MPs better placed than judges to decide public interest, says attorney general | Law | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb ... ce-charles

What a load of self-interested sh1te. Nobody in their right mind would take an MP, much less a bunch of them, over a judge after what we've seen in recent years. And by that I mean our attorney generals alone, never mind the 'security council' whose chair was willing to sell secrets and access, or our international and defence secretaries who have been spectacularly ethically and morally corrupt (Fox and Straw spring to mind).

I think he meant that MP's are accountable to the electorate whereas judges aren't. Therefore they're better suited, or at least they would be if they weren't lying scumbags playing party politics

Well, the minister for health is not responsible for providing health care in this country any more. All ministers do now is set budgets and let other decide how those budgets are spent. If something goes wrong, minsters can say that those spending the money are to blame. So I’m not quite sure how this squares up.

MPs must live on the 4th rock from the sun because they don't live in my world ...