He didn't explain if the Court is a public body or if the civil courts judges decisions can be reviewed.

Many thanks, Prof

Here in 2024 🎉

This is the same Judge who mocked then Prime Minister Johnson and tried to drag us into the EU. She and the rest of the Supreme Court should have recused themselves from the case for having vested interests in the UK remaining part of the EU. For her to comment on our Constitution while allowing Politicians and Judiciary to run roughshod over our Rights is the height of hypocrisy.

Engaging and thought-provoking dialogue with Professor Philip James Allott, offering profound insights.

Nice Video

Can we have slides please with video

Bad sound 😢

I signed a settlement agreement without any legal advice or representation. Under the Employment Rights Act 1996 it is a requirement for the agreement to have legal advice and the person has to be named on the agreement and they have to have the required insurance. So I am at a loss as to why I lost in court when I challenged this in court. My head is spinning. I don't know what to do next. I might appeal. But I'm worried sick to have to pay my former employer's costs at £50000.

I SEE U。 I always see🥰

What is the subject

which college is that indian guy from ? how can other law students also attend the session ?

Cue in to the election the US just had where hate and bullying is the primary force behind the winner.

Very good overview 🎉

I appreciate and thank for this

the teacher just wasted time and didn’t explain anything

Funner than I expected. 🙂

Mr cameraman please do better next time.

White board is on left side far away from microphone and there is a someone who is typing on keyboard which makes it hard to hear the speaker. However, overall nice presentation and explanation by Martin

thanks for this very informative lecture!

How is this for a definition? A #project has a start date and end date and financing it requires a sponsor, investors, lenders and other #stakeholders in order to achieve one or more objectives. Project Finance is the process by which the needs of stakeholders are met and the aims of the project are achieved. It generally involves creating a financial model that aligns with the physical processes of the project, negotiating contracts between parties, transference of funds and interests according to a #projectplan (under control of a single special-purpose business vehicle) with parties, rewarded (and possibly penalised) according to the terms of their contracts which can, of course, have time-variant terms.

ĀMĒŃ . I observe the original law of the land no body mess with it that what ever amending needs. I treated it as Testimony. The constitution.

Jackson Eric Anderson Frank Miller Barbara

Much better to follow with subtitles on, I recommend it (in the settings)

Thank you for the interesting presentation....I am not a student of law...may I ask if it is necessary to state the term "delictual damages " in the process of litigation for a claim of damages arising from negligence .

All she does is read, not teach anything

What was the hullaballoo abt the R Jackson v Attorney General judgement , Baroness Hale ? In a nutshell it was a decision by the England SC on the Qn of , whether the Parliament has unlimited sovereignty , to pass legislations , in this case , the Act challenged was the Hunting Act , 2005 which banned the hunting of Foxes . Hunting of Fox was sought to be banned by the House of Commons & the House of Lords ? House of Lords did not give its assent in time & after a delay of one year ( Act being passed twice by the House of Commons) was sent directly to the Queen for the Royal assent , as per the Parliaments Act ,1948 , which was challenged by R Jackson , as they claimed of the 1948 Act itself was an illegal Act derived from the 1911 Parliament Act , bypassing the House of Lords . Soooh it's a dispute , a litigation , amongst the 2 legislative Houses , the Executive & the England Judiciary , isn't it ? It is about , whether or not the Parliament has unlimited sovereignty , to legislate bills /laws... And what exactly does it mean : Sovereign ? Of Kings and Queens ... Independence , Supreme authority ... Or does it really mean : the elected Govt Council of Ministers in a Communist country ? That sounds absurd , Jacques ....how did u leap to that interpretation ? Simple. That's the dictionary meaning of the word : Soviet ...!!! But aren't we discussing abt Sovereign , Sovereignty of a Constitutional Monarchy .... How on earth can u mix it with a Communist council of ministers , that too an elected one ? Does it not sound preposterously crazy Jacques ? Does it , Baroness Hale ? Since u invoked the Constitutional Monarchy ;Democracy , whether a capital D or a small d , aren't we talking abt , interpretations from the perspective of the peoples ? That's precisely what democracy is all abt , of, by & for the peoples ... Now looking at the brouhaha if the supposed dispute amongst the three supreme branches of the government , what would the pplz think , how would they respond , Baroness Hale ? Before that , how many really would bother to go thru the entire judgment , including the Obiter dicta comments , & the precedents , case laws etc ...? Precisely , for that do they really hv the luxury of time & energy ? What with the top notch Corporate CEOz like E Musk , expecting n /or demanding the workers ie employees serve him for 70 or more hours per week, how would they really hv the luxury of time to devote attn to Judgements , most of which are utmost significant , affecting the hoi polloi directly n /or indirectly .... Alright , granted , they don't hv the luxury of sufficient time n energy , yet what'd they think of the Hunting Act judgement , Jacques ? The first thought would be abt the Aussie -American , Media Baron/Moghul , Rupert Murdoch media Empire &:his Fox news channel ... Is the England &. Wales govt enacting legislations to ban hunting of Fixed -the 4 legged beasts --or protecting Murdoch media Empire in the garb of prohibiting Fox-hunting ? Isn't that a far fetched leap of inference, surmise , ? Is it ...? How did American SC A Justice , A Scalia die ? That was an unfortunate , sad death in circumstances giving rise to speculative conspiracy theories , .... Texas ranch , - owner by one Poindexter whose case was listed in the US SC ... And the hunting expedition was organised by ? International order of St Hubertus , a 17th century secretive hunting society of aristocrats , with robes , titles &:all , like the illuminationnatiz.... Anyways how &why'd the common pplz drag Soviet & confuse it with Sovereign ...? City of London , glitz, glitter & glamour , the world of finance , banks , hedge funds , et al... Is that possible even remotely w/o active , aggressive assistance by the legal fraternity , Baroness Hale ? Yes it is true , British courts hv become a destination of last resort , the go to place for any & every dispute, esp commercial , financial , treatys , offering a stamp of authority , of legitimacy by settling financial disputes of a very high magnitude esp for litigants from the erstwhile Soviet union , Oligarchs , tycoons , football club , media industry owners , from Russia & Kazakhstan .... Isn't that how Gr Britain has acquired an international jurisdiction for any & every commercial , financial , global dispute , litigation ? What happens to the trumpeted , Sovereignty , nationalism , patriotism , drums banged shrill & loud , over past few decades esp by the overseas diaspora , preaching nationalism, patriotism to folks in their erstwhile home country which they've forsaken in search of greener (pun intended ) heavenly -pastures ....? The investigative agents appointed by the British law firms , to dig up evidence , euphemism for dirt , on the rival litigants , deploying any & every means , the British supreme bench choosing to look the other way , at the modus operandi of evidence gathering means ....? Very much unlike Perry Mason , Della Street & Paul Drake -Company hunting for evidence ...!!!!

Roman is a legal system. Legal is the undoing of Gods law, Encyclopedia Brittanica. TOMBSTONE, the report generated for a security at its maturation date, its shows the details of the transaction and the issuer, Blacks Law Dictionary. Ledger, a slab on top of a grave, to lie, bait, Websters Dictionary. This is English. THIS IS ROMAN a graven image Gloss called Debased Latin, the Latin of illiterate persons. Debased =criminal. Gloss=conceal. FIRST NAME LAST NAME is a criminal concealment and issuer of securities. Person=corporation. Cestui que vie.

What or who really is the Supreme Court of England & Wales / UK , Baroness Brenda Hale ? U mean , is it really a separate & distinct 3rd branch of UK -Judiciary , distinct from the Executive , the Legislature , is that so , Jacques ? Until a decade ago did u , the Law lords , not sit in the Parliament chambers ie the House of Lords ? Yes, when we moved out to a new building not far away from the parliament , I understand the confusion , Jacques ... Yes. Are u really the UK -SC or the Jury ie 12 SC Justices acting as Jurists / Jury members , deliberating upon , adjudicating upon disputes between the , Govt, the UK citizens , & the Royal Monarch ? To clear the confusion , Jacques one needs to dig a little deeper into the England &Wales, Scotland, Ireland , history ,atleast 4 centuries ago , if not 10 centuries ago. The recent R Gina Millers case , which ruled the then PM Boris Johnson's act of suspending ie proroguing the British parliament as illegal , as a legal precedent as old as 4 centuries ago , the Kings Proclamation case in 1610 , decided upon by the then Jurist , Sir Edward Coke , in the matter of King James 1 prohibiting the construction of new buildings in London , as a result of his decree to raise customs duties , to finance his war expeditions , was challenged by the then Tudors ... Sir Ed Coke & his colleagues ruled against the King James 1 ie the Monarch's powers to legislate , to make laws bypassing the England parliament. Which is what precisely , the Boris Johnson led govt was attempting to do , by suspending the parliament , totally bypassing the House of Commons members , in a frenetic hurry to meet the deadline of October 31 of leaving the EU... But , was it not already voted upon , decided by a majority of the Britons to **Leave the EU , in a referendum vote ? And what is the House of commons , anything but , parliamentarians , (ostensibly ) representing , elected by the pplz ? The referendum was reduced merely to a Qn of whether to , stay in or leave the EU ie "In or Out" ? The complex nitty gritties , the legal ,administrative , after effects rigmaroles of a soft border / hard borders could only be decided upon the domain expert parliamentarians ie the law makers , &:hence bypassing them , by BoJo was an illegal act. Wasn't this complex exercise, plan , contrived into a deceptive simple referendum , Qn, -"In or Out" itself a great mockery , by the Govt of UK , led by then PM David Cameron ? True. It was indeed reduced to a farce , by asking common pplz to vote upon something , a matter grave & utmost consequential the implications of which they'd barely be able to figure out , if at all for anything but for the lack of adequate & appropriate necessary information being denied /deprived. As for your lecture /speech to the Malaysian law students , was it a mere random coincidence ? of u being invited to Malaysia to deliver a lecture , in which u expound at length the pros &:cons of the proroguing case which would come up before ur Court in the immediate future? Why Malaysia / Kuala Lumpur ,vBariness B Hale ? What exactly are u hunting at Jacques ? The financial scandal described by the AG -US, Loretta Lynch , as a "kleptocracy case of the century" the 1 MDB case involving the then Malaysian PM ,vNajib Rajak , the investment pension fund , ostensibly set up to alleviate the common Malaysian pplz misery , was being usurped by the then PM Najib Rajak & his cronies , as a personal pvt Bank account to buy swish luxury properties in Manhattan , luxury jets, yachts , funding a Hollywood film , -Wilves of the Wall Street , --showcasing the decadent degenerative Wall St capital markets , a gargantuan scandal , which in fact was one of the key reasons , among a number of other key matters , which triggered a slew of the proverbial Judiciary activism , in the UK, the US, besides few other countries ? Yes indeed it is true & a well known fact of the legislative & executive branches of the parliamentary democracy hv only gone downhill , from bad to worse over past many decades... & would itvreally be remotely possible , Baroness B Hale w/o the indifference , to put it mildly , politely, on the part of the 3rd branch ie the Judiciary ? Most certainly &:emphatically , not & was it not high time that the Judiciary stepped in &:crack the whip , so to speak , to stem &reverse the rot , the deep rooted malaise in the legislature & the executive branches ? yet , how does the US &/or the UK acquire jurisdiction to investigate & even prosecute a gargantuan scandal , occurring in a remote , SE Asian sovereign Islamic republic / nation -state ? The financial scandal tentacles spread & reached far & wide ,across continents , the US, the UK /EU... And it involved bonds raised by Goldman Sachs , among other giant financial investor players .... And the city of London , happens to be the global hub , for money-matters , the financialisation of economies , Baroness Brenda Hale ? Why do u think I was sporting the spider brooch , on that very day , my bench delivered the sensational judgement in the proroguing case ?

I lodged a PAP application after my visit visa was refused, and it has been accepted for a hearing by the Upper Tribunal. The UKVI department promised a decision within 90 days. However, a few days later, my solicitor friend lodged another appeal without informing me. While this second appeal also raises good points, I am concerned about how this affects my original PAP application. Will my original PAP application become null and void because of the second appeal, or will the two PAP applications be considered together? How will the UK Home Department treat this situation? Are there any precedents or rules that address this kind of scenario?

Wow, thank you for uploading this! I was just about to start reading The Rule of Law :)

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let's tie the second down, within the chains of the Constitution, so the second doesn't become the legalised version of the first" Thomas Jefferson. A constitution that be repealed at will is no constitution.

Parliament has the sovereign right to repeal every law, but can't touch the Bill of Rights, based on the Declaration of Rights.

My profound appreciation for enlightenment.

Note from 2024 (four years after the pandemic that revealed what a joke law is). Very interesting. Ans very useful. As useful as a chocolate teapot. Only idiots like myself believe in human dignity. I am in my 50s and only recently the world forced me to accept the reality i.e. the law is a joke. Human rights and dignity 😂 Now I know why my PhD supervisor rolled her eyes when I told her I wanted to write my thesis on promoting the human rights and human dignity of preschool children. What a fucking idiot I have been 😂

Hey brother u really made a very good video ❤ I just want to ask that its been more them 70 days and still didn’t got any decision on administrative review so I just want to ask can we go to court and say them that we need the decision quickly cuz now we are getting in very depression and anxiety and our all document were fine so should we ?

Victoria O’Meara, Ph.D. is not an asset to the well-being of global health

❤❤❤❤❤

Hello teacher, how can I join your communication group?

is there a reference to the study referred to on comparative constitutional adjudicative style

I would advise anyone that is reading this not to study law at University and if you already are then you should quit the course!

Many years ago I was a friend of Brian and Anne Higgins , Dame Rosalyn's brother- and sister-in-law. I met Terence a few times but I never met Rosalyn.

Reading

Ma boi Findlay what a ledge

This is a very slippery slope. It might seem like a helpful idea. But as in calfornia we see that idea has become and has been perverted by the state government and it ia the medical community fault.

Exodus 21,22 the ten comnandments

That's because parliament is bound to the UK not England. Example the king is the monarch of the UK legal capacity. He's the King of England as a Man

Any suggestions for reforming the Judiciary in the UK?

Who's here in 2024 👀

Can I remix and publish it as a KZbin short? I'm inspired by the talk. Or perhaps you could help promote these great thoughts somehow?