Now, it is all very well to pick holes, but at the Jolly Contrarian we are bigger than that. We can propose solutions. And here our solution would be this: | Now, it is all very well to pick holes, but at the Jolly Contrarian we are bigger than that. We can propose solutions. And here our solution would be this: | ||
{{Quote| | {{Quote| | ||
“'''[[company|Companies]]'''” means normal companies in the corporate sector. It does not include:<br> | |||
(a) Regulated insurance or reinsurance undertakings; <br> | (a) Regulated insurance or reinsurance undertakings; <br> | ||
(b) Pension or other regulated investment funds; <br> | (b) Pension or other regulated investment funds; <br> | ||
(c) Flora; <br> | (c) Flora; <br> | ||
(d) Fauna; or <br> | (d) Fauna; or <br> | ||
(e) Puddings. | (e) Puddings.}} | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||