The government passes a, (ill thought out), law. The judges uphold that law. The government cries foul and says that the judges are 'interpreting' the law incorrectly. The judges retort that the law was made and passed by the present regime and they should have considered the implications that the statute would have. The government now decides that the law that they had passed needs amending, because the application of said law is making them look like monkeys.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present European Convention on Human Rights.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terro...087869,00.htmlQuote:
The home secretary, John Reid, made clear yesterday he is prepared to declare a "state of emergency" to suspend key parts of the human rights convention if the law lords do not overturn a series of judgments that have weakened the anti-terrorist control order regime.
His warning to the courts followed his acute embarrassment yesterday when he had to confirm to MPs that three terror suspects whom he had placed under control orders to prevent them travelling to Iraq to kill British and US troops had all absconded on Monday night.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1837662.eceQuote:
After the latest fiasco in which three terror suspects went on the run after breaching their control orders, the Home Secretary said yesterday that the Government would consider declaring that there was an emergency threat to the country, allowing it to opt out of human rights legislation, if all other options failed.
Something must be done. We can't have the government of the day looking like a bunch of incompetent nincompoops, now can we?
Asinine laws from an idiotic government, who fail time and again to think through the impact that their fetish for legislation has produced.
So where to from here? Do we dump this ridiculous law or do we decide that human rights are more important than human safety?
One things for sure. If a cock up is possible, the host of cretins in Westminster will endeavour to make it a royal one.
