Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
Callisto · 02/03/2009 15:54

Rectifying past mistakes? Please tell me how they're going to do that by breaking the law? The govt is desperate to keep the spotlight firmly on the bankers because the British public can't seem to focus on two things at once ie the bankers are at fault, but so is the Labour Govt. Gordon Brown is responsible for an awful lot of the banking crisis with his 'light touch' orders on banking regulations and his total lack of foresight that if you lend money to people who won't pay it back and over-expose yourself it will come back and bite you on the arse with a vengeance. Gordon Brown is floundering badly and has no idea what to do to mend the economy. Meanwhile the whole country is quietly panicking, not spending their money (and I'm talking businesses as well as individuals) and making the whole thing worse.

Original poster
Haribosmummy · 02/03/2009 16:45

I agree Callisto...

You cnnot recitify a past mistake by ripping up the rule book. As (I think it was Callisto's point) has been said, might as well rip up contract law.

WHere does that leave every working (TAX paying) citizen - up a creek with no paddle in sight.

Like most things, all that can be done about past mistakes is to make sure lessons are learnt.

I do wonder whether GOrdon Brown will be foregoing HIS pension??? I mean, he's cocked up in a pretty mjor way, but somehow, I think not.

OP posts:
DaddyJ · 02/03/2009 18:38

On a logical level you might be right, Haribo/Callisto,
although I don't think we know all the details yet.

The sentiment that she expresses might be a little radical
but these are unusual times and I think the Labour government
has realised that unless they take some strong measures
the public anger will at some point soon turn on them.
Regardless of logic.

The Harman thread on MN would reinforce that view.

Original poster
Haribosmummy · 02/03/2009 19:28

No, DaddyJ, I am sure we don't know all the details - like I am sure Gordon Brown knew ALL about this before the shit hit the fan.

So what if these are unusual times? Where do we stop? Looting? Shoplifting? What becomes the 'norm'???

When the Government is instrumental in the breakdown of law and order - because they are instrumental in breaking the law, then I think that's pretty low.

And, what's even lower is it's all to save their own skin. It has nothing to do with the working people of the UK.

OP posts:
Nighbynight · 02/03/2009 19:35

Hmm, they weren't particularly bothered about the court of public opinion when so many people turned out in London to protest against british soldiers being sent to Iraq, were they.

georgimama · 02/03/2009 19:44

No, nor the hunting ban.

Original poster
Haribosmummy · 02/03/2009 19:44

Very very good point Nightbynight.

THough, GOod-old-Gordon would no doubt that it was his shitty predecsor who organised that, so once again HE is blameless

OP posts:
ilovemydogandMrObama · 02/03/2009 19:52

The problem is that even if the government changed the law tomorrow, fact is that it isn't retrospective...

The fault lies with the government -- why didn't they give the banks a set of criteria before bail out?

Callisto · 02/03/2009 20:01

DaddyJ -I am amazed that you appear to be justifying the breaking of the laws of this country by the people who are elected to defend and uphold the laws of this country. Are you so blinded by Labour dogma that you can't see how very dangerous this could be? Our civil liberties are already being eroded at a frightening pace by this Government. Are you really saying that it is ok for the Govt to do as it pleases regardless of the law, as long as public opinion backs it's actions?

Original poster
Haribosmummy · 02/03/2009 20:12

Callisto - Your posts are very wise.

OP posts:
Callisto · 02/03/2009 20:24

Not sure if I'm wise, I feel like I'm struggling to make sense of this economic crisis most of the time, but you're very kind to say so.

JazzHands · 02/03/2009 20:29

I spotted this one too.

Bloody joke.

Immediately leapt up and started screeching "court of public opinion? outweighs court of law??? WTF???? So we'll be having hanging back will we?"

It's all populist claptrap these days and it does my head in. Winner of celebrity come dancing on the news? Big bro latest eviction on front cover of broadsheets? That is not news. Get a fucking grip.

Rant over.

DaddyJ · 02/03/2009 23:36

They are not proposing to break laws but amend them.

It's not Labour dogma, as far as I can tell, just a statement by Harman.
She might have been encouraged in her boldness by the recent MN thread where virtually everyone
(I was in the minority) told her that bankers' bonuses should not be paid
regardless of contractual obligations.

Original poster
Haribosmummy · 03/03/2009 00:23

Absolutely agree with changing the law.

Absolutely disagree if can be applied retrospectively.

OP posts:
frazzledgirl · 03/03/2009 14:05

Jazzhands, couldn't agree more. Think Harman is a twit anyway, but more or less admitting we're giving up on the rule of law for Government by Tabloid Headline is just scary, IMHO.

And I agree with Haribosmummy's last post too. Whole thing's ridiculous.

tiredsville · 03/03/2009 14:33

Like it would take legal form Sounds like Magabe land grabs.
Yes, yes Sir Fred is shamless, but that is neither here nor there.
Agree nighbynigh, public opinion seemed initially irrelevent when wanting disclosures of MP's expenses too. Just the usual Labour bull.

chocolatedot · 03/03/2009 14:51

I agree with you Haribo, I find her comments truly terrifying. The government stuffed up big time with negotiating Fred's contract.

Does this mean that the next time there's a horriffic child murder that thecourt of public opinion willbe able to pass the death sentence?

Rhubarb · 03/03/2009 14:55

I'm sorry, but every fecking thread I click on these days involves insults thrown at dittany.

I don't agree with her half the time, she has very strong views I know, but ffs! Talk about being rude! You can't tell someone which thread to post on and which not to!

I often post on threads without looking to see who the OP is. Give her a break ffs!

DaddyJ · 03/03/2009 14:59

The child murder thing is a good analogy.
Remember babyP?
Before the 'court of public opinion' kicked in
it looked like lessons would be learned (as always of course)
but no one would actually have to take responsibility.

I think Harman is trying to emulate Ed Balls here.

Her timing and the phrase itself were not optimal on this occasion
but her heart is in the right place.

wasabipeanut · 03/03/2009 14:59

Harriet Harman was talking bollocks - "the court of public opinion" is put into session every 4/5 years when we have an election. In between those times if it doesn't like it can lump it. That's why we don't have referendums every two minutes.

People aren't happy about Fred Goodwins pension because it does, frankly, take the piss but there is now nothing anyone, including the government can do. They knew about it anyway and fucked it all up - again.

FriarKewcumber · 03/03/2009 15:06

"Ms Harman said Sir Fred should agree to waive some of the cash, saying this was the most "honourable" thing to do."

pmsl - presumably she was just saying that becasue she likes the sound of her own voice rather than because she really thinks thats going to happen?

Grammaticus · 03/03/2009 15:06

Yes, she was talking total rubbish. And the fact that she is a lawyer especially makes you wonder why she said it. The government should have read the bloody small print, not bleated about it later.

The Guardian today suggested that she said it deliberately, to distract attention from the row about post office privatisation!

cornsilk · 03/03/2009 15:07

Dittany - if you're still reading this thread I think the negative post against you at the start of the thread was extremely unkind and I admire your ability to step away from the thread as you have done - though you shouldn't have to.

wasabipeanut · 03/03/2009 15:08

The idea that FG should volutarily waive some of his pension was laughable.

If you are the sort of person who can bring a multi million pound organisation of many years standing to its knees in a relatively short space of time, then accept a £650k a year plus pension at the age of 50 when you are good for another 15 years or so work, then are you going to be the sort of person who is going to "do the right thing?"

Er, no.

beanieb · 03/03/2009 15:11

I do think that this "And it might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it is not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that is where the government steps in." is a very stupid thing to say or to suggest can happen.

I can see that throughout the centuries society pressure has had a massive effect on personal behaviour but to suggest that the government are stepping in because the public don't like it is bollox.

If they want to change pension laws then go ahead and do it but they really shouldn't be arseing about saying it's down to a court of public opinion. Idiots.

Swipe left for the next trending thread