I just dont buy it Joe. I will when the standing order hits my account. Anyway, I'd rather we had proper democracy. The net profit or loss is bullish*t anyway, in the grand scheme and in the long term, the social benefits of getting rid of those douchebags will be of net benefit. It hurts when you lance a boil, and a boil doesn't kill you, but we all know that in the long term you're better off having lanced it.
As for 1,000,000.00 morons - there's loads more than that. But with people making the case, there will be fewer and fewer. Sooner or later, the monarchy is history. Amen! Sent from my iPhone On 3 May 2011, at 19:05, Joe Skinner <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, and the end cost is actually net, i.e. we make a profit from them. > > Or so the argument goes. > > It's debatable when you break down the Civil list costs as it doesn't show > security specifically for some people etc. > > I don't really car either way, no one can disprove or not the theory that > they are good for tourism but if you look at this weekend alone, that means > if they're not, then there are at least 1,000,000 stone cold morons! > > > > Subject: Re: [LU] Good omen? > > From: [email protected] > > Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 14:13:49 +0100 > > To: [email protected] > > > > It's public money! > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On 3 May 2011, at 13:26, Joe Skinner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ian, you don't pay for the Civil list, it generates more money than it > > > costs the taxpayer. > > > > > > You can google and download their financial statements. I have done in > > > the past for the exact same argument. > > > > > > That they have cash reserves is moot. > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > > > Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 13:14:54 +0100 > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > CC: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [LU] Good omen? > > > > > > > > Can't really be arsed to trawl through lawtel and show examples for you > > > > but HRA was a game changer which fundamentally altered the course of > > > > our jurisprudence. All legislation is to be interpreted through the > > > > prism of the HRA, and when the two clash the HRA is supreme. In other > > > > words, the judiciary can in effect ignore acts of parliament which are > > > > incompatible with the HRA - which is the first limit of Parliamentary > > > > supremacy we've had in a fair old while. It's still not enough though. > > > > > > > > As for my experience I am a solicitor who has both brought and defended > > > > HRA claims and dealt with HRA issues throughout my career. How about > > > > you? > > > > > > > > *braces self for anti-lawyer abuse* > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > On 3 May 2011, at 12:53, Chris Briggs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ian, > > > > > > > > > > Whilst I agree that the most vulnerable people in society do indeed > > > > > require some form of protection, my point that most of the principles > > > > > included within the ECHR and then enacted into English law via the > > > > > HRA were already the subjects of various acts of parliament is still > > > > > valid. All the HRA did was simplify it by putting things in the same > > > > > place and added in a few other principles to make it joined up. > > > > > > > > > > Could you please highlight some of the "countless decisions of the > > > > > highest courts in this country based fundamentally on the HRA". > > > > > > > > > > Then as an aside if you find out how many cases are heard by all > > > > > 35000+ members of the judiciary per annum. > > > > > If the actual number of these " > > > > > countless decisions of the highest courts in this country based > > > > > fundamentally on the HRA" gets anywhere near double figures when > > > > > calculated as a percentage against total cases I will be humbled > > > > > beyond belief. > > > > > It is worth remembering that the higher courts generally have the > > > > > high profile appeals but do a significantly smaller portion of the > > > > > work, whilst they make some very important decisions that generate a > > > > > huge amount of column inches they only represent the small tip of a > > > > > very large judicial iceberg. > > > > > > > > > > What evidence/experience do you have to show that the HRA crops up on > > > > > decisions (or even in discussions) "very frequently" in court? > > > > > > > > > > I am not being deliberately argumentative, I am just interested in > > > > > understanding it from another perspective and seeking to fill in the > > > > > holes of my knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > ________________________ > > > > > > > > > > On 2011-05-03 10:52:57 +0000 Ian Murray <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi Chris, well aware of this. The HRA is the main piece of > > > > >> constitutional > > > > >> legislation in this country which guarantees the rights of > > > > >> individuals. It is > > > > >> the most vulnerable people in our society who require it's > > > > >> protection the > > > > >> most when the executive seeks to erode those rights (as it > > > > >> frequently does). > > > > >> We have seen countless decisions of the highest courts in this > > > > >> country based > > > > >> fundamentally on the HRA and I would take strong issue with what you > > > > >> say > > > > >> about it being seldom referred to. It is referred to VERY > > > > >> frequently. Which > > > > >> is why they are trying to repeal it. > > > > >> > > > > >> Cheers > > > > >> > > > > >> Ian > > > > >> > > > > >> Sent from my iPhone > > > > >> > > > > >> On 3 May 2011, at 11:03, Chris Briggs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Morning Ian, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Damian was indeed alluding to the HRA. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> <snip> and the way the judiciary is using it to protect the > > > > >>> individual > > > > >>> against the state (as it is designed to do) <snip> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I think that is a little unfair on the judiciary as it is a broad > > > > >>> sweeping > > > > >>> statement with nothing to back it up. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The judiciary (Judges and Magistrates) are not there to protect the > > > > >>> individual against the state but to ensure that a case is dealt > > > > >>> with > > > > >>> correctly in terms of evidence, case management and with the regard > > > > >>> to the > > > > >>> law and previous case stated examples. > > > > >>> It is this impartiality that ensures that it is a fair decision. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> HRA was created as a watered down version of the ECHR, however many > > > > >>> of it's > > > > >>> principles were already part of English law. > > > > >>> For example, under HRA 1998 if you are arrested you are entitled to > > > > >>> bail, > > > > >>> however, the Bail Act 1976 already covered this both in terms of > > > > >>> Police > > > > >>> Bail and Court Bail. > > > > >>> Again under HRA, you have a right to remain innocent until proven > > > > >>> guilty, > > > > >>> again previously part of English law, where it is (generally) the > > > > >>> prosecutions obligation to provide evidence of guilt ( some traffic > > > > >>> offences place burden of proof on the driver). > > > > >>> The list goes on. > > > > >>> The HRA is very rarely mentioned in court where the provision of > > > > >>> existing > > > > >>> law is overlapped, it is the previous act that is most commonly > > > > >>> referred > > > > >>> to. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Cheers > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Chris > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ________________________ > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 2011-05-02 21:19:37 +0000 Ian Murray > > > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I think he's talking about the human rights act, and the way the > > > > >>>> judiciary > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>> using it to protect the individual against the state (as it is > > > > >>>> designed to > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> do), and how our current government is doing it's best to have it > > > > >>>> repealed > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> and jumping up and down about how 'Parliament knows best'. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> If we had a proper written constitution, then we would be fully > > > > >>>> protected > > > > >>>> from the state. Alas, we'll have to wait til the European Union is > > > > >>>> a > > > > >>>> proper > > > > >>>> fully functioning country (sooner the better). > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Sent from my iPhone > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On 2 May 2011, at 19:35, Chris Briggs <[email protected]> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> <snip> ...the judiciary have powers that don't derive from > > > > >>>>> Parliament.....<snip> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Damian, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Could you expand what you mean, I'm curious. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Cheers > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Chris > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>>>> Leedslist mailing list > > > > >>>>> Info and options: > > > > >>>>> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist > > > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, email [email protected] > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Leedslist mailing list > > > > Info and options: > > > > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist > > > > To unsubscribe, email [email protected] > > > > > > > > MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
