Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
DWP hiring 86 new POs
I do enjoy the word “pulverise”. I suspect we will all enjoy it over the next year or two until this all becomes digital by default :)
Ministers have been quite clear in thinking that judges and tribunals don’t appear for some reason (I believe it’s called “judicial independence) to be on their side against claimants. They believe, and say, that tribunals (and judges in particular) are making decisions that are not in line with the law. What they really mean is that government had an intent; it was forced through Parliament and then implemented by the same poor drafting we have always seen. Ministers never get that last bit. They can’t understand how their intent gets translated into total tortuous nonsense and are genuinely surprised and shocked when tribunals interpret the law as is and not as ministers thought it was. In their world the solution to the problem is not better drafting. It is simply less things to judge and thus less judges.
Authoritarian governments always uphold the concept of the rule of law unless independent courts and judges find against them, in which case the governments believe the judges and courts are wrong. The undermining of judicial independence is a characteristic of many countries with poor human rights records.
Not going to argue with that Neil.
Meanwhile ...
An artificial intelligence system has correctly predicted the outcomes of hundreds of cases heard at the European Court of Human Rights, researchers have claimed ....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37727387