The first term means "in a manner not sanctioned by the law".
The second means " acted in a manner contrary to the law".
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Prorogation - Judgment Day:10.30am Tuesday 24/9/19
- Thread starter George Hannah
- Start date
The second means " acted in a manner contrary to the law".
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 20,316
Can anyone explain the difference between "acted in an unlawful manner" and "broken the law?" I've noticed everyone on the news is being very careful to not say the latter.
I assume because there was no law to ‘break’ at the time the decision to prorogue was made but the decision to prorogue has retroactively been deemed to be ‘unlawful’.
If that makes sense.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,068
EU law bound it:It was the crime and disorder act 1998 that got rid of it.
In 2004 the 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights became binding on the United Kingdom, prohibiting the restoration of the death penalty for as long as the UK is a party to the Convention.[1]
Rascal
El Presidente
Under EU law that was done away with.
Cheers pal.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
That was high treason and that law was changed in 1998.
Cheers
Astonishing sentence in the court's judgment :
"It is impossible for us to conclude on the evidence... that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks."
Not just that the government didn't have a good reason for prorogation but it had no reason at all!
The important part of that sentence is the 5 weeks bit.
They had every reason to prorogue, it's the traditional time of year, the traditional circumstances etc. but it should have been a couple of days.
From what I gather it's because there's no written constitution that has been broken, it was against the "spirit" of the law.Can anyone explain the difference between "acted in an unlawful manner" and "broken the law?" I've noticed everyone on the news is being very careful to not say the latter.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Nothing will change or happen.
I can't see how he can survive this. If he doesn't resign, it will surely affect the number who decide to vote Conservative in the next General Election.
Gareth Barry Conlon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 14,734
Yep. Humungous own goal. Maybe he didn't think anyone would challenge it in court? On that note, when John Major did it did no-one challenge it? And if they had, is it likely the same verdict would've been reached?
Major did it for an election so while he dodged some bullets the other side (Blairs Labour) were on point and went on to win. They got what they wanted.
I also think Major was making a point about the state of the tories back then. They were a horrible bunch and I think he just thought fu@k it - i'm not defending this lot.
Would the same decision have been made - yes I think so. But it would have quashed the election as well and that is why there was no reason for Labour to go after it back then.
1.618034
Well-Known Member
Oh this is all just delicious.
Nom, nom, nom.
MPs can leave Westminster for a day/half day.
It'll be carnage. Can't wait.
Nom, nom, nom.
They can/will still have it, I reckon.I'm a bit pissed off that Bercow wants parliament to reconvene straight away because I really want to see the Tory conference (next week?). Got some popcorn in.
MPs can leave Westminster for a day/half day.
It'll be carnage. Can't wait.