'Britain should ban the Supreme Court' Lionel Shriver on political prosecution | SpectatorTV
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 04. 2024
- Trump is on trial again. This is his 91st criminal charge and his supporters see this as politicised prosecution. As an American, Kate Andrews has seen how the law can be used as a political weapon - so why, she asks, is Britain importing the same system? Lionel Shriver joins Freddy Gray.
// SUBSCRIBE TO THE SPECTATOR
Get 12 issues for £12, plus a free £20 John Lewis/Waitrose voucher
www.spectator.co.uk/tvoffer
// FREE PODCASTS FROM THE SPECTATOR
Hear more from The Spectator's journalists on their podcasts, covering everything from the politics of the UK, US and China, to religion, literature, lifestyle and more.
www.spectator.co.uk/podcasts/
// FOLLOW US
/ spectator
/ officialspectator
/ the-spectator
/ spectator1828
/ thespectatormagazine
Theme song written and performed by Jon Barker © 2020 Jonathan Stewart Barker
Publisher Jonathan Stewart Barker 100%, administered by prsformusic.com
Recording © 2020 Jonathan Stewart Barker 100%, administered by ppl.com
I see Lionel Shriver, I'm watching
The labour woman mentioned has demanded perfection before the law and now is being investigated to see if she is also perfect before the law.
Same with Nicola Sturgeon
@TheTicRaccoon20 As much as I cannot stand Rayner she's not in the league or Sturgeon, she and her inner circle have "lost" because you have to be careful what you say due Scotland's laws around investigations, hundreds of thousands of pounds that seem to lead to sturgeon and there's money from the Barnet formula that's missing, the snp sat in a committee hearing and admitted they don't know where 30 mil is. You can't put Raynor in that same playing field. She's fiddled the books and dodged a tax, worth apparently between 5-15k, that's nowhere near the same thing as Sturgeon.
Yeah she's hypocritical but it's a waste of time the police investigating Raynor when it's such a minor issue to which the tax office can deal with, and the statute of limitations has past on most laws Raynor may have broken, so it is a waste of police resources. Sturgeon was the head of her government when possible criminality took place, she had power to a degree over police at least politically, Raynor wasn't even an MP when she did what she apparently did.
I cannot stand Raynor but if I'm going to say I'm against the cultowar and for preserving the culture and system of governance our great country gave us, then I have to admit it's a waste of time going after Raynor the way people are. There's an election coming up, the people will decide if they want to keep her. We've got bigger problems to worry about like rabid and rapid bankruptcy hitting councils, the NHS, and this bringing the country into the worse recession we'll have seen...ever.
@@libertasdemocratiam887 yes I would agree that Nicola’s financial scandals are far more egregious, hence why she is out of office and Rayner remains Labour deputy. I was just highlighting that they have both paid a price for insisting on high standard of conduct from their opposition but not keeping to it themselves. Obviously Nicola has paid a higher price because her financial mismanagement is far more offensive
Lionel is such a brilliantly perceptive person. She manages to voice what many of us think and believe but aren't able to articulate without getting incensed.
Thankfully we have the privacy of the ballot box.
It works at the ballot box.
Sadly, not in the UK where's there is practically no difference between the policies of the two major parties who are the only ones who have a chance of winning.
Having cake at the end of a permitted meeting doesn't change that meeting into one that breaks the rules.
So while i agree the problem was the rules, she misses the point on the cake.
She also misses the point that while having cake at the end of a meeting permitted under the rules doesn't change the nature of that meeting. What Starmer did, did break the rules and was almost completely ignored.
I find I agree with Lionel Shriver on just about everything.
No politician should be charged with anything. It has got out of hand. To prosecute politicians in democracies is undemocratic. They are our leaders FFS. Go Lionel!
If it makes any significance in the opinions of the people on this podcast show or not. The American Supreme Court is not allowed to make any judgement on absurd political issues. They're elected and appointed to enforce the Constitution to describe a judgement of our laws.
I was the regional secretary for a major state political party in Australia for a few years. The state director once asked me if I would consider running for MP. I said no, I've slept with way too many women to be a politician!😂
and I slept with too many men, although they do not usually engage in SHOW AND TELL
Fair enough it is ironic that lawyers representing appellants in the I&A tribunal are often funded by government legal aid. But again, would you plan to do away with legal aid? Is access to justice lost on you?
Who holds the judges to account?
It was clear after the BoJo was sanctioned for the prorogation of parliament that the judges decision was politically based and not based in law (she said as much in her summing up).
The judgment in Miller II was based on the first principle of British constitutional law, the sovereignty of Parliament. Bojo undermined the sovereignty of Parliament by attempting to push through Brexit without a vote, through the use of the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament. By annulling the prorogation of Parliament, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of democracy, and the right Parliament has to scrutinise the executive.
Did it change anything? No, we still bloody left with a no deal Brexit
@@TheTicRaccoon20
The supreme court decision was politically motivated. It prevented a decent Brexit deal from being reached.
And in fact there are many examples of prorogation with far less justification than a parliament that was so very far away from the wishes of the electorate. The fact that there are other examples, far worse, when the tool was used doesn't of course make BoJo's actions legal (neither does the fact that the decision was plainly political - simply brings the decision in to doubt). The fact that no case was brought to beat against Blair or other instigators might mean that there is no legal precedence.
More than two thirds of MPs were pro-Remain while election after election proved the public wanted out. MPs are elected to implement the will of the electorate. At the time they were clearly working to frustrate that will. It is THAT that is the clear attack on UK democracy and that that has enabled the steady creep towards authoritarianism. As such prorogation at that time was actually an attempt to defend democracy.
It is all beside the point, which was who holds judges to account?
@@markhutton6055 do you really think a legal judgment from the UKSC was not based in law? I attach it for you to read www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
Yes I agree there was a democratic deficit when the court ruled against the executive’s ability to prorogue Parliament. Which is why the judgment just forced the executive to ‘think again’, and hard brexit was eventually achieved.
What type of accountability mechanism would you propose? Do you think judges who issue displeasing decisions to the government should be shuffled to lower courts? Does that not undermine the rule of law in it’s entirety?
I’m an American and I don’t like Trump or Biden. But I’m disgusted by the standards Trump is being held to that Biden himself seems to skirt around. If all politicians shared the same level of legal scrutiny, there would be less concern here. But one party using the law to attack their opponent and using the system to favor one corrupt politician over another pre-election is horrifying and dangerous. Lionel is completely right, the ironic pride of the Democratic Party doing exactly what they fear Trump doing is beyond acceptable and is extremely scary. The obliviousness, self-righteousness and injustice that drives fearful people to become their worst nightmare is an incredibly disturbing truth.
Actually, Biden is hold to the same standards. They couldn't find anything criminal on him. They went for his son and he had to defend himself in the courts.
Abolishing the Supreme Court is a ludicrous idea. What would we replace it with?
The judicial appellate committee of the House of Lords? No doubt they would find exactly the same decision in the Rwanda appeal, illegality has always been a ground of judicial review
Sorry, Lionel, if you believe some laws punish crimes that are too little, the way is not for you to decide what laws the police should enforce and what not. The way is to get our governments to simplify our laws to ensure that police can concentrate on the "real crimes" and those minor topics are no longer illegal. To abolish the Supreme Court is insane. One of the basis of democracy is an independent justice system to interpret the law.
I remember when the covid restrictions were spreading. The first day I could go to a coffee shop in Reading, so that's what I did. The next day I had to cycle to Henley, which is a nice cycle ride, so I did that. The day after I would have had to cycle to Winchester, which is a long way for a cup of coffee. Ludicrous times.
Just finished Mania. Well worth a read!
v interesting interview
She voted for Biden... President senisense.
The case against Angela Rayner is no more flimsy than the cases against the Tory MPs.
Which isn't an excuse to be lenient with regards to her case.
Fred and Lionel have long standing support of Trump, unbelievable for people with a brain,
I don't think you can compare the Sturgeon incident can compare to any of the others, it's not 10k for aksing a question, which isn't good, there's campaign money missing and possibly more. The Sturgeon caseis a stand aloneit seems of a true crime thay wluld not betolerates by anyone in the real world.
I don't think Angela Raynor is guilty of that much, a bit of finagling perhaps. I agree about Alex Salmon being chased for something pathetic, although I disagree with him. Supreme Court - that should be took down. The Law Lords worked better.
Common sense is so uncommon because God dropped the whole bottle into Lionel's DNA dough...
The usual 2 bob demagoguery from Shriver……
She seems to be saying that if you run for political office, your crimes should be forgiven.
No she is not. She is saying that MPs shouldn't be held to higher standards than anyone else.
Trump has committed no crimes and certainly hasn't done anything that other people in the same position hasn't done.
New York has seen an exodus of business people because of the summary judgement of the so called business crime that had it gone to court would have had the so called victims as his own witnesses.
As unsavoury as it may be, giving money to someone to keep quiet about something is NOT a crime.
@@markhutton6055 this is on trial now, so we shall see, along with all the other cases Trump is involved in.
@@markhutton6055clearly you are a deluded Trump supporter, god help you.
Shriver is clearly not right.
Trump vs Marxism..
No. Trump = fascism