deptfordmarmoset
Über Member
There was nothing in the post I was responding to that referred to lenient sentencing. You appear to have got a little confused.
Not extremists?
- Thread starter newfhouse
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Pale Rider
Veteran
I was pouring scorn on the ridiculous notion that lenient sentences are somehow arranged to soften up the public for an attack on a different branch of judiciary.
Your appear to have got a little confused by your overwhelming desire to sneer at me.
OP
OP
newfhouse
pleb
Nobody actually said that. Except you, obviously.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
As already pointed out the only person saying that is you.
The point is that a public perception, which ministers and their acolytes are happy to encourage, of out of touch judges passing soft sentences. That undermines criminal justice but also the wider rule of law.
A Lord Chancellor worth his job title would put himself about defending the judiciary and rule of law.
Doing that is probably what got Buckland sacked. I'm not holding my breath for Raab doing so...
Pale Rider
Veteran
Read the OP and post three and come back to me.
deptfordmarmoset
Über Member
Rather than have someone rubbishing an argument that no one has mentioned recently, we might get back to the main discussion. BlackBeltBarrister gives a rather breathless account of the government attempt (if the Times' account is accurate) to undermine the separation of powers.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
I did. Neither even suggests sentences are being arranged.
The point is that government and its mouthpieces bang the drum about so called lenient sentences, i.e. those that meet the law and guidelines but don't satisfy the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade, so as to undermine the rule of law.
It s a dangerous game and one which, as I said, a properly engaged Lord Chancellor would be speaking out against.
Last edited:
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
Gina Miller has done her bit for Judicial Review. Here's what she thinks about restrictions on its use:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...judicial-review-justice-for-ordinary-citizens
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...judicial-review-justice-for-ordinary-citizens
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
A bit of narrative on the Nationality and Borders Bill:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lity-and-border-bill-repatriation-deportation
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lity-and-border-bill-repatriation-deportation
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
Rusty Nails
Country Member
I'm OK with it, it doesn't affect people
Xipe Totec
Something nasty in the woodshed
the snail
Active Member
Jeez, it's not that difficult is it?
OP
OP
newfhouse
pleb
Still not extremists, honest.
The Attorney General has banned government lawyers from telling ministers that their policies are unlawful, The Telegraph can reveal.
In the wake of the row over the Rwanda asylum plan, guidance was sent from Suella Braverman to lawyers last week stating that they should refrain from dismissing policies as unlawful and instead give a percentage chance that they may be challenged.
It is the culmination of more than a year of growing tensions, with policy advisers viewing lawyers as overly cautious. They perceive them to be getting in the way of the Government’s policy agenda instead of thinking creatively to push through ideas.
Lawyers, who are now describing it as the “U-word”, have hit back at the policy, describing it as an affront. "It calls into question our ability to hold the Government to account. What exactly is our role now?" one said. Others warned that ministers risked breaching international law and, in turn, the ministerial code.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-lawyers-telling-ministers-policies-unlawful/
The Attorney General has banned government lawyers from telling ministers that their policies are unlawful, The Telegraph can reveal.
In the wake of the row over the Rwanda asylum plan, guidance was sent from Suella Braverman to lawyers last week stating that they should refrain from dismissing policies as unlawful and instead give a percentage chance that they may be challenged.
It is the culmination of more than a year of growing tensions, with policy advisers viewing lawyers as overly cautious. They perceive them to be getting in the way of the Government’s policy agenda instead of thinking creatively to push through ideas.
Lawyers, who are now describing it as the “U-word”, have hit back at the policy, describing it as an affront. "It calls into question our ability to hold the Government to account. What exactly is our role now?" one said. Others warned that ministers risked breaching international law and, in turn, the ministerial code.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-lawyers-telling-ministers-policies-unlawful/
OP
OP
newfhouse
pleb
No, definitely not extremists. Nothing at all like Belarus, oh no.
View: https://twitter.com/mariawnorris/status/1554760657597251586?s=21&t=Ey8h3IcOfIedOCxbY3s4fQ
View: https://twitter.com/mariawnorris/status/1554760657597251586?s=21&t=Ey8h3IcOfIedOCxbY3s4fQ
