Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Good Law Project Limited

Good Law Project Limited

+4
karlypants
wanderlust
Norpig
Sluffy
8 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Go down  Message [Page 5 of 7]

81Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 21 2021, 12:43

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Dear God you hadn't even realised that there were two elements to the abuse question and stupid you couldn't grasp that you had got completely the wrong end of the stick by continually and persistently trying to refute my point with the WRONG evidence despite me repeatedly over a period of many days pointing out to you where the 'right' evidence was!!!

And you have the cheek in your post above to claim I pick and choose elements to manipulate to suit my narrative!!!

I've already dealt with the personal view of Ms Boyce and have challenged you to prove me wrong.

You haven't because you can't - the words ARE her own personal opinion -

Sluffy wrote:I refer you to the comments (Note NOT evidence) of Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society in the BBC article of the 21st July.

These are NOT the same as was said in the Law Society's reply to IRAL on the 26th October 2020 which you since linked to (from the Hose of Lords Library).

Her comments (not evidence as you claim) seem to be expressed as her own personal opinion and not those of the Law Society - hence why I've expressed it as 'one woman's opinion' - and thus I am telling no lie - as you claim I did.

I'm happy to cede that what she states IS the official position of the Law Society if you would kindly show evidence to that effect but I don't believe the Law Society has made such a declaration.
https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23405p60-good-law-project-limited#434002

And the killer is this line you've been continually pushing...

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The document also rejects your view that JR’s are being abused, yet having failed to find any responses to IRAL supporting your view your stuck ‘clutching at straws’.

Well my friend IRAL's recommendation which has been taken forward in the formulating of the Bill is that JR's have been being abused and that legislation is to be enacted to overturn the Supreme Courts ruling on Cart

"The IRAL Panel recommended that the Government should legislate to reverse the effect of the
Supreme Court decision in Cart, thereby re-affirming that decisions of the Upper Tribunal to
refuse permission to appeal are not subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court".

And fwiw IRAL made this recommendation even though the majority respondents argued to retain Cart!

Just because someone responds to something doesn't mean they haven't a vested interest in what they say - clearly most do!

Judgements need to be made with the absence of bias and impartiality.

Anyway as I've said already...

Sluffy wrote:I really don't know what your game is?

It's like trying to reason with an imbecile but I don't believe you are, or maybe you are just a wum but I've always thought you had some belief in what you were attempting to say.

I wish you well in whatever that world is that you reside in but it's certainly not one connected to the real world that I live in.

You believe whatever you want but I won't be bothering with you again, you lack the basic honesty and integrity to genuinely and seriously converse with any further as far as I'm concerned.

Merry Christmas and good day to you!

82Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 21 2021, 12:59

Guest


Guest

Sluffy wrote:Dear God you hadn't even realised that there were two elements to the abuse question

Another lie, I've dealt with both the politics by other means, and unmeritous claims. You've provided no equivalent for your argument.

Sluffy wrote:I've already dealt with the personal view of Ms Boyce and have challenged you to prove me wrong.

Actually you just dismissed the opinion of someone far more qualified than you (because you don't like that view). I presented you with the Law Soc's official response back in post 59, it also rejects your claims. But at no point have i suggested it is as damning as Boyce's personal view. Again you drag this out because you've ran out of road.

Glad you cottoned on to this point:

Sluffy wrote:And fwiw IRAL made this recommendation even though the majority respondents argued to retain Cart!

Why do you think they've ignored the evidence respondents gave and have gone ahead with that recommendation? Show us you can think critically lad.

And while you're at it, link that answer back to your original point. Which claimed the government were amending JR's because of the GLP/Maugham.

83Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 21 2021, 14:10

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

Sluffy wrote:I really don't know what your game is?

It's like trying to reason with an imbecile but I don't believe you are, or maybe you are just a wum but I've always thought you had some belief in what you were attempting to say.

I wish you well in whatever that world is that you reside in but it's certainly not one connected to the real world that I live in.

You believe whatever you want but I won't be bothering with you again, you lack the basic honesty and integrity to genuinely and seriously converse with any further as far as I'm concerned.

Merry Christmas and good day to you!

84Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 21 2021, 15:02

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 200.gif?cid=a87a70e6czpvq671s8gybyvr9n75q06kw4cqho5zklel4ag4&rid=200

85Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 21 2021, 15:24

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 9d8c5931e8d37be704740436dd380a18

86Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 21 2021, 16:08

Guest


Guest

Sluffy wrote:

Laughing Laughing

I’ll help you out. The cart review has precisely zero impact on the GLP cases - which you insisted had triggered this gov review. 

So in other words you were talking complete rubbish.

87Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 21 2021, 16:28

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Sorry chaps, time for another ping pong interlude

88Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 21 2021, 16:42

Guest


Guest

Sluffy’s having a strop and left me to it. So probably more like this - with you all watching on in awe

89Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Tue Dec 21 2021, 23:14

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy’s having a strop and left me to it.

...I’ll help you out. The cart review has precisely zero impact on the GLP cases - which you insisted had triggered this gov review. 

So in other words you were talking complete rubbish.

Having a strop...

Yeah, if you say so. Rolling Eyes

I'm a grown man and I stopped having strops when I was in infant school.

Anyway, it isn't the first time I've ever been wrong and it won't be the last either.

I'm not too impressed with you putting words in my mouth - not the first time either is it - seems to becoming a habit with you.

Fwiw I'm not the one who told the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division to judge the Miller case as non-justiciable - but they did...  I'm also not the one who asked IRAL to consider the possible judicial overreach resulting from the Supreme Court ruling either - so my views and the ramifications resulting from it were clearly shared by some of the very top legal brains in the country - although you have been trying to make me out as some crazed weirdo for sharing them...

English judges explain decision to reject prorogation challenge

Judges ruled prorogation was political matter that should not be reviewed by courts


https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/11/english-judges-explain-decision-to-reject-prorogation-challenge

...apparently I stood completely all alone in the way you've tried to paint me - yeah right...

Again fwiw, funny how you put such great store in Lord Reed, the Bar Council and Law Society being such august bodies that their opinion was all that mattered, when it turns out it wasn't the case at all and that although they stated JR's were fit for purpose as they were, IRAL (the real 'independent' experts) considered their view to be wrong and recommended that the Bill include provision to legislate and overturn a Supreme Court ruling on the way that JR's are working to now!

Time, and time, and time again, you threw in my face how the President of the Supreme Court, the Bar Council and the Law Society were the very top experts in the field and taunted me to find others with a contrary view - and clearly did not believe me when I told you the system does not work in the way you thought it did!

I seemed to be proved right on that...

Finally I never said the Cart ruling impacted on the GLP cases - yet another example of putting words in my mouth - but I've come to expect that off you.  Rolling Eyes

Anyway I stand by all I said - which included I remind you - that what the Bill ends up as, is not the way it starts out as simply because it progresses through many stages where it is debated and changed and to wait for the final outcome before you 'scream'!

I also stand by this - more so too if anything...

Sluffy wrote:I really don't know what your game is?

It's like trying to reason with an imbecile but I don't believe you are, or maybe you are just a wum but I've always thought you had some belief in what you were attempting to say.

I wish you well in whatever that world is that you reside in but it's certainly not one connected to the real world that I live in.

You believe whatever you want but I won't be bothering with you again, you lack the basic honesty and integrity to genuinely and seriously converse with any further as far as I'm concerned.

Merry Christmas and good day to you!

90Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Wed Dec 22 2021, 11:02

Guest


Guest


Proving again that judges are already protecting the system from abuse by not straying into political matters. Not sure how you think this proves your point?

Sluffy wrote:
Time, and time, and time again, you threw in my face how the President of the Supreme Court, the Bar Council and the Law Society were the very top experts in the field and taunted me to find others with a contrary view - and clearly did not believe me when I told you the system does not work in the way you thought it did!

Who's putting words in the others mouth now? 'the very top experts' - spare me, i said they're impartial experts worth listening to and asked if you had an equivalent you could quote. Still waiting.

I also never questioned how the system works (about the tenth time you've lied about that now).

Are you going to answer how any of these recommendations are in response to GLP - you know, your entire point?


91Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Wed Dec 22 2021, 13:26

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

I've more important things to do today than play your continuing games but...

1 - The very top judiciary in England ruled against ruled against getting involved with Miller 2 because it was a political issue and thus not within judicial powers.  Same view as I have.

The Supreme Courts ruling led directly to the concern of judicial overreach and the very reason why this the INDEPENDANT REVIEW of Administrative Law was asked to consider possible reforms in respect of it.

Why else do you think they looked at it?

2 - Thing is though these 'impartial' experts worth listening to you repeatedly kept banging on about could by definition NOT be 'impartial' as they were part of, involved with and have vested interests in - and thus subject to possible bias - in the process being reviewed.

I told you that a number of times but you chose to ignore me.

The very fact the body set up to review JR's was titled 'Independent' and called for those 'involved' in the process for their views, should have told you that those involved simply couldn't have been 'impartial' per se.

I've no reason not to think other than they replied in absolute good faith but when all said and done they were active players in the system under review - by, may I remind you again an Independent body!

It is also a fact the 'independent' panel found against the unanimous judiciary view that there was no need for reform and recommended to the government that there was areas that required legislative change!

3 - My entire point as you seem to be now banging on about is NOT about my view of GLP but rather  the use by GLP and OTHERS...

Sluffy wrote:What the article talks about is Judicial Reviews only - and may I say I did voice my fears on here about the use by Maughan and others, to abuse (my word) the use of Judicial Reviews for political purposes and not the intended one of seeing that the administration of a law has been enacted correctly.

...to use JR's for political purposes and that this was a potential judiciary overreach - or put another way - "abused to conduct politics by another means" - you know what the Independent body was set up to do!!!

The IRAL was established following the Government’s manifesto commitment to guarantee that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.
https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/independent-review-of-administrative-law

Why else do you think I went on to talk and even link to the constitutional separation of powers???

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

You are simply trying to spin this into something I've never said.

As I say, you do it far too often these days and shame on you for doing so.

If you feel the need to win meaningless debates/arguments with a random bloke like me on the internet, by such means then I just don't see the point in engaging with you anymore.

I've never understood what you get out of doing so?

At least I can understand Wanderlust's anger and bitterness and the need not to be seen to be wrong but I can't see what you get from arguing and manipulating simply to keep going on and on, round and round just to browbeat people into the ground?

I've enjoyed playing with you in the past if for nothing else it has helped to pass my time away but you're a young man, with a job, a partner and a social life, and I would imagine you've got plenty of better things to do with your life than presumably seek some sort of need of validation on here "putting me right" as you once told me you do.

Well if you think it is worth doing so then I guess it must be for you but I've simply had enough of it now.

If you believe I'm wrong about everything - so what?

I mean really so what?

Even I have more important things in my life to feel the need to lie (Wanderlust) and contrive to argue ad nauseum, like you, to some random stranger on the internet and that's why I'm walking away from debating/arguing with you in future.

I wish you well and will speak with you on the forum but there simply isn't any point arguing with someone who needs to win so badly as to go to the extents you clearly do particularly when it is all nothing more than meaningless chatter on social media when all said and done.

Good day to you.

92Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Wed Dec 22 2021, 13:55

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

There was just a brief moment a few posts ago when I thought Christmas goodwill to one another had mercifully broken out.....sadly short-lived ..dunno.. Crying or Very sad

93Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Wed Dec 22 2021, 17:37

Guest


Guest

Ok, if IRAL is the only group you take seriously on this (not sure why you give more credence to them than another other group of legal professionals) - then which of their recommendations do you think deals with the 'problem' of GLP:

- Reversing the cart judgement
- Suspension of quashing orders



And Sluffy, you seem upset with how I've dealt with you on this. Do you not think your approach is somewhat responsible? Only one of us has resorted to insults here, you bring it on yourself I'm afraid.

94Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Wed Dec 22 2021, 23:23

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ok, if IRAL is the only group you take seriously on this (not sure why you give more credence to them than another other group of legal professionals) - then which of their recommendations do you think deals with the 'problem' of GLP:

- Reversing the cart judgement
- Suspension of quashing orders



And Sluffy, you seem upset with how I've dealt with you on this. Do you not think your approach is somewhat responsible? Only one of us has resorted to insults here, you bring it on yourself I'm afraid.


Sticks and stones mate.

Moving on...

Where did I ever say GLP was the problem?

Nowhere.

My concern was and always has been the potential abuse of the JR system by overreach of the judiciary arising from Lord Reed et al decision in respect of prorogue.

May I remind you that not only the three top judges of England and Wales viewed the issue of prorogue to be non-justiciable (that means outside their powers under the constitution) but also Northern Ireland's High Court followed their lead too -

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/northern-irish-court-dismisses-case-against-no-deal-brexit

So I'm clearly not on my own in viewing the shift in the constitutional balance following the Supreme Courts ruling on prorogue of concern and to ensure that JR's are "not abused to conduct politics by another means", following from it!

How many more times do you want me to post this - it's here in black and white - my issue has never been about GLP but about the JR system potentially being open to abuse (by people and organisations such as GLP) following on from the prorogue case law widening their scope by case law and having ramifications to the constitution.

I couldn't have made it any clearer!!!

Sluffy wrote:What the article talks about is Judicial Reviews only - and may I say I did voice my fears on here about the use by Maughan and others, to abuse (my word) the use of Judicial Reviews for political purposes and not the intended one of seeing that the administration of a law has been enacted correctly.

That was the very reason IRLA was specifically asked to research and make recommendations on that matter.

They certainly didn't undertake the review on this because Sluffy on Bolton Nuts thought there may have been judicial overreach - they did it because the top judges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland thought it definitely possibly had!

GLP and others have not been seen to have abused JR's in this matter (yet) and the view of IRLA concurs with Lord Reed, the Bar Council and Law Society that there is no need to legislate to ensure it won't in the future.

So you 'win' that one by telling me that Reed/BC/LS view that the current JR system needs no regulating in that respect.

Before you get carried away though you also 'lose' as well in believing that Reed/BC/LS views that NO changes at all to JR's are required because IRLA rejected that in respect of Cart.

I've certainly not been impressed in the slightest on how you've conducted yourself on this thread over the last two weeks and repeat the following which as far as I'm concerned are my last words on the matter -

Sluffy wrote:I've more important things to do today than play your continuing games...

You are simply trying to spin this into something I've never said.

As I say, you do it far too often these days and shame on you for doing so.

If you feel the need to win meaningless debates/arguments with a random bloke like me on the internet, by such means then I just don't see the point in engaging with you anymore.

I've never understood what you get out of doing so?


At least I can understand Wanderlust's anger and bitterness and the need not to be seen to be wrong but I can't see what you get from arguing and manipulating simply to keep going on and on, round and round just to browbeat people into the ground?

I've enjoyed playing with you in the past if for nothing else it has helped to pass my time away but you're a young man, with a job, a partner and a social life, and I would imagine you've got plenty of better things to do with your life than presumably seek some sort of need of validation on here "putting me right" as you once told me you do.

Well if you think it is worth doing so then I guess it must be for you but I've simply had enough of it now.

If you believe I'm wrong about everything - so what?

I mean really so what?

Even I have more important things in my life to feel the need to lie (Wanderlust) and contrive to argue ad nauseum, like you, to some random stranger on the internet and that's why I'm walking away from debating/arguing with you in future.

I wish you well and will speak with you on the forum but there simply isn't any point arguing with someone who needs to win so badly as to go to the extents you clearly do particularly when it is all nothing more than meaningless chatter on social media when all said and done.

Good day to you.

95Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Thu Dec 23 2021, 09:17

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

It's so hard to say goodbye, isn't it.  Razz

96Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Thu Dec 23 2021, 09:26

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

okocha wrote:There was just a brief moment a few posts ago when I thought Christmas goodwill to one another had mercifully broken out.....sadly short-lived ..dunno.. Crying or Very sad
One day there might be a brief moment when I think that Okocha has taken his head out of the clouds. When that day comes I'll know that Alzheimers has set in.

97Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Thu Dec 23 2021, 09:46

Guest


Guest

Thanks Sluffy, it's not true that GLP was never your focus, it's the name of this thread and you originally claimed law was being changed to deal with their abuses of the system. But I suspect this is the closest to an admission you'll ever get.

Let's leave it there then, Happy Christmas all! Glad everyone's enjoyed another thrilling debate.

98Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Thu Dec 23 2021, 12:10

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Thanks Sluffy, it's not true that GLP was never your focus, it's the name of this thread and you originally claimed law was being changed to deal with their abuses of the system. But I suspect this is the closest to an admission as you'll ever get.

Let's leave it there then, Happy Christmas all! Glad everyone's enjoyed another thrilling debate.

Dear God you just twist everything and simply don't understand much - don't you!!!

We are in this thread - which is about the company (not the 'services') of GLP - think FV being a different subject to BWFC playing football matches - only for the reason that YOU moved the thread to here from comments made on a separate thread entirely!!!

The only reason we are on this thread at all - which I told you at the start was the wrong one was because YOU brought it to here!!!

Sluffy wrote:
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?


And GLP was NEVER my focus - you moron!!!

I'm beginning now to realise what was in your head all this time now!!!

Let me take you back to the VAR analogy - and try not to scoff this time.

Something happened in football that created a change in it - that change resulted in the introduction of VAR.

Something happened in politics that created a change - the intervention of the judiciary - that change resulted in case law in respect of JR's.

VAR was the 'law' that everybody worked to from then on.

In respect of JR's the precedent created by the Supreme Court (Miller 2) was the 'law' that everybody worked to from then on.

Some people were happy with how VAR worked, some were not and wanted the 'law' changed - but everything that happened from the introduction of VAR in the form laid down was judged accordingly - no matter what views people had - and this would carry on indefinitely until another 'law' was passed to change (amend) or repeal it.

Some people were happy how JR's now worked following the Supreme Court ruling, some were not and wanted this 'law' changed - but everything from the introduction of the Supreme Court ruling being laid down was judged accordingly - no matter what views people had (this is where my views stem from) - and would carry on indefinitely accordingly until another law was passed to change or repeal it.

The decisions from the start of VAR that people talked about included the 'toenail' and finger pointing incidents that would never had happened prior to VAR.

The decisions from the start of the Supreme Court ruling that people talked about (including me) were the two determined JR cases brought by GLP.

(No other than these two cases have even yet to be determined (relating to possible 'politics by another means') - that's why I've been using the cases as a reference - not because my 'focus' is GLP per se!)

It's worth remembering that IRAL was set up to consider possible abuse of 'politics by another means' BEFORE GLP's two cases were even determined - not to determine if GLP HAD abused the JR's in this way.  Indeed even if they had, it was still entirely legal to have done so because their two claims complied with the law at the time!

VAR was reviewed and found to be in need of change and new 'laws' were brought in to bring this about.

IRAL reviewed JR's and part of their remit was to judge if it needed changing following the Supreme court ruling - they found it did not.

It's never been about GLP its always been about the constitution and perceived judicial overreach from the judiciary!!!

You've never understood this from the start despite me telling you countless times!!!

It's clear to me now you held some sort of agenda against me rooted in your perceived and immovable belief that GLP/Maughan was my target - they never were!!!

They were if you like the toenail and finger pointing cases that happened and which people could use to highlight what they perceived to be the failings of VAR.

My use of GLC (remember they are the only examples I could use - there haven't been any others!!!) was what I've referred to as the concern held in regards to there now being a perceived usage and 'abuse' of JR's now to "conduct politics by another means".

Which I remind you was why the very reason why the top judges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland ruled that they should not involve themselves in the prorogue case because it was beyond their judicial remit under the constitution at the time!!!


You've twisted and contorted what I've been saying - even frequently putting words in to my mouth - often calling me a liar - simply to make them to conform and fit to what your agenda (that GLC was my 'focus') was, when they never were!!!

Your bias, preconceived and prejudicial stance has created days and days of pointless arguments all because you decided to 'judge' me (put me right) on something you construed in your head and continue to hold firm to despite all that I said, and the evidence I produced to substantiate it.

You prejudice has blinded you to the truth of the matter, has made you behave in manipulation to fit your preconceived agenda and the total inflexibility to believe other than you were right in everything so therefore I must be wrong and some how 'wriggling' to not to be seen to be.

The constitution has always been my focus - I stated that on the very first post in this long drawn out thread - you wrongly had in your head from the very start that GLC was my focus and refused to change your mind no matter what I went on to say or explain to you.

Instead you automatically rejected everything without any due contemplation or consideration and manipulated and mangled what I've said to fit your own preconceived - and totally WRONG - start point.  You've had your mind fixed and made up right from the start and never dreamed of ever changing it in light of all I subsequently have said!!!

I even queried why you brought the thread from the previous one (where it first started) to here - I was talking about VAR at that time NOT the GLP!!!  I even went on to talk about why the referees went on to change VAR because I was on that track and wasn't even talking about GLP at the time ffs!!!

You've been on totally the wrong horse all the time - right from the very start!

As they say...

There's non so blind that will not see, or deaf, as those that will not hear.

99Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Thu Dec 23 2021, 13:25

Guest


Guest

Sluffy wrote:

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.


The government seems to be moving to close this loophole.


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.

Sluffy wrote:
The Judicial Review and Courts Bill

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

You were said Maugham had been exploiting the JR process through a loophole, so the government were moving to close it.

I asked which bill is looking to close it.

You said the Judicial and Courts bill.

Drop the insults, it's all here in black and white.

100Good Law Project Limited - Page 5 Empty Re: Good Law Project Limited Thu Dec 23 2021, 16:55

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

You still don't get it???

Are you really that thick?

The prorogue ruling 'opened' the door.

There was concern that 'abuse' of the system would arise from it.

Cases began to flow from it - two in fact both by GLP.

There was a view that these could be seen to be politics by another mean.

Even if they were, under the case law established from Miller 2, it was now LEGAL to do so.

The government wished to consider if in advance of any cases, if JR's could prevent abuse from those wishing to 'conduct politics by other means'.

The question was asked of IRAL BEFORE GLP's cases were determined.

The review period ended in October 2020 and the Bill even if it DID contain a recommendation that the JR system was being abused by these means doesn't have the power to stop such abuse taking place until it is voted into law.

GLP's two cases took place in 2021

There simply was nothing at the time to know if such abuse would occur but IRAL's recommendation contained in the Judicial Courts Bill believed that it wouldn't and that if it did the current system would be able to deal with it.

However since then and as contained in the Times article of the 6th December 2021 - following the two GLP JR successes - there are proposals to introduce a new annual Bill entitled the Interpretation Bill specifically to be able to strike out such abuses rather than now modifying the current Bill that is already half way through the process and will lead to legislation against Cart when passed (if it gets that far).

Whether I think GLP has or have not abused the JR system in this respect is immaterial, what I've been concerned with all along is if the JR system is open to abuse by ANYONE.  I've not been focused as you continue to claim solely on the GLP.

The government must however believe it has otherwise why propose a Bill to deal with it?

As there have only been two cases determined up to now - both of which are GLP's, then who else but them could I have been talking about or the government believe has abused the JR system in this way?

The bottom line for now is that JR's will run in accordance to the case law established by the Supreme Court judgement and until a law is enacted otherwise it matters not what I or the government may consider what if any abuse has happened or not.

It's not really hard to understand all this but you seem to be able to do so...

...or you do understand all of this and simple just doing all this on purpose as I suspect you are!

A strange way to get your jollies if you if that is what you are doing...

Sluffy wrote:If you feel the need to win meaningless debates/arguments with a random bloke like me on the internet, by such means then I just don't see the point in engaging with you anymore.

I've never understood what you get out of doing so?

If you believe I'm wrong about everything - so what?

I mean really so what?

..dunno..

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 7]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum