| So now we all know 07:36 - Jan 11 with 3010 views | chicoazul |
The courts are not in fact independent. Parliament can just decide people are innocent and quash their convictions.
I wonder if they’ll ever decide whether people are guilty? |  |
| |  |
| So now we all know on 14:29 - Jan 11 with 712 views | GeoffSentence |
| So now we all know on 14:25 - Jan 11 by Cotty |
Hehe, you do have to remind yourself it's a parody account at times |
Apparently someone responded to her to tell her 'you know this is a spoof, right', and plenty of others seem to think it was real, I can only imagine they didn't actually watch it. |  |
| |
| So now we all know on 14:30 - Jan 11 with 699 views | Mookamoo |
| So now we all know on 14:25 - Jan 11 by Cotty |
Hehe, you do have to remind yourself it's a parody account at times |
There are a lot of people on X/Twitter who have been whooshed. |  | | |
| So now we all know on 15:28 - Jan 11 with 645 views | OldFart71 |
The problem with the Post Office situation is that if each individual case was heard in court these poor people would wait another 20 years. A blanket pardon is the only way and apparently each will have to sign a form stating that they didn't defraud the Post Office. Once signed and if found guilty, as some may be they will then be prosecuted. It beggars belief that the Government and I assume that means both Labour and the Tories have spent 100 million of tax payers money defending a system that was know to be faulty and Fujitsu still has the contract and other besides. |  | | |
| So now we all know on 15:42 - Jan 11 with 631 views | Herbivore |
| So now we all know on 09:47 - Jan 11 by chicoazul |
Nobody’s been sent to Rwanda; loads of people were convicted and went to jail. It’s not the same. |
It is the same and I've explained why. It doesn't matter whether people have been sent to Rwanda or not, the principle of the government using legislation to overrule or bypass the judiciary is exactly the same in both cases. |  |
| |
| So now we all know on 16:31 - Jan 11 with 605 views | redrickstuhaart |
| So now we all know on 15:42 - Jan 11 by Herbivore |
It is the same and I've explained why. It doesn't matter whether people have been sent to Rwanda or not, the principle of the government using legislation to overrule or bypass the judiciary is exactly the same in both cases. |
It is actually somewhat different.
Parliament is sovereign and entitled to make the Rwanda law. Though it is plainly utterly disingenuous and innappropriate to do so.
Directly interfering with properly made decisions of the Courts is another matter again in terms of seriousness. | | | |
| So now we all know on 16:35 - Jan 11 with 597 views | chicoazul |
| So now we all know on 15:42 - Jan 11 by Herbivore |
It is the same and I've explained why. It doesn't matter whether people have been sent to Rwanda or not, the principle of the government using legislation to overrule or bypass the judiciary is exactly the same in both cases. |
You’re wrong and I and others have explained why. | |
| |
| So now we all know on 16:53 - Jan 11 with 574 views | Help |
| So now we all know on 08:24 - Jan 11 by DJR |
With such a backlog in the criminal courts, maybe they will legislate to convict everyone currently awaiting trial. Or if not that, maybe they'll slip into the Bill a clause quashing the fixed penalty notice issued to Rishi Sunak for attending a party in No. 10.
But seriously, what is proposed does strike me as a dangerous precedent rushed through because of public pressure. [Post edited 11 Jan 9:37]
|
Must be an election year |  | | |
| So now we all know on 17:04 - Jan 11 with 561 views | Herbivore |
| So now we all know on 16:31 - Jan 11 by redrickstuhaart |
It is actually somewhat different.
Parliament is sovereign and entitled to make the Rwanda law. Though it is plainly utterly disingenuous and innappropriate to do so.
Directly interfering with properly made decisions of the Courts is another matter again in terms of seriousness. |
Did the Supreme Court not make their decision properly on Rwanda? That's quite the accusation. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| So now we all know on 17:05 - Jan 11 with 559 views | Herbivore |
| So now we all know on 16:35 - Jan 11 by chicoazul |
You’re wrong and I and others have explained why. |
You've explained nothing. You've just said you think it's different, that's not an explanation. | |
| |
| So now we all know on 17:08 - Jan 11 with 550 views | redrickstuhaart |
| So now we all know on 17:04 - Jan 11 by Herbivore |
Did the Supreme Court not make their decision properly on Rwanda? That's quite the accusation. |
You may need a quick course on jurisprudence.
Of course they made the decision properly. The Government are, however, entitled to change the law. Parliament is sovereign.
That is different to actively interfering with judicial decisions in criminal cases.
Both equally troubling in slightly different ways. | | | |
| So now we all know on 17:19 - Jan 11 with 535 views | ClareBlue |
| So now we all know on 09:38 - Jan 11 by DarkBrandon |
True.
I was astounded to discover in this process that the post office were able to initiate its own prosecutions . |
Numerous organisations are empowered to take a prosecution in the UK. I had powers to initiate prosecutions under around 12 pieces of legislation when I worked in UK for a Local Authority, RSPCA another body, fisheries protection etc
Of course you need strong over site if you have these powers and any organisation that thinks that suddenly 700 previous honest hard working employees have become dishonest, without questioning it, has serious manament issues. And there is oversight on private prosections and the DPP has a statutory role in ensuring correct administration of justice in the Public Interest, that seems to be being overlooked, for some reason which couldn't possibly be to who was in charge at the time. | | | |
| So now we all know on 17:21 - Jan 11 with 530 views | Herbivore |
| So now we all know on 17:08 - Jan 11 by redrickstuhaart |
You may need a quick course on jurisprudence.
Of course they made the decision properly. The Government are, however, entitled to change the law. Parliament is sovereign.
That is different to actively interfering with judicial decisions in criminal cases.
Both equally troubling in slightly different ways. |
They aren't changing the law, they are introducing legislation to directly undermine and override the judiciary. I've not read the latest on this, but aren't they talking about also introducing a piece of legislation to effectively overrule court judgements in respect of the postmasters? Perhaps my jurisprudence is a bit rusty, but can you explain how the situations are quite different without simply saying parliament is sovereign, because that sovereignty also extends to them being able to introduce legislation to overturn these convictions, as they are demonstrating. [Post edited 11 Jan 17:22]
| |
| |
| So now we all know on 18:10 - Jan 11 with 486 views | redrickstuhaart |
| So now we all know on 17:21 - Jan 11 by Herbivore |
They aren't changing the law, they are introducing legislation to directly undermine and override the judiciary. I've not read the latest on this, but aren't they talking about also introducing a piece of legislation to effectively overrule court judgements in respect of the postmasters? Perhaps my jurisprudence is a bit rusty, but can you explain how the situations are quite different without simply saying parliament is sovereign, because that sovereignty also extends to them being able to introduce legislation to overturn these convictions, as they are demonstrating. [Post edited 11 Jan 17:22]
|
Im not sure you are taking on board what I have said.
They are not saying the Rwanda decision is wrong. They are not overriding it. They are making a new law, which means it might be decided differently were it heard again or in future. They are not affecting the decision made (technically speaking). This is normal parliamentary sovereignty (though used, in this instance, in a highly questionable way which would not have got through parliament 20 years ago, because the conventions of parliament and the relative integrity and seriousness of those sitting in it would have prevented it).
It is technically no different to a court finding one day that someone was not guilty of a crime for using NO2, and then changing the law so it becomes a controlled substance and a simialr case, brought again, would have a different result. The courts apply the law as parliament make it.
That is different, to actively making a law to overturn a decision that has been made.
The irony is that the latter has been done for good reason but sets a very dangerous precedent. The former is normal process, but the specifics are objectionable because they are done for a bad reason. | | | |
| So now we all know on 18:16 - Jan 11 with 467 views | Herbivore |
| So now we all know on 18:10 - Jan 11 by redrickstuhaart |
Im not sure you are taking on board what I have said.
They are not saying the Rwanda decision is wrong. They are not overriding it. They are making a new law, which means it might be decided differently were it heard again or in future. They are not affecting the decision made (technically speaking). This is normal parliamentary sovereignty (though used, in this instance, in a highly questionable way which would not have got through parliament 20 years ago, because the conventions of parliament and the relative integrity and seriousness of those sitting in it would have prevented it).
It is technically no different to a court finding one day that someone was not guilty of a crime for using NO2, and then changing the law so it becomes a controlled substance and a simialr case, brought again, would have a different result. The courts apply the law as parliament make it.
That is different, to actively making a law to overturn a decision that has been made.
The irony is that the latter has been done for good reason but sets a very dangerous precedent. The former is normal process, but the specifics are objectionable because they are done for a bad reason. |
So the new legislation which specifically states Rwanda must be considered a safe country by relevant bodies (including the courts) isn't saying the Supreme Court's ruling that Rwanda is unsafe is wrong or overruling that finding? I disagree. There are no doubt technical aspects that differ but the principle of using legislation to override judicial decisions looks pretty similar. [Post edited 11 Jan 18:24]
| |
| |
| So now we all know on 18:24 - Jan 11 with 449 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| So now we all know on 10:00 - Jan 11 by Mookamoo |
Are these all cases that were sought by the Post Office and not the CPS? My understanding is the main problem is the PO were able to investigate everything themselves and get the convictions.
If they were they can probably get away with quashing all those on the basis the PO did a very poor job and those convictions were based on flawed evidence. That will leave the main justice system untouched. |
The Post Office prosecuted, but a Judge in a Court of Law found them guilty.
The drama gave the impression that these were not Jury trials.
The Government is proposing to legislate away the verdict of a Court of Law.
They have already legislated away the power of Judges to subject Ministerial decisions to Review (or are in the process of doing so, I don't know how far they have got with that one).
And they are going to legislate away the power of Judges to rule a Government policy contrary to International Law.
When you bear in mind the increase in surveillance, and the dramatic reduction in the right to protest, there are a number of things here that a very bad Government could use to impose totalitarian control.
Then there is the increasing tendency to sideline Parliament by the Government: making Press Conferences have precedence over announcing policy in the House, delaying the publication of Parliamentary Committee reports, and, let's not forget, straight up lying to the House.
Add in the decision by the Government (Executive) to close Parliament (Legislature), in the illegal prorogation, and the refusal of the Queen to overrule that in her position as the final check and balance in our system, and we have a complete Enabling Act before our eyes.
The BBC News department has been neutered, and the board loaded with those sympathetic to the Government.
Now Channel 4 is mysteriously discovering that it's funding is running out, in an Election Year.
So the ability of the Fourth Estate to give impartial and questioning commentary has been severely undermined.
Join the fcking dots, people! | | | |
| So now we all know on 18:28 - Jan 11 with 440 views | redrickstuhaart |
| So now we all know on 18:16 - Jan 11 by Herbivore |
So the new legislation which specifically states Rwanda must be considered a safe country by relevant bodies (including the courts) isn't saying the Supreme Court's ruling that Rwanda is unsafe is wrong or overruling that finding? I disagree. There are no doubt technical aspects that differ but the principle of using legislation to override judicial decisions looks pretty similar. [Post edited 11 Jan 18:24]
|
Correct. It is saying that they are changing the law to be applied.
Disagree all you want. You are wrong. The decision will still stand. Thats the difference.
The principle is similar- I agree. I don't like either. The PO one is more constitutionally troubling. | | | |
| So now we all know on 18:54 - Jan 11 with 412 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| So now we all know on 17:08 - Jan 11 by redrickstuhaart |
You may need a quick course on jurisprudence.
Of course they made the decision properly. The Government are, however, entitled to change the law. Parliament is sovereign.
That is different to actively interfering with judicial decisions in criminal cases.
Both equally troubling in slightly different ways. |
"Of course they made the decision properly. The Government are, however, entitled to change the law. Parliament is sovereign."
I have three problems with this:
1 Parliament is sovereign, not the Government. The two are not interchangeable terms. Parliament is entitled to change the Law.
2 The Government illegally shut the sovereign Parliament down. It was the Judiciary who stood up to it, when the Crown refused to carry out their duty to protect our "unwritten Constitution".
3 I'm not sure that our "sovereign Parliament" can legislate away obligations under International Law (or Treaty for that matter). And neither is our Government sure. If the Rwanda scheme is ever implemented, it will be challenged under International Law.
To be frank, obligations under International Treaty entered into by one nation, towards citizens of another nation, who have transited through one or more other nations, before they are forcibly removed to another, unrelated, nation, probably should be settled by International Courts. | | | |
| So now we all know on 19:11 - Jan 11 with 384 views | Herbivore |
| So now we all know on 18:28 - Jan 11 by redrickstuhaart |
Correct. It is saying that they are changing the law to be applied.
Disagree all you want. You are wrong. The decision will still stand. Thats the difference.
The principle is similar- I agree. I don't like either. The PO one is more constitutionally troubling. |
They are changing the law to specifically overrule and circumvent the ruling of the Supreme Court by writing into statute that Rwanda must be considered a safe country. The principle of using legislation to effectively override judicial rulings is there in both instances, which has been my point all along. The courts in question and legal processes may be different but not the principle of what is being done. | |
| |
| So now we all know on 19:53 - Jan 11 with 356 views | norfsufblue |
I've read most of this thread and tbh a lot of it is over my head..... the only thing I'm sure about is that some already rich and well paid lawyers are going to make more cart loads of dosh from all this . |  | | |
| So now we all know on 20:18 - Jan 11 with 336 views | giant_stow |
interesting thread - thanks all. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
