Good Law Project Limited

wanderlust wrote:Boris would love that - a Conservative parliament scrutinising a Conservative government - on legal matters

Jesus Christ you certainly know how to show your total ignorance of things in public!!!

Have you absolutely NO idea of how the constitution of the country actually works???

Clearly you don't!!!

Even from you it made my jaw drop and gave me the best laugh I've had for the whole year!

Sluffy wrote:

Jesus Christ you certainly know how to show your total ignorance of things in public!!!

Have you absolutely NO idea of how the constitution of the country actually works???

Clearly you don't!!!

Even from you it made my jaw drop and gave me the best laugh I've had for the whole year!

Here - let me explain it to you with a picture seeing that you have so much trouble understanding words....

wanderlust wrote:Here - let me explain it to you with a picture seeing that you have so much trouble understanding words....

OMG - Hahahaha!!!!

I KNOW all about the Separation of Powers, I've linked to it several times in the past ffs!!!

Sluffy wrote:I've explained the Separation of Powers in this country before and again provide a link to how it works -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_in_the_United_Kingdom

I've even explained how it works in relationship of the judiciary to the executive as recently as a couple of days ago...

Sluffy wrote:"The proper constitutional relationship of the executive with the courts is that the courts will respect all acts of the executive within its lawful province, and that the executive will respect all decisions of the courts as to what its lawful province is".

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23411p30-how-is-the-tory-government-doing#433386

Yet you in your warped head of yours tried in some unfathomable way to me to try and shoot down what I'd been saying above by posting this total bullshit!!!

wanderlust wrote:Boris would love that - a Conservative parliament scrutinising a Conservative government - on legal matters

Is it any wonder I truly piss my sides laughing at you???

You've got a problem mate and you really need to get some proper help.

Hahaha...

I've just had another good laugh, this time in respect of Maughan and his GLP claim that they 'won' 4 out of 4 court cases this year...

...which many gullible people seemed to believe without checking...

...no names mentioned of course...

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Four out of four this year, and yes you shouldn’t blow your own trumpet - you’ve been proven wrong every step of the way you berk   .

Anyway and joking aside it seems others couldn't work out what these four cases were either...?

Our court wins in 2021 https://t.co/1ygwCe2zvW

— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) December 11, 2021

The thing is though when you scrutinise Maughan's reply you will find he's only 'won' two after all - the one the government stated before the court case they hadn't had the time to do the publishing of contracts within 28 days due to all hands being at the pumps to deal with the pandemic hitting the country at the time - and the other which is currently being appealed.

So what about these other two wins he claims?

Well the first is one he claims to simply 'supported' - and wasn't seemingly actually involved with at all - and the second he claims he 'funded' - or rather that he started a go fund me sort of public appeal and passed over the money to the appellants.

Or in other words its just like me claiming that Bolton Wanders won because I supported them at a particular game, or because say my brother gave me his money to go and pay for his Season Ticket for him - nothing at all in either case having any meaningful and direct involvement in the court outcome!!!

The claim of 4 out of 4 is simply outrageous!

I've got to laugh at his brazenness though and the jaw dropping naivety of those who truly still believe him to be doing all he does for the right reasons and not because he has his own agenda about all he's been doing.

Oh and speaking of fake news...

T.R.O.Y. wrote:So you disagree with the courts decisions on those? It’s a pro Maugham conspiracy or you just know better than the court?

All 4 have been posted on the nepotism thread throughout the year, go find them or go on the GLP website yourself. But all 4 were successful and I’ll go with what the court thinks rather than Sluffy thanks .

I won't bother looking because I KNOW they aren't there...

...and never were!!!

Maughan's only gone and done it again - the man has no shame!

Yesterday BBC Northern Ireland aired an half hour documentary about a local company called Claneboye and the PPE contracts it won.

The basis of the story was that Claneboye is a sweet manufacturer and the PPE it facilitated to the cost of over £100m to the UK taxpayers were found not to be useable for the need they were purchased.

If that's not enough the £100m contract went through the VIP lane too!!!

What a scandal, what corruption and incompetence, heads should roll for this, fuck the Tory government, sleaze, cronyism - I can hear what many must think - Maughan and Rayner who were interviewed and give their thoughts on the programme clearly steer the viewers in those directions in what they say...

...but it really wasn't like that at all.

If you watch the programme, its only on for 30 mins

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0012ljx/spotlight-14122021

...and despite the presenter seemingly leaning that way to me, the programme reported fairly and honestly - and if you don't set off watching it with a prejudicial mind you will see a set of facts without the spin and innuendo that so many are taken in by Maughan et al.

The facts are pretty simple

- Hancock publicly asks manufacturers to help source/produce urgently required PPE.
- Clandeboye as well as being a sweet manufacturer is also a distributer of PPE equipment manufactured in Cambodia.
- Clandeboye contacts local MP.
- Local MP refers them to the government website
- Clandeboye's offer of PPE equipment is picked up by NHS Wales and contract made for £1m of immediate stock.
- Stock delivered, immediately put to use by NHS Wales and NHS Wales official adds Clandeboye to VIP lane
- UK Gov immediately acts on that recommendation from NHS Wales and places £100m contract that is delivered.
- Unlike NHS Wales the PPE delivered is checked before distribution and found not up to required standard
- Stock ultimately sold off months later for a fraction of their cost.

Yes a big mistake was made costing us the taxpayers £100m or more but it was just that - an honest
mistake and done in a rush because of the circumstances and ultra emergency requirements of the time (seems NHS Wales had run out of stock at the time).

If someone in NHS Wales had checked the stuff for compliance before issuing the stock straight from delivery there would not have been the £100m contract or been recommended to the VIP lane.


Let's have a little look what followed this from Maugham at the time.

He somehow got wind that companies like Clandeboye (sweet manufacturer) Pest Fix (pest control firm) and Ayanda (hedge fund company) had won government PPE contracts and inferred that something was wrong in this and started a JR request against the government for having done so.

This resulted in a High Court review of the application for a JR and the JR being allowed within defined limits - the judge's findings to allow the JR to take place -

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/60a205d02c94e04a0f2c9ea2

The BIG thing I want to point out in this is that when GLP presented its case to the High Court judge to allow a JR on it didn't refer to Clandeboye at all - in fact it in effect all but withdrew its case against Clandeboye!

Yet now EIGHT MONTHS on Maughan/GLP have tweeted numerously from yesterday onwards about their impending future JR against Clandeboye!!!

He/GLP is simply stirring the pot deliberately so to play to his crowd - who laps up stuff like this!

He knew well enough about months prior to the pub landlord being a sub contractor for TWO contracts who were awarded PPE contracts (in fact so did we on Nuts because I pointed it out at the time) - yet he whipped up all that shit a week or so ago when Hancock stated he knew nothing about the pub landlord being a subcontractor following on from him referring to the government website.  

Now Maugham is stirring the shit in respect of Clandeboye when he knows full well that he's not (seemingly) intending to further his case against them at the future JR!

All this lacks integrity to my way of thinking and as far as I'm concerned he's just a player with his own agenda and people are just falling for it simply because he's telling them what they want to hear in the first place!

Sluffy wrote:

All the VAR decisions were adhered to, even if no one thought they were right at the time - just like the law.

Because those decisions were felt to be wrong by the consensus of those who made the rules, they were changed - just like the law does.

My analogy, which clearly you choose to scoff at, still stands.

VAR didn't change because I personally thought the rules to what it worked to at the time was wrong, they changed because those in charge reacted to the widespread disapproval of them by both those involved  such as the managers, players as well as the journalists, pundits and the general public too.

It's exactly the same with the law, the law makers proposals (the elected executive) are put to a vote in Parliament to change, repeal or enact new laws for the judiciary to enforce.

The executive achieves this position by the public endorsement of their polices in their manifestos at the time of the elections.

Laws change because they are seen no longer to work, VAR changed because it was seen not to be working as people wanted it to.

It didn't change simply because I thought it to be wrong.

Just moving this to the right thread.

Specifically which law change are you likening to VAR getting updated?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

All the VAR decisions were adhered to, even if no one thought they were right at the time - just like the law.

Because those decisions were felt to be wrong by the consensus of those who made the rules, they were changed - just like the law does.

My analogy, which clearly you choose to scoff at, still stands.

VAR didn't change because I personally thought the rules to what it worked to at the time was wrong, they changed because those in charge reacted to the widespread disapproval of them by both those involved  such as the managers, players as well as the journalists, pundits and the general public too.

It's exactly the same with the law, the law makers proposals (the elected executive) are put to a vote in Parliament to change, repeal or enact new laws for the judiciary to enforce.

The executive achieves this position by the public endorsement of their polices in their manifestos at the time of the elections.

Laws change because they are seen no longer to work, VAR changed because it was seen not to be working as people wanted it to.

It didn't change simply because I thought it to be wrong.

Just moving this to the right thread.

Specifically which law change are you likening to VAR getting updated?

???

Not sure why you think this is the right place to continue this discussion - after all it was you bringing up VAR on the Migrant thread I was responding to after all?

Anyway I'll let the referees chief - Mike Dean answer for me instead - I believe he knows better about these things than either of us - wouldn't you agree?


What's new for 2021/22? VAR, thicker lines, armpits and handball rule changes for new season

Premier League VARs are set to use 'thicker lines' in games next season to determine marginal decisions; we run through the other major rule changes to look out for heading into 2021/22

What is the benefit of 'thicker lines'? Will the Premier League's VAR use be as good as Euro 2020? And what is considered handball?

With the new season around the corner, we look at the major rule changes to look out for heading into 2021/22.

Premier League VARs are set to use 'thicker lines' in games this season to determine marginal decisions.

An agreement to use thicker lines followed a presentation by Professional Game Match Officials Limited [PGMOL] referees' chief Mike Riley to clubs at their annual general meeting in June.

The PGMOL hopes the change will give the benefit back to the attacking team after Premier League clubs gave feedback in a VAR survey last season.

The International Football Association Board [IFAB] - football's lawmakers - does not specify a maximum thickness of lines, under the laws of the game.

This should rule out instances where a player's toe has led to a goal being ruled out, cases which many fans, players and pundits felt were ruining the game.

"Fundamentally, we want the approach to be one that allows players to go out and express themselves and let the game flow," Mike Riley said.

"It means the VAR teams will not intervene for trivial offences and the threshold for referee and VAR intervention will be slightly higher than it was last season.

"We've introduced the benefit of the doubt for the attacking player so where we have a really close offside situation, we will follow the same process as last year but now apply thicker broadcast lines.

"Effectively what we have done is given back 20 goals to the game that were deemed offside last season by using quite forensic scrutiny.

"So it's the toenails, the noses of players that were offside - they won't be offside now."

Furthermore, in the first two years of VAR, viewers not in the stadium were able to see the working out process and it led to screenshots of borderline decisions being shared and creating more negativity for the decision-review system.

As a result, all decisions will be made off-screen from now on.

Armpits and offsides

A brief clarification from FIFA about where offside lines start and stop: they say the bottom of the armpit is now being classed as the part of the body where offsides will be measured from.

Full article here -

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12361221/whats-new-for-2021-22-var-thicker-lines-armpits-and-handball-rule-changes-for-new-season

All very sensible changes in my opinion (and in the opinion of the clubs too!), wouldn't you agree?

Thanks but I know about the VAR changes, I asked you which change in law your analogy is aimed at?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Thanks but I know about the VAR changes, I asked you which change in law your analogy is aimed at?

???

I've already told you!!!

Round and round in circles you just love to go!

The Judicial Review court is designed to rule on the administration of how a law has been administered not to rule on policy making by the executive (the government)

Maughan has been using the JR path to challenge policy making by exploiting the courts remit to look only at the administration of laws and not the wider context behind the JR's which is clearly to challenge the governments policy decisions nearly all of which has stemmed from them invoking emergency provisions to deal with the pandemic.

For instance the technicality of not publishing contract awards within 30 days even though the whole country was plunged into lock down at the time.

The JR simply looked in black and white, were the awards published in 30 days irrespective of what was happening in the world and this country at the time and the answer was they had not.

The decision was correct but absolutely meaningless in what was going on at the time.

The government seems to be moving to close this loophole.

As an analogy I tried to put it in to terms you and others could maybe better understand, namely the use of VAR.

The decisions of VAR initially were again correct - someones toenail or finger was offside.

Nobody could argue that the rules were not applied correctly but in the context of the game a toenail or finger leading to an offside decision was a farce.

For that reason the executive in charge of VAR changed the rules for the following season to mitigate and eliminate those things because VAR was never intended to work the way it had been doing.

The government (the executive) are similarly proposing to do the same thing to JR's to mitigate and eliminate those things that the JR's were never intended to work in the way that Maughan et al have recently been using them.

It's as simple as that.

Listen mate, if you think I'm talking out my arse that's fine and I'm usually willing to answer your questions even though I know that more than just a bit of it is being done to entertain you at my expense but I don't really see any benefit to you, me or the forum to deliberately go round and round and round, on the same points over and over again.

You might well be laughing at me but it's certainly corrosive and damaging to the forum and nobody else wants to read this stuff more than the once.

That's how I see it anyway.

Sluffy, the question I’m asking you is *specifically* what bill is going through to close the loophole/change the law? I am asking out of interest not to have a row with you.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy, the question I’m asking you is *specifically* what bill is going through to close the loophole/change the law? I am asking out of interest not to have a row with you.

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3035

Judicial review: Plan to reform scrutiny by courts revealed

The government is pressing ahead with plans to limit how the public can legally challenge official decisions, despite fears it will damage justice.

The Ministry of Justice says its legislation to reform judicial review will save money and court time.

...critics of judicial review say the wide-ranging right to bring cases has led judges to go beyond their role in upholding the law and into taking political decisions that should be left to Parliament.

Under the proposals, ministers say reforms will prevent the courts from being abused and give judges new powers over how they implement decisions that go against the government.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57909168

Interesting you only quote the government and not the law society's comment on that bill isn't it?

Taken from the same article:

Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society, which represents solicitors, said that while ministers appeared to have heeded some concerns, the proposals could still weaken checks and balances on power.

"There is a great deal here that should ring alarm bells for people who come up against the might of the state," she said.

"Removing or limiting the retrospective effect of an order would mean that nobody who has been a victim of an unlawful state action - not even the person who brought the challenge - would benefit from a ruling that the government had behaved unlawfully.

"This would have a chilling effect on justice."

No wonder Auntie Sharon doesn't want owt to do wi' social media.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Interesting you only quote the government and not the law society's comment on that bill isn't it?

Taken from the same article:

Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society, which represents solicitors, said that while ministers appeared to have heeded some concerns, the proposals could still weaken checks and balances on power.

"There is a great deal here that should ring alarm bells for people who come up against the might of the state," she said.

"Removing or limiting the retrospective effect of an order would mean that nobody who has been a victim of an unlawful state action - not even the person who brought the challenge - would benefit from a ruling that the government had behaved unlawfully.

"This would have a chilling effect on justice."

You asked ME what my analogy was aimed at -

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Thanks but I know about the VAR changes, I asked you which change in law your analogy is aimed at?

I answered your question exactly with that in mind and with the relevant parts of the article to explain it even further.

I hid nothing but clearly you just want to continue the argument on - you always do...!

A person so politically activated such as yourself should know (but your knowledge of how the state works has been utterly woeful up to now) that Bills such as this go through many stages before it is voted (or not) into law.

The concerns of Ms Boyce may well have been dealt to her and the Law Society's utmost satisfaction by now and if not there's still many opportunities for debate and amendments to be made - so neither she nor you should be getting your knickers in a twist just yet.

The bottom line in all this don't forget is that if Maughan et al weren't trying to manipulate the use of JR's for something they are not intended for - then there would have been no need for a Bill to close the loophole would there?

You’ve just highlighted how little you understand this.

‘The bottom line in all this don't forget is that if Maughan et al weren't trying to manipulate the use of JR's for something they are not intended for - then there would have been no need for a Bill to close the loophole would there?’

That suggests definitively that the government’s claim that JR’s are being abused is proven to be accurate.

Show me a quote from a legal expert supporting that.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:You’ve just highlighted how little you understand this.

‘The bottom line in all this don't forget is that if Maughan et al weren't trying to manipulate the use of JR's for something they are not intended for - then there would have been no need for a Bill to close the loophole would there?’

That suggests definitively that the government’s claim that JR’s are being abused is proven to be accurate.

Show me a quote from a legal expert supporting that.

I don't need to.

The system is the executive has the power to put law into action, Parliament the power to make the law and the judiciary judges on the law.

Legal experts are simply advisors and their advice can be heeded or rejected.

That's how it works - and you either simply just don't get it or you're in denial about it.

So you can’t quote any impartial experts supporting your claim that JRs are being abused.

Yet I’m supposed to take your word for it?

And you have the cheek to rattle on about only dealing in facts get over yourself lad.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:So you can’t quote any impartial experts supporting your claim that JRs are being abused.

Yet I’m supposed to take your word for it?

And you have the cheek to rattle on about only dealing in facts get over yourself lad.

I am dealing in facts - that's how the Constitution works.

You don't have to take my word for it - check it out for youself.

I was dropped jawed with your sheer ignorance of how the whole system works a year or so ago but now I just laugh at your continuing ignorance.  For one who seems so politically motivated you simply don't understand what you face in your endeavours to bring about change - and you obviously can't be arsed to find out - you're just political fodder basically not understanding the game at all.

You clearly pride yourself on arguing but to what end?

If you don't understand what you are arguing against then how can you ever hope to change it?

All the experts were on one side in respect of Brexit - little good did it do them though as they were on the losing side.  The experts in SAGE have been advising the government over Covid from day one - Whitty even publicly contradicted Boris go out and party message (and rightly so imo) but at the end of the day he's the expert and Boris is the one with the power.

If you don't know how the system works - and you clearly don't - nor ever intend to find out either - you will never change it even if you believe you know far, far more than a random old fart like me on a footy forum!

Nobody is arguing with how the system works.

I’m asking you for any supporting evidence that JR’s are being abused. If you can’t answer that then just say.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Nobody is arguing with how the system works.

I’m asking you for any supporting evidence that JR’s are being abused. If you can’t answer that then just say.

Hahaha!!!

Talk about clutching at straws!

It's simple.

If JR's aren't being abused there would be no reason to seek legislation to change them.

We've just seen 100 Conservative MP's defy the government and vote against it so it's not a given that the Bill would ever be passed if Parliament thought all this was some sort of muzzling of the judiciary exercise.

The Bill to Parliament was introduced by the then Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland.

The Lord Chancellor by law is responsible for the efficient functioning and independence of the courts.

Buckland is a QC and Master of the Bench, which basically means he's highly regarded within the legal profession.

These are HIS words when introducing the Bill to the House -

Robert Buckland, Lord Chancellor and justice secretary, said the Judicial Review and Courts Bill would create a better balance between the rights of citizens and effective government.

"The government has pledged to ensure that the courts are not open to abuse and delay," he said.

"Today we are delivering on that commitment. We are giving judges the powers they need to ensure the government is held to account, while tackling those who seek to frustrate the court process."

Now do you really, really think he is some sort of crazed nutjob intent on creating a "chilling effect on justice", that he is simply one of Johnson's lackeys?

You probably do but most reasonable people certainly don't and Buckland by all accounts is highly regarded amongst his peers in both the legal profession and Parliament.

If the Bill really is as contentious as you seem to think it is then it will simply not  be voted into law.

If it is voted into law then clearly there is perceived to be a need for it and as Buckland himself stated in Parliament that need is to stop the current abuse of the JR system.