Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Just in from Sky News:
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has moved to reverse a High Court ruling stopping prayers at the start of council meetings in England.
He said:
"Last week's case should be seen as a wake-up call. For too long, the public sector has been used to marginalise and attack faith in public life, undermining the very foundations of the British nation. But this week, the tables have been turned."
This is great news! How can one not support the Government now?
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
Totally ludicrous
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Prayers where always legal they just couldnt be part of the Agenda of the meeting , a total waste of time and money on both sides
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i would be very surprised if a politician could overrule a high court judge, looks lik a bit of posturing from mr pickles.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
I read that was his complaint, his council had them as the first item on the agenda. A bit of compromise would have saved a lot of bother and expense.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
Howard, the judge was applying the law at the time, the Localism Bill changes the law. I predict lots of tears before bedtime 'til folks get used to it!
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1923416.pdfGuest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
That's right, the Localism Bill was mentioned by Eric Pickles, as it gives communities a right to be that what they are, namely communities, where one person can't go and tell everyone else what they must do and cannot do.
Howard, Eric Pickles has overruled the court ruling, proving it to be wrong as it was against the Law. This is a landmark victory against all tyrants and it came about in the name of the Christian Faith of our British Nation and in the name of our British Law.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
may be i dont want to pray,might want a pint instead.
The court ruling wasnt wrong under the law in force at the time the ruling was made, a different law will now be in force so the ruling is now not relevant . It wont come into effect for some councils until March though
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
ray and alex are saying that a high court ruling can be overruled by the local community when this law change comes in.
seems like a recipe for disaster, who decides what each local community wants?
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
Shouldn't we be concerned that partisan government has started passing laws to overturn rulings from the independent judiciary?
Where does it stop?
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Its because the High Court ruling was made under a law that has been superceded by a new one , Laws evolve and always have done . I just wish both sides and ministers where as quick to act about other issues as they seem to have been over this
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I think the court ruling was wrong, as the Localism Bill was in force at the time of the ruling.
Pickles also stated: " the public sector has been used to marginalise and attack faith in public life..." meaning that the public sector has been abused to attack faith, which even before the Localism Bill was an illegal thing to do.
Have you ever read the oath of coronation, Sarah? The British Law is designed to uphold the Christian Faith and protect it.
The localism bill had been passed but its effect has been brought forward hence the ability to nulify the High Court ruling when it comes into force.
Ive read lots of stuff Alexander, thanks for asking
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
Howard,
As I understand it, Pickles is activating a power under the Localism Bill that allows individual councils to decide whether or not to hold prayers, it is probably then down to each council to adopt that power if they wish. Still a lot to be sorted out on this in a very short time.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
Alex, the court ruling wasn't wrong, the Localism Bill had been passed by parliament but wasn't due to come into effect until April, Pickles has brought it forward and activated an order under it. Other parts will be activated at different times.
The coronation oath has got nothing to do with it, try reading the Human Rights Act, that is more relevant these days.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The L. Bill could be based on a democratic vote: if, for example, 44 councillors vote to say prayers prior to a meeting, and 1 votes against it, the majority decision prevails, rather than the one atheist prevailing over the vast majority.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
That's right, and in multi-ethnic communities they could all quite rightly ask for prayers in their own religion and that could take up more time than the business
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Ray, you are supposing that the coronation oath has nothing to do with it, however, this is something that can be disputed. When have the laws that are expressed in the coronation oath been abolished?
As for the Human Rights Act, the court ruling regarding prayers before council meetings did not take that into consideration, but had rejected it as not being relevant to the case.
So plenty to discuss here from a constitutional point of view.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
If people of different religion want to say their own prayer before a council meeting, the prayers could take place simultaneously in different rooms.
That would be a reasonable solution and one that is practical, as usually there are various rooms in a council office.
It would not take up more time nor cost any money.