The cult of Lady Hale

The gushing over this judge shows us what that judgement yesterday was really all about.

Ella Whelan

Ella Whelan
Columnist

Share

‘Revenge of the girly swots’ has been trending on Twitter. Reclaiming Boris Johnson’s swipe at David Cameron, anti-Brexit MPs and political commentators are celebrating the three ‘girly swot’ heroines of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision: Lady Hale, Gina Miller and Joanna Cherry MP.

Hale in particular. The first female president of the Supreme Court has been all but sanctified on social media following her delivery yesterday of the verdict all Brexit-haters were hoping for – that the government had acted unlawfully when it prorogued parliament. Supporters were even praising Hale’s choice of a diamond-encrusted spider brooch, which she wore as she read the judgement, likening her to a character from Game of Thrones.

Known as the ‘Beyoncé of the legal profession’, due to her popularity among young lawyers and students, Hale has a reputation for breaking convention – she has refused to wear ‘silly’ judicial wigs and holds strident feminist views. There’s even a children’s book coming out about her, written by Afua Hirsch and Henny Beaumont. But following the Supreme Court’s ruling, she is being talked about as if she were a modern-day Che Guevara. There are spider-brooch themed t-shirts being sold in their thousands.

Remainers yesterday insisted that the Supreme Court’s ruling had nothing to do with politics. But their gushing over Lady Hale made clear that the ruling was not, for them, just a cold and clinical examination of law. ‘So much love for Lady Hale’, tweeted Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson. Anna Soubry, Ian Blackford, Caroline Lucas and other extreme anti-Brexit campaigners bowled out of the Supreme Court following the ruling, punching the air. When they say this has nothing to do with Brexit they are, frankly, lying.

Alongside the adoration for Hale is the continued fawning over Gina Miller, the rich anti-Brexit businesswoman who took the government to court. When interviewed on BBC News following the judgement, Miller was asked about the ‘personal cost’ she had sacrificed in her fight for ‘democracy’. No questions were asked about her role in the politicisation of the judiciary and the frustration of the Brexit vote. Commentators are calling for there to be a statue of her erected in Parliament Square. Others say she should be made a dame.

Meanwhile, Joanna Cherry, the lawyer and SNP MP behind the prorogation case that won in the Scottish courts, was also praised as another ‘brave’ woman taking on the establishment. ITV’s political editor Robert Peston tweeted about them all together: ‘A trio of extraordinary women have today changed the course of British politics in a fundamental way: Gina Miller, Joanna Cherry and Lady Hale. Wherever you stand on Brexit or Johnson, you’ve got to be impressed.’

But this all begs the question: impressed by what? That three women – two of whom are unelected – are wielding their considerable legal, political and financial sway over democratic matters? That they have all played a role in an unprecedented dragging of the law into politics? Should their genitals dazzle us to the extent that we ignore the substance of what happened yesterday?

We know what’s going on here. The gushing praise for Hale, Miller and Cherry is an attempt to gloss over the fact that the judiciary has intervened in the Brexit debate, at the behest of rich and powerful people. Boris Johnson’s undemocratic prorogation of parliament was wrong. But the actions of these three women, and the influential people cheering them on, have done far more damage to our political and legal system. The ruling yesterday has already dampened trust in our supposedly independent judiciary.

The attempt to put a feminist spin on this is sickening. It’s the clearest example yet of how identity politics can be used to deflect criticism from truly powerful people. For, as Peston suggests, who could be critical of these three successful women? Well, many people, actually. However Remainers want to dress it up, the judgement yesterday was a blow to democracy, and the creepy new cult of Lady Hale makes that all the more clear.

Ella Whelan is a spiked columnist and the author of What Women Want: Fun, Freedom and an End to Feminism.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Eric Lauder

26th September 2019 at 10:22 pm

I have read something by Hale: Equal Treatment Bench Book.
It’s a great dystopian sci-fi book, much better than many.

John Gaunt

26th September 2019 at 8:01 am

Spiked commentators are lonely voices from the Left, speaking bravely about the calamitous betrayal of Brexit, by rich, well organised and highly influential liberals.

On this occasion they identify the flagrant judicial activism of the so-called Supreme Court and the disproportionate political influence of Gina Miller.

Nonetheless it does not appear to have occurred to you that there may be a deep strategy here.

The decision to embrace no deal preparation led, in stages, to the unmasking of the Speaker as a Remain activist, followed by the defection of the pseudo-conservatives to support the Benn Bill.

The abandonment of opposition to the Benn Bill, after initially seeming to contest it, allowed it to become Law, making crystal clear to the public just how far the Parliamentary Remain caucus is prepared to go in its egregious betrayal of the national interest and its overt support for the EU against the UK.

The prorogation was a pointless act of provocation which reduced Parliamentary time by a couple of days, unless you simply see it as a deliberate provocation, which has had two effects: we have seen the pitiful spectacle of self-pitying Remain MPs, pretending themselves to be defenders of the people, at the same time refusing an election for venal personal advantage; and we have now seen the Supreme Court, a recent Blairite confection packed to the gunnels with EU trained advocates, unmasked as nothing more than a new politicised constitutional court, and making itself now into a legitimate future target for “reform”.

Perhaps this will continue? The next most logical provocation will be fail to accomplish any deal and then refuse to observe the Benn Bill, which may lead to any of a Corbyn Government, and a truly hateful policy platform; or a “National Unity” Government led by Harriet Harman, the living embodiment of Whiggish condescension and the niece of the Countess of Longford; or yet more traitorous legislation than “Benn”.

Perhaps they will even try to legislate for a second sham “legally binding” Referendum with no actual Leave option, believing that the public will somehow be fooled by that?

But whichever of these options is chosen, the only certainty is that the architects will be exposed as ever more devious, ever more obviously acting on behalf of the EU not the UK, and ever more afraid to account to the public for their actions.

Whisper it quietly, but Mr Cummings may be onto something here, because at each stage, Johnson’s popularity has increased. Sooner or later there will have to be an election and the longer it is deferred, the more furious the public is becoming. So let them scheme and enjoy the spectacle. The Remain caucus have no strategy, merely tactics, and they have forgotten the second part of Sun Tzu’s timeless dictum – “tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat”.

When Brexit is delivered, by the Conservative Party, as it will be, then it is to be hoped that Spiked will have the grace to acknowledge that it was conservatives, not socialists, who listened to the people and respected the principle of democracy, and that it must therefore be conservatives, not socialists, who are then trusted to govern.

A Game

26th September 2019 at 6:08 am

I’m not lucking out with the censor, at the mo’. Spiked needs to fine tune it. It is censoring artistic expression. That’s really bad territory. Hate speech, inciting violence… sure. Definitely. But its problematic when you find yourself censoring yourself, your humour, your choice of expressing an idea, to get around “hot” words. You need to relax it and censor posts post posting.
I have a couple lost in censorland, 24 hours later, on a weekday. Do I rewrite or stop bothering? I contribute to lend another voice in a landscape dominated by screeching Remainers. I have more to say about parliament’s efforts. I will be mentioning J.C. I will be using “hot” words to talk about it. Should I bother? We’ll see.

A Game

26th September 2019 at 6:09 am

A post about censorship is in moderation. I wanted to talk about the use of J.C. today, the pose and tone taken in parliament. I guess I won’t. Cheers

Thomas Swift

26th September 2019 at 5:09 am

So here are the line-ups: we have the Executive + the People .v. Parliament + the Judiciary + the Media. Any guess as to which side the armed forces will take?

A Game

26th September 2019 at 5:18 am

Hopefully their self respect says Executive + the People + The Def Forces v. Parliament + the Judiciary + the Media. Any guess as to which side the armed forces will take?

A Game

26th September 2019 at 3:53 am

I hesitate to say “a good read”… its a well written piece accurately describing a truly hideous amount of information. My eyes, my eyes…. I can’t unsee it.

The whole schtick in parliament from female opposition MPs was “I’m a victim”. I need to be protected from my actions as a politician because I am vulnerable in society. Oh, but just the Brexit stuff.
Then they want to own the Remainer success as a feminist victory. Look how strong and powerful we are. But don’t you disagree with us, that makes us vulnerable as the fragile beings we are and opens us up to death threats. But we’re victors, choke on our dust!
Typical Remainer reasoning, Remainer PR, Remainer vanity.
There’s that strange lack of judgement again from Vicky Pollard’s posh cousin. “All love to Lady Hale”. No. No. True feminism is commending a legal powerhouse, her reasoning, her logic (you look at analysis of the ruling… the more you know, the lighter it gets on those two things) her insight, her bravery to create a jurisdiction that never existed before that ruling.
They show their biased self interest, over and over. They are proving everything everyone accuses them of.
Its embarrassing.
Cult of Lady Hale. Ugh.

Pedro Dias

25th September 2019 at 10:29 pm

Democracy can never be served if it’s cooked with lies.

Jerry Owen

25th September 2019 at 10:44 pm

If you had a grasp of the English language it might help !

Pedro Dias

25th September 2019 at 10:50 pm

Do you want me to draw you a diagram? Can also put some legends in different languages, some of them you probably never heard of…

Hana Jinks

26th September 2019 at 6:58 am

Jerry Oven-Kraut.

How can you still be driving around in your nazi car, Oven-Bitch? And now you’re even annoying people about ala Queefer Moreswill about their usage of language? If you’re that desperate for a fight then how about refuting any of the rubbishing that I’ve been giving you on here for months.
You are that thick it’s not funny. I’m not joking. Every week you erroneously rubbish someone for something that you’ve misunderstood.

https://youtu.be/7yUZmE8RSB8

Hana Jinks

26th September 2019 at 7:31 am

*people ala

Michael Lynch

26th September 2019 at 12:22 am

Well that entirely depends on whose lies you’re referring to.

A Game

26th September 2019 at 3:56 am

Which is why its foundering. Remainer collusion and lies have kept a democratic mandate sitting in the fridge, raw, unused and as they hope, left to go off until you just have to bin it.

Michael Lynch

25th September 2019 at 9:49 pm

Been watching Boris tonight. What a sterling performance. I haven’t seen anything like this from a leader since Thatcher. The Remainers actually thought he was going to turn up, tail between legs, like a contrite schoolboy. Instead, he has been totally blunt and has given the opposition benches a dose of the truth. At one point a female Labour MP had a total meltdown. I thought she was going to burst into tears at one point. Of course the opposition benches burst into applause and the Bercow had to spend 3 minutes trying to call for order. Boris got up when quite fell and simply said that he’d never heard such a load of humbug. Quietly and politely delivered, as he has been during the session. The look on the faces of the opposition was priceless. The opposition has done nothing but crow about their piety all day and he has repetitively exposed their fake outrage for what it is in reply after reply. Great stuff.

Pedro Dias

25th September 2019 at 10:27 pm

If you think Boris performance was astonishing, please save us all from the shows you are used to watch. Boring Johnson…

Michael Lynch

26th September 2019 at 12:21 am

Whatever, Pedro.

John Gaunt

26th September 2019 at 8:10 am

Quite right, Johnson was superb, and politely pointed out the blindingly obvious truth that the Remain caucus in Parliament are acting contrary to the national interest, desperate to abort Brexit by any means necessary and increasingly hysterical. He looked like the grown up in a roomful of children.

Bear Mac Mathun

25th September 2019 at 9:25 pm

This is just the start. The success of this action will encourage others to use the courts to overturn legislation they don’t like. Thus, we have a third chamber of Parliament – two of which are unelected and will be used to frustrate democracy.

This ruling is simply the courts asserting that they are superior to Parliament.

Ravi Low-Beer

25th September 2019 at 10:18 pm

That is incorrect. The ruling, to the contrary, defends the business of parliament against abuse of power by the Executive (the government). It is based on precedent, and while it is politically sensitive and based on unusual facts, it is not legally radical.

Michael Lynch

25th September 2019 at 10:48 pm

What?!! Not legally radical? This is the first time that a court has stepped in to make a major political decision. This, in fact, is a brand new law regarding prorogation.

Ravi Low-Beer

25th September 2019 at 9:14 pm

This is an irresponsible and misconceived article insofar as it attacks Lady Hale. If you read the judgment, you will see that the court’s intervention is far from unprecedented. It is, to the contrary, entirely founded on precedent. You will also see that it only indirectly concerns Brexit, but very much concerns the legal limits on the power of the Executive branch of government.

I understand that many believe that the result of the case has been to impede the progress towards a 31.10.19 Brexit. But that was just the context, not the court’s motivation, as would be clear to anyone who understands the law and reads the judgment. The government argument that the decision to prorogue parliament was not a matter that can be challenged in the courts was always a difficult one. True, it succeeded before a strong divisional court in England and Wales, and before the court of first instance in Northern Ireland. But the political pressure on the judges was intense, so it was safer for them to decide as they did in the knowledge that the matter would proceed to the Supreme Court. It was predictable that these first instance decisions would be overturned in the Supreme Court. That often happens in politically sensitive cases (as I accept these cases were).

It is galling to read people like the Prime Minister, and the author of this piece criticising the judiciary when they don’t seem to have taken the trouble to understand the legal basis on which the court reached its decision. It is better to actually read the judgment (although I appreciate it can be heavy going) than rely on government spin following its defeat.

It is really irresponsible to portray the Supreme Court’s decision as being somehow partisan against Brexit. Readers should be aware that the decision will prevent future governments, including left wing ones, from proroguing parliament for reasons of political convenience, to prevent parliament from holding the government to account. It is a decision that means governments are not above the law, and its restatement of principles of parliamentary supremacy (over government and the judiciary) is orthodox constitutional law.

I understand that the political atmosphere in which the court’s decision was made is febrile, but all of us – including those whose political ambitions have been set back by the judgment – should be proud that we have judges who are prepared to stand up for the rule of law, and to hold the powerful to account.

Bear Mac Mathun

25th September 2019 at 9:29 pm

No, it is irresponsible for the courts to insert themselves into the business of Parliament. They are unelected and unaccountable to anyone, and they will gradually insert themselves into more and more Parliamentary business until they have become a third chamber.

Michael Lynch

25th September 2019 at 10:49 pm

Spot on.

Thomas Swift

25th September 2019 at 8:26 pm

Really though, it is disgraceful that 17.4m unelected voters, some of whom are Northern or working class or (shudder) both, can actually decide political policy in this country. We are so backward!

Neil McCaughan

25th September 2019 at 7:28 pm

Like Alison Saunders, the most corrupt and incompetent DPP on record, like the dismal bungling Cressida Dick, this ignorant and dishonest old woman owes her eminence only to her sex.

A shocking example of a token woman. She should be sacked, immediately, along with her fellow lice. The term is exact. A louse is an annoying and lowly form of life commonly found in smelly old wigs.

steve moxon

25th September 2019 at 7:40 pm

And just look at her previous stupid judgments. She was famous for a string of ’em. Not to mention her biased previous comments re Brexit. Just another ‘PC’-fascist like the rest of the elite. And like the rest of ’em, she shouldn’t be holding any sort of office until the learn how not to hate the populace.

Christopher Tyson

25th September 2019 at 6:43 pm

So the victim culture and the therapeutic culture come in to their own. The grinding down of masculinity, yes violence is a bad thing but it is also your last resort. We have endlessly been fed the link between men and violence, but in certain circles respect still counts for something. Well where does this institutionalised emasculation leave us? What is left for us when people (literally) take liberties with us. And those who are taking our liberties portray themselves as the victims, they claim that they have been harassed and bullied and silenced, in double page spreads in the London Evening Standard and elsewhere. The therapeutic and victim ideologies have diminished us and they know it. Mandela and Gandhi now have statues in parliament square, one reduced to an inane avuncular figure the other a harmless eccentric, easy to forget that they were once radical anti-establishment politicians. The liberal establishment draws the teeth from it’s critics and enemies and transforms them in to icons of its own. That Gina Miller should be lauded as a hero of the black community is no surprise, Miller’s cheerleaders are people who have been seduced and flattered by the establishment, OBEs and knighthoods (‘I felt so conflicted about taking this honour’), invited to meetings at Number 10, seats on committees and quangos, so sing for your supper boys and girls, ‘We love Gina the queen Gee’, ‘crush the racist Brexit morons’. They’ve twisted everything beyond recognition, the liberation struggles of yesteryear have become the playthings of technocrats and careerists. It may drive you mad trying to get your head around these things, and you may end up at the door of a psychiatrist who will be very sympathetic as he (or one of his minions) sticks a syringe of chlorpromazine up your arse as you are dragged shouting to the floor of the locked ward. Me? Who are you calling mad? To paraphrase our little green friend ‘how dare you?’ no, let’s play that again, I dare you to call be mad, go on I dare you!

A Game

26th September 2019 at 3:36 am

C Tyson:
Nice observations. The efforts in parliament by the women opposition MPs was disgraceful.

Steve Gray

25th September 2019 at 6:22 pm

These Anna Soubrys and their ilk are taking the fkucing piss – and impressing nobody but themselves.

Meanwhile, if you’re liking their style, who said they’ll have any loyalty at all, to you ? They’ll just buy and sell you – you’ll just end up the cell next door to the Leavers.

Michael Lynch

25th September 2019 at 9:39 pm

Gosh, I wish there was a double tick box. Great comment because it’s so true. The only reason that the toxic Soubry was punching the air was because she’s dodged her electorate yet again. Her time is coming though.

James Knight

25th September 2019 at 5:32 pm

The biggest joke is the claim the verdict upheld parliamentary sovereignty. These people want to undermine parliamentary sovereignty on a permanent basis by keeping the UK locked in the EU federalist project. That is all they care about.

Brian Burnell

25th September 2019 at 4:11 pm

A hangman’s noose would be a more suitable adornment than the spider. Preferable in conjunction with a lampost. The old ways of settling old scores were often the best ways.

Eric Blair

25th September 2019 at 4:48 pm

Nice!

Jerry Owen

25th September 2019 at 4:00 pm

Just what else has Blair done decades ago that will come back to haunt us in the future that we never expected ?

Jim Lawrie

25th September 2019 at 11:30 pm

How Tony and Cherie must have beamed to see their friend Aidn O’Neill Qc carry the baton over the winning line.

James Chilton

25th September 2019 at 3:48 pm

Whatever the Twittermob is demanding on behalf of the three heroines of the hour, should be ignored or denied on principle.

Hugh Bryant

25th September 2019 at 3:44 pm

But isn’t divide and rule the entire point of identity politics?

Thomas Swift

25th September 2019 at 3:12 pm

I believe that a future independent British government can abolish the Supreme Court. Should be second order of business.

steve moxon

25th September 2019 at 7:41 pm

Absolutely.

Michael Lynch

26th September 2019 at 12:04 am

Second that.

John Millson

25th September 2019 at 3:09 pm

‘Boris Johnson’s undemocratic prorogation of parliament was wrong.’
‘However Remainers want to dress it up, the judgement yesterday was a blow to democracy.’ Is this wholly consistent?
So, no one appealed against the English High Court decision to allow that prorogation. In future dubious, ‘political’ prorogations become bit more frequent; then they become the norm…

Representative democracy is not always ‘cleaner’ than direct democracy, but unless we are content to slip into StrongMan/StrongWoman cult-politics, with ‘delegates’ merely rubber- stamping legislation, our independent legislature needs defending.
Had the opposing political party done this, those same people now accepting but questioning the current judgement would be relieved that our system had been restored and protected.
Double-standards…such a common human failing…

Michael Lynch

25th September 2019 at 10:52 pm

Such as the double standard of standing on mandates to respect the referendum result?

Ven Oods

25th September 2019 at 3:04 pm

Lady Hale looks hearty in that top pic (unlike how she looked in court). If she were holding a glass of gin and a ciggie, she could almost pass for the Queen Mum (RIP).

Eric Blair

25th September 2019 at 2:48 pm

This website’s hysteria over the Supreme Court judgement reaches new heights of illogicality. Apparently the prorogation was wrong, was challenged and found to be illegal by 11 independent, and senior judges. That sounds perfectly sensible and has not advanced or impededed the process of Brexit one jot. But Spiked have long ago lost all purchase on reason on this matter and the above article is another example.

Melissa Jackson

25th September 2019 at 2:29 pm

Well said Ella.

I absolutely loathe the way that the case has unfolded, and the way that Hale has exploded into the public consciousness is nauseating.

The idea that there is something feminist about this, simply because women were involved, is beyond facile. It’s school common room feminism; I don’t care what decisions are made as long as women make them.

That’s simply repellent to me. The decisions do matter! They matter so much more than who renders them. Most of the truly “feminist” legal decisions have been made by men. But these decisions were largely not “feminist” they were correct decisions based on principles of legal equality and written statute.

To my mind, disenfranchising millions of voters is the most anti-feminist thing one can to. To patronisingly make decisions on behalf of million, because you “know better” is repugnant to any feminist sentiment.

Women have rightly long campaigned for the right to make their own choices, including who they vote for. Women also should recognise this particular form of attack; don’t worry your pretty little head about Brexit, just let us who understand all that handle it for you.

I want my vote to be counted. I do not want these new aristocrats telling me I don’t know my own mind, or don’t know what I voted for.

Let’s be feminists about this, and respect women’s votes and women’s voices. Ask Anne Widdecombe and Annunciata Rees-Mogg, and of course our own Ella Whelan about Brexit before you tell us Remain is the feminist position.

Eric Blair

25th September 2019 at 2:49 pm

The decision was made unanimously by 11 senior judges, only one of whom was Lady Hale. Rubbish argument.

Jerry Owen

25th September 2019 at 3:57 pm

Eric Blair
Only Lady Hale has been put on a pedestal, hence the article. Hope that helps !

Melissa Jackson

26th September 2019 at 10:14 am

I didn’t actually discuss my feelings on the ruling itself – I merely said that to dress it up as a feminist achievement is laughable.

Since you mention it; the fact that the Supreme Court decided unanimously that the English High Court is totally incorrect in their reading of the condition, especially on such a contentious topic, is seriously dodgy. Doesn’t it worry you at all that there was no dissent?

Think about it for a minute. The High Court said it was a political decision, so the court does not have jurisdiction. Well regarded judges who have worked on constitutional matters many times in their careers made that decision. But not one single judge at the highest level agrees with that? Isn’t that a bit suspicious to you?

Either the High Court are dead wrong, or the Supreme Court is, but one of them must be. If that decision is so clear cut as to be unanimous in the Supreme Court, surely the High Court would have agreed? And if the decision is not so clear cut and there are competing precedents and schools of thought, how come the Supreme Court managed to be so unanimous?

What exactly is going on at the Supreme Court? Why exactly is David Starkey so angry?

Ven Oods

26th September 2019 at 10:46 am

You’re right that all the judges made the ruling. So why big-up only one of them (as the Press seem to do)?

Jane 70

25th September 2019 at 3:42 pm

Quite agree and I’d add Kate Hoey, Priti Patel, Andrea Leadsom and Esther Mcvey to your list, along with Julia Hartley-Brewer and Lionel Shriver; not all politicians, but each one a committed Leave supporter.

Strange isn’t it, how these particular women are never subjects for secular canonisation?

No doubt the infamous spider brooch will now become a Remain must have fashion statement and an indicator of innate superiority and belonging.

Noggin The nog

25th September 2019 at 3:52 pm

To true….

Michael Lynch

26th September 2019 at 12:18 am

Well said, Melissa. Ella is on the money here. Hale is the epitome of the loathsome upper, middle class that Orwell identified in the 30’s. High minded, patronizing, arrogant fools who revel in their self appointed elitism. She’ll love all the twitter attention and therein lies the problem; it’s an artificial world populated by people only of her kind. It’s nothing like the real world where real people live and interact. She’d probably die of grief if she ever had to step down from her pedestal and interact with a real working class person. She’s a snob and has nothing but contempt for the democratic rights of ordinary people. It doesn’t really matter about her gender either because the men on that panel are just like her too.

Melissa Jackson

26th September 2019 at 10:03 am

It’s worth noting that the Guardian wrote a primer on Lady Hale, calling her a champion of diversity and an ardent feminist. It was so gushing in it’s tone that the mask slipped a little.

They reported that Lady Hale opposes the present mechanism for appointing judges – asking judges and senior legal figures who is well regarded in the profession – as she considers this to be sexist, because white men appoint white men. Of course the fact that they also appointed her was not touched on.

Instead Lady Hale seems to want a more political system, with diversity quotas. So she wants to move from a system where highly regarded judges, lawyers and academics support the appointment of their most highly regarded members, and instead move towards appointing on the basis of race and gender.

How would you feel as a defendant (or plaintiff come to that) if the judge is there not for their knowledge or impartiality or reputation for pursuing the truth, but because it was decided we needed more women?

Michael Lynch

26th September 2019 at 11:25 am

Well observed. They say that the judiciary are independent, huh? Anything but it seems.

A Game

26th September 2019 at 3:43 am

Spot on. You felt the cringe coming on as you continued reading. Its insulting to women, so, so insulting. And do they really want to hang Hale out as the true face this decision? By claiming at as a feminist victory, that is exactly what they are doing.
That they have touched on a truth. The bar maid’s choices in life finally came good: she was in a position to outgun a prime minister, a government and the Queen. And that’s the whole problem with that court case and most particularly, its ruling. We can all see it for the wank that it is.

Dominic Straiton

25th September 2019 at 2:26 pm

Blairs kangaroo court is subservient to the eu while the high court isnt. 40 years of eu law has devastated the British constitution (Lord Denning was right). We are seeing in real time all the lies and deceit that we live in a functioning democracy rather than an eu province over 40 years ,condensed into a few days.Its actually refreshing.

Jim Lawrie

25th September 2019 at 3:29 pm

It has certainly been 40yrs in the making, but EC law 40 years ago was very different from EU law now. The Treaty of Rome and its preambles are no longer part of the teaching of EU law. If they were it might raise questions in the minds of students.

The next stage is for The EU to complete the subsumption of The ECHR.

eli Bastenbury

25th September 2019 at 2:17 pm

I want an election pronto.

Jim Lawrie

25th September 2019 at 3:02 pm

Here’s what Jon Lansman has to offer ‘a “special conference” to decide whether Labour will back Leave or Remain at a second referendum only after an election.’

Hope that cleared things up for you.

Thomas Swift

25th September 2019 at 3:11 pm

Me too, kemosabe.

Jane 70

25th September 2019 at 3:43 pm

So do I

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.