The problem is largely the UK's lack of a constitution. There are no checks or balances in the UK. Parliament can literally do anything they want. The courts can't block Parliament. Parliament can just abolish the courts. The house of lords can't stop the house of commons, the commons can just override the lords. The queen won't veto the commons because she fears parliament will just abolish the monarchy.
Right, because constitutions don't generally have a mechanism to be amended? And the judiciary in countries with constitutions don't tend to apply constitution to areas that they were clearly never intended e.g. encryption. The idea that the UK parliament would abolish courts doesn't really need addressing, it's so absurd. I take it you're also aware that we regularly (some would say too regularly) democratically ele…
Re: Real people don't need end-to-end encryption says UK Home Secretary
#51Even if a large number of people want a particular restriction in the US it does not always become law even if passed by congress. This is never the case in the UK. If the commons passes something it is law. Amending a constitution is generally extremely difficult and requires a very high bar, and has to be approved by the court. It is not just the lack of a constitution that is dangerous in the UK it is the total lack of separation of powers. The courts are not really independent. Parliament passes laws that change how the courts work all the time. The constitutional reform act that created the supreme court of the UK was passed with a simple majority of Parliament, and it can be repealed with a simple majority of Parliament.