Stop voting for fucking Tories

[GogLais]

Actually in Ireland; if someone makes a complaint; the Police have to investigate, & create a record in their system, with a case# etc; because otherwise, they could be the ones in trouble.

Same in the UK I think, I haven't had many dealings with the law. Thinking it through my vague concern is that the police are in danger of being used for political ends. Of course I'm not suggesting that politicians should get out of jail free cards for everything but I'm not sure that Labour should be bringing the police into if. Expose their hypocrisy by all means.

This is a case of law makers being deliberate law breakers and for that reason they need to be held to account to a higher level. Even worse is their public lying and obfuscation about what everyone now knows is the fact that there was a party. Even worse is that the Met were complicit in allowing it to go ahead, they knew it was happening in real time, whilst prosecuting some student for having a party the same day a few miles away and fining them £10k - this is duplicitous if not corrupt. Even worse is the PM and Ministers tweeting the same day as party warning the general public not to meet up and break the law and to protect others by not getting together. Even worse is many followed instructions and didnt visit sick relatives or say cheerio to dying family members because of what the Gov told them was the right thing to do ... meanwhile they were sipping champagne, having nibbles and playing party games. Comparing this to a party in your street going unpunished is a pile of shit! These duplicitous cunts are taking the piss now, they are laughing at us and need to be exposed, many should resign.

If it was law makers i.e. MPs then ok, it’s a different story, similarly if the Met turned a blind eye to it while it was going on, that’s indefensible.

[fishfoodie]

So it's not just DJ Govester who might be losing his passport

House of Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has promised to raise allegations of drug use in Parliament with the Metropolitan Police this week.

He described a report in the Sunday Times that traces of cocaine had been found in several lavatory areas as "deeply concerning".

Sir Lindsay told the BBC that those who "flout the law" should face punishment.

His decision comes as the government is expected on Monday to pledge £700m over three years to tackle problem drug use.

This will include putting more emphasis on recovery from addiction, and less on prosecuting people caught with illegal substances.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-59539589

[I like neeps]

The UK democracy, it makes you proud.

[Insane_Homer]

Random, mandatory drug and alcohol tests at any vote should be an absolute no brainer, of course it will never happen.

[petej]

The UK democracy, it makes you proud.

I expect this is another attempt to stop any investigation into Johnson and his cronies pandemic money making schemes.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Fair point but if I went along to my local constabulary and told them my neighbours had breached Covid regs in 2020 they’d probably shrug their shoulders. I don’t like the idea of effectively prosecuting some people for who they are and not others.

If millions of people knew about it, they'd act.

Ah well, that's the crux of it. Do the police concentrate on crimes that have a high political profile rather than others?

Sometimes. In the case of Boris corruptly using public money to fund dancing sessions with Jennifer Arcuri the police in something of a high profile case said it was important they didn't investigate because they might find evidence of a crime if they took even a cursory glance.

I suppose there's still some concentration involved in closing your eyes and pretending there's no problem

[tc27]

The UK democracy, it makes you proud.

Well yeah....

No one elects judges in this country - in the strictest sense this would ensure the democratically elected element of the state actually gets to make laws and get them implemented in the way it intends.

it was also a part of the Conservative manifesto.

I don't have a problem with this in principal. Ultimately Parliament should be able to make its will clear if a court interprets legislation in a way it did not intend.

[Mahoney]

Yes, it's being reported stupidly, and I daresay Raab will manage to make it sound like ministers being allowed to ride roughshod over the law because he's an idiot, but the actual substance of it seems to be that the government will introduce legislation to change the law when the law turns out not to be what the government wants it to be. Which is how things are meant to work.

Why it gets a front page spread in the Times is anyone's guess.

[I like neeps]

The UK democracy, it makes you proud.

Well yeah....

No one elects judges in this country - in the strictest sense this would ensure the democratically elected element of the state actually gets to make laws and get them implemented in the way it intends.

it was also a part of the Conservative manifesto.

I don't have a problem with this in principal. Ultimately Parliament should be able to make its will clear if a court interprets legislation in a way it did not intend.

That's not how the UK constitution works. Or how the UK justice system in common law has worked.

The govt wants no oversight. This isn't about narrow readings of a bill it's about say the unlawful proroguing of parliament. You can amend bills pretty easily, or just write them better...

[Paddington Bear]

Tbh this is basically a formalisation of what has happened throughout Parliamentary history and is representative of the fact that Judicial Review is expanding and expanding, and so it probably makes sense to formalise what has been an ad hoc process.

That it's being willfully misrepresented by both those who think we are living in a dictatorship and those who think we are not but should be is depressingly predictable.

[JM2K6]

Not least because it's not actually clear what the intent is here, and there is zero - none - zilch - zip reason to give these cunts the benefit of the doubt.

A good thread on the topic:

[tc27]

The UK democracy, it makes you proud.

Well yeah....

No one elects judges in this country - in the strictest sense this would ensure the democratically elected element of the state actually gets to make laws and get them implemented in the way it intends.

it was also a part of the Conservative manifesto.

I don't have a problem with this in principal. Ultimately Parliament should be able to make its will clear if a court interprets legislation in a way it did not intend.

That's not how the UK constitution works. Or how the UK justice system in common law has worked.

The govt wants no oversight. This isn't about narrow readings of a bill it's about say the unlawful proroguing of parliament. You can amend bills pretty easily, or just write them better...

As I understand it the actual plan is that the government will pass an annual 'interpretation bill' to clarify or even explicitly reverse rulings it doesn't like. I am not a constitutional expert but to me that seems entirely legal under the constitution as it exists and in line with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty (even its a blunt demonstration of this concept).

Don't get me wrong I detest the current government but I think the claims about this are exaggerated.

[JM2K6]

I posted a link to an actual constitutional expert's opinion on it so, y'know

[Mahoney]

I posted a link to an actual constitutional expert's opinion on it so, y'know

[JM2K6]

I posted a link to an actual constitutional expert's opinion on it so, y'know

Yup.

[Tichtheid]

No one elects judges in this country - in the strictest sense this would ensure the democratically elected element of the state actually gets to make laws and get them implemented in the way it intends.

This is a scary take on these events, the fact that the judiciary isn't elected means it is not subject to whims and populism and should not be intimidated by agenda-driven media.

This is really missing the target by a fucking mile, any outrage right now should be directed at the government's attempts at criminalising protest and dissent.

[Tichtheid]

This government has cowed the BBC, it is in the process of privatising Channel 4, it refused to send ministers on to ITV when they were critical of the government during lockdown.

It is criminalising protest and is now taking on the judiciary.

These events are not happening in isolation.

[Paddington Bear]

No one elects judges in this country - in the strictest sense this would ensure the democratically elected element of the state actually gets to make laws and get them implemented in the way it intends.

This is a scary take on these events, the fact that the judiciary isn't elected means it is not subject to whims and populism and should not be intimidated by agenda-driven media.

This is really missing the target by a fucking mile, any outrage right now should be directed at the government's attempts at criminalising protest and dissent.

Not really. This isn't America and judges aren't a constitutional check and balance. They interpret and rule on the laws set down by an elected Parliament.

[Tichtheid]

No one elects judges in this country - in the strictest sense this would ensure the democratically elected element of the state actually gets to make laws and get them implemented in the way it intends.

This is a scary take on these events, the fact that the judiciary isn't elected means it is not subject to whims and populism and should not be intimidated by agenda-driven media.

This is really missing the target by a fucking mile, any outrage right now should be directed at the government's attempts at criminalising protest and dissent.

Not really. This isn't America and judges aren't a constitutional check and balance. They interpret and rule on the laws set down by an elected Parliament.

I didn't mention the US, I'm only talking about the UK, both in England and Wales and in Scotland (and I assume Norn Iron) the judiciary is completely separate to parliament.

The job of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the laws that are passed in parliament.
As has been said the laws should be written better, parliament should not be challenging the decisions of judges.

[Paddington Bear]

This is a scary take on these events, the fact that the judiciary isn't elected means it is not subject to whims and populism and should not be intimidated by agenda-driven media.

This is really missing the target by a fucking mile, any outrage right now should be directed at the government's attempts at criminalising protest and dissent.

Not really. This isn't America and judges aren't a constitutional check and balance. They interpret and rule on the laws set down by an elected Parliament.

I didn't mention the US, I'm only talking about the UK, both in England and Wales and in Scotland (and I assume Norn Iron) the judiciary is completely separate to parliament.

The job of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the laws that are passed in parliament.
As has been said the laws should be written better, parliament should not be challenging the decisions of judges.

They absolutely should. This is something they've done for centuries and should continue to do so. Most of it is technical interpretations but an elected Parliament has a right to ensure that it's intent is reflected in judgements. Judges are not infallible.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Not really. This isn't America and judges aren't a constitutional check and balance. They interpret and rule on the laws set down by an elected Parliament.

I didn't mention the US, I'm only talking about the UK, both in England and Wales and in Scotland (and I assume Norn Iron) the judiciary is completely separate to parliament.

The job of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the laws that are passed in parliament.
As has been said the laws should be written better, parliament should not be challenging the decisions of judges.

They absolutely should. This is something they've done for centuries and should continue to do so. Most of it is technical interpretations but an elected Parliament has a right to ensure that it's intent is reflected in judgements. Judges are not infallible.

Does see safer for for parliament to vote to change the laws than to ignore judicial review of the law as it stands

[JM2K6]

Not really. This isn't America and judges aren't a constitutional check and balance. They interpret and rule on the laws set down by an elected Parliament.

I didn't mention the US, I'm only talking about the UK, both in England and Wales and in Scotland (and I assume Norn Iron) the judiciary is completely separate to parliament.

The job of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the laws that are passed in parliament.
As has been said the laws should be written better, parliament should not be challenging the decisions of judges.

They absolutely should. This is something they've done for centuries and should continue to do so. Most of it is technical interpretations but an elected Parliament has a right to ensure that it's intent is reflected in judgements. Judges are not infallible.

Have they? Or have they instead looked to pass new laws and amend existing ones through the usual legislative process?

[Tichtheid]

I didn't mention the US, I'm only talking about the UK, both in England and Wales and in Scotland (and I assume Norn Iron) the judiciary is completely separate to parliament.

The job of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the laws that are passed in parliament.
As has been said the laws should be written better, parliament should not be challenging the decisions of judges.

They absolutely should. This is something they've done for centuries and should continue to do so. Most of it is technical interpretations but an elected Parliament has a right to ensure that it's intent is reflected in judgements. Judges are not infallible.

Have they? Or have they instead looked to pass new laws and amend existing ones through the usual legislative process?

Quite, these processes mean the government cannot ride roughshod over the judiciary and. The government can rewrite laws and have them pass through the houses as part of due process.

The judiciary then apply whatever comes to it.

[JM2K6]

For extra comedy

[Paddington Bear]

They absolutely should. This is something they've done for centuries and should continue to do so. Most of it is technical interpretations but an elected Parliament has a right to ensure that it's intent is reflected in judgements. Judges are not infallible.

Have they? Or have they instead looked to pass new laws and amend existing ones through the usual legislative process?

Quite, these processes mean the government cannot ride roughshod over the judiciary and. The government can rewrite laws and have them pass through the houses as part of due process.

The judiciary then apply whatever comes to it.

They can already! It's a core element of the British constitution!

[JM2K6]

Have they? Or have they instead looked to pass new laws and amend existing ones through the usual legislative process?

Quite, these processes mean the government cannot ride roughshod over the judiciary and. The government can rewrite laws and have them pass through the houses as part of due process.

The judiciary then apply whatever comes to it.

They can already! It's a core element of the British constitution!

Yes. That's the point we're making. You're claiming that they can instead bypass this process and just overturn decisions they don't like.

[Tichtheid]

former Conservative Justice Secretary David Gauke;

“When it comes to the prorogation of Parliament, if it wants to put that on a statutory footing, so that the courts don’t interfere again, it can do so,” he told Byline Times. “It’s perfectly capable of doing that, and that that is right and proper, we can have a debate over the policy terms of that but essentially, they’re entitled to do that.

“What then they’re not entitled to do under any sensible legal system is to look at the cases that they don’t like the ruling of and retrospectively overturn the judgments in those individual cases and decide that the law is, and always has been, something else. That is a legal nonsense.”

Gauke said that he was sure that the proposals would be thrown out by the House of Lords if the Government was to bring them forward.

https://bylinetimes.com/2021/12/06/bori ... eme-court/

[Paddington Bear]

Quite, these processes mean the government cannot ride roughshod over the judiciary and. The government can rewrite laws and have them pass through the houses as part of due process.

The judiciary then apply whatever comes to it.

They can already! It's a core element of the British constitution!

Yes. That's the point we're making. You're claiming that they can instead bypass this process and just overturn decisions they don't like.

No I'm not.

[sturginho]

They can already! It's a core element of the British constitution!

Yes. That's the point we're making. You're claiming that they can instead bypass this process and just overturn decisions they don't like.

No I'm not.

So you're saying that they should be allowed to do this?

[Paddington Bear]

Yes. That's the point we're making. You're claiming that they can instead bypass this process and just overturn decisions they don't like.

No I'm not.

So you're saying that they should be allowed to do this?

There's nothing controversial, disgraceful or new about the government amending laws to reflect the intent they desire. If they were to try and retrospectively alter cases then sure, that would be a different ball game.

[Happyhooker]

No I'm not.

So you're saying that they should be allowed to do this?

There's nothing controversial, disgraceful or new about the government amending laws to reflect the intent they desire. If they were to try and retrospectively alter cases then sure, that would be a different ball game.

Amending laws through the correct parliamentary process I have no problem with

Overturning decisions they don't agree with at a ministerial level is something else entirely

[Paddington Bear]

So you're saying that they should be allowed to do this?

There's nothing controversial, disgraceful or new about the government amending laws to reflect the intent they desire. If they were to try and retrospectively alter cases then sure, that would be a different ball game.

Amending laws through the correct parliamentary process I have no problem with

Overturning decisions they don't agree with at a ministerial level is something else entirely

Right, I think we're all actually pretty much in agreement with each other here.

[Happyhooker]

Not really. This isn't America and judges aren't a constitutional check and balance. They interpret and rule on the laws set down by an elected Parliament.

I didn't mention the US, I'm only talking about the UK, both in England and Wales and in Scotland (and I assume Norn Iron) the judiciary is completely separate to parliament.

The job of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the laws that are passed in parliament.
As has been said the laws should be written better, parliament should not be challenging the decisions of judges.

They absolutely should. This is something they've done for centuries and should continue to do so. Most of it is technical interpretations but an elected Parliament has a right to ensure that it's intent is reflected in judgements. Judges are not infallible.

I think this is where the confusion set in

[GogLais]

I couldn’t read The Times article. What does seem dodgy is rolling these updates up in some sort of annual Act, if that’s a correct understanding of what’s suggested.

[I like neeps]

No I'm not.

So you're saying that they should be allowed to do this?

There's nothing controversial, disgraceful or new about the government amending laws to reflect the intent they desire. If they were to try and retrospectively alter cases then sure, that would be a different ball game.

They already can do this though. So hard to believe this is the ultimate goal.

[Paddington Bear]

So you're saying that they should be allowed to do this?

There's nothing controversial, disgraceful or new about the government amending laws to reflect the intent they desire. If they were to try and retrospectively alter cases then sure, that would be a different ball game.

They already can do this though. So hard to believe this is the ultimate goal.

As I said towards the start, given the increasing reach of judicial review there is certainly a fair case for formalising the process, as it is needed more than it used to be. Will wait to see what actually emerges.

[JM2K6]

The "confusion" is that Paddington Bear jumped in to say that Parliament has been challenging the decisions of judges for centuries. When asked to clarify if he meant passing new laws and amending existing ones, which isn't the same thing at all, he doubled down.

Difficult to see how he didn't mean "Parliament should be able to overturn a judge's decision if it feels like it", particularly given the phrasing used: "an elected Parliament has a right to ensure that it's intent is reflected in judgements. Judges are not infallible."

Tichtheid and I are both arguing that it is wildly inappropriate for Parliament to challenge legal decisions and instead if they don't like the outcome - which happens a lot when poorly thought out laws are passed - they can amend the law or create new ones to achieve the effect they wanted in the first place. That's the process here.

As Peretz said, "Any attempt to correct findings of fact or applications of the law to particular facts (eg to “strike out” a finding that a decision was tainted by apparent bias) would be unacceptable"

[Paddington Bear]

Fairly willful misinterpretation of what I've been saying but sure fine

[Insane_Homer]

Drug sniffer dog per chance?

[fishfoodie]

Drug sniffer dog per chance?

A horn dog, & a public servant.