-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
J Tourettes
Banned
vcassano1 said:
:lol
She's getting a fucking spanking in the comments over her confusion of debt/deficit.
Yeah it is, the awkward silence is a problem for the host, notphisheep said:
Ah well, as I said, I'm not allowed an opinion on this matter, I'm expected to curtsy every time we see
zomgbbqftw
Banned
vcassano1 said:
Between 2002 and 2008 economic growth was around 14% but public spending growth was something like 35% over the same period. If our national debt stopped growing in 2002, and Gordon Brown had a sensible economic policy our Debt/GDP ratio would be much, much lower today and we wouldn't be cutting spending all over the place.
The author has no understanding of finance and economics, therefore her views are moot. You can't grow government spending faster than economic growth without massive tax rises. The latter didn't come (though there were a number of stealth tax rises which is probably the reason for our slow growth) so we now have a huge deficit and our national debt is increasing at its fastest pace since the end of the war.
Ken Clarke's one of my favourite politicians, thought he came across very well in Question Time. And not just 'on script' either.
He did choose his words badly, but to jump on those words when they knew the actual points he was making was worse. I think Ed Milliband has come out worst in all this, like an opportunist member of a sixth form debating team.
When the subject is rape, that's a bit pathetic.
He did choose his words badly, but to jump on those words when they knew the actual points he was making was worse. I think Ed Milliband has come out worst in all this, like an opportunist member of a sixth form debating team.
When the subject is rape, that's a bit pathetic.
Thoughts on the latest QT:
- Law and order/justice isn't really my forte (I'm an avid fan of rehabilitation in the Scandinavian tradition) so I wasn't too intrigued by this
- That Daily Mail journalist was shite
- I wish the Liberty woman had more of a voice in politics, she always comes across as so smart but has never made an impact, she should sack her political party off and perhaps join governments through the house of lords as an unelected member of the cabinet (like Baroness Warsi)
- The audience was pretty good in general, much less stupid than the last couple
- One of those prisoners looked like he was gonna murder everyone
- Jack Straw and Kenneth Clarke came out pretty alright I'd say, although I dislike New Labour I've always been partial to Straw as a politician, and Kenneth Clarke seems to have a decent head on his shoulders, but opens his mouth a bit too much
- Would have liked a Lib Dem to have been on the panel, but I suppose you can't always get everything you want
- Law and order/justice isn't really my forte (I'm an avid fan of rehabilitation in the Scandinavian tradition) so I wasn't too intrigued by this
- That Daily Mail journalist was shite
- I wish the Liberty woman had more of a voice in politics, she always comes across as so smart but has never made an impact, she should sack her political party off and perhaps join governments through the house of lords as an unelected member of the cabinet (like Baroness Warsi)
- The audience was pretty good in general, much less stupid than the last couple
- One of those prisoners looked like he was gonna murder everyone
- Jack Straw and Kenneth Clarke came out pretty alright I'd say, although I dislike New Labour I've always been partial to Straw as a politician, and Kenneth Clarke seems to have a decent head on his shoulders, but opens his mouth a bit too much
- Would have liked a Lib Dem to have been on the panel, but I suppose you can't always get everything you want
JonathanEx
Member
If people get offended at the suggestion that some rape is less serious, why doe we have terms such as Facebook rape and yawn rape?
...anyway, people offended, time to go to super injunctions. It's tempting to new-thread this, but it's incredible.
Superinjunctions are injunctions that say "you can't say that this injunction exists, now take your freedom of expression and fuck off". But these are now getting ridiculed.
So today a Scottish newspaper published the identity of the man whose alleged to have shagged Imogen Thomas, and he's trying to sue Twitter and get identities of those people who have tweeted about him.
This leads to the bizarre world where news outlets are talking about a story with someone who cannot be named for legal reasons in a paper that cannot be named for legal reasons. So you see ITV News and they're having to pixelate the front cover of a newspaper.
In completely unrelated news, as this is a general UK discussion politics and current affairs thread, the Scottish Daily Record is a cracking read today and is also proving popular on TwitPic. And in sports, I'm upset Ryan Giggs didn't play today in Man U's last match of the season.
Oh and Giles Coren is being sued for contempt of court for revealing the identity of another footballer who's been sleeping around and trying to hide it.
...anyway, people offended, time to go to super injunctions. It's tempting to new-thread this, but it's incredible.
Superinjunctions are injunctions that say "you can't say that this injunction exists, now take your freedom of expression and fuck off". But these are now getting ridiculed.
So today a Scottish newspaper published the identity of the man whose alleged to have shagged Imogen Thomas, and he's trying to sue Twitter and get identities of those people who have tweeted about him.
This leads to the bizarre world where news outlets are talking about a story with someone who cannot be named for legal reasons in a paper that cannot be named for legal reasons. So you see ITV News and they're having to pixelate the front cover of a newspaper.
In completely unrelated news, as this is a general UK discussion politics and current affairs thread, the Scottish Daily Record is a cracking read today and is also proving popular on TwitPic. And in sports, I'm upset Ryan Giggs didn't play today in Man U's last match of the season.
Oh and Giles Coren is being sued for contempt of court for revealing the identity of another footballer who's been sleeping around and trying to hide it.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
There's no need for us to pussyfoot around these so-called super-injunctions. They have an inbuilt self-destruct mechanism.
Since the Spycatcher case in the 1990s an injunction against one newspaper has been effective against every other section of the media who know or should know of it.
But since the existence of the super-injunction itself is secret, and so, presumably, are its contents neither NeoGAF nor I know what is in it. And since we don't know what is in it and we could not be expected to know, then there is no contempt of court whatsoever in my stating outright that it appears that Ryan Giggs has been banging Imogen whatsername.
EDIT: so the recent suggestions that the press should be invited to attend secret injunction hearings, which at first sight seems to be a step in the right direction, is in fact quite the reverse. If the press were there in court it is that much easier to prove that they knew of the injunction and to prosecute them for breach of it.
Since the Spycatcher case in the 1990s an injunction against one newspaper has been effective against every other section of the media who know or should know of it.
But since the existence of the super-injunction itself is secret, and so, presumably, are its contents neither NeoGAF nor I know what is in it. And since we don't know what is in it and we could not be expected to know, then there is no contempt of court whatsoever in my stating outright that it appears that Ryan Giggs has been banging Imogen whatsername.
EDIT: so the recent suggestions that the press should be invited to attend secret injunction hearings, which at first sight seems to be a step in the right direction, is in fact quite the reverse. If the press were there in court it is that much easier to prove that they knew of the injunction and to prosecute them for breach of it.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Meadows said:
No, one's a footballer, and the other won Big Brother a while back. There's absolutely no connection between them at all.
Dark Machine
Member
phisheep said:
In that case...Gareth Barry has been playing much more away from home than usual recently hasn't he? And in related news I hear a Man City footballer just sued Twitter.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
It's insane that the press can report every last detail of a sensitive murder investigation with little threat of being in contempt of court, yet nobody can say a word about certain well-known individuals who can't keep their dicks in their pants without the threat of the mighty banhammer of justice.
What's the legal justification for being able to keep a lid on things for something like adultery?
What's the legal justification for being able to keep a lid on things for something like adultery?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
Doesn't matter, GAF is based in the US and is not subject to UK jurisdiction.
zomgbbqftw said:
Oh really? Then I can confirm this super injuction:
Gareth Bale and Ryan Giggs have had a gay affair that Imogen Thomas filmed.
edit:
So we're not under UK jurisdiction here on GAF? I thought GAF was based in Canada anyway (Vancouver)? Does that mean we couldn't be prosecuted by the UK government for something we said on here?
Why could that "I'm gonna blow up Robin Hood Airport if these flights don't resume!" guy on Twitter (based in the US) go to prison here if he posted onto an American server?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
iapetus said:
Reminds me of the wonderful line of F E Smith (when he was a mere barrister before becoming Lord Chancellor) who was a notoriously prickly advocate:
Judge: "Are you trying to show contempt for this court, Mr Smith?"
F. E. Smith : "No, My Lord. I am attempting to conceal it."
zomgbbqftw said:
Careful. That doesn't take any of us in the UK out of the UK jurisdiction.
It does mean that GAF is well-placed to resist attempts at disclosing information about individual posters (but I really wouldn't want to put EviLore through that trouble), and better-positioned than UK boards at avoiding liabililty, but any of us who knew the existence and contents of the injunction beforehand could be liable for contempt in the UK. If they could find us of course. And of course I didn't, and neither did you.
But still, things like libel could still stitch posters up on this board despite the fact it is hosted/managed etc in the US. So there's not a completely free hand, but the chances of a permaban are probably far greater than the chances of a prosecution.
Meadows said:
Because his user name was his real name so they could track him down easily.
Being on an American/Canadian/Chinese server is no protection from the law so long as you are under its jurisdiction. And if they can find you - which is easier than it sounds.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
The extradition treaty with the US allows the government to prosecute people who they think are a threat to national security, and the comment on Twitter by that guy could be construed as one. So even though his comments were made in the US he was effectively extradited to be tried in the UK.
The stuff about Ryan Giggs doesn't pose any kind of threat to national security and is not covered by the extradition treaty, and all comments on Twitter (about this subject at least) are covered by the US Constitution (specifically the first amendment). If Shillings (the law firm involved) successfully sued Twitter (they won't btw) the first amendment would be suspended in the US.
The only way these celebrities can stop people on Facebook/Twitter can stop us talking about it is to petition to government to include breach of an injunction in the extradition treaty with the US. That is unlikely as the government are already very irritated by the injunctions and won't amend an important treaty like the one with the US on the whim of a few celebrities.
The stuff about Ryan Giggs doesn't pose any kind of threat to national security and is not covered by the extradition treaty, and all comments on Twitter (about this subject at least) are covered by the US Constitution (specifically the first amendment). If Shillings (the law firm involved) successfully sued Twitter (they won't btw) the first amendment would be suspended in the US.
The only way these celebrities can stop people on Facebook/Twitter can stop us talking about it is to petition to government to include breach of an injunction in the extradition treaty with the US. That is unlikely as the government are already very irritated by the injunctions and won't amend an important treaty like the one with the US on the whim of a few celebrities.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
phisheep said:
As I understand the situation, making a comment on GAF is the equivalent of having a conversation in the US (or Canada as it turns out) and as such the UK government has no right to prosecute us for any discussions made on this forum or any other discussion boards not based in the UK.
That's how my uncle (a solicitor) explained it to me, but he may have simplified it somewhat.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Just realised the superinjunction law doesn't apply to me because I'm Scottish and in Scotland.
Gotta love having our own legal system.
Gotta love having our own legal system.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Guerrillas in the Mist said:
True. The Herald had him on the front page this morning. It's all about to come down.
I have also heard that some journalists want to set up a free newspaper/magazine based in France which they give to people crossing the channel so that everything they say isn't under UK law, but the information gets out there like the Spycatcher case.
I hope they are supported and the law is amended so that rich people can't take advantages of loopholes. We live in a globalised world, surely it can't be that hard getting information into the UK!
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
zomgbbqftw said:
Like I said, this law should be used to keep details from sensitive criminal cases under wraps etc. Instead wealthy folk are using it to cover their tracks when they've been a bit naughty. The idea that people could do jail time for breaking a story like that is insane.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
zomgbbqftw said:
I don't believe that is correct. I remember forums and bloggers not based in the UK getting threatened/shutdown by Carter Ruck in the Madeleine McCann case.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Either your uncle oversimplified it or you oversimplified it in your own mind. Or both.
Depends which bit of law gets involved.
For example, if you and I make a contract in a GAF thread that will be enforceable in the UK because we are both here - doesn't matter where the server is.
Libel depends on where the libel is published (which is pretty well anywhere it is or can be read, which these days is near as dammit the whole world).
Blackmail can be prosecuted wherever the threat was made, and if either of us blackmailed or was blackmailed by someone else that could come under UK jurisdiction.
Certainly breach of official secrets would be prosecutable in the UK wherever the server was, and even (possibly) if the poster were outside the UK.
There are loads of others as well.
Of course, there are difficulties with some of these - like mostly tracing down the person who is alleged to have committed whatever offence it is.
zomgbbqftw said:
Now that's just plain wrong. The guy was a UK citizen, he was in the UK at the time and his comment was on a public network. It makes no difference where the network was based (this wasn't even raised as a defence in court). And because he was here already it had absolutely nothing to do with extradition, which is purely to do with the business of physiocally moving people from place to place and jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
So far as I'm aware, nobody is suing Twitter. There is (it seems) a legal approach to request Twitter to reveal details of some poster under suspicion of some crime so that action can then be taken in this country.
The US constitution gives no protection to Twitter users who are not US citizens or are outside the US (I know there's a grey area in that statement but I can't be bothered to look it up). A Russian in Russia posting on Twitter against Russian law has no grounds to claim protection under US law. And even if theoretically he did I doubt the Russian courts would recognise it.
Given what I've said above this isn't really on point any more.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Fair enough. Thanks for setting me straight! 
Ancelotti said: I respect Chelseas decision. I spent two fantastic years at this club. I think I did a good job. Now, I think about my future. I would prefer to stay in the Premier League.
I think he really wants to stay in this country. It's widely known he doubled the number of English language lessons he was doing only a few months ago, even when there already mutterings of him being shown the door.
I think he really wants to stay in this country. It's widely known he doubled the number of English language lessons he was doing only a few months ago, even when there already mutterings of him being shown the door.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Wes said:
Err, wrong thread?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
From the Guardian:
People were ridiculing John Hemming for his secret courts/trials comments, but this could be what he was referring to. The whole system needs reforming and the judiciary need to see that they are not in charge of lawmaking. Parliament needs to smack them down, something that was sorely missing in the Labour era.
People were ridiculing John Hemming for his secret courts/trials comments, but this could be what he was referring to. The whole system needs reforming and the judiciary need to see that they are not in charge of lawmaking. Parliament needs to smack them down, something that was sorely missing in the Labour era.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
zomgbbqftw said:
That may be a bit over the top, zomg.
Judges have always made law in areas that Parliament hasn't got round to legislating for yet. To take an extreme example, there is no statute against murder in England and Wales, yet we don't see MPs ranting and raving at judges for holding murder trials against the wil of Parliament do we?
Besides, this isn't one of those cases. The UK government signed up to the Convention on Human Rights in 1954, and this was incorporated into English law by parliament in the Human Rights Act 1998, and that treaty and that Act give rise to a right to privacy in English law. Given that it is there, it is the job of the judges to apply it or at least try to, and that seems to be what they are doing.
Now. of course, Parliament can legislate to change the law, or to change the way it applies, but to complain that this is somehow judges usurping the functions of Parliament by applying a law that Parliament itself passed is disingenuous to say the least.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I get that they are applying the law, but activist judges like Eady see themselves as the law, and they are usurping the function of Parliament which is the ultimate court and has the highest privilege.
Also, a lot of the problem arises when it is left up a judge like Eady to decide what is and isn't in the public interest. They very out of touch with reality. I have the full case details of the injunction the Guardian are referring to and believe me it is just another rich and powerful man being protected by activist judiciary.
Someone I know had a good idea, we should use a system similar to the one used by the US. Judges would be elected to the Supreme Court by MPs and Lords and would serve for life. It would assert the ultimate supremacy of Parliament, the current system doesn't involve Parliament and the judiciary are answerable to no one which is surely a bad thing.
I also heard that the Europeans aren't too pleased with Parliament flouting the HRA of 1998, and they want to assert their supremacy over Parliament. However, they have realised the cat is out of the bag and they have no way of enforcing their judgements in the UK after the prisoner votes debacle. It makes me think that this argument has been engineered by right wing politicians and media to force a bust up with Europe over the HRA and force it to be rescinded and replaced with a new British Bill of Rights where freedom of expression/speech trumps all.
Also, a lot of the problem arises when it is left up a judge like Eady to decide what is and isn't in the public interest. They very out of touch with reality. I have the full case details of the injunction the Guardian are referring to and believe me it is just another rich and powerful man being protected by activist judiciary.
Someone I know had a good idea, we should use a system similar to the one used by the US. Judges would be elected to the Supreme Court by MPs and Lords and would serve for life. It would assert the ultimate supremacy of Parliament, the current system doesn't involve Parliament and the judiciary are answerable to no one which is surely a bad thing.
I also heard that the Europeans aren't too pleased with Parliament flouting the HRA of 1998, and they want to assert their supremacy over Parliament. However, they have realised the cat is out of the bag and they have no way of enforcing their judgements in the UK after the prisoner votes debacle. It makes me think that this argument has been engineered by right wing politicians and media to force a bust up with Europe over the HRA and force it to be rescinded and replaced with a new British Bill of Rights where freedom of expression/speech trumps all.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Fred the Shred's bit on the side has been named and so has MrHonZam.
The second case, the one that the Guardian were referring to, is very weird. To me it looks like blackmail is being used as an excuse by people to gain injunctions. I find it hard to believe that blackmail would be used in any of the cases I have seen, but are mentioned to gain the injunction.
There is a clear case of breach in corporate governance rules in the case of Fred Goodwin. I expect a full investigation to be carried out once she becomes widely known.
The second case, the one that the Guardian were referring to, is very weird. To me it looks like blackmail is being used as an excuse by people to gain injunctions. I find it hard to believe that blackmail would be used in any of the cases I have seen, but are mentioned to gain the injunction.
There is a clear case of breach in corporate governance rules in the case of Fred Goodwin. I expect a full investigation to be carried out once she becomes widely known.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Seems we are streets apart on this topic zomg. Let me just try to put my spin on it and we'll see where we end up.
Chances are you know all of this anyway, but I thought it worth writing out for anyone else who wants to play. I guess that if we were discussing this over a pint we'd reach common ground eventually - say after the first three.
I don't see anything greatly wrong with activist judges in principle. Lord Denning was a great one for example and we've had a few more in the higher courts more recently. They are often a very strong force for the good, but I hasten to add I have some reservations as well.
Most of the good activist judging happens in the appeal courts, where a judge rarely sits alone, where judicial opinions emerge through dissenting judgments and eventually make some sort of consensus that swings the balance into a new approach to whatever the legal issue is. Out-of-line judgments in the courts of first instance tend to corrected through the appeals process and precedent. But there's a particular problem with defamation actions in the High Court, in that the actions themselves are so expensive the appeals are usually prohibitively so - so they don't happen, the case settles out of court and judicial errors never get corrected. That's why Mr Justice Eady has had his own way for so long and the law of defamation got so abused. That's probably a hole in the judicial system, as there is no mechanism for a higher court to intervene of its own volition and there is no way to compel the parties to appeal using what is, after all, their own money. (It's a bit different in criminal cases where the Attorney General can intervene, and maybe we need a similar mechanism in civil cases - in fact that might just do the trick of getting the right level of Parliamentary intervention without clogging the courts up).
Privacy law is in a similar position but only because it is so new that there is little caselaw to rely on. Short of parliamentary intervention a couple of good appeals should sort it out.
I don't think it is quite fair to say that judges are usurping the role of parliament if they are operating in an area in which parliament has declined to legislate or not bothered, or not got round to. The job of a judge (in civil cases) is to make a decision. He can't defer it indefinitely on the offchance that Parliament will legislate at some point in the future and can't not reach a decision. If a decision is called for and there is no relevant statute, that doesn't absolve the judge from reaching a judgment. If parliament didn't make the right laws in the first place that is parliament's fault, and it ill-becomes them to blame the judges.
Oh, and it is no longer quite true to say that Parliament is the ultimate court in the land. Since the Supreme Court replaced the judicial committee of the Lords, Parliament has nearly no judicial functions left - only as regards its own members (and recent events on the expenses scandal have shown that to be limited) and on the dismissal of judges for not being of good behaviour. That's about it. Parliament just isn't geared up to make judgments in individual cases, not any more.
Again, it is probably not quite fair to claim that judges are 'out of touch with reality'. It's a common claim with some factual basis in the usual background and upbringing and experience they have, but in the main judges see, day in and day out, far more of a wider variety of life than most of us ever do - even if it is seen from the height of a bench and through the window of evidence. The judges I have met socially all seemed very sane and worldy-wise.
Injunctions - of the ordinary sort - are an essential tool in all manner of cases, and aren't reserved for the rich and powerful.
I'm not familiar with the case you mention, but from the brief details you've given it seems like it is an essentially private civil matter of whether or not there was a breach of trust, and it is this sort of thing where the rich (and possibly powerful) are at particular risk of bad publicity of matters come out before a trial and get into the newspapers (who will of course report the initial scandal and not bother to report the trial if it isn't interesting enough) - and it seems perfectly sensible that this should happen. It isn't that the remedy is only available to the powerful (and possibly rich) or that they are particularly being protected by the judiciary, but that they are particularly vulnerable, because of being newsworthy, to newspaper intrusion.
Put it this way, there were probably something over 1000 injunctions granted in various courts over the last month, and we don't care about any of them except the ones that are newsworthy. Now just because someone is newsworthy does not mean they should not have the same protection of the law as everybody else gets.
This separation of powers is a bit of a tricky balance.
You seem to be saying that the judiciary should be answerable to parliament (though proposing a rather roundabout route for that to happen). Well, that's all well and dandy except when it is Parliament or the government itself that is interfering illegally with citizens, and that's when you need the judiciary to be independent. There's a whole string of cases that limit the arbitrary acts and discretions of government/parliament going all the way back to 1607 and probably before - and they're still going and still protecting us, like the recent business over control orders for example.
You make the judiciary accountable to a Parliament that is itself dominated by a government and you end up with a whole load of dengerous stuff happening.
I'm not saying it is perfect now by any means. But on the other hand, the constitution of the Supreme Court seems to be the least of our problems. It's getting the right cases in front of them that is the bigger problem.
I'm inclined to think - given some of the recent shenanigans in Parliament - that having the Supreme Court answerable to nobody is way better than having Parliament answerable to nobody.
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the Europeans (of whom I am one, and so are you) are displeased with the UK government disregarding a judgment, especially from a court that the UK was instrumental in setting up and provided much of the mechanisms for and whose judgments the UK is very happy to wave around as against other countries, and whose jurisdiction is enshrined in both a treaty and an Act of Parliament.
Plus (and see your previous point) the judges get elected by a Parliamentary Assembly. So that should give them some legitimacy, right?
You might be right about why this row has come about. But a British Bill of Rights wouldn't get rid of the Treaty, and nor should it. And if it doesn't, then it doesn't get rid of the ECHR's judgment being final, and it doesn't get rid of anything else that's relevant either. It would just be noise for the sake of it.
Chances are you know all of this anyway, but I thought it worth writing out for anyone else who wants to play. I guess that if we were discussing this over a pint we'd reach common ground eventually - say after the first three.
zomgbbqftw said:
I don't see anything greatly wrong with activist judges in principle. Lord Denning was a great one for example and we've had a few more in the higher courts more recently. They are often a very strong force for the good, but I hasten to add I have some reservations as well.
Most of the good activist judging happens in the appeal courts, where a judge rarely sits alone, where judicial opinions emerge through dissenting judgments and eventually make some sort of consensus that swings the balance into a new approach to whatever the legal issue is. Out-of-line judgments in the courts of first instance tend to corrected through the appeals process and precedent. But there's a particular problem with defamation actions in the High Court, in that the actions themselves are so expensive the appeals are usually prohibitively so - so they don't happen, the case settles out of court and judicial errors never get corrected. That's why Mr Justice Eady has had his own way for so long and the law of defamation got so abused. That's probably a hole in the judicial system, as there is no mechanism for a higher court to intervene of its own volition and there is no way to compel the parties to appeal using what is, after all, their own money. (It's a bit different in criminal cases where the Attorney General can intervene, and maybe we need a similar mechanism in civil cases - in fact that might just do the trick of getting the right level of Parliamentary intervention without clogging the courts up).
Privacy law is in a similar position but only because it is so new that there is little caselaw to rely on. Short of parliamentary intervention a couple of good appeals should sort it out.
I don't think it is quite fair to say that judges are usurping the role of parliament if they are operating in an area in which parliament has declined to legislate or not bothered, or not got round to. The job of a judge (in civil cases) is to make a decision. He can't defer it indefinitely on the offchance that Parliament will legislate at some point in the future and can't not reach a decision. If a decision is called for and there is no relevant statute, that doesn't absolve the judge from reaching a judgment. If parliament didn't make the right laws in the first place that is parliament's fault, and it ill-becomes them to blame the judges.
Oh, and it is no longer quite true to say that Parliament is the ultimate court in the land. Since the Supreme Court replaced the judicial committee of the Lords, Parliament has nearly no judicial functions left - only as regards its own members (and recent events on the expenses scandal have shown that to be limited) and on the dismissal of judges for not being of good behaviour. That's about it. Parliament just isn't geared up to make judgments in individual cases, not any more.
Again, it is probably not quite fair to claim that judges are 'out of touch with reality'. It's a common claim with some factual basis in the usual background and upbringing and experience they have, but in the main judges see, day in and day out, far more of a wider variety of life than most of us ever do - even if it is seen from the height of a bench and through the window of evidence. The judges I have met socially all seemed very sane and worldy-wise.
Injunctions - of the ordinary sort - are an essential tool in all manner of cases, and aren't reserved for the rich and powerful.
I'm not familiar with the case you mention, but from the brief details you've given it seems like it is an essentially private civil matter of whether or not there was a breach of trust, and it is this sort of thing where the rich (and possibly powerful) are at particular risk of bad publicity of matters come out before a trial and get into the newspapers (who will of course report the initial scandal and not bother to report the trial if it isn't interesting enough) - and it seems perfectly sensible that this should happen. It isn't that the remedy is only available to the powerful (and possibly rich) or that they are particularly being protected by the judiciary, but that they are particularly vulnerable, because of being newsworthy, to newspaper intrusion.
Put it this way, there were probably something over 1000 injunctions granted in various courts over the last month, and we don't care about any of them except the ones that are newsworthy. Now just because someone is newsworthy does not mean they should not have the same protection of the law as everybody else gets.
This separation of powers is a bit of a tricky balance.
You seem to be saying that the judiciary should be answerable to parliament (though proposing a rather roundabout route for that to happen). Well, that's all well and dandy except when it is Parliament or the government itself that is interfering illegally with citizens, and that's when you need the judiciary to be independent. There's a whole string of cases that limit the arbitrary acts and discretions of government/parliament going all the way back to 1607 and probably before - and they're still going and still protecting us, like the recent business over control orders for example.
You make the judiciary accountable to a Parliament that is itself dominated by a government and you end up with a whole load of dengerous stuff happening.
I'm not saying it is perfect now by any means. But on the other hand, the constitution of the Supreme Court seems to be the least of our problems. It's getting the right cases in front of them that is the bigger problem.
I'm inclined to think - given some of the recent shenanigans in Parliament - that having the Supreme Court answerable to nobody is way better than having Parliament answerable to nobody.
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the Europeans (of whom I am one, and so are you) are displeased with the UK government disregarding a judgment, especially from a court that the UK was instrumental in setting up and provided much of the mechanisms for and whose judgments the UK is very happy to wave around as against other countries, and whose jurisdiction is enshrined in both a treaty and an Act of Parliament.
Plus (and see your previous point) the judges get elected by a Parliamentary Assembly. So that should give them some legitimacy, right?
You might be right about why this row has come about. But a British Bill of Rights wouldn't get rid of the Treaty, and nor should it. And if it doesn't, then it doesn't get rid of the ECHR's judgment being final, and it doesn't get rid of anything else that's relevant either. It would just be noise for the sake of it.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Meadows said:
The editor of The Sun wields far more influence than any judge, and he isn't elected either.
At least that's the snappy, but unfair response.
More to the point, though, is that I can't make head nor tail of what platform a judge would be elected on. The judge's job is to decide a dispute between two parties in accordance with justice and the law and the evidence before him. No candidate for a judicial post could claim that he will protect one section of society over another, or favour particular court actions, or bend the evidence so that more alleged rapists get convicted, or give greater weight to public opinion, or favour the policies of a particular political party or anything like that, because none of these fall within a judge's discretion.
Besides, any such electoral platform, any such visible bias, would lead to a massive increase in the number of appeals on the grounds of unfairness, and to more, rather than less, usurpation of the role of Parliament.
In practise, this would not happen though, because a judge who had a public and particular bias towards one party in a case would be obliged to recuse himself from the case for fear of such unfairness - so the very cases that he has claimed to want to influence are exactly the ones he will not be allowed to hear.
The judiciary isn't like Parliament. It doesn't act as a body, each judge hears one case at a time. What we need from our judges is not that they be representative, but that they be impartial - and that's the best we can hope for and mostly what we get (very few cases get appealed or hit the headlines). But impartiality is the very last thing that you get from people who stand for election to something, because getting elected is all about partiality, about favouring your side over the other, about doing the other guy down. So electing judges would probably lead to more bad judges.
Heyho, that's my gut response anyway. Going to go dump some rubbish at the tip. Back later.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
phisheep said:
True, I always believe in public accountability is very important, and I suppose my opinion that Parliament is the most important branch of legislature reflects that opinion.
Agreed. Judges do try and fill the holes in legislature that Parliament have left behind, my issue is that they are a wholly unelected body which means any laws they implement does not reflect public opinion. It might, but unlike politicians they have no one to answer to, so usually it doesn't.
Yes, I suppose it has changed now. All the more reason to strengthen the power to the executive and legislative branches of government, judges have become too powerful under the current system. Even the Lords is somewhat accountable.
I don't take any issue with most judges or junior magistrates, it's the ones at the top of the tree that irritate me. Justice Eady has literally rewritten privacy laws in the UK as according to his reading and other judges now follow his lead on these issues.
Definitely agree with you here, injunctions are a useful tool hat can be used by the judiciary in court cases where the outcome of the case would be threatened by it being reported. I'll send you a PM on the details of the case in question, but you'll see my point I think.
My issue is that of the superinjunctions in place around half are in place to stop the airing of dirty laundry of celebrities and footballers. This is an abuse of the law, and Justice Eady seems more than happy to continue to do so.
It is a tricky balance, but making the judiciary accountable to Parliament would make them, however indirectly, accountable to the people. Some may say this is undesirable, but surely the will of the people should be reflected in all parts of government. It already is in the executive and legislative, but the judiciary is completely detached from public opinion which allows them to make incredibly unpopular decisions, and, a lot of the time, wrong decisions while hiding behind the ECHR and HRA. Take a look at the terrorist deportation trials, no other country has a problem deporting terrorists, how is it that our judges interpret the law so that it protects terrorists and foreign prisoners.
I don't see myself as particularly European, maybe that is why I support the cause.
I think the solution is probably going to be a sovereignty bill which puts our judiciary above the ECHR so that judges don't need to defer to ECHR rulings for UK cases. If that is impossible under the current laws then the HRA will be repealed to make it possible. It will probably be replaced with a British bill of rights.
Many people forget that Europe needs us much more than we need them so if we were to repeal the HRA and exit from the Council of Europe they wouldn't do anything about it. Just like they haven't done anything about the government's refusal to give votes to prisoners, they won't do anything about our extrication from the ECHR and ECJ. Don't forget that the UK contributes around £10bn a year to the EU, and if we were to leave it would probably start an exodus from Scandinavia, the Netherlands who don't want to be in the EU either. They would just let us stay in the EU and operate outside of the Council of Europe as an observer member.
Probably the problem then.zomgbbqftw said:
A "British bill of rights" would just be another layer of bullshit over the perfectly acceptable ECHR. The problem is faulty application of the law, not faulty law.
The EEC did pretty well without us. It's combative nonsense like this that makes the English out to be a nation of morons. You really think the Dutch would leave the EU if we did? You really think that we lose £10bn a year and don't make it back? Ridiculous.
Speedymanic
Banned
UK may have to slow pace of cuts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13558997
Any of the more learned gaffers on this subject think he's right/wrong?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13558997
Any of the more learned gaffers on this subject think he's right/wrong?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Wes said:
Not really, she and Eric Pickles have just had a big disagreement over the nuclear waste dump.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
Which is, I think, the same position as most people in the country. It sucks, a lot, that people have to lose their jobs, but if we kept borrowing and spending to pump the economy the resulting crash would be even worse. We only need to take a look at Greece or Portugal (soon to be Spain and Italy, take a look at their latest 10y bond yields) to see what would have been if Brown was still in charge.
The UK as a country should have a mission over the next generation, sadly our one, and that is to become self-sustaining. Our economy should be based around production, design and manufacturing; not consumption, construction and debt. The last 20 years of the latter is what has ruined this country, mass consumerism supported by massive private and government debt. It has left this country in the worst fiscal position since the war.
Even worse is that previously the country was able to export the Empire or Commonwealth, but since the rise of Asian countries and China our good are much more expensive or pose poor value for money so fixing our economy is that much more difficult. Domestic demand must support domestic goods, it's no use that our money is being spent on Chinese or German goods when people in our own country can't find jobs. Even worse is the government borrowing money only to give it away to vested interests in the public sector who would spend it on the same Chinese goods.
Anyway, I just think that the recession has been a very rude awakening for us as a country (probably the US too) and we need to rise to the challenge or we will fail and that is going to mean worse cuts and higher unemployment.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Speedymanic said:
Even if this were good economics it would be bad politics.
And actually it would be bad economics as well, because whatever economists may think about what would be a sustainable level of cuts that's almost certainly not what we'll end up with. The political ins and outs will lead to something different, and giving ground on cuts now will almost certainly lead in time to a lower-than-optimum level of deficit reduction. Besides, even in bad times, certainty is important for all manner of things from forecasting to business cycles to resourse planning, tax planning and so on. Dithering makes pretty well everything worse (compare '70s to '80s for example).