|
Post by Administrator on Dec 2, 2019 10:52:01 GMT
The Bill of Rights sets out that all prosecutions and commitments are illegal, for matters only cognizable (debatable, decidable) in parliament
(Either house)?
It would seem that, if police or the Crown prosecution service wanted to accuse Ministers or Lords (or subjects conducting protected petitioning) of offences...
For example, fraud or deception in making or changing laws.. or corruption..
The police as an organisation could Petition among their officers and the public.. (with the evidence) for parliament to debate the matter and take action against the accused..
Traditionally the House of Lords could make Judgments on those matters (until more recently when that function was removed) I actually don't think they could remove it because it's part of the Bill of Rights itself..
Anyway..
For matters like Alistair Darling changing seat belt laws incorrectly.. and having contradictory provisions in legislation.. Particularly at a time when it appears to be a response to other legal fine refund cases, at the time.. for example the Claire Allison case..
The proper method is to actually take the case to parliament.
And the petitions committee policy is unlawful as all commitments are illegal.
I think Ministers made up the policy that you can't Petition about legal cases. Just to protect themselves..
I think actually if submitted a bill and the Ministers are petitioning over it..
Or if a subject petitions for a bill or remedy among the other subjects..
Any Criminal matters or concerns still should be decided in parliament or by Judgments of the Lords.. Which are all recorded and the particulars of the case.
I think the supreme court is a ridiculous idea. Was a ridiculous decision to implement
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Dec 2, 2019 11:03:23 GMT
I think if Lords have done wrong and there is enough evidence to make them debate the matter... officially..
It is much better than a supreme court that has very few justices in comparison.
Also... the only obstruction has been ridiculous Petition committee policy and unrealistic Petition count requirements or time limits.
They cannot barricade up the Petition entry
Also, as large groups and organisations, businesses are laying Bill's and petitioning for laws or changes in law... including their own expansion... Food Giant's... Particularly when there are detrimental health and other concerns..
(People religiously buying food) being controlled to religiously go to supermarkets or religiously buy lottery tickets..
This high new level of control needs to be accountable to the law...
(At least in parliament itself) if there is a case for Criminal intent..
Intent to cause harm or manipulation Through psychological control or like with the gambling machines (toy grab machines) that breached the gambling act .. Those type of crimes that involve Ministers and corporations could be actually decided in parliament...
By the police petitioning... Especially if Ministers are accused of being involved.
|
|