Should A Woman Be Allowed to hold the office of President of the USA?

[webfact]

Top UK judge hits back after Brexit uproar over court ruling

REUTERS

 

A British flag flutters in front of a window in London, Britain, June 24, 2016 after Britain voted to leave the European Union in the EU BREXIT referendum. REUTERS/Reinhard Krause/Files

 

LONDON (Reuters) - The head of Britain's Supreme Court has accused politicians of not doing enough to protect the independence of the judicial system when judges came in for harsh criticism from pro-Brexit newspapers last year.

 

England's High Court triggered an angry response from some newspapers in November when it ruled that the decision to begin Britain's formal divorce talks with the European Union had to be approved by parliament and not be taken by the government alone.

 

The Daily Mail newspaper said the three judges who handed down the ruling were "enemies of the people".

 

In an interview with the BBC broadcast on Thursday, David Neuberger, the head of Britain's Supreme Court, said: "I think some of what was said was undermining the rule of law."

 

Neuberger said politicians, who he did not name, did not speak out quickly or clearly enough after the criticism.

 

"After the Court hearing. I think they could have been quicker and clearer," he said. "But we all learn by experience, whether politicians or judges. It's easy to be critical after the event. They were faced with an unexpected situation from which like all sensible people they learned."

 

Britain's Justice minister Liz Truss initially made no comment about the media criticism of the High Court judges before issuing a brief statement two days after the ruling, saying the independence of the judiciary was the "foundation upon which our rule of law is built."

 

Britain's government appealed the High Court's ruling in the Supreme Court which upheld the original decision. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Theresa May won parliamentary approval to start the EU divorce talks which she aims to do before the end of March.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-02-16

 

[canopus1969]

Oh the poor 'dears' - wake up to the real world you old duffers   

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, canopus1969 said:

Oh the poor 'dears' - wake up to the real world you old duffers   

It would be a grave error to undermine the independence of the judiciary; have you not been observing what's happening in the USA?

 

Anyway, they're widenening their catchment pool to include comprensive school educated types, short people and even people with one leg. Obviously not all three.

 

The editor of The Mail should be taken from his place, to another place, where he shall be hanged until he is dead. The peasant.

[lungbing]

It would also be a grave error if the judiciary saw themselves as her Majesty's local opposition.

[Grouse]

5 minutes ago, lungbing said:

It would also be a grave error if the judiciary saw themselves as her Majesty's local opposition.

Do you understand how our democratic system works? 

 

The judiciary uphold the LAW

[Flustered]

7 hours ago, Grouse said:

Do you understand how our democratic system works? 

 

The judiciary uphold the LAW

I agree but the Judiciary are not above being criticised and you would have thought that they would stand up for freedom of speech which is what was happening. Also, why should the government rush to their defence just because someone has exercised their right to free speech?

 

Another bunch of unelected people who think they are above criticism.

[The Old Bull]

13 hours ago, Grouse said:

It would be a grave error to undermine the independence of the judiciary; have you not been observing what's happening in the USA?

 

Anyway, they're widenening their catchment pool to include comprensive school educated types, short people and even people with one leg. Obviously not all three.

 

The editor of The Mail should be taken from his place, to another place, where he shall be hanged until he is dead. The peasant.

Isn't the Daily Mail banned in Thailand for being the purveyor of fake news, one of the few things the Thais got right.

[johng]

Isn't the Daily Mail banned in Thailand for being the purveyor of fake news, one of the few things the Thais got right.

No its not banned for that reason.

[nontabury]

2 hours ago, The Old Bull said:

Isn't the Daily Mail banned in Thailand for being the purveyor of fake news, one of the few things the Thais got right.

 It was banned for printing a story regarding a certain person,nothing to do with fake news.

[klauskunkel]

Quote

Top UK judge hits back after Brexit uproar over court ruling

 "I think some of what was said was undermining the rule of law."

Talk about hitting back... with a wet noodle

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, Flustered said:

I agree but the Judiciary are not above being criticised and you would have thought that they would stand up for freedom of speech which is what was happening. Also, why should the government rush to their defence just because someone has exercised their right to free speech?

 

 

Another bunch of unelected people who think they are above criticism.

Nothing to do with free speech.

 

The Daily Mail just whips up hysteria from the ill-informed masses. These are the types that need to have more respect for our judiciary.

[Jonmarleesco]

21 hours ago, webfact said:

"After the Court hearing. I think they could have been quicker and clearer," he said. "But we all learn by experience, whether politicians or judges.

I'm not sure either of those ever learn from experience, good or bad.

[Jonmarleesco]

The Daily Mail mentioned. The Thai Ministry of Silly Faces must be asleep at the helm.

[Jonmarleesco]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

Nothing to do with free speech.

 

The Daily Mail just whips up hysteria from the ill-informed masses. These are the types that need to have more respect for our judiciary.

Which ill-informed masses would those be? Obviously you don't count yourself among them.

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

Nothing to do with free speech.

 

The Daily Mail just whips up hysteria from the ill-informed masses. These are the types that need to have more respect for our judiciary.

 

That's what newspapers do. It's getting them readership - which they need in these days of social media alternatives. And all push their own political views. The right wing Daily Mail thinks it awful that judges should independently uphold the law and not allow the non elected PM and her cabinet to simply do what they want. Just as the NYT and WP attack Trump, and will continue to do so, at every and any opportunity with "facts" from undisclosed secret sources that are never proven whilst ignoring Hilary's issues. The Guardian are the opponents of the Daily Mail in the UK. Germany has Das Bild like the UK as the Sun.

 

Teachers used to tell us 50 years ago not to believe everything you read in the newspapers. Very good advice.

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Which ill-informed masses would those be? Obviously you don't count yourself among them.

 

To be fair, although Grousey does push certain views, as we all do, he is certainly well informed.

 

Unfortunately many aren't - for a whole raft of reasons.

[Flustered]

2 hours ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Which ill-informed masses would those be? Obviously you don't count yourself among them.

I would put good money on him being a Guardian or Independent reader. The only two newspapers that tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing like the truth.

[stevenl]

24 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

That's what newspapers do. It's getting them readership - which they need in these days of social media alternatives. And all push their own political views. The right wing Daily Mail thinks it awful that judges should independently uphold the law and not allow the non elected PM and her cabinet to simply do what they want. Just as the NYT and WP attack Trump, and will continue to do so, at every and any opportunity with "facts" from undisclosed secret sources that are never proven whilst ignoring Hilary's issues. The Guardian are the opponents of the Daily Mail in the UK. Germany has Das Bild like the UK as the Sun.

 

Teachers used to tell us 50 years ago not to believe everything you read in the newspapers. Very good advice.

Much bigger differences between Daily mail and Guardian than being on the opposite site of the political spectrum.

 

One has a well founded opinion, which you can disagree with, but it is reasoned. The other one (DM) is slagging around without any reasoning.

[Flustered]

Just now, stevenl said:

Much bigger differences between Daily mail and Guardian than being on the opposite site of the political spectrum.

 

One has a well founded opinion, which you can disagree with, but it is reasoned. The other one (DM) is slagging around without any reasoning.

The Guardian is one of the most incorrect newspapers in the UK. It constantly spins the headlines when the underlying facts show the opposite. Well founded opinions? Nice joke.

 

IMHO there are no newspapers that are completely unbiased which is why I get most of my news from the various news links on the web and make my own mind up from them.

 

In this case, the Judge was totally out of order in commenting like that. This was simply an opinion given by a newspaper and within the law. Let's face it, these judges think they are the law.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, Flustered said:

The Guardian is one of the most incorrect newspapers in the UK. It constantly spins the headlines when the underlying facts show the opposite. Well founded opinions? Nice joke.

 

IMHO there are no newspapers that are completely unbiased which is why I get most of my news from the various news links on the web and make my own mind up from them.

 

In this case, the Judge was totally out of order in commenting like that. This was simply an opinion given by a newspaper and within the law. Let's face it, these judges think they are the law.

Your opinions, I strongly disagree with them.

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Which ill-informed masses would those be? Obviously you don't count yourself among them.

The people who read The Daily Mail instead of a proper newspaper.

[Grouse]

46 minutes ago, Flustered said:

I would put good money on him being a Guardian or Independent reader. The only two newspapers that tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing like the truth.

It's a fair question.

 

I actually rely upon The Economist for general news.

 

I look at The FT when I see it

 

Otherwise I look at several feeds.

 

I used to be a big fan of the Indy until it went tabloid.

 

The Guardian was always too teachers' unions, LGBT and beards for me!

[Grouse]

46 minutes ago, Flustered said:

The Guardian is one of the most incorrect newspapers in the UK. It constantly spins the headlines when the underlying facts show the opposite. Well founded opinions? Nice joke.

 

IMHO there are no newspapers that are completely unbiased which is why I get most of my news from the various news links on the web and make my own mind up from them.

 

In this case, the Judge was totally out of order in commenting like that. This was simply an opinion given by a newspaper and within the law. Let's face it, these judges think they are the law.

IMHO The Mail editor should consider himself extremely fortunate not be hauled in front of the courts for contempt.

 

The "opinion" was offensive and DESIGNED to be so. The masses crave hysteria.

[Flustered]

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

IMHO The Mail editor should consider himself extremely fortunate not be hauled in front of the courts for contempt.

 

The "opinion" was offensive and DESIGNED to be so. The masses crave hysteria.

As you say, "In your opinion".

 

Thankfully, your opinion does not count for much regarding legal issues.

 

The facts are simple. The editor was well within the law. Just because you and the Judge do not like it does not make it illegal. Even the Judge has not said it was illegal, he just whined that someone was picking on him and nobody came to his defence.......Pathetic.

 

I think the Judges in the Supreme Court were wrong but they made a decision and that is final. I accept that, they are the legal authority. I do not go around whining just because I disagree with them.

 

Cambridge Dictionary .... definition, what is masses: the ordinary people who form the largest group in a society

So in your opinion, the majority of people in the UK are ill informed because they do not agree with you? You should look up Captain Redbeard Rum. You have a lot in common.

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, Flustered said:

As you say, "In your opinion".

 

Thankfully, your opinion does not count for much regarding legal issues.

 

The facts are simple. The editor was well within the law. Just because you and the Judge do not like it does not make it illegal. Even the Judge has not said it was illegal, he just whined that someone was picking on him and nobody came to his defence.......Pathetic.

 

I think the Judges in the Supreme Court were wrong but they made a decision and that is final. I accept that, they are the legal authority. I do not go around whining just because I disagree with them.

 

Cambridge Dictionary .... definition, what is masses: the ordinary people who form the largest group in a society

So in your opinion, the majority of people in the UK are ill informed because they do not agree with you? You should look up Captain Redbeard Rum. You have a lot in common.

No, from everything I've heard, seen and read over the past year a majority of U.K. voters are indeed poorly informed. It gives me no pleasure to state that. It is a sad reflection on how low the UK has sunk.

 

The editor was responsible for publishing a piece that many found offensive and certainly undermined respect for the judiciary. Highly irresponsible and cynically immature. Our population is loutish enough without encouragement.

[dunroaming]

14 hours ago, Flustered said:

Another bunch of unelected people who think they are above criticism.

Sounds like a certain American President.... except he was elected... or Tony Blair.... who was elected.....etc.

[dunroaming]

Talking of Tony Blair I have just been listening to his plea to the British people to "rise up and demand a second referendum.  He raised many valid points as to why Brexit is a mistake and the possible damage it will do.  However that horse has bolted now and there is no way to get it back into the stable.

 

Blair (you remember him, the war criminal)  is clearly trying to split the people even further and is stirring the pot.  As usual he is totally wrong and the people won't buy anything he says.

[CMBob]

There's a substantial difference between criticizing a judicial opinion and personally criticizing a judge.  With respect to criticizing a decision itself, just saying it's wrong or stupid without any at least semi-intelligent legal rationale behind your opinion is simply ignorant babble.  And with respect to criticizing a judge personally, that's totally out of bounds absent some personal misconduct on his/her part. 

 

Yes, some of what was said in England (disliking the opinion so calling the judges "enemies of the people") was way out of bounds and, if I was in the government, I would have said so.  Likewise, the idiotic comments by Donald Trump about the Indiana judge and the Washington judge were just as bad or worse.

 

 

 

[Grouse]

I, Daniel Blake.........

[Flustered]

6 hours ago, Grouse said:

No, from everything I've heard, seen and read over the past year a majority of U.K. voters are indeed poorly informed. It gives me no pleasure to state that. It is a sad reflection on how low the UK has sunk.

 

The editor was responsible for publishing a piece that many found offensive and certainly undermined respect for the judiciary. Highly irresponsible and cynically immature. Our population is loutish enough without encouragement.

First, that insults the majority of the UK population. You must really love yourself to think that the minority you are in are correct and every one else is wrong.....As I said, look up  Captain Redbeard Rum. You and him must have been joined at the hip at birth.

 

Second, "many found offensive". You mean a few lefty luvvies were upset that someone had the audacity to say their mind (legally and not illegal as you seem to think)

 

OK Rum, we understand you.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by Flustered