4 ms·

This is an extremely stupid headline and article, in a long list of extremely stupid headlines when it comes to judicial reviews (JDs). 1. The the tunnel wasn'

by flave 5y ago

This is an extremely stupid headline and article, in a long list of extremely stupid headlines when it comes to judicial reviews (JDs). 1. The the tunnel wasn't ruled unlawful, the decision making process was. Very big difference. 2. The decision making process was said to be 'unlawful' because the minister failed to properly consider the alternatives, which he/she is required to do under common law. JDs have successfully backed judges into reading ministers minds. 3. Note use of the word 'unlawful' and note bad-faith out-riders without liability who will say 'illegal'. Not the same thing. Unlawful means that the minister didn't fully fulfil he/his requirements under law (common law in this case), not that they contravened a specific law. 4. Grant Shapps is genuinely stupid and could have easily tried to 'consider' alternatives and come up against the limits of his own mind. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/eight-weirdest-things-we-know-about-grant-shapps https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/eight-weirdest... 5. Nobody has an actual alternative. The A303 is utterly broken and causes knock-on problems all over that area of the UK. The tunnel is an expensive alternative to improving that road (which already runs within 150m of stonehenge). 6. UNESCO has nearly 100% employee capture at this stage. Saying UNESCO oppose it is saying that bug-burger-promoting elites living in Geneva think it's a bit bad. 7. Historic England, who managed the landmark, back the proposal for a tunnel 8. “Ideally, such a tunnel would begin and end outside the world heritage site. But now that we are facing a climate emergency, it is all the more important that this ruling should be a wake-up call for the government." Just what?

pjc50 5y ago
> The A303 is utterly broken and causes knock-on problems all over that area of the UK. Yeah. I popped up a map to see if I could think of a better route round the situation, but the options aren't great for "how to get to the southwest of England from London". Go north and take the M4/M5, which is the main route to Wales and already busy? Or go south, M3, and get bogged down somewhere west of Bournemouth? Expanding a motorway through the New Forest isn't going to be popular either. Note that the tunnel proposal as written was cut and cover, which would involve digging up all the archaeologically-significant land above it, rather than a bored tunnel.
josefx 5y ago
> JDs have successfully backed judges into reading ministers minds. No need for mind reading, if there is no documentation for the process (meeting notes) or its results they probably didn't do it correctly if at all. > 5. Nobody has an actual alternative. Weird, the road in question was at points in (recent) history completely abandoned. Then gained a higher status despite reports pointing out how irrelevant it was, until it was finally upgraded because it was easier than fixing the A30[1]. Either the Wikipedia entry is lacking some important information that makes it necessary to build a road through Stonehenge or no one looked at the alternatives present in the past. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A303_road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A303_road
- flave 5y ago
  But this is the problem with a JD on the common law standard of 'considered other options' - what does it mean to consider? It's utterly to do with the state of mind of the person doing the reviewing. Because of JDs, and because of, no offence, comments like this - gov lawyers feel compelled to write down literally everything to prove they 'considered'. But a lack of ass covering doesn't prove that the consideration didn't occur. -- huh? even the protestors agree that the road needs an upgrade? I'm not going to read a whole wikipedia article. It's a highly congested major road. It needs an upgrade and the stonehenge 'site' is massive. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/history-and-stories/stonehenge-landscape/ https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/...
  - josefx 5y ago
    > But a lack of ass covering doesn't prove that the consideration didn't occur. I guess you have the entire UK traffic situation memorized. Didn't have to talk with anyone else about it, didn't need a single meeting or phone call to reach that state of omniscience. > It's a highly congested major road. Well if that is the issue, just close the road, no more congestion on it and I also didn't have to ask anyone, or do any traffic analysis that might require paperwork for it.
    - flave 5y ago
Reason077 5y ago
> 5. Nobody has an actual alternative. Many of the campaigners aren't actually arguing against the idea of a tunnel. They're arguing that the tunnel should be longer. The current 2-mile design has it's portals being constructed within the world heritage site, which will involve huge cuttings and excavation which will obviously be disruptive to the archaeology.
- flave 5y ago
  Okay. So the campaigners sort of say this in the article but then also say nah actually we're against roads because climate change (not how climate change works). The quote is in my comment. On the subject of a 'longer tunnel' - there are basically two main problems 1. The stone henge 'site' is massive and gets bigger or smaller depending on who you're talking to. Like, kilometers big and tunnel costs basically scale with each km dug. 2. The main issue with tunnelling is the risk of disturbing archaeological sites. More tunnelling = more disturbance. I actually don't have a good solution to this very difficult, multi-actor, ill-defined problem set. But it's so dumb for a JR to come in and be like 'haha they didn't consider the alternatives to the ill defined common law definition'. Like, no one even bloody knows what the common law standard is. Judges make it up on the fly (they have no other option since its common law and JDs have only taken off in the last ten years) and newspapers gulp it down, then regurgitate it back into the screaming chick's open mouth.

by flave 5y ago

pjc50 5y ago

> The A303 is utterly broken and causes knock-on problems all over that area of the UK. Yeah. I popped up a map to see if I could think of a better route round the situation, but the options aren't great for "how to get to the southwest of England from London". Go north and take the M4/M5, which is the main route to Wales and already busy? Or go south, M3, and get bogged down somewhere west of Bournemouth? Expanding a motorway through the New Forest isn't going to be popular either. Note that the tunnel proposal as written was cut and cover, which would involve digging up all the archaeologically-significant land above it, rather than a bored tunnel.

josefx 5y ago

> JDs have successfully backed judges into reading ministers minds. No need for mind reading, if there is no documentation for the process (meeting notes) or its results they probably didn't do it correctly if at all. > 5. Nobody has an actual alternative. Weird, the road in question was at points in (recent) history completely abandoned. Then gained a higher status despite reports pointing out how irrelevant it was, until it was finally upgraded because it was easier than fixing the A30[1]. Either the Wikipedia entry is lacking some important information that makes it necessary to build a road through Stonehenge or no one looked at the alternatives present in the past. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A303_road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A303_road

flave 5y ago
But this is the problem with a JD on the common law standard of 'considered other options' - what does it mean to consider? It's utterly to do with the state of mind of the person doing the reviewing. Because of JDs, and because of, no offence, comments like this - gov lawyers feel compelled to write down literally everything to prove they 'considered'. But a lack of ass covering doesn't prove that the consideration didn't occur. -- huh? even the protestors agree that the road needs an upgrade? I'm not going to read a whole wikipedia article. It's a highly congested major road. It needs an upgrade and the stonehenge 'site' is massive. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/history-and-stories/stonehenge-landscape/ https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/...
- josefx 5y ago
  > But a lack of ass covering doesn't prove that the consideration didn't occur. I guess you have the entire UK traffic situation memorized. Didn't have to talk with anyone else about it, didn't need a single meeting or phone call to reach that state of omniscience. > It's a highly congested major road. Well if that is the issue, just close the road, no more congestion on it and I also didn't have to ask anyone, or do any traffic analysis that might require paperwork for it.
  - flave 5y ago

Reason077 5y ago

> 5. Nobody has an actual alternative. Many of the campaigners aren't actually arguing against the idea of a tunnel. They're arguing that the tunnel should be longer. The current 2-mile design has it's portals being constructed within the world heritage site, which will involve huge cuttings and excavation which will obviously be disruptive to the archaeology.

flave 5y ago
Okay. So the campaigners sort of say this in the article but then also say nah actually we're against roads because climate change (not how climate change works). The quote is in my comment. On the subject of a 'longer tunnel' - there are basically two main problems 1. The stone henge 'site' is massive and gets bigger or smaller depending on who you're talking to. Like, kilometers big and tunnel costs basically scale with each km dug. 2. The main issue with tunnelling is the risk of disturbing archaeological sites. More tunnelling = more disturbance. I actually don't have a good solution to this very difficult, multi-actor, ill-defined problem set. But it's so dumb for a JR to come in and be like 'haha they didn't consider the alternatives to the ill defined common law definition'. Like, no one even bloody knows what the common law standard is. Judges make it up on the fly (they have no other option since its common law and JDs have only taken off in the last ten years) and newspapers gulp it down, then regurgitate it back into the screaming chick's open mouth.