Discussion:
Is the Bexit question all over?
Add Reply
abelard
2019-09-09 09:45:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?

or even to 'a position'?
--
www.abelard.org
Norman Wells
2019-09-09 10:49:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Completely, unless it breaches human rights legislation.

Parliament is sovereign. Why can't it make whatever laws it likes?
Even if they're bad form.
Moomin
2019-09-09 12:49:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Completely, unless it breaches human rights legislation.
Parliament is sovereign. Why can't it make whatever laws it likes?
Even if they're bad form.
Only if the Queen gives assent.
Grikbahhar®™
2019-09-09 13:02:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Moomin
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Completely, unless it breaches human rights legislation.
Parliament is sovereign. Why can't it make whatever laws it likes?
Even if they're bad form.
Only if the Queen gives assent.
A mere formality. When has the Queen ever refused to give assent?
Tall Henry
2019-09-09 13:12:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbahhar®™
A mere formality. When has the Queen ever refused to give assent?
How does a low-life shiteater like you even dare mention the Queen?
Peeler
2019-09-09 18:46:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 06:02:00 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Post by Moomin
Only if the Queen gives assent.
A mere formality. When has the Queen ever refused to give assent?
I wonder what the Queen's stance is on pedophilic serb peasants like you,
pedophilic gay Razovic! ;-) Don't you wonder, too? <BG>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
abelard
2019-09-09 15:17:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Moomin
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Completely, unless it breaches human rights legislation.
a silly comment...you can't be allocated to pay a special
norman or saxon tax
Post by Moomin
Post by Norman Wells
Parliament is sovereign. Why can't it make whatever laws it likes?
Even if they're bad form.
Only if the Queen gives assent.
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-09 18:31:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Do we not have already have laws prescribing duties associated with the
various positions of public office?

Isn't the Benn bill simply placing a duty on the Prime Minister (and
thus on whoever holds that position)?

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-09 19:40:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:31:53 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Do we not have already have laws prescribing duties associated with the
various positions of public office?
Isn't the Benn bill simply placing a duty on the Prime Minister (and
thus on whoever holds that position)?
fine as far as that goes...
the person is not the position...

a chief policeperson is to stop crime and keep the peace...
clearly all he tries is to try...and as a placeholder he decides
whether he has tried and how he tried...
it doesn't say he must go and sign a particular order
it doesn't even insist he 'succeeds'

clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them

my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-09 20:16:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:31:53 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Do we not have already have laws prescribing duties associated with the
various positions of public office?
Isn't the Benn bill simply placing a duty on the Prime Minister (and
thus on whoever holds that position)?
fine as far as that goes...
the person is not the position...
Agreed - but if Boris is PM at the time the law starts to bite, he's
the one who is required to send the letter.
Post by abelard
a chief policeperson is to stop crime and keep the peace...
clearly all he tries is to try...and as a placeholder he decides
whether he has tried and how he tried...
it doesn't say he must go and sign a particular order
it doesn't even insist he 'succeeds'
Maybe - but take a note of this legislation:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/part/8/chapter/1/crossheading/the-commissioners/made

There's numerous things the PM 'must' do under this Act. If Parliament
is legitimately able to enact a law stating that the PM "must" appoint
some commissioners and "must" consult the Scottish Ministers during the
process of doing so, then ISTM rather difficult to then say it is not
valid for Parliament enact a law stating that the PM "must" seek an
extension of Article 50. How exactly is the line between the two being
drawn?
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-09 20:33:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 21:16:57 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:31:53 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Do we not have already have laws prescribing duties associated with the
various positions of public office?
Isn't the Benn bill simply placing a duty on the Prime Minister (and
thus on whoever holds that position)?
fine as far as that goes...
the person is not the position...
Agreed - but if Boris is PM at the time the law starts to bite, he's
the one who is required to send the letter.
Post by abelard
a chief policeperson is to stop crime and keep the peace...
clearly all he tries is to try...and as a placeholder he decides
whether he has tried and how he tried...
it doesn't say he must go and sign a particular order
it doesn't even insist he 'succeeds'
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/part/8/chapter/1/crossheading/the-commissioners/made
There's numerous things the PM 'must' do under this Act. If Parliament
is legitimately able to enact a law stating that the PM "must" appoint
some commissioners and "must" consult the Scottish Ministers during the
process of doing so, then ISTM rather difficult to then say it is not
valid for Parliament enact a law stating that the PM "must" seek an
extension of Article 50. How exactly is the line between the two being
drawn?
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!

i still harbour some unease
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-09 21:40:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 21:16:57 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:31:53 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Do we not have already have laws prescribing duties associated with the
various positions of public office?
Isn't the Benn bill simply placing a duty on the Prime Minister (and
thus on whoever holds that position)?
fine as far as that goes...
the person is not the position...
Agreed - but if Boris is PM at the time the law starts to bite, he's
the one who is required to send the letter.
Post by abelard
a chief policeperson is to stop crime and keep the peace...
clearly all he tries is to try...and as a placeholder he decides
whether he has tried and how he tried...
it doesn't say he must go and sign a particular order
it doesn't even insist he 'succeeds'
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/part/8/chapter/1/crossheading/the-commissioners/made
There's numerous things the PM 'must' do under this Act. If Parliament
is legitimately able to enact a law stating that the PM "must" appoint
some commissioners and "must" consult the Scottish Ministers during the
process of doing so, then ISTM rather difficult to then say it is not
valid for Parliament enact a law stating that the PM "must" seek an
extension of Article 50. How exactly is the line between the two being
drawn?
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?

From my perspective - I find this law and the way it arose quite
remarkable but I cannot see an obvious legal/constitutional reason why
it would be considered invalid by our courts given that it was passed by
Parliament and the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty seems to have
been guiding Britain's evolving constitution for some time now.

The fact some conventions may have been broken to get here doesn't help
much since breaking conventions (or at least those governing
parliamentary procedure) does not seem to be against the law either.

As a matter of curiosity - what did you make of the Cooper-Letwin bill
that led to May to seeking an extension?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-10 09:03:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?
a specificity that applies just to johnson...who is a free person

further, they are trying to turn him into a delegate...a behaviour
they are complaining about in refusing to act as delegates to
the voters!
Post by James Hammerton
From my perspective - I find this law and the way it arose quite
remarkable but I cannot see an obvious legal/constitutional reason why
it would be considered invalid by our courts given that it was passed by
Parliament and the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty seems to have
been guiding Britain's evolving constitution for some time now.
1)parliament is not a person
2)imv it may well not be valid(rather that it is not invalid!!)
Post by James Hammerton
The fact some conventions may have been broken to get here doesn't help
much since breaking conventions (or at least those governing
parliamentary procedure) does not seem to be against the law either.
a lesser problem to me as they claim to have no constitution and
thus be free to 'make it up as they go along'
which could be sold as a positive feature of uk governance
Post by James Hammerton
As a matter of curiosity - what did you make of the Cooper-Letwin bill
that led to May to seeking an extension?
she was part of it...
he most clearly is not
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.
but is it legal!!

imv negatives are not legal(rightly) in britain....that which is
not illegal...is legal
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-10 21:14:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?
a specificity that applies just to johnson...who is a free person
The Act (it is now on the statute books) does not name Boris Johnson, it
names the Prime Minister, it is thus prescribing a duty to someone
holding a public office.

If Boris resigned, he would no longer be required to send the letter,
just as any other public official would no longer be required to carry
out their duties if they resign their position.

Prescribing duties to holders of public offices, including the office of
Prime Minister, is not an unusual feature of past legislation.

What is unusual is the fact the opposition gained control over
Parliamentary procedure to enact this and the very specific nature of
the prescribed course of action should certain circumstances arise.

Do either of these unusual aspects of the Act make it open to a legal
challenge?
Post by abelard
further, they are trying to turn him into a delegate...
A fair comment, but does that mean this law is open to a legal challenge?

a behaviour
Post by abelard
they are complaining about in refusing to act as delegates to
the voters!
Noted.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
From my perspective - I find this law and the way it arose quite
remarkable but I cannot see an obvious legal/constitutional reason why
it would be considered invalid by our courts given that it was passed by
Parliament and the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty seems to have
been guiding Britain's evolving constitution for some time now.
1)parliament is not a person
Agreed. It's an organisation/institution.
Post by abelard
2)imv it may well not be valid(rather that it is not invalid!!)
not valid on what grounds precisely? Are those grounds even sufficient
that our courts would agree to allow a challenge to be made?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
The fact some conventions may have been broken to get here doesn't help
much since breaking conventions (or at least those governing
parliamentary procedure) does not seem to be against the law either.
a lesser problem to me as they claim to have no constitution and
thus be free to 'make it up as they go along'
which could be sold as a positive feature of uk governance
Post by James Hammerton
As a matter of curiosity - what did you make of the Cooper-Letwin bill
that led to May to seeking an extension?
she was part of it...
he most clearly is not
Noted.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.
but is it legal!!
The law was enacted by the legislature. I (as a lay person) don't see
any obvious violation of any other laws that are in force at the moment.
I don't see it as even violating the rights of Boris Johnson as defined
under the HRA.
Post by abelard
imv 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...

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-11 10:11:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?
a specificity that applies just to johnson...who is a free person
The Act (it is now on the statute books) does not name Boris Johnson, it
names the Prime Minister, it is thus prescribing a duty to someone
holding a public office.
If Boris resigned, he would no longer be required to send the letter,
just as any other public official would no longer be required to carry
out their duties if they resign their position.
Prescribing duties to holders of public offices, including the office of
Prime Minister, is not an unusual feature of past legislation.
What is unusual is the fact the opposition gained control over
Parliamentary procedure to enact this and the very specific nature of
the prescribed course of action should certain circumstances arise.
Do either of these unusual aspects of the Act make it open to a legal
challenge?
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
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
further, they are trying to turn him into a delegate...
A fair comment, but does that mean this law is open to a legal challenge?
a behaviour
Post by abelard
they are complaining about in refusing to act as delegates to
the voters!
Noted.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
From my perspective - I find this law and the way it arose quite
remarkable but I cannot see an obvious legal/constitutional reason why
it would be considered invalid by our courts given that it was passed by
Parliament and the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty seems to have
been guiding Britain's evolving constitution for some time now.
1)parliament is not a person
Agreed. It's an organisation/institution.
Post by abelard
2)imv it may well not be valid(rather that it is not invalid!!)
not valid on what grounds precisely? Are those grounds even sufficient
that our courts would agree to allow a challenge to be made?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
The fact some conventions may have been broken to get here doesn't help
much since breaking conventions (or at least those governing
parliamentary procedure) does not seem to be against the law either.
a lesser problem to me as they claim to have no constitution and
thus be free to 'make it up as they go along'
which could be sold as a positive feature of uk governance
Post by James Hammerton
As a matter of curiosity - what did you make of the Cooper-Letwin bill
that led to May to seeking an extension?
she was part of it...
he most clearly is not
Noted.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.
but is it legal!!
The law was enacted by the legislature. I (as a lay person) don't see
any obvious violation of any other laws that are in force at the moment.
I don't see it as even violating the rights of Boris Johnson as defined
under the HRA.
can you see plod walking up to his door mob handed to arrest him?
(what *sane* cop would take the job?
can you see any judge trying it?
what about a jury?...with 4 tories on it etc....
what'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
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv 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...

we've already had courts telling socialist johnny to
piss off with his silly games...
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-11 21:11:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?
a specificity that applies just to johnson...who is a free person
The Act (it is now on the statute books) does not name Boris Johnson, it
names the Prime Minister, it is thus prescribing a duty to someone
holding a public office.
If Boris resigned, he would no longer be required to send the letter,
just as any other public official would no longer be required to carry
out their duties if they resign their position.
Prescribing duties to holders of public offices, including the office of
Prime Minister, is not an unusual feature of past legislation.
What is unusual is the fact the opposition gained control over
Parliamentary procedure to enact this and the very specific nature of
the prescribed course of action should certain circumstances arise.
Do either of these unusual aspects of the Act make it open to a legal
challenge?
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?

[snip]
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.
but is it legal!!
The law was enacted by the legislature. I (as a lay person) don't see
any obvious violation of any other laws that are in force at the moment.
I don't see it as even violating the rights of Boris Johnson as defined
under the HRA.
can 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.

If 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.
Post 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?
Post by abelard
what about a jury?...with 4 tories on it etc....
A jury trial might be exactly what Johnson would need to fight this.
Post by abelard
what'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.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv 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?
Post by abelard
we've already had courts telling socialist johnny to
piss off with his silly games...
Can you remind me of an example?

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-11 23:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:11:30 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On 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
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
can 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
Post by James Hammerton
If 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!

law is not an absolute...it is a social construct....despite all the
pomposity being promoted by the media
Post by James Hammerton
Post 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
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what about a jury?...with 4 tories on it etc....
A jury trial might be exactly what Johnson would need to fight this.
indeed
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what'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
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv 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
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
we'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 can but hope the uk supreme court shows similar sense

my inclination to the amusing makes my dream of an appeal
to the echr!
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-14 21:01:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:11:30 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On 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*.

Nearly 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.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
can 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?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
If 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.
Post by abelard
law is not an absolute...it is a social construct....despite all the
pomposity being promoted by the media
Agreed.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post 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.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what about a jury?...with 4 tories on it etc....
A jury trial might be exactly what Johnson would need to fight this.
indeed
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what'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.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv 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?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
we'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.
Post by abelard
i 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?

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-15 16:51:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 22:01:16 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:11:30 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On 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
Post by James Hammerton
Nearly 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 :-)
what is the sheep index

i study people...that includes lawyers and reptiles! and even
politicians
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
can 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 ...though he in particular is likely
to try it on
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
If 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!’
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
law 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

'law' has no special status
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post 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...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what'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

today 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 Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv 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

it is the normal outcome of unquestioned power
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
we'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
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i 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...

he is a paid salesperson...nothing much else
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-15 18:48:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 22:01:16 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:11:30 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On 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 abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Nearly 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 abelard
what 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 abelard
i study people...that includes lawyers and reptiles! and even
politicians
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
can 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 abelard
though 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 abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
If 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 abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
law 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 abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post 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 abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what'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 abelard
today 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 Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv 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 abelard
it is the normal outcome of unquestioned power
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
we'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 abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i 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 abelard
he 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
abelard
2019-09-15 21:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:48:56 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM we have some Scottish judges already getting embroiled in the
political dispute, albeit relating to a different action of the
government's...
i'm not scotch...but i do know 'the scotch' voted against brexit....

so i must move to the squishy concept of 'identity'...what percentage
of those living in scotchland believe they are scotch....and to what
degree..ie, how 'strongly'...what measure am i to use?

a willingness to oppose westminster(the superior culture!)...seems 3
'judges' did that...
so now we await the superior court....

of course their 'careers' rest on local jobsworths...
Post by James Hammerton
Maybe it would help if you could outline 3 of those ways?
please spell this out for me...to me it is all a dynamic house of
cards...where an element is the emotions of individuals and
various collectives
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what 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?
i'm content to number that as 'one' element
though imv the scotch element is little more than an exaggerated
county council
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i study people...that includes lawyers and reptiles! and even
politicians
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
can 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?
imv back covering is a major element of the overwhelming
mass of people
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
though 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.
do i read that as grieve's natural self preservation
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
If 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?
that is part of structure as i see it

(the system is further dynamic inasmuch as nothing has actually
happened...much cannot even be judged until after the
expediting of the democratic will...
or running roughshod over the public will to the great cost
of uk government integrity)
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
law 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.
a reasonable minimising of social costs

imv yellowhammer is close to unalloyed bollox...but time will tell
on that judgement
Post by James Hammerton
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...
i can see no interpretation of 'law' that allows parliament to
over rule the democratic will
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
'law' has no special status
I'm not clear on what you mean with this statement.
it is just a social convention...imv that can be calculated
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
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?
the serve the masses....and the masses have ruled against them

it is both risky to go against that *and* involves long term costs...
putting the pammies back in their box is just business as usual
over centuries...their whining is close to irrelevant however
much the bawl
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
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?
his education and abilities
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
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...
i don't think of them as intellectuals but as self serving bums on
seats...iow i don't take them at their own evaluations
they are not the sort of persons from which heroes are produced
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
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.
ok...no problem....sorry if i miscommunicated
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i 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.
eg a law applying to one person..

who has what authority? the eussr!
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
he 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).
so is a computer salesman...or a 'plane salesman...

a salesman is high on the social ladder, which is why he is paid more
than most employees
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2019-09-12 11:15:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
The law was enacted by the legislature. I (as a lay person) don't see
any obvious violation of any other laws that are in force at the moment.
I don't see it as even violating the rights of Boris Johnson as defined
under the HRA.
can you see plod walking up to his door mob handed to arrest him?
(what *sane* cop would take the job?
can you see any judge trying it?
what about a jury?...with 4 tories on it etc....
what'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
It's the usual Abelard argument, full of wacky notions.

"Sane cops", "sheepdom", "tories on a jury", ....
abelard
2019-09-10 09:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 21:16:57 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:31:53 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Do we not have already have laws prescribing duties associated with the
various positions of public office?
Isn't the Benn bill simply placing a duty on the Prime Minister (and
thus on whoever holds that position)?
fine as far as that goes...
the person is not the position...
Agreed - but if Boris is PM at the time the law starts to bite, he's
the one who is required to send the letter.
Post by abelard
a chief policeperson is to stop crime and keep the peace...
clearly all he tries is to try...and as a placeholder he decides
whether he has tried and how he tried...
it doesn't say he must go and sign a particular order
it doesn't even insist he 'succeeds'
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/part/8/chapter/1/crossheading/the-commissioners/made
There's numerous things the PM 'must' do under this Act. If Parliament
is legitimately able to enact a law stating that the PM "must" appoint
some commissioners and "must" consult the Scottish Ministers during the
process of doing so, then ISTM rather difficult to then say it is not
valid for Parliament enact a law stating that the PM "must" seek an
extension of Article 50. How exactly is the line between the two being
drawn?
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?
From my perspective - I find this law and the way it arose quite
remarkable but I cannot see an obvious legal/constitutional reason why
it would be considered invalid by our courts given that it was passed by
Parliament and the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty seems to have
been guiding Britain's evolving constitution for some time now.
The fact some conventions may have been broken to get here doesn't help
much since breaking conventions (or at least those governing
parliamentary procedure) does not seem to be against the law either.
As a matter of curiosity - what did you make of the Cooper-Letwin bill
that led to May to seeking an extension?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.
i'm modifying the thread title as i think this important
--
www.abelard.org
Loading...