Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 .
.
Good god man where have you been living | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far." What part of those articles were factually incorrect? Weren't they just reporting on the news of the day as it happened? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. What part of those articles were factually incorrect? Weren't they just reporting on the news of the day as it happened? " Three independent Judges were asked for an opinion on existing U.K. Constitutional law. They did exactly what was asked of them and reviewed the law as it stands. As a consequence they were labelled "Enemies of the people." That is not just a step too far, that is incitement and it is factually incorrect. For just doing their job and reviewing what is already existing law they get labelled as enemies and then have details of their personal lives splattered across the Newspapers. What next? Will the Supreme Court Judges be identified ahead of the Appeal and get intimidated on the front pages of Newspapers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. What part of those articles were factually incorrect? Weren't they just reporting on the news of the day as it happened? Three independent Judges were asked for an opinion on existing U.K. Constitutional law. They did exactly what was asked of them and reviewed the law as it stands. As a consequence they were labelled "Enemies of the people." That is not just a step too far, that is incitement and it is factually incorrect. For just doing their job and reviewing what is already existing law they get labelled as enemies and then have details of their personal lives splattered across the Newspapers. What next? Will the Supreme Court Judges be identified ahead of the Appeal and get intimidated on the front pages of Newspapers? " Sorry but that is your personal opinion. Many who voted Leave in the referendum feel betrayed by the ruling and will consider those 3 judges to be enemies of the people. It's not up to you to call it factually incorrect it is a matter of personal opinion for individuals and on which side of the referendum debate that they stand. As a Leave supporter I accept the court ruling and will now wait to see what happens at the appeal at the Supreme court. As for their personal lives being splattered across newspapers, that has been happening for decades with celebrities and people in the public eye having their personal lives exposed, it is nothing new to shout about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. What part of those articles were factually incorrect? Weren't they just reporting on the news of the day as it happened? Three independent Judges were asked for an opinion on existing U.K. Constitutional law. They did exactly what was asked of them and reviewed the law as it stands. As a consequence they were labelled "Enemies of the people." That is not just a step too far, that is incitement and it is factually incorrect. For just doing their job and reviewing what is already existing law they get labelled as enemies and then have details of their personal lives splattered across the Newspapers. What next? Will the Supreme Court Judges be identified ahead of the Appeal and get intimidated on the front pages of Newspapers? Sorry but that is your personal opinion. Many who voted Leave in the referendum feel betrayed by the ruling and will consider those 3 judges to be enemies of the people. It's not up to you to call it factually incorrect it is a matter of personal opinion for individuals and on which side of the referendum debate that they stand. As a Leave supporter I accept the court ruling and will now wait to see what happens at the appeal at the Supreme court. As for their personal lives being splattered across newspapers, that has been happening for decades with celebrities and people in the public eye having their personal lives exposed, it is nothing new to shout about. " If they voted leave and feel betrayed by the ruling it merely demonstrates their lack of understanding about how our democracy works. So, before 'feeling betrayed', go and find out how democracy works here. It's called parliamentary democracy. Now, people may not like that this is how it works, in which case try to change it. Until then lump it. There are many, like myself, who regard our parliamentary democracy as a thing of true beauty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those judges have no doubt money tied up in the EU, and therefore sold us down the river deliberately. They are scum traitors, just like a lot of the so called "authorities" we have in this country. Fuck em!" Apparently one of them is 'an openly gay fencer', if that doesn't disqualify him from taking an unbiased objective view then I don't know what does! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry but that is your personal opinion. Many who voted Leave in the referendum feel betrayed by the ruling and will consider those 3 judges to be enemies of the people. It's not up to you to call it factually incorrect it is a matter of personal opinion for individuals and on which side of the referendum debate that they stand. As a Leave supporter I accept the court ruling and will now wait to see what happens at the appeal at the Supreme court. As for their personal lives being splattered across newspapers, that has been happening for decades with celebrities and people in the public eye having their personal lives exposed, it is nothing new to shout about. " No! It is not a personal opinion, it is a matter of law and the law is clear! Parliament is Sovereign and where Parliament and the Royal Prerogative clash Parliament must prevail! We fought a civil war over that very issue between 1642 and 1648 and eventually chopped a kings head off on the 30th Jan 1649 outside the Banqueting House, Whitehall (the heart of government) to make the point clear! Now suddenly because a shower of power hungry Tories and the ignorant mob they are stirring up don't like the fact that our INDEPENDENT judiciary are unwilling to allow the government overturn 365 YEARS of basic law for political expediency the Judges are traitors and in league with the EU. Grow up! Learn your British history and understand its significance, and stop pandering to those who are looking for any excuse to undermine the rule of law! "Those judges have no doubt money tied up in the EU, and therefore sold us down the river deliberately. They are scum traitors, just like a lot of the so called "authorities" we have in this country. Fuck em!" Read above, also read a little about 'the separation of powers' and why it is important to have a completely independent Judiciary. Because it is those very people you call scum and traitors are your ultimate protection from the tyranny of absolute power in the hands of a dictatorship. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those judges have no doubt money tied up in the EU, and therefore sold us down the river deliberately. Sigh... Really!?! They are scum traitors, just like a lot of the so called "authorities" we have in this country. Wow! Your debating skills are... errr... interesting... Fuck em!" And just when I thought the ranting and mindless vitriol on the political threads couldn't sink any lower  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry but that is your personal opinion. Many who voted Leave in the referendum feel betrayed by the ruling and will consider those 3 judges to be enemies of the people. It's not up to you to call it factually incorrect it is a matter of personal opinion for individuals and on which side of the referendum debate that they stand. As a Leave supporter I accept the court ruling and will now wait to see what happens at the appeal at the Supreme court. As for their personal lives being splattered across newspapers, that has been happening for decades with celebrities and people in the public eye having their personal lives exposed, it is nothing new to shout about. No! It is not a personal opinion, it is a matter of law and the law is clear! Parliament is Sovereign and where Parliament and the Royal Prerogative clash Parliament must prevail! We fought a civil war over that very issue between 1642 and 1648 and eventually chopped a kings head off on the 30th Jan 1649 outside the Banqueting House, Whitehall (the heart of government) to make the point clear! Now suddenly because a shower of power hungry Tories and the ignorant mob they are stirring up don't like the fact that our INDEPENDENT judiciary are unwilling to allow the government overturn 365 YEARS of basic law for political expediency the Judges are traitors and in league with the EU. Grow up! Learn your British history and understand its significance, and stop pandering to those who are looking for any excuse to undermine the rule of law! Those judges have no doubt money tied up in the EU, and therefore sold us down the river deliberately. They are scum traitors, just like a lot of the so called "authorities" we have in this country. Fuck em! Read above, also read a little about 'the separation of powers' and why it is important to have a completely independent Judiciary. Because it is those very people you call scum and traitors are your ultimate protection from the tyranny of absolute power in the hands of a dictatorship. " Absolutely correct! The judges are independent and will rule as the law states. Whether the defendant is a Lord, a road sweeper or an illegal immigrant! I vote we appointment Willwill69u for President  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. What part of those articles were factually incorrect? Weren't they just reporting on the news of the day as it happened? Three independent Judges were asked for an opinion on existing U.K. Constitutional law. They did exactly what was asked of them and reviewed the law as it stands. As a consequence they were labelled "Enemies of the people." That is not just a step too far, that is incitement and it is factually incorrect. For just doing their job and reviewing what is already existing law they get labelled as enemies and then have details of their personal lives splattered across the Newspapers. What next? Will the Supreme Court Judges be identified ahead of the Appeal and get intimidated on the front pages of Newspapers? " Isn't the point of the freedom of the press to express opinion? You seem to think that any opinion that you disagree with should be suppressed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely correct! The judges are independent and will rule as the law states. Whether the defendant is a Lord, a road sweeper or an illegal immigrant! I vote we appointment Willwill69u for President "No thanks! Have you seen the way that sort of power ages and withers people? I already have enough years under my belt and look shagged enough... But thank you for your generous offer.
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far." Surely in this case the press are defending democracy ! I really can't believe all this ! We voted to leave !!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I vote we appointment Willwill69u for President
No thanks! Have you seen the way that sort of power ages and withers people? I already have enough years under my belt and look shagged enough...
But thank you for your generous offer.
" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. Surely in this case the press are defending democracy ! I really can't believe all this ! We voted to leave !!!" Oh ffs! How hard is this to understand? We have parliamentary democracy. Got this bit? That means parliament has sovereignty. With me? Parliament. Not the Crown, not the executive, not the people. Keeping up? We don't govern by plebiscite. The people don't have sovereignty. Yes, the electorate votes for the members of parliament but it is parliament that has sovereignty. This is not hard to understand. So, what has the High Court done? Has it stopped Brexit? No. Has it interferred politically? No. Has it made sure that the executive act legally? Yes. So where's the problem? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. Surely in this case the press are defending democracy ! I really can't believe all this ! We voted to leave !!!" The judges haven't said we can't. They have just stated what the law is as per our constitution. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Isn't the point of the freedom of the press to express opinion? You seem to think that any opinion that you disagree with should be suppressed." Yes, but only within the law. Strictly speaking the press can only express opinions in editorials, and if the press incite crime then the owner, editor and journalist who wrote the piece are all liable in law. Therefore strictly speaking the owners, editors and journalists who penned and published the articles that have led to death threats being issued could all find themselves being charged with multiple conspiracy charges. All conspiracy charges carry up to life in prison. Of course there could also be contempt charges and if any judge was to be threatened directly then that would be an 'attempt to pervert the course of justice' (also carries a maximum of life). One way or another if I were a journalist I would want to stay squeaky clean because I expect any hack that finds him or herself in the dock in the near future is in for a very rough ride.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. Surely in this case the press are defending democracy ! I really can't believe all this ! We voted to leave !!!" It doesn't matter what we voted for, the people were never a factor in this beyond voting in the general election. It was a shock to the system when we voted leave, that is well doccumented. Now some wig wearing ponces have put a spanner in the works, and May is only appealing because it buys her more time to screw us in. The Supreme Court will not buck the trend and overrule their mates in the high court, no way Pedro. They "the establishment" have done a right number on us. They should be made to pay for this, but they won't.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. Surely in this case the press are defending democracy ! I really can't believe all this ! We voted to leave !!! It doesn't matter what we voted for, the people were never a factor in this beyond voting in the general election. It was a shock to the system when we voted leave, that is well doccumented. Now some wig wearing ponces have put a spanner in the works, and May is only appealing because it buys her more time to screw us in. The Supreme Court will not buck the trend and overrule their mates in the high court, no way Pedro. They "the establishment" have done a right number on us. They should be made to pay for this, but they won't. "Demonstrating a true understanding of British democracy, presumably that which you voted leave for! As I said above a few minutes ago, how hard can this be? The judges (why do you feel the need to insult them? They are guardians of our liberties, including the liberty you use to insult them!) haven't blocked Brexit, they have made sure that the process is done legally. So what is your problem with this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. What part of those articles were factually incorrect? Weren't they just reporting on the news of the day as it happened? Three independent Judges were asked for an opinion on existing U.K. Constitutional law. They did exactly what was asked of them and reviewed the law as it stands. As a consequence they were labelled "Enemies of the people." That is not just a step too far, that is incitement and it is factually incorrect. For just doing their job and reviewing what is already existing law they get labelled as enemies and then have details of their personal lives splattered across the Newspapers. What next? Will the Supreme Court Judges be identified ahead of the Appeal and get intimidated on the front pages of Newspapers? Sorry but that is your personal opinion. Many who voted Leave in the referendum feel betrayed by the ruling and will consider those 3 judges to be enemies of the people. It's not up to you to call it factually incorrect it is a matter of personal opinion for individuals and on which side of the referendum debate that they stand. As a Leave supporter I accept the court ruling and will now wait to see what happens at the appeal at the Supreme court. As for their personal lives being splattered across newspapers, that has been happening for decades with celebrities and people in the public eye having their personal lives exposed, it is nothing new to shout about. " they are not celebrities or public faces though are they(admittedly their work fizzogs have been splashed across the press), they are public sector workers and they like many others do their job without courting the media unlike a lot of celebrities .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. Surely in this case the press are defending democracy ! I really can't believe all this ! We voted to leave !!! It doesn't matter what we voted for, the people were never a factor in this beyond voting in the general election. It was a shock to the system when we voted leave, that is well doccumented. Now some wig wearing ponces have put a spanner in the works, and May is only appealing because it buys her more time to screw us in. The Supreme Court will not buck the trend and overrule their mates in the high court, no way Pedro. They "the establishment" have done a right number on us. They should be made to pay for this, but they won't.
Demonstrating a true understanding of British democracy, presumably that which you voted leave for!
As I said above a few minutes ago, how hard can this be?
The judges (why do you feel the need to insult them? They are guardians of our liberties, including the liberty you use to insult them!) haven't blocked Brexit, they have made sure that the process is done legally. So what is your problem with this?
Yes I understand so called "British democracy," it is a sham. Why I expected anything different from this fine example I don't know.
As for the ponces not blocking BREXIT, maybe not, but they made damn sure that the politicians have plenty of time to do just that.
In short democracy is a crock of shit.
I know! We should have just one person in charge with unlimited power and lots if bureaucrats to keep us on the one true path!"Tried that one! 1215 anyone? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is much that is wrong with the legal system and the legal profession in this country. There is no shortage of occasions when their actions and judgement depart from common sense. However, putting aside the disgusting and dangerously anti-democratic tendencies of those who are seeking to subvert, by any means possible, the democratically expressed will of the people in the recent referendum, it must be allowed that this judgement was based purely on points of law and serves as a useful reminder to the executive that, when dealing with such important constitutional change, corners must not be cut. Politicians have a terrible habit of legislating without thinking through all the potential consequences of their actions, but this constitutional change requires absolute diligence in planning and implementation. Surely it is better to have any shortcomings in the process discussed at this stage, rather than become the subject of legal challenge at a later date, which if it happened after a settled agreement would be very disruptive? This country was taken into the EEC on the basis of lies, deceit and betrayal by the political establishment in Westminster and Whitehall, in as much as our fishing communities were considered expendable and we were told that we were joining a free trade zone, without mention of the longer term plan of political subsumption within a greater European superstate project. What we have now is, as US lawyers might say, the fruit of a poisoned vine....we were sold a pup by Ted Heath which turned out to be a mongrel. So, as the nation state (pulling apart as it undoubtedly is) is re-established pro tem (sorry, unionists), it is inevitable that the next two years of rectification will see more examples of the past week's dramas. As for the hysterical reaction of the right-wing press barons to the judgement, not only does this display a deliberate disregard and distortion of the specific legal issues under consideration - more worryingly, the poisonous and vitriolic headlines from these demagogues had a flavour of the language used by Hitler's regime (which, ironically, had enjoyed the support of those same right-wing press titles). I would not argue that legal judgements should be immune to criticism - that in itself would be unhealthy. However, the hysterical, vitriolic and unwarranted headlines produced by an unaccountable coven of newspaper owners,abusers of the responsibilities which accompany the rights of free speech....leave one almost speechless. I approve this message. DJ Trumpet in da house" Sorry Willwill69u you're fired. I now vote Sensuallad for President | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is much that is wrong with the legal system and the legal profession in this country. There is no shortage of occasions when their actions and judgement depart from common sense. However, putting aside the disgusting and dangerously anti-democratic tendencies of those who are seeking to subvert, by any means possible, the democratically expressed will of the people in the recent referendum, it must be allowed that this judgement was based purely on points of law and serves as a useful reminder to the executive that, when dealing with such important constitutional change, corners must not be cut. Politicians have a terrible habit of legislating without thinking through all the potential consequences of their actions, but this constitutional change requires absolute diligence in planning and implementation. Surely it is better to have any shortcomings in the process discussed at this stage, rather than become the subject of legal challenge at a later date, which if it happened after a settled agreement would be very disruptive? This country was taken into the EEC on the basis of lies, deceit and betrayal by the political establishment in Westminster and Whitehall, in as much as our fishing communities were considered expendable and we were told that we were joining a free trade zone, without mention of the longer term plan of political subsumption within a greater European superstate project. What we have now is, as US lawyers might say, the fruit of a poisoned vine....we were sold a pup by Ted Heath which turned out to be a mongrel. So, as the nation state (pulling apart as it undoubtedly is) is re-established pro tem (sorry, unionists), it is inevitable that the next two years of rectification will see more examples of the past week's dramas. As for the hysterical reaction of the right-wing press barons to the judgement, not only does this display a deliberate disregard and distortion of the specific legal issues under consideration - more worryingly, the poisonous and vitriolic headlines from these demagogues had a flavour of the language used by Hitler's regime (which, ironically, had enjoyed the support of those same right-wing press titles). I would not argue that legal judgements should be immune to criticism - that in itself would be unhealthy. However, the hysterical, vitriolic and unwarranted headlines produced by an unaccountable coven of newspaper owners,abusers of the responsibilities which accompany the rights of free speech....leave one almost speechless. I approve this message. DJ Trumpet in da house" good post | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I know! We should have just one person in charge with unlimited power and lots if bureaucrats to keep us on the one true path! " BA still fly to Pyongyang if you're interested | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I know! We should have just one person in charge with unlimited power and lots if bureaucrats to keep us on the one true path! BA still fly to Pyongyang if you're interested" Again, this was a sarcastic post. I can't believe some people have thought I meant it lol  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I know! We should have just one person in charge with unlimited power and lots if bureaucrats to keep us on the one true path! BA still fly to Pyongyang if you're interested" OP's sarcasm accepted. There are a good few on here who do seem to advocate the North Korean approach though. But presumably, as is always the case, they see themselves as beneficiaries of it. I bet they'd squeal even louder if they were on the receiving end of their chosen form of government and had no legal recourse! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I know! We should have just one person in charge with unlimited power and lots if bureaucrats to keep us on the one true path! BA still fly to Pyongyang if you're interested OP's sarcasm accepted. There are a good few on here who do seem to advocate the North Korean approach though. But presumably, as is always the case, they see themselves as beneficiaries of it. I bet they'd squeal even louder if they were on the receiving end of their chosen form of government and had no legal recourse!" Yep, some of the lovely thoughts from this forum, immigrants should be fed to sharks, refugee camps should be bombed, judges should be sacked, prisoners should be forced to work in the jobs that are currently being done by unskilled EU migrants, and the PM should hold the power to do whatever they want by royal prerogative.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far." I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view" Sigh... and here's another one who hasn't understood what the judges ruled on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view Sigh... and here's another one who hasn't understood what the judges ruled on "Exactly! The lack of understanding of the way our system works is very, very worrying! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view"  the judiciary have just supported democracy by saying Parliament, you know, the sovereign body at the heart of our democracy, has to have a say on such a huge constitutional change and removing of citizens rights. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"....... everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view" That is quite a statement to make. Do you have any facts to back up your assertions or are you like many others, just reinforcing the Brexiter stereotype of being unwilling or incapable to accept anything that doesn't fit with your ideology? A traitor is someone who would willfully bypass the laws of this land to pursue an agenda that would be harmful to the nation. The law is the law for everyone and the law says that Prime Minister May would be engaging in traitorous behaviour should she bypass Parliamntary process by. You should feel pleased that we have such deeply entrenched laws that protect us from tyranny and mob rule. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view Sigh... and here's another one who hasn't understood what the judges ruled on
Exactly! The lack of understanding of the way our system works is very, very worrying!
"The populist movements started with UKIP who purported to offer simple solutions for complex problems and the whole Brexit cause seems to have been hijacked by people who just want want they want with no regard for anyone or anything else and don't care about any kind of consequences as long as they don't have to think about anything. It is a truly hideous reflection of our society that anger trumps logic and opinions trump facts of law. Where are we going with all this? There are 65,000,000 people in this country and that means that about 48,000,000 through all sorts of reasons did not vote for an angry and aggressive future that is governed by people who want to pick and choose which laws they want to accept. I am fairly sure that of the 17,000,000 plus that voted for Brexit, a significant percentage must now be asking themselves where all of this recent anger and aggression has come from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far." I cannot see any need to control the press. No is compelled to buy a newspaper and I like to know about the back grounds of judges . With their background at least one was unfit to pass judgement in this case. Well done to the press in this case for writing an interesting and informative article which no one was compelled to read. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Isn't the point of the freedom of the press to express opinion? You seem to think that any opinion that you disagree with should be suppressed. Yes, but only within the law. Strictly speaking the press can only express opinions in editorials, and if the press incite crime then the owner, editor and journalist who wrote the piece are all liable in law. Therefore strictly speaking the owners, editors and journalists who penned and published the articles that have led to death threats being issued could all find themselves being charged with multiple conspiracy charges. All conspiracy charges carry up to life in prison. Of course there could also be contempt charges and if any judge was to be threatened directly then that would be an 'attempt to pervert the course of justice' (also carries a maximum of life). One way or another if I were a journalist I would want to stay squeaky clean because I expect any hack that finds him or herself in the dock in the near future is in for a very rough ride. "Did you actually read the articles . ? I cannot see any evidence of the articles inciting crime . The articles just indicated that the judges were out of touch with ordinary people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Did you actually read the articles . ? I cannot see any evidence of the articles inciting crime . The articles just indicated that the judges were out of touch with ordinary people. " No, but unfortunately I did see the front pages and headlines. To be honest the idea that that sort of vileness can be openly displayed where young impressionable minds can see it I find obnoxious. In fact I would suggest that such publications should be top shelf material and when the covers can be interpreted to promote homophobia they should be sold in sealed non transparent bags. But hey, its a newspaper so it can publish as much pornography as it likes without restrictions! Maybe we should discus the definition of a newspaper and what restrictions should be placed on the publishers and paddlers of soft pron pretending to be a reputable newspaper. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. I cannot see any need to control the press. No is compelled to buy a newspaper and I like to know about the back grounds of judges . With their background at least one was unfit to pass judgement in this case. Well done to the press in this case for writing an interesting and informative article which no one was compelled to read." which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? " Can someone remind me which paper group that convicted fraudster, purgerer and and perverter of justice 'the fake shake' worked for? Maybe someone can remind me which which group was responsible for making corrupt payments to police in order to get access to confidential information? Or maybe someone can remind me which papers were involved in the phone hacking scandal? Is that enough to be getting on with? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? Can someone remind me which paper group that convicted fraudster, purgerer and and perverter of justice 'the fake shake' worked for? Maybe someone can remind me which which group was responsible for making corrupt payments to police in order to get access to confidential information? Or maybe someone can remind me which papers were involved in the phone hacking scandal? Is that enough to be getting on with?" Fella, fully aware of that but i'm asking Pat ok.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. I cannot see any need to control the press. No is compelled to buy a newspaper and I like to know about the back grounds of judges . With their background at least one was unfit to pass judgement in this case. Well done to the press in this case for writing an interesting and informative article which no one was compelled to read. which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? " If you read the article you will see. One at least had a vested interest in EU membership. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? Can someone remind me which paper group that convicted fraudster, purgerer and and perverter of justice 'the fake shake' worked for? Maybe someone can remind me which which group was responsible for making corrupt payments to police in order to get access to confidential information? Or maybe someone can remind me which papers were involved in the phone hacking scandal? Is that enough to be getting on with?" I think you know the answer to that already . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" asking Pat ok.." Why are you asking him? could it be that you don't even know that the post you are quoting is the first post in this thread and came from '_oo hot'.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? Can someone remind me which paper group that convicted fraudster, purgerer and and perverter of justice 'the fake shake' worked for? Maybe someone can remind me which which group was responsible for making corrupt payments to police in order to get access to confidential information? Or maybe someone can remind me which papers were involved in the phone hacking scandal? Is that enough to be getting on with?" Why would you need reminding ?. Judgement should be made on the activity of the majority of the employees , not a small and irrelevant few. I know of no newspaper that would encourage any journalist to engage in criminal activity. In one of the examples which you cite , the main concern should be with the police officers for accepting payment and realising information. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Judgement should be made on the activity of the majority of the employees , not a small and irrelevant few. I know of no newspaper that would encourage any journalist to engage in criminal activity. In one of the examples which you cite , the main concern should be with the police officers for accepting payment and realising information. " Ah right, the Murdoch's and their empire is not in any way responsible for what his companies do for his benefit and the fact that a man who is sharp as a pin suddenly had selective memory loss while his political protection ran legal obstruction for his lieutenants. I wonder exactly how corrupt the press need to become before you accept that it is not the hacks that are the driving force behind corruption but those at the very top of the tree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" asking Pat ok.. Why are you asking him? could it be that you don't even know that the post you are quoting is the first post in this thread and came from '_oo hot'.
"give you a clue.. opinion Pat ok | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. I cannot see any need to control the press. No is compelled to buy a newspaper and I like to know about the back grounds of judges . With their background at least one was unfit to pass judgement in this case. Well done to the press in this case for writing an interesting and informative article which no one was compelled to read. which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? If you read the article you will see. One at least had a vested interest in EU membership. " the issue in question was to do with our law and whether the PM had the power to do what she thought she did.. think its clutching at straws to question the integrity of some of the highest in their profession because its deemed they have interests.. had he been on the stump with one side or the other then fair point, otherwise it just looks like another attempt to not accept the issue has been judged upon at this point.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view the judiciary have just supported democracy by saying Parliament, you know, the sovereign body at the heart of our democracy, has to have a say on such a huge constitutional change and removing of citizens rights. "You believe that you are easily fooled | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. I cannot see any need to control the press. No is compelled to buy a newspaper and I like to know about the back grounds of judges . With their background at least one was unfit to pass judgement in this case. Well done to the press in this case for writing an interesting and informative article which no one was compelled to read. which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? If you read the article you will see. One at least had a vested interest in EU membership. the issue in question was to do with our law and whether the PM had the power to do what she thought she did.. think its clutching at straws to question the integrity of some of the highest in their profession because its deemed they have interests.. had he been on the stump with one side or the other then fair point, otherwise it just looks like another attempt to not accept the issue has been judged upon at this point.." .....and if the ruling goes in favour of Leave at the appeal at the supreme court should the integrity of the 3 judges at the high Court be questioned then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view the judiciary have just supported democracy by saying Parliament, you know, the sovereign body at the heart of our democracy, has to have a say on such a huge constitutional change and removing of citizens rights. You believe that you are easily fooled"No, it means my understanding of the constitution is in line with the high court's understanding of the constitution. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. I cannot see any need to control the press. No is compelled to buy a newspaper and I like to know about the back grounds of judges . With their background at least one was unfit to pass judgement in this case. Well done to the press in this case for writing an interesting and informative article which no one was compelled to read. which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? If you read the article you will see. One at least had a vested interest in EU membership. the issue in question was to do with our law and whether the PM had the power to do what she thought she did.. think its clutching at straws to question the integrity of some of the highest in their profession because its deemed they have interests.. had he been on the stump with one side or the other then fair point, otherwise it just looks like another attempt to not accept the issue has been judged upon at this point.. .....and if the ruling goes in favour of Leave at the appeal at the supreme court should the integrity of the 3 judges at the high Court be questioned then? " No. How about before the supreme court hear the case, you tell us if you trust them and in the very value of an independent judiciary. Or do you want to wait until the verdict before you declare them heroes of democracy or traitors? As I said before, I am happy with the high court decision, but I still think that the supreme court is the best place for such an important matter to be decided. Which ever way they rule, they are the right authority to determine such crucial constitutional issues and I welcome and respect an independent judiciary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. I cannot see any need to control the press. No is compelled to buy a newspaper and I like to know about the back grounds of judges . With their background at least one was unfit to pass judgement in this case. Well done to the press in this case for writing an interesting and informative article which no one was compelled to read. which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? If you read the article you will see. One at least had a vested interest in EU membership. the issue in question was to do with our law and whether the PM had the power to do what she thought she did.. think its clutching at straws to question the integrity of some of the highest in their profession because its deemed they have interests.. had he been on the stump with one side or the other then fair point, otherwise it just looks like another attempt to not accept the issue has been judged upon at this point.. .....and if the ruling goes in favour of Leave at the appeal at the supreme court should the integrity of the 3 judges at the high Court be questioned then? " No.. what part of the judiciary is impartial do you not understand.. there are legal arguments and differences every day of the week in our courts and the integrity of those with differing opinions is not in question.. the integrity issue is a smokescreen.. part of setting a narrative for later on when someone will need to be the scapegoat rather than some accept what the law has said.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Judgement should be made on the activity of the majority of the employees , not a small and irrelevant few. I know of no newspaper that would encourage any journalist to engage in criminal activity. In one of the examples which you cite , the main concern should be with the police officers for accepting payment and realising information. Ah right, the Murdoch's and their empire is not in any way responsible for what his companies do for his benefit and the fact that a man who is sharp as a pin suddenly had selective memory loss while his political protection ran legal obstruction for his lieutenants. I wonder exactly how corrupt the press need to become before you accept that it is not the hacks that are the driving force behind corruption but those at the very top of the tree." Luckily I do not accept that the press or their owners are corrupt. They are just doing a job which is to sell newspapers. No one is compelled to either buy or read a newspaper so it is difficult to see how corruption enters the equation . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there had been any sort of comprehension test or IQ threshold applied to voters in the referendum it would have been a fucking walkover for REMAIN. " Did you see in Kansas, idiots are not allowed to vote | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. I cannot see any need to control the press. No is compelled to buy a newspaper and I like to know about the back grounds of judges . With their background at least one was unfit to pass judgement in this case. Well done to the press in this case for writing an interesting and informative article which no one was compelled to read. which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? If you read the article you will see. One at least had a vested interest in EU membership. the issue in question was to do with our law and whether the PM had the power to do what she thought she did.. think its clutching at straws to question the integrity of some of the highest in their profession because its deemed they have interests.. had he been on the stump with one side or the other then fair point, otherwise it just looks like another attempt to not accept the issue has been judged upon at this point.. .....and if the ruling goes in favour of Leave at the appeal at the supreme court should the integrity of the 3 judges at the high Court be questioned then? " Yes and if they say know then the supreme court should be abolished | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. I cannot see any need to control the press. No is compelled to buy a newspaper and I like to know about the back grounds of judges . With their background at least one was unfit to pass judgement in this case. Well done to the press in this case for writing an interesting and informative article which no one was compelled to read. which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? If you read the article you will see. One at least had a vested interest in EU membership. the issue in question was to do with our law and whether the PM had the power to do what she thought she did.. think its clutching at straws to question the integrity of some of the highest in their profession because its deemed they have interests.. had he been on the stump with one side or the other then fair point, otherwise it just looks like another attempt to not accept the issue has been judged upon at this point.. .....and if the ruling goes in favour of Leave at the appeal at the supreme court should the integrity of the 3 judges at the high Court be questioned then? No.. what part of the judiciary is impartial do you not understand.. there are legal arguments and differences every day of the week in our courts and the integrity of those with differing opinions is not in question.. the integrity issue is a smokescreen.. part of setting a narrative for later on when someone will need to be the scapegoat rather than some accept what the law has said.." How do we know that the judiciary is impartial. A judgement in court is simply a judgement in the day concerned. In cases such as this it is crucial that the public have information on the judges back ground in order to assure themselves that they the judges are unbiased . It is difficult to see how Judges can be completely impartial as everyone has an opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there had been any sort of comprehension test or IQ threshold applied to voters in the referendum it would have been a fucking walkover for REMAIN. " What type of threshold would you propose to apply ? Would you allow skilled tradesmen to vote or would they fail your intelligence test?. However about people with excellent businness acumen who pay their way in life but fall below your intelligence threshold . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there had been any sort of comprehension test or IQ threshold applied to voters in the referendum it would have been a fucking walkover for REMAIN. " Maybe you should Watch some of the Remain sore loser videos on YouTube, one of the Remain muppets featured on there thought Angela Merkel was an MEP. Honestly surprised they could even read the question on the ballot paper let alone understand it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there had been any sort of comprehension test or IQ threshold applied to voters in the referendum it would have been a fucking walkover for REMAIN. Maybe you should Watch some of the Remain sore loser videos on YouTube, one of the Remain muppets featured on there thought Angela Merkel was an MEP. Honestly surprised they could even read the question on the ballot paper let alone understand it. " Agreed, idiots on both sides. However, I assume you saw the published research into how people voted? As well as young people voting to remain in broad terms whilst old were voting leave, there was degree educated tend to be remain. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Did you see in Kansas, idiots are not allowed to vote "Definition of an idiot: A person with an IQ between 0 and 25. Definition of an imbecile: A person with an IQ between 26 and 50 Definition of a moron: A person with an IQ between 51 and 70 A working border collie has an IQ of about 70 (childhood score). A chimpanzee has an adult IQ of about 40. Does this mean that in Kansas chimps can vote... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. I cannot see any need to control the press. No is compelled to buy a newspaper and I like to know about the back grounds of judges . With their background at least one was unfit to pass judgement in this case. Well done to the press in this case for writing an interesting and informative article which no one was compelled to read. which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? If you read the article you will see. One at least had a vested interest in EU membership. the issue in question was to do with our law and whether the PM had the power to do what she thought she did.. think its clutching at straws to question the integrity of some of the highest in their profession because its deemed they have interests.. had he been on the stump with one side or the other then fair point, otherwise it just looks like another attempt to not accept the issue has been judged upon at this point.. .....and if the ruling goes in favour of Leave at the appeal at the supreme court should the integrity of the 3 judges at the high Court be questioned then? No.. what part of the judiciary is impartial do you not understand.. there are legal arguments and differences every day of the week in our courts and the integrity of those with differing opinions is not in question.. the integrity issue is a smokescreen.. part of setting a narrative for later on when someone will need to be the scapegoat rather than some accept what the law has said.. How do we know that the judiciary is impartial. A judgement in court is simply a judgement in the day concerned. In cases such as this it is crucial that the public have information on the judges back ground in order to assure themselves that they the judges are unbiased . It is difficult to see how Judges can be completely impartial as everyone has an opinion." is that the same 'public' who have threatened one of the people who brought the case with death, gang rape..? its accepted that the judiciary is impartial, the independence is set down in statute.. it matters that the sexuality or former sports achievements is known in a matter where a high court judge is looking at a point of UK law..? come on that's bollocks.. bit like you a landlord being asked by a letting agency or potential tenants whether you have casual sex with random people, of no relevance what so ever.. its the daily mail, ffs its got form on that type of drivel.. you cant assume other peoples professionalism in their role based on your own opinion as to whether they can be impartial, especially when you have no idea of them clearly.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there had been any sort of comprehension test or IQ threshold applied to voters in the referendum it would have been a fucking walkover for REMAIN. Maybe you should Watch some of the Remain sore loser videos on YouTube, one of the Remain muppets featured on there thought Angela Merkel was an MEP. Honestly surprised they could even read the question on the ballot paper let alone understand it. Agreed, idiots on both sides. However, I assume you saw the published research into how people voted? As well as young people voting to remain in broad terms whilst old were voting leave, there was degree educated tend to be remain." An interesting post. What you appear to be saying is that the more responsible section of society voted to leave. Older people will have more experience in life and are much better informed in order to make responsible decisions . At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. I cannot see any need to control the press. No is compelled to buy a newspaper and I like to know about the back grounds of judges . With their background at least one was unfit to pass judgement in this case. Well done to the press in this case for writing an interesting and informative article which no one was compelled to read. which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? If you read the article you will see. One at least had a vested interest in EU membership. the issue in question was to do with our law and whether the PM had the power to do what she thought she did.. think its clutching at straws to question the integrity of some of the highest in their profession because its deemed they have interests.. had he been on the stump with one side or the other then fair point, otherwise it just looks like another attempt to not accept the issue has been judged upon at this point.. .....and if the ruling goes in favour of Leave at the appeal at the supreme court should the integrity of the 3 judges at the high Court be questioned then? Yes and if they say know then the supreme court should be abolished" You want to abolish the supreme court? Who should take their function and powers? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" .....and if the ruling goes in favour of Leave at the appeal at the supreme court should the integrity of the 3 judges at the high Court be questioned then? " The decision will be upheld. It was an unwinnable case and so is the appeal. In it's decision the high court correctly said that part of the governments case was 'divorced from reality'. That is strong language. It also said the 'central plank of the governments case was flawed at its basic level'. It was not the claimants that won the ruling by the way, but the government itself that lost it and they did so when they admitted the triggering of article 50 will deprive citizens of some of their rights. As soon as they did that, which might not have been necessary if the claimants weren't savvy enough by the way, they ran up against an issue that has been constitutionally settled since 1688. Namely that the executive (formerly the monarch, but these days the government) could not remove the rights of citizens without parliaments consent. We fought a fucking civil war over that sort of thing. The question Brexiters need to ask themselves is was this incompetence by the government or very clever closet Remain tactics? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far." Funny how freedom of speech in a democracy only suits when it favours your own position. The judges weren't"commenting" on a matter of law though x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If there had been any sort of comprehension test or IQ threshold applied to voters in the referendum it would have been a fucking walkover for REMAIN. Maybe you should Watch some of the Remain sore loser videos on YouTube, one of the Remain muppets featured on there thought Angela Merkel was an MEP. Honestly surprised they could even read the question on the ballot paper let alone understand it. Agreed, idiots on both sides. However, I assume you saw the published research into how people voted? As well as young people voting to remain in broad terms whilst old were voting leave, there was degree educated tend to be remain. An interesting post. What you appear to be saying is that the more responsible section of society voted to leave. Older people will have more experience in life and are much better informed in order to make responsible decisions . At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. " if only those older people with such sound judgement had listened to the younger ones who wanted to remain.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. " How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! " Patronising
Funny how the younger generation expect the older generation to supply free childcare, housing, house deposits, numerous other handouts. But don't accept their elders right to vote or have an opinion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! " Also, if you haven't taught your children to think for themselves, how to know what's best for them etc. then you have pretty much failed as a parent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! Patronising
Funny how the younger generation expect the older generation to supply free childcare, housing, house deposits, numerous other handouts. But don't accept their elders right to vote or have an opinion "Elders have a right to vote and to an opinion. But opinions can be wrong. There is a feeling in some quarters that all opinions are correct, are equally valid. This us, of course, bollocks. If you are voting for whatever reason, don't you have a duty to at least understand the basics of what you're voting for? It is clear from some of the responses in Politics forum that there is, here at least, a widespread ignorance of how our system works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! Also, if you haven't taught your children to think for themselves, how to know what's best for them etc. then you have pretty much failed as a parent. "Absolutely! But then there are plenty of parents who expect their children to think like they do! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! " It is difficult to see the point of this post in relation to the younger generation. As you grow older you will have much more experience of life and providing you are up to date with modern techniques are in a better position to make decisions . Older people will have obtained all the facts necessary on which to make their decisions throughout life . Younger people may have the facts but not the experience necessary in which to interpret them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! It is difficult to see the point of this post in relation to the younger generation. As you grow older you will have much more experience of life and providing you are up to date with modern techniques are in a better position to make decisions . Older people will have obtained all the facts necessary on which to make their decisions throughout life . Younger people may have the facts but not the experience necessary in which to interpret them. " Pity they got it so wrong then! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! Also, if you haven't taught your children to think for themselves, how to know what's best for them etc. then you have pretty much failed as a parent. "Is that not the point of going to school ?. You do expwriments and draw conclusions . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! Patronising
Funny how the younger generation expect the older generation to supply free childcare, housing, house deposits, numerous other handouts. But don't accept their elders right to vote or have an opinion
Elders have a right to vote and to an opinion. But opinions can be wrong. There is a feeling in some quarters that all opinions are correct, are equally valid. This us, of course, bollocks.
If you are voting for whatever reason, don't you have a duty to at least understand the basics of what you're voting for? It is clear from some of the responses in Politics forum that there is, here at least, a widespread ignorance of how our system works.
"Are you now suggesting that the "older" generation don't understand the basics of what they voted for? And are you saying that my opinion is less valid than yours? I would guess they grasp the "basics" just fine x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! Also, if you haven't taught your children to think for themselves, how to know what's best for them etc. then you have pretty much failed as a parent. Is that not the point of going to school ?. You do expwriments and draw conclusions . "Parents who believe that schools are the only place children learn are also usually fairly crap parents too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! Also, if you haven't taught your children to think for themselves, how to know what's best for them etc. then you have pretty much failed as a parent. Is that not the point of going to school ?. You do expwriments and draw conclusions . "Yes, based on evidence. Unlike many who voted. Who voted on opinion without evidence, on a whim, to beat the government, whatever. I believe one interview went like this... Interviewer: Why did you vote leave? Respondent: Because of EU laws. I: Can you give me an example? R: oven gloves. I: what about them? R: the EU says they have to withstand a certain temperature! So this person voted leave because oven gloves would stop people burning themselves! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! Patronising
Funny how the younger generation expect the older generation to supply free childcare, housing, house deposits, numerous other handouts. But don't accept their elders right to vote or have an opinion
Elders have a right to vote and to an opinion. But opinions can be wrong. There is a feeling in some quarters that all opinions are correct, are equally valid. This us, of course, bollocks.
If you are voting for whatever reason, don't you have a duty to at least understand the basics of what you're voting for? It is clear from some of the responses in Politics forum that there is, here at least, a widespread ignorance of how our system works.
"The bottom line is that everyone knew exactly what they were voting for . There were sufficient discussions to ask questions during the canpaign . The ongoing discussions and the various legal arguments about the exit process are irrelevant to most people and they have no interest in it . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those judges have no doubt money tied up in the EU, and therefore sold us down the river deliberately. They are scum traitors, just like a lot of the so called "authorities" we have in this country. Fuck em! Apparently one of them is 'an openly gay fencer', if that doesn't disqualify him from taking an unbiased objective view then I don't know what does!" What does he fence? Jewellery, electrical goods...? Always knew that judges were a bit suspect | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you now suggesting that the "older" generation don't understand the basics of what they voted for? And are you saying that my opinion is less valid than yours? I would guess they grasp the "basics" just fine x" It is clear on here alone that quite a few have no idea how the system works which has severe implications for their understanding of the issues. Your opinion may be valid where it is evidence based. If it is not evidence based then, no, it isn't valid. How can it be? Look at these threads here, no matter how much I and others try to explain how our democracy works we may as well be pissing in the wind. The people who think that the High Court undermined our deomcracy when it is blindingly obvious that, in fact, the complete opposite is the case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! Also, if you haven't taught your children to think for themselves, how to know what's best for them etc. then you have pretty much failed as a parent. Is that not the point of going to school ?. You do expwriments and draw conclusions .
Yes, based on evidence.
Unlike many who voted. Who voted on opinion without evidence, on a whim, to beat the government, whatever.
I believe one interview went like this...
Interviewer: Why did you vote leave?
Respondent: Because of EU laws.
I: Can you give me an example?
R: oven gloves.
I: what about them?
R: the EU says they have to withstand a certain temperature!
So this person voted leave because oven gloves would stop people burning themselves! "This would apply to any election and in any event people are entitled to form their own opinion. In the sample to which you refer the voter was probably fed up with the EU passing leglisation as to what we can and can not do. Common sense can be applied to the standards of oven gloves. I dont want it dictated to me by the EU. The same applies to light bulbs , toasters and vacuum cleaners . Loss of control seems a good enough reason to me for voting to leave . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bottom line is that everyone knew exactly what they were voting for . There were sufficient discussions to ask questions during the canpaign . The ongoing discussions and the various legal arguments about the exit process are irrelevant to most people and they have no interest in it . " Actually, I think there's enough evidence to suggest that people didn't, the information feed was often factually incorrect but people believed it. Both sides guilty to some extent but the classic £350m on NHS etc of course is up there. Your statement about the legal arguments is deeply worrying too, you seem to suggest that the rule of law is irrelevant? Unfortunately, however, I think we probably agree on your last point that most people have no interesrt in it. However, you perhaps think that's OK, whereas I think it's an appaling judgement on the people of the UK! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote?" Here we go again, please explain exactly who is trying to change this outcome? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! Patronising
Funny how the younger generation expect the older generation to supply free childcare, housing, house deposits, numerous other handouts. But don't accept their elders right to vote or have an opinion
Elders have a right to vote and to an opinion. But opinions can be wrong. There is a feeling in some quarters that all opinions are correct, are equally valid. This us, of course, bollocks.
If you are voting for whatever reason, don't you have a duty to at least understand the basics of what you're voting for? It is clear from some of the responses in Politics forum that there is, here at least, a widespread ignorance of how our system works.
The bottom line is that everyone knew exactly what they were voting for . There were sufficient discussions to ask questions during the canpaign .
The ongoing discussions and the various legal arguments about the exit process are irrelevant to most people and they have no interest in it . "The EU referendum was done to death on here during the months leading up to June 23rd. If here was a template to measure other social media outlets by then the EU referendum was widely discussed by everyone who voted. To suggest otherwise is very Naive to say the least. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At least the decision to leave was based on sound judgement from those with experience in life and wanted to offer the younger generation a better future. How patronising of them! I was reading an interesting work about the history of medicine. In it the author describes how doctors would use their experience of life etc to treat their patients. And killed them in their hundreds, per doctor. Bleeding is the classic example. It probably killed George Washington, and was still being recommended by some doctors with their experience into the 1920s. Medicines with mercury in, or arsenic. Etc, etc. Learned people applying their experience of life. Instead of using evidence! Using evidence and facts is so much harder isn't it! So much harder that even in the 1980s cardiologists were using techniques the the knew from experience worked. The techniques did not, in fact they killed more patients than they helped. Evidence and facts, beat 'experience of life' every time! There can be no situtation where experience can triumph over evidence. Because, if the experience was correct the evidence would support it. Pesky stuff evidence and facts! Really, really annoying! Also, if you haven't taught your children to think for themselves, how to know what's best for them etc. then you have pretty much failed as a parent. Is that not the point of going to school ?. You do expwriments and draw conclusions .
Yes, based on evidence.
Unlike many who voted. Who voted on opinion without evidence, on a whim, to beat the government, whatever.
I believe one interview went like this...
Interviewer: Why did you vote leave?
Respondent: Because of EU laws.
I: Can you give me an example?
R: oven gloves.
I: what about them?
R: the EU says they have to withstand a certain temperature!
So this person voted leave because oven gloves would stop people burning themselves! This would apply to any election and in any event people are entitled to form their own opinion.
In the sample to which you refer the voter was probably fed up with the EU passing leglisation as to what we can and can not do.
Common sense can be applied to the standards of oven gloves. I dont want it dictated to me by the EU.
The same applies to light bulbs , toasters and vacuum cleaners .
Loss of control seems a good enough reason to me for voting to leave . "And what if the UK parliament passed that legislation rather than the UK. Surely that would be the same "loss of freedom"? Would you want to leave parliamentary democracy as well? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote?" The high court haven't tried to change the outcome. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote? Here we go again, please explain exactly who is trying to change this outcome?" Then read the thread where it explains how it works. I refer you to my post of 7 hours ago: " Oh ffs! How hard is this to understand? We have parliamentary democracy. Got this bit? That means parliament has sovereignty. With me? Parliament. Not the Crown, not the executive, not the people. Keeping up? We don't govern by plebiscite. The people don't have sovereignty. Yes, the electorate votes for the members of parliament but it is parliament that has sovereignty. This is not hard to understand. So, what has the High Court done? Has it stopped Brexit? No. Has it interferred politically? No. Has it made sure that the executive act legally? Yes. So where's the problem? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Look at these threads here, no matter how much I and others try to explain how our democracy works we may as well be pissing in the wind. The people who think that the High Court undermined our deomcracy when it is blindingly obvious that, in fact, the complete opposite is the case. " I find myself reminded of the Jews walking quietly into the the death houses because they know that nothing bad could happen to them and that all the stories of mass murders were false and those telling them they were being selected for slaughter were liars because if that were the case they would know because they were too clever to be caught like that. Sometimes all you can do is shrug and let people find their own way to hell. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote? Here we go again, please explain exactly who is trying to change this outcome?" Bitter Remainers who couldn't accept they had lost, and are now seeking to try to twist the result through whatever legal challenges they feel they are able to. You KNOW it's all complete bollocks, and merely trying to go against the clearly stated wishes of the population of our country...52% of which no longer wish to be members of the EU. What is hard to understand about that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote? Here we go again, please explain exactly who is trying to change this outcome? Bitter Remainers who couldn't accept they had lost, and are now seeking to try to twist the result through whatever legal challenges they feel they are able to. You KNOW it's all complete bollocks, and merely trying to go against the clearly stated wishes of the population of our country...52% of which no longer wish to be members of the EU. What is hard to understand about that?" You do know, don't you, that one of the people who brought the case is pro brexit? Or do we simply ignore that too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote? Here we go again, please explain exactly who is trying to change this outcome? Bitter Remainers who couldn't accept they had lost, and are now seeking to try to twist the result through whatever legal challenges they feel they are able to. You KNOW it's all complete bollocks, and merely trying to go against the clearly stated wishes of the population of our country...52% of which no longer wish to be members of the EU. What is hard to understand about that?" Exactly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote? Here we go again, please explain exactly who is trying to change this outcome? Bitter Remainers who couldn't accept they had lost, and are now seeking to try to twist the result through whatever legal challenges they feel they are able to. You KNOW it's all complete bollocks, and merely trying to go against the clearly stated wishes of the population of our country...52% of which no longer wish to be members of the EU. What is hard to understand about that?" Oh, and get facts right, 17m is not 52% of 65m! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote? Here we go again, please explain exactly who is trying to change this outcome? Bitter Remainers who couldn't accept they had lost, and are now seeking to try to twist the result through whatever legal challenges they feel they are able to. You KNOW it's all complete bollocks, and merely trying to go against the clearly stated wishes of the population of our country...52% of which no longer wish to be members of the EU. What is hard to understand about that? Exactly "Pigeons? You ready for chess? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote? Here we go again, please explain exactly who is trying to change this outcome? Bitter Remainers who couldn't accept they had lost, and are now seeking to try to twist the result through whatever legal challenges they feel they are able to. You KNOW it's all complete bollocks, and merely trying to go against the clearly stated wishes of the population of our country...52% of which no longer wish to be members of the EU. What is hard to understand about that? Oh, and get facts right, 17m is not 52% of 65m! " Oh, so who is right...the majority who want to leave, or the minority who wish to stay? I'm sorry, but get YOUR facts right...if you wish to split hairs, the population of the UK is fluid to a degree, and not a precise 65 million...the PERCENTAGE of votes cast was 52% in favour of leaving and 48% in favour of remaining...for those who bothered to vote. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you now suggesting that the "older" generation don't understand the basics of what they voted for? And are you saying that my opinion is less valid than yours? I would guess they grasp the "basics" just fine x It is clear on here alone that quite a few have no idea how the system works which has severe implications for their understanding of the issues. Your opinion may be valid where it is evidence based. If it is not evidence based then, no, it isn't valid. How can it be? Look at these threads here, no matter how much I and others try to explain how our democracy works we may as well be pissing in the wind. The people who think that the High Court undermined our deomcracy when it is blindingly obvious that, in fact, the complete opposite is the case. " According to the Oxford dictionary,the definition of opinion is" A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge" So is that incorrect then? Not valid? The problem that some people have is that they voted in good faith to leave the EU,but find that those who have"power" whether in the form of the judiciary or those elected to represent their constituents, wish to ignore, subvert or denigrate the instruction they were asked by those same MPs to give. We the electorate were asked a simple question, decided by those MPs above, to remain or to leave, no soft or hard options. The majority who voted decided to leave. No ifs or buts. They were told by leave and remain campaign leaders that it was a vote to remain or leave the EU, including the single market. The campaign was messy and badly run by both sides. Those who voted leave were told by many "experts" that they risk recession, world war three and being poorer to the tune of £4300 per household. Still they voted leave for many reasons including controlling immigration,sovereignty and freedom to make our own laws and forge our own trade deals Unfortunately those who "represent" the country in parliament voted very differently to their constituents. And are perceived to be disrespectful to the opinions of the people they serve by branding them racist, bigoted, xenophobic people. So the "majority" have no faith in those who "represent" them. Immediately after the vote came shock and disbelief. Then came calls for a second referendum. Next came the never before discussed "hard" and "soft" options. Then legal challenge- first by Northern Ireland, then by remain voters under the guise of "process". All the while, uncertainty for individuals and businesses continues. It's not going to end well for anyone as the situation stands x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote? Here we go again, please explain exactly who is trying to change this outcome?" Nick Clegg, Owen Smith, Ken Clark to name just three . And who openly admit it x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People have a right to change their minds. I see the polls now show a lot of leave voters regret their choice while a number of non voters would now cast their vote. It's 51% Remain now. I'm sure the MPs will take this into account too, when deciding how to vote or amending the legislation to require a second referendum to confirm the go ahead to leave. It's not going to be Brexit, or at least it's not going to be leaving the single market/customs union, is it? "David Cameron made it clear that it was a once in a lifetime opportunity . What would anyone want to change their mind.?. No dramatic events have happened to suggest that peoole wanted to. We can just ignore the opinion polls . The are usually inaccurate . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote? Here we go again, please explain exactly who is trying to change this outcome? Bitter Remainers who couldn't accept they had lost, and are now seeking to try to twist the result through whatever legal challenges they feel they are able to. You KNOW it's all complete bollocks, and merely trying to go against the clearly stated wishes of the population of our country...52% of which no longer wish to be members of the EU. What is hard to understand about that? Oh, and get facts right, 17m is not 52% of 65m! " The result was to leave so the percentage calculation is irrelevant . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote? Here we go again, please explain exactly who is trying to change this outcome? Bitter Remainers who couldn't accept they had lost, and are now seeking to try to twist the result through whatever legal challenges they feel they are able to. You KNOW it's all complete bollocks, and merely trying to go against the clearly stated wishes of the population of our country...52% of which no longer wish to be members of the EU. What is hard to understand about that? You do know, don't you, that one of the people who brought the case is pro brexit? Or do we simply ignore that too?" We can simply ignore that . Why would they want to bring such a decision? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" David Cameron made it clear that it was a once in a lifetime opportunity . "David CaMoron made it clear that if there was a vote in favour of Brexit he would immediately trigger Article 50. He was lying! David CaMoron made it clear he would remain in No 10 as PM and deliver the Brexit the people had voted for. He was LYING! When the Eaton posh boy resigned as PM he said he would remain on the back benches to support Ms May. Guess what? That was LYING too. He seems a poor choice as an authority to quote on Brexit.
Maybe you should start examining the facts critically rather than believing and quoting those that have lied to you.
And while your at it you may want to re-listen to Boris and Nige as they were standing in front of that bus that said vote leave and give the NHS £350 million a week in extra funding and then listen to the 2 of them less than a week after the referendum admit that they had also LIED to you and the money was never there!
Maybe if you stop being a little englander you will realise we may have just dodged a bullet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The COUNTRY voted out. By a majority. What is democratic about trying to change the outcome of a free vote? Here we go again, please explain exactly who is trying to change this outcome? Bitter Remainers who couldn't accept they had lost, and are now seeking to try to twist the result through whatever legal challenges they feel they are able to. You KNOW it's all complete bollocks, and merely trying to go against the clearly stated wishes of the population of our country...52% of which no longer wish to be members of the EU. What is hard to understand about that? Oh, and get facts right, 17m is not 52% of 65m! " Ok if we are using that quiteria no government we elect would be in government ! Mind you Thier would never have been any strikes either . Oh I nearly forgot
We wouldn't have joined in the first place !!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" David Cameron made it clear that it was a once in a lifetime opportunity .
David CaMoron made it clear that if there was a vote in favour of Brexit he would immediately trigger Article 50. He was lying!
David CaMoron made it clear he would remain in No 10 as PM and deliver the Brexit the people had voted for. He was LYING!
When the Eaton posh boy resigned as PM he said he would remain on the back benches to support Ms May. Guess what? That was LYING too.
He seems a poor choice as an authority to quote on Brexit.
Maybe you should start examining the facts critically rather than believing and quoting those that have lied to you.
And while your at it you may want to re-listen to Boris and Nige as they were standing in front of that bus that said vote leave and give the NHS £350 million a week in extra funding and then listen to the 2 of them less than a week after the referendum admit that they had also LIED to you and the money was never there!
Maybe if you stop being a little englander you will realise we may have just dodged a bullet." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view Sigh... and here's another one who hasn't understood what the judges ruled on
Exactly! The lack of understanding of the way our system works is very, very worrying!
"True. You should learn it maybe. Do you know how often judges decide that the Royal Prerogative can be used? It is generally used to deal with matters of foreign affairs and the invoking of Article 50 is to do with foreign affairs. For example, you do know that we joined the European Union by Royal Prerogative and not through a decision made in Parliament don't you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view Sigh... and here's another one who hasn't understood what the judges ruled on
Exactly! The lack of understanding of the way our system works is very, very worrying!
True. You should learn it maybe. Do you know how often judges decide that the Royal Prerogative can be used? It is generally used to deal with matters of foreign affairs and the invoking of Article 50 is to do with foreign affairs. For example, you do know that we joined the European Union by Royal Prerogative and not through a decision made in Parliament don't you?"So what was the European Communities Act 1972 all about then? That wasn't made in parliament huh? Also joining the EEC granted British citizens more rights, it didn't take rights away. The crux of the arguement that the high court ruled on was that the government cannot take away citizen's rights without the consent of parliament. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view Sigh... and here's another one who hasn't understood what the judges ruled on
Exactly! The lack of understanding of the way our system works is very, very worrying!
True. You should learn it maybe. Do you know how often judges decide that the Royal Prerogative can be used? It is generally used to deal with matters of foreign affairs and the invoking of Article 50 is to do with foreign affairs. For example, you do know that we joined the European Union by Royal Prerogative and not through a decision made in Parliament don't you?
So what was the European Communities Act 1972 all about then? That wasn't made in parliament huh?
Also joining the EEC granted British citizens more rights, it didn't take rights away. The crux of the arguement that the high court ruled on was that the government cannot take away citizen's rights without the consent of parliament. "We joined the EU in 1993 
the government took away my right to not be an EU citizen didn't they? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view Sigh... and here's another one who hasn't understood what the judges ruled on
Exactly! The lack of understanding of the way our system works is very, very worrying!
True. You should learn it maybe. Do you know how often judges decide that the Royal Prerogative can be used? It is generally used to deal with matters of foreign affairs and the invoking of Article 50 is to do with foreign affairs. For example, you do know that we joined the European Union by Royal Prerogative and not through a decision made in Parliament don't you?
So what was the European Communities Act 1972 all about then? That wasn't made in parliament huh?
Also joining the EEC granted British citizens more rights, it didn't take rights away. The crux of the arguement that the high court ruled on was that the government cannot take away citizen's rights without the consent of parliament.
We joined the EU in 1993
the government took away my right to not be an EU citizen didn't they?"That was not a right laid down in statute before. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view Sigh... and here's another one who hasn't understood what the judges ruled on
Exactly! The lack of understanding of the way our system works is very, very worrying!
True. You should learn it maybe. Do you know how often judges decide that the Royal Prerogative can be used? It is generally used to deal with matters of foreign affairs and the invoking of Article 50 is to do with foreign affairs. For example, you do know that we joined the European Union by Royal Prerogative and not through a decision made in Parliament don't you?
So what was the European Communities Act 1972 all about then? That wasn't made in parliament huh?
Also joining the EEC granted British citizens more rights, it didn't take rights away. The crux of the arguement that the high court ruled on was that the government cannot take away citizen's rights without the consent of parliament.
We joined the EU in 1993
the government took away my right to not be an EU citizen didn't they?
That was not a right laid down in statute before."What?? Simple question for you - Did we join the EU by Royal Prerogative or not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view Sigh... and here's another one who hasn't understood what the judges ruled on
Exactly! The lack of understanding of the way our system works is very, very worrying!
True. You should learn it maybe. Do you know how often judges decide that the Royal Prerogative can be used? It is generally used to deal with matters of foreign affairs and the invoking of Article 50 is to do with foreign affairs. For example, you do know that we joined the European Union by Royal Prerogative and not through a decision made in Parliament don't you?
So what was the European Communities Act 1972 all about then? That wasn't made in parliament huh?
Also joining the EEC granted British citizens more rights, it didn't take rights away. The crux of the arguement that the high court ruled on was that the government cannot take away citizen's rights without the consent of parliament.
We joined the EU in 1993
the government took away my right to not be an EU citizen didn't they?
That was not a right laid down in statute before.
What??
Simple question for you -
Did we join the EU by Royal Prerogative or not?""The right not to be a European Citizen" was not a right laid out in statute. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view Sigh... and here's another one who hasn't understood what the judges ruled on
Exactly! The lack of understanding of the way our system works is very, very worrying!
True. You should learn it maybe. Do you know how often judges decide that the Royal Prerogative can be used? It is generally used to deal with matters of foreign affairs and the invoking of Article 50 is to do with foreign affairs. For example, you do know that we joined the European Union by Royal Prerogative and not through a decision made in Parliament don't you?
So what was the European Communities Act 1972 all about then? That wasn't made in parliament huh?
Also joining the EEC granted British citizens more rights, it didn't take rights away. The crux of the arguement that the high court ruled on was that the government cannot take away citizen's rights without the consent of parliament.
We joined the EU in 1993
the government took away my right to not be an EU citizen didn't they?
That was not a right laid down in statute before.
What??
Simple question for you -
Did we join the EU by Royal Prerogative or not?
"The right not to be a European Citizen" was not a right laid out in statute. "Whatever. Simple question for you - Did we join the EU by Royal Prerogative or not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If Scotland had voted for independence , would that have had to be decided by parliament aswell then ? " Yes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far.I disagree with you 100%,everything the papers are saying about these judges is true,in many countries there actions would lead to revolution,the power of the judiciary and the rich must be stopped otherwise we have no democracy and the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.These judges should be imprisomed as traitors in my view Sigh... and here's another one who hasn't understood what the judges ruled on
Exactly! The lack of understanding of the way our system works is very, very worrying!
True. You should learn it maybe. Do you know how often judges decide that the Royal Prerogative can be used? It is generally used to deal with matters of foreign affairs and the invoking of Article 50 is to do with foreign affairs. For example, you do know that we joined the European Union by Royal Prerogative and not through a decision made in Parliament don't you?
So what was the European Communities Act 1972 all about then? That wasn't made in parliament huh?
Also joining the EEC granted British citizens more rights, it didn't take rights away. The crux of the arguement that the high court ruled on was that the government cannot take away citizen's rights without the consent of parliament.
We joined the EU in 1993
the government took away my right to not be an EU citizen didn't they?
That was not a right laid down in statute before.
What??
Simple question for you -
Did we join the EU by Royal Prerogative or not?
"The right not to be a European Citizen" was not a right laid out in statute. "I genuinely don't know the answer without googling . But when we had a referendum to join the EEC in 1972 was it then voted for by Parliment before we did ? As is been asked for now by many people . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. " So would parliament have the final say if the Scots voted to leave the U K then ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. So would parliament have the final say if the Scots voted to leave the U K then ?" Yes, because the Westminster Parliament is supreme. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" David Cameron made it clear that it was a once in a lifetime opportunity .
David CaMoron made it clear that if there was a vote in favour of Brexit he would immediately trigger Article 50. He was lying!
David CaMoron made it clear he would remain in No 10 as PM and deliver the Brexit the people had voted for. He was LYING!
When the Eaton posh boy resigned as PM he said he would remain on the back benches to support Ms May. Guess what? That was LYING too.
He seems a poor choice as an authority to quote on Brexit.
Maybe you should start examining the facts critically rather than believing and quoting those that have lied to you.
And while your at it you may want to re-listen to Boris and Nige as they were standing in front of that bus that said vote leave and give the NHS £350 million a week in extra funding and then listen to the 2 of them less than a week after the referendum admit that they had also LIED to you and the money was never there!
Maybe if you stop being a little englander you will realise we may have just dodged a bullet."I prefer to respect people who have achieved success in life . What is wrong with being educated , successfull and intelligent . David Cameron can only be admired for giving every single resident of the UK the opportunity to vote on their future. This is called listening to and respecting the will of the people. The fact the he resigned after the result hardly makes him a liar. He is giving someone else whom he considered to be better placed the opportunity to carry out the plan. Which does resigning as am MP make him a liar ?. He may want to give someone else the opportunity to respresent his constituency . I want a buoyant and successfull economy free of EU controls . There can be nothing wrong in voting for success. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. " lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. So would parliament have the final say if the Scots voted to leave the U K then ? Yes, because the Westminster Parliament is supreme." Hmmmm interesting . So shouldn't parliament have had a say on the Scots voting to Stay ? Can you imagine the out cry if they vote again and for Out . And the British tells them to Stay | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away?" What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. So would parliament have the final say if the Scots voted to leave the U K then ? Yes, because the Westminster Parliament is supreme. Hmmmm interesting . So shouldn't parliament have had a say on the Scots voting to Stay ? Can you imagine the out cry if they vote again and for Out . And the British tells them to Stay "But Scotland voted to remain part of the UK, so there was no need for parliament to vote on maintaining the status quo. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? " it took away my right to live in a fully sovereign nation for start. I never voted for that. And what do you think laws made in the EU are? Don't most laws take away a right in one way or another? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? " A recent one was to decide how powerful a vacuum cleaner I could buy
flippant I know but true | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. So would parliament have the final say if the Scots voted to leave the U K then ? Yes, because the Westminster Parliament is supreme. Hmmmm interesting . So shouldn't parliament have had a say on the Scots voting to Stay ? Can you imagine the out cry if they vote again and for Out . And the British tells them to Stay
But Scotland voted to remain part of the UK, so there was no need for parliament to vote on maintaining the status quo."Ok , but suppose they vote again and decide to leave ? Are you Seriously suggesting that the Britidh Parliment could bite and say no ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? it took away my right to live in a fully sovereign nation for start. I never voted for that. And what do you think laws made in the EU are? Don't most laws take away a right in one way or another?" It also took away our right to Fidh where we wanted to  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? it took away my right to live in a fully sovereign nation for start. I never voted for that. And what do you think laws made in the EU are? Don't most laws take away a right in one way or another?" If you truely didn't live in a sovereign nation, then parliament couldn't leave the EU. The very fact that we can, shows that parliament was indeed sovereign all along. You have lost absolutely ZERO rights as a result of the UK being a member of the EU, you have however gained a lot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. So would parliament have the final say if the Scots voted to leave the U K then ? Yes, because the Westminster Parliament is supreme. Hmmmm interesting . So shouldn't parliament have had a say on the Scots voting to Stay ? Can you imagine the out cry if they vote again and for Out . And the British tells them to Stay
But Scotland voted to remain part of the UK, so there was no need for parliament to vote on maintaining the status quo.
Ok , but suppose they vote again and decide to leave ? Are you Seriously suggesting that the Britidh Parliment could bite and say no ? "It could, it has that power, but I dont think it would. The same way that using her prerogative powers the PM could chose to declare war on the US, but I dont think she would. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? it took away my right to live in a fully sovereign nation for start. I never voted for that. And what do you think laws made in the EU are? Don't most laws take away a right in one way or another? If you truely didn't live in a sovereign nation, then parliament couldn't leave the EU. The very fact that we can, shows that parliament was indeed sovereign all along. You have lost absolutely ZERO rights as a result of the UK being a member of the EU, you have however gained a lot." I can't buy as big a vacuum cleaner as I used to be able to | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? it took away my right to live in a fully sovereign nation for start. I never voted for that. And what do you think laws made in the EU are? Don't most laws take away a right in one way or another? If you truely didn't live in a sovereign nation, then parliament couldn't leave the EU. The very fact that we can, shows that parliament was indeed sovereign all along. You have lost absolutely ZERO rights as a result of the UK being a member of the EU, you have however gained a lot. I can't buy as big a vacuum cleaner as I used to be able to "But that the because parliament has decided to accept those rules as part of being a member of the EU, if Parliament didn't want to accept that, then it can leave the EU, which again proves that sovereignty always has resided with parliament. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? A recent one was to decide how powerful a vacuum cleaner I could buy
flippant I know but true "The same may aoply to kettles and it also applies to light bulbs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? it took away my right to live in a fully sovereign nation for start. I never voted for that. And what do you think laws made in the EU are? Don't most laws take away a right in one way or another? If you truely didn't live in a sovereign nation, then parliament couldn't leave the EU. The very fact that we can, shows that parliament was indeed sovereign all along. You have lost absolutely ZERO rights as a result of the UK being a member of the EU, you have however gained a lot. I can't buy as big a vacuum cleaner as I used to be able to
But that the because parliament has decided to accept those rules as part of being a member of the EU, if Parliament didn't want to accept that, then it can leave the EU, which again proves that sovereignty always has resided with parliament. "no, the government decided to accept some rules by joining the EU in the first place. Which takes me back to the original point. The government took us into the EU and not parliament. Did you object then or were you too young to understand the consequences? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? it took away my right to live in a fully sovereign nation for start. I never voted for that. And what do you think laws made in the EU are? Don't most laws take away a right in one way or another? If you truely didn't live in a sovereign nation, then parliament couldn't leave the EU. The very fact that we can, shows that parliament was indeed sovereign all along. You have lost absolutely ZERO rights as a result of the UK being a member of the EU, you have however gained a lot." What is the cost of all these rights and who if any wanted them. ?. I do not want businness to bear the cost of unnecessary human rights . We are unable to deport voilent prisoners who quote their human rights . A convicted murderee seemed to think that his human rights included the right to father a child while in prison. Of course he did not care who paid to bring up his proposed offspring . ie the taxpayer . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. " how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? A recent one was to decide how powerful a vacuum cleaner I could buy
flippant I know but true The same may aoply to kettles and it also applies to light bulbs. "this is part of a worldwide strategy to reduce power consumption.It seems to me people really know why but just dont care. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? it took away my right to live in a fully sovereign nation for start. I never voted for that. And what do you think laws made in the EU are? Don't most laws take away a right in one way or another? If you truely didn't live in a sovereign nation, then parliament couldn't leave the EU. The very fact that we can, shows that parliament was indeed sovereign all along. You have lost absolutely ZERO rights as a result of the UK being a member of the EU, you have however gained a lot. What is the cost of all these rights and who if any wanted them. ?. I do not want businness to bear the cost of unnecessary human rights . We are unable to deport voilent prisoners who quote their human rights . A convicted murderee seemed to think that his human rights included the right to father a child while in prison. Of course he did not care who paid to bring up his proposed offspring . ie the taxpayer . " I wanted these rights! Millions of citizens have enjoyed these extra rights, such as freedom of movement, voting in European elections, over the years. No human rights are unnecessary. They are fundamental and universal. Also the ECHR is separate from the EU and so a little superfluous to this debate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The recent front page headlines in the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph were like nothing seen before in this country. There was no disguising that the headlines were a direct attack on independant Judges who had been asked to comment on a matter of UK Law. I think that these headlines and the hysteria that they whipped up in people is proof that the Press need to be controlled better. Having a free Press is one thing but when they mobilise themselves to attach the very heart of our democratic society - that is just a step too far. I cannot see any need to control the press. No is compelled to buy a newspaper and I like to know about the back grounds of judges . With their background at least one was unfit to pass judgement in this case. Well done to the press in this case for writing an interesting and informative article which no one was compelled to read. which one and why in your opinion are they unfit to pass judgement? If you read the article you will see. One at least had a vested interest in EU membership. the issue in question was to do with our law and whether the PM had the power to do what she thought she did.. think its clutching at straws to question the integrity of some of the highest in their profession because its deemed they have interests.. had he been on the stump with one side or the other then fair point, otherwise it just looks like another attempt to not accept the issue has been judged upon at this point.. .....and if the ruling goes in favour of Leave at the appeal at the supreme court should the integrity of the 3 judges at the high Court be questioned then? " You clearly have no understanding of the law, nor if the case out to the court, or the subsequent judgement; It wasn't a leave/ remain case. It was a case if whether parliament must endorse any action. That's all. The court considered the law, and decided that the law says that parliament must endorse the action. If the Supreme Court reversed the decision, it is not a " victory for leave" nor a "loss for remain". Because that is not in question; Simply the court will have further examined the law, and if they find different interpretation if the law, will give judgement on it. And if they interpret the law the same as the first court, they will confirm that, It is not leaver versus remainer, nor does the court ruling change anything about BREXIT, it merely assures that the country's constitution is followed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" David Cameron made it clear that it was a once in a lifetime opportunity .
David CaMoron made it clear that if there was a vote in favour of Brexit he would immediately trigger Article 50. He was lying!
David CaMoron made it clear he would remain in No 10 as PM and deliver the Brexit the people had voted for. He was LYING!
When the Eaton posh boy resigned as PM he said he would remain on the back benches to support Ms May. Guess what? That was LYING too.
He seems a poor choice as an authority to quote on Brexit.
Maybe you should start examining the facts critically rather than believing and quoting those that have lied to you.
And while your at it you may want to re-listen to Boris and Nige as they were standing in front of that bus that said vote leave and give the NHS £350 million a week in extra funding and then listen to the 2 of them less than a week after the referendum admit that they had also LIED to you and the money was never there!
Maybe if you stop being a little englander you will realise we may have just dodged a bullet."This is the same David Cameron who campaigned for Remain and told us all we'd be better off in the EU - if he is such a liar as you make out then why should anyone believe any of the arguments he put forward for Remain? On your 2nd point, Nigel Farage was never part of the vote Leave campaign, he was part of the Grassroots out and Leave.Eu campaigns and he never once stood in front of the vote Leave bus with £350m for the Nhs on the side of it. The only bus Nigel Farage stood by during the referendum campaign was the Ukip 'we want our country back' bus. Does this now make you a liar and if you just lied about that then why should we believe anything else you say? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer?" Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. " And don't forget that the most anti freedom of movement person on here still thinks that they should still be allowed to live in Spain!!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If Scotland had voted for independence , would that have had to be decided by parliament aswell then ? " yes it would of funily enough...... next!!!!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. And don't forget that the most anti freedom of movement person on here still thinks that they should still be allowed to live in Spain!!!! "I am the most anti freedom of movement person on here? How the fuck does your mind work? We have always had freedom of movement and always will which is a good thing. It is the exploitation and movement of cheap labour that I am against. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. " maybe I should have said open borders then but I thought anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have understood that. And I was alluding to safety in this case, not rights. I'm out of my depth? So do you not know that the Royal Prerogative has been allowed to be used by courts on domestic issues too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give me any examples not relating to defence or national security and resulted in citizens losing their rights?" so defence and national security are not domestic matters? Strange. And the government can refuse anyone a passport without reason. And I have already said, my right not to be a citizen of the EU was taken away from me by the government of the time and not by Parliament. There was nothing the people of this country could do about it. Was that right? Or should Parliament have made the decision? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away?" What rights did they take away from you ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" my right not to be a citizen of the EU was taken away from me by the government" You're clutching at straws to a spectacular degree with that little nugget of wisdom. You have lost 0 rights but gained many... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" my right not to be a citizen of the EU was taken away from me by the government You're clutching at straws to a spectacular degree with that little nugget of wisdom. You have lost 0 rights but gained many..." you really think so? Such as? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. And don't forget that the most anti freedom of movement person on here still thinks that they should still be allowed to live in Spain!!!!
I am the most anti freedom of movement person on here? How the fuck does your mind work? We have always had freedom of movement and always will which is a good thing. It is the exploitation and movement of cheap labour that I am against.
"So you believe that every European citizen should have the right to live and work in the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give me any examples not relating to defence or national security and resulted in citizens losing their rights? so defence and national security are not domestic matters? Strange. And the government can refuse anyone a passport without reason. And I have already said, my right not to be a citizen of the EU was taken away from me by the government of the time and not by Parliament. There was nothing the people of this country could do about it. Was that right? Or should Parliament have made the decision?" So you can't give me an example that is actually relevant to the article 50 ruling. We are discussing apples and you have decided a speech about oranges is the appropriate one to bring to the debate? Your 'right' not to be an EU citizen. that's not even a thing. Being a UK citizen gives you rights by statute? Joining the EU kept all of those and gave you some more.
Are you one of those people who think the atheists absence of a belief in god is equivalent to a belief in not a god?
As I've said, the logical fallacies many Brexiters commit is staggering. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. And don't forget that the most anti freedom of movement person on here still thinks that they should still be allowed to live in Spain!!!!
I am the most anti freedom of movement person on here? How the fuck does your mind work? We have always had freedom of movement and always will which is a good thing. It is the exploitation and movement of cheap labour that I am against.
So you believe that every European citizen should have the right to live and work in the UK? "If they can either afford to fund themselves, set up a business or have a skill that cannot be filled by anyone locally and that job has been obtained through proper channels or before they arrive, yes. As has always been the case. We didn't need the EU for this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give me any examples not relating to defence or national security and resulted in citizens losing their rights? so defence and national security are not domestic matters? Strange. And the government can refuse anyone a passport without reason. And I have already said, my right not to be a citizen of the EU was taken away from me by the government of the time and not by Parliament. There was nothing the people of this country could do about it. Was that right? Or should Parliament have made the decision? So you can't give me an example that is actually relevant to the article 50 ruling. We are discussing apples and you have decided a speech about oranges is the appropriate one to bring to the debate? Your 'right' not to be an EU citizen. that's not even a thing. Being a UK citizen gives you rights by statute? Joining the EU kept all of those and gave you some more.
Are you one of those people who think the atheists absence of a belief in god is equivalent to a belief in not a god?
As I've said, the logical fallacies many Brexiters commit is staggering. "No, the arrogance of some remainers is staggering. Do you not think that the UK public should have been given a vote as to whether or not we joined the EU? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. And don't forget that the most anti freedom of movement person on here still thinks that they should still be allowed to live in Spain!!!!
I am the most anti freedom of movement person on here? How the fuck does your mind work? We have always had freedom of movement and always will which is a good thing. It is the exploitation and movement of cheap labour that I am against.
So you believe that every European citizen should have the right to live and work in the UK?
If they can either afford to fund themselves, set up a business or have a skill that cannot be filled by anyone locally and that job has been obtained through proper channels or before they arrive, yes. As has always been the case. We didn't need the EU for this"So yet again you show you do not comprehend the meaning of "rights" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A basic tenant of British law is that you have the right to do anything, unless the law says you can't (think the right to dip your chips in nutella). There are also rights that you have that are protected by statutes (your right to vote). Royal prerogative powers can be used to grant you more rights (the right to vote in European elections), but it can't be used to then take away those rights again (by leaving the EU), only parliament can take those rights away. lol, so you don't think that joining the EU took some rights away? What rights did you have, as an individual citizen, that were taken away when the UK joined the EU? it took away my right to live in a fully sovereign nation for start. I never voted for that. And what do you think laws made in the EU are? Don't most laws take away a right in one way or another? If you truely didn't live in a sovereign nation, then parliament couldn't leave the EU. The very fact that we can, shows that parliament was indeed sovereign all along. You have lost absolutely ZERO rights as a result of the UK being a member of the EU, you have however gained a lot. I can't buy as big a vacuum cleaner as I used to be able to
But that the because parliament has decided to accept those rules as part of being a member of the EU, if Parliament didn't want to accept that, then it can leave the EU, which again proves that sovereignty always has resided with parliament. "Well it seems we can't ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. And don't forget that the most anti freedom of movement person on here still thinks that they should still be allowed to live in Spain!!!!
I am the most anti freedom of movement person on here? How the fuck does your mind work? We have always had freedom of movement and always will which is a good thing. It is the exploitation and movement of cheap labour that I am against.
So you believe that every European citizen should have the right to live and work in the UK?
If they can either afford to fund themselves, set up a business or have a skill that cannot be filled by anyone locally and that job has been obtained through proper channels or before they arrive, yes. As has always been the case. We didn't need the EU for this
So yet again you show you do not comprehend the meaning of "rights" "and once again, because I didn't give you the answer you wanted you go off on a tangent. I'll ask you a question again that you have so far failed to answer - what will it take for you to admit that you voted the wrong way in the referendum? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. And don't forget that the most anti freedom of movement person on here still thinks that they should still be allowed to live in Spain!!!!
I am the most anti freedom of movement person on here? How the fuck does your mind work? We have always had freedom of movement and always will which is a good thing. It is the exploitation and movement of cheap labour that I am against.
So you believe that every European citizen should have the right to live and work in the UK?
If they can either afford to fund themselves, set up a business or have a skill that cannot be filled by anyone locally and that job has been obtained through proper channels or before they arrive, yes. As has always been the case. We didn't need the EU for this
So yet again you show you do not comprehend the meaning of "rights"
and once again, because I didn't give you the answer you wanted you go off on a tangent.
I'll ask you a question again that you have so far failed to answer -
what will it take for you to admit that you voted the wrong way in the referendum?"I haven't gone off on a tangent at all, any answer that you give that shows off your ignorance of simple words and concepts is fine with me! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. And don't forget that the most anti freedom of movement person on here still thinks that they should still be allowed to live in Spain!!!!
I am the most anti freedom of movement person on here? How the fuck does your mind work? We have always had freedom of movement and always will which is a good thing. It is the exploitation and movement of cheap labour that I am against.
So you believe that every European citizen should have the right to live and work in the UK?
If they can either afford to fund themselves, set up a business or have a skill that cannot be filled by anyone locally and that job has been obtained through proper channels or before they arrive, yes. As has always been the case. We didn't need the EU for this
So yet again you show you do not comprehend the meaning of "rights"
and once again, because I didn't give you the answer you wanted you go off on a tangent.
I'll ask you a question again that you have so far failed to answer -
what will it take for you to admit that you voted the wrong way in the referendum?
I haven't gone off on a tangent at all, any answer that you give that shows off your ignorance of simple words and concepts is fine with me! "what was in my answer that meant I don't understand rights? And are you going to answer that question or not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. And don't forget that the most anti freedom of movement person on here still thinks that they should still be allowed to live in Spain!!!!
I am the most anti freedom of movement person on here? How the fuck does your mind work? We have always had freedom of movement and always will which is a good thing. It is the exploitation and movement of cheap labour that I am against.
So you believe that every European citizen should have the right to live and work in the UK?
If they can either afford to fund themselves, set up a business or have a skill that cannot be filled by anyone locally and that job has been obtained through proper channels or before they arrive, yes. As has always been the case. We didn't need the EU for this
So yet again you show you do not comprehend the meaning of "rights"
and once again, because I didn't give you the answer you wanted you go off on a tangent.
I'll ask you a question again that you have so far failed to answer -
what will it take for you to admit that you voted the wrong way in the referendum?
I haven't gone off on a tangent at all, any answer that you give that shows off your ignorance of simple words and concepts is fine with me!
what was in my answer that meant I don't understand rights?
And are you going to answer that question or not?"Because you show you can't comprehend the difference between a right, and the ability to be able to apply for permission. If you want me to answer that question, start a thread about it instead of trying to hijack other threads. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. And don't forget that the most anti freedom of movement person on here still thinks that they should still be allowed to live in Spain!!!!
I am the most anti freedom of movement person on here? How the fuck does your mind work? We have always had freedom of movement and always will which is a good thing. It is the exploitation and movement of cheap labour that I am against.
So you believe that every European citizen should have the right to live and work in the UK?
If they can either afford to fund themselves, set up a business or have a skill that cannot be filled by anyone locally and that job has been obtained through proper channels or before they arrive, yes. As has always been the case. We didn't need the EU for this
So yet again you show you do not comprehend the meaning of "rights"
and once again, because I didn't give you the answer you wanted you go off on a tangent.
I'll ask you a question again that you have so far failed to answer -
what will it take for you to admit that you voted the wrong way in the referendum?
I haven't gone off on a tangent at all, any answer that you give that shows off your ignorance of simple words and concepts is fine with me!
what was in my answer that meant I don't understand rights?
And are you going to answer that question or not?
Because you show you can't comprehend the difference between a right, and the ability to be able to apply for permission.
If you want me to answer that question, start a thread about it instead of trying to hijack other threads."Laughable. And you already did start a thread about it but refused to answer the question yourself. Why was that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. And don't forget that the most anti freedom of movement person on here still thinks that they should still be allowed to live in Spain!!!!
I am the most anti freedom of movement person on here? How the fuck does your mind work? We have always had freedom of movement and always will which is a good thing. It is the exploitation and movement of cheap labour that I am against.
So you believe that every European citizen should have the right to live and work in the UK?
If they can either afford to fund themselves, set up a business or have a skill that cannot be filled by anyone locally and that job has been obtained through proper channels or before they arrive, yes. As has always been the case. We didn't need the EU for this
So yet again you show you do not comprehend the meaning of "rights"
and once again, because I didn't give you the answer you wanted you go off on a tangent.
I'll ask you a question again that you have so far failed to answer -
what will it take for you to admit that you voted the wrong way in the referendum?
I haven't gone off on a tangent at all, any answer that you give that shows off your ignorance of simple words and concepts is fine with me!
what was in my answer that meant I don't understand rights?
And are you going to answer that question or not?
Because you show you can't comprehend the difference between a right, and the ability to be able to apply for permission.
If you want me to answer that question, start a thread about it instead of trying to hijack other threads.
Laughable.
And you already did start a thread about it but refused to answer the question yourself. Why was that?"The whole thread got derailed, because people who can't understand simple words or concepts, can't understand simple questions either | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fucking hell, the Brexiters are angry about rules and regulations intended to either keep people safer or produce fairer competition between businesses. This is legislation imposed on businesses not rights taken away from citizens.You're embarrassing yourselves. how does free movement of people (cheap labour) keep people safer? Ffs, how is free movement of people taking AWAY rights? It gave them more. Therefore stopping that takes some away. Therefore it isn't JUST a Foreign Relations matter which the government has royal prerogative powers over, but a domestic one, which means Parliamentary assent is required. Once again you are out of your depth, I think. And don't forget that the most anti freedom of movement person on here still thinks that they should still be allowed to live in Spain!!!!
I am the most anti freedom of movement person on here? How the fuck does your mind work? We have always had freedom of movement and always will which is a good thing. It is the exploitation and movement of cheap labour that I am against.
So you believe that every European citizen should have the right to live and work in the UK?
If they can either afford to fund themselves, set up a business or have a skill that cannot be filled by anyone locally and that job has been obtained through proper channels or before they arrive, yes. As has always been the case. We didn't need the EU for this
So yet again you show you do not comprehend the meaning of "rights"
and once again, because I didn't give you the answer you wanted you go off on a tangent.
I'll ask you a question again that you have so far failed to answer -
what will it take for you to admit that you voted the wrong way in the referendum?
I haven't gone off on a tangent at all, any answer that you give that shows off your ignorance of simple words and concepts is fine with me!
what was in my answer that meant I don't understand rights?
And are you going to answer that question or not?
Because you show you can't comprehend the difference between a right, and the ability to be able to apply for permission.
If you want me to answer that question, start a thread about it instead of trying to hijack other threads.
Laughable.
And you already did start a thread about it but refused to answer the question yourself. Why was that?
The whole thread got derailed, because people who can't understand simple words or concepts, can't understand simple questions either "You failed to answer the question, how was it you put it on another thread earlier? I'm sure it was something along the lines of.......you have been silenced! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give me any examples not relating to defence or national security and resulted in citizens losing their rights?" Yes . Neither bus or lorry drivers are allowed to drive for hire or reward unless they have the relevant driver qualification card. To obtain this initially you have to spend at least 35 hours on a course and do a further 35 hours every 5 years. Those who refused to do the course were denied the chance to drive for a living . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
