Supreme, or Super Supreme?
The UK's police powers to use terror laws to stop and search people without grounds for suspicion are illegal, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
This, on the face of it, is good news. This woeful government has misused legislation, especially the knee-jerk Terrorism legislation, to achieve its own warped ends on far too many occasions.
Old Holborn, among many others, was delighted:
"Oh joy. The harrassment of choice of our friendly Police "service" has just been found illegal under European Human Rights Legislation"
Well, yes, up to a point, Lord Copper.
But shouldn't we be more concerned about some distant European Court overturning the Laws of (what should be) our Land?
It's all very well having the much-derided and frequently abused terrorism laws overridden, but what happens when our European masters decide that a law of which we generally approve should no longer apply?
Doesn't Europe already have far too much say over 'our' legislation and its enforcement? Shouldn't our Government, who we vote in, set our laws?
As The Spectator points out, regarding the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
"We have, in Parliament Square, a new building entitled the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. A lawyer looking for a wheeze should consider instigating an action under the Trade Description Act, because supreme it isn’t. England is not sovereign over its own law"
And isn't that a fuck sight more worrying?
.
Posts
