It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judges rule Boris Proroguing Parliament is unlawful

page: 17
8
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Did you by pass the post by angelchemuel further up the page?

Kudos to angelchemuel for digging it out I think its worth repeating so I'll

just leave it here. the link is on her post.


"The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a member of the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the European Union."...direct quote from the Supreme Courts own website...see link below.

The Supreme Court was set up 2 years after Tony Blair was PM. He was an advocate for setting up the Supreme Court. During his tenure as PM, and in an autobiography/biography, it is said that there were huge arguments between himself and Cheri Blair QC, (his wife) as she believed the Supreme Court should not be linked to the EU via the ECHR (European Courts of Human Rights), he disagreed.

Supreme Court and Europe

In 1998 Parliament passed our own Human Rights Act. By October 2009 the Supreme Court was set up and was tied to the EU under the ECHR. "It is the duty of all such courts, including the UK Supreme Court, to interpret all existing legislation so that it is compatible with the ECHR;" (quote again from their website)

In case you are thinking we are tied via our Supreme Court to just the ECHR only, this quote from the link below "Like other final courts, the UKSC is, in the areas of European law in which the United Kingdom has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), under the duty imposed by Article 267 of the Treaty".



Is it any wonder they voted the way they did? They are ALL p****** in the same pot!!




posted on Sep, 26 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Did you by pass the post by angelchemuel further up the page?

Kudos to angelchemuel for digging it out I think its worth repeating so I'll

just leave it here. the link is on her post.


"The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a member of the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the European Union."...direct quote from the Supreme Courts own website...see link below.

The Supreme Court was set up 2 years after Tony Blair was PM. He was an advocate for setting up the Supreme Court. During his tenure as PM, and in an autobiography/biography, it is said that there were huge arguments between himself and Cheri Blair QC, (his wife) as she believed the Supreme Court should not be linked to the EU via the ECHR (European Courts of Human Rights), he disagreed.

Supreme Court and Europe

In 1998 Parliament passed our own Human Rights Act. By October 2009 the Supreme Court was set up and was tied to the EU under the ECHR. "It is the duty of all such courts, including the UK Supreme Court, to interpret all existing legislation so that it is compatible with the ECHR;" (quote again from their website)

In case you are thinking we are tied via our Supreme Court to just the ECHR only, this quote from the link below "Like other final courts, the UKSC is, in the areas of European law in which the United Kingdom has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), under the duty imposed by Article 267 of the Treaty".



Is it any wonder they voted the way they did? They are ALL p****** in the same pot!!








The ECHR isn't part of the EU so completely irrelevant.

As we are members of the EU why wouldn't the supreme court be member of EU organisation for supreme court's.

Neither has any relevance to a unanimous decision on the UK constitution.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: bastion
Not an "ex" lawyer- still going!



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
Of course! The judges were making judgements about the legality of the government's suspension of parliament based upon their suspicions, not on ANY facts or documentary evidence. There are no laws about prorogment. Merely a convention about its use. Being morally outraged about the length of suspension is one thing. But it does not amount to the breaking of any law because a convention is NOT a law. Yet the judges called Boris' decision illegal!!!? It's nothing of the sort! Can't they tell they difference between a convention and a law?

Call this a court?


As you plainly do not know the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful" I respectfully suggest that you refrain from making such ill informed comments about supreme court judges.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

Question:

So I am just wanting to check I am understanding this correctly.

Illegal; Basically describes doing something that is forbidden by law such as being found to have done something against the Communications Act 2003 would be deemed to be illegal.

Unlawful: doing something that is not permitted lawfully.

So you can act unlawfully without breaking the law if you do something that is in itself not permitted under law. Such as a PM overusing his powers to act in a capacity he or she does not have the legal power to exert. To act illegally on the other hand would imply that said PM actually broke a law.

Therefore when the defenders of this ask "What law was broken" the question is mute because the ruling was unlawful not illegal.

I am sure some would say this is semantics but am sure as a lawyer you can confirm that the subtleties in language can be very important.

I could be way off like I say am just wanting to check my understanding.
edit on 27-9-2019 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Did you by pass the post by angelchemuel further up the page?

Kudos to angelchemuel for digging it out I think its worth repeating so I'll

just leave it here. the link is on her post.


"The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a member of the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the European Union."...direct quote from the Supreme Courts own website...see link below.

The Supreme Court was set up 2 years after Tony Blair was PM. He was an advocate for setting up the Supreme Court. During his tenure as PM, and in an autobiography/biography, it is said that there were huge arguments between himself and Cheri Blair QC, (his wife) as she believed the Supreme Court should not be linked to the EU via the ECHR (European Courts of Human Rights), he disagreed.

Supreme Court and Europe

In 1998 Parliament passed our own Human Rights Act. By October 2009 the Supreme Court was set up and was tied to the EU under the ECHR. "It is the duty of all such courts, including the UK Supreme Court, to interpret all existing legislation so that it is compatible with the ECHR;" (quote again from their website)

In case you are thinking we are tied via our Supreme Court to just the ECHR only, this quote from the link below "Like other final courts, the UKSC is, in the areas of European law in which the United Kingdom has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), under the duty imposed by Article 267 of the Treaty".



Is it any wonder they voted the way they did? They are ALL p****** in the same pot!!








Super find.
Now I know why the SC voted illigitimately.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: micpsi
Of course! The judges were making judgements about the legality of the government's suspension of parliament based upon their suspicions, not on ANY facts or documentary evidence. There are no laws about prorogment. Merely a convention about its use. Being morally outraged about the length of suspension is one thing. But it does not amount to the breaking of any law because a convention is NOT a law. Yet the judges called Boris' decision illegal!!!? It's nothing of the sort! Can't they tell they difference between a convention and a law?

Call this a court?


As you plainly do not know the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful" I respectfully suggest that you refrain from making such ill informed comments about supreme court judges.

That is YOUR opinion. I have lawyer friends who confirm my opinion that the Supreme Court was wrong in using the word "illegal," just as the British government does. There is NOTHING "uninformed" about my comment. Your attempt to split semantic hairs over "illegal" and "unlawful" amounts to an evasion of the issue, which was the Supreme Court's misuse of the word "illegal." Stop trying to curb my right to free speech in this forum just because you disagree with it. I shall complain to the moderators if you do.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: oldcarpy

Question:

So I am just wanting to check I am understanding this correctly.

Illegal; Basically describes doing something that is forbidden by law such as being found to have done something against the Communications Act 2003 would be deemed to be illegal.

Unlawful: doing something that is not permitted lawfully.

So you can act unlawfully without breaking the law if you do something that is in itself not permitted under law.

That's illogical, semantic nonsense.


Such as a PM overusing his powers to act in a capacity he or she does not have the legal power to exert.

Who says a government cannot suspend parliament for five weeks!? It may be UNUSUAL, but it is hardly ILLEGAL. If it is not written down as a statute (and it is NOT), it is mere convention, breaking of which cannot be characterised, as the Supreme Court did, as "illegal".

To act illegally on the other hand would imply that said PM actually broke a law.
Therefore when the defenders of this ask "What law was broken" the question is mute because the ruling was unlawful not illegal.

But the Supreme Court did not say the ruling was "unlawful" It said it was "illegal". Your argument is therefore invalid because it does not accurately reflect the words in the judgement.


I am sure some would say this is semantics but am sure as a lawyer you can confirm that the subtleties in language can be very important.
I could be way off like I say am just wanting to check my understanding.

Your attempt to split hairs to invalidate my question: "What law" is false because:
1. the Supreme Court made no such distinction between "legal" and "lawful";
2. it amounts to an irrelevant, semantic diversion that ignores the crucial fact that the Supreme Court used the word "illegal", implying that a law was broken. Your argument rests on their only using the word "unlawful, implying that no law was broken. But they used the word "illegal."

My question "What law?" therefore stands as a valid question despite your attempt to invalidate it by misreporting the actual words used by Lady Hale.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

....I was asking the only guy in the thread with legal expertise.

love the red font though!



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: micpsi

....I was asking the only guy in the thread with legal expertise.

love the red font though!

The ONLY guy with legal expertise? How do you know that? You clearly don't. It is a phony argument you use to justify your position. It does not wash. I am a highly professional man who is not duped by such silly internet arguments. For all you know, I could be a barrister or even a QC. I have already said that I have lawyer friends....

You know as well as I do that the court ruling has divided opinion between legal experts (e.g., the High Court thought differently). So why do you misrepresent the situation by creating the impression for forum members that those with "legal expertise" differentiate between "unlawful" and "illegal" when they don't? In fact, your argument based on it is pure gobbledygook. The Supreme Court did use the word "unlawful" in their judgement, I grant you, but made it sound as though the PM had done something ILLEGAL. And that's how the media reported it. The distinction between the two words simply does not exist. If an action is unlawful, there must be a LAW that was broken, otherwise the Supreme Court is simply imagining it. It makes therefore no difference whether the word "illegal" or the word "unlawful" was used. A political convention, not a law, was broken, which means that the judgement by the court was political and not based upon objective points of law. It is just a series of opinions you might hear in a pub frequented by lawyers. In other words, political views dressed up as legal arguments.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

Again what makes you more qualified than 11 of the highest and most respected judges in the land?

They ruled it was justicible, I want to know why your more qualified than them, why should I believe you over them.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You are right.
Illegal usually has criminal overtones but in common usage the distinction has become a bit blurred



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: micpsi
Of course! The judges were making judgements about the legality of the government's suspension of parliament based upon their suspicions, not on ANY facts or documentary evidence. There are no laws about prorogment. Merely a convention about its use. Being morally outraged about the length of suspension is one thing. But it does not amount to the breaking of any law because a convention is NOT a law. Yet the judges called Boris' decision illegal!!!? It's nothing of the sort! Can't they tell they difference between a convention and a law?

Call this a court?


As you plainly do not know the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful" I respectfully suggest that you refrain from making such ill informed comments about supreme court judges.

That is YOUR opinion. I have lawyer friends who confirm my opinion that the Supreme Court was wrong in using the word "illegal," just as the British government does. There is NOTHING "uninformed" about my comment. Your attempt to split semantic hairs over "illegal" and "unlawful" amounts to an evasion of the issue, which was the Supreme Court's misuse of the word "illegal." Stop trying to curb my right to free speech in this forum just because you disagree with it. I shall complain to the moderators if you do.


I thought the judgment found it to be "unlawful" and not "illegal". Just skimmed thru it and could not see the word "illegal" used.
Can you point me to where this word is used?
As for complaining to mods, feel free.
I'm telling my mum.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: micpsi

....I was asking the only guy in the thread with legal expertise.

love the red font though!

The ONLY guy with legal expertise? How do you know that? You clearly don't. It is a phony argument you use to justify your position. It does not wash. I am a highly professional man who is not duped by such silly internet arguments. For all you know, I could be a barrister or even a QC. I have already said that I have lawyer friends....

You know as well as I do that the court ruling has divided opinion between legal experts (e.g., the High Court thought differently). So why do you misrepresent the situation by creating the impression for forum members that those with "legal expertise" differentiate between "unlawful" and "illegal" when they don't? In fact, your argument based on it is pure gobbledygook. The Supreme Court did use the word "unlawful" in their judgement, I grant you, but made it sound as though the PM had done something ILLEGAL. And that's how the media reported it. The distinction between the two words simply does not exist. If an action is unlawful, there must be a LAW that was broken, otherwise the Supreme Court is simply imagining it. It makes therefore no difference whether the word "illegal" or the word "unlawful" was used. A political convention, not a law, was broken, which means that the judgement by the court was political and not based upon objective points of law. It is just a series of opinions you might hear in a pub frequented by lawyers. In other words, political views dressed up as legal arguments.


You could indeed be a barrister or a QC.
I'm guessing probably not, though.

If you read the judgment it is all made fairly clear.

I am all for brexit by the way.




top topics



 
8
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join