I see Truss has made a short statement now on this. Way too little and too late. She is clearly not fit for that position.
On the contrary, she's right not to interfere with the freedom of the press. No laws have been broken.
No one was expecting her to interfere with the freedom of the press, but she is obliged as Lord Chancellor to uphold and support the independence of the Judiciary. She failed to do that.
She's made a statement extolling the Judiciary's virtues and reminding us it is respected worldwide. She won't comment on the latest judgement, given that govt are appealing it
Missing (or ignoring) the point Goldie. She didn't have to comment on the judgment, she (and May) should have spoken out against the disgusting personal attacks on the judges.
I see Dominic Grieve compared the Daily Mail to the Voelkischer Beobachter. Have to say some of the Tories are being much more vocal about this than I would have expected. Perhaps they don't care about being branded 'enemies of the people' or 'rootless metropolitan elites'. Good for them. May to sack her current faceless Attorney General for failing to win the case?
It's hyperbole in my view, and isn't the first time a newspaper has criticised a judge when it thinks he or she has made a wrong decision. I do think that whoever in the Judiciary's upper echelons appointed a Blair colleague and an EU campaigner to adjudicate on this highly sensitive political issue was misguided.
Their background is irrelevant, their job was to look at the law and precedent and make a decision. I haven't heard anyone say it was a legally wrong decision, just that they don't like it (and that usually because they don't understand it). Let's see what the Supreme Court says in December.
Logically, anyone in a position of influence and authority, which they have worked to achieve and possibly get paid well for, must be a member of the elite and therefore not to be trusted. Especially as they are all apparently left wing as well, and it's well known that being both left wing and British is incompatible, and should be illegal.
Their background is relevant in that if it is positively Europhile as opposed to impartial, it adds fuel to tabloid fire. I haven't read the judgement, but understand the judges made several possibly unjustified assumptions in reaching their decision which could form the basis of an appeal
So we should pick our judges according to what the Sun might think? If you delve into the background of any judge you will find political objections to them from one angle or another. That's why it takes an age to appoint new US Supreme Court justices, because it's a political appointment. If they show obvious political bias in judgements that's an issue for the Lord Chancellor to sort out, but in this case all the legal comment, including that from lawyer Tory MPs, says it's a sound constitutional judgement. As I say, we'll see what the Supreme Court says. I do know for a fact that May was told weeks ago that it was very likely that the Government would lose this case, and the fact that, once agin, they had done nothing to prepare for this outcome, not even agreeing a consistent ministerial line, is worrying.
You're exaggerating when you say all legal comment. And Tory is not relevant. It doesn't break down that way. I've heard a pro leave Labour MP criticise it. Anyway, we wait for the Supreme Court
Anyway, I have been trapped in the house tonight because the dog is terrified of fireworks, so I had the misfortune to watch some crappy lottery show in which people have to name lists of things to win money. Asked to bid how many MPs they could name the highest was 9, I think. The highest bidders got to do the task, they named 2 MPs. Out of 650. The two featured no members of the cabinet. Either this speaks volumes on their interest in politics or the anonymity of our MPs. They were ****ing great at naming Tom Cruise co stars and Scarlett Johansen movies though.
Where have you been? You left out the third option and obviously the right one. They are trying to subvert democracy and the will of the people, ie they are right.
Well you are in good company. I'll bet nobody on the papers particularly the editors did either. But then when the did the facts ever get in the way of a good story - one which will appeal at least to some of the 52% who voted for Brexit. Haven't they at least bothered to tell us what the assumptions were?
how many of the 650 can you name stan is there a number above which makes you a sad git or below which makes you a non voter
Donald Trump rushed off stage at Nevada rally 1/48 M embers of the Secret Service rush Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump off the stage at a campaign rally in Reno, Nev., on Saturday, Nov. 5, 2016. US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been rushed off stage by security agents at a rally in Reno, Nevada, after a perceived threat in the crowd. Two security agents grabbed Mr Trump by the shoulders and rushed him backstage. The threat was unclear. Mr Trump returned to the stage a short while later to continue his rally speech. Both candidates are making their closing arguments to American voters, crisscrossing the US in hopes of convincing last-minute undecided voters.
