Received: by 10.68.227.230 with SMTP id sd6mr1228894pbc.8.1333055518046;
        Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: z9ni16270pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!novia!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!s09-11.readnews.com!unm2.readnews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=SAlDoEihn\Nk<<oJgX69<F@lWf8?fSK:AjS@R6]oDiIO[j;g`C24>VKo=iH@LQ<Yb@4o5\H=^m?DDh9g?A@d\:dKl3N9UUem6cIJaal_NM2]ZF
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gradwell.net
From: Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
Subject: Re: Disability Living Allowance, a rant
X-Posted-Date: 29 Mar 2012 18:48:24 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:50:03 +0100
Organization: Linux Unlimited
Message-ID: <yak*AGs3t@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
References: <g6u*Sbm3t@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <iuadnVNa85Nn0enSnZ2dnUVZ8n-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <4+u*3Cr3t@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <un39n7tdept8a5bdp58jqh5rrc74pnk4b8@4ax.com>
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: chiark.greenend.org.uk
X-Original-Trace: chiark.greenend.org.uk 1333043306 10308 212.13.197.229 (29 Mar 2012 17:48:26 GMT)
X-Ulm-Charter: http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html
X-Ulm-Info-1: Submissions              uk-legal-modera...@usenet.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-2: Technical complaints only      sysadmin (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-3: Human moderators uk-legal-moderated-requ...@usenet.org.uk
X-Comment: The moderators express no opinion about this article.
X-Robomod: {R}UUM ©2003       Richard Ashton richard (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Robomod-Trace: 13857320120329221151TE manual
Approved: uk-legal-moderated moderators <uk-legal-modera...@moderation.org.uk>
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: 26d42810.newsreader.readnews.com
X-Received-Bytes: 2701

In article <un39n7tdept8a5bdp58jqh5rrc74pnk...@4ax.com>,
Anthony R. Gold <tg...@panix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:05:02 +0100, Ian Jackson
><ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Normally what is right and what is legal are supposed to (roughly,
>>perhaps) coincide.  I think it's fair to describe a court as
>>"hamstrung" if the law is such that they can't legally do what they
>>know is right.
>
>I can see how members of a Tribunal might find situations in which they
>personally prefer outcomes that differ from those dictated by parliament,
>but by what definition are those preferred outcomes "right"?

By the same kind of definition as anything is "right".  Obviously this
is not a matter everyone necessarily agrees on, but in this case, I'm
referring to the putative opinions of the tribunal members, and my own
opinion.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657