Politics through the Courts

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Subsequently it was decided by a Judge that a folding blade knife with a locking blade less than 3" was not permitted even though there was no evidence that such a knife presented a greater threat than an unlocked one, indeed it could be argued that a locking blade knife is safer than an unlocked blade.
Especially for the user as a couple of my fingers will testify!
 
Now. But you knew that, or you do now.

Of course I did. It was a deliberate mistake to see who would jump in feet first.

We have a winner - Did it feel good to get that off your chest, despite it highlighting what a petty individual that you are ?

They are only a police matter, if the aggrieved party wish it to be, if they are content with an internal investigation, then that is their choice.

I must be missing a trick. I was always under the impression that the Police should be investigating every crime. I am even willing to accept that investigation of some ( petty ) crimes includes nothing more than issuing a crime number for insurance purposes.

It is also interesting that you think.....

1. Allegations of fraud

2. Allegations of bribery & corruption

3. Allegations of sexual impropriety

.....should be dealt with by Internal Investigation.

Oil regulation gauge doesn't quite cover it.
 

HE117

LE
What such as "March the guilty barsteward in Sergeant Major" and the Drill Sergeant jailing an offender for making a mistake on the square. Those checks and balances.

OK.. I'll bite!

Firstly, the "March the guilty bastard in" is a joke/meme/whatever. There is a grain of truth in the story however, but it is not what you are alluding to. The military legal system is built on a process of review, which means that the case would have been examined at several levels of command before the stage of a formal interview. Only if the case was considered worthy would it have risen to the point of formal examination. "Orders" is as much an examination of the accuser as the accused and the accused has the right not to accept summary dismissal (ie admit guilt and accept a sanction) and elect for trial at a higher level. The purpose of "Orders" is to create an official record of proceedings and make visible all those involved. In the vast majority of cases, trivial or pointless cases would have been filtered out before it got to the stage of a hearing.

Similarly the "Jail that man/cat/wife/pace stick/etc" is pantomime, and we all know it. Do not conflate pushing around a bass broom in coveralls with criminal incarceration. At least what is happening is visible and not in dark corners.

In a similar fashion to the "Pay as you Dine" train crash I believe we have been led by the nose into somewhere we should not be in the Military Legal environment by people who do not have the nation's interest at heart! Events such as Deepcut have been held up as example of why things had to be changed. I dispute that! Deepcut was a fundamental failure in the chain of command with very deep roots, many of which were foisted on the military despite repeated warnings, and which continue to dog the system..

You need to look at what we have replaced this with! Instead of exercising and maintaining the effectiveness of the chain of command, we have had a raft of inane, expensive and wholly ineffective processes foisted on us, many of which are totally irrelevant and in many cases have significantly detracted from our ability to wage war. If you do not understand this or recognise this, you are part of the problem, not the solution...!

Bureaucratic process and mindless procedure is never a replacement for wisdom and competence. Produce a system that is idiot proof and only idiots will want to use it. In far too many cases, "Independence" is simply used as a cover for ignorance, incompetence and delay. "Transparency" is mostly a con by the media and other professional troublemakers and is far too easy to fake.
 
Last edited:

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
You can't have democracy without the rule of law. If politicians stopped doing stuff that was legally questionable, there'd be no grounds to question it legally.

It's a ballsache, true, but far better than a government that felt it could run roughshod over whoever it wished.
Fairy nuff, we need the courts as an oversee-er of politicians actions. All good and well, but who runs the same checks on the judiciary?
 
Fairy nuff, we need the courts as an oversee-er of politicians actions. All good and well, but who runs the same checks on the judiciary?

Absolutely the courts should step in if an individual politician has broken the law, but it seems to be happening more and more that the courts are involving themselves in second-guessing Parliament itself, and that is far outside their remit.

I'd like to see a system where higher-level judges were themselves elected, and could be binned as easily. Perhaps on a 5 year cycle same as MPs, but 2.5 years offset from the main elections. Right now judges are, quite literally, a law unto themselves, and are not delivering the judgements that the public wants.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Absolutely the courts should step in if an individual politician has broken the law, but it seems to be happening more and more that the courts are involving themselves in second-guessing Parliament itself, and that is far outside their remit.

I'd like to see a system where higher-level judges were themselves elected, and could be binned as easily. Perhaps on a 5 year cycle same as MPs, but 2.5 years offset from the main elections. Right now judges are, quite literally, a law unto themselves, and are not delivering the judgements that the public wants.
Not sure I want to see judges elected, end up like the Septics. No thanks. Courts have been given a power which they really always have had and used sparingly. It is the increase and manner of case that is changing. Remember, the courts can only consider if someone brings the matter to them. The courts though, especially the Supreme Court, have taken to this method of UK politics too easily and need to reflect in their role. A few cases turned down as not within their remit will put the chains on this - maybe.
 
Not sure I want to see judges elected, end up like the Septics. No thanks. Courts have been given a power which they really always have had and used sparingly. It is the increase and manner of case that is changing. Remember, the courts can only consider if someone brings the matter to them. The courts though, especially the Supreme Court, have taken to this method of UK politics too easily and need to reflect in their role. A few cases turned down as not within their remit will put the chains on this - maybe.

It doesn't need to be exactly the same mechanism, but an untouchable judiciary thumbing its collective noses at the public and Parliament alike is not a sustainable situation. We pay our taxes and we cast our votes but this cosy little clique ignores us and pursues its own agenda, brazenly. As you say they could simply start refusing cases outside of their remit, at which point we could all relax and say, the system works. But as it is, there is a "check and balance" that isn't working.

I'd extend this to the Bishops too, by the way, they are also wildly out of touch whilst being untouchable in the HoL, and involving themselves too much in politics.
 
The trend continues.

'MPs are to launch legal action to force the government to reveal details of hundreds of personal protective equipment (PPE) contracts, amid mounting complaints over the secrecy around the deals.

'A cross-party group of MPs has signed a pre-action letter accusing ministers of breaching transparency rules and demanding the immediate disclosure of the contracts, which are valued at more than £5bn. The legal letter claims: “Publication of the contracts themselves appears not to be happening in relation to Covid-19 contracts on a routine basis.”

'The Labour, Lib Dem and Green MPs cite a series of contracts over which concerns have been raised. Details of a contract awarded to Ayanda Capital worth £252m have not been published; the 50m masks it supplied were later deemed unsuitable for use by NHS workers. Details of another £32m contract awarded to Crisp Websites, a pest-control firm trading under the name of PestFix, have also not yet been published.'


 

HE117

LE
Fairy nuff, we need the courts as an oversee-er of politicians actions. All good and well, but who runs the same checks on the judiciary?
Err.. no we don't!

Political oversight has never been the role of the courts, and as you point out is not subject to check and balances...

Doesn't stop them trying though!
 
Of course I did. It was a deliberate mistake to see who would jump in feet first.

We have a winner - Did it feel good to get that off your chest, despite it highlighting what a petty individual that you are ?



I must be missing a trick. I was always under the impression that the Police should be investigating every crime. I am even willing to accept that investigation of some ( petty ) crimes includes nothing more than issuing a crime number for insurance purposes.

It is also interesting that you think.....

1. Allegations of fraud

2. Allegations of bribery & corruption

3. Allegations of sexual impropriety

.....should be dealt with by Internal Investigation.

Oil regulation gauge doesn't quite cover it.

I’m genuinely interested to know where political parties have “investigated” the above matters and resolved them and the police have been aware and not stepped in. At no time have I indicated that I thought that would be appropriate.

Again, if police haven’t been informed, or the aggrieved party specifically indicates that they do not wish to make an official complaint then police can consider that and not become involved.

Which specific offence under The Sexual Offences Act 2006 are you referring to when you say sexual impropriety?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I’m genuinely interested to know where political parties have “investigated” the above matters and resolved them and the police have been aware and not stepped in. At no time have I indicated that I thought that would be appropriate.

Again, if police haven’t been informed, or the aggrieved party specifically indicates that they do not wish to make an official complaint then police can consider that and not become involved.

Which specific offence under The Sexual Offences Act 2006 are you referring to when you say sexual impropriety?
Then please take it to a new thread and don't take this one off on a tangent.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Err.. no we don't!

Political oversight has never been the role of the courts, and as you point out is not subject to check and balances...

Doesn't stop them trying though!
Respectfully |I disagree with you. We do need the courts to oversee Parliament to ensure that they stay within their own remit. This has been done sparingly over the years but now seems to be the way to go for the losing parties. It is this latter theme that needs to be checked IMHO.

No parliament should be afraid of being held to their remit by the courts, provided it is supplied for the right reasons and non partial.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
You probably need to speak to the people who initially posted and to whom I responded.
and tried to expand into a discussion of specific Acts. Don't come the coy - you can't do it.
 
The trend continues.

'MPs are to launch legal action to force the government to reveal details of hundreds of personal protective equipment (PPE) contracts, amid mounting complaints over the secrecy around the deals.

'A cross-party group of MPs has signed a pre-action letter accusing ministers of breaching transparency rules and demanding the immediate disclosure of the contracts, which are valued at more than £5bn. The legal letter claims: “Publication of the contracts themselves appears not to be happening in relation to Covid-19 contracts on a routine basis.”

'The Labour, Lib Dem and Green MPs cite a series of contracts over which concerns have been raised. Details of a contract awarded to Ayanda Capital worth £252m have not been published; the 50m masks it supplied were later deemed unsuitable for use by NHS workers. Details of another £32m contract awarded to Crisp Websites, a pest-control firm trading under the name of PestFix, have also not yet been published.'


What a stupid article.
What exactly are they going to 'Sue' the government over?
Still, it must be true because, muh, the Gruniad.
Oh, I found this funny: "'The Labour, Lib Dem and Green MPs" Hardly a cross party group.
Still, Grrr Tories.
 
and tried to expand into a discussion of specific Acts. Don't come the coy - you can't do it.

That’s how threads move, sexual impropriety, could include adultery, letchery, watching lawful pornography on a Parliamentary computer and numerous other daily impropriety that doesn’t amount to crime and is perfectly appropriate for political parties to internally deal with without police involvement.
 

Yokel

LE
The biggest problem with Lawfare is the underlying and profoundly wrong assumption that highly charged political questions can be settled by legal pronouncement.

That the UK (at least the mainland bit) has an enviable record of civil peace compared with much of the rest of the world is due, in large part, to the ability of our constitution to flex and evolve. As the whole Brexit saga demonstrated very clearly, the greater involvement of the courts has much to do with ultra-liberal elites trying to impose agendas that can't generate sufficient support at the ballot box. That in itself should be cause enough to rein the judiciary in.

Lawfare - the continuation of politics by other means?

Absolute horseshit. If a crime has been committed then it does not require a complaint to be made by the victim for a criminal investigation to be launched by the police, nor for a prosecution to be sought by the Crown. Not in this country anyway.

Yes but they can decide to not press charges.

I disagree. In the UK, the politicians are the lawmakers, the justiciary should be there only to judge whether or not laws have been broken, not to make up the laws for themselves. The Government is held to account by the electorate.

In that case there would be no such thing as Case Law or legal precedents. Nor would Judicary working from first principles be able to create legal tests for future use, or set out things such as Wednesbury Unreasonableness.

Surely the Common Law system is that judges use legal principles and social norms, and the politicians that create and summed statutes?
 
I’m genuinely interested to know where political parties have “investigated” the above matters and resolved them and the police have been aware and not stepped in. At no time have I indicated that I thought that would be appropriate.

Again, if police haven’t been informed, or the aggrieved party specifically indicates that they do not wish to make an official complaint then police can consider that and not become involved.

Which specific offence under The Sexual Offences Act 2006 are you referring to when you say sexual impropriety?

Did you sleep through the whole SNP investigation into AS, which was botched and he was awarded £500,000 ?

There should have been NO SNP investigation. It should have been passed straight to the relevant ( Police ) authority.

As to what specific offences under The Sexual Offences Act 2006. I cannot actually remember them but I think there was over 12 charges laid against him.

Did you sleep through the whole expenses scandal ? ( Fraud )

Did you sleep through the Passports for cash Scandal ? ( Bribery and corruption )

That's just off the top of my head.

Perhaps it should be swept under the carpet as some of it was Labour MP's.
 
Fairy nuff, we need the courts as an oversee-er of politicians actions.
I think it's more a case of we need the course as overseers of the law, politicians being in theory equally subject to the laws of the land as anyone else.

Of course, if the politicians want to change the laws then they're held accountable (or not) through the normal democratic mechanisms.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I think it's more a case of we need the course as overseers of the law, politicians being in theory equally subject to the laws of the land as anyone else.

Of course, if the politicians want to change the laws then they're held accountable (or not) through the normal democratic mechanisms.
I note that you avoided answering the query about who holds the courts to their task.
 

Latest Threads

Top