Are UK judges mounting a coup d'Etat?

[Chosen Man]

The Lord Chief Justice of England has said that Parliamentarians should only speak about what the Courts allow them to, that Hansard and the newspapers should only report what the judges say that they can on Parliamentary proceedings.

The last person to try this was beheaded on a scaffold in Whitehall.

The UK courts are also censoring the papers via 'anonymity orders', 'injunctions' and 'super injunctions'.

So much for a free press in a democracy.

The UK judges are also trying to control the e-world by issuing an order against twitter, a US company.

If this is successful, then let nobody complain about Communist China, Iran, Myanmar et al doing the same.

If you control Parliament and the Press and communications, you are 3/4 of the way to a dictatorship.

Does anybody think Bercow will stand, like speaker William Lenthall, and defend Parliament? Or will he think of his future seat in the House of Lords, bow before the Judges, and allow this blatant power grab go ahead?

Is it time to clean up the judiciary and let them know Parliament is supreme.

Your thoughts please.
The point is that Members of Parliament speak 'without fear or favour', that when faced with injustice - or any other matter - they speak without fear of penalty or censure.

The point is that Parliament should be reported freely and without censorship lest it become a secret cabal controlled by the dictats of an unelected judiciary.

The point is that a democracy is only as free as its press is to tell the truth, no matter how unpalatable or uncomfortable it makes people, no matter how rich, high or mighty.

That's 3 points, I know, will anybody take them from me?

[NeoNerd]

It's worrying, but you're massively over exaggerating the problem. Parliament has not been and is not gagged by courts. The courts have to obey Parliament, which is the problem. The Human Rights Act says they have to have a privacy law, but doesn't explain how it should go.

So judges have overinterpreted and overexpanded.

[xpatinasia]

No.

[Chaf]

The judiciary enforces the law passed by Parliament. The 'rule of law' provides that all people in the UK are subject to the law, including those in Parliament and the press.Your confusion suggests that the UK would do well to have an entirely written Constitution so that all citizens know what the law is. Are UK judges mounting a coup d'Etat? No.

[Rob Roy]

No, that's a bit too strong a thing to say but the judges have got above themselves thanks to Lawyer Blair and his gang.Cameron should have got rid of the Human Rights Act which was basically brought in to enrich the legal profession but apparently it is sacred to the Libs basically because it's European legislation, The EU is of course God come to earth to the likes of Clegg and Cable.
To expect Bercow a man of no principles to stand up for Parliament is stretching the imagination too far.

[eagerroute609]

When a judge is freely elected like our politicians are by the people then he may have some grounds for his comments, but until that times comes,,, he should mind his Ps an Qs for he has not won that right.
In a court of law the judge is the boss, in Parliament though it is politicians who rule the roost, not judges.

What I and others think of our politicians is irrelevant, what does mater is that they have stood before the people and argued their case and won, something present day judges in this country have never done to be a judge.

[do I care though]

Britain has the ignoble distinction of being the no. 1 libel tourist destination of the world. The Human Rights Act is part of the problem, but the bottom line is judges are responsible for the state of English common law, which, in defamation cases, places the burden of proof on the defendent (defendent's statements about the plaintiff are false until proven true), rather than on the prosecution as it should be (defendent is innocent until proven guilty). We desperately need legislation to make it clear that people cannot take out libel suits whenever they feel like it. Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke was promising to do this, so the future of these reforms depends on whoever will replace him following the scandal over his Radio 5 comments. Traditionally, the Conservative Party are less eager to reform libel laws than the other parts. Attorney general Dominic Grieve used to be a notorious defender of our draconian libel laws, but more recently did a u-turn on his position.