Everythings had to stop here as I have to go around picking people off the floor as they fall about laughing at the BBC’s Breaking News….May says we must respect the independence of the Judiciary. Well yes. That’s if they’re independent of course. No one says we shouldn’t.
Just a standard ‘diplomatic’ statement from a Prime Minister and yet major news for the BBC…oh hang on…..she respects their opinion so much she is disregarding it and is going to appeal to a higher court.
The BBC is curiously incurious here…failing to scramble, as they always normally do, the researchers to dig out past statements by May that contradict her latest stance such as this BBC headline from 2013…
Theresa May criticises judges for ‘ignoring’ deportation law
Home Secretary Theresa May has accused judges of making the UK more dangerous by ignoring rules aimed at deporting more foreign criminals.
The BBC itself actually had a programme dedicated to fighting alleged injustice in the legal system…..called Rough Justice…
“Rough Justice” was a ground-breaking BBC TV series in the early eighties. It produced evidence that innocent people were being imprisoned. It helped pressure the government into forming the Criminal Case Review Commission.
How different today when the BBC claims the judges are infallible.
The BBC wants to create the impression that this is a really important statement from May and that it signifies that the critics of the judgement are wrong and are recklessly and dangerously undermining the legal system and society…and therefore they, the Press and Brexiteers, must be silenced…which is what this is all about really…the BBC and the Left once again trying to silence opponents not with arguments but with resort to false claims of the moral high ground and sanctimonious grandstanding by corrupt politicians and left-wing journalists.
Let’s be blunt, the court came to the wrong decision, one made as if the vote in Parliament, 6 to 1 in favour, that enabled the referendum to go ahead had never happened…the referendum that was explicitly about leaving or staying in the EU and only that…there were no conditions or qualifications. That vote gives May the authority to trigger Article 50 to start the process to leave the EU.
Were the judges ‘independent’? Did they have pro-EU views that swayed their decision? Let’s be clear again…this was purely, as is any judgement, a view, an opinion on what the law says. Hence another court can come along and make a different ruling.
The BBC and the Remainers seem to think that the judgement is based upon some natural law, a law of physics that is immutable and unquestionable….wrong…it’s purely legal opinion.
This is of course the BBC that never accepts court judgements itself or respects the authority of those placed in positions of trust who have to make similar decisions in inquiries such as Hutton or Butler….the BBC mocks and vilifies both these men for coming to the ‘wrong’ decision…one that doesn’t suit the BBC’s own narrative on Iraq.
One strong argument ministers have to appeal the Brexit ruling is that in 1975, even though there were doubts at high level, the will of the people was respected. Maybe now there are grounds to mount a retrospective legal appeal, not least because people were badly misled about exactly what they were voting for in 1975.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/06/senior-judges-linked-to-pro-eu-group-whose-boss-called-for-mps-to-block-brexit/
The Remain trolls, most notably ‘Zac’ and ‘Terry Bollea’ on the HYS since John_from_Hendon appears to have disappeared up his own backside, were ridiculing “Brexidiots” this week for questioning the impartiality of the ruling and were stating that this was a totally unbiased ruling that would stop the government from doing whatever it pleased. The article above highlights that they are talking nonsense. At least one of the senior judges has intimate links with EU groups whose members, including its president who’s also an MEP, have called for Brexit to be overturned. He cannot be seen as impartial or fair given his connections, and what’s worse is that the appeal will have at least one QC who’s also a member of an EU legal group. The Europhiles, who proclaim that they want a factual campaign, rely entirely on suppression of truths and misrepresentation of events. It only makes it even more obvious that Britain made the right decision to leave the EU, and the petulant actions of these people must be defeated now more than ever before.
remain had 1 line of attack, we would be / are financially better off in the euussr
my sister fell for project fear
thats quickly dissolving if they were to have a second referendum exactly what would they campaign on the behalf of, europe is going to shit , really i cant see anymore voting for it than last time the majority will only get bigger
If the appeal to the Supreme Court fails, Theresa May should call a general election on the basis of executing Brexit. If the Tories win, the remainiacs will have the ground taken from under their feet. It’s a bit of a gamble I know, but it might work.
Errr…if the Tories win?
What makes you think the majority of Tories want out?
It will have to be fought on an in-party versus an out-party.
You may well find
1 That it will be part of the manifesto to exit, and therefore candidates will be standing on that basis, and
2. There may well be vacancies for new candidates in constituencies where sitting M.Ps are deselected if they do not sign up.
One hopes that you are correct….
Why do the remoaners assume that the regret at the result is all on the leave side? I have met a few people, who nearly came to blows with me, people who I thought of as friends, after I had told them how I had voted. They said that almost all that the leave side had said and they didn’t believe, has come to pass or coming and given the chance to vote again they would vote differently.
It’s not the outcome of the court case that annoys me ( why doesn’t Theresa the appeaser have a vote now This House Repects the Referendum and Will Trigger Article 50 )?
Its not the over the top headlines which show frustration . Its not even Polly and others on the liberal/left who write about subverting the referendum by using ” parliamentary democracy ” and other rubbish .
Its the shibboleth that The Judiciary should be independent , and the shibboleth that they should be protected from criticism .
No one else in their working life has independence . We all have to conform to rules , regulations and the law . Why should judges be any different ? There isn’t total independence in the law anyway . There are fixed penalties and maximum sentences . Maximum sentences were enacted by parliament when judges tended to be harsh and reduced their independence , now we have the opposite with half witted judges educated at Eton and Oxbridge who arrogantly think they have the wisdom of Solomon . There should be minimum sentences so every criminal does know what sentence they will serve , and so do we . Sod independence for judges , let’s have justice instead .
And why does the BBC think judges be above criticism ? If a judge is stupid , incompetent , corrupt or anti populist just to show his peers how intelligent he is , then why shouldn’t he be criticised ? Most should be sacked anyway .
Power to the people , not arrogant judges .
As ever, one wonders how the BBC and remoaners in general would have reacted if the courts decision had gone the other way. If they had failed in their case and taken the matter to the supreme court, would Ms. Miller et al have been criticized by the BBC for not respecting the judiciary?
Of course questioning judges is ok if it’s cause that the BBC are keen on. Like the Ched Evans case?
Five Live, The Today Programme, Nicky Campbell’s Phone in, Victoria Derbyshire, Woman’s Hour – they all had their say and invited guests along to criticise the judgement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04c3fhh
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37728681