Since when?

….were the judiciary required to adjudicate on matters of theology? According to the recent Briefcase summary of CE/3627/2013 the ‘Issue before the Upper Tribunal’ was whether   ‘Whether the tribunal was entitled to find that regulation 29 was not sanctified because work could be of benefit to the claimant’s mental health.’ I sense a demarcation dispute developing between Judge Jacobs and the Holy See….

But according to that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia:

“Sanctification cannot be attained by any works based process”

Charlton of course holds that apart from the rare case where it is the decision itself that causes deterioration ‘the determination must be made in the context of the journey to or from work or in the workplace itself’.
See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/42.html

Surely that is a reference to a ‘works based process’.

Therefore Regulation 29 cannot be sanctified.

Fortunately since Leveson, Judicial bodies probably won’t look at Wikipedia

Thank Fully it’s Friday

Typically Calvinist interpretation of sanctification from north of the border! Down here we have a much more latitudinarian version of wikipedia. Roll on independence. Theresa May’s passport shoul stamp out ‘redemption tourism’ once and for all. ‘Coming down here, stealing our salvation…..’

editted for woefully abysmall speling of ‘latitudinarian’!

Heathens!