Politics Today

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,767
Back to Johnson's sleepover, the line from Downing Street that they didn't break any rules, but refusing to say whether or not she stayed. Nimco Ali is saying identical things, i.e. not that she didn't stay, but that it wasn't a breach of the rules. That implies to me that she certainly did stay. Given that, I'm not sure how Johnson and co. expect to put this to bed without (1) admitting she stayed over, and (2) justifying why that is not a breach of the rules.

One might say that if they have nothing to hide they should cut straight to that bit, but it appears to be Johnson's natural inclination to hide the truth if it makes him look vaguely bad, and hope everyone forgets about it. This is similar to the "who paid for the refurbishment" debacle, where Johnson's refusal to answer the question made it seem like a much bigger deal than it was when he eventually did admit it.
 

angelic upstart

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
24,045
Take no notice Hermann had already mentioned it.

In short, we don't live under the Magna Carta for anyone that cares.
 

tonykellowfan

Active member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
3,207
Location
Buckingham
But not how to get your facts right
Here's the British Library website for you:

Habeas Corpus is an Act of Parliament, still in force today, which ensures that no one can be imprisoned unlawfully. Literally translated, ‘habeas corpus’ means ‘you may have the body’ (if legal procedures are satisfied). This sounds like a strange phrase, but in medieval times it was the expression used to bring a prisoner into court. It later became used to fight against arbitrary detention by the authorities.

In 1215 Magna Carta stated that no one could be imprisoned unlawfully, and the first recorded use of this provision was in 1305, but Habeas Corpus as we know it today was not made law until 1679. Although the law is still in effect, Habeas Corpus has not been continually used since 1679. It was suspended in 1793 when there were concerns that the French Revolution might inspire rebellion in England. It was also suspended several times in the 20th century. Internment (detention without charge) was employed in World War I and II, and during many periods of the conflict in Northern Ireland in the later 20th century. Today, detention without charge is back on the political agenda in the debates surrounding anti-terror legislation.
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,767
Here's the British Library website for you:

Habeas Corpus is an Act of Parliament, still in force today, which ensures that no one can be imprisoned unlawfully. Literally translated, ‘habeas corpus’ means ‘you may have the body’ (if legal procedures are satisfied). This sounds like a strange phrase, but in medieval times it was the expression used to bring a prisoner into court. It later became used to fight against arbitrary detention by the authorities.

In 1215 Magna Carta stated that no one could be imprisoned unlawfully, and the first recorded use of this provision was in 1305, but Habeas Corpus as we know it today was not made law until 1679. Although the law is still in effect, Habeas Corpus has not been continually used since 1679. It was suspended in 1793 when there were concerns that the French Revolution might inspire rebellion in England. It was also suspended several times in the 20th century. Internment (detention without charge) was employed in World War I and II, and during many periods of the conflict in Northern Ireland in the later 20th century. Today, detention without charge is back on the political agenda in the debates surrounding anti-terror legislation.
I mean that literally says "Habeas Corpus as we know it today was not made law until 1679", reinforcing the original point re. Magna Carta.

Regardless, whoever wrote that hasn't done their research (though in fairness, whilst it says that the provision is in Magna Carta, it doesn't say that's where its origins lie). Much like a previous discussion in this thread re. the origins of the meringue, it's something that's been repeated so often it's commonly believed without question, even by academics who should know better. I could tell you all about translation theorists and Cicero on that front.
 

Egg

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
6,705

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
17,152
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
Seems pretty conclusive although, as per usual, there's a suggestion the PM was adhering to a special version of the rules no-one else was aware of:
I presume the same special rules when him and Sunak didn't want to self isolate? This way was so "Secret" no one had ever heard of it before or since? 🤔🤔🙄🙄
 

Hermann

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
4,767
I presume the same special rules when him and Sunak didn't want to self isolate? This way was so "Secret" no one had ever heard of it before or since? 🤔🤔🙄🙄
It's Cummings all over again: "we did something that is allowed in a very broad interpretation of the rules, an interpretation that no normal person would derive, but we made the rules so we can pretend that was how they should have been interpreted all along".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Egg

Egg

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
6,705
It's Cummings all over again: "we did something that is allowed in a very broad interpretation of the rules, an interpretation that no normal person would derive, but we made the rules so we can pretend that was how they should have been interpreted all along".
Quite. Lots of us didn't see our closest family last Christmas but the PM and his wife had a pal to stay and we're supposed to meekly accept that.
 
Top