P.K. Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 sad /sad/ adjective 1. feeling or showing sorrow; unhappy. "I was sad and subdued" 2. INFORMAL pathetically inadequate or unfashionable. "the show is tongue-in-cheek—anyone who takes it seriously is a bit sad" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 8 minutes ago, woolley said: 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. Wasn't part of the reason for the referral to the Supreme Court due to the conflicting decision from the Scottish Courts? It was not just Miller who took a case against the prorogation of parliament. There were two cases being run at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, woolley said: I haven't watched QT in many years. 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. I had another look at the exchange. It is confusing but then one of the great strengths of QT is that it forces the panel to think on their feet. So what they think and what they say aren't necessarily the same thing. One thing that does need mentioning is the ramp up in inflammatory language. Cleverly mentioned the Supreme Court decision that he would respect it but, like Johnson, doesn't agree with it. Subtext : We will respect the decision but not the people who made it because we think they're wrong. It's only a small step from there to "Enemies of the People" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 47 minutes 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). Very true. But who should appoint them? Geoffrey Cox touched on this at the despatch box the other day. The current system is simply self-perpetuating. At the very least it is an area that would benefit from having some light shone into the dark corners. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 16 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: Wasn't part of the reason for the referral to the Supreme Court due to the conflicting decision from the Scottish Courts? It was not just Miller who took a case against the prorogation of parliament. There were two cases being run at the same time. No. It is common practice that leave to appeal is often granted. The Court of Session in Edinburgh had already given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court before the High Court in London even sat. It wasn't to do with conflicting judgments. Probably more to do with the subject being multi-faceted and so finely nuanced with persuasive arguments on both sides, as evidenced by the differing judgments all deliberated over by the most senior judiciary the country has. It's easy to scream out a headline saying "The government broke the law.", but the according to the Lord Chief Justice the week before, it was perfectly in order. You picks your side and you chooses your villains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 18 minutes ago, P.K. said: I had another look at the exchange. It is confusing but then one of the great strengths of QT is that it forces the panel to think on their feet. So what they think and what they say aren't necessarily the same thing. One thing that does need mentioning is the ramp up in inflammatory language. Cleverly mentioned the Supreme Court decision that he would respect it but, like Johnson, doesn't agree with it. Subtext : We will respect the decision but not the people who made it because we think they're wrong. It's only a small step from there to "Enemies of the People" No, I don't think so. Judges are only human. You have to respect their decision and comply with the law, but it would be stupid to suddenly declare that you agree with the judgment when all of your actions hitherto demonstrate beyond all doubt that you don't. I think "respect it but disagree with it" strikes a reasonable balance. There is a quantum leap from there to the inflammatory language (such as brexshitters, gammon, thick as pigshit, xenophobic little englanders, etc.) that the hard of thinking are fond of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 1 minute ago, woolley said: No, I don't think so. Judges are only human. You have to respect their decision and comply with the law, but it would be stupid to suddenly declare that you agree with the judgment when all of your actions hitherto demonstrate beyond all doubt that you don't. I think "respect it but disagree with it" strikes a reasonable balance. There is a quantum leap from there to the inflammatory language (such as brexshitters, gammon, thick as pigshit, xenophobic little englanders, etc.) that the hard of thinking are fond of. Well Woolster, I respect your opinion but thoroughly disagree with it. They didn't have to say they didn't agree with the decision. But chose to let the nation know they didn't. For a reason. Obviously once again it chips away at the cornerstone of our democracy which is our justice system. The message these politicians are giving out to the hard of thinking is very much to be regretted. But they just don't care.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 I think that frustration is to be expected when over 3 years have passed since the referendum and the UK is still in the EU. We should have been out a couple of years ago and everything would have been back to normal by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 15 minutes ago, woolley said: I think that frustration is to be expected when over 3 years have passed since the referendum and the UK is still in the EU. We should have been out a couple of years ago and everything would have been back to normal by now. But as we have pointed out before the UK could already have left except the ERG voted against Theresa May's deal and now we find those same people are the ones running the country and causing further divisions by polarising the "people v parliament/elite" nonsense. The truth is there are people on both side of the leave/remain divide that can be out into either category. If people insist on using terminology such as 'traitors' and 'enemies of the people' then i would suggest that the ERG would be first place to look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 1 minute ago, manxman1980 said: But as we have pointed out before the UK could already have left except the ERG voted against Theresa May's deal and now we find those same people are the ones running the country and causing further divisions by polarising the "people v parliament/elite" nonsense. The truth is there are people on both side of the leave/remain divide that can be out into either category. If people insist on using terminology such as 'traitors' and 'enemies of the people' then i would suggest that the ERG would be first place to look. Yes. This is a perfectly arguable point. It cannot be denied however that there is a large contingent in Parliament who have done, are doing and will continue to do everything possible to thwart the referendum result and keep the UK in the EU. A few are honest about it, most are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 41 minutes ago, woolley said: Yes. This is a perfectly arguable point. It cannot be denied however that there is a large contingent in Parliament who have done, are doing and will continue to do everything possible to thwart the referendum result and keep the UK in the EU. A few are honest about it, most are not. It's perfectly true not arguable. The ERG are the hard line anti-EU members of the conservative party who had enough votes with the DUP to push through the withdrawal agreement but they decided to put their own ambitions ahead of the public and dragged us all (leavers, remainers, and don't f**king care anymorers) through three years of nonsense. They have done more than anyone else to block brexit purely because it is not the brexit that they want. The majority of parliament would have supported the deal and we could all have our unicorns and blue passports by now. We may even have been lucky enough to have got shot of Nigel Farage to America once and for all... And yes that last paragraph is said somewhat tongue in cheek... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 Found the audio clip of Rachel Johnson that I was looking for earlier. Interestingly some of the quotes in the press miss out certain sections particularly around the 3 minute mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 6 hours 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). i said this the other day, power has gone to the courts.......the outcome will be reform...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 7 hours 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.... i don't ever remember the appeal date been set before a case has been heard as happened with this case...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 27, 2019 Share Posted September 27, 2019 8 minutes ago, woody2 said: i said this the other day, power has gone to the courts.......the outcome will be reform...... You probably just said a load of unintelligible garbage... Either way the judiciary must remain out of the control of the government. Any government. 1 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.