On 24/09/2019 12:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

What proof is there that the intention was to muzzle?



five weeks instead of five days is enough for normal people.


he didn't want anyone to question what he is doing and will try anything
to do so.
Its brexiteer democracy in action.
Just as well the brexit party hasn't got in, it would be a police state
by now.

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:41:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 24/09/2019 12:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What proof is there that the intention was to muzzle?

five weeks instead of five days is enough for normal people.


certainly it took less than that to try to block the
democratic vote to leave

and to block and election ...twice...

and there are more days('were') available

he didn't want anyone to question what he is doing and will try anything
to do so.
Its brexiteer democracy in action.
Just as well the brexit party hasn't got in, it would be a police state
by now.

--
www.abelard.org

On 24/09/2019 15:47, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:41:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 24/09/2019 12:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What proof is there that the intention was to muzzle?

five weeks instead of five days is enough for normal people.


certainly it took less than that to try to block the
democratic vote to leave

and to block and election ...twice...

What do you expect?
if they let boris call an election he will use it to stop the HoC from
debating stuff.
Nobody trust him not to choose halloween for election day which he could
do if they voted to allow an election.
We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Its what happens when the HoC doesn't trust the PM.

Only brexiteers appear to not understand this and claim doing something
to prevent undemocratic action to be undemocratic.
But as we have seen if its in their favour its democratic and if it
isn't its undemocratic. Such is the minds of brexiteers.

dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 15:47, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:41:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 24/09/2019 12:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What proof is there that the intention was to muzzle?

five weeks instead of five days is enough for normal people.


certainly it took less than that to try to block the
democratic vote to leave

and to block and election ...twice...

What do you expect?
if they let boris call an election he will use it to stop the HoC from
debating stuff.
Nobody trust him not to choose halloween for election day which he could
do if they voted to allow an election.
We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Its what happens when the HoC doesn't trust the PM.

Only brexiteers appear to not understand this and claim doing something
to prevent undemocratic action to be undemocratic.
But as we have seen if its in their favour its democratic and if it
isn't its undemocratic. Such is the minds of brexiteers.


Here is a basic lesson in democracy for you:


Leave 17.4m | Remain 16.1m
By Constituency:
Leave 406 | Remain 242
By Constituency Party:
Labour - Leave 148 | Remain 84
Conservatives - Leave 247 | Remain 80
By Region:
Leave 9 | Remain 3
By MP:
Leave 160 | Remain 486

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 22:11:47 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 24/09/2019 15:47, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:41:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 24/09/2019 12:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What proof is there that the intention was to muzzle?

five weeks instead of five days is enough for normal people.


certainly it took less than that to try to block the
democratic vote to leave

and to block and election ...twice...

What do you expect?
if they let boris call an election he will use it to stop the HoC from
debating stuff.

if the people vote in swineson and the fake liberals, brexit
will e cancelled

Nobody trust him not to choose halloween for election day which he could
do if they voted to allow an election.
We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

it a not 'illegal'

Its what happens when the HoC doesn't trust the PM.

it appears they don't trust him to block the democratic will
of the electorate

you are too muddleheaded to take up much of my time and effort

Only brexiteers appear to not understand this and claim doing something
to prevent undemocratic action to be undemocratic.
But as we have seen if its in their favour its democratic and if it
isn't its undemocratic. Such is the minds of brexiteers.

--
www.abelard.org

On 24/09/2019 22:17, Brian Reay wrote:

Here is a basic lesson in democracy for you:

You are boring.
You will end up in the kill file if you keep posting the same cr@p over
and over again.
Typical brexiteer .. repeat until someone believes it.

dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 22:17, Brian Reay wrote:

Here is a basic lesson in democracy for you:

You are boring.
You will end up in the kill file

You seem to consider that some kind of threat.

Only an arrogant idiot would think like that.

On 24/09/2019 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 15:47, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:41:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 24/09/2019 12:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What proof is there that the intention was to muzzle?

five weeks instead of five days is enough for normal people.


certainly it took less than that to try to block the
Â*Â*Â* democratic vote to leave

and to block and election ...twice...

What do you expect?
if they let boris call an election he will use it to stop the HoC from
debating stuff.
Nobody trust him not to choose halloween for election day which he could
do if they voted to allow an election.

As I have said numerous times, if they genuinely feared that, there was
no need to legislate to block a no deal Brexit, no need to force a
request for an extension, when all they needed to do was legislate to
allow Boris to call an election, but with the date fixed by the
legislation. That they did not shows that they were intent on blocking
no deal, even if the public might vote for the Conservatives and give
them a mandate for it.

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Its what happens when the HoC doesn't trust the PM.

Only brexiteers appear to not understand this and claim doing something
to prevent undemocratic action to be undemocratic.
But as we have seen if its in their favour its democratic and if it
isn't its undemocratic. Such is the minds of brexiteers.

See the solution above.

SteveW

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 24/09/2019 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 15:47, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:41:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 24/09/2019 12:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What proof is there that the intention was to muzzle?

five weeks instead of five days is enough for normal people.


certainly it took less than that to try to block the
democratic vote to leave

and to block and election ...twice...

What do you expect?
if they let boris call an election he will use it to stop the HoC from
debating stuff.
Nobody trust him not to choose halloween for election day which he could
do if they voted to allow an election.

As I have said numerous times, if they genuinely feared that, there was no
need to legislate to block a no deal Brexit, no need to force a request
for an extension, when all they needed to do was legislate to allow Boris
to call an election, but with the date fixed by the legislation.

Its not clear that parliament can specify the date and
it would likely take a while before the supreme court
could rule that it could, with some risk that it would
rule that parliament couldnt do that and that that
is the PM prerogative.

That they did not shows that they were intent on blocking no deal, even if
the public might vote for the Conservatives and give them a mandate for
it.

It actually shows that Labour realises that it would be decimated.

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Its what happens when the HoC doesn't trust the PM.

Only brexiteers appear to not understand this and claim doing something
to prevent undemocratic action to be undemocratic.
But as we have seen if its in their favour its democratic and if it isn't
its undemocratic. Such is the minds of brexiteers.

See the solution above.

It isnt necessarily a solution.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:19:39 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


As I have said numerous times, if they genuinely feared that, there was no
need to legislate to block a no deal Brexit, no need to force a request
for an extension, when all they needed to do was legislate to allow Boris
to call an election, but with the date fixed by the legislation.

Its not clear that

In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal auto-contradicting senile
pest? BG

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On 25/09/2019 08:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Not illegal as it broke no law.

I'm certain that the BBC's R4 female interviewer of Jeremy Corbyn used
the term 'illegal' to describe the PM's prorogation, and hardly
surprisingly it wasn't challenged. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what
happened, but ICBA to listen to BBC Sound's catch-up for ~2h20 to see if
I'm right - there's no way of skipping through the recording.


--
Spike

On 24/09/2019 22:25, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 22:11:47 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 24/09/2019 15:47, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:41:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 24/09/2019 12:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What proof is there that the intention was to muzzle?

five weeks instead of five days is enough for normal people.


certainly it took less than that to try to block the
democratic vote to leave

and to block and election ...twice...

What do you expect?
if they let boris call an election he will use it to stop the HoC from
debating stuff.

if the people vote in swineson and the fake liberals, brexit
will e cancelled

Nobody trust him not to choose halloween for election day which he could
do if they voted to allow an election.
We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

it a not 'illegal'

Its what happens when the HoC doesn't trust the PM.

it appears they don't trust him to block the democratic will
of the electorate

you are too muddleheaded to take up much of my time and effort

The normal response of brexiteers when they don't want to tell the truth.

On 24/09/2019 22:48, Brian Reay wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 22:17, Brian Reay wrote:

Here is a basic lesson in democracy for you:

You are boring.
You will end up in the kill file

You seem to consider that some kind of threat.

Only an arrogant idiot would think like that.



No threat its just what you do when someone keeps posting the same old
cr@p over and over and over.
Especially when 90% of it is irrelevant anyway as we don't do FPTP
referendums and you are just posting it to try and make it look like
leave had a bigger vote than it did.

see that's better without all the cr@p.

On 24/09/2019 23:14, Steve Walker wrote:
On 24/09/2019 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2019 15:47, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:41:53 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 24/09/2019 12:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What proof is there that the intention was to muzzle?

five weeks instead of five days is enough for normal people.


certainly it took less than that to try to block the
Â*Â*Â* democratic vote to leave

and to block and election ...twice...

What do you expect?
if they let boris call an election he will use it to stop the HoC from
debating stuff.
Nobody trust him not to choose halloween for election day which he
could do if they voted to allow an election.

As I have said numerous times, if they genuinely feared that, there was
no need to legislate to block a no deal Brexit, no need to force a
request for an extension, when all they needed to do was legislate to
allow Boris to call an election, but with the date fixed by the
legislation. That they did not shows that they were intent on blocking
no deal, even if the public might vote for the Conservatives and give
them a mandate for it.

So now you think it would be a good idea for parliament to set the dates
for general elections.
That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.




We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Its what happens when the HoC doesn't trust the PM.

Only brexiteers appear to not understand this and claim doing
something to prevent undemocratic action to be undemocratic.
But as we have seen if its in their favour its democratic and if it
isn't its undemocratic. Such is the minds of brexiteers.

See the solution above.

See that its not a solution above.


SteveW

On 25/09/2019 09:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Not illegal as it broke no law. Just declared unlawful on the grounds
that no law allows it.

Didnt they hark back to some 400 year old bill of rights to claim it was
illegal to frustrate the will of parliament?

And the case hinged on the fact that prorogation is deemed not to have
happened within parliament, since it involves the Lords and the Queen,
so was in fact 'justiciable'.

No motive need be ascribed. The act itself breached that law.

The legal implications are still being mulled over.


That is, we are now adopting the same ****ty
legal precept that the continentals use - guilty til proved innocent,
and you can only do things that the law permits, rather than be
forbidden to do that which the law forbids, with everything else
permitted.



--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

In message , Spike
writes
On 25/09/2019 08:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Not illegal as it broke no law.

I'm certain that the BBC's R4 female interviewer of Jeremy Corbyn used
the term 'illegal' to describe the PM's prorogation, and hardly
surprisingly it wasn't challenged. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what
happened, but ICBA to listen to BBC Sound's catch-up for ~2h20 to see if
I'm right - there's no way of skipping through the recording.

In Corbyn's speech yesterday, he never once use the word 'unlawful'. It
was always 'illegal'. [You know, there ARE times when I do worry about
Jeremy.]



--
Ian

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:01:59 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Spike
writes
On 25/09/2019 08:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Not illegal as it broke no law.

I'm certain that the BBC's R4 female interviewer of Jeremy Corbyn used
the term 'illegal' to describe the PM's prorogation, and hardly
surprisingly it wasn't challenged. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what
happened, but ICBA to listen to BBC Sound's catch-up for ~2h20 to see if
I'm right - there's no way of skipping through the recording.

In Corbyn's speech yesterday, he never once use the word 'unlawful'. It
was always 'illegal'. [You know, there ARE times when I do worry about
Jeremy.]

i do believe he used another (dishonest) word...

it's all the minions and reptiles that keep using 'illegal'

agent cob is far more dangerous than bliar as he is more intelligent

do not underestimate the would-be fuehrer



--
www.abelard.org

On 25/09/2019 11:36, abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:01:59 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Spike
writes
On 25/09/2019 08:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Not illegal as it broke no law.

I'm certain that the BBC's R4 female interviewer of Jeremy Corbyn used
the term 'illegal' to describe the PM's prorogation, and hardly
surprisingly it wasn't challenged. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what
happened, but ICBA to listen to BBC Sound's catch-up for ~2h20 to see if
I'm right - there's no way of skipping through the recording.

In Corbyn's speech yesterday, he never once use the word 'unlawful'. It
was always 'illegal'. [You know, there ARE times when I do worry about
Jeremy.]

i do believe he used another (dishonest) word...

it's all the minions and reptiles that keep using 'illegal'

agent cob is far more dangerous than bliar as he is more intelligent
No, he is stupider, but he is equally as dangerous if not more so
because he is stupider.


do not underestimate the would-be fuehrer

No.





--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 11:36:56 UTC+1, abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:01:59 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Spike
writes
On 25/09/2019 08:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Not illegal as it broke no law.

I'm certain that the BBC's R4 female interviewer of Jeremy Corbyn used
the term 'illegal' to describe the PM's prorogation, and hardly
surprisingly it wasn't challenged. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what
happened, but ICBA to listen to BBC Sound's catch-up for ~2h20 to see if
I'm right - there's no way of skipping through the recording.

In Corbyn's speech yesterday, he never once use the word 'unlawful'. It
was always 'illegal'. [You know, there ARE times when I do worry about
Jeremy.]

i do believe he used another (dishonest) word...

it's all the minions and reptiles that keep using 'illegal'

Maybe they can;t tell the difernce between illegal and unlawful, but TBH there;s not a lot of differnce but in legal terms it means a lot more.



agent cob is far more dangerous than bliar as he is more intelligent

well he couldn't be less, but if he is more inteligent why is he in the **** he;s put himself into and not got out of the anti-semtic BS.


do not underestimate the would-be fuehrer



--
www.abelard.org

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:43:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/09/2019 11:36, abelard wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 11:01:59 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Spike
writes
On 25/09/2019 08:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Not illegal as it broke no law.

I'm certain that the BBC's R4 female interviewer of Jeremy Corbyn used
the term 'illegal' to describe the PM's prorogation, and hardly
surprisingly it wasn't challenged. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what
happened, but ICBA to listen to BBC Sound's catch-up for ~2h20 to see if
I'm right - there's no way of skipping through the recording.

In Corbyn's speech yesterday, he never once use the word 'unlawful'. It
was always 'illegal'. [You know, there ARE times when I do worry about
Jeremy.]

i do believe he used another (dishonest) word...

it's all the minions and reptiles that keep using 'illegal'

agent cob is far more dangerous than bliar as he is more intelligent
No, he is stupider, but he is equally as dangerous if not more so
because he is stupider.

he is more mad than he is stupid...

he actually believes his own guff...working within those
premises, he is more rational/intelligent than bliar


do not underestimate the would-be fuehrer

No.


--
www.abelard.org

On 25/09/2019 08:55, Tim Streater wrote:
Spike wrote:

On 25/09/2019 08:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Not illegal as it broke no law.

I'm certain that the BBC's R4 female interviewer of Jeremy Corbyn used
the term 'illegal' to describe the PM's prorogation, ...

Yes? And your point is *what*, precisely?

Apart from what could be sloppy preparation on someone's part, use of
the correct but mild term 'unlawful' seems to have been abandoned in
favour of the wrong but more pejorative term 'illegal'. Not that the BBC
could be accused of engaging in perception management against the
government, of course.


--
Spike

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Spike
writes
On 25/09/2019 08:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Not illegal as it broke no law.

I'm certain that the BBC's R4 female interviewer of Jeremy Corbyn used
the term 'illegal' to describe the PM's prorogation, and hardly
surprisingly it wasn't challenged. At least, I'm pretty sure that's what
happened, but ICBA to listen to BBC Sound's catch-up for ~2h20 to see if
I'm right - there's no way of skipping through the recording.

In Corbyn's speech yesterday, he never once use the word 'unlawful'. It
was always 'illegal'. [You know, there ARE times when I do worry about
Jeremy.]

As Tom Bower pointed out, he is thick and doesn't understand the difference.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 04:57:37 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:



As Tom Bower pointed out, he is thick and doesn't understand the difference.

As I pointed out, you ARE a thick, nym-shifting, abnormal, senile troll!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 25/09/2019 16:16, Spike wrote:
On 25/09/2019 08:55, Tim Streater wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 25/09/2019 08:14, Tim Streater wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote:

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Not illegal as it broke no law.

I'm certain that the BBC's R4 female interviewer of Jeremy Corbyn used
the term 'illegal' to describe the PM's prorogation, ...

Yes? And your point is *what*, precisely?

Apart from what could be sloppy preparation on someone's part, use of
the correct but mild term 'unlawful' seems to have been abandoned in
favour of the wrong but more pejorative term 'illegal'. Not that the BBC
could be accused of engaging in perception management against the
government, of course.

And still it continues...

Advertising an R4 programme this evening the term 'illegal' was again
used to describe the prorogation. Why do the BBC keep doing this?


--
Spike

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:31:07 +0000
Spike wrote:



And still it continues...

Advertising an R4 programme this evening the term 'illegal' was again
used to describe the prorogation. Why do the BBC keep doing this?



Because they can. It's like governments and elections: it's only in the
period immediately preceding a long-term licence fix that the BBC is
subject to any kind of external control. Once the fix is in, they're
free to do what they want for another n years.

--
Joe

In article ,
Spike wrote:
On 25/09/2019 16:16, Spike wrote:
On 25/09/2019 08:55, Tim Streater wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 25/09/2019 08:14, Tim Streater wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote:

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Not illegal as it broke no law.

I'm certain that the BBC's R4 female interviewer of Jeremy Corbyn used
the term 'illegal' to describe the PM's prorogation, ...

Yes? And your point is *what*, precisely?

Apart from what could be sloppy preparation on someone's part, use of
the correct but mild term 'unlawful' seems to have been abandoned in
favour of the wrong but more pejorative term 'illegal'. Not that the BBC
could be accused of engaging in perception management against the
government, of course.

And still it continues...

Advertising an R4 programme this evening the term 'illegal' was again
used to describe the prorogation. Why do the BBC keep doing this?

Perhaps they just use the accepted meaning?

Collins GEM Thesaurus
unlawful banned, criminal, forbidden, illegal, illicit, outlawed,
prohibited

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *

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