By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Keith provided a link for this guy on the Manchester Airport thread, he's interesting in that as a barrister he fully aware of what he can say and often has a real insight into how things are in society as well as the law, Here he is on politics today:
The Black Belt Barrister on 22:48 - Dec 20 by Gwyn737
If that’s right I wonder why it’s not been tested before 🤷🏻
It is an interesting suggestion, but seems a bit of a stretch to me. Two possible avenues that the barrister may have had in mind are:
1. The possibility that a verbal statement, promise or acceptance of an offer becomes a contract in law. This seems more likely to apply to business than politics, and depends on establishing that what was said causes another party to rely on that statement in such a way that they are financially injured by that reliance. Even in the business domain this is difficult to prove.
2. The principle that a statement by a public authority can create a legitimate expectation that a promised course of action will be followed, and that denial of this legitimate expectation is unlawful. Again this is a difficult thing to establish and as far as I know has been applied to the area of public administration rather than politics. The nearest example I can think of is R (on the application of Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister (2008). This was a case where Wheeler argued that a Labour Party Manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the related Constitutional Treaty meant that the Labour government should hold a referendum on whether to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon.
The Black Belt Barrister on 10:59 - Dec 21 by raynor94
You haven't upset me in the least, but I totally disagree with your views, Starmer and Reeves have made a total cock up with wfa and Waspi.
Today is the cut off for applying for pension credit, 150 thousand applications, but only 42 and a half thousand have been processed, there's no sharing of pain here, pensioners have been targeted by Labour.
And before the triple lock is mentioned the 4.1% rise doesn't come into being till next April, so a lot have a tough few months ahead, before they get a £9 a week increase.
The hypocrisy with Labour over the Waspi Women is nauseating
To put that £9 pw in context, my electricity bill has gone up £40 this month.
Electricity, Council Tax, Insurance and Water increases will eat over £100 a month this year.
Pensions will go up by about £40. Planning retirement finances is getting more challenging.
The Black Belt Barrister on 11:04 - Dec 21 by AnotherJohn
It is an interesting suggestion, but seems a bit of a stretch to me. Two possible avenues that the barrister may have had in mind are:
1. The possibility that a verbal statement, promise or acceptance of an offer becomes a contract in law. This seems more likely to apply to business than politics, and depends on establishing that what was said causes another party to rely on that statement in such a way that they are financially injured by that reliance. Even in the business domain this is difficult to prove.
2. The principle that a statement by a public authority can create a legitimate expectation that a promised course of action will be followed, and that denial of this legitimate expectation is unlawful. Again this is a difficult thing to establish and as far as I know has been applied to the area of public administration rather than politics. The nearest example I can think of is R (on the application of Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister (2008). This was a case where Wheeler argued that a Labour Party Manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the related Constitutional Treaty meant that the Labour government should hold a referendum on whether to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
