Evil Sid Posted September 13, 2019 Report Share Posted September 13, 2019 They are anybody's for a crate of iron bru and a dozen deep fried mars bars.🤠Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2019 6 hours ago, Observer II said: Sorry Con, I got it off comments on Yahoo - so it may be fake !  But I do recall on the news that someone was attempting a court case of this type, presumably it will be deemed a matter of high politics rather than the law ?. Following a longer look such a case has no chance at all because of this: "That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament." taken from the 1688 English Bill of Rights. You will realise that this prevents any court proceeding against Parliament including the action you reported. The Bill was passed by William and Mary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted September 14, 2019 Report Share Posted September 14, 2019 So we're left with voting the bstds out at an election ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted September 14, 2019 Report Share Posted September 14, 2019 The opposition ones or the ones in charge at present?........🤔......😧 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted September 14, 2019 Report Share Posted September 14, 2019 All of them!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 So proroguing Parliament isn't illegal according to the Supreme Court, as most of us knew from the beginning - Gina Miller and Co have just wasted someone's money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 18, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 54 minutes ago, Observer II said: So proroguing Parliament isn't illegal according to the Supreme Court, as most of us knew from the beginning - Gina Miller and Co have just wasted someone's money. Don't jump the gun, they are still just listening to arguments, there is no decision of any kind at all yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 Best tell that to the BBCÂ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 18, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 41 minutes ago, Observer II said: Best tell that to the BBC What the BBC continually do on their website is to make a headline from their chosen player's statements. Gullible readers then think it is a statement of truth when a more careful reading will show it was merely an assertion by one party. If there is any imbalance in the opinions, which is always in the BBC's preferred direction, they change the piece to give balance just before they archive it in the evening. That way complaints are judged against the balanced version and not what was put out for most of the day. The other tool they use is to put an unrepresentative headline as a link in one story to another. The newssniffer.co.uk website archives the multiple stories as separate and balanced stories so that the unbalance is in the ephemeral links that are not recorded. They have been doing it for years. The reporting on the four sessions of the case has been significantly different with less enthusiasm about the cases made by Lord Keen and Sir James Eadie, which is unsurprising since they are instructed by the hated "Toree party". At least yesterday Sky was giving a more balanced picture of what was actually said. It is rather lazy as the actual written cases put by the lawyers are already available on the Supreme Court website so you can make your own mind up. Addressing the point about prorogation not being illegal directly, of course it can't be - the Queen does it, and she cannot be challenged in her own courts. The reason she does not drive or carry money..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 Prorogation occurs about this time every year, which allows for the Party Conferences and preparation for the Queen's speech at at the opening of a new Parliament, so this appears to be much ado about nothing - engineered by Remoaners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 I believe a former Pro Rogue ,John Major, is being wheeled out tomorrow to argue against Boris taking the action he did . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 18, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Observer II said: Prorogation occurs about this time every year, which allows for the Party Conferences and preparation for the Queen's speech at at the opening of a new Parliament, so this appears to be much ado about nothing - engineered by Remoaners. The Queens Speech is usually in May or June since 2010 and the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Prior to that it was in November or following a General Election. The politicians holiday for conferences is usually a recess voted for separately by the two houses of parliament rather than a prorogation which is imposed by the Government. Davy, you are quite right. Given that he prorogued Parliament for the express purpose of stopping debate about the expenses scandal. That is what you call cheek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stallard12 Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 Guy Faulks, where are you when needed, if only to end this unending circular topic ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted September 19, 2019 Report Share Posted September 19, 2019 The only Guy to enter the Houses of Parliament with good intentions !    😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted September 23, 2019 Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 When Boris advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament he was under no obligation to give any reason for doing it to her, so he won't have done. In which case he can't have lied about it, he was only doing his job which is advising the Queen of an action to take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 4 hours ago, asperity said: When Boris advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament he was under no obligation to give any reason for doing it to her, so he won't have done. In which case he can't have lied about it, he was only doing his job which is advising the Queen of an action to take. The case is not about whether he lied to the Queen. It is about whether asking for Parliament to be prorogued can only be for a proper purpose and whether deciding that question is even a matter for the courts. The answer is due, orally at any rate, at 1030 tomorrow morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 12:05 AM, Stallard12 said: Guy Faulks, where are you when needed, if only to end this unending circular topic ! The topic is not really circular so much as spiral because one side keep breaking the constitution in novel ways in their ever increasing desperation, just like Trump and the impeachment nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted September 23, 2019 Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 4 hours ago, Confused52 said: The topic is not really circular so much as spiral because one side keep breaking the constitution in novel ways in their ever increasing desperation, just like Trump and the impeachment nonsense. This sprang to mind for some reason: https://youtu.be/WEhS9Y9HYjU 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 The Supreme Court rules that the prorogation was unlawful because it conflicted with allowing Parliament to hold the Government to account. Orders that the prorogation did not happen and Parliament is still in session. I am speechless at the wrongness of this blatantly political judgement. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted September 24, 2019 Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 Seems everyone of the Judges voted for Remain, so were clearly unable to seperate their personal political political preferences from an objective legal judgement .  Ultimately, this can only serve to undermine public confidence in democracy and the rule of law, when the law itself is brought into disrepute. So now we're left with a Parliament determined to stop Brexit, but won't admit it.  A Parliament that won't hold a vote of no confidence in the PM and bring about a G/Election. All intended to ignore the will of the people in a referendum. Clearly the worst Parliament since Oliver Cromwell cleaned it out . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted September 24, 2019 Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 So now Parliament can go back and debate - well debate just what? They've been, allegedly, debating for the last 3 1/2 years without being able to agree on anything. Until Boris and the EU mafia come up with some sort of a deal for them to debate then this has been a complete waste of time and of our money. And even then we will find that there is no agreement. Sack the lot, have a General Election and elect some honest people to the house. And while we're at it get rid of the HoL and the so called Supreme Court. A complete change is called for, these charlatans have been getting away with it for far too long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted September 24, 2019 Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 Think you've just outlined the Brexit Party's policy Asp - roll on an Election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 24, 2019 Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 Perhaps the people should bring a case against Parliament for failing to deliver the referendum result from 3 years ago and activating Article 50. The political system of the UK is proven to be an absolute joke in the eyes of Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted September 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 41 minutes ago, Ian said: Perhaps the people should bring a case against Parliament for failing to deliver the referendum result from 3 years ago and activating Article 50. The political system of the UK is proven to be an absolute joke in the eyes of Europe. The Bill of Rights prevent that being possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer II Posted September 24, 2019 Report Share Posted September 24, 2019 At some point, Labour will have to fight a G/Election, which imo they will lose big time, and I think they know it, hence their avoidance of an election. However, no matter how long they delay an election, their antics won't be forgotten or forgiven by Leave voters. As and when we do elect a new "Leave" Parliament; presumably that Parliament can overide/ammend all previous blocking legislation and secure Brexit with or without a deal ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.