Roger Waters promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories...

[Vixen]

As I said, sometimes the courts have to do ridiculous things, pissing on graves as they do them. Not their fault a grieving relative of a 9/11 victim has fallen down the conspiracy rabbit hole. He's not the first grieving person to get sucked into nonsense. Grief can do strange things, including warp one's sense of blame and/or justice.

It's a cold legal right to have an inquest in certain circumstances and nothing to do with right or wrong or whether it is good or bad. It just is. Campbell had the inquest, which he wants to appeal. Where several people are killed together, as in Hillsborough, in circumstances that reflect on so-called 'authority figures', as in Hillsborough - the police stewarding the game, there is a tendency to close ranks and 'cover up' the shortcomings of the 'establishment'. It was only after intense campaigning by relatives of the deceased, or the victims of the subpostoffice masters scandal, or even the families of Lucy Letby's victims, via public inquiry that justice is served. Matt Campbell seems convinced that he is also up against that kind of official resistance, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Vixen]

Sigh . . . I withdraw my question and ask it this way: Do you think the AG rejecting the Appellant's claim that the towers were possibly brought down by explosives in favor of the fully investigated status of the attacks can be classified as 'lazy, stupid - or both'

The Attorney General, being appointed by the current Prime MInister in power, is a political figure. Campbell is challenging the idea that an AG can just veto an appeal or a review. He is arguing it is unconstitutional that an AG can be unaccountable in this way. This apparent unaccountability is based on historical custom going back a few centuries. As examples of 'stupid', 'lazy' or both, we had the debacle of the Post Office submasters scandal (AG Ellis: lazy), the Rwanda mess (AG Braverman: stupid) and Brexit Article 50 (AG Cox - chaotic mess). Whilst they have a background in law it is not at a high level. apart from Cox, who was a silk (Queen's Counsel) which means he was on the prestigious Queen's Bench as a QC. That is still only as a barrister and not as a High Court Judge or Court of Appeal Judge. The point is, these are political appointments not high level experts, which the seven Supreme Court judges will be.

 

[Steve]

Sigh . . . I withdraw my question and ask it this way: Do you think the AG rejecting the Appellant's claim that the towers were possibly brought down by explosives in favor of the fully investigated status of the attacks can be classified as 'lazy, stupid - or both'

You do by now understand that Vixen never answers direct questions, right? Vixen will carry on writing extensive screeds that obliquely refer to your questions while deflecting to some other topic that can keep the thread going for pages.

ETA notice how Roger Waters has become almost irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Smock]

You do by now understand that Vixen never answers direct questions, right? Vixen will carry on writing extensive screeds that obliquely refer to your questions while deflecting to some other topic that can keep the thread going for pages.

ETA notice how Roger Waters has become almost irrelevant to the discussion.

Oh I know that. She's quite funny with her attempts at deflection, though. Like watching an out of shape tennis player wielding a boat paddle instead of a racquet.

 

[Smock]

The Attorney General, being appointed by the current Prime MInister in power, is a political figure. Campbell is challenging the idea that an AG can just veto an appeal or a review. He is arguing it is unconstitutional that an AG can be unaccountable in this way. This apparent unaccountability is based on historical custom going back a few centuries. As examples of 'stupid', 'lazy' or both, we had the debacle of the Post Office submasters scandal (AG Ellis: lazy), the Rwanda mess (AG Braverman: stupid) and Brexit Article 50 (AG Cox - chaotic mess). Whilst they have a background in law it is not at a high level. apart from Cox, who was a silk (Queen's Counsel) which means he was on the prestigious Queen's Bench as a QC. That is still only as a barrister and not as a High Court Judge or Court of Appeal Judge. The point is, these are political appointments not high level experts, which the seven Supreme Court judges will be.

Blah blah blah, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, blah, blah, blah, deflection, deflection, deflection. Swing that paddle, baby!

 

[Mojo]

...apart from Cox, who was a silk (Queen's Counsel) which means he was on the prestigious Queen's Bench as a QC.

Nope, the King's Bench (formerly Queen's Bench) is a court, a division of the High Court. The people on the King's Bench are judges.

That is still only as a barrister and not as a High Court Judge...

Those are the people on the "prestigious Queen's Bench".

 

[Vixen]

Blah blah blah, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, blah, blah, blah, deflection, deflection, deflection. Swing that paddle, baby!

Please can you keep your misogynist ◊◊◊◊ to youself? I am sorry you are unhappy but try having a nice cup of tea and a cream bun instead of hating. Cheer up and stick to the topic of the thread!

 

[Vixen]

Nope, the King's Bench (formerly Queen's Bench) is a court, a division of the High Court. The people on the King's Bench are judges.



Those are the people on the "prestigious Queen's Bench".

On paper Sir Geoffrey had the credentials but being at the beck and call of Boris Johnson was unfortunate. At least Campbell will be getting a panel of seven judges concentrating solely on the issue of how to interpret the law. I expect one will take the chair person role, three looking at points in favour and three looking at points in opposition.

 

[Mojo]

At least Campbell will be getting a panel of seven judges concentrating solely on the issue of how to interpret the law. I expect one will take the chair person role, three looking at points in favour and three looking at points in opposition.

No, presenting the cases for and against is the job of counsel.

 

[Vixen]

No, presenting the cases for and against is the job of counsel.

Each party has thirty minutes to present its case. The Attorney General's counsel acting on its behalf and Campbell's on his. The panel already will have had time to read through all of it in advance. Given the Court is under the King, as is the AG for the government (being the Executive wing), Campbell has a massive uphill struggle to get it through. But these judges love an underdog and will have fun trying to bend over backwards to see his POV.

The decision is likely to be reserved (after further deliberation amongst themselves in chambers).

 

[Mojo]

Each party has thirty minutes to present its case.

The hearing is scheduled for two days.

 

[Mojo]

Given the Court is under the King...

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you?

...as is the AG for the government (being the Executive wing), Campbell has a massive uphill struggle to get it through.

In the UK, the courts are independent of the executive. Formally, the case is the Crown, on Campbell's application, against the AG.

The decision is likely to be reserved (after further deliberation amongst themselves in chambers).

SC decisions are always reserved.

 

[Vixen]

The hearing is scheduled for two days.

It doesn't follow the counsel for the parties get two days. AIUI they present a skeleton argument. The last thing the judges want is someone rambling on and on and on so they frown at anything more than one A4 size page. Of course, it's not set in stone. Given there are seven on the panel, that'll be why it's two days, so they have enough time to chinwag with each other in chambers. Counsel are not allowed in chambers during proceedings: that would be a massive breach of bar standards. (Unless the other party's is also present at the same time.)

 

[Vixen]

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you?

In the UK, the courts are independent of the executive. Formally, the case is the Crown, on Campbell's application, against the AG.

SC decisions are always reserved.

That's the theory but you know, and I know, the court almost always finds in favour of anyone from the Monarchy. This is what Harry and Andrew have relied on for so long.

 

[Mojo]

That's the theory but you know, and I know, the court almost always finds in favour of anyone from the Monarchy. This is what Harry and Andrew have relied on for so long.

Nobody from the monarchy is actually involved in the case.

 

[Mojo]

It doesn't follow the counsel for the parties get two days. AIUI they present a skeleton argument. The last thing the judges want is someone rambling on and on and on so they frown at anything more than one A4 size page. Of course, it's not set in stone. Given there are seven on the panel, that'll be why it's two days, so they have enough time to chinwag with each other in chambers. Counsel are not allowed in chambers during proceedings: that would be a massive breach of bar standards. (Unless the other party's is also present at the same time.)

You don't have a scooby, do you?

 

[Mojo]

It doesn't follow the counsel for the parties get two days. AIUI they present a skeleton argument. The last thing the judges want is someone rambling on and on and on so they frown at anything more than one A4 size page.

From the Supreme Court's practice direction on appeal hearings:

The case is the statement of a party's argument in the appeal. The Court favours brevity and a case should be a concise summary of the submissions to be developed. A case should not (without permission of the Court) exceed 50 pages of A4 size and in most cases fewer than 50 pages will be sufficient. Cases in excess of 50 pages will not be accepted unless permission to file a longer case has been sought and obtained.

Note that this is not the totality of what the parties present to the court. It is just "a concise summary of the submissions to be developed" in oral argument.

 

[Vixen]

Nobody from the monarchy is actually involved in the case.

Whooosh!

 

[Mojo]

Whooosh!

i know, you're setting up excuses in case the appeal fails.

I think this may be the last case in which the SC considered whether an executive decision was justiciable.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you?

Did she die in vain?

Dave