On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 09:40:51 +0100
"michael adams" mjadams25@ukonline wrote:



a) Supposing for one awful moment that such a thing could happen,
is it ever permissable for a Prime minister of the UK to lie to the
Monarch in the course of his duties ?


I think it must be, because we are discussing the repercussions of the
behaviour of a PM of the UK who lied not only to Parliament, but the
entire country, including the Queen, and was never prosecuted or even
sanctioned by Parliament. It clearly *is* permissible.

--
Joe

On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw it out.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 19:08:02 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Two straight questions Norman.

a) Supposing for one awful moment that such a thing could happen, is it
ever permissable for a Prime minister of the UK to lie to the Monarch in
the course of his duties ?

You don¢t know

Will you shut your senile gob finally, you trolling piece of senile
Australian ****?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw it out.


Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words, no
court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.

Once they had got past that hurdle, the government's case collapsed like
a pack of cards. They had no justification for the lengthy proroguing of
Parliament.

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

Are you impressed by Boris's notorious words: "The whole September
session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot Cameron to show the
public that MPs are earning their crust."?

The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw
it out.


Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words, no
court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.


Did they research it, or did they create it? Even after the decision,
I'm seeing claims for both. Where does one find the objective,
definitive, answer? Or does their authority make it definitive, with
nothing else needed?

Once they had got past that hurdle, the government's case collapsed like
a pack of cards. They had no justification for the lengthy proroguing of
Parliament.

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

Are you impressed by Boris's notorious words: "The whole September
session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot Cameron to show the
public that MPs are earning their crust."?

On 2019-09-27, The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw it out.


Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words, no
court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.

Once they had got past that hurdle, the government's case collapsed like
a pack of cards. They had no justification for the lengthy proroguing of
Parliament.

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

That it was extremely weak.

On 27/09/2019 11:00, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw
it out.


Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words,
no court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal
Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.


Did they research it, or did they create it?Â* Even after the decision,
I'm seeing claims for both.Â* Where does one find the objective,
definitive, answer?Â* Or does their authority make it definitive, with
nothing else needed?


They didn't create any new law. Any claims to the contrary are
misguided, and probably originate from those who are determined to see
the decision as an attempt to influence Brexit.

You have to look at the Supreme Court judgment. See
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...2-judgment.pdf


31. Secondly, although the courts cannot decide political questions, the
fact that a legal dispute concerns the conduct of politicians, or arises
from a matter of political controversy, has never been sufficient reason
for the courts to refuse to consider it. As the Divisional Court
observed in para 47 of its judgment, almost all important decisions
made by the executive have a political hue to them.
Nevertheless, the courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over
the decisions of the executive for centuries. Many if not most of the
constitutional cases in our legal history have been concerned with
politics in that sense.

32. Two examples will suffice to illustrate the point. The
17thcentury was a period of turmoil over the relationship
between the Stuart kings and Parliament, which culminated in
civil war. That political controversy did not deter the courts
from holding, in the Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74, that an
attempt to alter the law of the land by the use of the Crowns
prerogative powers was unlawful. The court concluded at p 76 that €œthe
King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows
him€�, indicating that the limits of prerogative powers were set by law
and were determined by the courts. The later 18thcentury was another
troubled period in our political history, when the Government was
greatly concerned about seditious publications. That did not deter the
courts from holding, in Entick v Carrington(1765) 19 State Tr 1029;
2Wils KB 275, that the Secretary of State could not order searches
of private property without authority conferred by an Act of Parliament
or the common law.

42.The sovereignty of Parliament would, however, be undermined
as the foundational principle of our constitution if the executive
could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from
exercising its legislative authority for as long as it pleased. That,
however, would be the position if there was no legal limit upon the
power to prorogue Parliament (subject to a few exceptional circumstances
in which, under statute, Parliament can meet while it stands
prorogued). An unlimited power of prorogation would therefore be
incompatible with the legal principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.

The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 11:00, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw
it out.


Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words,
no court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal
Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.


Did they research it, or did they create it?Â* Even after the decision,
I'm seeing claims for both.Â* Where does one find the objective,
definitive, answer?Â* Or does their authority make it definitive, with
nothing else needed?


They didn't create any new law. Any claims to the contrary are
misguided, and probably originate from those who are determined to see
the decision as an attempt to influence Brexit.


I am prepared to concede the possibility :-) But thanks for the
response. It is interesting, but I'm not going to pretend to understand
it (which is, of course, not required). I'm not sure that such things
ought to be settled in the courts; but I guess that's what the future
has in store for us, and at least it doesn't involve civil war.

You have to look at the Supreme Court judgment. See
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...2-judgment.pdf


31. Secondly, although the courts cannot decide political questions, the
fact that a legal dispute concerns the conduct of politicians, or arises
from a matter of political controversy, has never been sufficient reason
for the courts to refuse to consider it. As the Divisional Court
observed in para 47 of its judgment, almost all important decisions
madeÂ* byÂ* theÂ* executiveÂ* haveÂ* aÂ* politicalÂ* hueÂ* toÂ* them.
Nevertheless,Â* the courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over
the decisions of the executive for centuries. Many if not most of the
constitutional cases in our legal history have been concerned with
politics in that sense.

32. TwoÂ* examplesÂ* willÂ* sufficeÂ* toÂ* illustrateÂ* theÂ* point.Â* The
17thcenturyÂ* wasÂ* a periodÂ* ofÂ* turmoilÂ* overÂ* theÂ* relationship
betweenÂ* theÂ* StuartÂ* kingsÂ* andÂ* Parliament, whichÂ* culminatedÂ* in
civilÂ* war.Â* ThatÂ* politicalÂ* controversyÂ* didÂ* notÂ* deterÂ* theÂ* courts
from holding, in the Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74, that an
attempt to alter the law of the land by the use of the Crowns
prerogative powers was unlawful. The court concluded at p 76 that €œthe
King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows
him€�, indicating that the limits of prerogative powers were set by law
and were determined by the courts. The later 18thcentury was another
troubled period in our political history, when the Government was
greatly concerned about seditious publications. That did not deter the
courts from holding, in Entick v Carrington(1765) 19Â* StateÂ* TrÂ* 1029;
2WilsÂ* KBÂ* 275, thatÂ* theÂ* SecretaryÂ* ofÂ* State could not order searches
of private property without authority conferred by an Act of Parliament
or the common law.

42.TheÂ* sovereigntyÂ* ofÂ* ParliamentÂ* would,Â* however,Â* beÂ* undermined
asÂ* the foundational principle of our constitution if the executive
could, through the use of the prerogative,Â* prevent Parliament from
exercising its legislative authority for as long as it pleased. That,
however, would be the position if there was no legal limit upon the
power to prorogue Parliament (subject to a few exceptional circumstances
inÂ* which,Â* underÂ* statute,Â* ParliamentÂ* canÂ* meetÂ* whileÂ* itÂ* stands
prorogued).Â* An unlimitedÂ* powerÂ* ofÂ* prorogationÂ* wouldÂ* thereforeÂ* be
incompatibleÂ* withÂ* theÂ* legal principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.

On 27/09/2019 09:40, michael adams wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:

Once the claimants had overcome the hurdle of "judiciable"

Which was the finely balanced point concerned.

Two straight questions Norman.

a) Supposing for one awful moment that such a thing could happen,
is it ever permissable for a Prime minister of the UK to lie to the
Monarch in the course of his duties ?

If the Queen is just a rubber stamp, I don't think it matters much what
he says to her, if indeed he actually has to say anything at all. She
can't do anything about it anyway, so she might well think sod it, it's
just another annoying bit of paper I have to sign on my hols, here it
is, now go away and stop bothering me.

But was there in fact any conversation about it between Boris and the
Queen? I thought he just sent his favourite Privy Counsellors including
that nice Mr Rees-Mogg, rather ridiculously all the way up to Balmoral,
to get a bit of paper signed, and bring it back personally.

Perhaps they haven't caught up with fax machines in Scotland yet.

b) If it isn't, then in the highly unlikely even of that possibly happening,
how exectly could that fact be established, and by whom ?

Well, it can't be of course. Conventionally and constitutionally,
conversations between the monarch and the Prime Minister have always
been totally confidential. So, it can only be deduced or assumed by
hearsay, which normal courts dismiss out of hand.

Now, we have the ridiculous position of the opposition demanding to see
the advice given not to the Queen herself, but in confidence to the
advisor to the Queen, who may not have advised her in any meaningful
sense anyway. Despite the fiction, a rubber stamp doesn't require any
advice.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 22:26:26 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 26/09/2019 21:36, Grik-busturd?? wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 21:04:11 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 26/09/2019 20:37, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Grik-basturd®?
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:47:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
* Brian Reay wrote:
What matters is what we were promised about the outcome of the
Referendum - the result would be honoured.

All three parties agreed to that before and after.

Do keep up, Brian. The debate is not about leaving the EU, but the terms
on which we leave it. Given leave promised we could leave with a decent
deal.

Leave made no such promise.

And as we all know, the debate is about whether we leave or not. It's
become abundantly clear that the EU is not interested in any sort of
reasonable deal, encouraged as they are by all the quislings around.
What is going on is a continuing attempt to ensure we don't leave,
except that the Remainers don't have the honesty to admit it, involving
as it would the necessity of their also admitting that, over the time
involved both before and since the referendum, that they've been
continually lying about it.


What rubbish, remainer's have said they want to remain and they have
said why they should.

Plural's don't take apostrophe's, sunshine.


so is that the best you can do?

That seems to be the best *you* can do. Illiterate ****!

Its just that brexiteers have decided to rubbish the reasons by
inventing project fear.
The majority of lies have been from brexiteers just as you are now doing.

Project Fear is very much real and one of the main weapons used by
Remainers to undermine Brexit.


rubbish its was invented by brexiteers to discredit anything they don't
like.

Nonsense, it was promoted and marketed by Remoaners in a feeble
attempt to stop Brexit happening.

BTW why do you put a capital on remainers or brexit?

There's no need for me to answer that....your illiteracy has already
been established.

In article ,
sick old nazoid pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron ("Grik-busturd") wrote:

Nonsense,

Please do not contradict HUMANS, you dirty, inferior sub-louse.

Thank you.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 01:07:31 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
and former shyster wrote:

On 26/09/2019 20:20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 19:17, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/09/2019 17:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 16:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
*** The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It is extraordinary how you imagine all sorts of scenarios excecpt the
most obvious one.
The supreme court is 100% hard line remain, set up by Tony Bliar to
stop
te lords interfering with EU treåty signing and they looked for any
way
they could make a case that Boris acted unlawfully and have made an
complete mess of it as a result, and Cox was right, and they were
biased
and wrong?

Are you saying those 11 judges were all hand picked remain supporters?
Willing to subvert their duty to their political views?

They're hand-picked from the legal establishment, which makes them
almost certainly Remain supporters.* I think that much is beyond
question.

In judicial terms, they're given absolute power, and we all know what
that can do.* They're not answerable to anyone, so can say what they
like, decide what they like, and can't be hauled over the coals for
it. Moreover, since the matters that reach their elevated levels will
be finely balanced in any case, they can reach whatever judgement
suits them, and will be able to justify it in writing very convincingly.

So, do they decide as totally impartial angels and not as mere
mortals, or might they be tempted to go with their own prejudices?
Who knows? Who can say?

So why do brexiteers claim they aren't impartial if they can't know?
More propaganda to try and support their cause.

Because the decisions they reach point in that direction.

On something as finely balanced as the latest case, when no-one knew
with any certainty which way they'd decide, it's pretty indicative that
all 11 came could have come to exactly the same conclusion on the facts.

Try tossing a coin 11 times, and see if you get 11 heads.

The probability of that is just 6 times in 1000 eleven coin tosses.

Getting it first time indicates some sort of bias or shenanigans.


You aren't likely to sit through as many court cases as I have

Don't tell me...juvenile court with three magistrates!

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:47:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
What matters is what we were promised about the outcome of the
Referendum - the result would be honoured.

All three parties agreed to that before and after.

Do keep up, Brian. The debate is not about leaving the EU, but the terms
on which we leave it. Given leave promised we could leave with a decent
deal.

A minority group decided to have a Halloween fireworks party in a
nearby field. They asked the village to answer a poll//// vote on it
and a tiny minority agreed that it might be a good idea, based on the
idea that from the funds raised, there would be free hot dogs, free
fireworks and money for the local club house. Nearly as many weren't
convinced it was such a good idea, based on the food offering choice,
the location (next to a petrol storage facility) and they weren't sure
if the person who owned the field would be up for it?

However, when they started looking into it they realised that: they
didn't have permission to use the field, the many people were
vegetarians and more worryingly the field was next to a petrol storage
depot ...

But hey, those who wanted it said they were told it was going to
happen and they DGAF about the vegetarians, the farmer and his land or
'a bit of petrol'.

Those who were concerned in the first place (the vast majority, even
many who didn't actually vote against it at the time) were even more
concerned, once the facts had come out, in fact, questioning the
sanity of those who were so determined to go ahead with it, under
those circumstances.

Cheers, T i m

On 2019-09-27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 11:00, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw
it out.


Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words,
no court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal
Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.


Did they research it, or did they create it?Â* Even after the decision,
I'm seeing claims for both.Â* Where does one find the objective,
definitive, answer?Â* Or does their authority make it definitive, with
nothing else needed?


They didn't create any new law. Any claims to the contrary are
misguided, and probably originate from those who are determined to see
the decision as an attempt to influence Brexit.


I am prepared to concede the possibility :-) But thanks for the
response. It is interesting, but I'm not going to pretend to understand
it (which is, of course, not required). I'm not sure that such things
ought to be settled in the courts; but I guess that's what the future
has in store for us, and at least it doesn't involve civil war.

I don't feel Todal adequately answered your last question, "Or does their
authority make it definitive, with nothing else needed?"

That is exactly the case. People trust in their experience and judgement.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:51:43 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

snip

A majority they bought. By bribing another party albeit indirectly. Sadly
all that did was increase the right wing support in their party. Making
any deal less likely to get through.

Given many of those who voted Remain did so because they were unsure
why they should vote Leave, I think it would have been nice if those
who voted Leave, the ones *actively* looking for change, genuinely
tried to convince the Remain and floating voter, in real terms that
tangibly apply to and would be the genuine concerns of 'most people',
why Leaving was a real solution to that?

Instead, all we have ever heard is what the Leavers want, when many
don't agree on what that actually is but not how it would be 'very
likely' to be a positive thing for 'most people'.

Stamping your feet and insisting something is right (for most people)
just 'because' it's right for them personally, really isn't good
enough.

And given how fanatically some of the worst of the Leave voters are
*sure* it will be the right thing for all of us to do, you would think
it would be very easy to convince the average person in the street
along the same lines?

Most of the Remain voters didn't vote Remain because they knew it
would be the best for most people, just that we were doing reasonably
well in the EU and couldn't see any reasonable reason to change that?

3 years on they are still waiting for such reasons from the Leavers to
change that, and in the mean time many more people have reached voting
age who wouldn't see the justification either.

Cheers, T i m

On 27/09/2019 12:24, Grik-busturd�� wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 22:26:26 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 26/09/2019 21:36, Grik-busturd?? wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 21:04:11 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 26/09/2019 20:37, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Grik-basturd®?
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:47:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Â* Brian Reay wrote:
What matters is what we were promised about the outcome of the
Referendum - the result would be honoured.

All three parties agreed to that before and after.

Do keep up, Brian. The debate is not about leaving the EU, but the terms
on which we leave it. Given leave promised we could leave with a decent
deal.

Leave made no such promise.

And as we all know, the debate is about whether we leave or not. It's
become abundantly clear that the EU is not interested in any sort of
reasonable deal, encouraged as they are by all the quislings around.
What is going on is a continuing attempt to ensure we don't leave,
except that the Remainers don't have the honesty to admit it, involving
as it would the necessity of their also admitting that, over the time
involved both before and since the referendum, that they've been
continually lying about it.


What rubbish, remainer's have said they want to remain and they have
said why they should.

Plural's don't take apostrophe's, sunshine.


so is that the best you can do?

That seems to be the best *you* can do. Illiterate ****!

Its just that brexiteers have decided to rubbish the reasons by
inventing project fear.
The majority of lies have been from brexiteers just as you are now doing.

Project Fear is very much real and one of the main weapons used by
Remainers to undermine Brexit.


rubbish its was invented by brexiteers to discredit anything they don't
like.

Nonsense, it was promoted and marketed by Remoaners in a feeble
attempt to stop Brexit happening.

BTW why do you put a capital on remainers or brexit?

There's no need for me to answer that....your illiteracy has already
been established.


As has yours by the looks of it!
Not that yours was ever in doubt in the first place.

Anyway enough of the insults try some truthful arguments instead.

On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw it out.


they were presented with a case, boris didn't in the supreme court.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

[deleted for brevity]

Anyway enough of the insults try some truthful arguments instead.

I am afraid that's a "no go"...

"Grik-basturda" = a zillion other aliases = Andrew "Andrzej" Baron,
an old, sad, sociopathic loser. He hates Brits, Poles, Jews, Greeks,
and basically everybody.

Old-timers here may remember him as the obnoxious mega-troll
"The Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe" (aka "Revd pedo").

On 27/09/2019 08:45, Tim Streater wrote:

Yes. I've seen somewhere that they each receive £175k from the EU.
Whether this is true or not I don't know. Anyone got any info about
that?


A brexiteer starting more lies to try and discredit something they don't
like.
What a surprise!

What about all the EU money brexiteers have received are they going to
give it back?

Will they fund the facilities currently funded by the EU or just expect
those that voted remain to cough up the majority so they can enjoy the
subsidised services?

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:14:49 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 27/09/2019 12:24, Grik-busturd?? wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 22:26:26 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 26/09/2019 21:36, Grik-busturd?? wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 21:04:11 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 26/09/2019 20:37, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Grik-basturd®?
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:47:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
* Brian Reay wrote:
What matters is what we were promised about the outcome of the
Referendum - the result would be honoured.

All three parties agreed to that before and after.

Do keep up, Brian. The debate is not about leaving the EU, but the terms
on which we leave it. Given leave promised we could leave with a decent
deal.

Leave made no such promise.

And as we all know, the debate is about whether we leave or not. It's
become abundantly clear that the EU is not interested in any sort of
reasonable deal, encouraged as they are by all the quislings around.
What is going on is a continuing attempt to ensure we don't leave,
except that the Remainers don't have the honesty to admit it, involving
as it would the necessity of their also admitting that, over the time
involved both before and since the referendum, that they've been
continually lying about it.


What rubbish, remainer's have said they want to remain and they have
said why they should.

Plural's don't take apostrophe's, sunshine.


so is that the best you can do?

That seems to be the best *you* can do. Illiterate ****!

Its just that brexiteers have decided to rubbish the reasons by
inventing project fear.
The majority of lies have been from brexiteers just as you are now doing.

Project Fear is very much real and one of the main weapons used by
Remainers to undermine Brexit.


rubbish its was invented by brexiteers to discredit anything they don't
like.

Nonsense, it was promoted and marketed by Remoaners in a feeble
attempt to stop Brexit happening.

BTW why do you put a capital on remainers or brexit?

There's no need for me to answer that....your illiteracy has already
been established.


As has yours by the looks of it!

As an illiterate, you couldn't spot illiteracy if you trod in it!

Not that yours was ever in doubt in the first place.

You must be from the d-i-y group.

Anyway enough of the insults try some truthful arguments instead.

Anyway, enough of the illiterate rants, try some literacy instead.

Norman Wells wrote:
On something as finely balanced as the latest case, when no-one knew
with any certainty which way they'd decide, it's pretty indicative that
all 11 came could have come to exactly the same conclusion on the facts.

Seeing as the "no-one" category consists almost entirely of people
with no meaningful expertise in constitutional law, their corporate
feeling that it was "finely balanced" is irrelevant. And since the
eleven senior judges, who *are* chosen on the basis of their relevant
experience, all agreed with the given verdict and its reasoning,
suggests that the case was very definitely on one side of the line,
however "near" to that line it might be thought have been.

Try tossing a coin 11 times, and see if you get 11 heads.

Aha, that well known and reliable technique for deciding legal
matters; but strangely one that is somehow even less popular than
trial-by-combat or the ducking-stool. I wonder why the Supreme Court
doesn't use it more often in their decisions?




#Paul

On Friday, 27 September 2019 12:39:46 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:47:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
What matters is what we were promised about the outcome of the
Referendum - the result would be honoured.

All three parties agreed to that before and after.

Do keep up, Brian. The debate is not about leaving the EU, but the terms
on which we leave it. Given leave promised we could leave with a decent
deal.

A minority group decided to have a Halloween fireworks party in a
nearby field.

In most situations only minority groups are invited to such things.
I was never asked about it, and I doubt the queen or Boris was asked either do you have a problem with that ?


They asked the village to answer a poll//// vote on it.

Seems a fair way of going about it.

and a tiny minority agreed that it might be a good idea,

and I'm guessing you have the percentages and what was askecd on the voting paper.


based on the
idea that from the funds raised, there would be free hot dogs, free
fireworks and money for the local club house.

Sounds reasonable.


Nearly as many weren't
convinced it was such a good idea, based on the food offering choice,

You mean no caviar ?, what was wrong with the food choice, no Michelin stars ?

the location (next to a petrol storage facility) and they weren't sure
if the person who owned the field would be up for it?

You'd have thought someone would have checked both before a vote was taken unless it was a preliminary vote like you do when you ask employees if they want to form a 5-aside football team. We used to have a cricket team in the department and we used play other departments once a year during july/august it was a chance to get the workers toghether for a bit of fun in theydon bois at a college owned manour house and fields called ditchleys(SP)


However, when they started looking into it they realised that: they
didn't have permission to use the field,

was this before or after the vote ?

the many people were
vegetarians

why would that be a concern, what about vegans and macrobiotics, what about those with hay fever and such allergies ?

and more worryingly the field was next to a petrol storage
depot ...

Such facilates should have a risk assessment type thing.


But hey, those who wanted it said they were told it was going to
happen and they DGAF about the vegetarians, the farmer and his land or
'a bit of petrol'.

Seems more like one of those made up stories that Hary posts via brietfart.


Those who were concerned in the first place (the vast majority, even
many who didn't actually vote against it at the time) were even more
concerned, once the facts had come out, in fact, questioning the
sanity of those who were so determined to go ahead with it, under
those circumstances.

We have firework parties in walthamstow, we have pertol stations too, there was a big party you might remmebr on 31st december 1999, london has many petrols stations and buildings which could catch light.

what they should have done was make the vote open to cats, cats don't like fireworks, most cats staff and organisations know this too, so giving cats the vote with possible 100s would increase the number of votes, give them some free treats for voting and yuo;d get yuor supermajority for not having a firework event.



Cheers, T i m

On 27/09/2019 10:39, The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw
it out.

Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words, no
court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.

I'm sure the lawyers on both sides researched the law, such as it
exists, absolutely thoroughly. It's their job, you see. It isn't the
job of the Court to research the law independently but just to decide
the case before it solely on the evidence presented in court. That's a
well-established legal principle here in the UK.

The fact is that there were no precedents that read onto the case. The
Supreme Court had to break new ground and in so dooing created a
precedent for future cases.

Once they had got past that hurdle, the government's case collapsed like
a pack of cards. They had no justification for the lengthy proroguing of
Parliament.

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

Just your glossing over of 'once they had got past that hurdle'. It was
that point on which there was no precedent.

Are you impressed by Boris's notorious words: "The whole September
session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot Cameron to show the
public that MPs are earning their crust."?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, given that they've just got back
from their nice summer hols, and are about to have another three weeks
recess when they all go off to their jolly conferences at the seaside.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 27/09/2019 09:40, michael adams wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:

Once the claimants had overcome the hurdle of "judiciable"

Which was the finely balanced point concerned.

Two straight questions Norman.

a) Supposing for one awful moment that such a thing could happen,
is it ever permissable for a Prime minister of the UK to lie to the
Monarch in the course of his duties ?

If the Queen is just a rubber stamp, I don't think it matters much
what he says to her,
if indeed he actually has to say anything at all. She can't do anything
about it anyway, so she might well think sod it, it's just another
annoying bit of paper I have to sign on my hols, here it is, now go
away and stop bothering me.

In which case Boris could have asked her to porogue Parliament
for say six months, a year, maybe up until shortly before the date
of the next General Election as determined by the Fixed Term Parliament
Act which would mean a nice holiday for him and his chums , with his
job at the Telegraph to go back to at the end and there would be damn
all the Queen could do about it ?

The above actually is a bit of a killer argument when you think
of it


But was there in fact any conversation about it between Boris and the Queen? I thought
he just sent his favourite Privy Counsellors including that nice Mr Rees-Mogg, rather
ridiculously all the way up to Balmoral, to get a bit of paper signed, and bring it
back personally.

See above.


Perhaps they haven't caught up with fax machines in Scotland yet.

b) If it isn't, then in the highly unlikely even of that possibly happening,
how exectly could that fact be established, and by whom ?

Well, it can't be of course. Conventionally and constitutionally,
conversations between the monarch and the Prime Minister have always
been totally confidential. So, it can only be deduced or assumed by
hearsay, which normal courts dismiss out of hand.

But if its assumed that the Queen is shown the courtesy of being given
a reason, otherwise as above, what's to stop any PM from proroguing
Parliament for any length of time whenever they see choppy waters ahead,
at least until the heat dies down, then all the possible reasons which
could have been given are easily deducible, and subject to outside
scrutiny as in this case.

Basically there are only so many reasons any PM could have for proroguing
Parliament and the Queen knows that as well as anyone.

Having not spoken to her myself recently it would only be a guess, that Her
Majesty was advised to grant Boris his wish, on the assumption that it
might well be subsequently challenged in the Courts, as indeed it was.

Everyone assumes the Queen along with her advisors are so dumb that
they didn't themselves envisage the possibility of subsequent legal
action.

More especially once they realised the type of unscrupulous lying bull****
artist they were actually dealing with



Now, we have the ridiculous position of the opposition

The role of the opposition, such as it is, in this, is irrelevant. Which
is maybe just as well. As if it had been left to them, they'd probably
still be arguing about who among them should actually be bringing the
Court Case.


michael adams

....

On 27/09/2019 09:07, charles wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Reay
wrote:

The Todal wrote:

You aren't likely to sit through as many court cases as I have, and I
can assure you that when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision
it can only mean that the losing party's case is extremely weak.

ROTFL, you must be the only person who doesn€˜t know the background of the
Judges concerned.

They should recused themselves.
^
|
+--------- have

Yes. I've seen somewhere that they each receive £175k from the EU.
Whether this is true or not I don't know. Anyone got any info about
that?

sound like Fake News
No.
It may spound like that to you, but its not.

--



--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 27/09/2019 10:12, Joe wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 09:40:51 +0100
"michael adams" mjadams25@ukonline wrote:



a) Supposing for one awful moment that such a thing could happen,
is it ever permissable for a Prime minister of the UK to lie to the
Monarch in the course of his duties ?


I think it must be, because we are discussing the repercussions of the
behaviour of a PM of the UK who lied not only to Parliament, but the
entire country, including the Queen, and was never prosecuted or even
sanctioned by Parliament. It clearly *is* permissible.

But Blair hadnt been PM for years and neither has John Major???


--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:36:19 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , The Todal
wrote:

42.The sovereignty of Parliament would, however, be undermined
as the foundational principle of our constitution if the executive
could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from
exercising its legislative authority for as long as it pleased. That,
however, would be the position if there was no legal limit upon the
power to prorogue Parliament (subject to a few exceptional circumstances
in which, under statute, Parliament can meet while it stands
prorogued). An unlimited power of prorogation would therefore be
incompatible with the legal principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.

An unlimited power of prorogation is also forbidden by the Bill of
Rights.

No, it isn't.

On 27/09/2019 10:39, The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw
it out.


Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words, no
court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.


Er no. It was left to a court whose members are 100% EU employees, to
research the law and come up with the *single interpretation* of
'proceedings in parliament' that allowed them to define prorogation as
'not a parliamentary procedure', and therefore justiciable.

Their case hinged on the fact that it involves the queen and the HoL and
therefore is done 'outside of parliament'

Legal weaselling of the highest order by a Blairite court set up to look
after, and funded by , the EU.



Once they had got past that hurdle, the government's case collapsed like
a pack of cards. They had no justification for the lengthy proroguing of
Parliament.

Once past that hurdle by extreme chicanery, they then tackled the rest
of the governments case.

They needed to find a crime that wasnt punishable, to simply reneder the
whole thing ultar vires. They sidetepped Boris' intention, and came up
with the finding that the prorogation *had the effect* of hindering
parliament, therefore it was unlawful.

The sixe of pandirasa box that is opened by this judgement is
potentially infinite.

A policemen who stops an MP for speeding on his way to an important vote
is as guilty of this crime as teh givernment.

Nevre mind that the intent was to merely ap[prehend a criminal, they
have *interfered with the workings of parliamant*.

And if te vote is lost by one, the supreme court could reber teh result
null and void.


Which part of the above do you disagree with?

All of it.

It soeems to me that rthe world deivides into two camps: Thsoe who
alwats argue from authority, which is you and the remain camp gammons,
and those who can think for themselves which is the leave camp and the
radicals and progessives.

Are you impressed by Boris's notorious words: "The whole September
session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot Cameron to show the
public that MPs are earning their crust."?

Sounds about right.


--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

On 27/09/2019 11:00, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Did they research it, or did they create it?Â* Even after the decision,
I'm seeing claims for both.Â* Where does one find the objective,
definitive, answer?Â* Or does their authority make it definitive, with
nothing else needed?

Well exactly.

The 'interpreted' it into existence.
Make no mistake, Brenda Hale is a true Bluestocking Girton girl. Asked
to make it justiciable, she came up with a way to do it.

To interpret 'parliamentry procedure' as 'procedures solely taking place
within parliament'

Therefore because Queenie is involved, prorogation is not a
'parliamentary procedure'




--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 27/09/2019 11:11, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw it out.


Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words, no
court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.

Once they had got past that hurdle, the government's case collapsed like
a pack of cards. They had no justification for the lengthy proroguing of
Parliament.

Which part of the above do you disagree with?

That it was extremely weak.


Indeed. The SCs case hinges on a far far weaker point.


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 11:00, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw
it out.


Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words,
no court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal
Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.


Did they research it, or did they create it?Â* Even after the decision,
I'm seeing claims for both.Â* Where does one find the objective,
definitive, answer?Â* Or does their authority make it definitive, with
nothing else needed?


They didn't create any new law. Any claims to the contrary are
misguided, and probably originate from those who are determined to see
the decision as an attempt to influence Brexit.


I am prepared to concede the possibility :-) But thanks for the
response. It is interesting, but I'm not going to pretend to understand
it (which is, of course, not required). I'm not sure that such things
ought to be settled in the courts; but I guess that's what the future
has in store for us, and at least it doesn't involve civil war.

I don't feel Todal adequately answered your last question, "Or does their
authority make it definitive, with nothing else needed?"

That is exactly the case. People trust in their experience and judgement.


Isn't it 'judgment'? (Sorry, couldn't resist it - I know you'd
appreciate it really) :-)

But that's why I said I didn't understand the text. I understand the
words all right. But suppose I'd written them? Obviously no-one would
give them a moment's consideration. There is nothing intrinsically
authoritative in the words. I have to assume that something is
conferred upon them by the person(s) that wrote them. Since they appear
to be the highest authority in the land, what else can one say? Perhaps
there is some supranational court to which one could apply? :-)

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

If the proroguing is a "proceeding in Parliament"

Proroguing Parliament is enacted by an Order in Council
authorised by the Monarch at a meeting of the Privy Council
which customarily assembles at the Monarch's current place
of residence.

then such judgement
is forbidden by the Bill of Rights. Interestingly, the SC has already
decided (in 2014) that granting Royal Assent to a Bill is such a
proceeding.

And if youre auntie had had ********, then she'd have been your uncle.


michael adams

....

On 27/09/2019 12:53, Incubus wrote:
I don't feel Todal adequately answered your last question, "Or does their
authority make it definitive, with nothing else needed?"

That is exactly the case. People trust in their experience and judgement.


That is the legal principle of precedent.

And that is why if you have a legal case to fight you look up all the
precedents.

And find to your horror that the case you are prosecuting has half a
dozen which bend this way or that. So in the end its always the judges
decision in a non jury setup as to which line of the law he prefers to
take. The best your lawyer can do is dredge up te three that are most
favorable tp you, and if te oppositin are doing tjeur joib, they will
reond the judge of te three that rob you blind.

It is then uo to the judge, having been duly reminded, to ponder over
the merits of each precedent and come up with a judgement.


Years ago I heard that someone I vaguely knew of had skipped bail and
gone abroad, because he had been caught 'in possession' and was up
before a judge, whose daughter had died of a heroin overdose. He had
never been knwon to pass less than maximum sentence on drug cases.

So much for judicial impartiality.



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

In article ,
T i m wrote:
Given many of those who voted Remain did so because they were unsure
why they should vote Leave, I think it would have been nice if those
who voted Leave, the ones *actively* looking for change, genuinely
tried to convince the Remain and floating voter, in real terms that
tangibly apply to and would be the genuine concerns of 'most people',
why Leaving was a real solution to that?

Well, Boris led the leave campaign. He now says the law introduced to stop
us leaving with no deal 'a surrender'.
So fair to conclude his idea of a victory is to leave with no deal.

Hardly any point in expecting him to spend time convincing his opposition.

--
*CAN AN ATHEIST GET INSURANCE AGAINST ACTS OF GOD?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 27/09/2019 13:58, michael adams wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 27/09/2019 09:40, michael adams wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:

Once the claimants had overcome the hurdle of "judiciable"

Which was the finely balanced point concerned.

Two straight questions Norman.

a) Supposing for one awful moment that such a thing could happen,
is it ever permissable for a Prime minister of the UK to lie to the
Monarch in the course of his duties ?

If the Queen is just a rubber stamp, I don't think it matters much
what he says to her,
if indeed he actually has to say anything at all. She can't do anything
about it anyway, so she might well think sod it, it's just another
annoying bit of paper I have to sign on my hols, here it is, now go
away and stop bothering me.

In which case Boris could have asked her to porogue Parliament
for say six months, a year, maybe up until shortly before the date
of the next General Election as determined by the Fixed Term Parliament
Act which would mean a nice holiday for him and his chums , with his
job at the Telegraph to go back to at the end and there would be damn
all the Queen could do about it ?

Exactly. She has to do what she's told, or create a constitutional
crisis which some of her ancestors have found very painful.

The above actually is a bit of a killer argument when you think
of it

No, because then the eleven horsemen of the Supreme would ride gallantly
to her rescue and pretend she hadn't signed anything on a blank sheet of
paper.

It's how fairy stories work.

But was there in fact any conversation about it between Boris and the Queen? I thought
he just sent his favourite Privy Counsellors including that nice Mr Rees-Mogg, rather
ridiculously all the way up to Balmoral, to get a bit of paper signed, and bring it
back personally.

See above.


Perhaps they haven't caught up with fax machines in Scotland yet.

b) If it isn't, then in the highly unlikely even of that possibly happening,
how exectly could that fact be established, and by whom ?

Well, it can't be of course. Conventionally and constitutionally,
conversations between the monarch and the Prime Minister have always
been totally confidential. So, it can only be deduced or assumed by
hearsay, which normal courts dismiss out of hand.

But if its assumed that the Queen is shown the courtesy of being given
a reason,

Why does any reason need to be given to a rubber stamp?

It's an utter waste of time.

otherwise as above, what's to stop any PM from proroguing
Parliament for any length of time whenever they see choppy waters ahead,
at least until the heat dies down, then all the possible reasons which
could have been given are easily deducible, and subject to outside
scrutiny as in this case.

Basically there are only so many reasons any PM could have for proroguing
Parliament and the Queen knows that as well as anyone.

She cannot interfere. We had a civil war and a deliberately shortened
monarch to establish that.

Having not spoken to her myself recently it would only be a guess, that Her
Majesty was advised to grant Boris his wish, on the assumption that it
might well be subsequently challenged in the Courts, as indeed it was.

Everyone assumes the Queen along with her advisors are so dumb that
they didn't themselves envisage the possibility of subsequent legal
action.

I don't think that's anything for her to worry about. So what if
there's subsequent legal action? She did what she was required to do,
and is immune anyway. It was never going to be her appearing in one of
her own courts.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 05:50:19 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

snip


A minority group decided to have a Halloween fireworks party in a
nearby field.

In most situations only minority groups are invited to such things.

Well in this case it was the whole village electorate.

snip whisky-dave droolings

They asked the village to answer a poll//// vote on it.

Seems a fair way of going about it.

It can be, if the feeing are strong one way or another.

and a tiny minority agreed that it might be a good idea,

and I'm guessing you have the percentages and what was askecd on the voting paper.

It doesn't matter. 'A tiny minority' is sufficient for everone except
the trolls / test tube cleaners.


based on the
idea that from the funds raised, there would be free hot dogs, free
fireworks and money for the local club house.

Sounds reasonable.

Yup, it might to you because you wouldn't be thinking outside the box.


Nearly as many weren't
convinced it was such a good idea, based on the food offering choice,

snip crazed droolings

the location (next to a petrol storage facility) and they weren't sure
if the person who owned the field would be up for it?

You'd have thought someone would have checked both before a vote was taken

Exactly, or just made it a 'Who fancies doing this, if it turns out to
be a good / sensible thing to do' poll.

snip droolings unread


However, when they started looking into it they realised that: they
didn't have permission to use the field,

was this before or after the vote ?

Can't put yourself in that picture eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally%E2%80%93Anne_test

the many people were
vegetarians

snip crazed droolings

and more worryingly the field was next to a petrol storage
depot ...

Such facilates should have a risk assessment type thing.

Quite, something considered before the vote or after the poll.


But hey, those who wanted it said they were told it was going to
happen and they DGAF about the vegetarians, the farmer and his land or
'a bit of petrol'.

Seems more like one of those made up stories that Hary posts via brietfart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally%E2%80%93Anne_test


Those who were concerned in the first place (the vast majority, even
many who didn't actually vote against it at the time) were even more
concerned, once the facts had come out, in fact, questioning the
sanity of those who were so determined to go ahead with it, under
those circumstances.

snip the rest unread as it looks like just more droolings

Test tubes all cleaned?

Cheers, T i m

On 27/09/2019 14:19, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Perhaps there is some supranational court to which one could apply? :-)

Parliament and the court of public opinion.


--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 27/09/2019 14:24, michael adams wrote:


And if youre auntie had had ********, then she'd have been your uncle.


How revoltingly 'unwoke' and 'gender specific' of you.



--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 2019-09-27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 11:00, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw
it out.


Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words,
no court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal
Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.


Did they research it, or did they create it?Â* Even after the decision,
I'm seeing claims for both.Â* Where does one find the objective,
definitive, answer?Â* Or does their authority make it definitive, with
nothing else needed?


They didn't create any new law. Any claims to the contrary are
misguided, and probably originate from those who are determined to see
the decision as an attempt to influence Brexit.


I am prepared to concede the possibility :-) But thanks for the
response. It is interesting, but I'm not going to pretend to understand
it (which is, of course, not required). I'm not sure that such things
ought to be settled in the courts; but I guess that's what the future
has in store for us, and at least it doesn't involve civil war.

I don't feel Todal adequately answered your last question, "Or does their
authority make it definitive, with nothing else needed?"

That is exactly the case. People trust in their experience and judgement.


Isn't it 'judgment'? (Sorry, couldn't resist it - I know you'd
appreciate it really) :-)

"Judgment can also be spelled "judgement," and usage experts have long
disagreed over which spelling is the preferred one. Henry Fowler asserted, "The
OED [Oxford English Dictionary] prefers the older and more reasonable spelling.
'Judgement' is therefore here recommended." William Safire held an opposite
opinion, writing, "My judgment is that Fowler is not to be followed."
"Judgement" is in fact the older spelling, but it dropped from favor and for
centuries "judgment" was the only spelling to appear in dictionaries. That
changed when the OED (Fowler's source) was published showing "judgement" as an
equal variant. Today, "judgment" is more popular in the U.S., whereas both
spellings make a good showing in Britain."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment

Because "judgement" is the older spelling, I consider it correct

But that's why I said I didn't understand the text. I understand the
words all right. But suppose I'd written them? Obviously no-one would
give them a moment's consideration. There is nothing intrinsically
authoritative in the words. I have to assume that something is
conferred upon them by the person(s) that wrote them. Since they appear
to be the highest authority in the land, what else can one say? Perhaps
there is some supranational court to which one could apply? :-)

That's the one thing I find odd about a system that relies so much on the
establishment of precedents. In many cases, the opinion of one person can
forever change the intepretation of a law. In this case, it was a football team

Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 11:00, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
The Todal wrote:
On 27/09/2019 10:23, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/2019 01:07, The Todal wrote:
when a bench of judges reaches a unanimous decision it can only mean
that the losing party's case is extremely weak.
Bless!

It wasn't so weak that the High Court and the Court of Session threw
it out.


Do explain.

As I've said, repeatedly: the only argument that the Government was
really arguing was that the case was non justiciable. In other words,
no court has the right to judge Boris when he exercises the Royal
Prerogative.

That argument succeeded at first instance. It was left to the Supreme
Court to research the law properly and to explain that - to use Lord
Denning's famous words - be ye ever so high, the law is above you.


Did they research it, or did they create it?Â* Even after the decision,
I'm seeing claims for both.Â* Where does one find the objective,
definitive, answer?Â* Or does their authority make it definitive, with
nothing else needed?


They didn't create any new law. Any claims to the contrary are
misguided, and probably originate from those who are determined to see
the decision as an attempt to influence Brexit.


I am prepared to concede the possibility :-) But thanks for the
response. It is interesting, but I'm not going to pretend to understand
it (which is, of course, not required). I'm not sure that such things
ought to be settled in the courts; but I guess that's what the future
has in store for us, and at least it doesn't involve civil war.

I don't feel Todal adequately answered your last question, "Or does their
authority make it definitive, with nothing else needed?"

That is exactly the case. People trust in their experience and judgement.


Isn't it 'judgment'? (Sorry, couldn't resist it - I know you'd
appreciate it really) :-)

"Judgment can also be spelled "judgement," and usage experts have long
disagreed over which spelling is the preferred one. Henry Fowler asserted, "The
OED [Oxford English Dictionary] prefers the older and more reasonable spelling.
'Judgement' is therefore here recommended." William Safire held an opposite
opinion, writing, "My judgment is that Fowler is not to be followed."
"Judgement" is in fact the older spelling, but it dropped from favor and for
centuries "judgment" was the only spelling to appear in dictionaries. That
changed when the OED (Fowler's source) was published showing "judgement" as an
equal variant. Today, "judgment" is more popular in the U.S., whereas both
spellings make a good showing in Britain."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment

Because "judgement" is the older spelling, I consider it correct


If 'judgment' is preferred in the US, I may have to bite the bullet and
change my mind :-) Hard to change the habit of a lifetime, though.

But that's why I said I didn't understand the text. I understand the
words all right. But suppose I'd written them? Obviously no-one would
give them a moment's consideration. There is nothing intrinsically
authoritative in the words. I have to assume that something is
conferred upon them by the person(s) that wrote them. Since they appear
to be the highest authority in the land, what else can one say? Perhaps
there is some supranational court to which one could apply? :-)

That's the one thing I find odd about a system that relies so much on the
establishment of precedents. In many cases, the opinion of one person can
forever change the intepretation of a law. In this case, it was a football team



It's a very odd system. For the political classes to resort to it seems
wrong, somehow. Let's just have the judges run the country.