Forum Topic

The independence of the judiciary.

Were the Law Lords correct in comparing the detention of prisoners without trial (breaching their human rights) to the nightmare scenario of Stalin's Russia?  I firmly support the decision of the judiciary to stand up to this government's interference with people's human rights. Lord Hailsham once described Margaret Thatcher's government as an 'elected dictatorship' and he was her Lord Chancellor. Is the Blair government any better? What do you think? Should the judges do as they are told or remain free of political interference?

Ian Campbell Barr ● 7431d17 Comments

I tend to agree in this imperfect world...

Keith Iddon ● 7424d

Reading some of the decisions they come to at times I think we'd all be forgiven for thinking that a lot of them are bordering on the senile, certainly a great many of them are completely out of touch with the lives the majority of people in this country lead. As for the people in Belmarsh, it is my understanding that if they wish to leave the U.K. then they are free to do so, if they choose to remain they are considerd a security risk and must stay where they are. To be brutally honest I think that if keeping them where they are avoids a terrorist attack then so be it.

Vanessa Smith ● 7424d

I thought she was an autocrat too.He seems to be taking a leaf out of her book.There is a lot of space between autocrat and ditherer...maybe he should try to occupy that ground.Thatcher was perceived by many to have British interests at heart,particularly over Europe.There is no way she would have wanted the Presidency of Europe,but I'm not so sure about the present PM.

Keith Iddon ● 7427d

Can someone tell me why when the great handbagger spoke she was being a firm and decisive Leaderene but when the current P.M. displays firm, positive Leadership he is accused of being an autocrat? He wouldn't be much use if he dithered and faffed all over the place, I may not agree with all he does but he'll do for me.

Vanessa Smith ● 7427d

or from public opinion....

Keith Iddon ● 7429d

but it is bordering on an autocracy............spot on my friend. Autocracy covers it quite nicely as he quite clearly brooks no interference from the rest of his flock, either from his front bench colleagues or those that sit on the back benches.

Angus James ● 7429d

Sorry Angus, misread the last answer.It's my understanding that we fought the first world war to stop German expansionism in Europe.Perhaps if they had won we would not have had the 2nd..but that's a whole other point. In order to help win the 2nd,we deprived many people of their liberty.My point regarding the 'cloak of decency' is that Blair presents as being from a social/democratic party but it is bordering on an autocracy.

Keith Iddon ● 7430d

A large number of politicians had the benefit of a university education without having to cough up for it and they received grants, not student loans. Strange to think that those students studying media and the like are probably paying for it and will eventually realise the true value of their self-investment. It does keep them off the dole though and the unemployment figures down. Nice move that?

Ian Campbell Barr ● 7430d

Rocked the boat..matter of opinion. Tuition fees(totally against old labour policy)just one pointer to his intentions,especially after encouraging(wrongly in my opinion)every child to go to university to study the media or other such spurious subjects....

Keith Iddon ● 7430d

>I think the Labour Party,or what is left of it, is holding >Blair back from being more right wing than he is being >allowed to be.This post seems rather odd , considering the fact that very few New Labour M.P.'s have rocked the boat so to speak when some of the Prime Ministers worse excesses never met with any considerable opposition in the past. (WMD's 45Mins until oblivion etc. etc.)Many people from around the globe would disagree with you as regards their liberty. I would be more inclined to say most would say give me liberty or give me death. Did we not fight two world wars to prove the point?The Blair government doesn't need to wear a cloak of any kind they have Carte Blanche over everything with the mandate of the people and until it is rectified by the people in the next general election will remain so. 

Angus James ● 7430d

I think it's a bit of both, depending on the times you live in. In WW2 many people were held without trial,some for their own protection.It's a harsh thing to deprive someone of their liberty,but not as harsh as depriving them of their lives by blowing them up or poison gassing them.Some of those held without trial are surely innocent, and some surely guilty.I think more efforts should be made to find out the  truth about them either way as quickly as possible.In some ways the Blair government is worse, wearing a 'cloak of decency'.I think the Labour Party,or what is left of it, is holding Blair back from being more right wing than he is being allowed to be.

Keith Iddon ● 7430d

I can only say, in my defence, that I am new to the forum and (probably) a little wet behind the ears. Nonetheless, decisions made at government level seem to eventually filter down to local level and affect us all. Shame we cannot sort out our local policies. Hopefully, forums such as this are the foundations of local discussion to resolve problems. I remain optimistic.

Ian Campbell Barr ● 7430d

I take your point about election. However in America, election of the judiciary appears to be on the basis of political favouritism and the politics of the judges. I cannot say how we would best elect the judges in this country - but it is a point well made.

Ian Campbell Barr ● 7430d

Although every case is tried on it's merits, with all sorts of things taken into consideration before sentencing is handed down, I have always believed that election is better than selection and in this way there would be no undue political pressure applied by politicians on the judiciary especially in the event of enquires into political abuse by any party.

Angus James ● 7431d

Should the judges do as they are told or remain free of political interference?They should be free of political interference without doubt. The question would then be, who would they be accountable to? Very few strands of life are free of politics.

Gareth Evans ● 7431d

Fully agree with your Gerry,Ian we cant even sort out our local polices on this forum, so bringing up government and human rights issues on hear is a bit OTT. 

Paul Allen ● 7431d

IAN, our judiciary MUST ALWAYS BE INDEPENDANT and FREE, IMHO! Nobody should be held in prison whithout being charged with an offence.  :-(

Gerry Tan ● 7431d