Reply With QuoteHave you read it?Originally Posted by RonnieBird
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Never quite as simple as that Eric, as I said above.
Have you read it?
There should be a Fix Parliament Act!
I did read it when it was proposed since you ask. However, you can read things like that in different ways and with different motivations you know . Some people are terribly good at reading laws with a view to challenging parts of them ,and knowing a number of ways to do that successfully .
You might also consider that there have been several other laws passed during the last 1300 years which might have a bearing , and a thing called " Common Law and Usage" too.
The law is a twisty old business I'm afraid, Eric, and you shouldn't be too confident about the outcome of legal proceedings based upon thumbing through one act of Parliament .
You seem to be awfully confident that you are right?
Which bit do you think could be challenged?
Does corruption in the justice system exist here like it does in America?
I personally dont think so , however america does seem to bring high society people to court,
where as in Britain there seems to be a tougher process or protection for those of fortunate means and those unfortunate gagging orders.
Question one should ask would OJ, Martha Stewart or Epstein end up in court in the UK?
It's been astonishing to learn how easy it is to create a perfect storm in America when politicians, justice and law enforcement collude with one another, and you don't need many participants to cause a lot of damage.
In very different forms.
Corruption is bound to occur in any system. Police corruption is probably less at the lower end of the market than it used to be, but some have suggested that it's very serious indeed at senior levels. I honestly don't know and can't tell you whether that is true, but the current system where drugs barons and organised crime are the realm of a small centralised and unaccountable body would certainly provide the opportunity, and reduce the chances of being caught.
Judicial corruption has increased exponentially since the 1997 Blair government called some extremely unsuitable and barely qualified individuals to the bench to tick political boxes, ( and the same is true of the police too, since officers have been appointed and promoted according to quotas).
At a certain level and when it comes to the practices of certain people, which cannot be discussed publicly, it is more than corrupt - it is completely controlled and maleable.
What a hard question to answer concisely and without getting into trouble !
I do think the law is a twisted business and not many of us know the compilations of it so RB has a valid point
I'd need a considerable deposit or a Legal Aid Certificate first Eric.
Seriously though, pretty much anything can be challenged, often successfully , and what might seem to be very clear language in an Act is rarely as clear as it seems. There are also various strategies which might be employed to " time out" any objection to what the executive has already done.
For example , the ' new' caution warns people that if they fail to mention something when questioned which they later rely upon in their defence , that the Court can make a " proper inference" from that. This is the law , and yet it's generally meaningless because you can almost always overcome it with reference to the Common Law right of a man not to condemn himself - ie to incriminate himself.
If you were to read the relevant legislation though, without the necessary knowledge and experience to know this, ( which is very very easy), you'd think it meant what it says, wouldn't you ? Now, I mention this merely to illustrate that sometimes various other stuff "trumps" an Act of Parliament, and that's a very very wide subject which we cannot adequately cover here.
I repeat that anything can be challenged , and I'm not even certain that the Act you mention is the one which applies here - it's certainly not the only one which could .
You have changed your position so many times I don't even know what point you are trying to make anymore so I guess we will just have to see what happens. There is nothing more legally dubious than an election campaign during a no deal brexit.
I haven't changed my position at all, but I can understand that perhaps its unclear to you.
You're quite right though that we must wait and see what happens.
Perhaps its a "catching" thing , JC over the last 3 years has sat on so many fences ,or has he simple changed his view ?? perhaps RB should be allowed the same respect .
How do you think Ronnie caught it from Mr Corbyn?
I dont I was pointing out that RB has the same right as anyone else to have an expanisve view , being blinkered is not a healthy occupation, it ,makes one bitter and one dimensional, RB is delivering free thoughts over a period of time Mr Mr Corbyn wants to appease
Do you think religion makes you blinkered?
Well, I certainly wouldn't bloody pay for them!
To be fair RB has been very generous of thought, no money has exchanged hands fir his forthright opionons ,we should be very grateful that some people have a different view to the usual hang a badge on anything , and we will vote, belive or follow its course , we may not agree with it , but free speech and differences of opinions are very healthy , in a democratic society .
Lets hope its stays that way.
Religions are as bigoted, as most of todays politics and people , it has probaly caused more death, destruction, agnoy, poverty damage to childrens minds , and supressed womanhood, than politcs.
I expect you would if you needed them
"Queen's consent is exercised only on the advice of ministers, but its existence provides the government with a tool for blocking debate on certain subjects if bills are tabled by backbench rebels or the opposition. It has been exercised at least 39 times, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information act, including "one instance [in which] the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament,"
Well done Madge.
I bet she secretly enjoyed it , especially after her alleged comments about her disappointment with the current group of parliamentarians.
It also stops JC ringing her doorbell unannounced,
late at night ( she and Phil hate cold callers )
Perhaps she may favour new trade between UK and her commonwealth countries after Brexit , it could provide new direct wealth to those countries she serves, rather than bolstering the federal European model.
Who's Madge?
Madonna? Now she wouldn't be afraid to tell the moron Johnson to sling his hook!
Posting Permissions
