On the contrary, it is you who does not understand judicial process and the necessity of politicians to not make prejudicial statements when there are ongoing court proceedings. Inappropriate statements are an accepted basis for the dismissal of a charge(s). This is why MPs are NOT allowed to directly comment on a specific case.
The sub judice rule prevents MPs or Lords from referring to a current or impending court case. Although the House is entitled under parliamentary privilege to discuss any subject, sub judice applies to avoid the House from debating a subject and possibly influencing the legal outcome of a case. Detailed information is set out in the Appendix of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
The sub judice rule, was confirmed by previous "all party" resolutions in 1963, 1972 and 2001.
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/sub-judice/
The rumor is going on that all her grades are fake ... and that she could never be a senator, but apparently she is has soem friends who are supporting her....
Thai politicians are bonkers. Guys, Larry Fink, Klaus Schwab and Hungarian George are NEVER going to love you, just give it up. I knew this sort of nonsense was incoming when dear Sretta was off courting the woke douche illuminati.
But, if all the countries problems are solved and money is burning a hole in everyones pockets, well I suppose a bit of weird science is OK.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now