ARmy Rumour SErvice

**Pyianno** · 28-04-2012, 12:11

Originally Posted by Iolis

An interesting point of view. Who manufactured it for you and whose interest does such a view serve?

I wondered where you'd been hiding lately.

That said I agree with you, of course.

**Boumer** · 28-04-2012, 13:01

Originally Posted by supermatelot

Do the public deserve a legal industry that puts financial gain above the good of the country and it's citizens? I cannot help thinking that the legal system has become something akin to the unions of the seventies. It needs winding in just a tadge. The whole European legal system appears to have a primary aim of subverting UK governance.

*Ahem*

"I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations".
James Madison, speech at the Virginia Convention in 1788.

I do fear sometimes that the executive branch of the government uses things like our chum Abu Qatada in order to curtail legal scrutiny for their own ends.

I fear the solution is thorough legal scrutiny rather than less. We live in a country where it appears the Home Secretary does not check with a legal body that we have agreed to be bound by?

You either abide by the rules or secede. Respectfully, I don't think that weakening legal proceedure in our own country is a good idea.

Yes, I've seen lawyers "play" the system in some perverse Judo (beyond the proper scrutiny of the evidence) but the protection of the majority of the people in this country requires adherence to law. Whatever disagreement people what to have with the EU fine, but let's not loose the rule of law.

That'd be Qatada's final victory.

**Pyianno** · 28-04-2012, 13:23

Originally Posted by Boumer

That'd be Qatada's final victory.

Rather, it would be a Parliamentary victory. The arroange of UK leaders is unique in this regard - there must be no constraints on Parliament of any kind. Anything else is described as undemocratic.

**Boumer** · 28-04-2012, 13:34

Originally Posted by Pyianno

Rather, it would be a Parliamentary victory. The arroange of UK leaders is unique in this regard - there must be no constraints on Parliament of any kind. Anything else is described as undemocratic.

Parliament wishes to withdraw from a treaty, that is it's privillege.

But I'd rather not see an executive cutting back on the rule of law in the country, which protects (or should) people from the executive arm of government

In things like censorship and other issues, we seem to be moving from the state justifying its right to interfere to the publics right to do. This seems a reverse of the British tradition, that unless expression unlawful one could do what one liked. A "negative freedom". So the state must prove the need to interfere. Problem is labour (and this lot) have the bit between their teeth, certainly for passing criminal laws. These laws become ever more unforceable, bringing the law into contempt and frustrated politicians blame everyone-but don't stop to consider their own legislative impulse.

**House Sparrow** · 28-04-2012, 13:44

Although conjecture; if it is Strasbourgs duty to take responsibility for the U.K and her laws, then surely we should parcel him, and his ilk off to Strasbourg? well... they are the highest authority in "the land." I'm sure they'll take better care of him, and provide him with unparalleled rights and freeedom!!

**Pyianno** · 28-04-2012, 13:44

Originally Posted by Boumer

Parliament wishes to withdraw from a treaty, that is it's privillege.

But I'd rather not see an executive cutting back on the rule of law in the country, which protects (or should) people from the executive arm of government

In things like censorship and other issues, we seem to be moving from the state justifying its right to interfere to the publics right to do. This seems a reverse of the British tradition, that unless expression unlawful one could do what one liked. A "negative freedom". So the state must prove the need to interfere. Problem is labour (and this lot) have the bit between their teeth, certainly for passing criminal laws. These laws become ever more unforceable, bringing the law into contempt and frustrated politicians blame everyone-but don't stop to consider their own legislative impulse.

There are no legal protections from the executive branch of government in the UK except those the executive deems fit to grant. Parliament is a fundamentally supine legislative body which rarely, if ever, prevents the executive from having its way.

The rule of law is an extremely fragile concept in the United Kingdom. Under the terms of the Civil Contingencies Act, in a state of emergency the executive may (without reference to Parliament) disapply any and all laws in order to deal with the "emergency".