Law number 01   
Everyone has seen some of the absurd warnings that accompany many appliances.  These warnings are often 'crying wolf' as they warn against things that only a lunatic would try out.  But I think these 'over-the-top' warnings are themselves a danger; they cause people to ignore warnings that are real.

There is an apocryphal story of an American microwave manufacturer who tried to lampoon some of its lunatic customers.  The firm reported to the press that they had been sued by a woman who bathed her miniature poodle, and then dried it in the microwave.  Doggy boy didn't come out of the experience in the best of health.  So Mrs Twit sued the supplier for not putting an appropriate warning in the literature that accompanied the microwave oven.  The story as I heard it was that some time later the company admitted that the report was a spoof, but wanted to make the point that one cannot warn of every eventuality.  And if they tried, the book would be a tome that no-one would read.

Now, I think that there should be a law that makes it illegal to issue a warning of not doing absurd things.  To actually cover the subject fully would strain the legislators to their limit.  But it would be possible to set up a body, such as the Press Complaints Commission, to oversee what is being distributed by retailers.  This body would have the force of law behind them, and would allow them to prosecute anyone that did not accept their ruling on "reasonable warnings".  The public would be allowed to complain to this body in the same way as we may complain to the Financial Ombudsman, and the body would be required to investigate, and rule on, all reasonable complaints.

Law number 02
When Railtrack dropped off on maintenance of the track and killed a lot of people, the company got fined a lot of money.  But what did this do?   All it did was to transfer some of the company's working capital to the Treasury.  But what did it do to the person(s) who were responsible.  As far as we know -- NOTHING.  If you are playing with someone else's money and a Court of Law gets involved, all that happens is that someone else pays the cost of a manager's incompetence.  Similarly with the Post Office.  When they got fined for losing so much mail, it was the working capital of Royal Mail that suffered.  Did the incompetence of the management bring any penalties to those responsible?  NO!

Need I say more?  There is a definite requirement for some change in the Law.  Of course, if there is a Board of Directors and they are truly responsible to shareholders, some sort of pressure MAY be brought about.  But a lot of times the shareholders are just lemmings who have put their money into the company hoping to get some dividends without really knowing what goes on behind the scenes.  And I admit I am one of those lemmings with my savings at the mercy of a big institution.