A Telegraph journalist does not accept that judges make decisions according to the law, rather than the imbecilic whims of uninformed newspaper proprietors.
Reposted from
Roland Smith
Morning.
Comments
Has he no understanding of the relationship between the Judiciary, the Executive & the Legislature?
While we don't have as complete separation of powers as the US, there is a reason why there is a degree of separation. Without it we would live in a dictatorship.
Populists, of course, can't stand this sort of democratic, regulated approach. Which tells you a lot about what they think of democracy, vide the USA.
Also, this is very dangerous stuff, cf 1933.
It's what boneheads like him are employed to do now
Its just part of a programme of propaganda
He must be the only person who doesn't think that Liz Truss is the worst.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/04/starmer-reeves-worse-than-imagined-labour-party-uk/
balding journalists should pay a stupidity tax set at 110% of gross income.
Should he not pursue the matter in the courts because only an “arrogant judiciary” would find in his favour and he’s pro “humble (acquiescent) judiciary”?
The playbook is clear, capture the judiciary. I wonder if he would be so keen on the people’s justice, if he was on the wrong end of it.
It's particularly absurd in the context of the UK, where our common law is constantly evolving through its interpretations.
He’s not even a stopped clock