In a previous post, in a fit of pique, I asked Should Sir David Eady Resign? and reported that my submission to the Uk Government a tentative petition proposal. I am not surprised it has been rejected.
I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected.There are a number of points to make on this.
Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:
* Outside the remit or powers of the Prime Minister and Government
1. It is important the the government is not free to select the judiciary. We need separation of powers. However whilst it might be acceptable to say this was not in the remit or powers of the government, we need an official channel to complain about unelected persons who are part of the instruments of the state. If not the official Government's petition channel, then we need something. I feel a new petition question brewing here.
2. One of the means to affect our society, one that should be open to all equally, is the ability to use praise and condemnation, reward and punishment to encourage and discourage desires, actions and laws. The call for resignation is an act of condemnation, the closest we can get to the punishment of not voting for elected representatives with whom we disagree. The capacity to praise and condemn about our unelected representatives, such as but not only Sir David Eady, is equally required.
3. My selection of Sir David Eady was clearly contingent on recent events in the BCA -Sing hearing. Now this alone was not sufficient for me to single Eady, just because of a single judgement I disagreed with. However there has been a pattern with him, including specifically one of his cases leading another sovereign nation, actually state within that nation, the State of New York, to change its own laws to prevent the effects judgements made by him (can since his judgements are part of the common law, future judgements but others too) in the UK. There are other cases too. In addition the particular ruling over the term "bogus" is deeply problematical as my friend Jack of Kent called it "An astonishing illiberal judgement" - the full ruling can be seen here on Jack's site. It is in reference to that ruling that I titled this post. However I will explore the issue over the term bogus with respect to the full ruling in a future post.
4. In relation to 3 I clearly (does anyone?) do not have a full picture the judges and their judgements to select the worst candidate to call for resignation (if there are any that are justified at all). Nonetheless we can address, as our attention is drawn, to specific judges, as has been the case here. However one must be careful not to be mislead or biased by looking only to those whose judgement's are highlighted.
I will only note the following regarding the use of bogus in the title:
If A genuinely and sincerely claims that P
i) One can say that P is bogus - then one is criticising the belief that P of A
ii) One can say that A's sincerity is bogus - then one is criticising the motives of A
This post was titled a bogus ruling. That is I am doing (i) and not (ii). As to whether my assertion is correct or not, that I will leave this analysis, as already noted, to a future post.
PS. Just to avoid any confusion, the bogus ruling I was referring to in the title was the Eady ruling, not the response of the government to my petition.