Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
Starmer claims he's done nothing wrong. He may have even convinced himself he has done nothing wrong.
It doesn't necessarily follow from this that he has done nothing wrong. At the very least, he seems to be remarkably gullible to have been taken in by a man who's historically been well known for a certain degree of economy with the truth.
A thought experiment for you.
Imagine that amongst the documents currently not being released is a document that basically says "Mandelson is a wrong'un who was best mates with Epstein and appears to have been leaking him confidential documentation over the period x-y" followed a a number of pages of evidence backing this up. Let's further assume that Starmer saw that and ignored it.
What would he be doing now? Well he's only got two choices - resign, or try to cover up. So obviously, being a slimeball, he's gone for cover up.
Now, if that has happened (and I'm not saying that it has), then it would probably be in the interests of the British people for it all to come out, and Starmer have to deal with the resulting scandal even if that means that Lord Underpants gets to spend less time at HM's pleasure than he truly deserves.
Mandy is now a washed up old has-been. Obviously, it would be better if he got the on full traitor experience, and ended up hanging in chains at execution dock, but that's trivial compared to the questions the whole thing raises about the suitability of those running the country right here and right now.
My sense is that most people don't see Starmer as a crook and however much that might be annoying for his politically active opponents that's what matters. He's head of the government and for the most part people want it to work well.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
Two of the key documents held by the government on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador will not be made public until after the police investigation and any criminal trial has concluded
It means it will be months or even possibly years before they see the light of day
That includes the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Keir Starmer prior to Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador
The three questions Starmer put to Mandelson and his responses will also be withheld. Starmer told the Commons that these provide evidence that Mandelson misled him
As predicted by pb but apparently not by Opposition politicians calling for both publication and prosecution.
It has been a fundamental facet of British Law for generations.
It is a vital safety net that ensures free safe and proper justice.
That various politicians are so glibly unaware of this, or chose to ignore it, or seek to abuse it, demeans them and the law.
The right wing media joyous at the arrest of Mandelson last night, simply ignore it was standard procedure, as was his bailing 8 hours later, and must now grasp the basic LEGAL FACT that now that process has started certain LONG held legal protocols must remain.
Protocols that mischievous policicians of the past of all Parties have long hidden behind.
Sky News for Christ sake even carried the headline for an hour that Mandelson was the first ex Cabinet Minister ever to be arrested..
PMQ tomorrow will be frankly hilarious if the former head of the CPS is bombarded with questions that he, we and every sensible person knows he cannot now respond to about AMW or Mandy Mandelson.
To that I would just comment the Speaker has instructed labour not to hide behind the police, but to release all information to the Intelligence Committee who will decide what should be released
It is not for Starmer or any minister to mark their own homework, and to this end the cabinet office will be in contact with the Intelligence committee
And by the way, we can all read so there is no need to shout so try to make your case without the hysteria
I would also add the victims families should be at the front of all this scandal and they warmly welcomed Mandelson's arrest
The Speaker is on thin ice here too I suspect.
I'm only emphasising as some seem totally blind to some facts.
I use the word blind, as many are highly intellectual and intelligent people like yourself, deeply respected, who do have blind spots when a cloak of irrationally clouds their usually very sound judgement
With respect the Speaker is far more aware of the legal niceties than you are, and surely you do not want a cover up adding to the problems Starmer and others face over this crisis
It is no use paying lip service to transparency and then floating smoke screens
But there's a genuine problem here.
How do you balance the needs of the system of the court of public opinion (publish everything pronto) with the needs of the actual court system that can send people to prision (don't publish everything yet, we need it clean for the trial)?
Assuming that Mandy has done things that mean he ought to be locked up, he's still entitled to a fair trial... isn't he? And we don't want him getting off because some idiot has pre-published prejuidical stuff before the trial... do we?
Or is a wish to embarass the current government nownowNOW more important?
That is why the Speaker has instructed everything to go to the Intelligence committee who will ensure any possible prosecution is not compromised but will release information that they deem is relevant, and not the government
It is quite the best way to deal with this
How can the Speaker trust any Member of the Intelligence Committee not to go rogue.
That could be an opposition MP or indeed a Government MP with an axe to grind.
Once leaked it's too late
Politics is Politics things are delayed or hidden
Perfect example The Russian Report
The Speaker may be Judge and Jury in the HoC he has absolutely no influence outside of the HoC
The truth will come out about AMW and Mandelson and others when and only when the CPS and Police decide what the Charges are, and in the meantime that's that.
It has always been the same and if a Mass Murderer, Terrorist, Child Abuser or a pretty Criminal deserves a fair trial, so do AMW and Mandelson, however much political opportuniists and biased Media scream and scream and scream like Violet Elizabeth
You sound desperate
The speaker and the mps trust the Intelligence Committee because of their access to highly important intelligence
It is headed by Lord Beamish, a labour peer, plus 8 other members including 4 labour members
I would suggest that before you make any further allegations against the committee you read and learn exactly who they are
I am not interested in individuals, the question is can you trust anyone not to leak.
If Lee Anderson, John McConnell, Tom Tugenhadt, Stephen Flynn, Mark François, Rosie Dangerfield, Rachel Maskell were on that list could anyone be sure things would not be leaked.
Starmer is convinced he's done nothing wrong, he more than anyone wants to move on. He is and has to abide by the law.
Starmer claims he's done nothing wrong. He may have even convinced himself he has done nothing wrong.
It doesn't necessarily follow from this that he has done nothing wrong. At the very least, he seems to be remarkably gullible to have been taken in by a man who's historically been well known for a certain degree of economy with the truth.
A thought experiment for you.
Imagine that amongst the documents currently not being released is a document that basically says "Mandelson is a wrong'un who was best mates with Epstein and appears to have been leaking him confidential documentation over the period x-y" followed a a number of pages of evidence backing this up. Let's further assume that Starmer saw that and ignored it.
What would he be doing now? Well he's only got two choices - resign, or try to cover up. So obviously, being a slimeball, he's gone for cover up.
Now, if that has happened (and I'm not saying that it has), then it would probably be in the interests of the British people for it all to come out, and Starmer have to deal with the resulting scandal even if that means that Lord Underpants gets to spend less time at HM's pleasure than he truly deserves.
Mandy is now a washed up old has-been. Obviously, it would be better if he got the on full traitor experience, and ended up hanging in chains at execution dock, but that's trivial compared to the questions the whole thing raises about the suitability of those running the country right here and right now.
My sense is that most people don't see Starmer as a crook and however much that might be annoying for his politically active opponents that's what matters. He's head of the government and for the most part people want it to work well.
He's certainly far less if a crook than Boris de piffel Johnson
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
And very few people do.
The main problem is that many on the populist right describe asylum seekers as being here illegally when they are here legally. If they are seeking asylum, they are in a legal process and allowed to stay while that process is ongoing.
The dozen F22 raptors that were at Lakenheath/Mildenhall have all flown off to the ME. No doubt to assist with the diplomatic solution
Better there than here.
We should teposess those facilities as a matter of urgency.
WW2 teaty, well past its sell by date, US is no longer a trusted ally.
Range of aircraft now makes those bases unnecessary, Germany removed most US bases so should we.
Infrastructure could be base for new Towns, overspill or added to the Prison Estate?
UK is not a fecking Aircraft Carrier.
The US is still pretty trusted and I imagine will be again once the era of the mad king passes (I don't subscribe to the end of democracy in the USA tropes).
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
"No-one is talking about AMW or Mandelson, they're all taking about coastal erosion"? Really? This is as mad as yesterday's "the arrest of Mandelson was a tactic to divert everyone away from the brilliance of Bridget Phillipson".
I'd say AMW and Mandelson are the number one topical topics of conversation among my IRL conversations and whatsapp threads. And why not? High status humans transgressing societal behavioural norms is the #1 topic of conversation in any human society anywhere, and this is far, far juicier than most. It would be astonishing were it not the #1 topic of conversation. Particularly when it turns out the two people involved are the two worst people in the country.
From your list, #2 is definitely weather, "when will it stop being dreary" having become really quite pressing. Today is lovely though. My best day of solar generation since October.
Immigration and cost of living both get a look in too.
You're also missing off winter Olympics, which gets a surprising amount of traction.
When main A roads and major Railway Lines and major Cliffs are disappearing in to the Sea believe me it's a massive topic
Ask Caroline Voaden and Steve Darling what's top if their mailbox
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Try walking down the Prom at Llandudno.
You could do worse, but then that is everyone getting away from their disgust with those implicated in the Epstein files and their apologists
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
As I don't really agree with any of this, and it asserts quite a lot, may I just make three comments.
1) You misunderstand the history of common law. So, for example, murder is a crime not because a statute has made it so, but because our judicial traditions time out of mind made it so and have kept it so, and have continuously refined and explicated what it means. The arrests of A M-W and Mandelson appear to be on suspicion of crimes judge created at common law without parliamentary interference.
2) The Lord Chancellor is not a judge. (These days no-one can remember his or her name).
3) The fact of whether someone is here illegally or without lawful reason or excuse, or without lawful reason to remain, is a question of fact and law. Ultimately all matters of fact and law are things I and you (and therefore everyone else) are entitled to have decided by due process and not by the body that wants to deport me.
"Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law" is an odd statement, too. The very foundation of Common Law rights, the writ of habeas corpus, is essential to the protection of individual rights against the state - and long predates democracy, and "the electorate" to which Luckyguy refers.
It's the idea that judges are "accountable to the electorate" which has little or no basis in the British constitution.
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Try walking down the Prom at Llandudno.
Lovely place
Spent much of childhood there.
Been back a few times.
It's great to see how vibrant it is compared with many other seaside Towns
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
You claim that, "Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally". That's not what the law says. This isn't something activist judges have invented. This isn't something Blair introduced. It's basic immigration law that's been around for many decades.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
And very few people do.
The main problem is that many on the populist right describe asylum seekers as being here illegally when they are here legally. If they are seeking asylum, they are in a legal process and allowed to stay while that process is ongoing.
The main problem is increasingly the discourse on populist right social media isn't about legality. It's about blood and soil.
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Try walking down the Prom at Llandudno.
Lovely place
Spent much of childhood there.
Been back a few times.
It's great to see how vibrant it is compared with many other seaside Towns
The dozen F22 raptors that were at Lakenheath/Mildenhall have all flown off to the ME. No doubt to assist with the diplomatic solution
Better there than here.
We should teposess those facilities as a matter of urgency.
WW2 teaty, well past its sell by date, US is no longer a trusted ally.
Range of aircraft now makes those bases unnecessary, Germany removed most US bases so should we.
Infrastructure could be base for new Towns, overspill or added to the Prison Estate?
UK is not a fecking Aircraft Carrier.
Apart from your correctly questioning the extent to which the US remains a "trusted ally", that's a load of nonsense.
Is there a Rumsfeld-style taxonomy?
Trusted allies - predictable and on the same side Untrusted allies - notionally on the same side but you can never be sure Untrusted enemies - hostile and unpredictable Trusted enemies - notionally hostile but you understand each other and they respect your boundaries
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
"No-one is talking about AMW or Mandelson, they're all taking about coastal erosion"? Really? This is as mad as yesterday's "the arrest of Mandelson was a tactic to divert everyone away from the brilliance of Bridget Phillipson".
I'd say AMW and Mandelson are the number one topical topics of conversation among my IRL conversations and whatsapp threads. And why not? High status humans transgressing societal behavioural norms is the #1 topic of conversation in any human society anywhere, and this is far, far juicier than most. It would be astonishing were it not the #1 topic of conversation. Particularly when it turns out the two people involved are the two worst people in the country.
From your list, #2 is definitely weather, "when will it stop being dreary" having become really quite pressing. Today is lovely though. My best day of solar generation since October.
Immigration and cost of living both get a look in too.
You're also missing off winter Olympics, which gets a surprising amount of traction.
It all depends who you find yourself speaking to. Eg for me in recent days it's been almost exclusively my wife and the main topic (by a long way) has been the hole in our back fence. How was it caused? Is it a security risk? Will I be fixing it?
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Try walking down the Prom at Llandudno.
Lovely place
Spent much of childhood there.
Been back a few times.
It's great to see how vibrant it is compared with many other seaside Towns
It is, isn't it? It's one of the few Victorian seaside resorts which you can look at and think "oh, that's what they had in mind!" You feel like you can have just as nice - and indeed a very similar - time to how people 100 years ago enjoyed it.
I was hawked a bottle of Aber Falls whisky on the pier there. And a bottle of the associated liquer. Both, to my surprise, were excellent.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
As I don't really agree with any of this, and it asserts quite a lot, may I just make three comments.
1) You misunderstand the history of common law. So, for example, murder is a crime not because a statute has made it so, but because our judicial traditions time out of mind made it so and have kept it so, and have continuously refined and explicated what it means. The arrests of A M-W and Mandelson appear to be on suspicion of crimes judge created at common law without parliamentary interference.
2) The Lord Chancellor is not a judge. (These days no-one can remember his or her name).
3) The fact of whether someone is here illegally or without lawful reason or excuse, or without lawful reason to remain, is a question of fact and law. Ultimately all matters of fact and law are things I and you (and therefore everyone else) are entitled to have decided by due process and not by the body that wants to deport me.
"Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law" is an odd statement, too. The very foundation of Common Law rights, the writ of habeas corpus, is essential to the protection of individual rights against the state - and long predates democracy, and "the electorate" to which Luckyguy refers.
It's the idea that judges are "accountable to the electorate" which has little or no basis in the British constitution.
Yes. Though long incomplete, the law developed instruments by which the relatively powerless could challenge the relatively powerful, including the executive. This entailed the notion, explicitly or implicitly, of a separation of powers by which the most powerful - the executive - could be required to do something by the powerless because of a non executive power, the courts.
This all developed way before there was an 'electorate' of the people to be accountable to.
The outfit accountable to the electorate is of course parliament directly and government indirectly.
Further up this thread, LuckyGuy said
courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Which is wonderful piece of Daily Mail argumentation, overlooking 800 years of case law including huge areas of law and practice mostly untouched by statute.
To take one obvious example: In the recent SC case on the definition of 'woman' in a particular act of parliament; what decision could the SC have made which Lucky Guy would not accuse of 'making' the law as opposed to applying it?
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
You’re just importing MAGA talking points into Britain which have no place here. You’re just the same as the Black Lives Matter types you hate so much.
The UK judiciary is incredibly restrained in “legislating from the bench” compared to SCOTUS. The complicated mess of law applied by the courts was made by Parliament.
No, I am doing the opposite. 'Separation of powers' as an objective good is importing American talking points. Our system doesn't have a tradition of separation of powers.
And it is cretinous to try to argue that judicial overreach isn't happening in this country.
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Try walking down the Prom at Llandudno.
Lovely place
Spent much of childhood there.
Been back a few times.
It's great to see how vibrant it is compared with many other seaside Towns
It is, isn't it? It's one of the few Victorian seaside resorts which you can look at and think "oh, that's what they had in mind!" You feel like you can have just as nice - and indeed a very similar - time to how people 100 years ago enjoyed it.
I was hawked a bottle of Aber Falls whisky on the pier there. And a bottle of the associated liquer. Both, to my surprise, were excellent.
My wife and I, our children and grandchildren, consider it a great priviledge to live in such a beautiful place and we are very proud of it's heritage
There is so much to do and see not just in Llandudno but its close proximaty to Conwy and Yr Wyddfa
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
"No-one is talking about AMW or Mandelson, they're all taking about coastal erosion"? Really? This is as mad as yesterday's "the arrest of Mandelson was a tactic to divert everyone away from the brilliance of Bridget Phillipson".
I'd say AMW and Mandelson are the number one topical topics of conversation among my IRL conversations and whatsapp threads. And why not? High status humans transgressing societal behavioural norms is the #1 topic of conversation in any human society anywhere, and this is far, far juicier than most. It would be astonishing were it not the #1 topic of conversation. Particularly when it turns out the two people involved are the two worst people in the country.
From your list, #2 is definitely weather, "when will it stop being dreary" having become really quite pressing. Today is lovely though. My best day of solar generation since October.
Immigration and cost of living both get a look in too.
You're also missing off winter Olympics, which gets a surprising amount of traction.
It all depends who you find yourself speaking to. Eg for me in recent days it's been almost exclusively my wife and the main topic (by a long way) has been the hole in our back fence. How was it caused? Is it a security risk? Will I be fixing it?
Well quite but I don't think we can extrapolate that to the whole population. Otherwise my conclusion would be that 'everyone' was talking about the logistics for getting my various daughters to the places they need to go this week.
But AMW and Mandelson have featured in long conversation this week with: the wife the office the football dads the Whatsapp group for the dads in the year below my middle daughter which I have mysteriously found myself on.
All in the same spirit: an enjoyable mixture of outrage at the arrogance and mirth at their downfall. I take no particular pride in this. But my conclusion is that it is universal. More universal than your fence, anyway, which hasn't featured at all up until right now.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
As I don't really agree with any of this, and it asserts quite a lot, may I just make three comments.
1) You misunderstand the history of common law. So, for example, murder is a crime not because a statute has made it so, but because our judicial traditions time out of mind made it so and have kept it so, and have continuously refined and explicated what it means. The arrests of A M-W and Mandelson appear to be on suspicion of crimes judge created at common law without parliamentary interference.
2) The Lord Chancellor is not a judge. (These days no-one can remember his or her name).
3) The fact of whether someone is here illegally or without lawful reason or excuse, or without lawful reason to remain, is a question of fact and law. Ultimately all matters of fact and law are things I and you (and therefore everyone else) are entitled to have decided by due process and not by the body that wants to deport me.
"Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law" is an odd statement, too. The very foundation of Common Law rights, the writ of habeas corpus, is essential to the protection of individual rights against the state - and long predates democracy, and "the electorate" to which Luckyguy refers.
It's the idea that judges are "accountable to the electorate" which has little or no basis in the British constitution.
Yes. Though long incomplete, the law developed instruments by which the relatively powerless could challenge the relatively powerful, including the executive. This entailed the notion, explicitly or implicitly, of a separation of powers by which the most powerful - the executive - could be required to do something by the powerless because of a non executive power, the courts.
This all developed way before there was an 'electorate' of the people to be accountable to.
The outfit accountable to the electorate is of course parliament directly and government indirectly.
Further up this thread, LuckyGuy said
courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Which is wonderful piece of Daily Mail argumentation, overlooking 800 years of case law including huge areas of law and practice mostly untouched by statute.
To take one obvious example: In the recent SC case on the definition of 'woman' in a particular act of parliament; what decision could the SC have made which Lucky Guy would not accuse of 'making' the law as opposed to applying it?
To be fair, certain moronic lawyers (such the fox killer) have advocated the courts making law.
But they have, to date, been slapped back pretty hard by the courts at all levels. Including the Supreme Court.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
As I don't really agree with any of this, and it asserts quite a lot, may I just make three comments.
1) You misunderstand the history of common law. So, for example, murder is a crime not because a statute has made it so, but because our judicial traditions time out of mind made it so and have kept it so, and have continuously refined and explicated what it means. The arrests of A M-W and Mandelson appear to be on suspicion of crimes judge created at common law without parliamentary interference.
2) The Lord Chancellor is not a judge. (These days no-one can remember his or her name).
3) The fact of whether someone is here illegally or without lawful reason or excuse, or without lawful reason to remain, is a question of fact and law. Ultimately all matters of fact and law are things I and you (and therefore everyone else) are entitled to have decided by due process and not by the body that wants to deport me.
"Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law" is an odd statement, too. The very foundation of Common Law rights, the writ of habeas corpus, is essential to the protection of individual rights against the state - and long predates democracy, and "the electorate" to which Luckyguy refers.
It's the idea that judges are "accountable to the electorate" which has little or no basis in the British constitution.
Yes. Though long incomplete, the law developed instruments by which the relatively powerless could challenge the relatively powerful, including the executive. This entailed the notion, explicitly or implicitly, of a separation of powers by which the most powerful - the executive - could be required to do something by the powerless because of a non executive power, the courts.
This all developed way before there was an 'electorate' of the people to be accountable to.
The outfit accountable to the electorate is of course parliament directly and government indirectly.
Further up this thread, LuckyGuy said
courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Which is wonderful piece of Daily Mail argumentation, overlooking 800 years of case law including huge areas of law and practice mostly untouched by statute.
To take one obvious example: In the recent SC case on the definition of 'woman' in a particular act of parliament; what decision could the SC have made which Lucky Guy would not accuse of 'making' the law as opposed to applying it?
The courts are not a co-equal party, parliament (And specifically the Commons) is supreme here. You're thinking of the US system where their court is co-equal to congress and the presidency as one of the three branches of gov't (And is in fact the most powerful as they can judicial review anything taking reference to the constitution as a de novo starting point in the way our SCOTUK can not).
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
You’re just importing MAGA talking points into Britain which have no place here. You’re just the same as the Black Lives Matter types you hate so much.
The UK judiciary is incredibly restrained in “legislating from the bench” compared to SCOTUS. The complicated mess of law applied by the courts was made by Parliament.
No, I am doing the opposite. 'Separation of powers' as an objective good is importing American talking points. Our system doesn't have a tradition of separation of powers.
And it is cretinous to try to argue that judicial overreach isn't happening in this country.
Further and better nonsense.
Exam question.
It's 2030 and a Reform/Restore government is in power. Reform-ICE have stopped Luckyguy in the street and bundled him into a van, told him that he is an illegal alien, that his proper home is Japan (insert any random country). Luckyguy keeps trying to say this is untrue but he has no papers or possessions with him, and Reform-ICE assure him they are correct and there is no process in existence he can turn to because (a) he is in the wrong and (b) an act of parliament has abolished the court's power to intervene. Within four hours he is on a plane to Japan.
Discuss with reference to the separation of powers and current practice in the USA.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
As I don't really agree with any of this, and it asserts quite a lot, may I just make three comments.
1) You misunderstand the history of common law. So, for example, murder is a crime not because a statute has made it so, but because our judicial traditions time out of mind made it so and have kept it so, and have continuously refined and explicated what it means. The arrests of A M-W and Mandelson appear to be on suspicion of crimes judge created at common law without parliamentary interference.
2) The Lord Chancellor is not a judge. (These days no-one can remember his or her name).
3) The fact of whether someone is here illegally or without lawful reason or excuse, or without lawful reason to remain, is a question of fact and law. Ultimately all matters of fact and law are things I and you (and therefore everyone else) are entitled to have decided by due process and not by the body that wants to deport me.
"Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law" is an odd statement, too. The very foundation of Common Law rights, the writ of habeas corpus, is essential to the protection of individual rights against the state - and long predates democracy, and "the electorate" to which Luckyguy refers.
It's the idea that judges are "accountable to the electorate" which has little or no basis in the British constitution.
Yes. Though long incomplete, the law developed instruments by which the relatively powerless could challenge the relatively powerful, including the executive. This entailed the notion, explicitly or implicitly, of a separation of powers by which the most powerful - the executive - could be required to do something by the powerless because of a non executive power, the courts.
This all developed way before there was an 'electorate' of the people to be accountable to.
The outfit accountable to the electorate is of course parliament directly and government indirectly.
Further up this thread, LuckyGuy said
courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Which is wonderful piece of Daily Mail argumentation, overlooking 800 years of case law including huge areas of law and practice mostly untouched by statute.
To take one obvious example: In the recent SC case on the definition of 'woman' in a particular act of parliament; what decision could the SC have made which Lucky Guy would not accuse of 'making' the law as opposed to applying it?
The courts are not a co-equal party, parliament (And specifically the Commons) is supreme here. You're thinking of the US system where their court is co-equal to congress and the presidency as one of the three branches of gov't (And is in fact the most powerful as they can judicial review anything taking reference to the constitution as a de novo starting point in the way our SCOTUK can not).
I haven't discussed the USA position here at all, only English law. And your point here is?
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
"No-one is talking about AMW or Mandelson, they're all taking about coastal erosion"? Really? This is as mad as yesterday's "the arrest of Mandelson was a tactic to divert everyone away from the brilliance of Bridget Phillipson".
I'd say AMW and Mandelson are the number one topical topics of conversation among my IRL conversations and whatsapp threads. And why not? High status humans transgressing societal behavioural norms is the #1 topic of conversation in any human society anywhere, and this is far, far juicier than most. It would be astonishing were it not the #1 topic of conversation. Particularly when it turns out the two people involved are the two worst people in the country.
From your list, #2 is definitely weather, "when will it stop being dreary" having become really quite pressing. Today is lovely though. My best day of solar generation since October.
Immigration and cost of living both get a look in too.
You're also missing off winter Olympics, which gets a surprising amount of traction.
It all depends who you find yourself speaking to. Eg for me in recent days it's been almost exclusively my wife and the main topic (by a long way) has been the hole in our back fence. How was it caused? Is it a security risk? Will I be fixing it?
Well quite but I don't think we can extrapolate that to the whole population. Otherwise my conclusion would be that 'everyone' was talking about the logistics for getting my various daughters to the places they need to go this week.
But AMW and Mandelson have featured in long conversation this week with: the wife the office the football dads the Whatsapp group for the dads in the year below my middle daughter which I have mysteriously found myself on.
All in the same spirit: an enjoyable mixture of outrage at the arrogance and mirth at their downfall. I take no particular pride in this. But my conclusion is that it is universal. More universal than your fence, anyway, which hasn't featured at all up until right now.
It seems to have reached the non-politically involved. The kind of people who have no idea who their MP is, let alone their councillors.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
You’re just importing MAGA talking points into Britain which have no place here. You’re just the same as the Black Lives Matter types you hate so much.
The UK judiciary is incredibly restrained in “legislating from the bench” compared to SCOTUS. The complicated mess of law applied by the courts was made by Parliament.
No, I am doing the opposite. 'Separation of powers' as an objective good is importing American talking points. Our system doesn't have a tradition of separation of powers.
And it is cretinous to try to argue that judicial overreach isn't happening in this country.
It's not often I agree with @Luckyguy1983 , but he is correct here. In my Blob article I wrote
"...In two separate lectures at PopCon and elsewhere Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg[61] and David Starkey[62] point out that this was constitutionally illiterate. Britain is not a constitutional federal republic like the United States, it’s a constitutional monarchy and the org chart is different. The concept of separation of powers is not inherent to the British state and just created more bureaucracy, binding future governments and parliaments to decisions outwhen and outwith them..."
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
"No-one is talking about AMW or Mandelson, they're all taking about coastal erosion"? Really? This is as mad as yesterday's "the arrest of Mandelson was a tactic to divert everyone away from the brilliance of Bridget Phillipson".
I'd say AMW and Mandelson are the number one topical topics of conversation among my IRL conversations and whatsapp threads. And why not? High status humans transgressing societal behavioural norms is the #1 topic of conversation in any human society anywhere, and this is far, far juicier than most. It would be astonishing were it not the #1 topic of conversation. Particularly when it turns out the two people involved are the two worst people in the country.
From your list, #2 is definitely weather, "when will it stop being dreary" having become really quite pressing. Today is lovely though. My best day of solar generation since October.
Immigration and cost of living both get a look in too.
You're also missing off winter Olympics, which gets a surprising amount of traction.
It all depends who you find yourself speaking to. Eg for me in recent days it's been almost exclusively my wife and the main topic (by a long way) has been the hole in our back fence. How was it caused? Is it a security risk? Will I be fixing it?
Well quite but I don't think we can extrapolate that to the whole population. Otherwise my conclusion would be that 'everyone' was talking about the logistics for getting my various daughters to the places they need to go this week.
But AMW and Mandelson have featured in long conversation this week with: the wife the office the football dads the Whatsapp group for the dads in the year below my middle daughter which I have mysteriously found myself on.
All in the same spirit: an enjoyable mixture of outrage at the arrogance and mirth at their downfall. I take no particular pride in this. But my conclusion is that it is universal. More universal than your fence, anyway, which hasn't featured at all up until right now.
Point taken. I'd need to take a ride on the omnibus to Clapham in order to ascertain what people are talking about. Fwiw I'd have thought ex Prince Andrew and ex Lord Peter Mandelson would both feature prominently.
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
"No-one is talking about AMW or Mandelson, they're all taking about coastal erosion"? Really? This is as mad as yesterday's "the arrest of Mandelson was a tactic to divert everyone away from the brilliance of Bridget Phillipson".
I'd say AMW and Mandelson are the number one topical topics of conversation among my IRL conversations and whatsapp threads. And why not? High status humans transgressing societal behavioural norms is the #1 topic of conversation in any human society anywhere, and this is far, far juicier than most. It would be astonishing were it not the #1 topic of conversation. Particularly when it turns out the two people involved are the two worst people in the country.
From your list, #2 is definitely weather, "when will it stop being dreary" having become really quite pressing. Today is lovely though. My best day of solar generation since October.
Immigration and cost of living both get a look in too.
You're also missing off winter Olympics, which gets a surprising amount of traction.
When main A roads and major Railway Lines and major Cliffs are disappearing in to the Sea believe me it's a massive topic
Ask Caroline Voaden and Steve Darling what's top if their mailbox
Perhaps though somewhat localised? Not quite as localised as @kinabalu's fence, but far from as universal as the outrage and mirth generated by the very public fall from grace of two massively entitled shitgibbons.
The following are examples from Trial Of The State of cases where courts have extended their powers into realms usually resolved by personal morality or the political process
Strasbourg/ECtHR
Prisoner votes (Hirst vs UK 2005, also Scoppola vs Italy 2012)
UK Supreme Court
Abortion in NI (NIHRC application for judicial review 2019)
Assisted suicide (R v MOJ 2015)
Permanence of the sex offenders register (R v Home Secretary 2011)
Publication of Prince of Wales correspondence (R v Attorney General 2015)
Court fees (R v Lord Chancellor 2017)
Also
Responsibility of the individual to prevent harm from own stupidity (Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council 2004). It's included in this list not because of the decision but that it was litigated at all.
Terminally-ill babies (GOSH v Yates). Included in this list because the doctors refused to impose their own judgement but instead referred to the court
If you're interested, Trials of the State is based on a 2019 Reith Lecture series which you can find on YouTube or on iPlayer
What are the odds that HMRC has to abandon “Making Tax Digital” within the next tax year
Doing tax return? Sympathies.
I’ve only just realised the total insanity of Making Tax Digital
It’s going to be the HS2 of tax policies. It will end up a massive net negative for UK PLC as sole traders reduce their income to avoid the intense hassle, or emigrate
There’s a much cleverer, more humane way of doing all this, without creating a British ICE, throwing grannies over the cliffs of Dover
You just make cultural changes. Let’s say you wanted to limit the number of very conservative Muslims living or arriving in Britain (a position likely supported by the majority of Brits)
Ban halal slaughter. Prohibit sharia courts. Ban cousin marriage. Ban the burqa and niqab. License all imams and mosques. Fiercely prosecute FGM. Likewise honour crimes. Close down madrasas. And so on and so forth
These are all morally defensible positions - indeed many of them are already law in many countries. If you do all that the most conservative Muslims will emigrate leaving behind the nice secular ones more amenable to western ways of living
Job done. No guns needed. No distressing scenes of forced deportation
Been out for 7 hours and I'm going to do a very dangerous thing and express agreement with the thrust of this BEFORE I'VE READ ANYTHING POSTED SINCE.
What are the odds that HMRC has to abandon “Making Tax Digital” within the next tax year
Doing tax return? Sympathies.
I’ve only just realised the total insanity of Making Tax Digital
It’s going to be the HS2 of tax policies. It will end up a massive net negative for UK PLC as sole traders reduce their income to avoid the intense hassle, or emigrate
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
As I don't really agree with any of this, and it asserts quite a lot, may I just make three comments.
1) You misunderstand the history of common law. So, for example, murder is a crime not because a statute has made it so, but because our judicial traditions time out of mind made it so and have kept it so, and have continuously refined and explicated what it means. The arrests of A M-W and Mandelson appear to be on suspicion of crimes judge created at common law without parliamentary interference.
2) The Lord Chancellor is not a judge. (These days no-one can remember his or her name).
3) The fact of whether someone is here illegally or without lawful reason or excuse, or without lawful reason to remain, is a question of fact and law. Ultimately all matters of fact and law are things I and you (and therefore everyone else) are entitled to have decided by due process and not by the body that wants to deport me.
"Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law" is an odd statement, too. The very foundation of Common Law rights, the writ of habeas corpus, is essential to the protection of individual rights against the state - and long predates democracy, and "the electorate" to which Luckyguy refers.
It's the idea that judges are "accountable to the electorate" which has little or no basis in the British constitution.
Yes. Though long incomplete, the law developed instruments by which the relatively powerless could challenge the relatively powerful, including the executive. This entailed the notion, explicitly or implicitly, of a separation of powers by which the most powerful - the executive - could be required to do something by the powerless because of a non executive power, the courts.
This all developed way before there was an 'electorate' of the people to be accountable to.
The outfit accountable to the electorate is of course parliament directly and government indirectly.
Further up this thread, LuckyGuy said
courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Which is wonderful piece of Daily Mail argumentation, overlooking 800 years of case law including huge areas of law and practice mostly untouched by statute.
To take one obvious example: In the recent SC case on the definition of 'woman' in a particular act of parliament; what decision could the SC have made which Lucky Guy would not accuse of 'making' the law as opposed to applying it?
To be fair, certain moronic lawyers (such the fox killer) have advocated the courts making law.
But they have, to date, been slapped back pretty hard by the courts at all levels. Including the Supreme Court.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
You’re just importing MAGA talking points into Britain which have no place here. You’re just the same as the Black Lives Matter types you hate so much.
The UK judiciary is incredibly restrained in “legislating from the bench” compared to SCOTUS. The complicated mess of law applied by the courts was made by Parliament.
No, I am doing the opposite. 'Separation of powers' as an objective good is importing American talking points. Our system doesn't have a tradition of separation of powers.
And it is cretinous to try to argue that judicial overreach isn't happening in this country.
It's not often I agree with @Luckyguy1983 , but he is correct here. In my Blob article I wrote
"...In two separate lectures at PopCon and elsewhere Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg[61] and David Starkey[62] point out that this was constitutionally illiterate. Britain is not a constitutional federal republic like the United States, it’s a constitutional monarchy and the org chart is different. The concept of separation of powers is not inherent to the British state and just created more bureaucracy, binding future governments and parliaments to decisions outwhen and outwith them..."
We don't have the US tradition of separation of powers, where the Judiciary is a 'third leg' of the government, alongside the Presidency (the Executive) and the Legislature (the Houses of Congress). We also don't have a written constitution, with which all new laws need to comply.
However, that does not mean that the Judiciary is without power in the UK. Common Law is -at its heart- legislation through case being tried by Judges and Juries. There was no need for the Houses of Commons to to define 'Murder' as a crime, because Common Law did that already.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
You’re just importing MAGA talking points into Britain which have no place here. You’re just the same as the Black Lives Matter types you hate so much.
The UK judiciary is incredibly restrained in “legislating from the bench” compared to SCOTUS. The complicated mess of law applied by the courts was made by Parliament.
No, I am doing the opposite. 'Separation of powers' as an objective good is importing American talking points. Our system doesn't have a tradition of separation of powers.
And it is cretinous to try to argue that judicial overreach isn't happening in this country.
It's not often I agree with @Luckyguy1983 , but he is correct here. In my Blob article I wrote
"...In two separate lectures at PopCon and elsewhere Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg[61] and David Starkey[62] point out that this was constitutionally illiterate. Britain is not a constitutional federal republic like the United States, it’s a constitutional monarchy and the org chart is different. The concept of separation of powers is not inherent to the British state and just created more bureaucracy, binding future governments and parliaments to decisions outwhen and outwith them..."
We don't have the US tradition of separation of powers, where the Judiciary is a 'third leg' of the government, alongside the Presidency (the Executive) and the Legislature (the Houses of Congress). We also don't have a written constitution, with which all new laws need to comply.
However, that does not mean that the Judiciary is without power in the UK. Common Law is -at its heart- legislation through case being tried by Judges and Juries. There was no need for the Houses of Commons to to define 'Murder' as a crime, because Common Law did that already.
Yes, but there's a difference between filling in the gaps and extending into fields more properly governed by personal morality (wearing fur) or the political process (abortion in NI). The courts are trying for "government by the court" and they should be stopped.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
You’re just importing MAGA talking points into Britain which have no place here. You’re just the same as the Black Lives Matter types you hate so much.
The UK judiciary is incredibly restrained in “legislating from the bench” compared to SCOTUS. The complicated mess of law applied by the courts was made by Parliament.
No, I am doing the opposite. 'Separation of powers' as an objective good is importing American talking points. Our system doesn't have a tradition of separation of powers.
And it is cretinous to try to argue that judicial overreach isn't happening in this country.
It's not often I agree with @Luckyguy1983 , but he is correct here. In my Blob article I wrote
"...In two separate lectures at PopCon and elsewhere Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg[61] and David Starkey[62] point out that this was constitutionally illiterate. Britain is not a constitutional federal republic like the United States, it’s a constitutional monarchy and the org chart is different. The concept of separation of powers is not inherent to the British state and just created more bureaucracy, binding future governments and parliaments to decisions outwhen and outwith them..."
We do indeed have such a tradition (look for example at the writings of Locke); we just don't have a formal and complete separation between three coequal branches of government in the way the US constitution sets out.
Irrespective of any Blair reforms, it's always been the role of judges to interpret the law. The organisational chart doesn't make any difference to that. When Sumption talks of judicial overreach, all he's really saying is that they've (in his opinion) interpreted the law incorrectly.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
You’re just importing MAGA talking points into Britain which have no place here. You’re just the same as the Black Lives Matter types you hate so much.
The UK judiciary is incredibly restrained in “legislating from the bench” compared to SCOTUS. The complicated mess of law applied by the courts was made by Parliament.
No, I am doing the opposite. 'Separation of powers' as an objective good is importing American talking points. Our system doesn't have a tradition of separation of powers.
And it is cretinous to try to argue that judicial overreach isn't happening in this country.
It's not often I agree with @Luckyguy1983 , but he is correct here. In my Blob article I wrote
"...In two separate lectures at PopCon and elsewhere Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg[61] and David Starkey[62] point out that this was constitutionally illiterate. Britain is not a constitutional federal republic like the United States, it’s a constitutional monarchy and the org chart is different. The concept of separation of powers is not inherent to the British state and just created more bureaucracy, binding future governments and parliaments to decisions outwhen and outwith them..."
We don't have the US tradition of separation of powers, where the Judiciary is a 'third leg' of the government, alongside the Presidency (the Executive) and the Legislature (the Houses of Congress). We also don't have a written constitution, with which all new laws need to comply.
However, that does not mean that the Judiciary is without power in the UK. Common Law is -at its heart- legislation through case being tried by Judges and Juries. There was no need for the Houses of Commons to to define 'Murder' as a crime, because Common Law did that already.
& Parliament can override said laws through legislation. Obviously most of the time they don't, but it's still there. The HRA creates more power than the courts otherwise would have but it's essentially the will of parliament that they have that power as parliament could get rid of that power at any time through primary legislation.
The following are examples from Trial Of The State of cases where courts have extended their powers into realms usually resolved by personal morality or the political process
Strasbourg/ECtHR
Prisoner votes (Hirst vs UK 2005, also Scoppola vs Italy 2012)
UK Supreme Court
Abortion in NI (NIHRC application for judicial review 2019)
Assisted suicide (R v MOJ 2015)
Permanence of the sex offenders register (R v Home Secretary 2011)
Publication of Prince of Wales correspondence (R v Attorney General 2015)
Court fees (R v Lord Chancellor 2017)
Also
Responsibility of the individual to prevent harm from own stupidity (Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council 2004). It's included in this list not because of the decision but that it was litigated at all.
Terminally-ill babies (GOSH v Yates). Included in this list because the doctors refused to impose their own judgement but instead referred to the court
If you're interested, Trials of the State is based on a 2019 Reith Lecture series which you can find on YouTube or on iPlayer
So, it's infrequent and none of those are about immigration or asylum, and Parliament can legislate on any of these points if it wants.
Here is an interesting thing. The T80 Russian tank no longer exists on production lines and only have 134 in Russian storage, down from 1679 in 2022. At current rates they will be gone by EOY
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Try walking down the Prom at Llandudno.
Lovely place
Spent much of childhood there.
Been back a few times.
It's great to see how vibrant it is compared with many other seaside Towns
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Try walking down the Prom at Llandudno.
Lovely place
Spent much of childhood there.
Been back a few times.
It's great to see how vibrant it is compared with many other seaside Towns
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Try walking down the Prom at Llandudno.
Lovely place
Spent much of childhood there.
Been back a few times.
It's great to see how vibrant it is compared with many other seaside Towns
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Try walking down the Prom at Llandudno.
Lovely place
Spent much of childhood there.
Been back a few times.
It's great to see how vibrant it is compared with many other seaside Towns
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
Try walking down the Prom at Llandudno.
Lovely place
Spent much of childhood there.
Been back a few times.
It's great to see how vibrant it is compared with many other seaside Towns
Taken last September:
My first ever trip to the Isle Of Man was on a day trip on The Manxman from the end of The Pier. I was very ill on the trip back, very choppy.
My grandfather jeft me a picture taken with Randolph Turpin on the top of the Great Orme, I think he owned the Bar at the top.
My sister won a Talent Contest at Alec Monroe Happy Valley Theatre. I think it closed when they put the Cable Car in.
I was always fascinated, a we stayed at the top of Mostyn Street by the double parking. Cars would park side by side 2 deep.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
You’re just importing MAGA talking points into Britain which have no place here. You’re just the same as the Black Lives Matter types you hate so much.
The UK judiciary is incredibly restrained in “legislating from the bench” compared to SCOTUS. The complicated mess of law applied by the courts was made by Parliament.
No, I am doing the opposite. 'Separation of powers' as an objective good is importing American talking points. Our system doesn't have a tradition of separation of powers.
And it is cretinous to try to argue that judicial overreach isn't happening in this country.
It's not often I agree with @Luckyguy1983 , but he is correct here. In my Blob article I wrote
"...In two separate lectures at PopCon and elsewhere Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg[61] and David Starkey[62] point out that this was constitutionally illiterate. Britain is not a constitutional federal republic like the United States, it’s a constitutional monarchy and the org chart is different. The concept of separation of powers is not inherent to the British state and just created more bureaucracy, binding future governments and parliaments to decisions outwhen and outwith them..."
We do indeed have such a tradition (look for example at the writings of Locke); we just don't have a formal and complete separation between three coequal branches of government in the way the US constitution sets out.
Irrespective of any Blair reforms, it's always been the role of judges to interpret the law. The organisational chart doesn't make any difference to that. When Sumption talks of judicial overreach, all he's really saying is that they've (in his opinion) interpreted the law incorrectly.
We could mitigate that by having the highest court made up of members of the legislature. Perhaps call them Law Lords.
Here is an interesting thing. The T80 Russian tank no longer exists in Russian storage or production lines. All they have left is what is left in the field.
What are the odds that HMRC has to abandon “Making Tax Digital” within the next tax year
Had there ever been a more pointless government intervention?
Making the self employed file 4 quarterly tax returns, but you still only pay tax twice a year (maximum)
There is literally no point to this system, other than to create more bureaucracy for smaller businesses. I can understand quarterly filing for VAT, but for income tax it's a complete waste of time.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
You’re just importing MAGA talking points into Britain which have no place here. You’re just the same as the Black Lives Matter types you hate so much.
The UK judiciary is incredibly restrained in “legislating from the bench” compared to SCOTUS. The complicated mess of law applied by the courts was made by Parliament.
No, I am doing the opposite. 'Separation of powers' as an objective good is importing American talking points. Our system doesn't have a tradition of separation of powers.
And it is cretinous to try to argue that judicial overreach isn't happening in this country.
It's not often I agree with @Luckyguy1983 , but he is correct here. In my Blob article I wrote
"...In two separate lectures at PopCon and elsewhere Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg[61] and David Starkey[62] point out that this was constitutionally illiterate. Britain is not a constitutional federal republic like the United States, it’s a constitutional monarchy and the org chart is different. The concept of separation of powers is not inherent to the British state and just created more bureaucracy, binding future governments and parliaments to decisions outwhen and outwith them..."
We do indeed have such a tradition (look for example at the writings of Locke); we just don't have a formal and complete separation between three coequal branches of government in the way the US constitution sets out.
Irrespective of any Blair reforms, it's always been the role of judges to interpret the law. The organisational chart doesn't make any difference to that. When Sumption talks of judicial overreach, all he's really saying is that they've (in his opinion) interpreted the law incorrectly.
We could mitigate that by having the highest court made up of members of the legislature. Perhaps call them Law Lords.
With a "LordChancellor" in the Cabinet even! What an innovation!
NEW: Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Looks like a desperate attempt to keep Labour activists enthused! If not are we in for a surprise!
NEW: Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Looks like a desperate attempt to keep Labour activists enthused! If not are we in for a surprise!
Theyll be talking up the Charlotte Cadden threat next
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
"No-one is talking about AMW or Mandelson, they're all taking about coastal erosion"? Really? This is as mad as yesterday's "the arrest of Mandelson was a tactic to divert everyone away from the brilliance of Bridget Phillipson".
I'd say AMW and Mandelson are the number one topical topics of conversation among my IRL conversations and whatsapp threads. And why not? High status humans transgressing societal behavioural norms is the #1 topic of conversation in any human society anywhere, and this is far, far juicier than most. It would be astonishing were it not the #1 topic of conversation. Particularly when it turns out the two people involved are the two worst people in the country.
From your list, #2 is definitely weather, "when will it stop being dreary" having become really quite pressing. Today is lovely though. My best day of solar generation since October.
Immigration and cost of living both get a look in too.
You're also missing off winter Olympics, which gets a surprising amount of traction.
It all depends who you find yourself speaking to. Eg for me in recent days it's been almost exclusively my wife and the main topic (by a long way) has been the hole in our back fence. How was it caused? Is it a security risk? Will I be fixing it?
Well quite but I don't think we can extrapolate that to the whole population. Otherwise my conclusion would be that 'everyone' was talking about the logistics for getting my various daughters to the places they need to go this week.
But AMW and Mandelson have featured in long conversation this week with: the wife the office the football dads the Whatsapp group for the dads in the year below my middle daughter which I have mysteriously found myself on.
All in the same spirit: an enjoyable mixture of outrage at the arrogance and mirth at their downfall. I take no particular pride in this. But my conclusion is that it is universal. More universal than your fence, anyway, which hasn't featured at all up until right now.
Quite. Someone made a "the nonce formally known as Prince" gag at whilst chatting to me after church on Sunday evening, which I would take to imply it has cut through.
As for when Starmer or Mandelson come up in conversation, it's usually as the butt of some kind of a joke. No-one has a good word to say for either of them.
Here is an interesting thing. The T80 Russian tank no longer exists on production lines and only have 134 in Russian storage, down from 1679 in 2022. At current rates they will be gone by EOY
...When Sumption talks of judicial overreach, all he's really saying is that they've (in his opinion) interpreted the law incorrectly....
And yet his examples are persuasive. In the abortion in NI case, the judges disapproved of the law in NI. I would have shared their disapproval but the law was what it was.
What are the odds that HMRC has to abandon “Making Tax Digital” within the next tax year
Doing tax return? Sympathies.
I’ve only just realised the total insanity of Making Tax Digital
It’s going to be the HS2 of tax policies. It will end up a massive net negative for UK PLC as sole traders reduce their income to avoid the intense hassle, or emigrate
Truly, we are governed by lunatics that hate us
Intrigued to see where all those self employed, British construction workers are off to.
Are they going to the middle east to compete with bonded labour ?
And the people with a handful of buy to lets ? Love to know where they are off to.
The same nonsense has been said about VAT, Construction Industry Scheme (CIS), self assessment, IR35 and indeed MTD which is now 6 years old.
Half witted right wingers spaffing on about how great the likes Estonia's government IT infrastructure & interfacing is and not realising what it actually means.
Listening to Ed Davey he is right to use his day to seek release of AMW files
What we are witnessing is a crisis that is simply going to run and run with no end in sight
I'm a potential LD voter, broadly aligned values wise but unenthused by their offering and policies. Would much prefer their attention was on housing, the environment, the economy etc than having yet another pop at AMW.
I simply do not hear anyone out and about talking about AMW or Mandelson
Cost of Living Weather Climate Change Immigration Coastal Erosion
No one bothered about Epstein, his files or insider dealing.
"No-one is talking about AMW or Mandelson, they're all taking about coastal erosion"? Really? This is as mad as yesterday's "the arrest of Mandelson was a tactic to divert everyone away from the brilliance of Bridget Phillipson".
I'd say AMW and Mandelson are the number one topical topics of conversation among my IRL conversations and whatsapp threads. And why not? High status humans transgressing societal behavioural norms is the #1 topic of conversation in any human society anywhere, and this is far, far juicier than most. It would be astonishing were it not the #1 topic of conversation. Particularly when it turns out the two people involved are the two worst people in the country.
From your list, #2 is definitely weather, "when will it stop being dreary" having become really quite pressing. Today is lovely though. My best day of solar generation since October.
Immigration and cost of living both get a look in too.
You're also missing off winter Olympics, which gets a surprising amount of traction.
It all depends who you find yourself speaking to. Eg for me in recent days it's been almost exclusively my wife and the main topic (by a long way) has been the hole in our back fence. How was it caused? Is it a security risk? Will I be fixing it?
Well quite but I don't think we can extrapolate that to the whole population. Otherwise my conclusion would be that 'everyone' was talking about the logistics for getting my various daughters to the places they need to go this week.
But AMW and Mandelson have featured in long conversation this week with: the wife the office the football dads the Whatsapp group for the dads in the year below my middle daughter which I have mysteriously found myself on.
All in the same spirit: an enjoyable mixture of outrage at the arrogance and mirth at their downfall. I take no particular pride in this. But my conclusion is that it is universal. More universal than your fence, anyway, which hasn't featured at all up until right now.
Quite. Someone made a "the nonce formally known as Prince" gag at whilst chatting to me after church on Sunday evening, which I would take to imply it has cut through.
As for when Starmer or Mandelson come up in conversation, it's usually as the butt of some kind of a joke. No-one has a good word to say for either of them.
I think Mandelson and Andrew are cutting through. What I'm uncertain about is whether that's hitting Starmer's popularity or not.
What are the odds that HMRC has to abandon “Making Tax Digital” within the next tax year
Had there ever been a more pointless government intervention?
Making the self employed file 4 quarterly tax returns, but you still only pay tax twice a year (maximum)
There is literally no point to this system, other than to create more bureaucracy for smaller businesses. I can understand quarterly filing for VAT, but for income tax it's a complete waste of time.
It was another brilliant wheeze from geo osborne. Rumours have it they’ve realised it’s a disaster in the making but they’ve now invested so much time and energy it’s getting the HS2 treatment. Sunk cost
I bet it loses lots of money for HMRC. Sole traders will reduce income to avoid filing 87 times a year. Those that can’t do that but are mobile will flee. People who might have gone solo will think: fuck if I don’t want the hassle - potential new businesses don’t get started
It’s created by stupid idiots in the public sector who simply don’t understand the complexity of life when working for yourself. It is the YooKay PLC at its best
Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
It the Nick Buckley and Rejoin EU pincer thars done it
What are the odds that HMRC has to abandon “Making Tax Digital” within the next tax year
Doing tax return? Sympathies.
I’ve only just realised the total insanity of Making Tax Digital
It’s going to be the HS2 of tax policies. It will end up a massive net negative for UK PLC as sole traders reduce their income to avoid the intense hassle, or emigrate
Truly, we are governed by lunatics that hate us
Intrigued to see where all those self employed, British construction workers are off to.
Are they going to the middle east to compete with bonded labour ?
And the people with a handful of buy to lets ? Love to know where they are off to.
The same nonsense has been said about VAT, Construction Industry Scheme (CIS), self assessment, IR35 and indeed MTD which is now 6 years old.
Half witted right wingers spaffing on about how great the likes Estonia's government IT infrastructure & interfacing is and not realising what it actually means.
You could barely make it up.
It is estimated that MTD will ensnare 900,000 new people this year alone. And everyone hates it
Here is an interesting thing. The T80 Russian tank no longer exists on production lines and only have 134 in Russian storage, down from 1679 in 2022. At current rates they will be gone by EOY
I think the remaining 134 in storage could generously be called "doer uppers"...
There’s effectively no Russian tanks left, in anything approaching a serviceable condition. Their factories can make a dozen or two per month, and that’s all they can field. Most last only a few days before getting droned, and all have the fundamental flaw of the exposed ammunition loader that makes them explode when hit from above.
If someone's in the UK illegally, nobody who respects the law can possibly object to them being deported.
That's true but incomplete so misleading. No-one can object to someone being deported as they are here illegally, so long as the separation of powers and the rule of law is respected.
The executive are not in charge of the question of 'in the UK illegally'; courts are. Just as the police are not in charge of whether someone has committed burglary; courts are.
Separation of powers is not a concept in English Common Law. The courts are meant to adjudicate justly, but they are also meant to have a place within the political system, with the Highest Judge in the land, the Lord Chancellor, sitting within the cabinet, which ultimately makes the judiciary accountable to the electorate. That is important, because courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Immigration is a case in point. Someone who has entered the country illegally, is, by definition, here illegally and can therefore be deported. It is not reasonable or just for a court to leap in with a late tackle and find a reason to keep that person in the country. If they do, they should be curtailed by Parliamentary statute.
This is the purpose of the Great Repeal Bill - to restore common law and rid us of the Blair 'reforms' that have led to the country becoming ungovernable - the same ungovernability that most people on here complain about daily. The commentary on the bill here has been diabolically superficial and unintelligent.
You’re just importing MAGA talking points into Britain which have no place here. You’re just the same as the Black Lives Matter types you hate so much.
The UK judiciary is incredibly restrained in “legislating from the bench” compared to SCOTUS. The complicated mess of law applied by the courts was made by Parliament.
No, I am doing the opposite. 'Separation of powers' as an objective good is importing American talking points. Our system doesn't have a tradition of separation of powers.
And it is cretinous to try to argue that judicial overreach isn't happening in this country.
It's not often I agree with @Luckyguy1983 , but he is correct here. In my Blob article I wrote
"...In two separate lectures at PopCon and elsewhere Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg[61] and David Starkey[62] point out that this was constitutionally illiterate. Britain is not a constitutional federal republic like the United States, it’s a constitutional monarchy and the org chart is different. The concept of separation of powers is not inherent to the British state and just created more bureaucracy, binding future governments and parliaments to decisions outwhen and outwith them..."
We do indeed have such a tradition (look for example at the writings of Locke); we just don't have a formal and complete separation between three coequal branches of government in the way the US constitution sets out.
Irrespective of any Blair reforms, it's always been the role of judges to interpret the law. The organisational chart doesn't make any difference to that. When Sumption talks of judicial overreach, all he's really saying is that they've (in his opinion) interpreted the law incorrectly.
It seems to me that most of this arises out of extra judicial factors. So what is going on?
1) We inhabit a society which doesn't much do deference, doesn't accept the 'good chaps' theory of government and is keener on rights than duties.
2) Courts don't invent issues or cases. They address what is brought to them. They can of course decline jurisdiction, but even that can be appealed to a higher court or courts. On the whole, if courts are asked a question they give an answer.
3) Society is fairly divided as to both what our values are, and how they should be formed.
4) Parliament is a much blunter, dimmer, more useless and slower instrument than courts.
5) By nature law itself always becomes more complex, ramified and multi sourced.
6) We live in a highly complex, mobile international and massively regulated community.
Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Labour do certainly seem quite bullish. It’s making me question whether this could indeed be Labour vs Reform after all.
Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Labour do certainly seem quite bullish. It’s making me question whether this could indeed be Labour vs Reform after all.
Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Labour do certainly seem quite bullish. It’s making me question whether this could indeed be Labour vs Reform after all.
Bullish or delusional?
Either way they have to get what vote out they can to avoid 'excess' humiliation
This is South Shrops, Tiverton, Newbury '93 territory
Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Labour do certainly seem quite bullish. It’s making me question whether this could indeed be Labour vs Reform after all.
Bullish or delusional?
You normally expect fairly strong expectations management from a governing party at this stage of a by election campaign, so the fact they appear to be suggesting confidence leads me to think they genuinely are doing better than they thought they would be right now. Or maybe they’re just useless at the messaging. Either could be true of Labour; to be fair.
Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Labour do certainly seem quite bullish. It’s making me question whether this could indeed be Labour vs Reform after all.
Bullish or delusional?
They’re not even shrewd enough to back themselves with the inside info on Betfair like the Tories. Public sector sharps
What are the odds that HMRC has to abandon “Making Tax Digital” within the next tax year
Doing tax return? Sympathies.
I’ve only just realised the total insanity of Making Tax Digital
It’s going to be the HS2 of tax policies. It will end up a massive net negative for UK PLC as sole traders reduce their income to avoid the intense hassle, or emigrate
Truly, we are governed by lunatics that hate us
Intrigued to see where all those self employed, British construction workers are off to.
Are they going to the middle east to compete with bonded labour ?
And the people with a handful of buy to lets ? Love to know where they are off to.
The same nonsense has been said about VAT, Construction Industry Scheme (CIS), self assessment, IR35 and indeed MTD which is now 6 years old.
Half witted right wingers spaffing on about how great the likes Estonia's government IT infrastructure & interfacing is and not realising what it actually means.
You could barely make it up.
It is estimated that MTD will ensnare 900,000 new people this year alone. And everyone hates it
And "everyone" hates self assessment, but 12 million are "ensnared" and the sky hasn't fallen in.
The majority of self employed people who are not VAT registered will effectively be supplying their labour only. They will be in the self assessment system already, and yes quarterly reporting is a ballache but its hardly onerous,
Lots of letters to the Telegraph and Times, claiming Clive & Doreen from Tunbridge Wells would rather stop working ?
Sure.
HS2 of tax policies ?
Laughable hyperbole
Again
People want more efficient cost effective government that collects the right amount of tax, but then bleat on when the realise what it means. Are people really that thick ?
Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Labour do certainly seem quite bullish. It’s making me question whether this could indeed be Labour vs Reform after all.
Bullish or delusional?
You normally expect fairly strong expectations management from a governing party at this stage of a by election campaign, so the fact they appear to be suggesting confidence leads me to think they genuinely are doing better than they thought they would be right now. Or maybe they’re just useless at the messaging. Either could be true of Labour; to be fair.
I recall some hilarious stuff coming out of Conservative Central Office on the run up to 1997
Some people live in houseboats on Lake Victoria - that’s how far into denial they are.
Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Labour do certainly seem quite bullish. It’s making me question whether this could indeed be Labour vs Reform after all.
Bullish or delusional?
You normally expect fairly strong expectations management from a governing party at this stage of a by election campaign, so the fact they appear to be suggesting confidence leads me to think they genuinely are doing better than they thought they would be right now. Or maybe they’re just useless at the messaging. Either could be true of Labour; to be fair.
I recall some hilarious stuff coming out of Conservative Central Office on the run up to 1997
Some people live in houseboats on Lake Victoria - that’s how far into denial they are.
Comments
We should teposess those facilities as a matter of urgency.
WW2 teaty, well past its sell by date, US is no longer a trusted ally.
Range of aircraft now makes those bases unnecessary, Germany removed most US bases so should we.
Infrastructure could be base for new Towns, overspill or added to the Prison Estate?
UK is not a fecking Aircraft Carrier.
The main problem is that many on the populist right describe asylum seekers as being here illegally when they are here legally. If they are seeking asylum, they are in a legal process and allowed to stay while that process is ongoing.
Ask Caroline Voaden and Steve Darling what's top if their mailbox
The very foundation of Common Law rights, the writ of habeas corpus, is essential to the protection of individual rights against the state - and long predates democracy, and "the electorate" to which Luckyguy refers.
It's the idea that judges are "accountable to the electorate" which has little or no basis in the British constitution.
Spent much of childhood there.
Been back a few times.
It's great to see how vibrant it is compared with many other seaside Towns
Trusted allies - predictable and on the same side
Untrusted allies - notionally on the same side but you can never be sure
Untrusted enemies - hostile and unpredictable
Trusted enemies - notionally hostile but you understand each other and they respect your boundaries
You feel like you can have just as nice - and indeed a very similar - time to how people 100 years ago enjoyed it.
I was hawked a bottle of Aber Falls whisky on the pier there. And a bottle of the associated liquer. Both, to my surprise, were excellent.
This all developed way before there was an 'electorate' of the people to be accountable to.
The outfit accountable to the electorate is of course parliament directly and government indirectly.
Further up this thread, LuckyGuy said
courts are not meant to go off piste and start making the law rather than applying it.
Which is wonderful piece of Daily Mail argumentation, overlooking 800 years of case law including huge areas of law and practice mostly untouched by statute.
To take one obvious example: In the recent SC case on the definition of 'woman' in a particular act of parliament; what decision could the SC have made which Lucky Guy would not accuse of 'making' the law as opposed to applying it?
And it is cretinous to try to argue that judicial overreach isn't happening in this country.
There is so much to do and see not just in Llandudno but its close proximaty to Conwy and Yr Wyddfa
But AMW and Mandelson have featured in long conversation this week with:
the wife
the office
the football dads
the Whatsapp group for the dads in the year below my middle daughter which I have mysteriously found myself on.
All in the same spirit: an enjoyable mixture of outrage at the arrogance and mirth at their downfall. I take no particular pride in this. But my conclusion is that it is universal. More universal than your fence, anyway, which hasn't featured at all up until right now.
But they have, to date, been slapped back pretty hard by the courts at all levels. Including the Supreme Court.
Exam question.
It's 2030 and a Reform/Restore government is in power. Reform-ICE have stopped Luckyguy in the street and bundled him into a van, told him that he is an illegal alien, that his proper home is Japan (insert any random country). Luckyguy keeps trying to say this is untrue but he has no papers or possessions with him, and Reform-ICE assure him they are correct and there is no process in existence he can turn to because (a) he is in the wrong and (b) an act of parliament has abolished the court's power to intervene. Within four hours he is on a plane to Japan.
Discuss with reference to the separation of powers and current practice in the USA.
"...In two separate lectures at PopCon and elsewhere Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg[61] and David Starkey[62] point out that this was constitutionally illiterate. Britain is not a constitutional federal republic like the United States, it’s a constitutional monarchy and the org chart is different. The concept of separation of powers is not inherent to the British state and just created more bureaucracy, binding future governments and parliaments to decisions outwhen and outwith them..."
- https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/09/28/the-blob/
We don't have a tradition of separation of powers and the Blair reforms (which created them) really fucked things up. I realise PBers don't think judicial overreach is occurring, but Sumption and I think it is (see Trials Of The State and this comment on PB: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5457640#Comment_5457640 )
Strasbourg/ECtHR
- Prisoner votes (Hirst vs UK 2005, also Scoppola vs Italy 2012)
UK Supreme Court- Abortion in NI (NIHRC application for judicial review 2019)
- Assisted suicide (R v MOJ 2015)
- Permanence of the sex offenders register (R v Home Secretary 2011)
- Publication of Prince of Wales correspondence (R v Attorney General 2015)
- Court fees (R v Lord Chancellor 2017)
Also- Responsibility of the individual to prevent harm from own stupidity (Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council 2004). It's included in this list not because of the decision but that it was litigated at all.
- Terminally-ill babies (GOSH v Yates). Included in this list because the doctors refused to impose their own judgement but instead referred to the court
If you're interested, Trials of the State is based on a 2019 Reith Lecture series which you can find on YouTube or on iPlayerIt’s going to be the HS2 of tax policies. It will end up a massive net negative for UK PLC as sole traders reduce their income to avoid the intense hassle, or emigrate
Truly, we are governed by lunatics that hate us
https://www.absoluteexcelvatfiler.co.uk/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzUIrNH73D4&t=161s
£40/yr simply link cells from an existing spreadsheet and submit.
We don't have the US tradition of separation of powers, where the Judiciary is a 'third leg' of the government, alongside the Presidency (the Executive) and the Legislature (the Houses of Congress). We also don't have a written constitution, with which all new laws need to comply.
However, that does not mean that the Judiciary is without power in the UK. Common Law is -at its heart- legislation through case being tried by Judges and Juries. There was no need for the Houses of Commons to to define 'Murder' as a crime, because Common Law did that already.
Irrespective of any Blair reforms, it's always been the role of judges to interpret the law. The organisational chart doesn't make any difference to that.
When Sumption talks of judicial overreach, all he's really saying is that they've (in his opinion) interpreted the law incorrectly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZY3A2Lb6EM (9 mins)
My grandfather jeft me a picture taken with Randolph Turpin on the top of the Great Orme, I think he owned the Bar at the top.
My sister won a Talent Contest at Alec Monroe Happy Valley Theatre. I think it closed when they put the Cable Car in.
I was always fascinated, a we stayed at the top of Mostyn Street by the double parking. Cars would park side by side 2 deep.
Quite remarkable how stupid Putin has been to let them.
Making the self employed file 4 quarterly tax returns, but you still only pay tax twice a year (maximum)
There is literally no point to this system, other than to create more bureaucracy for smaller businesses. I can understand quarterly filing for VAT, but for income tax it's a complete waste of time.
NEW: Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Looks like a desperate attempt to keep Labour activists enthused! If not are we in for a surprise!
As for when Starmer or Mandelson come up in conversation, it's usually as the butt of some kind of a joke. No-one has a good word to say for either of them.
Are they going to the middle east to compete with bonded labour ?
And the people with a handful of buy to lets ? Love to know where they are off to.
The same nonsense has been said about VAT, Construction Industry Scheme (CIS), self assessment, IR35 and indeed MTD which is now 6 years old.
Half witted right wingers spaffing on about how great the likes Estonia's government IT infrastructure & interfacing is and not realising what it actually means.
You could barely make it up.
I bet it loses lots of money for HMRC. Sole traders will reduce income to avoid filing 87 times a year. Those that can’t do that but are mobile will flee. People who might have gone solo will think: fuck if I don’t want the hassle - potential new businesses don’t get started
It’s created by stupid idiots in the public sector who simply don’t understand the complexity of life when working for yourself. It is the YooKay PLC at its best
Labour's General Secretary has told an all-staff call that the Greens have no chance of winning the Gorton and Denton by-election on Thursday
"The Green Party are clearly high on the Class A drugs they want to legalise if they think they’re in this race. We know they’re not. They know they’re not. Our promise rate is very strong and we're seeing lots of anti-Reform undecideds come over to Labour. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Tommy Robinson’s candidate - Matt Goodwin"
Cant lose from here
Im just a sociopath
It seems to me that most of this arises out of extra judicial factors. So what is going on?
1) We inhabit a society which doesn't much do deference, doesn't accept the 'good chaps' theory of government and is keener on rights than duties.
2) Courts don't invent issues or cases. They address what is brought to them. They can of course decline jurisdiction, but even that can be appealed to a higher court or courts. On the whole, if courts are asked a question they give an answer.
3) Society is fairly divided as to both what our values are, and how they should be formed.
4) Parliament is a much blunter, dimmer, more useless and slower instrument than courts.
5) By nature law itself always becomes more complex, ramified and multi sourced.
6) We live in a highly complex, mobile international and massively regulated community.
Suspension of Matt Goodwin campaign manager (due to alleged racism and antisemitism) confirmed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89k0g7vexeo
Just hit singles
https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/2026237921636860029
MARCO RUBIO will brief House and Senate leaders at the White House today at 3 p.m.
Hes just shit, love
This is South Shrops, Tiverton, Newbury '93 territory
The majority of self employed people who are not VAT registered will effectively be supplying their labour only. They will be in the self assessment system already, and yes quarterly reporting is a ballache but its hardly onerous,
Lots of letters to the Telegraph and Times, claiming Clive & Doreen from Tunbridge Wells would rather stop working ?
Sure.
HS2 of tax policies ?
Laughable hyperbole
Again
People want more efficient cost effective government that collects the right amount of tax, but then bleat on when the realise what it means.
Are people really that thick ?
Some people live in houseboats on Lake Victoria - that’s how far into denial they are.