So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[P.K.]

Just now, woolley said:

Like everything else. 

You're not bitter.

What happened to the always happy carefree Woolster?

Has reality burst your happy brexit balloon...?

[woody2]

7 hours ago, P.K. said:

Well QT was a bit of a disappointment really. Gina Miller slapped down Cleverly over his lies around the previous High Court judgement on prorogation and also closed down the gammons by simply pointing out she's not a politician.

They then batted around the "we voted leave, why haven't we left?" etc etc usual nonsense while totally failing to mention the fact that there were no T&C's on the ballot paper which is the problem. I was so hoping that one of the panel would ask a gammon what brexit they would like? No deal, Norway, Canada +++ ? etc just to try and make them realise that it's nothing like as simple as they seem to think.

Fat chance...

untrue.........this nonsence has already been tried in court and failed.........and non of your proposals guarantees what happens in the future.....

[woolley]

8 hours ago, P.K. said:

You're not bitter.

What happened to the always happy carefree Woolster?

Has reality burst your happy brexit balloon...?

You're in a world of your own imagination. 

[mojomonkey]

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

You're in a world of your own imagination. 

Have to say if you think your recent spate of cheap jibes directed at me are somehow going to bother me then you're the one living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Still, at least you'll have Captain Chaff to keep you company...

[P.K.]

As a footnote to the lies about Johnson proroguing parliament this needs clearly stating.

On 9/25/2019 at 4:59 PM, woolley said:

As I said, these are subtly nuanced judgments. It's an art more than a science. A perfectly sound set of judges the week before in the High Court found that there wasn't a case to answer. Is anyone suggesting there was something iffy about that judgment? It's a matter of opinion and opinions, no matter how learned as we frequently find here, differ dramatically.

This is just another brexit lie that has been touted around by the UK rabid right wing press, which is to say pretty much all of it. However it is worrying that the Chairman of the Conservative Party James Cleverly (a misnomer if ever there was one) was repeating this nonsense on national tv.

The High Court did not discuss the case per se. They couldn’t get over the justiciability barrier, which I take to mean it was beyond their remit.  However they agreed it had merit and there was a case to answer and thus referred it upwards.

A somewhat massive difference to the Woolster nonsense above as I'm sure you'll agree...

The lies from the brexiteers is like an unstoppable tide of effluent swamping everything especially reasoning and common sense....

[woolley]

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

As a footnote to the lies about Johnson proroguing parliament this needs clearly stating.

This is just another brexit lie that has been touted around by the UK rabid right wing press, which is to say pretty much all of it. However it is worrying that the Chairman of the Conservative Party James Cleverly (a misnomer if ever there was one) was repeating this nonsense on national tv.

The High Court did not discuss the case per se. They couldn’t get over the justiciability barrier, which I take to mean it was beyond their remit.  However they agreed it had merit and there was a case to answer and thus referred it upwards.

A somewhat massive difference to the Woolster nonsense above as I'm sure you'll agree...

The lies from the brexiteers is like an unstoppable tide of effluent swamping everything especially reasoning and common sense....

You take it wrongly. My previous interpretation is correct. It was not beyond the remit of the High Court. What a ridiculous postulation. They decided that it was not justiciable, not that it was beyond their jurisdiction. That was their judgment; they did not decline to rule on it as you now suggest. They gave leave to appeal to the Supreme Court who then came to a different conclusion. Exactly as I said. 

[P.K.]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

You take it wrongly. My previous interpretation is correct. It was not beyond the remit of the High Court. What a ridiculous postulation. They decided that it was not justiciable, not that it was beyond their jurisdiction. That was their judgment; they did not decline to rule on it as you now suggest. They gave leave to appeal to the Supreme Court who then came to a different conclusion. Exactly as I said. 

"Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority" - it seems I misunderstood the term. Fair enough I apologise for that.

Did you watch QT? This transcript left me somewhat confused. We record everything with subtitles on so I re-ran it and I can confirm that it is verbatim:

During a segment about the Supreme Court ruling this week, which saw justices declare that Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament was unlawful, Cleverly said: “We absolutely respect the judgement they made but, as I say, I disagree with it, the prime minister disagrees with it, the Lord Chief Justice disagreed with it.” 

“He didn’t disagree with it,” Miller said, “No he didn’t. Stop saying that, that’s not true. That’s not true James. 

“The three court judges in the High Court did not discuss the case, what they said was that they couldn’t get over the justiciability barrier therefore referred it up to the High Court. 

“They said it had merit, and referred it up the the Supreme Court, so they never actually discussed the case and said it wasn’t a case worth discussing. That’s really important.”

Hmmmm....... 

Have to say Gina Miller impressed me with the way she handled it, particularly the gammons who clearly believe what they read in The Daily Wail. It doesn't say anything good about the brexiteers that Miller and her family have received death threats and now have 24-hour security....

[manxman1980]

21 minutes ago, woolley said:

You take it wrongly. My previous interpretation is correct. It was not beyond the remit of the High Court. What a ridiculous postulation. They decided that it was not justiciable, not that it was beyond their jurisdiction. That was their judgment; they did not decline to rule on it as you now suggest. They gave leave to appeal to the Supreme Court who then came to a different conclusion. Exactly as I said. 

Which is fine.

The highest court in Britain has ruled and now the elected MP's (and their unelected advisors) must now comply with the ruling or pass a further act of Parliament to change the law. 

What I fear here is that the UK ends up with Judges being appointed by the executive like the US model which totally undermines the independence and impartiality of the law.  (see also Poland for what a f**k up that can be).

[quilp]

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Did you watch QT? This transcript left me somewhat confused. We record everything with subtitles on so I re-ran it and I can confirm that it is verbatim:

So you think the transcription to subtitles is verbatim? Hm-m...

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

It doesn't say anything good about the brexiteers that Miller and her family have received death threats and now have 24-hour security....

And all the 17.4 million brexiteers wear the same hat do they? What a narrow, ill-informed and bigoted view you have. No one wants to see extremists, whatever their colour or bent, threaten others. Everyone (except you, obviously) knows that these threats are coming from a tiny minority, whether that be from far-right or the masked visage of antifa and their violent tendencies.

[P.K.]

1 minute ago, manxman1980 said:

Which is fine.

The highest court in Britain has ruled and now the elected MP's (and their unelected advisors) must now comply with the ruling or pass a further act of Parliament to change the law. 

What I fear here is that the UK ends up with Judges being appointed by the executive like the US model which totally undermines the independence and impartiality of the law.  (see also Poland for what a f**k up that can be).

Another thing that came out of QT was that totally amoral narcissistic serial philanderer and inveterate liar Boris Johnson PM is trying to come up with other wizard wheezes to bypass our sovereign government and plunge the country into chaos with a no deal exit. From John Major:

Major had said he feared the government would try to bypass the Benn Act through "an order of council". “It is important to note that an order of council can be passed by privy councillors – that is government ministers – without involving HM the Queen,”

However according to our thoroughly respectable Prime Min “We will comply with the law, but we are leaving on 31 October.”

WTFIGO?

[P.K.]

1 minute ago, quilp said:

So you think the transcription to subtitles is verbatim? Hm-m...

Actually, as we all know, they come out with some hilarious interpretations from time to time but in the main they're not too bad.

[quilp]

But not verbatim. 

Edited September 27, 2019 by quilp
Definition

[manxman1980]

@P.K.

I share many of your concerns and views.  I don't trust Johnson at all and have noted that his own family seem to doubt his motives;

• Jo Johnson quit the government citing "It's an unresolvable tension and time for others to take on my roles as MP and minister" when talking about reconciling family loyalty and the national interest;
• Rachel Johnson has made a somewhat stinging criticism of her brothers motives (I cannot find the audio clip at the moment but I am sure you know the one I mean) and has criticised the language he has used at the ballot box;

Dominic Cummings appears to have far to much power behind the scenes and is most certainly part of the unelected elite.  His Uncle was a Judge on the appeal court panel and has said that should BoJo try and bypass the Benn bill then he would be acting unlawfully and find himself in prison.

We are getting very near to brexit now and I hope that we can all come together afterwards but I fear that many people will suffer financially while the financial elite's benefit.  I fear for the law in the UK and would hate to see judges appointed by the executive because we will then have a legal system controlled by whoever is in power (be that BoJo or Corbyn or anyone else).

[woolley]

22 minutes ago, P.K. said:

"Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority" - it seems I misunderstood the term. Fair enough I apologise for that.

Did you watch QT? This transcript left me somewhat confused. We record everything with subtitles on so I re-ran it and I can confirm that it is verbatim:

During a segment about the Supreme Court ruling this week, which saw justices declare that Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament was unlawful, Cleverly said: “We absolutely respect the judgement they made but, as I say, I disagree with it, the prime minister disagrees with it, the Lord Chief Justice disagreed with it.” 

“He didn’t disagree with it,” Miller said, “No he didn’t. Stop saying that, that’s not true. That’s not true James. 

“The three court judges in the High Court did not discuss the case, what they said was that they couldn’t get over the justiciability barrier therefore referred it up to the High Court. 

“They said it had merit, and referred it up the the Supreme Court, so they never actually discussed the case and said it wasn’t a case worth discussing. That’s really important.”

Hmmmm....... 

Have to say Gina Miller impressed me with the way she handled it, particularly the gammons who clearly believe what they read in The Daily Wail. It doesn't say anything good about the brexiteers that Miller and her family have received death threats and now have 24-hour security....

I haven't watched QT in many years.

Either Miller is making the same error for which you just apologised, which I seriously doubt, or she is disingenuously suggesting that there is something in the High Court finding the case unjusticiable that impugns the actions of the government. As I said, the High Court found that the entire case was unjusticiable, and that it was a matter purely for politicians. That was their judgment. They didn't duck the question in any sense. They didn't look further into the minutiae of it, the small print, because the heads of it told them straightaway that it was not a matter for the courts. This was no small deal. The Master of the Rolls was involved in the decision.

So Miller is not being candid in this. As ever, she is being economical with the truth. I hope Cleverly picked her up on it because he was correct. The Lord Chief Justice did indeed agree with the government.