The Politics Thread
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
Re: The Politics Thread
I wonder if members of The High Court in England and the first judge that ruled in the Scottish case are considering their positions. They clearly have no idea what they're doing.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43267
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: The Politics Thread
One of the first questions police detectives look at after a serious crime is committed is: "Who benefits?". ( I know because I watch "Lewis and Endeavour and police procedurals, see ( It might well be the key to the current fandango dancing around the hallowed halls of Westminster; although, then again, our current police La Suprema doesn't seem able to differentiate between fact and fiction, so it may not). If this were a "Who killed Cock Robin" level matter it may be of little importance; "Who killed Britain?" might have a bit more significance. Who actually does benefit most from what?
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: The Politics Thread
Here's a thing. Does lying to The Queen constitute treason? If so, can you still be hanged for it?
May the bridges I burn light your way
Re: The Politics Thread
Actually Bruce being no one in that court was privy to the discussion, I fail to see upon what, other than hearsay the judges based their opinion.Bruce Rioja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:25 pmHere's a thing. Does lying to The Queen constitute treason? If so, can you still be hanged for it?
Re: The Politics Thread
Bruce Rioja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:25 pmHere's a thing. Does lying to The Queen constitute treason? If so, can you still be hanged for it?
“You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty’s person, honour, crown or dignity royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty herself, or to such of her privy council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same."
If so, Bruce, there's around 600 folk that pledged this oath that would be looking over their shoulder. Not least, one Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.
Re: The Politics Thread
Progress, you're now both comprehendably and comprehensively wrong.Hoboh wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:08 pmFor someone in the legal business you really are a simpleton, nor am I pretending anything. that simple enough?Prufrock wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:57 amNo one expects you to be an expert on constitutional law. Just don't pretend to be. The rest of what you have written is gibberish (not I don't agree with it, I don't know what it means.). Thankfully we do have experts on constitutional law and 11 of them have unanimously agreed.Hoboh wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:50 amOk smarty pants, I don't pretend to be a stupid tw*t who plays simple games making up gibberish script dressed up as learned, nor do I waste days deciding a full fcuking stop is in the wrong place, I actually have a life. So precedent is the word, ok corrected, now lets move on to the real point, the judiciary are there to uphold the law as made by Parliament, not tell parliament how it is run, power well over abused. Remainers, hell parliamentarians to boot have had over hundreds of years the power to dictate prorogation, but have chosen not to do so, why because a small group of wealthy vote losers want to change things, do the court feel they have a power, not given to them, to intervene?
Please tell me when it is normal for the opposition, at any point to run from a general election, simple enough? Of the two occasions it's been possible for them to do so, it's 1-1. And you know full well they're not "running" from it, they just want to avoid no deal until afterwards first.
Legal system is there to enforce and uphold laws passed by parliament. simple enough? That's not all is for, is also there to decide whether the executive has acted lawfully. Acts of parliament are not the only source of our law. They set this out in part one of the judgment, which again, I assume you have read.
Parliament has for centuries decided upon the way it runs and legislates, simple enough? Parliament didn't and doesn't decide to prorogue itself.
So why does a court feel it has the power and right to intervene in something parliament clearly had the power at any time to change but chose not to, simple enough? If only the Supreme Court had just released a decision answering all of these questions!
If you don't find that simple enough, find another job!
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
Re: The Politics Thread
Hanging's too good for traitors! Drawn and quartered or burning usually I think. Until bloody Brussels put paid to good old fashioned British justice, anyway.Enoch wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:37 pmBruce Rioja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:25 pmHere's a thing. Does lying to The Queen constitute treason? If so, can you still be hanged for it?
“You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty’s person, honour, crown or dignity royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty herself, or to such of her privy council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same."
If so, Bruce, there's around 600 folk that pledged this oath that would be looking over their shoulder. Not least, one Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition.
Last edited by Prufrock on Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
Re: The Politics Thread
In a nutshell a political decision taken by a non elected court, democracy is now dead.
Lady Hale said: 'The decision to prorogue was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating Parliament'
Re: The Politics Thread
They are running and you know it.Prufrock wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:43 pmProgress, you're now both comprehendably and comprehensively wrong.Hoboh wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:08 pmFor someone in the legal business you really are a simpleton, nor am I pretending anything. that simple enough?Prufrock wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:57 amNo one expects you to be an expert on constitutional law. Just don't pretend to be. The rest of what you have written is gibberish (not I don't agree with it, I don't know what it means.). Thankfully we do have experts on constitutional law and 11 of them have unanimously agreed.Hoboh wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:50 amOk smarty pants, I don't pretend to be a stupid tw*t who plays simple games making up gibberish script dressed up as learned, nor do I waste days deciding a full fcuking stop is in the wrong place, I actually have a life. So precedent is the word, ok corrected, now lets move on to the real point, the judiciary are there to uphold the law as made by Parliament, not tell parliament how it is run, power well over abused. Remainers, hell parliamentarians to boot have had over hundreds of years the power to dictate prorogation, but have chosen not to do so, why because a small group of wealthy vote losers want to change things, do the court feel they have a power, not given to them, to intervene?
Please tell me when it is normal for the opposition, at any point to run from a general election, simple enough? Of the two occasions it's been possible for them to do so, it's 1-1. And you know full well they're not "running" from it, they just want to avoid no deal until afterwards first.
Legal system is there to enforce and uphold laws passed by parliament. simple enough? That's not all is for, is also there to decide whether the executive has acted lawfully. Acts of parliament are not the only source of our law. They set this out in part one of the judgment, which again, I assume you have read.
Parliament has for centuries decided upon the way it runs and legislates, simple enough? Parliament didn't and doesn't decide to prorogue itself.
So why does a court feel it has the power and right to intervene in something parliament clearly had the power at any time to change but chose not to, simple enough? If only the Supreme Court had just released a decision answering all of these questions!
If you don't find that simple enough, find another job!
According to remainers they have the majority support now behind them, everyone has changed their minds except when it comes to the ballot box they are shown up for the liars they are, hence a brand new party romped the Euro elections.
And Parliment sorry to remind you has it within it's powers to decide to allow prorogue or not under parliamentary proceedings
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43267
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: The Politics Thread
Parliament is able to be frustrated? ; Or should that read "members of Parliament" in which case, where does the power lie?
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: The Politics Thread
Lady Hale added: 'The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court'.
- Lost Leopard Spot
- Immortal
- Posts: 18436
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
- Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.
Re: The Politics Thread
It's Them versus Us.
We all know who they are. Some of us have lists. They certainly have. Civil War is the outcome of this shit storm...
And if you think we're immune, so did Argentinians back in the 70's, and Frenchmen back in the 40's and Russians back in the 10's.
Last edited by Lost Leopard Spot on Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください
頑張ってください
Re: The Politics Thread
That sounds just a little bit mad.Lost Leopard Spot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:01 pmIt's Them versus Us.
We all know who they are. Some of us have lists. They certainly have. Civil War is the outcome of this shit storm...
Re: The Politics Thread
I mean it was decided 11-0.
11 experienced judges have all independently come to the same conclusion. Without being party to all the evidence submitted, I’m happy to go with that as a fairly robust decision.
11 experienced judges have all independently come to the same conclusion. Without being party to all the evidence submitted, I’m happy to go with that as a fairly robust decision.
- Lost Leopard Spot
- Immortal
- Posts: 18436
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
- Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.
Re: The Politics Thread
Great. Good for you. Colours nailed. The establishment establishes itself ever more fervently, "We're just following Democracy, guv"...
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください
頑張ってください
- Lost Leopard Spot
- Immortal
- Posts: 18436
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
- Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.
Re: The Politics Thread
...anyway, I'm off to establish another identity elsewhere.
I'm on too many lists as it is.
Fxck it all.
I'm on too many lists as it is.
Fxck it all.
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください
頑張ってください
Re: The Politics Thread
What’s with all your talk of lists?
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: The Politics Thread
One of the things which pleases me greatly about it being an unequivocal 11-0 is that neither Johnson nor his acolytes get to turn round and claim that even our cleverest legal clogs couldn't agree on it.
May the bridges I burn light your way
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43267
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: The Politics Thread
Sincerely hope that doesn't mean leaving here Spots? It's only a chat forum after all, the supreme court only sits on The Trotter forum.Lost Leopard Spot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:17 pm...anyway, I'm off to establish another identity elsewhere.
I'm on too many lists as it is.
Fxck it all.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: The Politics Thread
Exactly. It carries so much weight it really can’t be questioned. I’ve already heard some Tory Mps pushing a people Vs the courts agenda which is deeply worrying and irresponsible.Bruce Rioja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:22 pmOne of the things which pleases me greatly about it being an unequivocal 11-0 is that neither Johnson nor his acolytes get to turn round and claim that even our cleverest legal clogs couldn't agree on it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 122 guests