Barrie Stevens Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 The Telegraph is punting a video about the week that broke Brexit...…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Quote Rog said "no" two pages back to the idea that any abuse of the welfare state could be controlled without leaving the EU Entirely predictable and entirely wrong. Of course as the EU is (in your head) the cause of all our ills, why would you want to consider anything else to sort out the obvious problems? You've drunk UKIP's Kool Aid.....(but some of use refuse to as there is a better way.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 1 hour ago, RIchard Britten said: You want me to read an entire document to find a specific section to which you are referring to? Case double closed. Are you SURE that English is your first language? In any case I'm surprised that you don't know how to read an Act. Especially one that has been amended. OK, here goes. Thinking (learning cap?) on. When an Act has been ammended alongside the history of the Act is amended along with details of the amendments in summary form is a synopsis of the amendments. Or you could be lazy and start with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006 Now go seek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 3 hours ago, woolley said: So you don't have eyes to see for yourselves? You don't know people or have family who are directly affected by the criminal activities that go on in the ghetto parts of our cities? You haven't heard of people being caught up in the middle of a suburban pitched battle between youths of different races? You don't know people touched by drugs and knife crime? You know nobody who has been mugged? You know nobody who has been pick-pocketed. You know nobody who has been the subject of a staged accident for insurance fraud. You don't see standards of respect and behaviour plummeting? Up until the last twenty years or so, I didn't either. Now I know people who have been at the sharp end of all of these and often not just the once. There was absolutely going to be a backlash. You call it populism. Do give it a rest. You know better than that. But the fact remains that the UK has religious minorities who are UK citizens. This is going to come as a big shock to some folks but there's only one planet. That means we ALL have to share it. Bummer. Because we all have to try and get along the racists, of all shades, should be given no truck whatsoever. They all use the same methodology. First they demonise, which leads to dehumanise. Then it's easy to turn the less astute against them. So racists should be shunned at every opportunity. Unless you're stupid enough to think they have any real answers that is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 6 hours ago, John Wright said: No, the resolution of Parliament was mandatory, unti/unlessl there’s a vote the other way. The Supreme Court did not say the referendum result was binding, it said that the giving of article 50 notice required a parliamentary vote, not an exercise of Royal Perogative. you need too read the full case before it got to the supreme court (which is also on what the outcome of the sp was based) the reason for the outcome was the gov. conceded that triggering art.50 would change rights (it doesn't) in the lower court...... due to the supreme court ruling the referendum became binding..... which is why mp's can't say that in parliment any more..... everytime an mp did say it in the past one of the 3 that sit in front of the speaker passes a note to the speaker to get a correction.... 6 hours ago, John Wright said: Which most don’t claim or get, and in respect of those that do it was within the power of the UK government to make regulations to only allow those seeking work and here for less than 6 months. Brexit is one cack handed way to crack that nut. 1999 was the last year they paid in more than they take out... ecj would just overrule that- read the caselaw... the uk can't have different rules for eu nationals- its one of the things "call me dave" tried to change before the referendum.... REMEMBER..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 16 minutes ago, woody2 said: you need too read the full case before it got to the supreme court (which is also on what the outcome of the sp was based) the reason for the outcome was the gov. conceded that triggering art.50 would change rights (it doesn't) in the lower court...... due to the supreme court ruling the referendum became binding..... which is why mp's can't say that in parliment any more..... everytime an mp did say it in the past one of the 3 that sit in front of the speaker passes a note to the speaker to get a correction.... 1999 was the last year they paid in more than they take out... ecj would just overrule that- read the caselaw... the uk can't have different rules for eu nationals- its one of the things "call me dave" tried to change before the referendum.... REMEMBER..... Neither are true. I’ve read the judgments. The referendum was and is advisory only. It’s the parliamentary resolution that’s binding, and only then until a contrary resolution is passed. Neither voters nor parliament can bind their successors in the next election, referendum or parliament.. As for benefits you completely misunderstand. The UK, like every other EU country, could have changed its regulations to limit benefits. All it had to do was introduce a registration scheme for citizens of other EU states, just like it’s doing now to deal with Brexit. You tie entitlement to benefits to entitlement to reside. You can reside, either if you are a UK National or an EU national who is working, or looking for work ( the latter being limited to 6 months. That isn’t discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 11 minutes ago, John Wright said: Neither are true. I’ve read the judgments. The referendum was and is advisory only. It’s the parliamentary resolution that’s binding, and only then until a contrary resolution is passed. Neither voters nor parliament can bind their successors in the next election, referendum or parliament.. As for benefits you completely misunderstand. The UK, like every other EU country, could have changed its regulations to limit benefits. All it had to do was introduce a registration scheme for citizens of other EU states, just like it’s doing now to deal with Brexit. You tie entitlement to benefits to entitlement to reside. You can reside, either if you are a UK National or an EU national who is working, or looking for work ( the latter being limited to 6 months. That isn’t discrimination. the dutch(?) have that, they can't use it due to ecj caselaw.... your "view" is different to the supreme court and parliament..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 22 minutes ago, John Wright said: Neither voters nor parliament can bind their successors in the next election, referendum or parliament.. neither can the supreme court if you want to go down that road..... it comes down to when you think the rights change..... the immigrate did the winners a great favour because now parliament won't have a binding vote at the end only advisory...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 I’m sorry that my 40 years of legal qualification and previous 5 years of study is so inadequate and that having been a Social Security Appeal Tribunal chair for the last 20 years so clearly counts for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecobob Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Everyone 's allowed a bad day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 5, 2018 Author Share Posted July 5, 2018 I do have to say I find it hilarious that certain people are spinning this as a leave planted story. Oh sure, they wanted headlines that they were expected to be found guilty of electoral fraud. No. They may have gone to the press, but I am pretty sure the story they wanted was about them complaining that the process wasn’t, as they saw it, fair, about how they were refuting the claims, and seeking justice. The process isn’t finished yet. Leave are challenging the draft findings, but how is this spun by the BBC? Leave are expected to be found guilty. Oh yeah. That interpretation is definitely down to Leave and not the BBC. Not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 2 hours ago, Chinahand said: I do have to say I find it hilarious that certain people are spinning this as a leave planted story. Oh sure, they wanted headlines that they were expected to be found guilty of electoral fraud. No. They may have gone to the press, but I am pretty sure the story they wanted was about them complaining that the process wasn’t, as they saw it, fair, about how they were refuting the claims, and seeking justice. The process isn’t finished yet. Leave are challenging the draft findings, but how is this spun by the BBC? Leave are expected to be found guilty. Oh yeah. That interpretation is definitely down to Leave and not the BBC. Not. I thought it it wasn't down to Leave or the BBC ? How could I have got that so wrong...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 8 hours ago, Chinahand said: I do have to say I find it hilarious that certain people are spinning this as a leave planted story. Oh sure, they wanted headlines that they were expected to be found guilty of electoral fraud. No. They may have gone to the press, but I am pretty sure the story they wanted was about them complaining that the process wasn’t, as they saw it, fair, about how they were refuting the claims, and seeking justice. The process isn’t finished yet. Leave are challenging the draft findings, but how is this spun by the BBC? Leave are expected to be found guilty. Oh yeah. That interpretation is definitely down to Leave and not the BBC. Not. You go to the media you take your chances. Per the report Leave were given a draft copy of the EC report and had 28 days to make further representations which the EC would consider before publishing the closing report. It seems that Leave having been given the report then took it to the media to basically get their retaliation in first. Basically they were trying to rubbish the report before it was issued. From reading the BBC report much of it is about Leave complaining about the process and there is even a video of the interview they did. It seems to me that much of the story is what they wanted. The EC basically did not comment, and at the end of the piece there are comments from the "Whistle blowers" The BBC appear to have been told that Leave expected to be found guilty so I do not really see where the bias is. I agree you may have a point if the BBC had been leaked a copy of the report by the EC and then reported the draft findings but that is not the case. Leave apparently stated they expected to be found guilty and the BBC reported together with Leaves argument against the report. If they did not report the former then reporting the latter would look a bit odd as it would have had little context. Leave were complaining, leaking to the press purely because they thought it will find them guilty. I am really struggling to find the bias that you see in the story. I also struggle with the idea that if you go to the press with a story then the press should report it in a way that you wish. Having said that though if you read the whole piece most of the story is about them complaining about the process not being fair and refuting apparent findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 10 hours ago, Chinahand said: I do have to say I find it hilarious that certain people are spinning this as a leave planted story. Oh sure, they wanted headlines that they were expected to be found guilty of electoral fraud. No. They may have gone to the press, but I am pretty sure the story they wanted was about them complaining that the process wasn’t, as they saw it, fair, about how they were refuting the claims, and seeking justice. The process isn’t finished yet. Leave are challenging the draft findings, but how is this spun by the BBC? Leave are expected to be found guilty. Oh yeah. That interpretation is definitely down to Leave and not the BBC. Not. China, you aren’t naive. It’s exactly why Vote Leave leaked it. It gives them the opportunity to portray themselves as being victims and treated unfairly by an allegedly remain establishment. Its all political. The draft report is dammning of the alleged shenanigans of directing funds to another organisation and then directing how it was spent. Vote leave now have the ability to rebut, which they have. Seems to me BBC reporting is accurate, but is being used by Vote Leave for its own ulterior motive. They’re courting and moulding public opinion. No more, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 On 7/5/2018 at 8:30 PM, John Wright said: I’m sorry that my 40 years of legal qualification and previous 5 years of study is so inadequate and that having been a Social Security Appeal Tribunal chair for the last 20 years so clearly counts for nothing. i have never lost a case, have you....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.