Brexit - The Final

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is much debate about the veracity of the story, yet no one shouting seems inclined to show any rigour.
There isn't any debate about the veracity of the story, unless you mean debate in the sense that there is debate about whether or not the earth is flat.
Agree that the shouty types aren't showing any rigour, for example, the probable bots saying they know a nurse at the Leeds Hospital.
There is no such place.
 
Listen sunshine; explaining anyone's errors to anyone is waste of friggin' time I did that for the last 15 years of my working life and essentially, if someone makes money out of it, it's cool. The moral of the story is this, just cos the Monkey says it's the law-doesn't make it right. Right and the law have nothing to do with each other as was once explained the Constable LR
Yeah, they managed a unanimous decision. They decide the legality of anything but as I said, off you go and tell them that they don't have a Scooby.
 
The headline posted by BB said "with pneumonia"

But thanks for your usual miasma of other, equally irrelevant, drivel.
No answers other than more bollocks from you? No shocks, keep on not seeing what's in front of you. Bothered to read the links yet?

You're welcome to critique my irrelevant drivel in context of what I've said.
 
There are bound to be to be cases on both sides. My main point is that the precedents were set in Parliaments that existed before the UK parliament existed and frankly they raise issues about the Union which haven't been properly explored. Let me give you the counterpoint. In Scotland the relationship between the People/ their representatives would appear to be that the people are right. In England under the UK parliament it would appear that a duly elected Government of the people is wrong-because Parliament is right, no matter that we are told that the electorate hold the keys- no reference to The reform act and universal suffrage. It ignores the fact that a Scots Queen declared that Westminster would be the only Parliament-which has been ignored by a Scots PM and Subsequent Scots FMs under devolution.
That a panel of judges can sit in judgement on what is a political argument that should have been solved by parliament for all it's 310 years of experience, that unelected people can direct judges to determine the outcome of 17.4 million votes, accepted by that Parliament and acted upon by them because they happen to disagree with the out come is a total disgrace.
They were judging on Scots and English law. HTH.
 
Why should anyone believe you?
You're not usually this slack. Have you not been following the news? Which bit is difficult for you?
 
You're not usually this slack. Have you not been following the news? Which bit is difficult for you?
The bit where you made clearly politically bias quotes. You referred to lies and mistruths. Why should we believe your obvious political bias?

You‘ve never displayed any integrity, you can’t ride the morality ticket demanding others believe you. That’s for your acolytes.
 
The bit where you made clearly politically bias quotes. You referred to lies and mistruths. Why should we believe your obvious political bias?

You‘ve never displayed any integrity, you can’t ride the morality ticket demanding others believe you. That’s for your acolytes.
Which clearly politically biased quotes are they? That I think Johnson's a ****? I think Corbyn's a **** as well.

If you're unable to articulate responses to the points I've made and need to make personal attacks, that's your problem, not mine.
 
Which clearly politically biased quotes are they? That I think Johnson's a ****? I think Corbyn's a **** as well.

If you're unable to articulate responses to the points I've made and need to make personal attacks, that's your problem, not mine.
I’ve articulated a response. I think you’re a politically biased liar, anything you say with regards to politics is to be taken with a pinch of salt.

If you had some integrity you might be able to make a reasoned point, but as you lost it a long time ago or never had it in the first place all you are making is noise.
 
I’ve articulated a response. I think you’re a politically biased liar, anything you say with regards to politics is to be taken with a pinch of salt.

If you had some integrity you might be able to make a reasoned point, but as you lost it a long time ago or never had it in the first place all you are making is noise.
All I see here is rhetoric from you, you've used "integrity" twice but appear unwilling to address the points made. Instead preferring to rant.

Which of these is politically biased on my part and which is wrong? If they're wrong, how?

Johnson very publicly not wanting to know by taking the phone put in front of him and putting it in his pocket

The false story of Labour activists having their taxi fare paid for put out by CCHQ

The punch that wasn't, released to senior journalists who were not there and who were played.

The online fibathon on Facebook and Twitter.


Integrity time.

I'll be away out for a doc's appointment shortly and will pick up any reply when I get back.
 
Cameron was voted in before the EU Referendum. May lost 13 seats, Labour gained 30 seats and the LibDems gained 4 seats.
You may remember it was because he offered a referendum, I've tumbled that one. May Lost seats because Labour refused to address it despite promising to adhere to the referendum result and a goodly size voted UKIP and got no seats, which was remarked upon
 
Unelected people directed Judges?
Eh?
The SC found that Parliamentary process had not been followed, and the Prorogation was ruled unlawful.
That is not a political argument.
The Judiciary is rightly independent. Every SC Judge sat to avoid any potential accusation that the panel was picked selectively.
If you don't like the idea of an independent Judiciary, fair enough.
once again you are missing the point, I'm not asking for judges to be elected. Prorogation was ruled unlawful because there was no law preventing it, thus it was not illegal, had it been deemed illegal it would have been a whole new ball game. The SC court does not decide policy of any Government, merely if it is playing legally where there is a legal argument. What it has done now is to determine that there are limitations on prorogation-which if you recall is done as Royal Prerogative. Where there is none-there cannot be a meaningful ruling. To cite happenings in previous parliaments which no longer exist by Law to create precedent is a very dangerous thing.
 
Yeah, they managed a unanimous decision. They decide the legality of anything but as I said, off you go and tell them that they don't have a Scooby.
Any more than I have told people on here they don't have scooby about Customs matters because they haven't done it. It doesn't alter the fact that they still talk crap about them.
 

Truxx

LE
There isn't any debate about the veracity of the story, unless you mean debate in the sense that there is debate about whether or not the earth is flat.
Agree that the shouty types aren't showing any rigour, for example, the probable bots saying they know a nurse at the Leeds Hospital.
There is no such place.
Did you miss the debate on here then (the one to which you have just contributed)?

I will put you down for a C- in the "rigour" box.
 
once again you are missing the point, I'm not asking for judges to be elected. Prorogation was ruled unlawful because there was no law preventing it, thus it was not illegal, had it been deemed illegal it would have been a whole new ball game. The SC court does not decide policy of any Government, merely if it is playing legally where there is a legal argument. What it has done now is to determine that there are limitations on prorogation-which if you recall is done as Royal Prerogative. Where there is none-there cannot be a meaningful ruling. To cite happenings in previous parliaments which no longer exist by Law to create precedent is a very dangerous thing.
I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with... Except your last line, which I don't understand...
 
Did you miss the debate on here then (the one to which you have just contributed)?

I will put you down for a C- in the "rigour" box.
You should have carried on reading after "There isn't any debate about the veracity of the story " because taking that snippet out of context makes it read in a completely different manner than if you'd read the whole sentence.

F for comprehension and analysis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top