The latest episode of the Free Speech Union podcast – That’s Debatable! – is now available.
In this week’s episode, Ben Jones and Tom Harris, two of FSU’s core team, explore a variety of hot topics, from the FSU’s new report on the inadequacies of police training to Oxfam’s 92-page ‘inclusive language’ guide.
Join them as they delve into the origins of the term ‘woke’ and revisit the topic of eBooks being censored after you’ve bought them. They also explore the challenges of dealing with misinformation and disinformation and the potential impact of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.
So, sit back, relax, and embrace your inner alpaca (that concept is taken from an actual police training manual) as these two veterans of the free speech wars tackle these important issues and stimulate some healthy debate.
Click here to listen to the podcast and don’t forget to search for ‘That’s Debatable!‘ on your favourite podcasting app and hit ‘subscribe’ so you don’t miss the next episode.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
You are so ignorant of the law, its laughable.
On the contrary as a constitutional lawyer and knowing the workings of the courts the article could never be closer to the reality. Given your obvious arrogance, can u confirm to the great unwashed and unlearned in your estimation what did Meenan specialise in whilst at the bar. I’ll give u a clue… it wasn’t judicial review. Your as ignorant in ur reply with no perception of the reality of the behaviour of the judiciary as you claim the writer of the article is relative to his knowledge of the law. Jackass.
Well said sir. Ignorance is indeed bliss.
Well said Christy. This what our country is dealing with, if you bring the consitution up your a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.
The media are rotten to core in this country, not in any MSM News outlet would you see this very well written article, non existent.
Most of the population have a perception which has been created by the totally biased media.
Yes this article is very ignorant of the law and is equally flawed as the arguments posited in court by waters and Gemma. Dare to read on
One, judicial review seeking certiorari requires that you first have a Leave hearing to determine locus standi. They were advised to take it to a plenary hearing and stated they were happy with their decision to seek Review.
Meenan J agreed they had standing with respect to several grounds. I myself think they could have had good arguments for a few but it’s nigh on impossible to strike down an entire piece of legislation.
Looking to Cahill v Sutton and Mohan judgements the nature of their cases is irrelevant it’s the precedent established with respect to having an arguable case and an argument that has a reasonable likelihood of succeeding.
They did not achieve that.
Yes it is correct in law to state that proportionality should take place. What’s more is that there is a Hierarchy of Rights and a doctrine of Harmonious interpretation. The applicants arguments did not clearly make a case or seek to Demonstrate how the above doctrines May impinge in their submissions or to justify their case before the Court.
It was incredibly weak and often featured rolls of the tongue separate to the pleadings before the Court. If in doubt read all of the transcripts. To be fair Waters tried, Gemma did rant.
If leave was granted they then must overcome the presumption of constitutionality (see Pigs Marketing Board v Donnely) which applies deference to the oireachtas in their law making function under Art 15 of the Constitution and then they must pass a double construction test.
These are all well known and documented in the case law. Had they even gone to a law student they could have been armed with a more deeper knowledge and likely a better case.
They didn’t – Meenan was correct – if they really cared and had real nouse they would use what they learned from all of the transcripts and ruling to their advantage but they won’t.
“All rise!
Enters Lord Sumption
“Is this true?
“Britain is unusual in that it has an ‘unwritten’ constitution: unlike the great majority of countries there is no single legal document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the state works… It has been suggested that the British Constitution can be summed up in eight words: What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law. This means that Parliament, using the power of the Crown, enacts law which no other body can challenge.”
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/what-uk-constitution/what-uk-constitution
It is true that there is no written constitution in the UK.
Parliament works off of the Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy, in effect meaning what Parliament says goes coupled with legislation, case law and precedent. The impact of EU law would have caused some conflict with this and is one of the reasons parliamentarians, in particular, could have argued a genuine reason to leave the EU not some of the hyperbole that was thrown around.
If interested look up AV Dicey, he was the main man when it came to British Constitutionalism
“Parliament works off of the Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy…what Parliament says goes…”
So this is why the esteemed leaders of the UK have essentially been able to place the population under house arrest, ruin peoples livelihood, interrupt children’s education and stop people from being close to their loved ones all because a seasonal viral infection is floating around that is less fatal than SARS and MERS….Hmmm
The whole purpose of the “lockdown” may have been to #ProtectTheNHS, however my understanding is that the Mental Health Services are part of the NHS and it doesn’t take a tertiary education to predict that this already under resourced part of the Health Care sector is going to be
overrun in the very near future.