Re: Livingstone, attacks on democracy, the law
- From: "DVH" <dvh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:05:40 -0000
"Gaz" <gazter@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46juvsFb0jb0U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
DVH wrote:"an
I'd be interested if anyone who believes Livingstone's suspension was
attack on democracy" wanted to explain their position.
I'd pay particular attention to arguments which showed how and in what
circumstances Livingstone should be immune from the law because he was
elected, as some seem to think he should be
The standards board is not a court, neither are its decisions law. It is a
code of conduct, a contract, and agreement. To hold elected office as a
councillor or mayor, you are required to sign the code of conduct which
binds you by its decisions.
It is the whole concept which is absurd, the livingstone case just
highlights it.
Agreed. But I'm trying to decide which direction to fire in.
It is for the voters to decide.I
Because from where I'm standing, the judicial review is *technically* an
attack on democracy. It flies in the face of law created by parliament.
think the law's bloody silly, and in this instance has been used
perversely,
but even so...
That doesnt wash in the present system.
Gaz
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Livingstone, attacks on democracy, the law
- From: Chris X
- Re: Livingstone, attacks on democracy, the law
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Livingstone, attacks on democracy, the law
- Next by Date: Re: Livingstone, attacks on democracy, the law
- Previous by thread: Re: Livingstone, attacks on democracy, the law
- Next by thread: Re: Livingstone, attacks on democracy, the law
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
