UKSC: Rule of Law eleven, unaccountablility nil.
Discussion
Judgment and judgement are both in current use, innit.
BTW, the foundation for today's ruling is the Case of Proclamations from 1610. "... the King* hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him."
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1610/J22.h...
* Nowadays, for King read PM.
BTW, the foundation for today's ruling is the Case of Proclamations from 1610. "... the King* hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him."
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1610/J22.h...
* Nowadays, for King read PM.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 24th September 11:32
Breadvan72 said:
thats a slog, but suprising clear for the laymansparkyhx said:
Breadvan72 said:
thats a slog, but suprising clear for the laymanMr.Chips said:
Good to have you back BV 
And yes 
Breadvan72 said:
Most good judgments, most good legal arguments, and all good legal documents are presented in clear language. Only bad judges and bad lawyers write or argue in old fashioned or confusing language.
Absolutely. And this is a key reason why, particularly in the current case, it really gets on my tits when news outlets see the need to publish 'vox pops' expressing outrage at the judgment when it's a virtual certainty that said pops haven't read the judgment or even the summary, haven't made any effort to understand the relevant law or reasoning behind the judgment, and basically haven't got a clue what they're blathering on about. If you disagree with the unanimous judgment of eleven of the 12 most senior judges in the UK then that's fine, but their judgment is published in considerable detail so at least give us a bit of a clue as to which bits of it you think they got wrong and why. I mean, if some well-respected engineers did a feasibility study into Boris Johnson's Scotland-Ireland bridge and concluded that it would be horrendously difficult, would take decades and cost many times the £15bn estimate that was bandied about, would the media feel that any useful purpose was served by asking Brenda Smethwick, 62, a retired dinnerlady from Clitheroe who happened to be wandering about at the same time as the roving reporter, whether she agreed with the engineers?
Roger Irrelevant said:
I mean, if some well-respected engineers did a feasibility study into Boris Johnson's Scotland-Ireland bridge and concluded that it would be horrendously difficult, would take decades and cost many times the £15bn estimate that was bandied about, would the media feel that any useful purpose was served by asking Brenda Smethwick, 62, a retired dinnerlady from Clitheroe who happened to be wandering about at the same time as the roving reporter, whether she agreed with the engineers?
Hey, watch what you are saying. I know Brenda and she's a pretty bright cookie.Roger Irrelevant said:
I mean, if some well-respected engineers did a feasibility study into Boris Johnson's Scotland-Ireland bridge and concluded that it would be horrendously difficult, would take decades and cost many times the £15bn estimate that was bandied about, would the media feel that any useful purpose was served by asking Brenda Smethwick, 62, a retired dinnerlady from Clitheroe who happened to be wandering about at the same time as the roving reporter, whether she agreed with the engineers?
But but but... :spluttered outrage:"The public are sick of experts"
"The public have spoken"
"We are fulfilling the will of the people"
...etc. etc. - amazing how often demagogues whip the masses up into a froth, then use 'the people' as an excuse for all sorts of malfesance...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff