//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
ProfileReplies









Loading...
What is happening in the UK? It's heartbreaking and scary.
Also they thought they were changing the meaning of sex in the sex discrimination act, said so in the explanatory notes, but actually forgot to do this.
Whereas, I find it quite plausible that judges brought their liberal and anti-Brexit biases into the courtroom, and used the space that law gave them to craft rulings that reflect their principles. I just happen to agree with them.
Yes, and until recently I thought Corbett v Corbett was famous for the same reason. It's very hard to find an explicit defense of it in the journals, even going back a few decades.
I wonder if it's some sort of Brexit/Miller 1 and 2 hangover. People are really attached to the idea that senior judges could *never* bring political biases into the courtroom.
And part of the point of the ruling in FWS is that they thought the statute should be readable for laypeople. They have failed according to their own standards.
To be fair they do say that it's for parliament to work out. But the big point is that they treat law as a fine art that it would be impossible for mere laypeople to understand. In England you can qualify with a year or two's training.