Originally Posted by
Baa_Baa
Yes Daytr, that's all true, but it doesn't ameliorate or excuse the implied, even suggested, political party influence on the Judiciary, by BS.
It is so wrong to suggest that which amounts to corruption, it would be a travesty of justice and an enormous contravention of the separation of the three pillars of governance.
It simply cannot be right, or if it is, there would be an enquiry to uncover the corruption that BS purports to have happened. This is not a trivial matter, whether or not BS brought it up as part of his diatribe of defences for the Labour party, by attacking the other party's is irrelevant, imo.
What is relevant is that BS seems to be willing to convey that the Judiciary has been influenced by some unknown political party, in order to not affect their chances of being elected, AND the Judiciary agreed to do that by not naming a defendant and deferring trial until after the election!
This is an outrageous preposterous claim, it needs to be exposed for whether it has any truth behind it. I have no concern for BS's reputation or credibility as I have no respect for either of them, but to drag this here-say into the public domain, based apparently on social media postings that apparently we should know about even though many of us may not actually engage in any of the de-rigour social media channels, is appalling.
BS needs to front this and explain it, identify and validate the source, and the reason why he puts it out there as the truth. It is so profoundly far from the separation of the three pillars of government, that it suggests corruption, of the Judiciary!! Unbelievable.
He said this
[/I][/COLOR]