I've got a lot of respect for Lady Hale, particularly around her judgements for mental health and capacity such as the Bournewood Case, not to mention the inspiration I get from her as a woman who managed to get to the top through sheer determination and hard work. I find it so sad that since the Prorogation case, every time I see her name on social media it is filled with vile comments that have become politicised. Lady Hale is more than that case. She is proof that hard work, determination but also a caring mind can have a significant impact on the world.
Nothing to with you being a remainer So what your saying is Gina Miller couldn’t afford to take the Conservative government to court so we the taxpayers must pay for this shambles in the high courts this case should have been kicked out of court to save all this money
The way the presenter introduces this is like something off Brass Eye. Lady Hale rightly looks over at him with amusement, and then when he shouts "Lady Hale, Welcome to Hard Talk!", she just nods haha. Legend.
After graduating from the University of Cambridge in 1966, Lady Hale taught law at Manchester University until 1984, during which time she also qualified as a barrister. She has also served as a high court judge, a lady justice of appeal, a lord of appeal in ordinary, and was appointed to head the Supreme Court in October 2017. So get it right up ye!
Exactly. Thank you for making this very clear to us Brits and especially for pointing out the prejudices in UK's mainstream Soros's type adherents to Communism's preferences.
The UK supreme courts’ integrity and impartiality had been shattered by these judges when they favored a group in a political question. Whether they believe this or not, the trust will never be the same again.
Are these Supreme Court judges above the law? They seem to have more power than elected politicians. What she and fellow judges say goes. Is it possible to appeal a Supreme Court judgement?
@@we4r119 ,Read in between lines.No matter how you look at this,this is about class.They ( the upper n middle class) know better.Just look at our parliament,and listen to what Cromwell said about it.But our representation ( the working class ) is 4%???? look carefully at the remoaners,the majority are moneyed middle class twats.If common folk cannot see this,then we must admit that progressive education is thriving.
One disastrous circumstance as a consequence of not having access to legal representation is when a lower court issues a fine wrongly and the defendant is then unable to make a appropriate or effective appeal. The next step is crown court, when the defendant is unable to construct a defence at this point , the next net result is incarceration. So you can end up arguing over £50 and end up with 7 monthes deprived of freedom
It's designed that way. "All" statute laws, (or "admiralty law) are designed to keep power in the hands of the government and the judiciary., and most statute law is designed around fiscal revenue collecting in one form or another. They are NOT to protect the rights of a "citizen" (again, you would think that the word "citizen" was an innocuous, or harmless word that entitled you to certain rights in society, but in "legalese" it means something entirely different. It literally means: "One who bears allegiance to the State", which puts you as "subservient" to the State.) Your inalienable rights come from "Common law", which is why the judiciary and the authorities keep it hidden in the background, and use fiscal law to control the population and the narrative. It's one of the biggest scams the world has ever seen, and it's been going on for thousands of years. It has allowed them to create an underclass of slaves who work to feed the powerful. We are born into slavery, and most people are completely and utterly unaware of the system they live under.
When cameron decided to let the people judge the EU by calling a referendum, there was no wording on the ballot paper saying we had to leave the EU with or without a deal and therefore we should have just left The EU as is. The wording on the ballot paper asked the question do you want to leave the EU or do you want to remain in the EU. It was a simple question, either Remain or leave. the leaves won the vote by 52% to 48% which is a majority win by 4%, so the then Government led by the remainer Theresa May, should have stated in Article 50, that we are leaving the EU, no questions asked. then after the UK left the EU, only then should any negotiations take place to iron our the relevant laws . All of our sovereign rights should have been restored on the date we left. so that we could negotiate as a separate state with our own rights and laws. So all this talk about with or without a deal is irrelevant.
Just to advise you that MI5 & MI6 are behind all the stop bexit stuff !!! They even pay Blair & Soros !!!!! You want to fight them ?????Do you ??? You will be found in a wood... dead ...just like Dr Kelly !!! Now move on....& let Brexit fail.
@@mikebarnes3557 the earth is round elvis is dead and we do not need rubbish as well thank you you wll find mi5 mi6 and others come under a commander with in white hall under the pm ,
@@tokajileo5928 They want to have their will, unopposed and with no consideration for the law. Brexit is a religion now, so fanatical that even things that don't touch it such as this court decision lead to the missionaries of Nigel Farage trying to bend reality so that it suits their needs. Britain is broken.
The Supreme court say's only Parliament can make laws if that's ok with the ECJ. We have our own gravy train tacked on to the back of the EU gravy express.
Parliament itself decided to be bound by the ECJ when it enacted the ECJ Act 1972. It also has the power to do away with the ECJ by enacting another Act taking us out of the EU.
@@stephenisom6089 especially if the opposition (who constantly cry foul about the present government) continue to oppose a General Election. How very democratic of them.
@@LucasLima-sz4kg And there is the problem. The will to leave is not apparent, a deal implies acquiescence to ECJ ruling and therefore EU law especially regarding independent trade arrangements. Astonishing to think that the resort of a no deal has been removed by MP's many of whom would regard themselves as canny business men and women. Thanks for your reply.
Her message was "make the law and I stick to it" - if politicians flout the law then they SHOULD be held accountable to their OWN laws (whether made by this government or those centuries past) just as any layman should. Politicians have the power to change law, the courts have the power to interpret it in the sense and meaning the law was created. I'm pro-brexit (with a deal), but what BJ did was bullheaded, reckless and completely disregarded the spirit of the constitution with the pure reason of frustrating parliament. He failed to provide a reason why he prorogued for the extent he did, so far from the spirit of the ability for parliament to do so in all legitimate reasons prior to it. Can i add, the entire Supreme Court Justices reached a unanimous decision that BJ did not legally prorogue parliament as their was no legitimate reason. They simply have to decide - was it a legitimate reason or not - there was no reason given by BJ's Counsel.
Does anyone know if any other 'Supreme Court' has the right to, not only pull law out of their posteriors, but also to apply it retroactively? I'm actually interested.
ubique I answear - of someone breaks the law and NObody rasie a complanint judge cannot Rule upon it. Its So obvious that you use false premises and pretend they build sound reasoning. Its pretty dishonest.
So why has the conservative government underfunded the legal system resulting in many ordinary citizens unable to access the right of law because of the cost ? Surely they dont favour the rich members of society over the rest ?
This Supreme Court as the highest court in the land is the succeeding authority to what was known as The Privy Council, comprising Queen's councillors and senior legal advisors. As such, in common law, they should uphold the Monarch and certainly the authority of the crown. The Queen gave permission to prorogue parliament, but we have reached the point now where this assembly of 'learned' people have themselves been used by a minority group, who have been allowed to contest, and reverse, the decision of the Monarch. Lady Hale might sit comfortably with the decision, separating out the judges ruling with academic precision, and skilfully splitting hairs to justify, but it cannot be denied that the 'Remaining" faction used the court to gain political advantage. The case should have been thrown out.
@@zkkrhfhska I'm not sure the ruling really helped Remainers that much (if at all); fabulous theatre though. I simply don't want judges making law, regardless of whether it helps or hinders me. How about: Legislatures create law, Executives enact law and Judiciaries interpret and apply law? You never know, it might catch on...
Dear Bexiters and Conservatives: elections and referendums are not synonymous with Rule of Law. Accept, move on. If you don’t feel European it’s your problem. No one (but yourselves) will keep you in the EU.
In a democracy the “Collective Wisdom of the People” is the highest legitimate Authority. The Supreme Court is in contempt of the law. Her Majesties Armed Forces should imprison the unelected 11 lawyer for treason.
How can anyone take a court set up by Blair and a couple of judges. How would it possible for them not to be pro EU as most have an interest in the EU both Financial and Political. To do as they have just done - overrule the Queen's prerogative, is just very very dangerous.
Cong T - she is in collusion with her masters in the germanic eu. Send the lot to the Tower of London for disrespecting & honouring the Highest level of Auhority, our Monarch Queen Elizabeth II has been treated with contempt & they just brushed the Queen of Great Britain & the the colonies as if she is a minor. If that is not treason, if senior mps are going over & colluding with their nazi comrades & jswinson trying to join the corrupt eu german nazis to derail Boris Johnson"s leaving the eu leeches, no deal, no extortion dough, no more draining draining billions of £s to prop up your impending collapse of your fuhrer's empire.
@Protestant what did msgn carta have to say sbout tge legality of the executive's dictstes? Wasn't it made famous becsuse it tried to limit the uncontrolled power of the executive? It certainly did nothing to empower non-entities like you or l.
The Attorney General hinted in the House that a future Parliament will have to look closely at the role of the Supreme Court. So take heed, my lords and ladies. 'His judgement cometh, and that right soon'.
@@ZygimantasA But the AG is also a non-cabinet minister of the Crown, so he/she can pretty much suggest anything that the Cabinet can legally carry out, even if he/she is not involved personally, no?
@@Londonfogey AG does not suggest, AG simply advises the Government and reports the advice given to Parliament on certain matters. So, if the Government decided to reform the judiciary, the AG would have a very little role in it, as there would be various commissions, committees and experts invited to provide evidence and suggestions and then a full report would be drafted outlining the whole thing. Lord Chancellor, on the other hand, would be the one to perhaps introduce such proposals as he/she is the de facto Secretary of State for Justice in the UK.
Can you give a quote from her that shows her as 'pro remain'? She makes great effort in this interview to say "it is not for me to say" in answer to every single political question.
I'm not impugning motives (judges are always fair and even-handed of course), but the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to re-write our constitution. It will probably take 5 years or more to shake this all out; my suspicion is that no one other than the Uber-rich, with money to burn to achieve their political ends, is going to like it very much. If it were up to me, I'd scrap the Supreme Court immediately. The constitution should only be changed with the express consent of the governed. That seemed to be the agreed position a couple of weeks ago. What changed?!?!
@Usha What about case law? A jury is required to decide on something in a statute, like "reasonable force". That's going to be affected by, and affect, principles of fairness & precedence.
Can’t go on watching. Believe me, I’ve tried but, as Michael Corleone said, it insults my intelligence. I’m Italian and I’ve read Benito Mussolini unbiased story as it happened. He was a megalomaniac no doubt and in his lifetime he switched parties as often as one changed gears in a manual car but, in the end he became a newspaper man and he owned one. Then is when he understood the power of the media. As much as many can see through it these days ( just look at the comments here) many still buy the lie. This is the crucial problem.
Goldstone, When not if,...we get our country back.This will never ever happen again.It,s the same old cliche '' They( the toffs) telling,not asking us.They have now made this a class war.
Many of the Brexiteer comments here don't have a clue as to how the British legal system and the UKSC even works. It's close to comedy, but realizing the idiocy of their comments just makes me cringe. There's salt everywhere. If you really believe Brexit means Brexit, then your mind should process this easily: Unlawful prorogation means unlawful prorogation. Unanimous decision means unanimous decision. That's the tea.
Completely agree, I came to this video after watching the video with her and late Justice Ginsburg… and honestly the almost ravenous hatred for her and the Supreme Court seems indicative of the type of tyranny that we're slipping into. The US for example created a republic - not a direct democracy - exactly because they wanted to avoid the tyranny of monarchs but also the tyranny of the people, of mob rule. Brexiteers seem to have this notion that the ends justify the means; that we should hurtle out of the EU and pay no mind to any damaged caused. And I'm not talking about jobs or the economy here… these people have criticised our Supreme Court for being political for ensuring Parliamentary Sovereignty, the exact thing Brexiteers _claim_ to want.
Unlike in many parts of Asia, Europe is more democratic, and with democracies come changes of leadership, tony Blair has not been Prime Minister in at least ten years
She and her colleagues have wildly overstepped their remit, and it will have to be dealt with in future by a better parliament. You can't have unelected lawyers putting themselves in such a position of power. Setting themselves against the will of the people and above parliament and government will come back to haunt them. Since they can't be trusted to deliver a cool rational verdict, and they aren't elected, it's time to dissolve the supreme court.
No but apparently you can have a non elected pm with the power to send an elected parliament home???? The fact that you dont like the verdict does not mean it was wrong, my brexiteer friend.
@@pietkraan7209 prime ministers don't need to be elected. That's not how the system works. You vote for a party not a person. Whoever ie the leader of the party is an elected PM
Benjamin well, if i were you i should think a bit more about how your democracy works and how it should work. Until that moment, i stand by the verdict of your suprême court.
@@pietkraan7209 what the fuck are you talking about? I've just told you how the UK democratic system works. It is not the USA we do not vote for who we want to be PM. We vote for the political party we want elected to government. Boris Johnson is as much an elected PM as May was.
@Andy Dicky because it was unlawful. If Boris got caught raping a child would u say a judge can't make a judgement against his unlawful behaviour? Putting Boris behind bars for child rape would have political consequences but that doesn't mean he should get away with it
I have listened carefully to Lady Hale and truly admire her clarity of mind and judgement. UK legal system would be perfect with judges like her: carefully listening, knowledgeable, quiet yet confident, and has a great understanding of the nature of law., eloquent when needed to be. .... Thank God the presenter turned down his volume of voice at the later stage of the programme. “Hard talk” does not need to be “loud aggressive talk”. On the contrary, quiet talk normally brings in the sense and rationality.
"Tested to destruction in lower courts" ..... what tosh, !!! The English high court supported the decision to prorogue parliament . Learned QC have pulled the d escision to pieces , stating it was politically driven
6-5, or 7-4 might have given grounds for thinking the judges had let personal opinions cloud their thinking. 11-0 leaves no room for that. Further, it is false to say the High Court backed the Prorogation. They refused to rule, effectively saying it was none of their business.
Steve Vater. Perhaps the High Court refusal to make a decision was politically motivated - we will never know. It's easier to get to only three judges due to go on holiday or whatever they do when their court is not sitting. But nobody gets at eleven justices especially when they constitute the UK's highest court.
The Supreme Court is rubbish, it’s not democratic at all, they supposed to speak for the voiceless, what happened to the 17.4 millions voters,they only speak for those who has the biggest pocket- it’s absolutely shameful.
It’s money the court is interested in- Gina has got a sugar daddy to back her, see how fast it works - it’s sickening, all the judges has £ notes eye balls.
The BBC is very good at NOT pushing questions that need answering.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +12
The supreme "load of bollox" court is about two minutes old in historical terms and is not going to last another two minutes in historical terms. And is unelected so therefore should not be ruling on important political matters that give one political party an advantage over another in the way that it has done with this prorogation ruling which is a biased political manoeuvre. These Justices are unaccountable and politically biased. A situation that the sovereign people of this country will not stand for and will correct very shortly.
This woman was not elected by the people. The people elected to break away from the EU, but the British Parliament has failed completely to abide by their wish, having debated all that entails for three whole years. Just a few weeks ago, the former Prime Minister was replaced by Boris Johnson, who decided to prorogue parliament, with the Queen's consent, apparently to persuade those in Parliament who obviously have been preventing democracy from taking place to accept the basis upon which all British laws have been structured in the past, which basis has been the collective will of the people. The opposition under Liberal leader Corbyn rejected prorogation taking place, and the unelected Supreme Court, headed by Lady Hale, sided with him against the governing party and the Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations, thus siding unanimously against the will of the people of Britain. What a sad state of affairs this woman has brought this country to, the same which have produced a "DEAD" Parliament--which was why It was prorogued in the first place. She is no leading judge of the land. She and her cohorts in crime have thrown democracy to the wind with one reckless and infantile judgement. Who cares what her credentials are? She has recklessly cast aside the will of the people with a so-called learned statement, her words and those of her fellow Supreme Court judges being anything but learned; they have in fact been sly, underhanded, cutthroat, like all of antiSemite Jeremy Corbyn's have been.
How does parliament not being suspended prevent the will of the people? Regardless of whether you want to leave the EU or not, surely it is important that in doing either of these things, the laws regarding the actions that politicians take must be upheld? Brexit is controversial enough without it taking place under circumstances of arguable legality. Of course a judge is not elected; I advise you to read about 'separation of powers' to understand why this is the case en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
Everything you should learn in school. Law, finance, English, maths, it & driving. There is a reason they don’t include some of these subjects to keep people suppressed
@Protestant you have such a lively imagination. as if one man could do all that without the agreement of parliament. whatever Blair's fault, Boris Johnson is far worse.
The interview was great. It would have been better if Stephen had let Lady Hale finish her statements instead of him constantly cutting her off. It somewhat deprives viewers of the complete narrative.
A theoretician if I ever saw one........ there always is one side of an argument and an opposing one on the other side. That is why we have courts a legal system and attorneys that interpret the law. Precedence is a large part of the legal system, so if you can get a ruling that is different from other similar cases in the past then you have created a precedence that will make it easier for somebody in the future. Society changes times and attitudes change, people often remain the same. My guess is this lady wants to remain in every aspect of that word. The ambiguity wether to follow EU laws and regulations or if so wished change them to British law she doesn’t see as a problem. She is right in one aspect how all this will play out in the end we won’t know until it is upon us. Good luck.
magna czagany Precedence relates to common law and very rarely to civil cases. This was a civil case, there was no prosecution, no presentation of evidence, no punishment. In civil cases the judge listens to arguments and gives an opinion at the end which may or may not relate to an existing legal statute or tort. This is why the ruling was unlawful, not illegal as no law was broken.
THEY HAVE INVENTED A NEW UNLAWFUL ACT ,,so now parliament have a government that answers to the opposition as it always has ,but now the courts and a rich mans wife,s play thing ,and the ,,eu and the bias media. ,so we tie the hands of the british while respecting all those mentioned ,so our government now ham strung gagged ,and under threat has to now go and get a deal from free eu leaders ,we are seeing now how quickly we will all become vassal voiceless were almost there already time for fools to wake up to reality while we still can,
We still have the parliament we elected. That's including 25.5 million of us who chose MP's from parties promising an orderly Brexit. Our supposed Prime Minister voted against that promise to get in to No10. So Parliament have the authority of the 2017 election to do whatever they like to stop him. The courts' duty was to uphold their constitutional right to do so.
@@hlund73 well the opposition are only blocking spoiling and have their eye on no/10 at any cost ,and that seems to be to ignore not listen and don,t care ,in over 3 years they mention us the people or britain ether in a bad light or more often not at all to the opposition we do not count,unless your a remain voter losers looking out for those who lost at the expense of those elected and those who won that vote ,that,s not democracy as when its happened in africa all the condemnation from these same individuals,holding to account this is not,
@@youtubecommentor2211 it depends on how you define orderly and at the moment its seems that means not at all ,to stop block hinder refuse that is in no way respecting leaving orderly or not,, its trying to stay in and ignore our vote and their promise ,,,,,,so no in the cold real world all those who voted for leave orderly or not are under represented because most mps do not want to implement what they signed up,,, to ,so on paper yes in reality know way ,and is why we have had 3,5 years of nothing from the opposition mps only block spoil and ignore ,the history that got us here is not relevant as its not being excepted by most remain mps ,,,,,we no longer count ,we are no longer relevant and that is down to remoaners ,so no your findings on paper look right but in action are worthless statistics for remoaners to twist ,
@@patricialeighton4516 on what evidence could she have infront of her to say what boris done was .illegal...................none ,,,,did she get the queens statement ,,,,,,,,,none its a typical left wing stupid old bag waving her power over the 17,4 mill now go fuk urself
she,s got a weird taste, first the black widow spider, and now silence of the lambs moth, and please dont use the people as your excuse for doing what you are doing, you and your elite buddies are crapping all over the people,. HUMBUG.
She lost her argument within about 2.5mins from when she started talking. She said she was there to serve the people. Um, serving the people means operating in a manner which effects and carries through the result of the 2016 referendum which was a political decision in the first place to have and for which parliament made political decisions to vote in favour of triggering Article 50... no Mrs Judge, you don't serve the people so stop saying you do. Judges meddling in politics doesn't work, and her and her cronies decisions to frustrate political decisions won't get her out of being publicly ostricized for it either.
As a judge, the only way she can serve the people is by providing fair, legal judgments. Which she has done. It has nothing to do with politics if the executive decided to do something blatantly illegal to get its way.
A case brought by remaoners, rushed through the court by remoaners to the high court, and judge on by eleven remoaners, scam if ever a saw one, another part of the unelected government. We need a new house in parliament, for another gravy train.
@@domdonald John Major's unlawfulness doesn't excuse Boris's unlawfulness. That's called the "you too" fallacy Obviously, Boris suspended Parliament because he wanted to stop Parliament interfering with his Brexit plans. Whether it's ok to stop Parliament, the representatives of the people, from doing it's job is not a question of evidence so no evidence is required. It's a matter of law & constitution. When England became a country it was baked into the constitution that the King makes the decisions & u can't suspend him from doing his job just because u want something political to happen. Then Parliament won the civil war. Charles I was executed. To the victor go the spoils. Therefore our constitution says Parliament gets the powers of the king i.e. Parliament makes the decisions around here & it's unlawful to suspend it merely because u want power to do something. Therefore ur wrong to claim the court had to make the law. Boris went against the constitution that has existed since England became a country
@@domdonald i mean normally proroguing is fine but doing it deliberately to stop the sovereign of the United Kingdom is unlawful BS. It's the same as going up to King Edward the Confessor & suspending him from ruling because he's in the way of ur political plans. U would've had something chopped off
@@domdonald _" the Supreme Court references John majors evidence as the only factor in its decision that there was “no good reason” for BJ to suspend parliament."_ Ur wrong. From UKSC's statement: Factor 1) A "fundamental principle of our Constitution" = "Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey" Factor 2) "this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased" Factor 3) Another fundamental principal = accountability to Parliament: Lord Bingham said: "the conduct of government by a PM & Cabinet collectively responsible & *accountable to Parliament* lies at the heart of Westminster democracy". Factor 4) As long ago as 1611, the court held: "the King [who was then the gov] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him" Factor 5) "While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet & take evidence in committees" Factor 6) "...the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the UK on 31st October." Factor 7) "Parliament, & in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about." Factor 8) The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme." Factor 9) "...No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court....It does not explain why it was necessary to..." Factor 10) "....bring Parliamentary business to a halt for 5 weeks ..." Factor 11) ...when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen's Speech is 4 to 6 days." & there are no doubt many others
@@domdonald There's many thing wrong with what u just said eg u do realise that above the High Court of England & Wales is the Court of Appeal of England & Wales right? And above that is the UKSC. I've explained a lot why this was an issue of law & constitution & precedent going back centuries u just ignore me & say it was based not on law or precedent but on their own personal views (which btw all court judgements are so wtf were u expecting). I've also refuted ur statement that there was only 1 factor in their decision. Unless u can show some sign of listening there's no point refuting ur other stuff
@@domdonald _" You've said that there are courts higher than the High Court (so what?)."_ So u were wrong to say: _"which is why the highest court in England judged it to be non-judicial. "_ A rational person would just say "ok i was wrong about that". So ur not being rational, correct? I think if u tried really hard to be rational then u would start to change ur Brexiteer position on these things. You just need to start listening, really
Also, note how both of them studiously avoided discussing the Robin Tilbrook judicial review in which the courts have refused to even give it a hearing largely because they know that Robin would have won and the Remainers would have lost. They will get their comeuppance when the ECHR (not an EU court) rules that they were wrong to refuse a hearing. This will be a national humiliation especially for the biased courts.
Did she actually say " it's not for me to give messages to the government" ? at about 8mins. What on earth have they just done then, with there last efforts to scupper Brexit.
In a democracy the “Collective Wisdom of the People” is the highest legitimate Authority. The Supreme Court is in contempt of the law. Her Majesties Armed Forces should imprison the unelected 11 lawyer for treason.
very articulate lady, hopefully, some that somehow link her stopping Brexit and the decision of proroguing parliament, will remember what the executive of the Tory party said that "Proroging parliament is completely normal to enable a queens speech"
No she has to go and be elected in all of them. This is UK not EU. There was no law that Boris broken until they made one the lords need to be scrapped also.
A sitting judge should speak with his or her sentences not through interviews like a politician. The SC and its president are already treading very dangerously in the party political realm. It's not her province to do so, She claims she isnt sitting in parliament any more, but it seems to me that she is very much political and pushing an agenda. This will lead more and more people to loose faith on their impartiality.
Again, that might be fair and good, but again: IT’S NOT HER PROVINCE. Lots of individuals and organizations are in this debate (btw stop and search is also part of the debate). What it appears is that she is using the notoriety garnered by the controversial and definitely political prorogation sentence to give interviews and increase the exposure of the Supreme Court
Lady Hale seems wise and quite youthful in the way she speaks. I worked in a government legal office for a while and had the pleasure and fortune to work with a similar seasoned lawyer who helped me better shape my arguments. The UK is lucky to have someone like Lady Hale represent the letter and also spirit law of the land. Her work provides critical check and balance over the other branches of government. The executive's attempt at silencing parliament was a blatant attempt at sidelining the lawfully elected representatives of the land. What is happening in the UK now is a direct conflict between direct democracy and representative democracy. One should not thought that less than half, 17 million, of the 60 or so million citizens of the UK voted for Brexit. This does not mean they should be ignored, but it does mean the UK needs to take good hard look at how it wants to continue. Lady Hale's thoughtful analysis is a critical and important part of this process. A process that is essential in any vibrant democracy.
the criminals will face the full weight of the law when the traitors collaborators and criminals are arrested and taken to trial. the law will be reinstated the truth will prevail.
In a democracy the “Collective Wisdom of the People” is the highest legitimate Authority. The Supreme Court is in contempt of the law. Her Majesties Armed Forces should imprison the unelected 11 lawyer for treason.
@Usha Little dictators. That's a bit rich. Seeing how most of the opposition both want to overturn the EU referendum result. And how they're plotting to form an unelected caretaker government. And how they've used a court of unelected lords to undermine the constitutional confidence of an elected government.
down under she is part of the shale gas dilemma. That is why her name is tarantula hale. She is promoting fracking up in the northern areas with her occultic demonic money worshippers. They are not just selling us & Britain to those bavarians, but they want the foundations on which our homes to be unstable, so the sinkholes will swallow up our homes & us. Our water in the rivers will be polluted. The rivers will join up with the sea & the pollution will kill all our fish. What are these traitors, collaborators & pawns of the germanic eu trying to do. They have betrayed the British people, our country & not shown respect or loyalty to our Monarch. How dare they think that they are above our Queen, the British electorate & resort to subversion to betray the United Kingdom on a gigantic scale.
@@patricialeighton4516 when the judge sitting in the supreme court turns up dressed for a funeral and sporting a hand sized spider to hand down a finding that is venomous. What do you think people will say.? Inky Pinky? Anyway your mind went there I was just jotting down song lyrics
Love this women , humble , insightful, we need more women QCs in Britain .....sadly millions now can not access legal help to avoid court action !Government need to be taken to task on the decisions they have made that harm society and those least able to afford the impact of those decisions.
Whilst I understand the need for public education regarding the role of the Supreme Court and the law generally, I remain concerned as to the celebrity status of Lady Hale. Part of me views this media profile as being legitimate - it increases constitutional awareness among the people, yet contrastingly there is an element that considers judicial commentary outside of courts by judges (especially those currently serving) as troublesome. The politics of the US Supreme court - should serve as a cautionary tale to judges revealing too much of the personal - which is ultimately political.
She said, " We're serving the People "🤔🤔🤔🤔 I say, " Not very well ,it would now appear " These Judges receive remuneration from EU !!!! Says it all I think !!! I rest my case !!!!
You can recieve monetary funds from somewhere and not be a corrupt baffoon working against what's right based on that. You flocking to this conclusion without any evidence at all says much more about your character than it does about the court, which explained its logical and correct judgement in great length. No money in the world can influence reality, and in reality, the judgement's ruling makes sense and is correct. This also has nothing to do with Brexit whatsoever. It's a constitutional issue.
You should not rest your case too soon. Can you give a source that they receive EU money? By the way, if they are working for the European Court of Human Rights, the joke's on you, because that is not an EU institution and has nothing to do with the European Court of Justice.
@@anoobiscooking1193 ,So for speaking the truth,are you going to beat me,threaten me,and report me to the Police?....You SJW are truly insane,you nothing but bullies if we don,t agree with your narrative.
@@elingles2854 Parliamentary democracy and separation of powers are not "narrative", you absolute moron. You should be very grateful to have a judiciary competent enough to rule correctly on this issue in such a short period of time. Do you want Prime Minister Corbyn to have the power to dissolve parliament for months and years without even having to give a proper reason? It is obvious that the court ruled correctly. But no, people such as you are too blinded by their own emotions to look at this objectively, and instead buy into the devicive language and, I'm sad to say, the lies and bait that Boris Johnson and his aides are throwing around with. This court decision was NOT political, it held up two of the most fundamental principles of British democracy: The supremacy of parliament over the executive and the separation of powers. If you don't understand that, you have no business talking about any of this, let alone tell the court whether it should have gotten involved or not.
David Starkey is has no legal training. He is a historian, so he is no more qualified to speak on the technicalities of lawmaking than you or me. What exactly would he be able to contribute other than an opinion?
Its sad that we have allowed our judiciary to get involved and for them to have demonstrated their bias in a matter were our elected members have betrayed us. THE {EP{LE VOTED TO LEAVE REGARDS.
The Supreme Court is now as corrupt as any tin pot dictatorship country in Africa.The Supreme Court must be got shot of, and these corrupt EU judges got rid of.
@@patricialeighton4516 ,I say this with love and a caring spirit.Do you really think that our current supreme court is not leftist.!!!! If you think otherwise,you need your head examined,or you totally brain washed young lady.Remember this,these leftist thugs have had a free reign for over 60 years,and we stood by.Time for change has arrived young lady.
I've got a lot of respect for Lady Hale, particularly around her judgements for mental health and capacity such as the Bournewood Case, not to mention the inspiration I get from her as a woman who managed to get to the top through sheer determination and hard work.
I find it so sad that since the Prorogation case, every time I see her name on social media it is filled with vile comments that have become politicised.
Lady Hale is more than that case. She is proof that hard work, determination but also a caring mind can have a significant impact on the world.
I love how Lady Hale was not having it even during the introduction.
She's brilliant
That was the softest Hardtalk I've ever seen.
Chris John only just started to watch and somehow I thought it would be
The problem with the Hardtalk format is that the interviewer is inevitably less of an expert on the subject at hand than the interviewee.
Are they both Jewish I wonder.
@@stucrossland3719 you should join momentum stu. pid !
I agree completely there was no hard talk at all
Nothing to with you being a remainer So what your saying is Gina Miller couldn’t afford to take the Conservative government to court so we the taxpayers must pay for this shambles in the high courts this case should have been kicked out of court to save all this money
The way the presenter introduces this is like something off Brass Eye. Lady Hale rightly looks over at him with amusement, and then when he shouts "Lady Hale, Welcome to Hard Talk!", she just nods haha. Legend.
After graduating from the University of Cambridge in 1966, Lady Hale taught law at Manchester University until 1984, during which time she also qualified as a barrister. She has also served as a high court judge, a lady justice of appeal, a lord of appeal in ordinary, and was appointed to head the Supreme Court in October 2017.
So get it right up ye!
Are you sure about all that ?
BBC hard talk... the corrupt interviewing the corrupt.
If you don't have faith in the justice system in the UK then you might as well just forget about it.
Eat Brexshit
@@musictomyears8 No need...it's what you'll be eating come Nov 1st.
just another frustrated imbecile trash talking on the internet. how dare you say lady hale is corrupt.
Exactly. Thank you for making this very clear to us Brits and especially for pointing out the prejudices in UK's mainstream Soros's type adherents to Communism's preferences.
The Law isn't at breaking point, it's our Politicians with their brexit fiasco that's at breaking point.
Gymp.
Earth Man
No, it’s shitty remoaners.....!
Exactly. liars and cheets.
Earth Man yep exactly right
@@shaunperth your response kinda proves the point that some people who voted remain are not academics or highly intelligent
The UK supreme courts’ integrity and impartiality had been shattered by these judges when they favored a group in a political question. Whether they believe this or not, the trust will never be the same again.
Youve got a problem mate
apex wraith , you know my problem? Are you one of those remainer witch or warlock?
Clear as mud and I got the impression that, just like most politicians, she avoided answering any questions she didn’t want to answer.
She cannot answer political questions as it would betray her oath of office. Gammon.
The left are truly corrupt,it,s always the peasants that suffer...Not long now my friends and country folk,our time is coming,sooner than you think.
Are these Supreme Court judges above the law? They seem to have more power than elected politicians. What she and fellow judges say goes. Is it possible to appeal a Supreme Court judgement?
@@we4r119 ,Read in between lines.No matter how you look at this,this is about class.They ( the upper n middle class) know better.Just look at our parliament,and listen to what Cromwell said about it.But our representation ( the working class ) is 4%???? look carefully at the remoaners,the majority are moneyed middle class twats.If common folk cannot see this,then we must admit that progressive education is thriving.
One disastrous circumstance as a consequence of not having access to legal representation is when a lower court issues a fine wrongly and the defendant is then unable to make a appropriate or effective appeal. The next step is crown court, when the defendant is unable to construct a defence at this point , the next net result is incarceration. So you can end up arguing over £50 and end up with 7 monthes deprived of freedom
It's designed that way. "All" statute laws, (or "admiralty law) are designed to keep power in the hands of the government and the judiciary., and most statute law is designed around fiscal revenue collecting in one form or another. They are NOT to protect the rights of a "citizen" (again, you would think that the word "citizen" was an innocuous, or harmless word that entitled you to certain rights in society, but in "legalese" it means something entirely different. It literally means: "One who bears allegiance to the State", which puts you as "subservient" to the State.) Your inalienable rights come from "Common law", which is why the judiciary and the authorities keep it hidden in the background, and use fiscal law to control the population and the narrative. It's one of the biggest scams the world has ever seen, and it's been going on for thousands of years. It has allowed them to create an underclass of slaves who work to feed the powerful. We are born into slavery, and most people are completely and utterly unaware of the system they live under.
@@thewatchman6074 sorry what kind of crack have you been smoking. You are clearly not right in the head. Sort yourself out man!
@@ST-gd4go he is a freeman on the land. The laws of the country do not apply to him.
When cameron decided to let the people judge the EU by calling a referendum, there was no wording on the ballot paper saying we had to leave the EU with or without a deal and therefore we should have just left The EU as is. The wording on the ballot paper asked the question do you want to leave the EU or do you want to remain in the EU. It was a simple question, either Remain or leave. the leaves won the vote by 52% to 48% which is a majority win by 4%, so the then Government led by the remainer Theresa May, should have stated in Article 50, that we are leaving the EU, no questions asked. then after the UK left the EU, only then should any negotiations take place to iron our the relevant laws . All of our sovereign rights should have been restored on the date we left. so that we could negotiate as a separate state with our own rights and laws.
So all this talk about with or without a deal is irrelevant.
No precedent
No right to judge
No fact in law
No fact in reality
Just to advise you that MI5 & MI6 are behind all the stop bexit stuff !!! They even pay Blair & Soros !!!!! You want to fight them ?????Do you ??? You will be found in a wood... dead ...just like Dr Kelly !!! Now move on....& let Brexit fail.
@@mikebarnes3557 the earth is round elvis is dead and we do not need rubbish as well thank you you wll find mi5 mi6 and others come under a commander with in white hall under the pm ,
precedent
@@mikebarnes3557 O dear ...
no fact in law?...and you know the law better I guess?
This is a classic case where knowledge thought itself better than wisdom.
We have been betrayed by the people whom we trusted. You will all be held accountable.
you do not want the ECJ to rule on you, you do not want your own courts to judge on you so what the heck do you want?
Tokaji Leo No Blue Nose, we don't to be ruled by Corrupt Courts and Judges..!
By violence or what?
All roads lead to Israel.
@@tokajileo5928 They want to have their will, unopposed and with no consideration for the law. Brexit is a religion now, so fanatical that even things that don't touch it such as this court decision lead to the missionaries of Nigel Farage trying to bend reality so that it suits their needs. Britain is broken.
The Supreme court say's only Parliament can make laws if that's ok with the ECJ. We have our own gravy train tacked on to the back of the EU gravy express.
Parliament itself decided to be bound by the ECJ when it enacted the ECJ Act 1972. It also has the power to do away with the ECJ by enacting another Act taking us out of the EU.
EC Act 1972*
@@LucasLima-sz4kg it would need a majority to do so and that want be any time soon,
@@stephenisom6089 especially if the opposition (who constantly cry foul about the present government) continue to oppose a General Election. How very democratic of them.
@@LucasLima-sz4kg And there is the problem. The will to leave is not apparent, a deal implies acquiescence to ECJ ruling and therefore EU law especially regarding independent trade arrangements. Astonishing to think that the resort of a no deal has been removed by MP's many of whom would regard themselves as canny business men and women. Thanks for your reply.
It is corrupt & biased
8:12
"Its not for me to give messages to the Government. Im a Judge not a Politician".
Stephen .
Shot herself in the foot there Stephen , didn't she !!!
Soros must be so proud !!!
ORLA S
And Hardtalk really talked hard didnt they. Ooh how merciless they were, poor woman couldnt get a word in.
One law for some...
You just did you stupid woman
She is a real joke, unfortunately an expensive and damaging one for the U.K. Thanks Tony you idiot.
Her message was "make the law and I stick to it" - if politicians flout the law then they SHOULD be held accountable to their OWN laws (whether made by this government or those centuries past) just as any layman should. Politicians have the power to change law, the courts have the power to interpret it in the sense and meaning the law was created. I'm pro-brexit (with a deal), but what BJ did was bullheaded, reckless and completely disregarded the spirit of the constitution with the pure reason of frustrating parliament. He failed to provide a reason why he prorogued for the extent he did, so far from the spirit of the ability for parliament to do so in all legitimate reasons prior to it. Can i add, the entire Supreme Court Justices reached a unanimous decision that BJ did not legally prorogue parliament as their was no legitimate reason. They simply have to decide - was it a legitimate reason or not - there was no reason given by BJ's Counsel.
Does anyone know if any other 'Supreme Court' has the right to, not only pull law out of their posteriors, but also to apply it retroactively? I'm actually interested.
@Usha Yes but what about the arses 🙄
@ubique That's easy, Parliament has the power and Major had a 100 seat majority.
Do you know any other imbecile who professes to be an expert on a subject he never ever studied?
You know nothing M R, and certainly nothing about law
ubique I answear - of someone breaks the law and NObody rasie a complanint judge cannot Rule upon it. Its So obvious that you use false premises and pretend they build sound reasoning. Its pretty dishonest.
So why has the conservative government underfunded the legal system resulting in many ordinary citizens unable to access the right of law because of the cost ? Surely they dont favour the rich members of society over the rest ?
This Supreme Court as the highest court in the land is the succeeding authority to what was known as The Privy Council, comprising Queen's councillors and senior legal advisors. As such, in common law, they should uphold the Monarch and certainly the authority of the crown. The Queen gave permission to prorogue parliament, but we have reached the point now where this assembly of 'learned' people have themselves been used by a minority group, who have been allowed to contest, and reverse, the decision of the Monarch. Lady Hale might sit comfortably with the decision, separating out the judges ruling with academic precision, and skilfully splitting hairs to justify, but it cannot be denied that the 'Remaining" faction used the court to gain political advantage. The case should have been thrown out.
To;Dr you are salty because the court upheld the law and your team lost
@@zkkrhfhska I'm not sure the ruling really helped Remainers that much (if at all); fabulous theatre though. I simply don't want judges making law, regardless of whether it helps or hinders me. How about: Legislatures create law, Executives enact law and Judiciaries interpret and apply law? You never know, it might catch on...
@@TwoOnions275 Literally the only thing they did was uphold the law, to be precise the constitutional rule of parliamentary sovereignty. Nothing else.
Dear Bexiters and Conservatives: elections and referendums are not synonymous with Rule of Law. Accept, move on. If you don’t feel European it’s your problem. No one (but yourselves) will keep you in the EU.
In a democracy the “Collective Wisdom of the People” is the highest legitimate Authority. The Supreme Court is in contempt of the law. Her Majesties Armed Forces should imprison the unelected 11 lawyer for treason.
How can anyone take a court set up by Blair and a couple of judges.
How would it possible for them not to be pro EU as most have an interest in the EU both Financial and Political.
To do as they have just done - overrule the Queen's prerogative, is just very very dangerous.
Sad. Welcome Britain to your new self-appointed Queen and future Kings.
@@johnzee5774 Whinger.
Cong T - she is in collusion with her masters in the germanic eu. Send the lot to the Tower of London for disrespecting & honouring the Highest level of Auhority, our Monarch Queen Elizabeth II has been treated with contempt & they just brushed the Queen of Great Britain & the the colonies as if she is a minor. If that is not treason, if senior mps are going over & colluding with their nazi comrades & jswinson trying to join the corrupt eu german nazis to derail Boris Johnson"s leaving the eu leeches, no deal, no extortion dough, no more draining draining billions of £s to prop up your impending collapse of your fuhrer's empire.
@Protestant what did msgn carta have to say sbout tge legality of the executive's dictstes? Wasn't it made famous becsuse it tried to limit the uncontrolled power of the executive? It certainly did nothing to empower non-entities like you or l.
@@rupertrozells5816 The "Germanic EU"? Oh dear! Not nearly as Germanic as Anglo-Saxon Britain ... Time you whingers left!
The Attorney General hinted in the House that a future Parliament will have to look closely at the role of the Supreme Court. So take heed, my lords and ladies. 'His judgement cometh, and that right soon'.
Londonfogey abolish it.
It's not the role of the AG to suggest anything or to reform the judiciary in the UK.
@@ZygimantasA But the AG is also a non-cabinet minister of the Crown, so he/she can pretty much suggest anything that the Cabinet can legally carry out, even if he/she is not involved personally, no?
@@Londonfogey AG does not suggest, AG simply advises the Government and reports the advice given to Parliament on certain matters. So, if the Government decided to reform the judiciary, the AG would have a very little role in it, as there would be various commissions, committees and experts invited to provide evidence and suggestions and then a full report would be drafted outlining the whole thing. Lord Chancellor, on the other hand, would be the one to perhaps introduce such proposals as he/she is the de facto Secretary of State for Justice in the UK.
You don't know much about politics and law do you?
a very remainer at the top of the legal train???
'a very remainer' made me chuckle
suki Paul.. 100% she's a remainer pretending to protect democracy.. pretending to be a high court judge, pretending to be human...
MacDonald Maurice... we arnt on the same wavelenght bud...
So by that logic the queen must be a very brexiter for granting prorogation
Can you give a quote from her that shows her as 'pro remain'? She makes great effort in this interview to say "it is not for me to say" in answer to every single political question.
Great. Hale now given airtime to gloat.
She obviously knew in advance as the interview was in July!
It was months ago you blinkered idiot.
Could you please give a timestamp to where exactly she's gloating?
I'm not impugning motives (judges are always fair and even-handed of course), but the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to re-write our constitution. It will probably take 5 years or more to shake this all out; my suspicion is that no one other than the Uber-rich, with money to burn to achieve their political ends, is going to like it very much. If it were up to me, I'd scrap the Supreme Court immediately. The constitution should only be changed with the express consent of the governed. That seemed to be the agreed position a couple of weeks ago. What changed?!?!
@Usha You can say we also make law as citizens when we deliver verdicts as jurors.
Why don't you do a law degree before wasting so much of your time writing rubbish?
To begin with, the Constitution is unwritten so no one can 're-write' it.
@Usha What about case law? A jury is required to decide on something in a statute, like "reasonable force". That's going to be affected by, and affect, principles of fairness & precedence.
@Usha "and creates laws" !! sure does baby
Absolutely outclassed. Hale a kind of Angel.
Can’t go on watching. Believe me, I’ve tried but, as Michael Corleone said, it insults my intelligence.
I’m Italian and I’ve read Benito Mussolini unbiased story as it happened.
He was a megalomaniac no doubt and in his lifetime he switched parties as often as one changed gears in a manual car but, in the end he became a newspaper man and he owned one. Then is when he understood the power of the media.
As much as many can see through it these days ( just look at the comments here) many still buy the lie. This is the crucial problem.
Is there an investigation in the process If not why not?
Be ye ever so high, the law is above you.
Yes, that rings a bell. It was all right for Denning.
Except when there ain,t one
Goldstone, When not if,...we get our country back.This will never ever happen again.It,s the same old cliche '' They( the toffs) telling,not asking us.They have now made this a class war.
@Brexit Monger there, there, spit it all out then rinse. You'll feel so much better afterwards.
Yes. That sums up the Supreme Court’s decision, and why Boris lost.
Many of the Brexiteer comments here don't have a clue as to how the British legal system and the UKSC even works. It's close to comedy, but realizing the idiocy of their comments just makes me cringe. There's salt everywhere.
If you really believe Brexit means Brexit, then your mind should process this easily: Unlawful prorogation means unlawful prorogation. Unanimous decision means unanimous decision. That's the tea.
Completely agree, I came to this video after watching the video with her and late Justice Ginsburg… and honestly the almost ravenous hatred for her and the Supreme Court seems indicative of the type of tyranny that we're slipping into. The US for example created a republic - not a direct democracy - exactly because they wanted to avoid the tyranny of monarchs but also the tyranny of the people, of mob rule.
Brexiteers seem to have this notion that the ends justify the means; that we should hurtle out of the EU and pay no mind to any damaged caused. And I'm not talking about jobs or the economy here… these people have criticised our Supreme Court for being political for ensuring Parliamentary Sovereignty, the exact thing Brexiteers _claim_ to want.
Tony Blair unleashes his weapon against the British people
@Matthew Smith Troll behaviour
Unlike in many parts of Asia, Europe is more democratic, and with democracies come changes of leadership, tony Blair has not been Prime Minister in at least ten years
She and her colleagues have wildly overstepped their remit, and it will have to be dealt with in future by a better parliament. You can't have unelected lawyers putting themselves in such a position of power. Setting themselves against the will of the people and above parliament and government will come back to haunt them. Since they can't be trusted to deliver a cool rational verdict, and they aren't elected, it's time to dissolve the supreme court.
No but apparently you can have a non elected pm with the power to send an elected parliament home???? The fact that you dont like the verdict does not mean it was wrong, my brexiteer friend.
@@pietkraan7209 An unelected PM? You mean the one who's twice asked for a general election?
@@pietkraan7209 prime ministers don't need to be elected. That's not how the system works. You vote for a party not a person. Whoever ie the leader of the party is an elected PM
Benjamin well, if i were you i should think a bit more about how your democracy works and how it should work. Until that moment, i stand by the verdict of your suprême court.
@@pietkraan7209 what the fuck are you talking about? I've just told you how the UK democratic system works. It is not the USA we do not vote for who we want to be PM. We vote for the political party we want elected to government. Boris Johnson is as much an elected PM as May was.
@8:20: ..."...I'm a Judge...I'm not a Politician..."...
and Boris Johnson isn't.
if you take political decisions then you're a politician.
Rich Campus but she and her friends interfere in politics.
what a Lucking Fiar that bitch is.
@Andy Dicky because it was unlawful. If Boris got caught raping a child would u say a judge can't make a judgement against his unlawful behaviour? Putting Boris behind bars for child rape would have political consequences but that doesn't mean he should get away with it
I have listened carefully to Lady Hale and truly admire her clarity of mind and judgement. UK legal system would be perfect with judges like her: carefully listening, knowledgeable, quiet yet confident, and has a great understanding of the nature of law., eloquent when needed to be. .... Thank God the presenter turned down his volume of voice at the later stage of the programme. “Hard talk” does not need to be “loud aggressive talk”. On the contrary, quiet talk normally brings in the sense and rationality.
"Tested to destruction in lower courts" ..... what tosh, !!! The English high court supported the decision to prorogue parliament . Learned QC have pulled the d escision to pieces , stating it was politically driven
The prorogation case wasn't mentioned at all in this video. Keep up.
6-5, or 7-4 might have given grounds for thinking the judges had let personal opinions cloud their thinking. 11-0 leaves no room for that.
Further, it is false to say the High Court backed the Prorogation. They refused to rule, effectively saying it was none of their business.
@@chrisharrison763 The interview was in July.
Yes: the Supreme Court took the view that breaking the law for political reasons was still breaking the law.
Steve Vater. Perhaps the High Court refusal to make a decision was politically motivated - we will never know. It's easier to get to only three judges due to go on holiday or whatever they do when their court is not sitting.
But nobody gets at eleven justices especially when they constitute the UK's highest court.
She appears to be very intelligent. Respect to Lady Hale.
Brenda Hale wipes the floor with SS
She is brilliant indeed. Thank you Lady Hale
Lady Hale is my favourite since my days of Law School
An interview that was sensationalist introduced and incoherently conducted. Thumbs down.
Agreed.
2:30 I friggin’ love Lady Hale! ❤❤
She is fantastic. I like her very much ...
Disgraceful behaviour she should know playing politics is a very dangerous game for our country
Matthew Smith have you been smoking weed
Why is she even on TV? Seems like she has had a taste of the lime light and likes it.
The Supreme Court is rubbish, it’s not democratic at all, they supposed to speak for the voiceless, what happened to the 17.4 millions voters,they only speak for those who has the biggest pocket- it’s absolutely shameful.
It’s money the court is interested in- Gina has got a sugar daddy to back her, see how fast it works - it’s sickening, all the judges has £ notes eye balls.
My precious precious
The BBC is very good at NOT pushing questions that need answering.
The supreme "load of bollox" court is about two minutes old in historical terms and is not going to last another two minutes in historical terms. And is unelected so therefore should not be ruling on important political matters that give one political party an advantage over another in the way that it has done with this prorogation ruling which is a biased political manoeuvre. These Justices are unaccountable and politically biased. A situation that the sovereign people of this country will not stand for and will correct very shortly.
Or a little butterfly this will not change how we feel your not serving the people you’re serving your selfs let’s get it right Lady Hale
They are serving the EU and the international 4 x 2s who own it.
This woman was not elected by the people. The people elected to break away from the EU, but the British Parliament has failed completely to abide by their wish, having debated all that entails for three whole years. Just a few weeks ago, the former Prime Minister was replaced by Boris Johnson, who decided to prorogue parliament, with the Queen's consent, apparently to persuade those in Parliament who obviously have been preventing democracy from taking place to accept the basis upon which all British laws have been structured in the past, which basis has been the collective will of the people. The opposition under Liberal leader Corbyn rejected prorogation taking place, and the unelected Supreme Court, headed by Lady Hale, sided with him against the governing party and the Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations, thus siding unanimously against the will of the people of Britain. What a sad state of affairs this woman has brought this country to, the same which have produced a "DEAD" Parliament--which was why It was prorogued in the first place. She is no leading judge of the land. She and her cohorts in crime have thrown democracy to the wind with one reckless and infantile judgement. Who cares what her credentials are? She has recklessly cast aside the will of the people with a so-called learned statement, her words and those of her fellow Supreme Court judges being anything but learned; they have in fact been sly, underhanded, cutthroat, like all of antiSemite Jeremy Corbyn's have been.
hmmm okay a rather lopsided reading of events
Sara wilmott.. 100% correct..
Would you elect your highly trained and skilled Brain or heart surgeon or Supreme Court judges like you vote for people on Britain Had Talent?
@@batfinkforever7036 nah not really
How does parliament not being suspended prevent the will of the people? Regardless of whether you want to leave the EU or not, surely it is important that in doing either of these things, the laws regarding the actions that politicians take must be upheld? Brexit is controversial enough without it taking place under circumstances of arguable legality. Of course a judge is not elected; I advise you to read about 'separation of powers' to understand why this is the case en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
Everything you should learn in school. Law, finance, English, maths, it & driving. There is a reason they don’t include some of these subjects to keep people suppressed
Lady Hale and her Supreme Court colleagues seem to be the only BRIGHT spots in the English democratic landscape.
@Protestant you have such a lively imagination. as if one man could do all that without the agreement of parliament. whatever Blair's fault, Boris Johnson is far worse.
@Protestant go for a walk outside you freak, stop ranting at strangers on the internet
Said every remoaner out there.......
@Protestant ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
@Protestant and you, CAPITALIST PIG! go kiss the ass of Brexshiters...
The interview was great. It would have been better if Stephen had let Lady Hale finish her statements instead of him constantly cutting her off. It somewhat deprives viewers of the complete narrative.
HARDtalk? More like cosy establishment chat.
Consider you are already used to Trumpian language skills.
Lady Hale upheld our democracy. Well done her.
A theoretician if I ever saw one........ there always is one side of an argument and an opposing one on the other side. That is why we have courts a legal system and attorneys that interpret the law. Precedence is a large part of the legal system, so if you can get a ruling that is different from other similar cases in the past then you have created a precedence that will make it easier for somebody in the future. Society changes times and attitudes change, people often remain the same. My guess is this lady wants to remain in every aspect of that word. The ambiguity wether to follow EU laws and regulations or if so wished change them to British law she doesn’t see as a problem. She is right in one aspect how all this will play out in the end we won’t know until it is upon us.
Good luck.
He asked her if brexit was taking back control! Not the timetable, the actual idea of brexit. She’s in denial.
@looes74 looes74 are you a hyena ..
magna czagany Precedence relates to common law and very rarely to civil cases. This was a civil case, there was no prosecution, no presentation of evidence, no punishment. In civil cases the judge listens to arguments and gives an opinion at the end which may or may not relate to an existing legal statute or tort. This is why the ruling was unlawful, not illegal as no law was broken.
Kevin McGrath What a load of waffle.
@@sunjayroy312 you would know as most of your posts prove
THEY HAVE INVENTED A NEW UNLAWFUL ACT ,,so now parliament have a government that answers to the opposition as it always has ,but now the courts and a rich mans wife,s play thing ,and the ,,eu and the bias media. ,so we tie the hands of the british while respecting all those mentioned ,so our government now ham strung gagged ,and under threat has to now go and get a deal from free eu leaders ,we are seeing now how quickly we will all become vassal voiceless were almost there already time for fools to wake up to reality while we still can,
We still have the parliament we elected. That's including 25.5 million of us who chose MP's from parties promising an orderly Brexit.
Our supposed Prime Minister voted against that promise to get in to No10. So Parliament have the authority of the 2017 election to do whatever they like to stop him. The courts' duty was to uphold their constitutional right to do so.
@@hlund73 well the opposition are only blocking spoiling and have their eye on no/10 at any cost ,and that seems to be to ignore not listen and don,t care ,in over 3 years they mention us the people or britain ether in a bad light or more often not at all to the opposition we do not count,unless your a remain voter losers looking out for those who lost at the expense of those elected and those who won that vote ,that,s not democracy as when its happened in africa all the condemnation from these same individuals,holding to account this is not,
@@stephenisom6089 sorry friend, but you got to admit Hillary's got you there...
@@youtubecommentor2211 it depends on how you define orderly and at the moment its seems that means not at all ,to stop block hinder refuse that is in no way respecting leaving orderly or not,, its trying to stay in and ignore our vote and their promise ,,,,,,so no in the cold real world all those who voted for leave orderly or not are under represented because most mps do not want to implement what they signed up,,, to ,so on paper yes in reality know way ,and is why we have had 3,5 years of nothing from the opposition mps only block spoil and ignore ,the history that got us here is not relevant as its not being excepted by most remain mps ,,,,,we no longer count ,we are no longer relevant and that is down to remoaners ,so no your findings on paper look right but in action are worthless statistics for remoaners to twist ,
I could only watch 4 minutes. Typically we are being fed jargon!
less here just a comment
That's a real shame. She spoke simply and directly and, more to the point accurately, about the law.
I don't speak English as a first language and even I was able to follow what Hale was speaking on.
Wichnam Yes, that's good, I m glad about that. so could I. It doesn't change the fact its all jargon.
@@patricialeighton4516 on what evidence could she have infront of her to say what boris done was .illegal...................none ,,,,did she get the queens statement ,,,,,,,,,none its a typical left wing stupid old bag waving her power over the 17,4 mill now go fuk urself
I love listening to lady Hale
she,s got a weird taste, first the black widow spider, and now silence of the lambs moth, and please dont use the people as your excuse for doing what you are doing, you and your elite buddies are crapping all over the people,. HUMBUG.
Humbug. Oh such a terrible word. I had to close my eyes. Bollocks to brexit is so much nicer
She lost her argument within about 2.5mins from when she started talking. She said she was there to serve the people. Um, serving the people means operating in a manner which effects and carries through the result of the 2016 referendum which was a political decision in the first place to have and for which parliament made political decisions to vote in favour of triggering Article 50... no Mrs Judge, you don't serve the people so stop saying you do. Judges meddling in politics doesn't work, and her and her cronies decisions to frustrate political decisions won't get her out of being publicly ostricized for it either.
lol okay friend, that told her
As a judge, the only way she can serve the people is by providing fair, legal judgments. Which she has done. It has nothing to do with politics if the executive decided to do something blatantly illegal to get its way.
@@MayoKaraage Amen
A case brought by remaoners, rushed through the court by remoaners to the high court, and judge on by eleven remoaners, scam if ever a saw one, another part of the unelected government. We need a new house in parliament, for another gravy train.
@@domdonald John Major's unlawfulness doesn't excuse Boris's unlawfulness. That's called the "you too" fallacy
Obviously, Boris suspended Parliament because he wanted to stop Parliament interfering with his Brexit plans.
Whether it's ok to stop Parliament, the representatives of the people, from doing it's job is not a question of evidence so no evidence is required. It's a matter of law & constitution. When England became a country it was baked into the constitution that the King makes the decisions & u can't suspend him from doing his job just because u want something political to happen. Then Parliament won the civil war. Charles I was executed. To the victor go the spoils. Therefore our constitution says Parliament gets the powers of the king i.e. Parliament makes the decisions around here & it's unlawful to suspend it merely because u want power to do something. Therefore ur wrong to claim the court had to make the law. Boris went against the constitution that has existed since England became a country
@@domdonald i mean normally proroguing is fine but doing it deliberately to stop the sovereign of the United Kingdom is unlawful BS. It's the same as going up to King Edward the Confessor & suspending him from ruling because he's in the way of ur political plans. U would've had something chopped off
@@domdonald _" the Supreme Court references John majors evidence as the only factor in its decision that there was “no good reason” for BJ to suspend parliament."_
Ur wrong. From UKSC's statement:
Factor 1) A "fundamental principle of our Constitution" = "Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey"
Factor 2) "this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased"
Factor 3) Another fundamental principal = accountability to Parliament: Lord Bingham said: "the conduct of government by a PM & Cabinet collectively responsible & *accountable to Parliament* lies at the heart of Westminster democracy".
Factor 4) As long ago as 1611, the court held: "the King [who was then the gov] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him"
Factor 5) "While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet & take evidence in committees"
Factor 6) "...the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the UK on 31st October."
Factor 7) "Parliament, & in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about."
Factor 8) The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme."
Factor 9) "...No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court....It does not explain why it was necessary to..."
Factor 10) "....bring Parliamentary business to a halt for 5 weeks ..."
Factor 11) ...when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen's Speech is 4 to 6 days."
& there are no doubt many others
@@domdonald There's many thing wrong with what u just said eg u do realise that above the High Court of England & Wales is the Court of Appeal of England & Wales right? And above that is the UKSC.
I've explained a lot why this was an issue of law & constitution & precedent going back centuries u just ignore me & say it was based not on law or precedent but on their own personal views (which btw all court judgements are so wtf were u expecting). I've also refuted ur statement that there was only 1 factor in their decision. Unless u can show some sign of listening there's no point refuting ur other stuff
@@domdonald _" You've said that there are courts higher than the High Court (so what?)."_
So u were wrong to say: _"which is why the highest court in England judged it to be non-judicial. "_
A rational person would just say "ok i was wrong about that".
So ur not being rational, correct? I think if u tried really hard to be rational then u would start to change ur Brexiteer position on these things. You just need to start listening, really
It wasn't hard talk at all.
Also, note how both of them studiously avoided discussing the Robin Tilbrook judicial review in which the courts have refused to even give it a hearing largely because they know that Robin would have won and the Remainers would have lost. They will get their comeuppance when the ECHR (not an EU court) rules that they were wrong to refuse a hearing. This will be a national humiliation especially for the biased courts.
Cold hard propaganda.
Did she actually say " it's not for me to give messages to the government" ? at about 8mins. What on earth have they just done then, with there last efforts to scupper Brexit.
In a democracy the “Collective Wisdom of the People” is the highest legitimate Authority. The Supreme Court is in contempt of the law. Her Majesties Armed Forces should imprison the unelected 11 lawyer for treason.
@@michaelmartin4383 lol “Collective Wisdom of the People” No it's not, and no they shouldn't
very articulate lady, hopefully, some that somehow link her stopping Brexit and the decision of proroguing parliament, will remember what the executive of the Tory party said that "Proroging parliament is completely normal to enable a queens speech"
And there you have it, the motive and the rationale for the Brexit judgement loud and clear.
Andrew Killick Interesting. I thought the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit..?
@@moodfox6024 Precisely, strange how the Judicial made it exactly that
I just loved this clear "NO" of hers at the end. Law protects from anomie and anarchy.
Activist judge with a political agenda.
Disgrace
No she has to go and be elected in all of them. This is UK not EU. There was no law that Boris broken until they made one the lords need to be scrapped also.
Politcised Judiciary, would never have expected that in the heart of democracy.
You have no facts to back up that absurd claim!
@@robertuk2006 I have the MK1 Eyeball.
Lady Hale supposedly neutral but obviously has taken the side of remain if not the supreme court wouldn't of got involved
Dear Lady Hale and Colleagues, Given your apparent ages, I guess your judgement will soon be reviewed by the highest court of all.
"It was important that people could see what we are doing. We're serving the people." Why do all the good ones always end up as judges?
A sitting judge should speak with his or her sentences not through interviews like a politician. The SC and its president are already treading very dangerously in the party political realm. It's not her province to do so, She claims she isnt sitting in parliament any more, but it seems to me that she is very much political and pushing an agenda. This will lead more and more people to loose faith on their impartiality.
Again, that might be fair and good, but again: IT’S NOT HER PROVINCE. Lots of individuals and organizations are in this debate (btw stop and search is also part of the debate). What it appears is that she is using the notoriety garnered by the controversial and definitely political prorogation sentence to give interviews and increase the exposure of the Supreme Court
listening to Lady Hale speak could inspire a lot of people to get into law
Very impressive and reasonable Lady.
Stupid Cow 🐮🐮🐮🐮
Don't take the piss mate.
Lady Hale seems wise and quite youthful in the way she speaks. I worked in a government legal office for a while and had the pleasure and fortune to work with a similar seasoned lawyer who helped me better shape my arguments. The UK is lucky to have someone like Lady Hale represent the letter and also spirit law of the land. Her work provides critical check and balance over the other branches of government. The executive's attempt at silencing parliament was a blatant attempt at sidelining the lawfully elected representatives of the land. What is happening in the UK now is a direct conflict between direct democracy and representative democracy. One should not thought that less than half, 17 million, of the 60 or so million citizens of the UK voted for Brexit. This does not mean they should be ignored, but it does mean the UK needs to take good hard look at how it wants to continue. Lady Hale's thoughtful analysis is a critical and important part of this process. A process that is essential in any vibrant democracy.
the criminals will face the full weight of the law when the traitors collaborators and criminals are arrested and taken to trial. the law will be reinstated the truth will prevail.
In a democracy the “Collective Wisdom of the People” is the highest legitimate Authority. The Supreme Court is in contempt of the law. Her Majesties Armed Forces should imprison the unelected 11 lawyer for treason.
Lol..... brexiteers are very thick.... no offence.
Supreme court are appointed by the Monarch at the advice of the Prime Minister.
The monarch is their boss.
Let that sink in.
The Prime Minister is also "appointed" by the monarch. You don't know how your state functions.
@@LOLERXP And precisely how does that contradict what I wrote you mindless spastic?
She’s outrageous... Should not over rule the government. She’s a remainer. Makes me sick
@Usha Little dictators. That's a bit rich. Seeing how most of the opposition both want to overturn the EU referendum result. And how they're plotting to form an unelected caretaker government. And how they've used a court of unelected lords to undermine the constitutional confidence of an elected government.
Lady Hale is beautiful.
we are all humanary stew,
if we don't pledge allegiance to
the black widow
Eat Brexshit
down under she is part of the shale gas dilemma. That is why her name is tarantula hale. She is promoting fracking up in the northern areas with her occultic demonic money worshippers. They are not just selling us & Britain to those bavarians, but they want the foundations on which our homes to be unstable, so the sinkholes will swallow up our homes & us. Our water in the rivers will be polluted. The rivers will join up with the sea & the pollution will kill all our fish. What are these traitors, collaborators & pawns of the germanic eu trying to do. They have betrayed the British people, our country & not shown respect or loyalty to our Monarch. How dare they think that they are above our Queen, the British electorate & resort to subversion to betray the United Kingdom on a gigantic scale.
She is not a widow or black-is that the best insult you cab come up with? Pathetic.
@@patricialeighton4516 Last week she was dressed in black with a large spider broach. That is the relevance
@@patricialeighton4516 when the judge sitting in the supreme court turns up dressed for a funeral and sporting a hand sized spider to hand down a finding that is venomous. What do you think people will say.? Inky Pinky?
Anyway your mind went there I was just jotting down song lyrics
Prorogation of parliament not even discussed, unbelievable!
Love this women , humble , insightful, we need more women QCs in Britain .....sadly millions now can not access legal help to avoid court action !Government need to be taken to task on the decisions they have made that harm society and those least able to afford the impact of those decisions.
Whilst I understand the need for public education regarding the role of the Supreme Court and the law generally, I remain concerned as to the celebrity status of Lady Hale. Part of me views this media profile as being legitimate - it increases constitutional awareness among the people, yet contrastingly there is an element that considers judicial commentary outside of courts by judges (especially those currently serving) as troublesome. The politics of the US Supreme court - should serve as a cautionary tale to judges revealing too much of the personal - which is ultimately political.
Crazy broach lady Makes it up as she goes along.
Do people think the big spider broach was innocent? Now she's on TV wearing that butterfly broach to muddy the waters.
@Protestant Yes that butterfly broach is truly hideous, Newsnight would deserve better jewellery, Guessing her nice ones are all Satanic.
I think she knows more about the law than almost anyone!
She said, " We're serving the People "🤔🤔🤔🤔
I say, " Not very well ,it would now appear "
These Judges receive remuneration from EU !!!!
Says it all I think !!!
I rest my case !!!!
Bribery.
You can recieve monetary funds from somewhere and not be a corrupt baffoon working against what's right based on that. You flocking to this conclusion without any evidence at all says much more about your character than it does about the court, which explained its logical and correct judgement in great length. No money in the world can influence reality, and in reality, the judgement's ruling makes sense and is correct. This also has nothing to do with Brexit whatsoever. It's a constitutional issue.
@@LOLERXP Bullshit, The love of money is the root of all evil.
You should not rest your case too soon. Can you give a source that they receive EU money? By the way, if they are working for the European Court of Human Rights, the joke's on you, because that is not an EU institution and has nothing to do with the European Court of Justice.
When I grow up, I want to be Brenda Hale 🙏🏼🌹🙏🏽
Don't suppose this lady will be worried about loosing her free TV licence.
It was quite wrong to rule on a Political problem!
The fact of the matter is,they should have never got involved.No if,s of but,s.
No its not. Everything has to hav a balance.
@@anoobiscooking1193 ,So for speaking the truth,are you going to beat me,threaten me,and report me to the Police?....You SJW are truly insane,you nothing but bullies if we don,t agree with your narrative.
@@elingles2854 Parliamentary democracy and separation of powers are not "narrative", you absolute moron. You should be very grateful to have a judiciary competent enough to rule correctly on this issue in such a short period of time. Do you want Prime Minister Corbyn to have the power to dissolve parliament for months and years without even having to give a proper reason? It is obvious that the court ruled correctly. But no, people such as you are too blinded by their own emotions to look at this objectively, and instead buy into the devicive language and, I'm sad to say, the lies and bait that Boris Johnson and his aides are throwing around with. This court decision was NOT political, it held up two of the most fundamental principles of British democracy: The supremacy of parliament over the executive and the separation of powers. If you don't understand that, you have no business talking about any of this, let alone tell the court whether it should have gotten involved or not.
Should of had David Starkey on with them he would tear them apart and show them up.
David Newby no he wouldn’t. He is a middle brow king worshipper. He doesn’t have the intellectual gravitas to challenge her.
@@MsColl90 oh yes he would
David Starkey is has no legal training. He is a historian, so he is no more qualified to speak on the technicalities of lawmaking than you or me. What exactly would he be able to contribute other than an opinion?
Just reading the first 20 or so comments, it's clear that the people are awake
Richard Spratt, The working class,...... finally,yes..!! Finally are waking up.
Its sad that we have allowed our judiciary to get involved and for them to have demonstrated their bias in a matter were our elected members have betrayed us. THE {EP{LE VOTED TO LEAVE REGARDS.
Is English your first language? Google where vs were. Damn these highly educated judges...
Utter nonsense.
@@andrewmitchell2313 don't understand the question.
“We are serving the people”
Sounds reasonable
Smart lady
This lady is a hero.
The Supreme Court is now as corrupt as any tin pot dictatorship country in Africa.The Supreme Court must be got shot of, and these corrupt EU judges got rid of.
As I understand it , these Judges receive monies from EU !
Says it all I think !!
Oh For goodness sake. They have NOTHING to do with the EU. Their concern is the law. Get right
ORLA,These upper class Toffs,really think we stupid.
@@elingles2854 WEll you are if you don't learn more abpout how they work Do you see conspiracies evrywhere?
@@patricialeighton4516 ,I say this with love and a caring spirit.Do you really think that our current supreme court is not leftist.!!!! If you think otherwise,you need your head examined,or you totally brain washed young lady.Remember this,these leftist thugs have had a free reign for over 60 years,and we stood by.Time for change has arrived young lady.
you are incredibly thick. The judiciary can earn tremendously higher amounts of money remaining as barristers
No real scrutiny here from the biased BBC