Yet more Tory sleaze….

[Pale Rider]

I actually agree with you on this. I think part of the problem is that the GLP are probably using barristers who have a sense of procedural morality whilst the government would not in the slightest care about *how* the barrister wins their case as long as they win. This tends to put the more moral of the two parties at a disadvantage.

I doubt morals come into it when it comes to the lawyers.

Both sets will be hard bastards in their strictly lawyerly way.

I am not sure that is the case. The legal representatives will be discussing and recommending the tactics and can be over-ridden by the client..the government..who do actually have some legal professionals in their number, and have ministers/ politicians such as Attorney General and Justice Secretary who are responsible for legal matters. Although that is quite worrying when you look at the likes of recent incumbents such as Raab and Truss.

It is unrealistic to expect one side to assist the other.

Both are in it to win it, and will use all legal (hopefully) means to do so.

 

[Rusty Nails]

The government has chosen to defend its position.

The tactics they are using are designed so that they can avoid defending their position.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Both are in it to win it, and will use all legal (hopefully) means to do so.

I want my government to do the right, not the expedient, thing when in conflict with its citizens.

I do not believe that is unrealistic.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Does anyone know if the project is still pressing ahead with the case?

No, they folded and immediately made an appointment with Gamblers Anonymous.

The answer is in the email I copied here.

 

[Pale Rider]

The tactics they are using are designed so that they can avoid defending their position.

Yes, we finally agree on something.

As I said, the first step in defending anything is to try and avoid it going to a full hearing because those dratted independent minded judges might find against you.

The government's lawyers understand in this case they don't need to beat the Good Law Project, although they need to do is preserve the status quo.

First line of defence: prevent it going to a full hearing.

Second line of defence (to be avoided if possible): fight it in front of judges.

If the project's lawyers are any good, which they almost certainly are, they will also understand this and run their case accordingly.

No, they folded and immediately made an appointment with Gamblers Anonymous.

The answer is in the email I copied here.

Oh well, there we are then.

The government managed to defend its position without the risky matter of it going to a full hearing.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

For those who are paying attention, the high court hearing is on 14 & 15 December.

 

[swansonj]

I agree that lawyers tend to favour the course of action with the best chance of winning regardless of how it looks.

Clients, once they have engaged an expensive lawyer, tend to be in thrall to them and to be very unwilling to instruct them to take a different, more moral, course of action with allegedly a lesser chance of winning.

So in practice the initiative for a dodgy course of action often comes from the lawyers. But the responsibility is ALWAYS the client's. You are the client, it's up to you to tell the lawyers what you want. If you allow the lawyers to dictate the strategy that's your failing and you can't blame them. Clients should think about the bigger picture a lot more often than they do.

 

[Pale Rider]

For those who are paying attention, the high court hearing is on 14 & 15 December.

I thought you said the project had chucked its hand in.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I thought you said the project had chucked its hand in.

I also said they'd checked into gamblers anonymous and that the hearing details were in the email copied.You believed the obvious nonsense but didn't read the facts.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-trust-crisis-as-sleaze-shatters-faith-in-mps


Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) shows a particularly sharp fall in trust in the few weeks since the Owen Paterson scandal triggered a rash of Tory sleaze scandals.





Why trust politicians? How UK voters lost faith in our leaders
Read more
In 2014, when David Cameron was prime minister, 48% of voters believed politicians were “out merely for themselves” as opposed to their country or party. This had increased to 57% by May 2021 after nearly two years of Johnson in No 10, and leapt to 63% last week in the wake of the Paterson affair. In the same poll, just 5% of voters thought politicians were in the job primarily for the good of their country.

Way to go, Tories!

 

[Pale Rider]

I also said they'd checked into gamblers anonymous and that the hearing details were in the email copied.You believed the obvious nonsense but didn't read the facts.

I know most of what you post is crap, but the few facts are usually correct.

More fool me, I'll know not to trust anything you post in future.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I know most of what you post is crap, but the few facts are usually correct.

More fool me, I'll know not to trust anything you post in future.

I posted the GLP email containing the hearing dates in post #48, I later posted up the current crowdfunding figures (now £381,185) and then you ask whether they were going ahead with the hearing. So I gave a sarcastic reply about GLP folding and going to Gamblers Anonymous because you were obviously not paying attention, and a factual one. I can't help it if you picked the obviously nonsense one.

 

[Pale Rider]

I posted the GLP email containing the hearing dates in post #48, I later posted up the current crowdfunding figures (now £381,185) and then you ask whether they were going ahead with the hearing. So I gave a sarcastic reply about GLP folding and going to Gamblers Anonymous because you were obviously not paying attention, and a factual one. I can't help it if you picked the obviously nonsense one.

Get yersel' along to The Strand on whatever date it is.

Easy ride up from Deptford, pop over Blackfriars or Waterloo bridge and the job's a good 'un.

As a hundred quid donor you ought to be entitled to a box seat.

Happily, I don't have to go because it will be desperately dull.

That, and their lordships have a habit of thinking about it, so you may not get a result at the final whistle.

 

[Hitchington]

I know most of what you post is crap

You are the exact thing you accuse others of being.

Way to go Pale Snider.

 

[Pale Rider]

You are the exact thing you accuse others of being.

Way to go Pale Snider.

Ah, and up pops Twatington.

You could at least post some more leftie crap to go with @deptfordmarmoset.

But I suppose, as ever, slagging me off takes priority.