Just...................whatever [5]

Just went out into the garden to check the sky- wall to wall grey But its very high cloud so might be thin and break up later. I hope.

did you get to see it? it was cloudy here.

Not a thing- remained completely overcast horizon to horizon- then it all cleared away once it was over

bugger

Hoping for clearer skies for Friday morning and the eclipse.

Clearer skies? On the Scottish west coast?

I did say 'hoping'. We can always hope.

Supposedly the aurora was going to be visible pretty far south in the US too, but I went outside around midnight and couldn't see anything. I live at the bottom of a hill which is to the north of me though, so that may have been blocking them.

Light pollution is a problem too, I guess. But on the rear occasions you can see it here and I've been aware of it it's always been overcast sadly.

And it's not like were missing anything.

Bl0ody clouds.

bloody clouds

I should be doing school stuff, but all I want to do is lie in bed ad watch QI..

*goes to do school stuff*

"The court can only base their decision on what the parties state in the actual court case and can not make a decision outside the parties claims, but in this case the high court came to a decision outside the limits of the parties claims because.. it seemed like the better decision."

So, that's the high court, the one who sets the precedence, ignoring the rule made through their own precedence. Not to create a new precedence, just like a one time thing. Then how can you put trust in their other precedence based rules?

More specifically. In Rt 1981 s. 745, which handled the preemptive right to buy a piece of land, the claimant claimed the decision to grant the preemptive right to buy this piece of land had to be found void because it was in conflict with the general purpose of the relevant law. The High Court found the decision void, but on the basis that the procedure leading up to the decision had been lacking. But the claimant had not claimed this as a basis for finding the decision void, or brought it up during the case. The court made the reason for finding the decision void up for itself, which it is not supposed to do..

Oh, well. #lawproblems

I checked for you with NotP's laweyrs Angmar and Sons and they said that making up your precedents as you go along an then claiming it fulfills the criteria of long standing precedents which dont actually exist is 99% of their work

Bluebottle wrote:The court made the reason for finding the decision void up for itself, which it is not supposed to do.

Sounds a little reminiscent of Marbury v. Madison, where the US Supreme Court gave itself the power of judicial review over Congress and the Presidency and everyone has just sort of went along with it since then.

The odd thing is it's not been followed up, and we even have a new law now saying it's not allowed. Which was stated by the people drafting only codified the law as it was, and made no change from the situation before the law was passed. The reason the court shouldn't do stuff like that is it gives the other party any chance to contradict or make arguments of their own.

Two things that might have weighed in the other direction though, is the size of the parties. The state against this farmer who would loose his livelihood if the preemptive right to buy was allowed. That the result was clear. According to the court, anyway. And this really became a problem as the lower instance courts didn't do their job in aiding the party and alerting him to this possibility.

It's still just legally wrong though.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I checked for you with NotP's laweyrs Angmar and Sons and they said that making up your precedents as you go along an then claiming it fulfills the criteria of long standing precedents which dont actually exist is 99% of their work

Well, the way you common lawers go about things does look a bit crazy from the outside.

Bluebottle wrote:Well, the way you common lawers go about things does look a bit crazy from the outside.

IANAL and all that, but I don't think that basing legal decisions on what medieval English judges thought is that much crazier than basing it on what ancient Roman emperors thought.

Oh, I'm pretty sure they both look ridiculous from the outside.

Do Fjordian lawyers get to wear silly wigs like a proper lawyer?