Post by abelardOn Sat, 14 Sep 2019 22:01:16 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James HammertonPost by abelardOn Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:11:30 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James HammertonPost by abelardOn Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James HammertonPost by abelardOn Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
there are a dozen ways around it..
the conditions have changed..
it's politics..
i don't believe it enforceable and the more i chew over it the less
i believe it will fly
Are you saying that it is unenforcable because it is a highly
politically motivated law?
Thus lawyers, police, judges will want to stay out of a political
dispute despite it appearing in the form of the defiance of a statute?
that is my guess, though i can never plumb the depths of
human folly
I note that is your *guess*.
such i the real world
Fair point. I am not sure what your reasoning behind this guess is other
than in vague terms such as claims there's "a dozen ways around it" and
the police, judiciary wanting to stay out of a political dispute.
ISTM we have some Scottish judges already getting embroiled in the
political dispute, albeit relating to a different action of the
government's...
Maybe it would help if you could outline 3 of those ways?
Post by abelardPost by James HammertonNearly all commentary I've seen so far, including commentary from people
who study or who practice the law in the UK, seems to accept that
because Parliament passed this law, Boris is legally obliged to obey and
could be punished for failing to do so, unless he can find a loophole
(or manages to come back with a deal parilament approves or persuades
parliament to exit without a deal).
The only people I've come across who question the validity of this law
are here on uk.p.m, and they're not as far as I'm aware doing so on the
basis of any legal training.
It is possible (probable?) the lawyers, police and judges accept the
supremacy of Parliament and thus accept its right to legislate, subject
to e.g. the ECHR and other international treaties Parliament has chosen
to accept.
So it does not seem improbable to me that the PM may find himself facing
legal action if he does not comply with the order.
all your speculation is also possible :-)
OK
Post by abelardwhat is the sheep index
Are you referring to "i was only following orders" ?
E.g. the extent to which judges will enforce "the will of Parliament"
because it is laid down in a statute?
Post by abelardi study people...that includes lawyers and reptiles! and even
politicians
Post by James HammertonPost by abelardPost by James HammertonPost by abelardcan you see plod walking up to his door mob handed to arrest him?
Grieve wrote about obtaining a court order to force Johnson to play ball
and claimed that if he defied a court order he'd be jailed.
imv grieve is out to lunch....ego much too big for his intelligence
Maybe - but is he wrong about being able to obtain a court order to
enforce this law?
that i don't see happening ...
Because you think the judges won't want to touch the issue with a long
bargepole? Why would they be so reluctant?
Post by abelardthough he in particular is likely
to try it on
Interestingly so far it's been Miller, Cherry and Maugham bringing the
cases so far, with Major backing one of them.
Post by abelardPost by James HammertonPost by abelardPost by James HammertonIf a court order was issued and Johnson defied it, yes I can see the
police doing this.
So now the question is whether judge would issue such an order.
first a trial...
or is alician, first the verdict!
I'm not following here.
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/carroll/lewis/alice/chapter12.html
No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the
sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody
moved.
‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by
this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’
Ah - you're suggesting that in granting a court order against the PM,
the judge would effectively be giving the verdict first?
Post by abelardPost by James HammertonPost by abelardlaw is not an absolute...it is a social construct....despite all the
pomposity being promoted by the media
Agreed.
read through the above including your comments and apply
this...
riots are also a social happening...so are elections
I can see judges deciding they don't want to contribute to a situation
where riots break out. It's not clear to me that this possibility points
clearly in favour or or against enforcing the Benn Act. Certainly if
arguments are made on this point the "anti no deal" brigade will claim
the riots will occur due to the consequences of leaving the EU without a
deal - and may even point to Yellowhammer and other government documents
to back their case up.
I can also see a judge deciding the issue before them might be better
settled via an election rather than in the courts. On the other hand
could it not be argued that allowing the government to ignore a law
passed by Parliament undermines the rule of law? A judge might consider
themselves concerned by anything that undermines the rule of law...
Post by abelard'law' has no special status
I'm not clear on what you mean with this statement.
Post by abelardPost by James HammertonPost by abelardPost by James HammertonPost by abelard(what *sane* cop would take the job?
can you see any judge trying it?
Do you believe a judge would be wary of trying this due to it being a
politically motivated action?
he's got to worry also about social unrest
Many predict social unrest if we leave without a deal and some of the
more severe alleged consequences follow - if we have judges persuaded
that there's a serious risk that leaving without a deal has such a risk
associated with it they may be inclined to believe Parliament was
allowed to pass the law and enforce the order to request the extension.
laughingly called 'the establishment by 'reporters, lawyers and
politicians
very few 'journalists' will write against 'the establishment..they
wish to assume they are part of it...
True - but about the only people disputing the claims are those solidly
aligned to the Brexit cause - even the government's own civil servants
have been making such claims. Why would the judiciary discount the
claims in such circs?
Post by abelardPost by James HammertonPost by abelardPost by James HammertonPost by abelardwhat's the sentence?
if he has any backbone imv he 'should' say 'do your worst'
of course the sheepdom index of the british people does look
high...to me
a lawyers job is not to tell you what you can't do...
it is to tell you how to do what you already intend to do
The noises coming from the government and Johnson himself suggest they
may well be approaching it in this manner.
it looks that way to me...their mood music *looks* very confident
It does - maybe they've got some powder they're carefully keeping dry to
deal with this, or maybe they want people to believe they do.
imv he is more likely to confront them
Why?
Post by abelardtoday in my reading...
a journalist...a man who write a column of two on any subject
he knows absolutely nothing about... simenon aged 18...(33)
i see no change
Post by James HammertonPost by abelardPost by James HammertonPost by abelardPost by James HammertonPost by abelardimv negatives are not legal(rightly) in britain....that which is
not illegal...is legal
Indeed - was it illegal for Parliament to pass this legislation? Would
it be illegal for a court order to be issued to require the PM to carry
out the obligations set out in the legislation?
I am not aware of any legal grounds to say that either of these things
are/would be illegal...
i think it goes far beyond that into regions a world that is not
really a matter of 'legal grounds'
there is a crossroads between politics and the law...
Are viewing the Benn act as having a somewhat similar status to a bill
of attainder?
i think you put my view accurately
OK - the critical question is whether this view would fly with our
lawyers and judges. Any sign that it will?
i've never met a judge who remained in contact with reality
I'm not sure whether that helps your claims about the likelihood of the
judges enforcing the Benn Act...
Post by abelardit is the normal outcome of unquestioned power
Post by James HammertonPost by abelardPost by James HammertonPost by abelardwe've already had courts telling socialist johnny to
piss off with his silly games...
Can you remind me of an example?
the first step in scotchland
I'm not sure what this is referring to. Recent rulings of the Scottish
Court of Session have not been in the government's favour.
roger interpreted me correctly in his response
Yup - your reference to "socialist johnny" confused me a bit there -
Major joined the English case not the Scottish case.
Post by abelardPost by James HammertonPost by abelardi can but hope the uk supreme court shows similar sense
my inclination to the amusing makes my dream of an appeal
to the echr!
Which of the ECHR rights would you suggest could be invoked here?
the job of a lawyer is to seek out a reason for anything
you or the opposition should wish...
Uhuh. You made reference, in a tone of amusement, to the possibility of
an appeal to the ECHR being used by the PM.
I'd have thought that's because you can see that one or more of the
rights contained therein might be applicable (in an amusing way?) to the
case.
Post by abelardhe is a paid salesperson...nothing much else
Albeit a very specialised one - who needs to have a good knowledge of
the law and the ability to look up past cases for relevant precedent
("sales pitch that worked in the past"?) and what people call "the gift
of the gab" (though every salesman can benefit from that).
Regards,
James