Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

The court of public opinion????

60 replies

Haribosmummy · 01/03/2009 17:54

Really???

The court of law is being replaced by the court of public opinion?

As said by the government today.

I find that Really difficult to deal with. It actually means good news for me, cos public opinion wouldn't have my DH pay even a 1/3 of the money he ACTUALLY pays to his ex.

But, since when did the court of law become meaningless?

We might as well all do exactly as we please and then take a public vote on whether it's reasonable.

Let's start on taxes.

Madness.

OP posts:
violethill · 01/03/2009 17:56

Can you give us a link?

dittany · 01/03/2009 18:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Haribosmummy · 01/03/2009 18:01

Try here

OP posts:
Original poster
Haribosmummy · 01/03/2009 18:03

Dittany, I've tried being nasty, I've tried being nice.... WOuld you really mind just staying away from me?

You obviously don't like me.

Take your own advice, and take a wide berth.

Please. I don't deserve or need you disagreeing with everything I write.

OP posts:
violethill · 01/03/2009 18:07

Thanks Haribo.

I agree with Harriet Harman, though I am intrigued about how the Government actually intends to set about it!

nancy75 · 01/03/2009 18:08

i think the gov have got a bloody cheek tbh, they knew this was going on and have only decided they are against it when its gone public.
i am pretty sure the 'court of public opinion' thinks gorbon brown has alot to answer for in this whole economic catastrophe, i wonder if he will take his pension - i for one don't think he's earnt it.

Original poster
Haribosmummy · 01/03/2009 18:11

Well, let's get rid of Ant and Dec and Gordon Brown can present Guilty or not or not on a saturday night.

How much fun would that be.

We can all vote - premium prices, of course.

Gosh, the price we paid for democracy.

OP posts:
dittany · 01/03/2009 18:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

onagar · 01/03/2009 18:53

Haribosmummy, I felt just as annoyed with Harmen's comment. I'm afraid they do feel they are above the law and act accordingly.

In the old days a king could say "do this" and you'd have to do it. Now the government say "do this or we will pass a law making it compulsary"

I can't see a whole lot of difference.

It came up recently with 'suggestions' to ISPs. They suggested ISPs might want to do certain things voluntarily, but that "if you don't we will pass a law to make you". A strange usage of the word voluntary I wasn't previously aware of.

Original poster
Haribosmummy · 01/03/2009 18:55

Course you didn't, you are little miss innocent, aren't you?

Well, now I've pointed it out, do 'try to keep an eye out and not post' on my threads.

Would be MUCH appreciated. Cos your attitudes seem to be, well, fluid (AKA: OPposite to whatever has been posted / said)

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 01/03/2009 19:01

The court of law is determined by public opinion in that we elect our lawmakers. Isn't that how it should be? I'm not sure my opinion is that we should change our law as a knee jerk response to a bad decision and a shameless fat cat, but I do think our opinions should count for something with regards to lawmaking, yes.

TheFallenMadonna · 01/03/2009 19:03

I think your request to dittany is somewhat unreasonable on a forum like this actually Haribosmummy. And your tone somewhat offensive.

HecatesTwopenceworth · 01/03/2009 19:06

haribosmummy - look, I'm not piling on here, but that's not really fair. I don't know what the problem is here, but you posted a thread on a public forum, for debate of a topic, someone comes along with their pov - on this topic that you raised - and you tell them that they are not allowed to express an opinion that is contrary to yours.

Mate, I'm not being funny but that's bloody insane!

Callisto · 02/03/2009 12:18

It was the treasury who agreed to his pension in the first place. I'm staggered that Harriet Harman said what she did. The law may well be formed through public opinion and Fred Goodwin undoubtedly doesn't deserve his pension, but for the Government to flagrently break the law just because we don't like bankers right now sets a very dangerous precedent.

Callisto · 02/03/2009 12:19

Actually, if the Govt does strip him of his pension, I hope he takes them to court and wins it back, just to show that no-one is above the law, not even the Labour party.

solidgoldbullet4myvalentine · 02/03/2009 12:23

Unfortunately, the Blair Govt and subsequently the Brown Govt know fuck all about law and democracy: what they mean is ';We can change the laws to have a pop at people we don't like, and you can just suck it up.' THis sort of bullshit ('court of public opinion my arse') is typical. Remember when that fuckwit Straw suggested that victims of crime should be consulted regarding sentencing? THus removing one of the most fundamental principles of English law: that it's objective?
IF Fred Goodwin is legally entitled to his money, then he is legally entitled to it. Changing the law just to take it off him would set a very worrying precedent.

Simplysally · 02/03/2009 12:24

It was agreed to contractually so I don't see how Goodwin can really be deprived of it (as unjust as it seems to us). It would be a breach of his contract.

The words pot, kettle, black spring to mind though when Politicians lecture about someone refusing to give up something they are entitled to when most of their own party are busily rootling around in the proverbial trough themselves . Second house allowances, anyone?

seeker · 02/03/2009 12:26

I am outraged by this. I vote for a Government among other things to uphold the law of the land. I do not expect them to be swayed by :the Court of Public Opinion.

Hard cases make bad law.

georgimama · 02/03/2009 12:29

You wouldn't think Ms Harman actually trained as a lawyer would you?

What she is actually trying to say is, "legally he is entitled to it, but we think that's a bit wrong because no one bothered to read any small print before buying out RBS and agreeing his severence package, and now we're getting in the shit for it".

I'd really love her to adopt this a universal maxim - let's ask the public what they think of having a prime minister who hasn't won a general election, or what they think of MP's allowances, or whether we actually wanted our children and grandchildren to be beggared for 50 + years to bail out the banks etc etc etc.

Original poster
Haribosmummy · 02/03/2009 12:53

Georgimama - couldn't agree more.

I really wonder what the public opinion on keeping the failing bank going (thereby maintaining the status quo) rather than letting it go bust and dealing with that.

The point is, these bank workers DO have contracts - often including bonuses for meeting targets - which cannot just be severed.

It would be the same as telling all the post office workers that 'we don't reward failure, so sod your contracts, you now earn less' - Err.... that's right! THEY'D STRIKE. Of course they would, as it's against their rights. But even bankers / those who earn more should be protected by the laws of the land.

OP posts:
DaddyJ · 02/03/2009 12:56

It's an unfortunate phrase.

However..laws are not set in stone.

If someone has done something catastrophically stupid
and not only got away with it but actually was rewarded for it
then, yes, the applicable laws should be reviewed.

Original poster
Haribosmummy · 02/03/2009 13:07

But if the reward was agreed after the catastrophically stupid thing had been done, then I think the rewardee has a right to keep it.

it's the Rewarded that's at fault (in this case the government!!!)

OP posts:
stealthsquiggle · 02/03/2009 13:15

It's flipping ridiculous.

What are they going to do - pass a law which says 'a contract is a contract unless your name is Fred Goodwin' - because otherwise they are going to completely destroy contract law in the process of trying to bow to tabloid pressure .

As to the 'just don't pay him' suggestion - um, yes, and then he would sue, and he would win, and he would be awarded costs, and it would end up costing more. Duh.

TwoIfBySea · 02/03/2009 13:16

What Harman didn't answer was why the government signed off on Goodwin's ransom (for that is what it is.) Had the bank gone under - he would have gotten nothing. Had he been sacked - he would have gotten nothing. As it was this was a deal offered to him and he would have been stupid not to accept it.

The original deal was for £500k +, it was the government who added another £114k on to that.

So Harman may twitter on about the court of public opinion but as long as they are in power the only opinion that matters is theirs! It was hilarious to see her act as outraged knowing all that - and if she didn't know then she is incompetent as well.

DaddyJ · 02/03/2009 15:02

That's probably true, Haribo.
Politicians have not covered themselves in glory
and are desperate to keep the spotlight well away from them.

In this case, they are trying to do that by rectifying their past mistake.
Which seems fair enough.