Today I'm angry about.....

[Worthy4England]

Indeed, it's been going on for ever.

[bobo the clown]

Indeed, it's been going on for ever.

... well 800 pages of it anyway. That's a lot of anger.

[Worthy4England]

Grrrrrrr

[Montreal Wanderer]

To be clear. Everyone likes to knock the lawyers and the judges, but they follow what Parliament says. There's plenty law that isn't made by Parliament, but that only remains the law so long as Parliament doesn't overrule it. It's a massive constitutional point that plenty don't seem to understand: This isn't America; if Congress passes a law, the US Supreme court can rule that law unconstitutional, and decide not to be bound by it. That cannot happen here.

This is a little confusing for me. Any Supreme Court (the US, the UK or Canada) makes its judgments on the basis of law surely. It is only when there is a conflict of laws that parliaments may get overruled. In the US the Constitution trumps other laws and the Supreme Court rules on that basis. In Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms trumps other laws and so our Supreme Court rules. I'm not clear in the UK what trumps what. But if Westminster passed a law which contravened, say, your Human Rights Act, could not your Supreme Court declare it invalid even though Parliament passed it?

[Prufrock]

No, there are no 'higher' laws which trump any others. There are no laws that legally Parliament couldn't simply repeal or change simply by passing an Act the usual way. Any difficulties are political rather than legal.

The situation is a little more complicated than usual though when it comes to the two enacting european Acts, the European Communities Act 1972 which incorporated EU (as is now) law into ours, and the Human Rights Act 1998 which made the ECHR part of our law.

The ECA *requires* judges to read national legislation in line with EU law. So if EU law says only blue cars are allowed, and UK law says only red cars are allowed, a judge would perform a weird 'reading' of the word 'blue' as 'red'. This is often where the myth of loss of sovereignty comes from, and why people think we're 'dictated to' by Brussels. However, this trumping of UK law by EU law only exists because Parliament allows it to. Parliament could remove the ECA from the statute book at any time and then judges would go back to reading the word 'red' as 'red'. There is a very small minority academic view that the ECA does have some special status but this is almost universally seen, correctly IMO, as false.

The HRA is slightly different in that it requires judges to read national law in line with the ECHR as far as is *possible to do so* (this was deliberately drafted this way to be 'softer' than the ECA had been. This leads to some creative judgments, but ultimately, to continue with the example above, there is no way you can read 'red' as meaning 'blue' and so the court would follow national legislation. If Parliament did pass a law that contravened the HRA, the nearest we have to striking it down is that the court would issue a 'declaration of incompatibility'. They would still apply the law, but they'd also say that it's not compatible with the ECHR. Also, when announcing a bill which they think contravenes the HRA, MPs are required to say so. It doesn't stop them carrying on though. These are checks that mean it has to be made clear we're breaching the ECHR, but it doesn't stop us doing it.

Both of those difficulties only apply because the ECA and the HRA remain good law, though. If they were repealed tomorrow (in the ordinary way, no need for 2/3rds majority or anything like that), the courts would have to stop applying them. Parliament is supreme here, and we don't have the written constitutional checks and balances that many other countries do.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

There is a very small minority academic view that the ECA does have some special status but this is almost universally seen, correctly IMO, as false.

Has the law moved on since my day?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_ ... ty_Council" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Montreal Wanderer]

No, there are no 'higher' laws which trump any others. There are no laws that legally Parliament couldn't simply repeal or change simply by passing an Act the usual way. Any difficulties are political rather than legal.

The situation is a little more complicated than usual though when it comes to the two enacting european Acts, the European Communities Act 1972 which incorporated EU (as is now) law into ours, and the Human Rights Act 1998 which made the ECHR part of our law.

The ECA *requires* judges to read national legislation in line with EU law. So if EU law says only blue cars are allowed, and UK law says only red cars are allowed, a judge would perform a weird 'reading' of the word 'blue' as 'red'. This is often where the myth of loss of sovereignty comes from, and why people think we're 'dictated to' by Brussels. However, this trumping of UK law by EU law only exists because Parliament allows it to. Parliament could remove the ECA from the statute book at any time and then judges would go back to reading the word 'red' as 'red'. There is a very small minority academic view that the ECA does have some special status but this is almost universally seen, correctly IMO, as false.

The HRA is slightly different in that it requires judges to read national law in line with the ECHR as far as is *possible to do so* (this was deliberately drafted this way to be 'softer' than the ECA had been. This leads to some creative judgments, but ultimately, to continue with the example above, there is no way you can read 'red' as meaning 'blue' and so the court would follow national legislation. If Parliament did pass a law that contravened the HRA, the nearest we have to striking it down is that the court would issue a 'declaration of incompatibility'. They would still apply the law, but they'd also say that it's not compatible with the ECHR. Also, when announcing a bill which they think contravenes the HRA, MPs are required to say so. It doesn't stop them carrying on though. These are checks that mean it has to be made clear we're breaching the ECHR, but it doesn't stop us doing it.

Both of those difficulties only apply because the ECA and the HRA remain good law, though. If they were repealed tomorrow (in the ordinary way, no need for 2/3rds majority or anything like that), the courts would have to stop applying them. Parliament is supreme here, and we don't have the written constitutional checks and balances that many other countries do.

I guess this means that rights enshrined in your Human Rights Act could just be done away with by Parliament once hoboh is elected. Hmmmm! The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be amended but it is not quite so simple as passing an act in Parliament. Constitutional change here is probably even more complicated (read difficult) than the US version.

[Prufrock]

There is a very small minority academic view that the ECA does have some special status but this is almost universally seen, correctly IMO, as false.

Has the law moved on since my day?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_ ... ty_Council" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, when I said special 'status', they were arguing that the ECA couldn't be repealed by Parliament and that they'd have to get 'permission' from Brussels to leave.

What has happened is that judges recognised the logical necessity that any statute which states future legislation must be read in line with it *must* require express repeal rather than implied. It may be a semantic argument but I'd argue that doesn't give it any special 'status'. The point remaining is that Parliament could get rid of it all tomorrow with a simple vote if they wanted. There were some who didn't think they could.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Why can't I have air con at home that has some middle ground? Because of the end of summer high humidity it is either sweat dribbling down your back into your crack, or don a winter coat freezing. Switching between the 2 is done by altering the thermostat by 1 degree celsius. I've spent the whole day up and down changing the thermostat

[Gary the Enfield]

Why can't I have air con at home that has some middle ground? Because of the end of summer high humidity it is either sweat dribbling down your back into your crack, or don a winter coat freezing. Switching between the 2 is done by altering the thermostat by 1 degree celsius. I've spent the whole day up and down changing the thermostat

It could be your menopause. Have you considered HRT?

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Why can't I have air con at home that has some middle ground? Because of the end of summer high humidity it is either sweat dribbling down your back into your crack, or don a winter coat freezing. Switching between the 2 is done by altering the thermostat by 1 degree celsius. I've spent the whole day up and down changing the thermostat

It could be your menopause. Have you considered HRT?

I'd rather consider an SRT

[Gary the Enfield]

Why can't I have air con at home that has some middle ground? Because of the end of summer high humidity it is either sweat dribbling down your back into your crack, or don a winter coat freezing. Switching between the 2 is done by altering the thermostat by 1 degree celsius. I've spent the whole day up and down changing the thermostat

It could be your menopause. Have you considered HRT?

I'd rather consider an SRT

One of these?



Definitely menopausal.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Why can't I have air con at home that has some middle ground? Because of the end of summer high humidity it is either sweat dribbling down your back into your crack, or don a winter coat freezing. Switching between the 2 is done by altering the thermostat by 1 degree celsius. I've spent the whole day up and down changing the thermostat

It could be your menopause. Have you considered HRT?

I'd rather consider an SRT

One of these?



Definitely menopausal.

As if I'd manage to get in that, let alone get out of it. One of these would do...

[2399]

ARG


Angry.

2:14AM

[bwfcdan94]

Train cancellations resulting in a 6 mile walk down country roads which are barely enough big enough to fit 2 cars never mind 2 cars a person. Possibly the most stupid thing I have ever done, but it was better than waiting 90 mins for the next one. Before anyone says get a bike, I would have been run over if I had been on a bike - I had to jump onto 2 foot muddy banks(which were wet so constantly crumbling) and hold onto tree's to avoid the cars. Won't be doing that again.

[Hoboh]

Boris Johnson has said thousands of potential terrorists are being monitored by the security services in London.

The London mayor said an attack was highly likely, causing the raising of the national terror threat level from substantial to severe more than a month ago.

“In London we’re very, very vigilant and very, very concerned. Every day – as you saw recently, we had to raise the threat level – every day the security services are involved in thousands of operations,” he told the Telegraph. “There are probably in the low thousands of people that we are monitoring in London.”

Hells Bells!!!

If that is not enough to shut the door on immigrants then what is?

[Worthy4England]

Boris Johnson has said thousands of potential terrorists are being monitored by the security services in London.

The London mayor said an attack was highly likely, causing the raising of the national terror threat level from substantial to severe more than a month ago.

“In London we’re very, very vigilant and very, very concerned. Every day – as you saw recently, we had to raise the threat level – every day the security services are involved in thousands of operations,” he told the Telegraph. “There are probably in the low thousands of people that we are monitoring in London.”

Hells Bells!!!

If that is not enough to shut the door on immigrants then what is?

Well, something more concrete than "probably" and "potential" would be a start...

If the number is in the low thousands, and the security services are involved in thousands of operations every day, then it would take them well inside a week to conduct an operation against each of the low thousands of terrorists...

So someone is clearly talking bollocks.

[Hoboh]

Boris Johnson has said thousands of potential terrorists are being monitored by the security services in London.

The London mayor said an attack was highly likely, causing the raising of the national terror threat level from substantial to severe more than a month ago.

“In London we’re very, very vigilant and very, very concerned. Every day – as you saw recently, we had to raise the threat level – every day the security services are involved in thousands of operations,” he told the Telegraph. “There are probably in the low thousands of people that we are monitoring in London.”

Hells Bells!!!

If that is not enough to shut the door on immigrants then what is?

Well, something more concrete than "probably" and "potential" would be a start...

If the number is in the low thousands, and the security services are involved in thousands of operations every day, then it would take them well inside a week to conduct an operation against each of the low thousands of terrorists...

So someone is clearly talking bollocks.

Your not laying that one at my door matey!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... red-london" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Worthy4England]

I didn't mean you were talking bollocks. You're just quoting bollocks.

[Bijou Bob]

Supposedly reasonably intelligent friends of mine posting racist shite from Britain First on Geekbook. Two of the thick feckers have even tried to justify it after I picked them up on just who the grim, racist bar stewards are. Half wits.