Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

A Question of Law.

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby triken3 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:00 am

1. The Secretary of State is commanded by Parliament in Section 3;HRA 1998 to read the ECA 1972 in its entirety and to then interpret any subordinate Act of Parliament or order of the Prime Minister in a way that does not infringe or interfere with Ms.Millers right to the peaceful enjoyment of her Constitutional Rights as guaranteed by A1P1.

2.The Secretary of State accepted before the High Court that his proposed action of issuing Notice under Article 50 would expose Ms. Miller to a risk of loss of the Constitutional Rights that she now enjoys, an act that is contrary to the peaceful enjoyment of her Constituional Rights.

How could the Secretary of State then claim to have an honest belief that he could do something that Parliament has forbidden him from doing?
triken3
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:50 am

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby atticus » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:18 am

Have you asked him?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19432
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby triken3 » Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:09 am

That's the point, the 'Secretary of State' does not possess a mind and is therefore incapable of thought.
triken3
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:50 am

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby atticus » Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:17 am

I am sorry, but that is stupid.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19432
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby triken3 » Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:39 pm

Once again, no reasoned argument needed, no discussion allowed, just reliance on a conclusive presumption of the superiority of ones own preconceptions.
triken3
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:50 am

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby atticus » Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:53 pm

That comes from the person who (a) asks how the Secretary of State can have an honest belief in something and yet (b) says he does not possess a mind. I invite that person to clarify his/her/its thinking.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19432
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby dls » Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:45 pm

The Secretary of State is commanded by Parliament in Section 3;HRA 1998 to read the ECA 1972 in its entirety and to then interpret any subordinate Act of Parliament or order of the Prime Minister in a way that does not infringe or interfere with Ms.Millers right to the peaceful enjoyment of her Constitutional Rights as guaranteed by A1P1.


sorry, but that is a peculiar amalgam of strange half truths.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12085
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby triken3 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:55 am

dls wrote:
The Secretary of State is commanded by Parliament in Section 3;HRA 1998 to read the ECA 1972 in its entirety and to then interpret any subordinate Act of Parliament or order of the Prime Minister in a way that does not infringe or interfere with Ms.Millers right to the peaceful enjoyment of her Constitutional Rights as guaranteed by A1P1.


sorry, but that is a peculiar amalgam of strange half truths.


Which parts of the passage do you consider true and which parts not true?

As an instance, you may have among your possessions a certain amount of money in a particular bank account. You are entitled in law to the peaceful enjoyment of those possessions free from interferance with your enjoyment by a third party. If I were to send you a 'phising' email in an attempt to gain access to the money in that bank account, in law, would I be interfering with your right to the peaceful enjoyment of your possessions?

Would the law consider that I had done anything 'wrong' by making the attempt?
triken3
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:50 am

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby triken3 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:26 am

triken3 wrote:Once again, no reasoned argument needed, no discussion allowed, just reliance on a conclusive presumption of the superiority of ones own preconceptions.


Atticus; I apologise for that comment. It was wrong of me to make such a pesonal comment.
triken3
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:50 am

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby dls » Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:41 am

start here
The Secretary of State is commanded by Parliament in Section 3;HRA 1998


start with that.
The Act is teh Act of the queen.
nobody is 'commanded'
nobody 'has to read' anything.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12085
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

PreviousNext

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest