Amber Rudd contempt of court?

[rscott]

CoolHands said:

rscott said:

Set aside the details of the case. Do you agree the Home Secretary should be able to ignore a court ruling and impose her own will? Any objections if she decides a murder trial verdict was wrong and decides to imprison the suspect anyway?

That's my concern with this case.

No. But because of continuous stupid decisions made by judiciary and politicians alike, which anyone with a brain in the real world objects to, there is no public sympathy at all. Which is fair enough, in my book.

So should there be a state approved lists of categories of decisions the Home Secretary can override because apparently much of the population isn't bothered about them?

[Wiccan of Darkness]

Breadvan72 said:

Derek Smith said:

Breadvan72 said:

Derek Smith said:

...Apart from Mrs W no one is above the law, and even she is only in principle.

If by Mrs W you mean the Queen, then you are mistaken, as she is emphatically not above the law, not even "in principle" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The Civil War established that position, and the position was re affirmed after the Revolution of 1688. The Home Secretary and other Ministers act in the name of the Queen, and they are subject to the decisions of the Courts. The fundamental basis of the rule of law is that no one is above it.

[assorted nonsense about the Queen being above the law]

Your ignorance of history, the constitution, and the law are quite surprising. I can only suggest that you do some reading, as it's never to late to learn stuff. Your suggestion that the execution of Charles I is not relevant to the issue is quite remarkable.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 16th September 19:19

As I've always understood it, Charles I was executed for treason. The "Monarch" is the one who effectively makes the laws, and today The Queen signs off all legislation passed by parliament. The courts and judiciary are working for the monarch and not the Government. The two are separate. "The Monarch" is indeed 'above the law' as per se, as they ARE the law, but the execution of Charles I effectively separated the monarch and "The Monarch". One is the position of office. The other is the person who occupies that position.

"The Monarch" is the position. The head of state. Charles I was the monarch, the person who held the monarchy.

Therefore, the position is above the law because it IS the law; the person who holds the position is NOT. That's what caused so much grief for Charles I, he assumed as the monarch he was above the law and untouchable. The position he held was the law, but he himself, as a mere mortal, was not. Consequently his actions as monarch were contrary to the position of "The Monarch" and he had his head chopped off.

We only have one "Monarch". But we've had a lot of people hold that position. There's a separation between the person and the position. That's why The Queen has been so brilliant. She has a clear understanding of her role as Queen, and 'The Monarchy' and what she must do as queen to uphold the monarchy.

To put this in a different perspective, you take a used car dealer to court under the sale of goods act. But if there's some aspect of the sale of goods act that doesn't go your way, you can't then say 'the sale of goods act is wrong, and therefore I will take the sale of goods act to court and sue the legislation'. I think. Need more input from Breadvan

Personally, I find it fascinating and often wonder what would have happened had I followed Law instead of science.

Back to the topic, it means Rudd is nowhere near 'above the law' and whilst a dragging across hot coals is called for, the way the G has ignored the rule of law for so much other stuff frankly makes this one incident pale in to insignificance.

[loafer123]

Eddie Strohacker said:

loafer123 said:

We will have to see.

Certainly the most recent figures show positive net migration, not negative as your post implies.

I'm not implying net negative migration. I'm saying people are leaving as a result of Brexit's concomitant parochial social & attitudinal regression. Parklife mate.

People are always leaving. Returning back to family as parents get older, having made some money, to have kids, because they miss home, because the economy is recovering in their country.

The only facts actually available (I.e. Not your "the nasty Brexiteers hate me so I'm off" supposition) are that, still, more are coming than are leaving.

[Eddie Strohacker]

loafer123 said:

People are always leaving. Returning back to family as parents get older, having made some money, to have kids, because they miss home, because the economy is recovering in their country.

The only facts actually available (I.e. Not your "the nasty Brexiteers hate me so I'm off" supposition) are that, still, more are coming than are leaving.

I'm not sure how many times I have to say anecdotal before you understand what I'm saying?

Net migration is positive. no one, least of all me is suggesting otherwise. What I am saying is there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that Brexit is fostering an environment in which people feel unwelcome, insecure & lacking a long term future here. The risk is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is a shame but by all means, hang on to your immigration figures, it's all the same to me.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/these-european...

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-06-13/brexit-i...

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/i...

[Smiler.]

Or, it could be that the likes of the BBC just keep mentioning such anecdotes so as to maintain their desired opinion.

"anyone worried about being sent home this week?"

"no"

"bugger"

"how about this week?"

"well actually, yes"

"call the news desk, we've got one"

[Eddie Strohacker]

Or I purposefully linked from sites other than the Brexiteer catnips; Independent, Guardian, BBC...

[Smiler.]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Or I purposefully linked from sites other than the Brexiteer catnips; Independent, Guardian, BBC...

[Eddie Strohacker]

Smiler. said:

Great argument, the deadly rofl of eternal victory.

[Smiler.]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Smiler. said:

Great argument, the deadly rofl of eternal victory.

You know, I've never seen that before.

For the win, eh!

[loafer123]

Eddie Strohacker said:

loafer123 said:

People are always leaving. Returning back to family as parents get older, having made some money, to have kids, because they miss home, because the economy is recovering in their country.

The only facts actually available (I.e. Not your "the nasty Brexiteers hate me so I'm off" supposition) are that, still, more are coming than are leaving.

I'm not sure how many times I have to say anecdotal before you understand what I'm saying?

Net migration is positive. no one, least of all me is suggesting otherwise. What I am saying is there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that Brexit is fostering an environment in which people feel unwelcome, insecure & lacking a long term future here. The risk is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is a shame but by all means, hang on to your immigration figures, it's all the same to me.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/these-european...

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-06-13/brexit-i...

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/i...

You can repeat anecdotal "evidence" (surely the classic definition of an oxymoron) as much as you like, and indeed no one is denying that people are leaving, because they always do.

The actual facts are that this supposed "hostile environment" is not a major issue as, demonstrated by real data (!), more people still come than leave.

They still come here because it isn't a hostile environment and we are still a diverse and welcoming country, despite what our media would have you believe.

[Eddie Strohacker]

Sure, it's a welcoming environment & becoming more so. You keep on believing that if it makes you happy repeating yourself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-immig...

[Smiler.]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Sure, it's a welcoming environment & becoming more so. You keep on believing that if it makes you happy repeating yourself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-immig...

You're on a roll this morning

memey mc memeface

[anonymous-user]

Why would the state evict any people of professions experiencing a critical shortage? It would be illogical.

The answer will be that those people be granted exceptions up until the critical shortage abates.

Even the hardline Brexiteers in Government accept skilled immigrantion as being essential.

I do worry about silly people who get shrieky over nonsense written in marginal news outlets.

[Tryke3]

janesmith1950 said:

Why would the state evict any people of professions experiencing a critical shortage? It would be illogical.

The answer will be that those people be granted exceptions up until the critical shortage abates.

Even the hardline Brexiteers in Government accept skilled immigrantion as being essential.

I do worry about silly people who get shrieky over nonsense written in marginal news outlets.

You do realise we do not live in the 1950s ?

[Eddie Strohacker]

janesmith1950 said:

Why would the state evict any people of professions experiencing a critical shortage? It would be illogical..

I don't know, but you're asking the same question that for example, the catering industry is. All we know today is a briefing paper exists proposing a maximum of three to five year visa limit on skilled migrants in white collar occupations & a two year limit on low skilled migrants before you even get into the issue of settled families with children and all the rest of it.

That's a Government paper, the outlets it's been leaked to are irrelevant in the debate, so by all means call them marginal, that totally bolsters your argument while I put down my bacon roll & have a nice, relaxing shriek.

[mx5nut]

janesmith1950 said:

Why would the state evict any people of professions experiencing a critical shortage? It would be illogical.

The answer will be that those people be granted exceptions up until the critical shortage abates.

And they'll absolutely stay and continue to build their careers, knowing we plan to replace them and remove those exemptions at the first opportunity.

[83HP]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Sure, it's a welcoming environment & becoming more so. You keep on believing that if it makes you happy repeating yourself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-immig...

It would be such a shame for a country such as Poland to lose even more of it's trained medical staff when there is such a shortage that patients are restoring to bribes to get an appointment.

[anonymous-user]

Wiccan of Darkness said:

Breadvan72 said:

Derek Smith said:

Breadvan72 said:

Derek Smith said:

...Apart from Mrs W no one is above the law, and even she is only in principle.

If by Mrs W you mean the Queen, then you are mistaken, as she is emphatically not above the law, not even "in principle" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The Civil War established that position, and the position was re affirmed after the Revolution of 1688. The Home Secretary and other Ministers act in the name of the Queen, and they are subject to the decisions of the Courts. The fundamental basis of the rule of law is that no one is above it.

[assorted nonsense about the Queen being above the law]

Your ignorance of history, the constitution, and the law are quite surprising. I can only suggest that you do some reading, as it's never to late to learn stuff. Your suggestion that the execution of Charles I is not relevant to the issue is quite remarkable.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 16th September 19:19

As I've always understood it, Charles I was executed for treason. The "Monarch" is the one who effectively makes the laws, and today The Queen signs off all legislation passed by parliament. The courts and judiciary are working for the monarch and not the Government. The two are separate. "The Monarch" is indeed 'above the law' as per se, as they ARE the law, but the execution of Charles I effectively separated the monarch and "The Monarch". One is the position of office. The other is the person who occupies that position.

"The Monarch" is the position. The head of state. Charles I was the monarch, the person who held the monarchy.

Therefore, the position is above the law because it IS the law; the person who holds the position is NOT. That's what caused so much grief for Charles I, he assumed as the monarch he was above the law and untouchable. The position he held was the law, but he himself, as a mere mortal, was not. Consequently his actions as monarch were contrary to the position of "The Monarch" and he had his head chopped off.

We only have one "Monarch". But we've had a lot of people hold that position. There's a separation between the person and the position. That's why The Queen has been so brilliant. She has a clear understanding of her role as Queen, and 'The Monarchy' and what she must do as queen to uphold the monarchy.

To put this in a different perspective, you take a used car dealer to court under the sale of goods act. But if there's some aspect of the sale of goods act that doesn't go your way, you can't then say 'the sale of goods act is wrong, and therefore I will take the sale of goods act to court and sue the legislation'. I think. Need more input from Breadvan

Personally, I find it fascinating and often wonder what would have happened had I followed Law instead of science.

Back to the topic, it means Rudd is nowhere near 'above the law' and whilst a dragging across hot coals is called for, the way the G has ignored the rule of law for so much other stuff frankly makes this one incident pale in to insignificance.

Wiccan, you don't have it quite right, but you have made a much better stab at describing the historical and constitutional position than Derek, whose post was remarkably wrong (I say remarkably because I gather that he reads a bit, but he must have been reading some weird stuff). If interested in these things, I suggest that you read Tom Bingham's excellent short book "The Rule of Law" - a book that I suggest every thoughtful citizen should read. I would like to see a free copy of it being given out to every Sixth Former in the UK. Threads like this one (and indeed much of NPE in general) show why we need to have a citizenship course in schools. Those here who decry the legal system and favour authoritarian rule by Ministers probably don't realise that their freedoms to express their daft opinions and to do all sorts of other things besides are preserved and protected by the rule of law. It is always mildly entertaining that the same types who bang on about Muslims and Sharia and so on are also keen to dismantle our own law and live under authoritarian rule. Their attitudes to crime and punishment usually align fairly closely with those of Sharia. Sharia, I add, is dreadful, and I won't call it law.

Here is a reminder of what happens when you live without the rule of law -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-41283012

BTW, Wiccan, lots of people trained as scientists practise law - especially in the field of hard IP (that means patents and so on - IP for engineering, IT, biotech and so forth), but in lots of other fields too. A law degree is not a requirement for a lawyer (and may arguably be an impediment, as academic law is now miles away from the practise of law). I studied history, which helps a lot when working in constitutional law. MPs ought to be made to study history as well, but not enough do.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rule-Law-Tom-Bingham/dp/0...

[anonymous-user]

OpulentBob said:

AW111 said:

Smiler. said:

Ah, the legal establishment; you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

No wait, that's Mos Eisley.

I'm trying to picture BV in the cantina. Does he have tentacles or claws?

He's got the death penalty on 4 systems.

Twelve, actually.

[anonymous-user]

CoolHands said:

...if you're not British you've got no right to live here is my opinion...

Ah! The authentic voice of little Britain (and getting littler by the minute). Opinion, eh! All the rage these days: the biggest of mouths attached to the very teeny tiniest of minds.

PS: I have a small wager with myself as to what CoolHands thinks that "British" means.