What is a woman?

[icowden]

It's is no more wrong to question or criticise a Supreme Court decision than a government decision, and we all do that often enough including you Ian - you were not silent when VAT was added to private school fees.

But that's not what her point was. Her point was about criticising and attacking the judiciary. The Judges themselves. Not about discussing point of law.

It was about not indulging in this sort of thing:

Obviously the Mail support the SC decision, otherwise we may well have had a reprise.

 

[monkers]

Ahh, so when the court makes a finding you agree with, they are the body who decide the law and their judgement is good

If you know anything, and I'm beginning to doubt that you do, you'll know that the UK Human Rights Act cements convention rights into law. It directs the court in this regards saying they MUST consider and respect convention rights.

In reference to the FWS case, it is clear that convention rights have been forsaken.

In reference to the Braverman case, the court found that convention rights had been breached and has provided the remedy.

I don't really care if you consider convention rights important or otherwise, you probably are too meek to express an opinion on that too, but they are important to me.

 

[monkers]

But that's not what her point was. Her point was about criticising and attacking the judiciary. The Judges themselves. Not about discussing point of law.

It was about not indulging in this sort of thing:
View attachment 8151
Obviously the Mail support the SC decision, otherwise we may well have had a reprise.

No. That would not require her to make a public appeal not to do so.

 

[spen666]

If you know anything, and I'm beginning to doubt that you do, you'll know that the UK Human Rights Act cements convention rights into law. It directs the court in this regards saying they MUST consider and respect convention rights.

In reference to the FWS case, it is clear that convention rights have been forsaken.

In reference to the Braverman case, the court found that convention rights had been breached and has provided the remedy.

I don't really care if you consider convention rights important or otherwise, you probably are too meek to express an opinion on that too, but they are important to me.

Another word salad that avoids the point i raise.

 

[monkers]

Another word salad that avoids the point i raise.

I doubt you could raise anything.

 

[spen666]

I doubt you could raise anything.

Oh look, more insults

 

[monkers]

Oh look, more insults

Because again you tried belittlement because you were too feeble to address the points that I made.

So man up. Have an opinion and properly express it on the forum.

As far as the SC are concerned, the data shows that they have a poor record on properly considering convention rights. The data speaks for itself.

I don't like the decision. You don't like the data that absolutely shows they often get it wrong.

Here's something to read. It might even make you think.

Just four concrete human rights successes in two years sounds fairly bleak from a rights-protection standpoint. But how different is this from previous years? As part of a larger project looking at judicial attitudes over time, I was able to put together comparative ‘human rights success rates’ for each calendar year going back to 2010. That rate differed from year to year; in 2010, it was as high as 61%. In 2013 and 2016, the success rate was 32%. The average figure for 2010-2019 comes to under 41%. By comparison, the UKSC upheld human rights arguments in just 28% of cases in 2020. In 2021, the figure was just 13%. This suggests that the Reed Court is indeed (significantly) less likely to favour human rights arguments than its predecessors.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/202...-by-numbers-how-shallow-is-the-shallow-end/

 

[AuroraSaab]

No point trawling over the myriad of legal history. It's just an attempt to undermine a legal decision that was arrived at in a fair and consistent way, even if you disagree with it.
Nobody is being prevented from discussing it or appealing against it.

 

[spen666]

Because again you tried belittlement because you were too feeble to address the points that I made.

So man up. Have an opinion and properly express it on the forum.

As far as the SC are concerned, the data shows that they have a poor record on properly considering convention rights. The data speaks for itself.

I don't like the decision. You don't like the data that absolutely shows they often get it wrong.

Here's something to read. It might even make you think.




https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/04/04/lewis-graham-the-reed-court-by-numbers-how-shallow-is-the-shallow-end/

I have not belittled anyone.

I have merely been stating the fact that the judgement of the Supreme Court is what the law is.


That is not belittling anyone, it's a part of our constitution.

 

[spen666]

...
I don't like the decision. You don't like the data that absolutely shows they often get it wrong.
....

Another invention by you.

I have never commented or expressed a view on the "data".

You are making things up and imputing them to me.

 

[monkers]

I have not belittled anyone.

I have merely been stating the fact that the judgement of the Supreme Court is what the law is.


That is not belittling anyone, it's a part of our constitution.

Yeh you have attempted it, and you've tried to close down a legitimate discussion while contributing nothing. Protectionism of the patriarchy.

The data makes it obvious, now from two sources. The Supreme Court have a poor record of giving effective remedy to legitimate claims from individuals who have faced discrimination. The numbers don't lie, you do.

 

[CXRAndy]

 

[monkers]

Another invention by you.

I have never commented or expressed a view on the "data".

You are making things up and imputing them to me.

No you ignore the data while repeating your mantra - the Supreme Court are the ultimate, they are experienced and forensic. Only they used the Cardinal Richelieu approach to justify them ignoring what they are obliged to do by the Human Rights Act, and consider fundamental rights of all concerned. The result of this overstep is to provide the excuse of the Starmer government and the commission to overreach.

Here's a question for you - how confident are you that the ECtHR won't intervene if/when they've heard the case?

See if you can manage an actual answer instead of relying on sneering tactics such as ''word salad''.

 

[spen666]

Yeh you have attempted it, and you've tried to close down a legitimate discussion while contributing nothing. Protectionism of the patriarchy.

The data makes it obvious, now from two sources. The Supreme Court have a poor record of giving effective remedy to legitimate claims from individuals who have faced discrimination. The numbers don't lie, you do.

You do come out with some nonsense about me.

None of which is true.

 

[spen666]

No you ignore the data while repeating your mantra - the Supreme Court are the ultimate, they are experienced and forensic. Only they used the Cardinal Richelieu approach to justify them ignoring what they are obliged to do by the Human Rights Act, and consider fundamental rights of all concerned. The result of this overstep is to provide the excuse of the Starmer government and the commission to overreach.

Here's a question for you - how confident are you that the ECtHR won't intervene if/when they've heard the case?

See if you can manage an actual answer instead of relying on sneering tactics such as ''word salad''.

More words that are irrelevant to the one point I have made.

The decision of the Supreme Court in this case is the current determination of the law.