BNP philosophers???????? One of?????????????????
Where does it say in our 'constitution' that Parliament is not allowed to give away our freedom? We don't have a written constitution that defines the limits of what our Parliament can do. We have a body of constitutional laws, amended and varied over the centuries, and some unwritten conventions.
This typifies the point I was making. For BNP 'philosopher' read person with no formal qualifications in philosophy and quite possibly no qualifications in anything.
Someone who hasn't read any law books is pronouncing on our constitutional law.
The courts follow legal processes and pronounce on them as required. The judges , arguably, interpret laws as they see fit. A very good summation of the arguments can be found at:
Law reform role of judges - declaratory theory
For a 'philosopher' to state, without authority, that 'the courts no longer obey laws that the establishment find inconvenient' is as unacceptable as binding people in perpetuity, which, since Parliament is sovereign, is not the constitutional position (
Parliamentary sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
cassie, I would ask the 'philosopher' to cite a clear case of a judge not obeying the law because it was inconvenient to the establishment. The judiciary are very powerful and might interpret law as they see fit, but it is not unlawful for them to do so. The establishment loses a lot more often than people think and on more than one occasion Parliament or ministers have had to seek amending legislation that reverses a court's decision.