What's The Point In Parliamentary Democracy If Judges Make Law On The Hoof?

[Smurf]

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=923392007

Feckin outrageous.

I feckin hate her and her brother.

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by Smurf

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=923392007

Feckin outrageous.

I feckin hate her and her brother.

Don't think it's outrageous really. She owns 23 acres and she wants to close an area with a 1 mile fence. How much land can a one mile fence enclose? Not 23 acres i wouldn't think!

I like my hillwalking but have no interest in tramping through, what is effectivley, someones garden. Remember she is responsible for the upkeep of the rest of her land and 'allows' people to roam on that.
As long as it isn't her entire estate that she wants closed off, then i don't have a problem with it.





P.S. should stop those pesky eastern europeans from pissing in her backyard!!!!

[Colr]

I wonder what the legal implications of right to roam will be. If someone trips on, say, an unmaintained path or track, could they sue the owner and, if so, should the state then not contribute to the upkeep as the representative of "the people" whoi may cause progressive damage and erosion.

3rd party rights over land tend to be a bit of a mine field (a minefield - not there's a thought).

[egb_hibs]

i think smurf's point is spot on, irrespective of this case.

the judiciary both here and in europe seem to me to be wielding ever more political power. it's not on imho.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

i think smurf's point is spot on, irrespective of this case.

the judiciary both here and in europe seem to me to be wielding ever more political power. it's not on imho.

Its like your church - where the law is not specific, judges must base judgements on their interpretation of the law. Difference is that they can suggest that lawmakers consider specific legislation.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr

Its like your church - where the law is not specific, judges must base judgements on their interpretation of the law. Difference is that they can suggest that lawmakers consider specific legislation.

there's a rather considerable difference, in that the actions of judges govern our lives. they do more than suggest stuff as well, the judiciary are capable of interpreting law in line with the advancement of political doctrine, and especially at a european level, altering the governance of our society. i feel they're getting beyond their mandate these days, and it's becoming a bit undemocratic.

[Bartok]

Agree with Smurf and egb. Britain is often referred to as a democracy, but stuff like this makes that description a joke. Wealth and privelege go hand in hand, and the archaic appointments system makes sure of that.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

there's a rather considerable difference, in that the actions of judges govern our lives. they do more than suggest stuff as well, the judiciary are capable of interpreting law in line with the advancement of political doctrine, and especially at a european level, altering the governance of our society. i feel they're getting beyond their mandate these days, and it's becoming a bit undemocratic.

But there role is to make decisions on the cases that are put before them. Were the law is clearer these cases get dealt with fairly low down the system - at the top end on the system they have to deal with issues where the law is unclear or in some cases where laws contradict each other. What are they supposed to do? They are asked to make a ruling and they have a duty to do so. The blame for lack of clarity lies with those making and drafting the laws. They have to rely in other cases, basic principles and their interpretation of the intention of the laws which have been made.

Like fish on a Friday.