We are putting people on a media ducking stool
WE have brought back (from history) a media ducking stool, as we now put people on public trial. Facts; evidence, proof, witnesses, are all discarded on the basis that accusation is sufficient for an individual to be hounded and harassed, and have their reputation ruined before being dumped, as another headline chaser evolves.
A classic example is the (false) accusation that the Prime Minister broke the law regarding the proroguing of Parliament? Proroguing, was part of the unwritten constitution, and John Major did it in 1997, to stop questions about corruption in his administration.
The High Court acknowledged this when they ruled it was not a matter for the court to deal with, as the (unwritten) constitution is a matter for Parliament, and it is Parliament who makes the law, not the courts, who are there to enforce it. The Supreme Court were minded to intervene, and bring the matter into the jurisdiction of the courts by ruling on the matter and setting down criteria, never before known, and thus alter the constitution. The law now is, not only determined, but made by the courts, which in itself is a breach of the constitution, as it should be parliaments job to do so, and therefore there is a prima fascia case that the Supreme Court actually have broken the law, by default, by intervening and taking a political decision rather than a judicial one, as the constitution is a parliamentary matter for them to decide, not the judicary?
The call for Geoffrey Cox the Attorney General to resign over the matter, is as ridiculous as it is political, for his advice (to Government) was in conformity to the constitution, as it then was, and known to be so. If every lawyer, who had the courts rule against them, was forced to resign, there wouldn’t be any practicing?
This is not something new, but has been going on for sometime, as judges have taken the view that they can put a twist on cases to achieve an outcome not entirely in accordance with what Parliament intended, and they have so far, got away with it, as politicians have shied away from confrontation. It may suite (some) politicians to gloat over this (hollow) victory, but it is a dangerous and slippery road to go down, which will ensnare them, just as much as it has the Prime Minister.
In all this mess, it is democracy that is being sacrificed on the alter of staying in the EU, which is non other than the undemocratic EU agenda. When unelected judges make major alteration to our unwritten constitution, rather than referring the matter back for parliament to address, then we really have lost the democracy, that parliament claims to represent! In essence, the Prime Minister did not break any laws, and perhaps advocates that he did might like to say what law and how he broke it?
Steve Vickers