New Attorney General "Suella" Braverman
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 14 Feb 20 11.40am |
  |
|---|---|
|
With all the understandable fuss yesterday that Sajid Javid's departure caused, and the implications it suggests, the appointment of Ms Braverman to replace Geoffrey Cox went under the radar a little. She worries me! Not because of her chairmanship of the ERG, although that's enough to raise my eyebrows, but because of her statements on '"unelected, unaccountable" judges who have threatened the 'supremacy of parliament'". Should we really have an AG with such views? Does this smell of impending revenge for the events of last Autumn? Will this Parliament just roll over and have it's tummy tickled, or will it assert it's supremacy? Her appointment has attracted some caustic comments on Twitter. These give a flavour. They refer to a resurrected car crash interview she gave to Channel 4 News in 2017:- "Just in case you weren't sufficiently worried for Britain, here's new Attorney General Suella Braverman - displaying all the intellectual clarity of a discarded potato salad that's been left to rot in the baking sun for two weeks." "Hello, I am the top lawyer in the country. I will now proceed to sh*t my pants on national television in a display of stammering f*cking idiocy brought about by a journalist asking me one very simple question.” "This bulls***ter, who doesn't even respect the public's right to know how our money is spent, is the new Attorney General." Doesn't bode too well does it?
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Badger11 Beckenham 14 Feb 20 11.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
In this country Parliament has always been the supreme legal body. The UK Supreme Court is a fairly recent invention. In the US it makes sense when you have a codified constitution that you have a body such as the Supreme Court whose role is defined in that constitution to defend it and strike down any legislation that treatens it. In the UK it doesn't make sense as we do not have a codified constitution but one built on various acts of parliament and legal precedent. The Supreme Court was unable to point to a law that Johnson broke when they overruled his prorogation shenanigans so they invented it. Unlike the US Parliament can enact law that reverses decisions that the Supreme Court makes so they are not very supreme at all. I guess my issue is more with the name as it symbolises powers that the judges don't have and as they showed with Johnson they seem willing to take. A Court of Final Appeal would be a more accurate description. As for all the stuff about the new AG I have no idea never heard of her so no point in me commenting.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| W12 14 Feb 20 12.12pm | |
|---|---|
|
She sounds more than sound to me. The assumptins in this article are hilarious: 1. Cultrural Marxism is a conspiricy theory - like the Frankfurt school, Gramsci and Dutschke never existed and these people never wrote books that were published. 2. Cultural Marxism is "far right" and anti-semetic because Marx was Jewish? ( Muh "tropes" ). More accurately Marx, and anyone else, cannot be criticised simply because they are Jewish according to a left wing Jewish group. 3. Because Anders Breivik used a term it becomes entirely invalid
Suella Braverman, who resigned as a Brexit minister last year, was criticised by Jewish groups and anti-racism campaigners after claiming the UK was under threat from “cultural Marxism”. The term refers to a conspiracy theory often repeated by far-right groups. It claims that Marxist academics in Frankfurt in the 1930s devised an ongoing plot to undermine western democracies. Many of the scholars were Jewish, and the conspiracy claims have been linked to historic antisemitic tropes about the alleged influence of Jews on world affairs. The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Ms Braverman, a vocal Eurosceptic, should explain what she meant and vow not to use the term again. Labour MPs said she should have the Conservative whip withdrawn if she refuses to apologise. Speaking at an event organised by the anti-EU think tank The Bruges Group, Ms Braverman suggested “cultural Marxism” was to blame for attacks on freedom of speech. She said: “We are engaging in many battles right now. As Conservatives we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism, where banning things is becoming de rigueur, where freedom of speech is becoming a taboo, where our universities – quintessential institutions of liberalism – are being shrouded in censorship and a culture of no-platforming.” She defended her use of the term when it was queried by a member of the audience, who pointed out that it had been used by far-right terrorist Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011. Ms Braverman said: “I do believe we are in a battle against a cultural Marxism, as I said. “We have culture evolving from the far left which has allowed the snuffing out of freedom of speech, freedom of thought. No one can get offended any more, we are living in a culture where we are putting everyone in cotton wool, a risk-averse mentality is now taking over. “And that instinct for freedom, for risk-taking, for making mistakes, for innovation, for creativity, is being killed. And it’s absolutely damaging for our spirit as British people, and our genius, whether it’s for innovation and science, or culture and civilisation; whether it’s for statecraft.” She added: “I’m very aware of that ongoing creep of cultural Marxism, which has come from Jeremy Corbyn.”
Edited by W12 (14 Feb 2020 2.30pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 14 Feb 20 12.41pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Wow, that's exactly what we need. A bit plus point for Boris and hopefully we will get some action that correlates with those thoughts......there is a lot to be done....A lot of sacking of liberals in undeserved institutional positions of power and a lot of appointing of actual conservatives and rational centralists....when I say rational centralists I mean those not signed up to the aforementioned cultural marxism. We must be ruthless because the left didn't employ the right....unlike how they were treated. Let's hope that the time of fake conservatives who conserved nothing but their bank accounts is done.....at least for now.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| DanH SW2 14 Feb 20 12.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Hilariously unsuitable for the position. Basically seen as a joke figure in the legal profession. Boris (or Dominic) just filling his cabinet full of Yes men/women with no backbone that will stand up to them when required. Not Sajid Javid's biggest fan but he absolutely did the right thing yesterday. The sacking of Julian Smith was a disgrace.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 14 Feb 20 1.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
One for the common man but don't celebrate too soon the Supreme Court will have the final say. Harry Miller: Police probe into 'transphobic' tweets unlawful
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 14 Feb 20 1.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
And another one a good day for the sensible people Judge rules estranged Muslim wife's Sharia marriage is NOT VALID under English Law in landmark High Court ruling - leaving her a 'limited' claim on his cash and property in divorce row
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 14 Feb 20 1.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
Hilariously unsuitable for the position. Basically seen as a joke figure in the legal profession. Boris (or Dominic) just filling his cabinet full of Yes men/women with no backbone that will stand up to them when required. Not Sajid Javid's biggest fan but he absolutely did the right thing yesterday. The sacking of Julian Smith was a disgrace.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 14 Feb 20 1.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
One for the common man but don't celebrate too soon the Supreme Court will have the final say. Harry Miller: Police probe into 'transphobic' tweets unlawful Well, Cummings is coming for the Supreme Court as well. Those who want to keep their jobs will do well to reflect upon the history of free speech that this country enjoys and reject the New Labour and May free speech restrictions. I suspect that Johnson will be consigning them to the dustbin where they belong. Don't you just love an 80 seat majority. Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2020 1.26pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Feb 20 1.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
Hilariously unsuitable for the position. Basically seen as a joke figure in the legal profession. Boris (or Dominic) just filling his cabinet full of Yes men/women with no backbone that will stand up to them when required. Not Sajid Javid's biggest fan but he absolutely did the right thing yesterday. The sacking of Julian Smith was a disgrace. Hilarious it seems to me too, but actually not the least bit funny. That some welcome it just shows how dangerous this situation is becoming. Everyone, including the government, needs to be accountable to the law. Whilst Parliament has the sole responsibility, and complete right, to change the law when it is being increasingly sidelined by a government led by a PM intent on drawing power to himself, and which has such a huge majority, the dangers seem very clear to me. Authoritarianism beckons. You can call the Supreme Court by another name if you wish but it's role remains the same. To give a definitive final judgement on matters of law. The opportunity to use that final avenue has to be open to all and not restricted in any way by any government because they happen not to like the way the law operates.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 14 Feb 20 1.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
I hate to have to admit it but I agree with you. Whilst I can understand the rationale behind the sharing of advisors even if I don't agree with it I think that the sacking of one of the most able politicians in his cabinet was just petty and shows the people of Northern Ireland just what Boris thinks of them
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 14 Feb 20 1.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It's quite something when supporters of the EU commission start complaining about authoritarianism.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.