Talk:Enemies of the People (headline)

Aftermath

I have removed and replaced three strange assertions that are not in the citation given (indeed I doubt that the are cited anywhere - I would be astonished if they were): "the High Court ruling stated that the judiciary was independent from government"; "could not offer any personal opinion", "was merely advising". I will be happy to be proved wrong.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The best explanation I have read is this blog, but that's a blog so it can't be used here. But are you telling us that you don't believe the British judiciary is independent from government and did not personally comment on Brexit? Only the Daily Mail thinks that! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No, absolutely not! To all except the tabloids (when it suits them), that is a fundamental principle of the UK Constitution and shows the depths being plumbed that it was ever questioned.

So to clarify: [a] the High Court did not say (and never needed to say) that it is independent of HMG; [b] the HC does not have a personality, the decisions of the judges are their learned interpretations of the law and are [well, should be] devoid of any personal position. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Truss

The article currently reads

In response to the criticism of the High Court ruling by newspapers including the Daily Mail, the Secretary of State for Justice, Liz Truss issued a three line statement defending the independence and impartiality of the judiciary more than a day after being asked by the Bar Council to comment.

I suggest that this word order fails to convey properly that Truss had to be prodded to give her [grudging] statement of support. I propose this alternative wording

More than a day after the Bar Council had had to invite her to comment on this criticism of the High Court, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss issued a three line statement on 5 November defending the independence and impartiality of the judiciary but without condemning the comments.

As the author of the original version dislikes this change, may I invite others to comment? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia has npov, avoiding the sort of composition that might appear in private polemical comment in a blog, daily newspaper or a weekly/monthly publication, or a statement by an interested party such as a body representing the legal profession. The current version stems from 26 Feb[1] Qexigator (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I felt that the original text failed NPOV, in that it gave Truss far too much benefit of the doubt. But I won't push it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

References