Suella Braverman - sacked as Home Secretary (p394)

[MillionMilesAway]

I have a feeling that if, as a barrister, you become an MP, or certainly a minister, you automatically 'take silk' as the saying goes. There's a special term for it, which I forget. It does not imply any distinction as a barrister.

Didn't know that, but wikipedia has this on it:

Until the 1990s there was a practice that sitting members of the UK Parliament (MPs) who were barristers were (if they wished) appointed QC, sometimes known as a "courtesy" or even "false" silk (or sarcastically "nylons" being artificial silks), on reaching a certain level of seniority, of around fifteen years, at the bar (though not automatically on election when they were more junior). In the 1990s it was felt that the practice of granting silk to MPs in this way, without considering their abilities, devalued the rank and the practice was abolished.[34][better source needed]

However, for now the practice persists for law officers of the Crown.[35] Former Attorney General for England and Wales, Jeremy Wright, was not a QC when he was appointed, a subject which attracted some comment.[36] But, despite not having practised law for some time, Wright took silk shortly after his appointment, which was criticised by some as a breach of the protocol against "courtesy silk".[37] Similarly when Harriet Harman was appointed as Solicitor General she was made a QC and when Suella Braverman took silk on 25 February 2020; earlier that month she had, like Wright, been appointed Attorney General.

So discontinued except for law officers.

 

[west didsblue]

I have a feeling that if, as a barrister, you become an MP, or certainly a minister, you automatically 'take silk' as the saying goes. There's a special term for it, which I forget. It does not imply any distinction as a barrister.

That might well be the case but I suspect no one has ever been appointed AG without already having been awarded it on merit.
Edit: Having just read the post above it looks like I was wrong but I bet no one with such limited experience has been appointed AG.

 

[El_george]

The reason why we have an ECHR is that governments cannot be trusted with absolute power.

There are some cracking 20th-century examples of what happens when governments are driven by emotion instead of rationality. That's why we (civilised Europe) decided to put in a 'stopper' to resist such tendencies. I am very, very wary of anyone who (to draw a comparison) wants to build a steam engine without a safety valve. Experience has proved that although it can be done it really is not a great idea.

Well I accept your post, it makes a lot of sense, although I still have a bit of an issue with 'governments can't be trusted with absolute power'. When I put my cross in a box and make my vote I do so assuming they do have (absolute power) if they don't - because of some higher power, well what's the bloody point?

One thing puzzles me though: in 2016 when the people were campaigning for Brexit and shouting about 'take back control of our laws' or indeed the GE of 2019 - get Brexit done - control of borders/laws etc. why did nobody on the other side of the argument say what you have said?

On a totally different note, your steam engine analogy reminded me of something. I recently had a medical checkup and was told to get myself to A&E pronto as my blood pressure was hypertension level 3.

As they were doing various tests on me, I said to the nurse "would it help if I donated a pint of blood, or even a whole armful".... she told me it's not quite as simple as that.

I think I maybe the new Tony Hancock!

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I think the bottom line is this - because opinion polls show Tories so far behind Labour and have so may difficult issues to deal with and an election must happen in the next 2 years(ish) he needed to really take a big risk - you know, like throwing on a youth team striker when you are 2:0 down with 10 minutes to go.

Or you could put Gundogan on……….

 

[El_george]

Or you could put Gundogan on……….

Or Riyad Mahrez!

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

ECHR isn't EU law, and the two have been conflated in public opinion, deliberately encouraged by the politicians and elements of the media - promising impossible things.
I have no idea how it would be possible to create an override of a voluntary convention without withdrawing from the whole thing - make an exclusion for one group, and there is nothing to stop the next one.

The Rwanda thing for example indicates that there is no UK law which prevents the UK govt effectively deporting a group of people to Rwanda.
The ECHR block was due to a lack of proof that we're not sending people to awful conditions; if there was proof, then it may be a different story. Without it, theoretically individual govts could persecute any grouping they felt like; I'd like to think that no-one wants that.

I used to think they deliberately conflated issues but the more I see of the talentless wankers the more I think many of them just don’t understand any of it………

 

[bluethrunthru]

Or Riyad Mahrez!

Ronaldo would refuse of course ha ha ha ha ha

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Ronaldo would refuse of course ha ha ha ha ha

Tevez might as well….

 

[El_george]

Tevez might as well….

He was a bloody good player to be fair, didn't like the snood though - top players in gloves is bad enough! Probably jealousy on my part - when I played for the under-9s in the 70s we weren't allowed woolly gloves and I don't think snoods had been invented. Some of them games on icy mornings were harsh!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I used to think they deliberately conflated issues but the more I see of the talentless wankers the more I think many of them just don’t understand any of it………

ha, I think some knew exactly how things lay.
Some didn't and were used accordingly.

Just a matter of the Mail changing the bogeyman mask to be attacked.