Thread: We could have been hunting under level 4 afterall

Originally Posted by Tahr

Like I said. Both views are legitimately held and the Court is about to decide. And Max's is equally as legitimate too.
The Government don't make decisions in a vacuum and will be well informed but could be wrong. So could Crown law. The Court will decide. If the Gov's interpretation and approach is upheld, it means they acted lawfully - and then lingering dissatisfaction about the Gov can be decided at the ballot box. That's cool, because thats how democracy works.

Until the Court decides, the claims here that the Gov has acted unlawfully is simply wishful thinking. But, if through the Court or parliament scrutiny its revealed that the Gov has deceived us or wilfully acted ultra vires I will be pretty pissed, in spite of believing they have mostly taken the correct approaches.

But you accept that they acted against their legal advice from Crown Law? That they took actions that their official expert legal advice said were unlawful, and tried to hide the truth about it.

So while it is still for the courts to decide if it was actually unlawful, it seems clear that their intention was to act unlawfully. They may have genuinely believed that action was necessary and for the greater good, the ends justify the means argument etc, but that's a very slippery slope...

Originally Posted by GravelBen

But you accept that they acted against their legal advice from Crown Law? That they took actions that their official expert legal advice said were unlawful, and tried to hide the truth about it.

So while it is still for the courts to decide if it was actually unlawful, it seems clear that their intention was to act unlawfully. They may have genuinely believed that action was necessary and for the greater good, the ends justify the means argument etc, but that's a very slippery slope...

I don't think that that assumption can be made. Crown Law is not the only source of legal advice that gov takes, and CL can be wrong. The Attorney General may defer to other advice, and may have. Or the leaked docs might not tell a complete story. And its the role of the courts to decide if it is illegal or not.

Look, Im not defending the Gov. I'm attempting to make a case for objectivity. Im very open to changing my mind and who I vote for.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

They may have genuinely believed that action was necessary and for the greater good, the ends justify the means argument etc, but that's a very slippery slope...

That's the end of good governance, as I understand it.