The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[cyrusr]

7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

That's one heck of a giant leap you've made there   .... Where did i say i had a problem with someone leaking  or the government plan to get them to lie was fine ?  i only asked if we would find out who the leak was

Its on the bbc catchup thing around 2 mins 40 in if you want to listen to it , i'm fairly sure the words "mole" and "leak" were used rather than whistleblower

Maugham  himself specifically said they  weren't being asked to lie when asked , though he was clearly speaking as someone with a legal  mind would  ... tbf it certainly sounded like they were indeed being asked to lie to me

 

I've listened to the segment you linked to (thanks). My take on it is that he was more relieved in respect of the judgement as it agreed with his reasoning on the law. In relation to the witness statements, he does say that the witness statements prepared were in essence not true. What would normally happen is the witness would say "this is the truth, change the statement/affidavit" but the government lawyers didn't change it. Therefore, the witnesses were being asked to lie and whilst he disputes that slightly, he does say that, albeit in a slightly roundabout way. I think he is only rolled back from it is because he doesn't want to be troubled by the government; its a very serious allegation to make. 

He then explains that this is why the reason behind prorogation wasn't really run as part of the case. The suspicion would be, that if the accurate witness statements were filed, then it would be clear that the government prorogued parliament to stop meddling and they would have lost anyway. It is why they ran the argument "it shouldn't be before the Court anyway so you don't have to consider it". Its an interesting tactic of lawyers, whilst they cannot lie to the Court for their client, they can still test the evidence and present arguments to try and get it thrown out. This, in hindsight, appears to be what the government was doing. 

[desensitized43]

28 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

That's one heck of a giant leap you've made there   .... Where did i say i had a problem with someone leaking  or the government plan to get them to lie was fine ?  i only asked if we would find out who the leak was

Its on the bbc catchup thing around 2 mins 40 in if you want to listen to it , i'm fairly sure the words "mole" and "leak" were used rather than whistleblower

Maugham  himself specifically said they  weren't being asked to lie when asked , though he was clearly speaking as someone with a legal  mind would  ... tbf it certainly sounded like they were indeed being asked to lie to me

 

You're right you didn't say it was fine. I apologise.

Let's say the person who leaked that info was revealed though, what do you think would happen? They'd be fired (breach of contract, probably rightly?), The individual's name would be all over the media and they'd be subject to all kinds of unfounded nonsense online from very unpleasent, mostly right wing Brexiters, who don't care a minutae for the law or the fact that they government was potentially going to throw some witnesses to the wolves to be torn to pieces and likely face criminal prosecution. Not to mention certain sections of the right wing print media. All that will matter is that some people would see that this person has (in their small minded world) betrayed Johnson, and by extension Brexit.

If it's the truth that this person was feeding this information to the other side then what they're doing is exposing legal corruption at the heart of our government. It won't matter though, because all that matters anymore is Brexit and "getting us out" ASAP so we can "move on"....whatever that means. It doesn't matter how it happens anymore, how many people have to break the law or what kind of dirty tricks (unlawful 5 week proroguations?) are used to get us there. Because hey, the "Remain side" are doing it too, right?

[tonyh29]

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 

 Kilmuir rules forbid them from political opinion in public  but Lady hale spoke out publicly against legal Aid cuts in 2011 so you could argue she isn't free from political motivation  , but its not necessarily a strong argument ...  

Hale already called her article 50 decision something like the greatest day of her life as it was "  a classic constitutional issue about what the government could do and what parliament could do " ...  so I think it could be argued  how she personally would view this case  , but that isn't evidence of political motivation or influence  either , just her interpretation of the law ..and a correct one in this instance given the evidence presented

the million $ question would have been how she personally would have found had the government actually presented a stronger case (i.e  the witness thingy being discussed yesterday , had it not been false  )

 

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

the million $ question would have been how she personally would have found had the government actually presented a stronger case (i.e  the witness thingy being discussed yesterday , had it not been false  )

That's not even a 50p question. How would a Supreme Court Judge have ruled if the government presented a case including false testimony to her. What?

Hopefully she'd have been furious

[snowychap]

 

7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Hale already called her article 50 decision something like the greatest day of her life as it was "  a classic constitutional issue about what the government could do and what parliament could do "

As you're claiming to quote her directly, would you do us the decency of referring us to the source, please, so that we can see this in context?

It's not just annoying when people don't do this when they claim to be using someone else's exact words, it's really pretty poor.

[tonyh29]

20 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

You're right you didn't say it was fine. I apologise.

Let's say the person who leaked that info was revealed though, what do you think would happen? They'd be fired (breach of contract, probably rightly?), The individual's name would be all over the media and they'd be subject to all kinds of unfounded nonsense online from very unpleasent, mostly right wing Brexiters, who don't care a minutae for the law or the fact that they government was potentially going to throw some witnesses to the wolves to be torn to pieces and likely face criminal prosecution. Not to mention certain sections of the right wing print media. All that will matter is that some people would see that this person has (in their small minded world) betrayed Johnson, and by extension Brexit.

If it's the truth that this person was feeding this information to the other side then what they're doing is exposing legal corruption at the heart of our government. It won't matter though, because all that matters anymore is Brexit and "getting us out" ASAP so we can "move on"....whatever that means. It doesn't matter how it happens anymore, how many people have to break the law or what kind of dirty tricks (unlawful 5 week proroguations?) are used to get us there. Because hey, the "Remain side" are doing it too, right?

it's a tough one  , you can argue whistle blowers are doing the right thing morally but equally it does somewhat undermine the ability to deliver government  ... are they also breaking the Official Secrets Act  ?

I'd be more interested in the motivation in this instance though ... were they acting in their interest or genuinely believing they were acting on the interest of the country 

In this instance yeah I guess they would get hounded by Brexiters and the press  .. Though saying that Snowy mentioned that this leaking / whistle blowing has been known for some time and I haven't seen any witch hunt going on ....so far

[bickster]

The state of this...

 

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

That's not even a 50p question. How would a Supreme Court Judge have ruled if the government presented a case including false testimony to her. What?

Hopefully she'd have been furious

And I even went to the trouble of putting in a  caveat of saying "had it not been false"   ... oh well

 

[bickster]

Just now, tonyh29 said:

And I even went to the trouble of putting in a  caveat of saying "had it not been false"   ... oh well

 

which is why it wasn't a million dollar question!!!!

That entire sentence is a nonsense, caveat or not, the caveat makes it even more stupid tbh

[desensitized43]

24 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

 Kilmuir rules forbid them from political opinion in public  but Lady hale spoke out publicly against legal Aid cuts in 2011 so you could argue she isn't free from political motivation  , but its not necessarily a strong argument ...  

Hale already called her article 50 decision something like the greatest day of her life as it was "  a classic constitutional issue about what the government could do and what parliament could do " ...  so I think it could be argued  how she personally would view this case  , but that isn't evidence of political motivation or influence  either , just her interpretation of the law ..and a correct one in this instance given the evidence presented

the million $ question would have been how she personally would have found had the government actually presented a stronger case (i.e  the witness thingy being discussed yesterday , had it not been false  )

 

You could also argue that as a legal professional she was entitled to an opinion on whether the government restricting access to justice for poor people was something she approved or disapproved of. The fact that she criticised a previous (coalition) government years ago shouldn't preclude her from taking part in any legal cases that involved members of the Conservative (or Lib Dem for that matter) party at any point in her future career.

She should be able to criticise a policy that affected her directly as a lawyer without having their political motivations called into question for the remainder of her professional life..

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by desensitized43

[snowychap]

21 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Kilmuir rules forbid them from political opinion in public

Do they?

According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Constitution sixth report (published 2007):

Quote

7. ...The relationships have also been shaped by changing attitudes and perceptions. Since the revocation of the "Kilmuir Rules" in 1987, judges have been more open in speaking to the news media.

Edit: Also this from Rozenberg:

Quote

Kilmuir’s effective ban on broadcast interviews with serving judges remained in force, as I well remember, until it was abolished by Lord Mackay of Clashfern shortly after he became lord chancellor in 1987.

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by snowychap

[snowychap]

As for today's proceedings in Parliament, updates are there will be 5 oral statements from the Government as per this:

Also, apparentlly, more than 40 UQs have been tabled.

One wonders whether the amount of Government oral statements is to try and take up all the time of the day and then they'll announce another intention to prorogue in the Business Statement at the end of the day.

Edited September 25, 2019 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 

As you're claiming to quote her directly, would you do us the decency of referring us to the source, please, so that we can see this in context?

It's not just annoying when people don't do this when they claim to be using someone else's exact words, it's really pretty poor.

no real need for the last sentence , i thought her article 50 comment was widely known , it was along similar  lines  to her 1611 comments ... but here is a link to the article

“I’m proud of the [article 50, Gina] Miller case because it was a classic constitutional issue about what the government could do and what parliament could do,” Hale explained. “It was reminiscent of the 17th-century battle between parliament and the king. We were reinforcing principles that had been established then.”

[desensitized43]

4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

it's a tough one  , you can argue whistle blowers are doing the right thing morally but equally it does somewhat undermine the ability to deliver government  ... are they also breaking the Official Secrets Act  ?

That would be true if it was for the actual business of government, this is whether the government planned to lie in court. I'd argue that no government should be basing it's ability to govern around that.

8 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'd be more interested in the motivation in this instance though ... were they acting in their interest or genuinely believing they were acting on the interest of the country 

What difference does it make what the motivation is/was? Lying in court is surely never in the countries best interest.

9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

In this instance yeah I guess they would get hounded by Brexiters and the press  .. Though saying that Snowy mentioned that this leaking / whistle blowing has been known for some time and I haven't seen any witch hunt going on ....so far

If you've not seen the way some people have been called "traitors" or "enemies of the people" then I'd suggest you go and have a look at the comment sections on any Brexit-related article on the BBC or Sky news facebook page....it's pretty disgusting tbh.

[tonyh29]

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

which is why it wasn't a million dollar question!!!!

That entire sentence is a nonsense, caveat or not, the caveat makes it even more stupid tbh

whatever  ... i remember now why i greet most posts with flippancy

the discussion was about judges being impartial , I was arguing that they were and that her judgement given the weakness of the case was the correct one and impartiality doesn't even come into play  , i thought i'd speculate that had the government offered the other evidence it would have been more  interesting  , as i understand it there was nothing wrong with the evidence it was just that it was prepared by a legal team and given to the witnesses  , the evidence itself wasn't a lie ( see previous link to the broadcast) 

Edited September 25, 2019 by tonyh29

[blandy]

31 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

The million $ question would have been how she personally would have found had the government actually presented a stronger case

I don't think that's a question of any value at all, really. Because the Gov't couldn't have presented a stronger case. Their lawyers did the best they could with thin gruel.

 

edit - hadn't seen the posts just above when I typed this.

[Sam-AVFC]

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

no real need for the last sentence , i thought her article 50 comment was widely known , it was along similar  lines  to her 1611 comments ... but here is a link to the article

She didn't call it the "greatest day of her life" then, which changes the tone quite a bit!

In the quote you posted she said she was proud of the case as it was fighting constitutional issues with principles established around the time of the English Civil War.

Am I being stupid, or is there absolutely nothing in that quote that has anything to do with the actual issue of Brexit?

[a m ole]

So essentially you're speculating that she would have been biased and not done her job properly if she'd had the slightest opportunity to do so?

I mean, believe what you want I guess.

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

no real need for the last sentence , i thought her article 50 comment was widely known , it was along similar  lines  to her 1611 comments ... but here is a link to the article

Thanks for the link to the article, without which I wouldn't have known what she was reported to have actually said and I may have been led to believe that 'Lady Hale already called her article 50 decision something like the greatest day of her life'.

I can't find that in the article. If there's another source for it then I'd be grateful.

[tonyh29]

4 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

That would be true if it was for the actual business of government, this is whether the government planned to lie in court. I'd argue that no government should be basing it's ability to govern around that.

What difference does it make what the motivation is/was? Lying in court is surely never in the countries best interest.

If you've not seen the way some people have been called "traitors" or "enemies of the people" then I'd suggest you go and have a look at the comment sections on any Brexit-related article on the BBC or Sky news facebook page....it's pretty disgusting tbh.

As i understand it there was nothing wrong with the evidence it was just that it was prepared by a legal team and given to the witnesses  , the evidence itself wasn't a lie ( see previous link to the broadcast) 

re your last sentence I believed in your post you were referring specifically to this whistle blower person  , who to my knowledge hasn't been outed or hunted down    .. you noiw  seem to be referring to people in general in this  your reply , yes I've seen some enemy of the people guff , but then go have a look in the tory thread and see some of the guff used by people on this forum  ..anger provokes comments that I'm sure aren't a true reflection of that persons character