Absolute power

[Gramarye]

There is no legal mechanism in English law which permits a judge to be held accountable for making a mistake in a judgment; there's the judicial review, which sounds fine until you learn that the only matter a review will consider is the conduct of the judge, not his integrity or competence. A judge cannot be sued, as there is no precedent. The Supreme Court exists as the last point of appeal and is independent of Parliament. Judges are selected, not elected, by the Judicial Appointments Commission who are themselves not elected but selected by 'an independent appointment panel' whose membership and fitness for purpose is not made known in the public domain. The Secretary of State 'suggests' a nominee as Chair and this is accepted without question.

Therefore, those given authoritarian license under the law to dispense justice to the rest of us are unaccountable save to their own profession and the path to disciplining a judge is nigh on impossible because there is no provision for doing so. There is no justice, only the Law, and thus in the UK we live in an Orwellian collective dictatorship where human rights are merely lip service. The Law exists only to sustain itself.

 

[Prolescum]

Stating things as if they are facts does not make them facts. We are no more living in an "Orwellian collective dictatorship" than we are in a "Dickensian space triumvirate".

I wonder how much Orwell you've read (none, I suspect).

 

[Laurens]

I've put this (*) where I think you need to provide references:

There is no legal mechanism in English law which permits a judge to be held accountable for making a mistake in a judgment (*); there's the judicial review, which sounds fine until you learn that the only matter a review will consider is the conduct of the judge, not his integrity or competence (*). A judge cannot be sued, as there is no precedent (*). The Supreme Court exists as the last point of appeal and is independent of Parliament (*). Judges are selected, not elected, by the Judicial Appointments Commission who are themselves not elected but selected by 'an independent appointment panel' whose membership and fitness for purpose is not made known in the public domain (*). The Secretary of State 'suggests' a nominee as Chair and this is accepted without question (*).

Therefore, those given authoritarian license under the law to dispense justice to the rest of us are unaccountable save to their own profession and the path to disciplining a judge is nigh on impossible because there is no provision for doing so (*). There is no justice, only the Law, and thus in the UK we live in an Orwellian collective dictatorship where human rights are merely lip service. The Law exists only to sustain itself.

Perhaps you could fill in the blanks?

 

[Prolescum]

I also wonder if the term "jury" has any meaning to the OP.

 

[tuxbox]

In denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution, I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist, of an opinion that "the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived." If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se. For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law. My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal. I will explain myself by examples, which, having occurred while I was in office, are better known to me, and the principles which governed them.

I am not sure how things work across the pond, but a lot people here fear the power of the courts. Thomas Jefferson was one of them, especially the Supreme Court. That said, I do not see how one can equate their power to that of a dictatorship.

 

[Gramarye]

</>

I voiced facts where I know them to be facts and then my opinion based upon years of direct experience; what factual basis do you have for the opinion you have voiced or was it just a routine ad hominem on your part? I wonder how much experience of litigation you've had (none, I suspect). I also wonder what factual evidence you have as to my reading matter.

 

[Prolescum]

Stating things as if they are facts does not make them facts. We are no more living in an "Orwellian collective dictatorship" than we are in a "Dickensian space triumvirate".

I voiced facts where I know them to be facts and then my opinion based upon years of direct experience; what factual basis do you have for the opinion you have voiced or was it just a routine ad hominem on your part?

The opinion that I voiced (We are no more living in an "Orwellian collective dictatorship" than we are in a "Dickensian space triumvirate") is based on both my collection of Orwell novels and my understanding of the term "Orwellian". I made no ad hominem, although the sentence I presume you're referring to (below) speaks to your use of the term "Orwellian", as it is not particularly applicable even if your argument is true.

Just because you might be insulted by my words, it does not necessarily mean my words are an attack.

I wonder how much Orwell you've read (none, I suspect).

... I wonder how much experience of litigation you've had (none, I suspect). I also wonder what factual evidence you have as to my reading matter.

Well, I admit that I am not in the legal trade. On the other hand, I have worked in publishing. So on that note, let's look at what is usually meant by Orwellian, shall we?
Single party government (the Party); closely monitored surveillance (Big Brother is watching you); rewriting history to suit an agenda (Minitrue); the deconstruction of language (Newspeak); propaganda (Minipax/Big Brother worship and Goldstein hatred); bespoke torture (room 101).

Which of those describes the version of "Orwellian collective dictatorship" in your OP, and how does that apply to your argument?

Bonus question: What gave you the impression hyperbole was a convincing persuasion technique?

 

[tuxbox]

 

[Gramarye]

</>

You really should stop assuming, your accusation of hyperbole implies that I'm trying to persuade readers in some manner. You really should stop assuming. If I voice my opinion, that's my right; I haven't asked anyone else to share it. If you dislike my posts feel free not to read them although the only part of my post you seem to have read was the 'Orwellian' comment. That may not be to your taste but your opinion is of no more or less significance than mine.

 

[Prolescum]

You really should stop assuming

Assuming what? Why should I?

your accusation of hyperbole implies that I'm trying to persuade readers in some manner.

You've used a term to bolster your position with the intent of creating a particular reaction. It is not descriptive of your argument except in the most tangential way possible (unaccountable leaders). Whether you're familiar with its meaning (i.e. you'd read 1984) and were using it spuriously, or if you've just picked up the term and are using it incorrectly, the intent is utterly clear.

If I voice my opinion, that's my right; I haven't asked anyone else to share it.

Quite right.

If you dislike my posts

I don't like or dislike them, I'm disputing them.

feel free not to read them although the only part of my post you seem to have read was the 'Orwellian' comment.

I haven't even started on collective yet...

That may not be to your taste but your opinion is of no more or less significance than mine.

But we aren't discussing opinion, we're talking about your misuse of a term to engender a certain response in contributors; hyperbole.

 

[Gramarye]

</>

</>

 

[Prolescum]

No, I'm just a prole.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm with Prole, to describe the UK as an Orwellian dictatorship is to grossly misplace the concept of Orwellianistic societies. Just because the justice system is flawed doesn't we live under the heel of the cult personality of Big Brother or the amoral 'party'.

 

[Gramarye]

&lt;/&gt;

</>

 

[australopithecus]

How about you learn to take criticism, thinken up your skin and realise people won't always agree with you. You've stated an opinion, myself and Prole have given reasoned retorts as to why we disagree. Crying about it wont help your cause. Persecution complexes are rather dull.

 

[Gramarye]

&lt;/&gt;

</>

 

[australopithecus]

Protip; giving attitude to a forum mod is not smart.

Secondly, if you had actually substantiated your opinion with facts I may have been inclined to elaborate, but seeing as we got nothing more than an opinion peice then I felt no such burden. That fact is while the UK's judicial system is flawed your comparison to a Orwellian dictatorship is not applicable. When we all start talking in newspeak and partaking in the 2 minute hate under the omnipresent propaganda of Big Brother you will have a valid analogy. Until then you're just being hyperbolic. The law, while undoubtedly an ass, is not a closed system. You want to change it? Put in the graft and be that change.

 

[Gramarye]

&lt;/&gt;

</>

 

[Gramarye]

&lt;/&gt;

</>

 

[australopithecus]

No one is going to ban you. Also, no one is going to take you seriously if you throw your toys out of the pram every time you're disagreed with.

I suggest your grow up, and that is my official moderation position on this sorry debacle.