 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tamsier
United Kingdom
558 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 17:09:01
|
| Great! great! great! great!great!keep the fire burning. loving it. |
Tamsier
Serere heritage. Serere religion. Serere to the end.
Roog a fa ha. |
 |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 17:11:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by tamsier
Great! great! great! great!great!keep the fire burning. loving it.
Thanks Tamsir, I am lov'n it too. And I am fired up and ever ready to go.
Cheers |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 08 Apr 2008 17:11:55 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 17:41:37
|
| Unlike some people i don't talk out of my backside. I refer you to the BBC political article dated 30th June 2005 from which i quote "The heavy responsibilities which the Lord Chancellor bears in the various roles as cabinet minister and head of the Legal system mean that business in the Lords is frequently chaired by a Deputy Speaker". So even in the UK this subject is being debated why should Foroyaa be any exception. You can paste Foroyaa articles as much as you want but at least point us where it says that the "Chief cannot serve both judicial and admin functions" My understanding of both Foroyaa articles is that the subject of placing both admin and judicial functions on the shoulders of one man has been debated and is still being debated. I would appreciate it if you stop intoxicating me with your neo-colonial mind by leaving the Lord Chancellor out of this since you got no clue what you are on about. This is Kombo North we are talking about not Birmingham, UK. Talk Gambia and Gambian law in relation to this subject. |
Edited by - shaka on 08 Apr 2008 17:47:57 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 18:13:22
|
This is exacting why I never doubt BBC's professional standards. It helps even dummies like youself to at least get a clue of what is being talked about. Imagine if they were to use House of Lords terms, people like you would be lost. When they talked about a 'Deputy Speaker' they probably mean a House of Lords equivalent of a Deputy Speaker. Speaker and Deputy Speakers are found in the Commons but that does not mean there is nobody[s] in the House of Lords who does a similar job there. However, they are not officially called Speakers or Deputy Speakers. Let me bring one example and hopefully that would penetrate your skull. When the World Service of the BBC is reporting on the 'Chancellor of the Exchequer', they mostly referred to him as the British Finance minister even though that is not his official title. But because they are transmitting beyond Britain, they need to use languages that are easily understandable to their listeners abroad, and that makes 'Finance Minister' a fitting description even though that is not the official title.
I would appreciate it if you stop intoxicating me with your neo-colonial mind by leaving the Lord Chancellor out of this since you got no clue what you are on about. This is Kombo North we are talking about not Birmingham, UK. . Shaka
Well, if you don't want me talking about the Lord Chancellor, you better not talk about the 'Principle of Natural Justice' because that is not a Kombo North/Central philosophy. It is a British product and philosophy.
Talk Gambia and Gambian law in relation to this subject Shaka
Again you have demonstrated grave ignorance. If you read the Gambian Constitution, it will tell you that the Common law, a British creation, is part and percel of the laws of the Gambia.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 08 Apr 2008 18:27:54 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2008 : 19:01:40
|
| See what i mean? Accusation after accusation but never able to justify them. Your neo-colonial mind would not permit you to understand what Foroyaa or i say to you but you can understand clearly what the BBC has to say for we are "dummies". That alone tells your state of mind. At least i know not to take lectures about British Law from a man with a sawdust filled cranium called a brain. Until you can justify you accusations, i rather put my valuable time to better use and let your hatred feed from whatever is left of the sawdust. By the way i mentioned earlier that Gambia might still practice some aspects of common law but we don't live in Colonial Gambia. A i still ignorant? |
|
|
|
Janyanfara
Tanzania
1350 Posts |
Posted - 09 Apr 2008 : 01:56:49
|
Interesting indeed.Hey why not you two go back home(Gambia) and become High court judges instead of our state hiring foreign Judges and the tax payers loosing millions?
Justices Shaka and nyari, You too are real interesting guys and I bet seeing you two in court prosecuting and defending would be much more interesting than even the famous commision of inquiry after july 22nd coup.
Keep the debate.We the juniors are learning.
It is ofcause common knowledge that No MAN/WOMAN CAN BE A JUDGE IN HIS/HER OWN CASE and for the chief to preside over the case concerning himself and brother over land, no matter wheither the case is now between the district authority(which is Headed by the chief, who also is a plaintiff in this perticular case) and defendant, would never serve the common Natural Justice policy of the rule of law in any country even in the Gambia.I think for justice to serve its cause, the chief should excuse himself fromthe case and someone else impartial to preside over the case for a fair trial to occur.
Justice for all!
peace
Janyanfara |
Edited by - Janyanfara on 09 Apr 2008 02:04:25 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2008 : 18:01:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by shaka
See what i mean? Accusation after accusation but never able to justify them. Your neo-colonial mind would not permit you to understand what Foroyaa or i say to you but you can understand clearly what the BBC has to say for we are "dummies". That alone tells your state of mind. At least i know not to take lectures about British Law from a man with a sawdust filled cranium called a brain. Until you can justify you accusations, i rather put my valuable time to better use and let your hatred feed from whatever is left of the sawdust. By the way i mentioned earlier that Gambia might still practice some aspects of common law but we don't live in Colonial Gambia. A i still ignorant?
Nobody sugested that we live in colonial Gambia but the subject matter of the topic is not a Gambian product. The principle of Natural Justice was developed and standards set in the UK, not in a Foroyaa Bereau in Serrekunda. So, if you don't want to know about British examples, then you and Your Ayatollah should either talk about something different or shut-up.
Also, I do not attempt to teach you British law. I am only presenting authoritative facts that happens to be at odds with your Ayatollah's hyperpoles. If you don't like that too, then you might as well go to hell.
**** head! |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 12 Apr 2008 18:03:06 |
|
|
|
Janyanfara
Tanzania
1350 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2008 : 23:04:58
|
Nyarikangbanna Posted - 12 Apr 2008 : 18:01:24
...................................................................................I do not attempt to teach you British law. I am only presenting authoritative facts that happens to be at odds with your Ayatollah's hyperpoles. If you don't like that too, then you might as well go to hell.
**** head!
Oh oh oh why go to hell my brother?I think he should make more researches and find out the real truth for more dialogue rather than hell.
Hell is worst than we imagine.So no one should in real human form go there.
Gambians should rather refrain from these sort of hailstorm languages being fired at each other.
Please don't get me wrong,I mean not only you but many Gambians on this forum and many other forums do use attacking languages at each other.
Many people learn through this kind of forums and dialogues like these are important as many people learn things about their country and things that affect their life and the lives of love ones.
So please brothers keep the debate going with more and more factual legal effects about a brother taking brother to a court headed by him. |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2008 : 20:26:16
|
Janyanfara, I am very sorry if you find my language not called for. I must admit the word 'hell' is adhorrent and I would have said it is ill-chosen but for the nature of the person I was dealing with and his approach in the debate. In any case, your advice is worth noting.You are right. We got to let people learn from the forum.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 15 Apr 2008 20:41:17 |
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2008 : 23:51:10
|
Nyaring
Since when did you change your sigature. It used to be " Never underestimate the strenght of a quiet man" something like that. |
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.” |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 16 Apr 2008 : 11:36:09
|
| The person you are dealing with would not express such blatant hatred of another he hardly knows, to the point of obsessively dwelling on every word he thinks that person uttered and that challenging those utterances for some sort of torment relief is what you live for. Just because he held a political opinion different from yours? That is why people are worried about your state of mind because there is no such person in God's green earth worth so much of my time and energy. This obsession leads to your conclusion that Halifa Sallah=Foroyaa editorials=PDOIS. For someone who claims to be smart you are nothing but a sad, bitter and pathetic fruitcake. Everyone who is familiar with the current Gambian political situation understand what the editorial is hitting at but your twisted mind only sees a hammer aiming at your skull. You are a sad man!!! |
|
|
|
Dalton1
3485 Posts |
Posted - 16 Apr 2008 : 13:17:40
|
Bro Shaka,
Look at your clock before you relaize the energy you are wasting.
Don't you have more important topics to thread on now.
You can take the donkey to the pool to drink but you can't force it to drink from the pool water.
Personally, I believe hypocrisy and dishonesty starts by being in self denial of the existing truth.
I tell you what: the beast is a loose tribal bigot. The good thing is he is a loner who represents only himself, fighting inferior complexity. The job of others here is to help him heal...but it is not your fault -of his poor comprehension of what others has to say, hate, anger and belching of his tribal worms.....remember the rule....'try-n-try'.....'Jimmy Cliff'
Regards,
Dalton
|
"There is no god but Allah (SWT); and Muhammad (SAW)is His last messenger." shahadah. Fear & Worship Allah (SWT) Alone! (:
|
Edited by - Dalton1 on 16 Apr 2008 13:20:01 |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 16 Apr 2008 : 16:48:03
|
www.tellparliament.net/constitution
An Online Consultation
Home » Forums » Constitutional Reform Bill
What is your view of the proposal to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor?
The Bill proposes to abolish the job of Lord Chancellor. This job has evolved over the years so that it now involves the Lord Chancellor being:
* the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, a Cabinet Minister in charge of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, with responsibility for policy on the courts system (amongst other things);
* the head of the judiciary, appointing and disciplining judges;
* a judge (although our current Lord Chancellor has chosen not to exercise his right to sit as a judge);
* the Speaker of the House of Lords (a formal role with no real powers over the proceedings in the House).
The Bill proposes that each of these roles is done by a separate person.
login or register to post comments · previous forum topic · next forum topic
Reform
posted 04/05/2004 - 14:16 by panixxxx
I agree the post of Lord Chancellor should be abolished and powers separated. In a 21st Century the old title of Lord Chancellor should now be made redundant. A new position should be created or possibly more than one position to re-distribute the powers of the LC.
login or register to post comments
Reform
posted 04/05/2004 - 21:26 by ppotter64
Just because it is the 21st Century doesn't mean that long established Government posts have to be abandoned. As head of the judiciary - a single head - the post of Lord Chancellor is as important as that of Queen. Creating additional posts would only increase costs.
login or register to post comments
In Response
posted 05/05/2004 - 14:32 by sati
Additional posts may increase costs, but surely delegation of some of the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities to other parties would ease the burden on the LC and allow a more comprehensive expression of each of those sections of responsibility?
Lord Falconer has himself expressed this view in recent select committee debates.
I agree with R Hazell; perhaps there is no need to abolish the entire office of LC, but reform it. Yet, surely the current situation that appears to focus on separating powers is essential in maintaining public accountability and support; the responsibilities of LC were conflicting in their composition and did nothing to assure the public that the judiciary is a body of independence and impartiality.
login or register to post comments
No need for abolition
posted 04/05/2004 - 15:26 by Robert Hazell
There is no need to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor.
I recognise the government have decided to abolish the office, so this response may be a waste of breath. But no reasons are given for why the office needs to be abolished altogether. It merely needs reforming, which is not the same thing. The reasons why the title is worth preserving for the executive functions of the office are threefold:
· The Lord Chancellor is the constitutional conscience of the government, and protector of the judiciary
· Abolishing his office altogether raises unnecessary fears that the independence of the judiciary is under threat
· Abolishing the office will require legislative and parliamentary time that could be devoted to other priorities.
The consultation paper seems to suggest that the title might be retained, but for another public office. That seems even more confusing. I am simply suggesting that the title is retained for the main part of the current Lord Chancellor’s job, once he has shed his legislative and judicial roles. People associate the Lord Chancellor most in his executive role, as a member of the government. That is the function I am suggesting should retain the title of Lord Chancellor. To confer the title on a lesser function (such as Speaker in the Lords) or another public office would be even more confusing. The title should remain with the core role, which is to be Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
Prof Robert Hazell
Director
The Constitution Unit
login or register to post comments
MODERATORS COMMENT
posted 05/05/2004 - 12:01 by Barry
Opinon seems to be divided amongst participants: Robert Hazell, panixxxx and ppotter64.
Does everybody else think that the time is now right to abolish this historic position?
We're interested to hear your thoughts.
Barry
e-moderators team
login or register to post comments
Why?
posted 05/05/2004 - 12:56 by MBT
I keep hearing people saying 'we need to abolish the Lord Chancellor to separate out the powers'; but, can I ask why we need to separate out the powers; and can I ask, if the desire to abolish the LC is really rooted in the desire to separate powers, then why not start with some real measures to do such a thing; and then have a proper debate about whether we want a proper separation of powers at all, and if so, whether we want a written constitution. It seems to me that abolishing the LC would be the Constitutional equivalent of a cat, who has peed all over the carpet and on an inexpensive welcome mat, having the mat taken away so he can pee underneath it instead. You either ban the cat or keep the mat.
login or register to post comments
Role of the Lord Chancellor
posted 12/05/2004 - 14:35 by David Radlett
There is little obvious difference between the newly-created post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the existing Lord Chancellor's role as the head of the judiciary - the second is merely a particular function of the first. A rose by any other name, except perhaps the need for an additional cabinet minister's salary.
The Law Reports are strewn with examples of fine speeches by Lord Chancellors acting as judges - see for instance Lord Irvine's speeches in DPP v Jones [1999] and Boddington v BTP [1999]. There are one or two more problematic - Lord Maugham in Liversidge v Anderson [1942] for example. A Lord Chancellor who felt competent to make a contribution to the judicial process - and one wonders whether one who does not is in the correct job (how can you supervise what you cannot or will not do?) - should simply observe the law regarding bias and excuse him/herself from cases involving the government.
The task of Speaker of the House of Lords is a quaint, historical one. It is harmless, and I for one like quaint, historical, harmless things. They cause less grief than charmless, modern, damaging things like the Constitutional Reform Bill.
login or register to post comments
Politics
posted 13/05/2004 - 12:49 by MBT
I do believe Lord Maugham had retired by Liversidge v Anderson and had been asked by Lord Simon LC to sit on the case as it was too political for him; correct me if I am wrong.
However one can look quite simply at Pepper v Hart where the LC dissented on the grounds of 'the spiralling costs' of looking at Hansard. Now this kind of decision (by the LC) can be taken either way. Either (1) you see it as an undue interference of politics in the judicial process, or (2) you a relevant point of policy being made which the other judges were entitled to take into account before making their own decisions. The former view is based on a separation of powers that we do not have, the latter view is based on a fusion of powers which we do have; but the latter view also maintains that the decision of the conventional judges will hold more weight.
As the judges do indeed make policy decisions, as much as most have denied it over the years, then one can quite happily argue that the government is indeed entitled to a voice in the judiciary; a person who will be able to point out the effects of those policy decisions. It really depends on ones perspective and I for one would not mind seeing future Lord Chancellors sitting as judges (especially if some of the political powers are trimmed); after all, there are other judges who can quite simply form the majority if the decision of the LC is considered too political.
If the rationale behind abolishing the Lord Chancellor is workload, then it can quite easily be divided up whilst maintaining the office itself; this way judicial appointments could continue as they are at present, saving them being opened up to the political considerations that pollute the American system.
login or register to post comments
Lord Maugham & Liversidge
posted 18/05/2004 - 10:07 by David Radlett
Yes, that is the sound of humble pie being eaten, and then half-heartedly spat out on the grounds that I can "do a government" and try to blame someone else: I traced my error back to my student days and the 4th edition of Hood Phillips' Leading Cases in Con & Ad Law. Even though I have actually looked at the case since then, the error persisted. Good grief ...
In the days when a seat on the Judicial Committee represented the peak of a judge's career, the 4 to 1 argument would be fairly conclusive of the lack of harm argument: not so sure today, with the seniors hopping backwards and forwards between the Committee, the LCJship and/or MRwhatever. Scope for the doubters to claim political line-toeing to obtain preferment maybe.
On balance, though, I prefer the realistic approach to justifying the position of the LC-as-judge that you identify.
login or register to post comments
conflict of roles
posted 20/05/2004 - 11:29 by maurice_frank
How can the LC be government's voice in the judiciary, but protectior of the judiciary from government? Both the same man? It's a conflict of interest. The government's voice in the judiciary should be through having the same entitlement as all the people to make fault findings against court decisions. The judiciary can't be protected from government by a cabinet politician. Spread out the powers, or at least give the job to a Cross Bencher.
|
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 16 Apr 2008 : 16:54:39
|
| So this debate is not unique to Foroyaa then. I hope this will enlighten some people since they understand everything British but nothing Gambian. |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2008 : 22:24:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by kondorong
Nyaring
Since when did you change your sigature. It used to be " Never underestimate the strenght of a quiet man" something like that.
Kondorong, if that is what you prefer I may consider getting it back.
Thanks |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 17 Apr 2008 23:10:57 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
