|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 12:03:01 GMT
They don't have to be lawyers. Just like under the Health & Safety at Work Act an employee does not have to be a registered H&S Inspector to be able to refuse to undertake any task that they have reasonable grounds to believe poses an immediate and credible threat to their health. However, some Civil Servants ARE Lawyers. They are deciding it MAY BE illegal because the Government IGNORED its own legal advised and unilaterally declared something as "legal" when previously it had been illegal; hence they are asking for it to be tested in a court of law. The issue here is, if they carry out these duties and those duties are subsequently found to be illegal they will be liable for prosecution because they did not challenge those instructions. The alternative would be for the Government to accept full legal liability and financial responsibility for any legal proceeding arising from those instructions. The Government won't do that however because they have already been given legal advice that those instruction may be illegal. It is a bit unfair to blame the Civil Service because the Government is intent on undertaking potentially illegal practices. The employees should be protected from legal incompetence of the employer. All The Best I'm responding to the most important and pivotal part of your post 'Maybe', the law doesn't deal with maybes it deals with fact, and the fact is Civil Servants are playing at being unofficial judge and jury, they all need firing. Exactly, now you are getting it. But because those actions MAY BE illegal it is perfectly right, and justifiable, for the Civil Service to refuse to undertake those actions until their legality, or lack thereof, is tested in a court of law. The Civil Service are quite obviously NOT playing Judge and Jury - they are asking for a properly appointed court (Judge and potentially a Jury) to decide on the legality of the duties they have been given. Like I said, there is an alternative that lets the Civil Service carry out their duties safe from the risk of subsequent prosecution: The alternative would be for the Government to accept full legal liability and financial responsibility for any legal proceeding arising from those instructions. The Government won't do that however because they have already been given legal advice that those instruction may be illegal. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 12:11:47 GMT
The Civil Service, like all employees for that matter, has the right to challenge, refuse, or seek review of any duties they are asked to undertake for their employer which they have reasonable grounds to believe my put them at risk of doing something illegal. The problematic element here is the Government unilaterally declaring something legal that they have been advised may be illegal, and then asking their employees to carry out these potentially illegal tasks. All The Best My problem with the civil service isn't that they have enacted their rights but that they have known for some months even years what the government was planning . It becomes quite obvious that they have an agenda of disruption that they wait until the planes are on the runway before voicing their concerns . But they can not logically or legally ask for a review of a change that has not happened yet. They HAD to wait for the Government to unilaterally, and potentially in opposition to legal advice, change things before they could ask for a legal review of that change. Until the Government forced the change through the Civil Service were not being asked to carry out potentially illegal duties. Now they are. So now, and only now, can they bring forth that request for a legal review. This is a mess of the Government's own making. They could have avoided it in two ways: 1) Publishing the full legal advise they were given; they chose not to because that legal advice very likely suggests the change is contrary to laws and agreements we have signed up to. 2) Accepting full legal and financial responsibility for any legal proceedings brought against the Civil Service (as an organisation or individuals within that organisation) for carrying out these duties; they didn't do that because of 1). Instead they effectively said to the Civil Service: "this is what we want you do to, if it turns out to be illegal that is on you." This left the Civil Service with no option but to ask for a legal review. All The Bets |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 2, 2024 12:19:00 GMT
I'm responding to the most important and pivotal part of your post 'Maybe', the law doesn't deal with maybes it deals with fact, and the fact is Civil Servants are playing at being unofficial judge and jury, they all need firing. Exactly, now you are getting it. But because those actions MAY BE illegal it is perfectly right, and justifiable, for the Civil Service to refuse to undertake those actions until their legality, or lack thereof, is tested in a court of law. The Civil Service are quite obviously NOT playing Judge and Jury - they are asking for a properly appointed court (Judge and potentially a Jury) to decide on the legality of the duties they have been given. Like I said, there is an alternative that lets the Civil Service carry out their duties safe from the risk of subsequent prosecution: The alternative would be for the Government to accept full legal liability and financial responsibility for any legal proceeding arising from those instructions. The Government won't do that however because they have already been given legal advice that those instruction may be illegal. All The Best The only time Civil Servants disobey orders is when the COURT tells them to do so, they don't take it on their own bat to decide what laws are been broken if any, we have high flying, highly paid, highly qualified government lawyers who do that for them.
I think you are not entering the realms of fantasy if you think for one moment Civil Servants with no training or knowledge of the law can just make it up as they go along, thinking 'maybe' that's wrong, they wait for the Law to instruct them on that ........ nothing worse than armchair lawyers ...... LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 12:34:54 GMT
Exactly, now you are getting it. But because those actions MAY BE illegal it is perfectly right, and justifiable, for the Civil Service to refuse to undertake those actions until their legality, or lack thereof, is tested in a court of law. The Civil Service are quite obviously NOT playing Judge and Jury - they are asking for a properly appointed court (Judge and potentially a Jury) to decide on the legality of the duties they have been given. Like I said, there is an alternative that lets the Civil Service carry out their duties safe from the risk of subsequent prosecution: The alternative would be for the Government to accept full legal liability and financial responsibility for any legal proceeding arising from those instructions. The Government won't do that however because they have already been given legal advice that those instruction may be illegal. All The Best The only time Civil Servants disobey orders is when the COURT tells them to do so, they don't take it on their own bat to decide what laws are been broken if any, we have high flying, highly paid, highly qualified government lawyers who do that for them.
I think you are not entering the realms of fantasy if you think for one moment Civil Servants with no training or knowledge of the law can just make it up as they go along, thinking 'maybe' that's wrong, they wait for the Law to instruct them on that ........ nothing worse than armchair lawyers ...... LOL
You can't really be this thick, you have to be pretending. If they choose to undertake these duties before they have been told the duties are legal they become legally liable for their action in carrying out those duties. And you are right. I am "NOT entering the realms of fantasy". It is a fact that an employee must weigh the requests of the employer against any risks, physical or legal, that request may entail. Because "ignorance of the law" can NOT be used as a defence in British Law. So the employee has no choice but to weigh the risks. And given that Government has refused to release the legal advice it was given on this issue it is wholly reasonable for the employee to believe there are significant legal risks involved with carrying out these duties. If the Government were genuinely interested in expediting the Rwanda flights AND saving taxpayer money they would release the full legal advice they were given. That they refuse to do so should be ringing alarms bells for anyone with a higher IQ than their shoe size. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 2, 2024 13:21:23 GMT
The only time Civil Servants disobey orders is when the COURT tells them to do so, they don't take it on their own bat to decide what laws are been broken if any, we have high flying, highly paid, highly qualified government lawyers who do that for them.
I think you are not entering the realms of fantasy if you think for one moment Civil Servants with no training or knowledge of the law can just make it up as they go along, thinking 'maybe' that's wrong, they wait for the Law to instruct them on that ........ nothing worse than armchair lawyers ...... LOL
You can't really be this thick, you have to be pretending. If they choose to undertake these duties before they have been told the duties are legal they become legally liable for their action in carrying out those duties. And you are right. I am "NOT entering the realms of fantasy". It is a fact that an employee must weigh the requests of the employer against any risks, physical or legal, that request may entail. Because "ignorance of the law" can NOT be used as a defence in British Law. So the employee has no choice but to weigh the risks. And given that Government has refused to release the legal advice it was given on this issue it is wholly reasonable for the employee to believe there are significant legal risks involved with carrying out these duties. If the Government were genuinely interested in expediting the Rwanda flights AND saving taxpayer money they would release the full legal advice they were given. That they refuse to do so should be ringing alarms bells for anyone with a higher IQ than their shoe size. All The Best As I said we'll leave the legal thinking to the law, while Civil Servants carry on shuffle their papers around. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2024 14:12:23 GMT
The Civil Service, like all employees for that matter, has the right to challenge, refuse, or seek review of any duties they are asked to undertake for their employer which they have reasonable grounds to believe my put them at risk of doing something illegal. The problematic element here is the Government unilaterally declaring something legal that they have been advised may be illegal, and then asking their employees to carry out these potentially illegal tasks. All The Best My problem with the civil service isn't that they have enacted their rights but that they have known for some months even years what the government was planning . It becomes quite obvious that they have an agenda of disruption that they wait until the planes are on the runway before voicing their concerns . They should all be sent their P45. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on May 2, 2024 18:01:49 GMT
My problem with the civil service isn't that they have enacted their rights but that they have known for some months even years what the government was planning . It becomes quite obvious that they have an agenda of disruption that they wait until the planes are on the runway before voicing their concerns . But they can not logically or legally ask for a review of a change that has not happened yet. They HAD to wait for the Government to unilaterally, and potentially in opposition to legal advice, change things before they could ask for a legal review of that change. Until the Government forced the change through the Civil Service were not being asked to carry out potentially illegal duties. Now they are. So now, and only now, can they bring forth that request for a legal review. This is a mess of the Government's own making. They could have avoided it in two ways: 1) Publishing the full legal advise they were given; they chose not to because that legal advice very likely suggests the change is contrary to laws and agreements we have signed up to. 2) Accepting full legal and financial responsibility for any legal proceedings brought against the Civil Service (as an organisation or individuals within that organisation) for carrying out these duties; they didn't do that because of 1). Instead they effectively said to the Civil Service: "this is what we want you do to, if it turns out to be illegal that is on you." This left the Civil Service with no option but to ask for a legal review. All The Bets I think my point stands even if they could only act when the potential of doing illegal stuff was presented . The potential always existed so should clarification should have been sought earlier . The Civil service is supposed to work with and on behalf of the government not against it . |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on May 2, 2024 18:45:42 GMT
So the Irish border that couldn't be a border during Brexit talks is now a border . Garda spokesman today "A task force has been set up to monitor and detect illegal immigration into Ireland " In reply to the question about immigration checks on the border the Garda said "Checks were carried out on a regular basis dependant on circumstances " So now we have clarified its a border can Northern Ireland return to being part of the United Kingdom ? According to the News here in Eire 18 hours ago The Irish premier has said “of course” police will not be sent to the Northern Irish border amidst diplomatic tensions between Dublin and London this week. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 19:26:59 GMT
But they can not logically or legally ask for a review of a change that has not happened yet. They HAD to wait for the Government to unilaterally, and potentially in opposition to legal advice, change things before they could ask for a legal review of that change. Until the Government forced the change through the Civil Service were not being asked to carry out potentially illegal duties. Now they are. So now, and only now, can they bring forth that request for a legal review. This is a mess of the Government's own making. They could have avoided it in two ways: 1) Publishing the full legal advise they were given; they chose not to because that legal advice very likely suggests the change is contrary to laws and agreements we have signed up to. 2) Accepting full legal and financial responsibility for any legal proceedings brought against the Civil Service (as an organisation or individuals within that organisation) for carrying out these duties; they didn't do that because of 1). Instead they effectively said to the Civil Service: "this is what we want you do to, if it turns out to be illegal that is on you." This left the Civil Service with no option but to ask for a legal review. All The Bets I think my point stands even if they could only act when the potential of doing illegal stuff was presented . The potential always existed so should clarification should have been sought earlier . The Civil service is supposed to work with and on behalf of the government not against it .Wrong. The Civil Service is supposed to work with the UK Government, on behalf of the UK Citizenry, and while acting in accordance with the Law and all Treaties to which the UK is a signatory. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on May 2, 2024 19:40:24 GMT
So the Irish border that couldn't be a border during Brexit talks is now a border . Garda spokesman today "A task force has been set up to monitor and detect illegal immigration into Ireland " In reply to the question about immigration checks on the border the Garda said "Checks were carried out on a regular basis dependant on circumstances " So now we have clarified its a border can Northern Ireland return to being part of the United Kingdom ? According to the News here in Eire 18 hours ago The Irish premier has said “of course” police will not be sent to the Northern Irish border amidst diplomatic tensions between Dublin and London this week. yes it seems the border situation has been reconsidered and Ireland are not sending Garda to 'physically patrol ' the border . The easiest way to resolve this is for France to stop migrants leaving its beaches and to take back those that do get through . It would serve France as well as the UK and Ireland if crossing the Channel became off limits . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 2, 2024 19:41:30 GMT
I think my point stands even if they could only act when the potential of doing illegal stuff was presented . The potential always existed so should clarification should have been sought earlier . The Civil service is supposed to work with and on behalf of the government not against it .Wrong. The Civil Service is supposed to work with the UK Government, on behalf of the UK Citizenry, and while acting in accordance with the Law and all Treaties to which the UK is a signatory. All The Best No the civil service are employees of the Crown and their duties are to implement the policies of the Ministers of the Crown and run the Crown agencies. It is nothing to do with the citizenry. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 19:44:44 GMT
Wrong. The Civil Service is supposed to work with the UK Government, on behalf of the UK Citizenry, and while acting in accordance with the Law and all Treaties to which the UK is a signatory. All The Best No the civil service are employees of the Crown and their duties are to implement the policies of the Ministers of the Crown and run the Crown agencies. It is nothing to do with the citizenry. But they still have to comply with both the law and treaties which all have to ultimately ratified by The Crown. But well done for admitting the UK is not, and never has been, a genuine Democracy. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on May 2, 2024 19:49:39 GMT
I think my point stands even if they could only act when the potential of doing illegal stuff was presented . The potential always existed so should clarification should have been sought earlier . The Civil service is supposed to work with and on behalf of the government not against it .Wrong. The Civil Service is supposed to work with the UK Government, on behalf of the UK Citizenry, and while acting in accordance with the Law and all Treaties to which the UK is a signatory. All The Best The meaning is the same .If they knew there was a potential problem they should have raised it . If its right that they sit on their hands until the instruction lands on the desk then someone in the government has dropped a clanger . Either way the system doesn't work if a marquee policy can fall apart as easy as this one repeatedly seems to . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 2, 2024 20:02:45 GMT
No the civil service are employees of the Crown and their duties are to implement the policies of the Ministers of the Crown and run the Crown agencies. It is nothing to do with the citizenry. But they still have to comply with both the law and treaties which all have to ultimately ratified by The Crown. But well done for admitting the UK is not, and never has been, a genuine Democracy. All The Best I was clarifying the position with the civil service and since they are employees of the Crown it is to the Crown that they look for guidance as to their duties or Ministers of the Crown who are the Crown in Parliament. Do not confuse the Crown with the Monarch who is the embodiment of the Crown and just as much subject of the Crown. The peculiarities of the British Constitution does not mean Britain is not a democracy it is just important to recognise how the democracy functions |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 20:03:18 GMT
Wrong. The Civil Service is supposed to work with the UK Government, on behalf of the UK Citizenry, and while acting in accordance with the Law and all Treaties to which the UK is a signatory. All The Best The meaning is the same .If they knew there was a potential problem they should have raised it . If its right that they sit on their hands until the instruction lands on the desk then someone in the government has dropped a clanger . Either way the system doesn't work if a marquee policy can fall apart as easy as this one repeatedly seems to . Yes, the Government. For not publishing, in full, the legal guidance and advice they obtained on this issue. Make no mistake, if that advice came even close to showing this process was legal it would already be in the public domain, because it would bring a total end to any lingering doubts. The only logical conclusion to come to is that they have not published that advice because it does not show this process to be legal. The alleged marquee policy was only ever lip-service anyway. The Government have always known it will not stand the test of scrutiny in UK Courts. Which is why they have dragged their feet. After the impending Tory Wipe-out they will claim "look we tried, but the courts and Labour stopped it" when in truth the fact it was illegal from the get go is the reason it will fail. It was a very expensive smoke and mirrors con job to fool some of the Tory faithful into thinking they (the Tories) care about reducing immigration - they don't, their real paymasters want more immigration, both illegal and legal. All The Best |
|
