WTF Lawyers

Well I am pretty sure that anything that causes harm has the potential for common law remedies in favour of the transgressor and against the guilty party. When chaining your bike you are either an inconsiderate toss-pot or you have some regard for ped safety.

Were such a law to come in it would be clear that you can park your bike in bike racks, and on public metal railings by wide pavements or squares. But parking them on narrow pavements would be a very bad idea, just as it is now.

I don't think your example is very good at all. The logical extension of your idea is that any law restricting parking of bikes would need to list all approved places, and all banned, and maybe talk about how wide pavements need to be for it to be acceptable to park.

And it would probably be necessary to park you bike in such a way that it could not be knocked over, which is what most sensible people do anyway.

I fear my point did not come across.

The reason commerial laws are detailed and complex, is that they try and formulate solutions for many "what ifs?" The problem with words like "reasonable" is that they need to be defined. My cycle analogy was aimed at showing, that whilst most forum members could not care less if tax regulations for multi-nationals are arbitrary, we would all be uneasy with being prosecuted for locking up our bikes, and falling foul of the "principle" of the offending (and imagined) legislation.

Therefore, tax legislation, aimed at maximising returns, being fair to all parties, and being consistent, must of its nature be wide ranging and complex. Simplistic stances such as "but you know what you should be doing" are more than a trifle naive, and loose sight of the fact that international business, have the choice of where to place themselves, and the amount of tax they pay in any isolated territory.