7,256 comments posted · 6 followers · following 0

14 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Johnson launche... · 1 reply · +1 points

That is not correct. We would have been in a good position and trading nicely. There would have been no fear campaign and no deceptions. The money would be used internally to the UK to mitigate the changes.

14 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: Johnson launche... · 9 replies · +1 points

"dither drift and delay" - What we do not hear is how 2 to 4 years of further negotiations will be otherwise than dither drift and delay. With no certainty for investment or planning for business.

14 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Poor Hammond - hounded... · 0 replies · +1 points

Not all is so polarised. Now consider that they are equally defective and equally determined.

To both the party did not, and does not, matter. The party broke itself long ago and the illusion of partial unity was only through fear and personal desperation. The party failed to agree where it was going, as well as how to get there. It wanted ideal solutions, the dream of any politician. What it did not understand was this was not domestic politics. It was war. The people would accept a downside for freedom. If they had just taken the route of full control the situation would have corrected itself.

With that explanation both their behaviours become perfectly understandable. Neither has any illness.

The illness is in Brussels.

14 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Richard Ekins: Judicia... · 0 replies · +1 points

If the rights were not compatible with the Human Rights Act it should have been handled earlier. The Act allows rights to be overridden by legislation. It should not be that a situation is not compatible, but that the legislation is not compatible. We should not be altering unconditional legislation in specific circumstances if there were no conditions on its use.
By going down this road (excepting the insanity of perversity situations) then most legislation is a limitation of Human Rights and so no one will really know if anything is legal. If the legislation is really broken then it should be up to Parliament to fix it for next time.

14 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Richard Ekins: Judicia... · 1 reply · +1 points

It is very simple. They claim the political situation was extreme and needed Parliament. Whereas I believe it needed no Parliament as it was already done. We needed Parliament after the 31st only. To make that decision means that they made a judgment which was biased by their political views.

14 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Richard Ekins: Judicia... · 0 replies · +1 points

The "Wednesbury" issue is really about insane decisions.

The first two parts are about considering all, and only, those aspects that are real conditions. It is not about dreaming up conditions. The intent of Parliament in making the legislation is generally explicitly stated.

Most, if not all, perversity decisions are actually misinterpretations of the law. The trick is to get into the mind of the judge and see it from their misunderstanding.

14 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Richard Ekins: Judicia... · 2 replies · +1 points

I thought judicial review is to determine only if the actions were "authorised by law". It should have no role at all in looking at the reasons and validity. If the conditions of the legislation use were not specified, then it can be used how they like. I thought the courts were there to resolve conflicts between legislation. Further to highlight problems so that they can be corrected by amendments to legislation.

There are enough examples of thoroughly unfair judgements that have led to legislation changes.

14 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Richard Ekins: Judicia... · 0 replies · +1 points

There is a need to create a maverick element into any judicial appointments process, otherwise it creates only a clone of itself, getting more and more extreme. A system could allow juries to judge the selection of judges.

But I agree politics should have no role.

14 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Richard Ekins: Judicia... · 0 replies · +1 points

What a wonderful article. Especially with regard the Supreme Court and the word extreme.

However, the problems with the unaccountable justice system run much deeper. Some are clearly blind to the implications of their emotional based decisions. In all systems there has to be a downside for being broken. There also needs to be external or random influence in the selection process for the system. Without these there is no stability.

18 weeks ago @ http://www.conservativ... - The Extinction Rebelli... · 0 replies · +1 points

It depends where it is produced. Water vapour in dry air is significant, and stays there.

Water vapour in saturated air just displaces other water. That means the position of the source is critical. One in particular is the key to false data.