Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

  1. Parliament makes laws, not judges. If Parliament believes judges are misapplying its laws it has every right to ignore any judgements it wishes until such times as those laws may be amended or rescinded.
    3
  2.  @rocketscience4516  I was merely being ironic, pointing out that comparisons between the Gestapo's methods and those of the present UK government are no more relevant than referencing their uniforms. The 2020 US Presidential election was fraudulently conducted on a massive and varied scale in order to neutralise Trump whose continued appeal to broad sections of the American public was -and is - a threat to the New World Order's plans to dismantle capitalism in its present form and replace democracy with a permanent system of governance.
    3
  3.  @rocketscience4516  Bother no more. "English judges do not claim or exercise any power to repeal a Statute, whilst Acts of Parliament may override and constantly do override the law of the judges.” Back in 1610, Chief Justice Coke asserted a judicial power to “control Acts of parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void”. This principle has been inherent in the British constitution ever since. In any dispute between Parliament and the judiciary, Parliament wins
    2
  4.  @korayven9255  It is a common misconception that the three branches of British governance hold separate and equal powers and do not trespass upon each other's authority. Parliament has sovereign power over both the executive and the judiciary and has done so at least since the early part of the 17th century. You are becoming confused with the constitutions of other countries, such as the USA, which do indeed contain such provisions in order to prevent the rise of dictators. Britain has no need for such provisions since we have a "dictator" already built into the system in the shape of a hereditary Head of State. Quite a clever move, really.
    2
  5.  @verystripeyzebra  Parliament has the right to over-ride interpretations of its laws by the judiciary if it chooses to do so, however. The principle has been enshrined in the British constitution at least since 1610. The judiciary, by contrast, has no powers to alter laws, and any judgements which Parliament decides contravenes this principle may be overturned.
    2
  6.  @Pining_for_the_fjords  Unlike ours, which are.
    2
  7.  @peterebel7899  You clowns usually cite Nazi Germany as a precedent for your childish delusions. This at least makes a refreshing change.
    2
  8.  @ab-ym3bf  Not at all, just not paranoid and brainwashed.
    2
  9.  @Sir_Grumpalot  You confuse democratic principles with the rules of a TV talent show contest. Where, for instance, does one draw the boundaries of a constituency? Do we ignore constituencies completely and simply allocate seats in Parliament by numbers of votes cast, and run down the list? Do we not take demographics or local needs into account? Under the sort of system you seem to support the entire country would be run by members elected according to the wishes of the populations of large conurbations. Country dwellers and the inhabitants of small towns would be totally disenfranchised. This government is no more an "elected dictatorship" than any other, it merely seeks to continue long-established traditions of allowing a fair representation of various interests to affect its deliberations. The alternative to that is indeed rule by the mob, which does invariably morph into a dictatorship, as historical precedents clearly show.
    2
  10.  @geraldhewing2076  I am no apologist for Johnson and his government and want to see them gone as much as you do. The latter parts of your comment make it quite clear, however, that to replace them with people of your childish and paranoid mindset would really be a leap out of the frying pan into the fire. If by some miracle the Labour Party could escape the curse of wokery and get back to its proper function of representing the interests of the less-propertied classes of all races, colours and creeds, then it just MIGHT achieve the desired objective. Not much chance of that, so the task must be left to elements within the Conservative Party - which are working on it quite circumspectly, believe you me.
    2
  11. No
    1
  12.  @bosoerjadi2838  Parliament hold supreme authority over the interpretation of the laws it passes. This is a fundamental principle of the British constitution. There is a difference between obeying the law and agreeing with a judicial interpretation of it.
    1
  13.  @jiversteve  Oh you and your old fascism thing! You are such a duck!
    1
  14.  @bosoerjadi2838  And its judgements may be over-ruled by Parliament.
    1
  15.  @justmythought7658  Not at all. A government which does not represent my views has exactly the same rights.
    1
  16.  @bosoerjadi2838  There is no need to wait for an Act. If a judicial assessment contravenes Parliament's assessment then it may be overturned by the government, acting as an instrument of Parliament. This sets precedents, which form as much the basis of English jurisprudence as do written laws.
    1
  17.  @Ardelanin  The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document. Thus, it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched. This ensures that our constitution, unlike written constitutions, has the facility to adapt to changing circumstances. It means that the government, acting on behalf of Parliament, is empowered to ignore any judicial interpretations of its laws with which it disagrees. It is Parliament which makes laws and Parliament has sovereign rights over its own laws. In the example you mention Parliament could indeed, in principle, overturn a finding of guilt in a court should it choose to do so. But it would need very good reasons!
    1
  18.  @Yeknodathon  Another good reason for disobeying bad laws. At least Parliament can do so legally!
    1
  19.  @rocketscience4516  But it's not up to them to say what is proper. They have only the right to interpret laws in individual cases. It is their role to say what they think the intention behind a law was, and if Parliament, which made the law, says "No, you're wrong " then that assessment over-rules the judge's interpretation.
    1
  20.  @verystripeyzebra  You are totally incorrect. Coke's1610 judgement makes it clear that judicial attempts to "control Acts of parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void”. Parliament's interpretations of Acts which it itself passes, have clear precedence over any interpretations of the judiciary, which is only right and proper since laws are Acts of Parliament, not acts of the judiciary.
    1
  21.  @jackgarnett5253  The British Constitution. We have one, despite allegations to the contrary, and a very good one it is too.
    1
  22.  @verystripeyzebra  You surely must know that interpretations of English law are incorporated into the British Constitution which is binding upon the UK Parliament.
    1
  23.  @lv3609  It is merely trying to take back the authority it once held under the Court of Appeals, which was abolished and replaced by the Blairite horrorshow which is the Supreme Court.
    1
  24.  @lv3609  What do you mean by "authoritarianism" ? Some body or another has to have ultimate authority and under British law this body is Parliament - not the judiciary. A Parliament may be voted out, but a judiciary is there forever. This is a point well worth bearing in mind.
    1
  25.  @rocketscience4516  But I am not wrong. You are. The Law is ultimately under the control of Parliament, not of the judiciary. The Blairite scheme to attempt to undermine this principle by replacing the Court of Appeals with the Supreme Court is doomed to fail under the weight of long-established precedent.
    1
  26.  @johnrussell3961  And Parliament has the right and obligation to vote on such matters.
    1
  27.  @lv3609  And so it goes on until such times laws are ratified by mutual agreement - which they largely have been up until recently when laws have clearly been interpreted for political rather than purely judicial purposes.
    1
  28.  @korayven9255  These refutations do not prove me wrong any more than yours do. Whatever accountability MPs are subject to depends ultimately upon the power of the electorate to reject them, not of the power of the judiciary to censure them. There is nothing "proto dictator or nigh-on fascist" in this. If anything the reverse is true. As I have pointed out, the replacement of Parliamentary authority with judicial authority leaves the doors wide open for a democratically monitored procedure of government to be replaced by an appointed and unaccountable one.
    1
  29.  @rocketscience4516  But how is what you are saying any different to what I have been saying, other than you do not acknowledge the right of Parliament to overturn or put on hold any interpretation of the law which it feels contradicts the essential purpose of that law? (Should I go back to bed or go for a walk , by the way? Your advice seems, again, to be somewhat contradictory.)
    1
  30.  @phil2544  It pretended to be, but the Supreme Court had no right to pass judgement on it anyway since it was purely a Parliamentary matter.
    1
  31.  @verystripeyzebra  As you rightly say the present situation is capable of several interpretations, but since Coke's pronouncements often form the basis of English Common Law, which holds equal status with constitutional law in UK courts, his pronouncements on Parliamentary sovereignty still carry weight. I acknowledge that he also opined that common law should enable any clearly egregious Parliamentary law to be overturned by a court, so -swings and roundabouts really. In the present instance the dilemma is relatively clear. Courts have been exceeding their authority and undermining the purposes of some laws and giving precedence to UN and EU inspired legislation such as the Human Rights Act, which clearly should be abolished as an intrusion into the rights of the British people to maintain their privileges in their own country. It is a clash of cultures and as long as the left and remainers, denied authority in Parliament to pursue their objectives, seek to bend the judiciary to their purpose, the right and the brexiteers can be expected to use Parliamentary sovereignty to thwart them. The current controversy merely highlight the Government's determination to make its resistance as firm and immediate as possible.
    1
  32.  @rocketscience4516  Damn. My colostomy bag must have sprung a leak - no hang on a minute I haven't been out today, have I?
    1
  33.  @lv3609  My love is for ultimate freedom - and just about everything you have said here is wrong. The Human Rights Act is still in force in this country, as indeed is a great amount of EU retained legislation. Most of it needs to be chucked out with the Human Rights Act at the top of the pile. And why oh why oh why do you clowns keep referring to "fascism" when you don't have the faintest idea what it means?
    1
  34. And they had such sexy uniforms too!
    1
  35.  @englishsteve1465  Many Americans would love to be crony capitalists, many of them are in their own small way.
    1
  36.  @englishsteve1465  I do love the Dunning-Kruger effect. Citing it gives so many stupid people the idea that they are intelligent.
    1
  37.  @englishsteve1465  Take off your blinkers and try to see the fuller picture. Trump's becoming President was basically an ego trip. He's a narcissist, right enough, and enjoys things that make him feel good. Becoming President has lost him millions , but just having it on his CV is ample reward. He is genuinely patriotic and genuinely resentful of the current trends in US and world politics which have seen an unholy alliance spring up between multi-billionaire financiers and academic Marxists. The America he knew as a young man is on the verge of being utterly destroyed. When he says Make America Great Again, he means it. As a conservative he knows that the best way to improve the general wealth of the nation is to encourage productivity and job creation - not by handing out dole money and food stamps. He was well on his way to achieving this before covid came along. If he were President now things would be incomparably better than they are.
    1
  38.  @gloin10  Oh yes! I was thinking of the SS wasn't I?
    1
  39. Not when you are bound to call an election within four years it isn't.
    1
  40.  @Taladar2003  Elections may indeed be suspended, as they have been in times of war, but no attempt to suspend electoral law could ever hope to pass Parliament except under such clearly extraordinary circumstances.
    1
  41.  @royboy565  You really are a silly boy Roy Boy.
    1
  42.  @catherinemontgomery7130  I think he must have missed out the word "when" don't you?
    1
  43.  @vladimirputin4822  <---- gosh, I've just had my first go at this little arrow thing. I'm so pleased with myself that I can't think of any appropriate insults just for now. Give me time though.
    1
  44. @Bombay Molotov I'm no fan of Boris Johnson. At the same time though he is standing up for - or possibly commandeering - the very sound principle that Parliament has sovereign precedence over the judiciary. In a situation where a government has a clear and substantial majority in Parliament various devious tricks can be employed in attempts to undermine its authority. Equally well, the government, through Parliament, has a number of tactics available to circumvent such manoeuvres. Boris is playing his hand quite well so far.
    1
  45.  @royboy565  I'm afraid anyone who slings the word "fascist" around with such abandon comes into the silly category in my book.
    1
  46.  @mariogmajner6549  Not really. As Farage has shown, Parliamentary representation is not the sole route to exercising influence. The Tory Party is an uncrackable nut, and the only way for nationalist, anti EU, right-wing voices to make themselves heard in Parliament is to get there under a Tory banner.
    1
  47.  @geraldhewing2076  Johnson neutered dissent?! What on earth are you talking about? This dissatisfaction in the backbenches is palpable. Tories tend to play things close to the shoulder instead of airing their dirty linen in public, like Labour, and Johnson is for the chop very, very soon. As for Trump - have you not heard of the RINOs and the Lincoln Project? Trump has the Republican party in the palm of his hand because he is a crowd-puller and a genuine man of the people. He will stay at the top just as long as he wants to. And it is Trump who has suffered at the hands of the social media giants. I only hope his new platform can provide an alternative. I suffer YouTube censorship practically every day.
    1
  48.  @vereferreus5262  Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.
    1
  49.  @weediestbroom  My your head is firmly stuck in the sand. An ostrich with paranoid delusions! Where do I go to get this money I'm owed, anyway?
    1
  50.  @lfcgero35  Boris has been a naughty boy and will probably be punished soon. His consistent breaking of the 11th Commandment is eroding his usefulness.
    1
  51.  @mariogmajner6549  But it is. Not democracy's most shining hour, perhaps; but democracy and compromise are old buddies.
    1
  52.  @Sir_Grumpalot  You are mistaken, not to say deluded. The compromise PR methods you mention add nothing to the efficiency and fairness of the present system and are simply not worth the cost and upheaval needed for their implementation. They merely continue the talent show analogy, but with consolation prizes. Any such system would invariably minimise rural interest and allow the balance of decision-making to shift towards the appeasing of the demands of large conurbations. While my use of the word "mob" might be somewhat hyperbolic so too is your ridiculous notion that the country is heading towards a dictatorship. Johnson will be out on his ear quite soon, so you will have to find another Hitler substitute to feed your fantasies.
    1
  53.  @Sir_Grumpalot  You are mistaken, not to say deluded. The compromise PR methods you mention add nothing to the efficiency and fairness of the present system and are simply not worth the cost and upheaval needed for their implementation. They merely continue the talent show analogy, but with consolation prizes. Any such system would invariably minimise rural interest and allow the balance of decision-making to shift towards the appeasing of the demands of large conurbations. While my use of the word "mob" might be somewhat hyperbolic so too is your ridiculous notion that the country is heading towards a dictatorship. Johnson will be out on his ear quite soon, so you will have to find another Hitler substitute to feed your fantasies.
    1
  54.  @ab-ym3bf  And Mrs Tweedledee will be very disappointed. She is the heart and soul of the British nation and must never be ignored. None of the PR substitutes and jolly wheezes dreamed up in the back rooms of academia are worth the trouble and cost of implementing them. The British system of governance has evolved over a thousand years and fiddling about with it on account of some deluded notions of fairness is simply asking for trouble.
    1
  55.  @ab-ym3bf  I do my own washing. I don't send it out.
    1
  56.  @tuga9999  Que?
    1
  57.  @geraldhewing2076  Fascist.
    1
  58.  @Dash8Q400Channel  Not at all. That's exactly what he is. He's done what every red- blooded American male would have done if born into big money. Plus--- HE'S NOT A POLITICIAN! And all Americans with any sense hate most politicians.
    1
  59.  @markwelch3564  Mandy Rice-Davies
    1
  60.  @Sir_Grumpalot  I would not dream of placing such an interpretation on your failure to respond. Have a pleasant evening.
    1
  61.  @ab-ym3bf  How can I possibly respect the views of someone who talks such utter twaddle.
    1
  62.  @ab-ym3bf  In the small, stagnant pool you inhabit this may indeed be so.
    1