Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Parliamentary Privilege.....
47 Answers
A legitimate tool to expose the wrongdoer?
Or an abuse of political power?
No link because it might get AB into trouble. The question is about the principle, rather than the issue in the news that brought it to prominence.
Or an abuse of political power?
No link because it might get AB into trouble. The question is about the principle, rather than the issue in the news that brought it to prominence.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A cleft stick.
I'm not sure that it is a legitimate tool to expose wrongdoers. Rightly or wrongly Parliament has decreed that courts have the power to keep the identity of certain individuals in certain circumstances hidden from the public. That is something that Parliament has decided. With that in mind I do not believe it is right for individual MPs to take it upon themselves to defy the will of Parliament (and the court) if they see fit. I do not like to see MPs trying to interfere with court decisions.
That said, Parliamentary Privilege is a worthy principle. I would not like to see MPs silenced on any matter. But on balance in the case in point I believe the court has made its decision, based on legislation passed by Parliament and individual MPs should not seek to defy court decisions because in an individual case it does not suit them.
I'm not sure that it is a legitimate tool to expose wrongdoers. Rightly or wrongly Parliament has decreed that courts have the power to keep the identity of certain individuals in certain circumstances hidden from the public. That is something that Parliament has decided. With that in mind I do not believe it is right for individual MPs to take it upon themselves to defy the will of Parliament (and the court) if they see fit. I do not like to see MPs trying to interfere with court decisions.
That said, Parliamentary Privilege is a worthy principle. I would not like to see MPs silenced on any matter. But on balance in the case in point I believe the court has made its decision, based on legislation passed by Parliament and individual MPs should not seek to defy court decisions because in an individual case it does not suit them.
// Rightly or wrongly Parliament has decreed that courts have the power to keep the identity of certain individuals in certain circumstances hidden from the public. That is something that Parliament has decided.//
er sorry your main political point elsewhere NJ is that Parliament HASN'T decreed any such thing - it was imposed from outside ( der daaah enter the villain the court of the EU)
and once we Brexit and repatriate our laws we will be MUCH better off - just like that ! nothing unjust like gagging orders is around the corner
the rest of privacy law is judge made - stand up pantomime villain Eady J who was the leader of the pack
I was gonna start at the Bill of Rights 1689
which really DID have extra rights
- one that proceedings in parliament were not to be brought before the courts
so - so long as your reported the parliament ( itself a long struggle - for a long time parliament did NOT want to be reported at ALL)
But the other side of the argument - is that court proceedings were not to be interfered with - enforced by the Speaker
(This is a contemporary lession Trump seems not to know as he criticises all and sundry as he wished)
so it is to be used sparingly
( and since proceedings of parliament are immune from suit I am not sure if AB COULD get into trouble by reporting it )
[Hey did you see the colour shouter on the airplane - Ryanair say it has referred the matter to the police so it was not allowed to comment further. Absolute piffle of course. More Ryanair porkies - reporting is restricted after CHARGING, not after reporting]
and the usual thing - so long as they follow the rules that have been agreed of yore, things should proceed in an orderly fashion
yeah OK who was he?
er sorry your main political point elsewhere NJ is that Parliament HASN'T decreed any such thing - it was imposed from outside ( der daaah enter the villain the court of the EU)
and once we Brexit and repatriate our laws we will be MUCH better off - just like that ! nothing unjust like gagging orders is around the corner
the rest of privacy law is judge made - stand up pantomime villain Eady J who was the leader of the pack
I was gonna start at the Bill of Rights 1689
which really DID have extra rights
- one that proceedings in parliament were not to be brought before the courts
so - so long as your reported the parliament ( itself a long struggle - for a long time parliament did NOT want to be reported at ALL)
But the other side of the argument - is that court proceedings were not to be interfered with - enforced by the Speaker
(This is a contemporary lession Trump seems not to know as he criticises all and sundry as he wished)
so it is to be used sparingly
( and since proceedings of parliament are immune from suit I am not sure if AB COULD get into trouble by reporting it )
[Hey did you see the colour shouter on the airplane - Ryanair say it has referred the matter to the police so it was not allowed to comment further. Absolute piffle of course. More Ryanair porkies - reporting is restricted after CHARGING, not after reporting]
and the usual thing - so long as they follow the rules that have been agreed of yore, things should proceed in an orderly fashion
yeah OK who was he?
Christ
quite a lot here
https:/
if you kiss and tell tale amounts to a protected disclosure
you can make it even tho you have signed and taken the moolah
I thought it was straightforward that the judges of the High Court ( bless all of them!) would find it not in the public interest that contracts were concluded to prevent criminals coming to justice - and hence voidable and unenforceable
but they didnt
( just in case you are wondering a corrupt contract such as a contract for prostitution will NOT be enforced, and concluding a contract to pay for the return of stolen goods is a crime innit? let alone void and unenforceable at common law]
quite a lot here
https:/
if you kiss and tell tale amounts to a protected disclosure
you can make it even tho you have signed and taken the moolah
I thought it was straightforward that the judges of the High Court ( bless all of them!) would find it not in the public interest that contracts were concluded to prevent criminals coming to justice - and hence voidable and unenforceable
but they didnt
( just in case you are wondering a corrupt contract such as a contract for prostitution will NOT be enforced, and concluding a contract to pay for the return of stolen goods is a crime innit? let alone void and unenforceable at common law]
I cannot possibly name him or her
but does anyone wonder what happens if you go onto a social thingey such as twitter and type in an innocent phrase like - gagging order. An awful lot about Hervey Weinstein who I hurry to reasure you is NOT the named fella. - Hey did you see last week he got one of the witnesses excluded on the grounds it was obvious she was lying?
but does anyone wonder what happens if you go onto a social thingey such as twitter and type in an innocent phrase like - gagging order. An awful lot about Hervey Weinstein who I hurry to reasure you is NOT the named fella. - Hey did you see last week he got one of the witnesses excluded on the grounds it was obvious she was lying?
Must do the five o'clock news then
other famous people - named - didnt Peter Rackman get an outing ? (sixties) - Russian spies - Ryan Giggs- oh Philip Green on pensions or the size of his own and the lack of pension of his employees
god some people have SO much money that they spend it on lawyers
size of his own pension I mean - settle down - settle down
other famous people - named - didnt Peter Rackman get an outing ? (sixties) - Russian spies - Ryan Giggs- oh Philip Green on pensions or the size of his own and the lack of pension of his employees
god some people have SO much money that they spend it on lawyers
size of his own pension I mean - settle down - settle down
// ‘The court of appeals ruling remains in place’ //
how does that work
statutory bodies MUST obey the law - they cant take a decison not to
( Grenfell council - are you listening?)
so what happens if they do
debatable
one is that the lucky deciders become personally liable ....
Tommy tommy tommy
can you imagine Tommy ( coom on Tommy!) and Lord Hall doing time together ? Lord Hall obviously cant
how does that work
statutory bodies MUST obey the law - they cant take a decison not to
( Grenfell council - are you listening?)
so what happens if they do
debatable
one is that the lucky deciders become personally liable ....
Tommy tommy tommy
can you imagine Tommy ( coom on Tommy!) and Lord Hall doing time together ? Lord Hall obviously cant
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
