De-tubing

[northernladuk]

Parliament is a Court of Law.

I don't think it's as simple as that. Parliament enacts the law, and the court interprets and applies it. Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK but because decisions on enacted laws are not made by them they technically aren't a court of law. A court of law is generally accepted to be a court that hears cases and decides them on the basis of statutes or the common law which Parliament isn't.

I'm aware there is much more complexity which I have no idea about but that 6 word statement isn't quite true.

[JustKeepSwimming]

I don't think it's as simple as that. Parliament enacts the law, and the court interprets and applies it. Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK but because decisions on enacted laws are not made by them they technically aren't a court of law. A court of law is generally accepted to be a court that hears cases and decides them on the basis of statutes or the common law which Parliament isn't.

I'm aware there is much more complexity which I have no idea about but that 6 word statement isn't quite true.

You don't say Luton county court is not a Court of Law because it has no legal authority to hear criminal cases. Different courts of law have different remits.

Parliament has the power to adjudicate MP's actions and pass sanctions including the suspending of a democratic representative's participation in the democratic process, arguably one of the most serious sanctions under our constitution. That is before you go down the rabbit hole of all the niche/little used but still applicable quirks of our constitution. Parliament is a Court of Law.

[vetran]

You don't say Luton county court is not a Court of Law because it has no legal authority to hear criminal cases. Different courts of law have different remits.

Parliament has the power to adjudicate MP's actions and pass sanctions including the suspending of a democratic representative's participation in the democratic process, arguably one of the most serious sanctions under our constitution. That is before you go down the rabbit hole of all the niche/little used but still applicable quirks of our constitution. Parliament is a Court of Law.

Its Luton more of a Backwoods Kangaroo court!

[SueEllen]

Oh FFS -

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...-to-censor-him


This is why the MPs were stupid to write the letter.

He's accusing them of censorship when actually they were asking the platforms to stop him making money of his videos. So he can post what he likes but they don't want him to make money out of it. I am aware the BBC can ask YouTube to do that rather than ask YouTube to pull a video of their content.

(On another note some of his radio and other output could be used in trials against him.)

[Zigenare]

Oh FFS -

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...-to-censor-him


This is why the MPs were stupid to write the letter.

He's accusing them of censorship when actually they were asking the platforms to stop him making money of his videos. So he can post what he likes but they don't want him to make money out of it. I am aware the BBC can ask YouTube to do that rather than ask YouTube to pull a video of their content.

(On another note some of his radio and other output could be used in trials against him.)

I would suggest that due process be followed first, arrest, charge, trial, isn't that how it's supposed to pan out? A much more civilised process than allegation, public condemnation, seek financial ruin and total ostracism.

[JustKeepSwimming]

I would suggest that due process be followed first, arrest, charge, trial, isn't that how it's supposed to pan out? A much more civilised process than allegation, public condemnation, seek financial ruin and total ostracism.

So you think the public and private companies aren't allowed to pass judgement and decide who they engage with?

[northernladuk]

You don't say Luton county court is not a Court of Law because it has no legal authority to hear criminal cases. Different courts of law have different remits.

Parliament has the power to adjudicate MP's actions and pass sanctions including the suspending of a democratic representative's participation in the democratic process, arguably one of the most serious sanctions under our constitution. That is before you go down the rabbit hole of all the niche/little used but still applicable quirks of our constitution. Parliament is a Court of Law.

What on earth are you going on about. Different courts of law have different remits yes, but they are still dealing with Law. Luton does civil cases so is a court of law.
No, a parliament is not a court of law. Parliaments and courts of law serve distinct functions within a government's structure

From Chat GPT.. which backs up exactly what I said.

No, a parliament is not a court of law. Parliaments and courts of law serve distinct functions within a government's structure:

1. Parliament:
   • A parliament is a legislative body responsible for making and passing laws. It represents the citizens of a country and plays a key role in the democratic process.
   • Parliamentarians, such as members of parliament (MPs) or legislators, are elected or appointed to debate, propose, and vote on legislation.
   • Parliament's primary function is to create, amend, and repeal laws, allocate government funds, and oversee the executive branch of government.
2. Court of Law:
   • A court of law, on the other hand, is a judicial institution responsible for interpreting and applying the law. Courts resolve disputes and administer justice based on established legal principles.
   • Courts include various levels, such as trial courts, appellate courts, and, in some countries, a supreme court.
   • Judges and magistrates preside over court proceedings, ensuring that the law is correctly interpreted and applied. They make decisions on cases involving criminal, civil, and other legal matters.

While both parliament and courts play essential roles in a country's legal and governmental system, they have separate functions. Parliament creates and modifies laws, while courts interpret and enforce those laws through the legal process.

So no. Parliament is not a court of law....again.

[northernladuk]

You don't say Luton county court is not a Court of Law because it has no legal authority to hear criminal cases. Different courts of law have different remits.

Parliament has the power to adjudicate MP's actions and pass sanctions including the suspending of a democratic representative's participation in the democratic process, arguably one of the most serious sanctions under our constitution. That is before you go down the rabbit hole of all the niche/little used but still applicable quirks of our constitution. Parliament is a Court of Law.

What on earth are you going on about. Different courts of law have different remits yes, but they are still dealing with Law. Luton does civil and family cases but is still a court of law.

From Chat GPT.. which backs up exactly what I said.

No, a parliament is not a court of law. Parliaments and courts of law serve distinct functions within a government's structure:

1. Parliament:
   • A parliament is a legislative body responsible for making and passing laws. It represents the citizens of a country and plays a key role in the democratic process.
   • Parliamentarians, such as members of parliament (MPs) or legislators, are elected or appointed to debate, propose, and vote on legislation.
   • Parliament's primary function is to create, amend, and repeal laws, allocate government funds, and oversee the executive branch of government.
2. Court of Law:
   • A court of law, on the other hand, is a judicial institution responsible for interpreting and applying the law. Courts resolve disputes and administer justice based on established legal principles.
   • Courts include various levels, such as trial courts, appellate courts, and, in some countries, a supreme court.
   • Judges and magistrates preside over court proceedings, ensuring that the law is correctly interpreted and applied. They make decisions on cases involving criminal, civil, and other legal matters.

While both parliament and courts play essential roles in a country's legal and governmental system, they have separate functions. Parliament creates and modifies laws, while courts interpret and enforce those laws through the legal process.

So no. Parliament is not a court of law....again.

[Lance]

my tuppence for what it's worth.

Should a select committee be able to ask that question? Yeah why not? They are a powerful force and can force people to attend. They are not a court of law but they do have significant power.

Should they have asked the question? Probably not. It just political click bait. They have powers they can/should/would use so why bother with a lame arsed question like that.

Should Youtube block his revenue? I don't think so. It's either acceptable or not. If not then dump the content. If it is he should get paid like any other content creator.

Who comes out of this the best? Brand (as this reinforces his whole schtick) and Rumble (who told them to foxtrot oscar).

It was an ill thought out action by the normally quite sensible select commitee(s).

[SueEllen]

my tuppence for what it's worth.

Should a select committee be able to ask that question? Yeah why not? They are a powerful force and can force people to attend. They are not a court of law but they do have significant power.

Should they have asked the question? Probably not. It just political click bait. They have powers they can/should/would use so why bother with a lame arsed question like that.

Should Youtube block his revenue? I don't think so. It's either acceptable or not. If not then dump the content. If it is he should get paid like any other content creator.

YouTube have their own terms and conditions which every content creator accepts when they sign up with them. He breached those so they turned around and said you can't make money of your content. They haven't taken his content down which they can do in other situations.

Who comes out of this the best? Brand (as this reinforces his whole schtick) and Rumble (who told them to foxtrot oscar).

Rumble (and other social media sites) have different terms and conditions. If they don't believe Brand breached them then they don't need to act. Though with the online safety bill coming in they may end up having to stop those viewing from the UK seeing his content.

Brand doesn't come out looking best. He posted some tulip about being the messiah in response. I guess if he's planning on going down the diminished responsibility line if the CPS comes after him it will help his claim.

It was an ill thought out action by the normally quite sensible select commitee(s).

Yep if they want to call someone to account get them in front of the full committee at a hearing.