Kilkrazy wrote:I have served on a jury.
The purpose of the jury is to make a decision based on the evidence presented to them. They do not need to be legal experts or any other kind of expert -- scientist or whatever -- in fact judges aren't allowed to serve on juries if I remember correctly.
YES.
Kilkrazy wrote:This decision making authority is the same function of parliament.
NO. This is where your logic breaks down. Peers are intended to be informed not lay.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Government has a political objective, it gets up a plan. The technical details are worked out by expert groups, civil servants and written up by lawyers. The whole plan is presented to parliament and passes through the process of debates, select committees and so on.
Do you actually believe this?
Ok, where to start.
Legislations is being masked by lawyers so that people DONT understand it, this includes Peers and
MP's.
Let me give you an example, I will make it brief as I don't have all year to give you a better account. This just a scratch on the surface:
Mental Health Act.
The draft as PASSED by the House of Commons allowed a
huge number of loopholes. The worst of which was, in short a 'Mental Health Professional' can on their own opinion, which they do not have to account to
anyone else, including a doctor, can order a person to be detained indefinately without legal defence or recourse or appeal. If a second opinion is sought it has to convince the original 'Mental Health Professional' to change their opinion, yes the word
opinion was used.
Who is a 'Mental Health Professional'? It is not specified, but the only excluded profession are doctors*, so a policeman could be one. The white paper refered mostly two who appointed them, namely local authorities and the home secretary. There were other equally frightening effects, someone could be restricted on where they could go, what they could do and where they could live, and be immediately detained if any of these were broken.
*This bill was explained to me under its fair face, mental health professionals not being doctors meant that doctors were not to be 'judge jury and executioner' in cases of sectioning. (Home Secretary appointees become that) That bit looked fair enough, ish, a bit.
So...someone appointed by the home secretary (hardly an impartial body) can declare you mad and lock you away, on their own opinion, and dont have to defend their opinion to anyone else.
WTF. Soviet Union? Yes this is the bill
AS THE COMMONS PASSED IT.
After the Lords went though it, to cut a long story short, removed the opinion bit, allowed a form of appeal and limited incarcertation time. They did their job.
The House of Lords is
not a proofreading body but a reforming body. What is passed to them should already be passed by the Commons. i.e adequately debated on and agreed to prior to being passed for review.
Still the law is 'vague' as most New Labour laws are. Mental Health Professional is still not defined in the Act. What people do not realise is there is no such thing as vague regislation. Above all else the law is
RAW. If the Home secretary can now apploint a single official to declare you mad and lock you away, this is precisely what the Home Secretary can do.
Alarmist? Not at all. Counter terrorist legislation has been used for other purposes other than what it was made for. I see no difference here.
Most recently a good example came up, and very very few have understood the ramifications of this single line in the press.
How did Gordon Brown place sanctions on Icelandic Banks?
Answer : Anti-terror legislation.
See for yourself. Last time I checked Iceland is not waging a terror campaign in or against the
UK.
Laws are what they say, laws are
RAW. Its the Codex, it is the new edition rules.
And you want Gav Thorpe lotto peer writing it? Why not, he is a trained professional fit for jury service. Sorry I could not resist that injoke, but please wake up. Parliament isnt what it used to be.
Kilkrazy wrote: Finally a decision is made by the collective wisdom of the Commons and Lords.
Odd use of the term wisdom. I like your humour, but sadly you weren't joking?