Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What now for the EU ?

In short words, you can't and you just were inclined to wiggle your cock a bit around. And what "points" did you apart from "Argument by assertion" made? Name horse and rider and don't mumble around. What "actions" did you mean, what "attacks" on the judiciary.
After you.
 

HCL

War Hero
You're getting all verbose again, give away. With laws being part of our democratic structure the judiciary is part of that structure.

In 2005 Parliament passed the Constitutional Reform Act which, for the first time in constitutional history, provided for the separation of the Appellate Committee (supreme court) from the legislature (Parliament) and the executive (Government).

Supremecourt

Yet again another Graculus switch 'n' bait tactic, this time no 3:

Swerve the point that demolished his original statement and hope that his dummy is bought and the OP dashes past thus muffing the tackle.

Judiciaries are not unique to democracies, however, they are especially beloved by dictatorships for the veneer of legality and aura of respectability they afford such regimes; laws though have been endemic across all known forms of human societies --- judiciaries have not.

A judiciary decides on points of law, old boy. in the U.K. they are appointed; they stand in place of and represent the Sovereign; they do not stand for election therefore as they are unelected one consequence of such is that they are not allowed to sit and legislate or form the executive. (Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's actions over Brexit, for which their comeuppance is well deserved and mightily overdue.) Their function is to decide if a law --- any law that is extant --- has been broken making something illegal, or if something whilst not illegal might still be unlawful, meaning it's not authorised.

Sad, sad, sad little armorer, trying so hard to get back at the world for all those nasty taunts in the mess from those brutes of mechs and fitters, nay, even from the snowdrops. I shall light a candle for you and pray for your wizened, shrivelled self-respect.
 
Yet again another Graculus switch 'n' bait tactic, this time no 3:

Swerve the point that demolished his original statement and hope that his dummy is bought and the OP dashes past thus muffing the tackle.

Judiciaries are not unique to democracies, however, they are especially beloved by dictatorships for the veneer of legality and aura of respectability they afford such regimes; laws though have been endemic across all known forms of human societies --- judiciaries have not.

A judiciary decides on points of law, old boy. in the U.K. they are appointed; they stand in place of and represent the Sovereign; they do not stand for election therefore as they are unelected one consequence of such is that they are not allowed to sit and legislate or form the executive. (Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's actions over Brexit, for which their comeuppance is well deserved and mightily overdue.) Their function is to decide if a law --- any law that is extant --- has been broken making something illegal, or if something whilst not illegal might still be unlawful, meaning it's not authorised.

Sad, sad, sad little armorer, trying so hard to get back at the world for all those nasty taunts in the mess from those brutes of mechs and fitters, nay, even from the snowdrops. I shall light a candle for you and pray for your wizened, shrivelled self-respect.
Not only verbose but the same language...

The doctrine of the separation of powers requires that the principal institutions of state— executive, legislature and judiciary—should be clearly divided in order to safeguard citizens’ liberties and guard against tyranny.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/separation-of-powers-worksheets-for-teachers.pdf

ETA, the only thing you've ever demolished probably comes from Greggs FFS creepy guy.
 
Looking at history as a guide to the future is not without flaws... Nothing from the 1920s worries me at all. My knowledge of Europe today ( edited, to be fair from "EU" ) is all that matters. Everything else is imagination fuelled by fear.

An earlier universe is just a recursion not a beginning. Look up Something from Nothing

With a little bit of imagination, and in German, and with the appropriate theatrical pauses, that sounds like something which could have been spouted at the Hohne Roundhouse in the years before it became the NAAFI.........................
 

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
Yet again another Graculus switch 'n' bait tactic, this time no 3:

Swerve the point that demolished his original statement and hope that his dummy is bought and the OP dashes past thus muffing the tackle.

Judiciaries are not unique to democracies, however, they are especially beloved by dictatorships for the veneer of legality and aura of respectability they afford such regimes; laws though have been endemic across all known forms of human societies --- judiciaries have not.

A judiciary decides on points of law, old boy. in the U.K. they are appointed; they stand in place of and represent the Sovereign; they do not stand for election therefore as they are unelected one consequence of such is that they are not allowed to sit and legislate or form the executive. (Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's actions over Brexit, for which their comeuppance is well deserved and mightily overdue.) Their function is to decide if a law --- any law that is extant --- has been broken making something illegal, or if something whilst not illegal might still be unlawful, meaning it's not authorised.

Sad, sad, sad little armorer, trying so hard to get back at the world for all those nasty taunts in the mess from those brutes of mechs and fitters, nay, even from the snowdrops. I shall light a candle for you and pray for your wizened, shrivelled self-respect.

Trying too hard and still failing.
 

HCL

War Hero
Not only verbose but the same language...

The doctrine of the separation of powers requires that the principal institutions of state— executive, legislature and judiciary—should be clearly divided in order to safeguard citizens’ liberties and guard against tyranny.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/separation-of-powers-worksheets-for-teachers.pdf

ETA, the only thing you've ever demolished probably comes from Greggs FFS creepy guy.

Tut tut tut.

I've already pointed out tactic no 3 in my prev. response, and you repeat it immediately.

Such a limited repotoire. And I had such high hopes for you

Separation of powers is not unique to a functioning democracy nor an autocracy, nor anything in between or even more extreme.

You still have not proved your assertion:
"... With laws being part of our democratic structure the judiciary is part of that structure."

Prove it or lose it, bombhead.

.
 
I think that after 40 years of expansion the EU is a success, trading blocs are a good thing. Religions are a bad thing and the biggest threat to globalism. If nothing else the EU have shown how national identities can be unified by trade. Polish backward thinking will probably be crushed by Polish people and we will move on. Just a matter of education, education and education.
Mong
 
I think that after 40 years of expansion the EU is a success, trading blocs are a good thing. Religions are a bad thing and the biggest threat to globalism. If nothing else the EU have shown how national identities can be unified by trade. Polish backward thinking will probably be crushed by Polish people and we will move on. Just a matter of education, education and education.
Mong
 

ACAB

LE
You're getting all verbose again, give away. With laws being part of our democratic structure the judiciary is part of that structure.

In 2005 Parliament passed the Constitutional Reform Act which, for the first time in constitutional history, provided for the separation of the Appellate Committee (supreme court) from the legislature (Parliament) and the executive (Government).

Supremecourt
You do realise, don't you, that the UK leaving equals 19 other states in the EU payments??

No, I don't think you do because you're an idiot.
 
Tut tut tut.

I've already pointed out tactic no 3 in my prev. response, and you repeat it immediately.

Such a limited repotoire. And I had such high hopes for you

Separation of powers is not unique to a functioning democracy nor an autocracy, nor anything in between or even more extreme.

You still have not proved your assertion:
"... With laws being part of our democratic structure the judiciary is part of that structure."

Prove it or lose it, bombhead.

.
That'll be the limited repertoire of knowing that the separation of powers is part and parcel of a modern democracy? Did you not do the drawing then? Some more stuff for you to not read whilst you roll in the mud.

Separation of Powers

The reason tyrants, proto tyrants and their boot lickers attack the judiciary.


Orbán’s next move: Overpowering the courts
 
You do realise, don't you, that the UK leaving equals 19 other states in the EU payments??
You expect Malta to pay as much? I CGAF, we're out.
No, I don't think you do because you're an idiot.
One of us didn't ping @Filthy_contract as Baglock and then tell everyone he worked in counter terrorism/int

One of us doesn't send abusive pms because he can't handle his drink

Can you guess which?
 

HCL

War Hero
That'll be the limited repertoire of knowing that the separation of powers is part and parcel of a modern democracy? Did you not do the drawing then? Some more stuff for you to not read whilst you roll in the mud.

Separation of Powers

The reason tyrants, proto tyrants and their boot lickers attack the judiciary.


Orbán’s next move: Overpowering the courts

Moving the point again. Third time.

You lost it, you little bluffing Twatteratti, you. Don't know which is thicker, your skull or the glacis plate of a T80?
 
Moving the point again. Third time.

You lost it, you little bluffing Twatteratti, you. Don't know which is thicker, your skull or the glacis plate of a T80?
It's still the same point Pointdexter. Your inner self is coming out. You been on the pop again?
 

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
Moving the point again. Third time.

You lost it, you little bluffing Twatteratti, you. Don't know which is thicker, your skull or the glacis plate of a T80?

It all makes sense to me.

I must tell you my T80 story from 1986 near Magdeburg. But just not yet.
 

HCL

War Hero
It's still the same point Pointdexter. Your inner self is coming out. You been on the pop again?

Creepy? Drunk? That's all you've got left? Just dull insults.

You've run out of tactics. Shame. You really were a natural with maintaining the concrete bombs, weren't you.

Time to leave you to fester.

Night.
 

Latest Threads

Top