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 |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course everything was done legally. It's nothing new to suspend Parliament at this time of year. What is wrong, is that despite the biggest crisis since the second World War, our politicians are going off to Brighton, Bournemouth and Manchester on a booze fuelled circus, instead of sitting day and night to get this thing sorted. " Yup and all paid for by us  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless there is some legal precedent, or Johnson can be shown to by lying, I suspect the courts will rule this is a political matter, not a legal one. " Not often i agree with you but yes.Ive just heard john major is joining gina miller in her court case another remain hypocrite he did exactly the same to avoid the cash for questions.Couldnt make it up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless there is some legal precedent, or Johnson can be shown to by lying, I suspect the courts will rule this is a political matter, not a legal one. Not often i agree with you but yes.Ive just heard john major is joining gina miller in her court case another remain hypocrite he did exactly the same to avoid the cash for questions.Couldnt make it up. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Scottish court denies emergency order against PM's suspension of parliament looking like every thing that's being done is so far above board and within the law. think theres gonna be quite a few more court dates over the next few days/weeks " Actually... I wouldn’t suggest anyone take a victory lap yet... because what the OP said is not quite right.. What the judge actually said was there was no need to grant an emergency order as the full case was coming back to him next Friday... and parliament would not have been prorogued at that point anyway... What the judge then did was shift the full court case up from next Friday up to next Tuesday.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Scottish court denies emergency order against PM's suspension of parliament looking like every thing that's being done is so far above board and within the law. think theres gonna be quite a few more court dates over the next few days/weeks Actually... I wouldn’t suggest anyone take a victory lap yet... because what the OP said is not quite right.. What the judge actually said was there was no need to grant an emergency order as the full case was coming back to him next Friday... and parliament would not have been prorogued at that point anyway... What the judge then did was shift the full court case up from next Friday up to next Tuesday.... " so whats your take on whats going to happen _abio? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" so whats your take on whats going to happen _abio?" that at this stage judges don't really want to make any decisions until we have a better idea of what mp's are going to try an do... the edinburgh judge didn't want make a decision at this point..... the belfast judge actually said he didn't want to make a decision till we know what the mp's were doing.... both of those cases are due to happen tuesday when means we may get decisions wed/thurs....but i don't think they want to make judgement this big if they have to... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happens, one side will appeal immediately and it will be the Supreme Court who gets landed with this hot potato. " Did you see the interview of former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption on Newsnight earlier this week? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happens, one side will appeal immediately and it will be the Supreme Court who gets landed with this hot potato. " English supreme court has no jurisdiction over Scottish law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" so whats your take on whats going to happen _abio? that at this stage judges don't really want to make any decisions until we have a better idea of what mp's are going to try an do... the edinburgh judge didn't want make a decision at this point..... the belfast judge actually said he didn't want to make a decision till we know what the mp's were doing.... both of those cases are due to happen tuesday when means we may get decisions wed/thurs....but i don't think they want to make judgement this big if they have to... " surely judges judge on the law and nothing to do with what mp,s are doing.I see it as a case of intent whether he did it to stop mp,s or for the reason he gave,intent is very hard to prove in a criminal case and unless there is any written evidence my guess is it will be thrown out.After all its normal practice before a new queens speech . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happens, one side will appeal immediately and it will be the Supreme Court who gets landed with this hot potato. English supreme court has no jurisdiction over Scottish law." UK Supreme Court consists of English and Scottish law lords. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happens, one side will appeal immediately and it will be the Supreme Court who gets landed with this hot potato. English supreme court has no jurisdiction over Scottish law. UK Supreme Court consists of English and Scottish law lords." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" so whats your take on whats going to happen _abio? that at this stage judges don't really want to make any decisions until we have a better idea of what mp's are going to try an do... the edinburgh judge didn't want make a decision at this point..... the belfast judge actually said he didn't want to make a decision till we know what the mp's were doing.... both of those cases are due to happen tuesday when means we may get decisions wed/thurs....but i don't think they want to make judgement this big if they have to... surely judges judge on the law and nothing to do with what mp,s are doing.I see it as a case of intent whether he did it to stop mp,s or for the reason he gave,intent is very hard to prove in a criminal case and unless there is any written evidence my guess is it will be thrown out.After all its normal practice before a new queens speech ." and this is where the scottish case gets interesting... A request was also made by the petitioners that Johnson issue a legally binding statement to the court over his reasons for the suspension. If granted the prime minister could potentially be called to face cross-examination. bearing in mind that if the court does this.... they are going to produce the film of the new Defence Sec, overheard speaking to his european counterparts, giving them the real reason as to why the move was made to prorouge parliament now... does anyone actually believe the reason bojo as trying to pass? because if the judge doesn't.... bojo is going to be in a shit load of trouble for potentially lying under oath.... do i think any of the court cases will succeed... no.... but if there is a sniff that a court is saying we have all been legally lied to.... that puts a whole load of conservative MP's who are towing the party line as well by telling the same "fib" in a whole world of trouble as well.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" so whats your take on whats going to happen _abio? that at this stage judges don't really want to make any decisions until we have a better idea of what mp's are going to try an do... the edinburgh judge didn't want make a decision at this point..... the belfast judge actually said he didn't want to make a decision till we know what the mp's were doing.... both of those cases are due to happen tuesday when means we may get decisions wed/thurs....but i don't think they want to make judgement this big if they have to... surely judges judge on the law and nothing to do with what mp,s are doing.I see it as a case of intent whether he did it to stop mp,s or for the reason he gave,intent is very hard to prove in a criminal case and unless there is any written evidence my guess is it will be thrown out.After all its normal practice before a new queens speech . and this is where the scottish case gets interesting... A request was also made by the petitioners that Johnson issue a legally binding statement to the court over his reasons for the suspension. If granted the prime minister could potentially be called to face cross-examination. bearing in mind that if the court does this.... they are going to produce the film of the new Defence Sec, overheard speaking to his european counterparts, giving them the real reason as to why the move was made to prorouge parliament now... does anyone actually believe the reason bojo as trying to pass? because if the judge doesn't.... bojo is going to be in a shit load of trouble for potentially lying under oath.... do i think any of the court cases will succeed... no.... but if there is a sniff that a court is saying we have all been legally lied to.... that puts a whole load of conservative MP's who are towing the party line as well by telling the same "fib" in a whole world of trouble as well...." Yep agree another remain ploy that will fizzle out and eat up a bit more time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't usually bother with the Party Conference Season. Might tune in this year, though. It'll likely be a bit edgier." Im looking foreward to them corbyn will have to come off that fence at last and actually tell us what he is standing for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" and this is where the scottish case gets interesting... A request was also made by the petitioners that Johnson issue a legally binding statement to the court over his reasons for the suspension. If granted the prime minister could potentially be called to face cross-examination. " Did you watch his face, his body language, when he was interviewed on television. Lip curling, eyes darting . . . he was lying | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happens, one side will appeal immediately and it will be the Supreme Court who gets landed with this hot potato. English supreme court has no jurisdiction over Scottish law. UK Supreme Court consists of English and Scottish law lords. "I think the ratio of Scottish to English law lords depends on whether the case is raised from Scots Law or English Law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can a Scottish court decide over the British Parliament?They have a separate legal system. Miller just thought it might be easier there because they are so pro remain. " Oh dear. So much wrong with this post. The case in Scotland has nothing to do with Gina Miller. It's being raised by the same 70-odd parliamentarians behind the Article 50 ruling. Scotland and England are separate legal jurisdictions within the same state. Anyone is as entitled to seek judicial review of the state within either jurisdiction. Neither takes precedence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can a Scottish court decide over the British Parliament?They have a separate legal system. Miller just thought it might be easier there because they are so pro remain. " oh dear... so much wrong is so few words... Scot law, the law for England and wales, and the law for northern ireland... are all given equal weight.... which is why you are seeing seperate cases in Edinburgh, London and Belfast the gina miller case is the one being seen in London, not Edinburgh... the one in Edinburgh is being overseen by Joanna Cherry (big time scotish laywer who just happens to also be an SNP MP) the Belfast case is being overseen by Raymond McCord... if any of the cases may succeed in getting prorouging overturned.. it may actually be the Northern Ireland case, in that the arguement being made there is that Northern Ireland would disproportionately be affected negatively by a no deal brexit.... but gina miller and her lawyers are a bloody good bunch! and i know most brexiteers are the most scared of her..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can a Scottish court decide over the British Parliament?They have a separate legal system. Miller just thought it might be easier there because they are so pro remain. oh dear... so much wrong is so few words... Scot law, the law for England and wales, and the law for northern ireland... are all given equal weight.... which is why you are seeing seperate cases in Edinburgh, London and Belfast the gina miller case is the one being seen in London, not Edinburgh... the one in Edinburgh is being overseen by Joanna Cherry (big time scotish laywer who just happens to also be an SNP MP) the Belfast case is being overseen by Raymond McCord... if any of the cases may succeed in getting prorouging overturned.. it may actually be the Northern Ireland case, in that the arguement being made there is that Northern Ireland would disproportionately be affected negatively by a no deal brexit.... but gina miller and her lawyers are a bloody good bunch! and i know most brexiteers are the most scared of her....." bloody hell _abio a jolly good bunch i thought these wealth management people were everything you hated.The rich elite making even more money something i never had you down for by reading your posts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can a Scottish court decide over the British Parliament?They have a separate legal system. Miller just thought it might be easier there because they are so pro remain. Oh dear. So much wrong with this post. The case in Scotland has nothing to do with Gina Miller. It's being raised by the same 70-odd parliamentarians behind the Article 50 ruling. Scotland and England are separate legal jurisdictions within the same state. Anyone is as entitled to seek judicial review of the state within either jurisdiction. Neither takes precedence. " How can asking a question be wrong? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can a Scottish court decide over the British Parliament?They have a separate legal system. Miller just thought it might be easier there because they are so pro remain. oh dear... so much wrong is so few words... Scot law, the law for England and wales, and the law for northern ireland... are all given equal weight.... which is why you are seeing seperate cases in Edinburgh, London and Belfast the gina miller case is the one being seen in London, not Edinburgh... the one in Edinburgh is being overseen by Joanna Cherry (big time scotish laywer who just happens to also be an SNP MP) the Belfast case is being overseen by Raymond McCord... if any of the cases may succeed in getting prorouging overturned.. it may actually be the Northern Ireland case, in that the arguement being made there is that Northern Ireland would disproportionately be affected negatively by a no deal brexit.... but gina miller and her lawyers are a bloody good bunch! and i know most brexiteers are the most scared of her....." Thanks for your answr although I do not agree with your sentiments,she is a nasty little bitch twisted to be very polite | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can a Scottish court decide over the British Parliament?They have a separate legal system. Miller just thought it might be easier there because they are so pro remain. How can asking a question be wrong?" Read it again. Judges in Scotland are more likely to be politically biased? Whereas judges in England are . . . what? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal bid to stop proroguing has failed in Scotland. " yes.... interesting to read the summary thought because he said that because it was political rather than legal as such... the court does have any jurisdiction over it... saying that the judge was seriously not impressed by the antics of the government, so i am sure that all the evidence used in the scottish case will be used in the london case later in the week | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal bid to stop proroguing has failed in Scotland. yes.... interesting to read the summary thought because he said that because it was political rather than legal as such... the court does have any jurisdiction over it... saying that the judge was seriously not impressed by the antics of the government, so i am sure that all the evidence used in the scottish case will be used in the london case later in the week" Yes. I wonder what impact this ruling will have on the 2 other cases . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal bid to stop proroguing has failed in Scotland. yes.... interesting to read the summary thought because he said that because it was political rather than legal as such... the court does have any jurisdiction over it... saying that the judge was seriously not impressed by the antics of the government, so i am sure that all the evidence used in the scottish case will be used in the london case later in the week Yes. I wonder what impact this ruling will have on the 2 other cases . " None, the rulings have become irrelevant now  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal bid to stop proroguing has failed in Scotland. yes.... interesting to read the summary thought because he said that because it was political rather than legal as such... the court does have any jurisdiction over it... saying that the judge was seriously not impressed by the antics of the government, so i am sure that all the evidence used in the scottish case will be used in the london case later in the week Yes. I wonder what impact this ruling will have on the 2 other cases . None, the rulings have become irrelevant now "The legal proffession is criminal taking money of ignorant zealots and the government having to pay for defence.I in my limited knowledge of this could have told you it had nothing to do with the courts but as usual people tell me I talk rubbish,well I talk facts but nobody wants to learn.This is another case of the legal profession conning people to make money.The prosecuters knew they could not win but happy to take the case discusting | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"bombshell..... scottish high court appeals win... declare prorouge in this case illegal, and they won it 3-0...... so what the bejesus happens now? i suppose you have to recall parliament..." I assume the Government will appeal it, or try to take it further up the line. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"bombshell..... scottish high court appeals win... declare prorouge in this case illegal, and they won it 3-0...... so what the bejesus happens now? i suppose you have to recall parliament... I assume the Government will appeal it, or try to take it further up the line. " well there was suppose to be an appeal in the london case a week on friday, but i suppose you wont need that now.... i assume the government may try and get a date as soon as possible, but in the meantime, do you recall parliament only to potentially have it prorouged again? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
No place for a dictator in a parliamentary democracy, the judges have said.
Sovereignty sits with the people in Parliament, not in Downing Street.
They have seen through the mendacity of a Government with a majority of -46 saying it wants to bring forward a raft of new legislation it does not have a hope in hell of implementing.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"bombshell..... scottish high court appeals win... declare prorouge in this case illegal, and they won it 3-0...... so what the bejesus happens now? i suppose you have to recall parliament..." England 0-3 Scotland. Such things are what dreams are made of North of the border | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course everything was done legally. It's nothing new to suspend Parliament at this time of year. What is wrong, is that despite the biggest crisis since the second World War, our politicians are going off to Brighton, Bournemouth and Manchester on a booze fuelled circus, instead of sitting day and night to get this thing sorted. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Legal bid to stop proroguing has failed in Scotland. yes.... interesting to read the summary thought because he said that because it was political rather than legal as such... the court does have any jurisdiction over it... saying that the judge was seriously not impressed by the antics of the government, so i am sure that all the evidence used in the scottish case will be used in the london case later in the week Yes. I wonder what impact this ruling will have on the 2 other cases . None, the rulings have become irrelevant now The legal proffession is criminal taking money of ignorant zealots and the government having to pay for defence.I in my limited knowledge of this could have told you it had nothing to do with the courts but as usual people tell me I talk rubbish,well I talk facts but nobody wants to learn.This is another case of the legal profession conning people to make money.The prosecuters knew they could not win but happy to take the case discusting"I bet you feel a bit stupid now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"bombshell..... scottish high court appeals win... declare prorouge in this case illegal, and they won it 3-0...... so what the bejesus happens now? i suppose you have to recall parliament... I assume the Government will appeal it, or try to take it further up the line. well there was suppose to be an appeal in the london case a week on friday, but i suppose you wont need that now.... i assume the government may try and get a date as soon as possible, but in the meantime, do you recall parliament only to potentially have it prorouged again?" No order will be issued by the Court of Session until the Supreme Court makes its ruling next week. The Supreme Court has already in a number of cases overruled the Scottish Courts. (In wholly unrelated cases though). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"bombshell..... scottish high court appeals win... declare prorouge in this case illegal, and they won it 3-0...... so what the bejesus happens now? i suppose you have to recall parliament... I assume the Government will appeal it, or try to take it further up the line. well there was suppose to be an appeal in the london case a week on friday, but i suppose you wont need that now.... i assume the government may try and get a date as soon as possible, but in the meantime, do you recall parliament only to potentially have it prorouged again? No order will be issued by the Court of Session until the Supreme Court makes its ruling next week. The Supreme Court has already in a number of cases overruled the Scottish Courts. (In wholly unrelated cases though)." The Supreme Court will probably overrule the decision however it still look really bad for Boris and his cronies | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"bombshell..... scottish high court appeals win... declare prorouge in this case illegal, and they won it 3-0...... so what the bejesus happens now? i suppose you have to recall parliament... I assume the Government will appeal it, or try to take it further up the line. well there was suppose to be an appeal in the london case a week on friday, but i suppose you wont need that now.... i assume the government may try and get a date as soon as possible, but in the meantime, do you recall parliament only to potentially have it prorouged again? No order will be issued by the Court of Session until the Supreme Court makes its ruling next week. The Supreme Court has already in a number of cases overruled the Scottish Courts. (In wholly unrelated cases though). The Supreme Court will probably overrule the decision however it still look really bad for Boris and his cronies ". How will it look bad if the court finds it legal?. If the supreme court upholds then it looks bad but even then they've still not actually knowingly broken the law as that's the point of the court making a decision. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No order will be issued by the Court of Session until the Supreme Court makes its ruling next week. The Supreme Court has already in a number of cases overruled the Scottish Courts. (In wholly unrelated cases though). The Supreme Court will probably overrule the decision however it still look really bad for Boris and his cronies
"Yes, I agree on both counts. The legality (or not) seems to rest more on the reason than the act, which is a tricky one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"bombshell..... scottish high court appeals win... declare prorouge in this case illegal, and they won it 3-0...... so what the bejesus happens now? i suppose you have to recall parliament... I assume the Government will appeal it, or try to take it further up the line. well there was suppose to be an appeal in the london case a week on friday, but i suppose you wont need that now.... i assume the government may try and get a date as soon as possible, but in the meantime, do you recall parliament only to potentially have it prorouged again? No order will be issued by the Court of Session until the Supreme Court makes its ruling next week. The Supreme Court has already in a number of cases overruled the Scottish Courts. (In wholly unrelated cases though). The Supreme Court will probably overrule the decision however it still look really bad for Boris and his cronies .
How will it look bad if the court finds it legal?.
If the supreme court upholds then it looks bad but even then they've still not actually knowingly broken the law as that's the point of the court making a decision.
"It looked bad before the Scottish ruling, so can you explain how this new ruling makes it look better?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"bombshell..... scottish high court appeals win... declare prorouge in this case illegal, and they won it 3-0...... so what the bejesus happens now? i suppose you have to recall parliament... I assume the Government will appeal it, or try to take it further up the line. well there was suppose to be an appeal in the london case a week on friday, but i suppose you wont need that now.... i assume the government may try and get a date as soon as possible, but in the meantime, do you recall parliament only to potentially have it prorouged again? No order will be issued by the Court of Session until the Supreme Court makes its ruling next week. The Supreme Court has already in a number of cases overruled the Scottish Courts. (In wholly unrelated cases though). The Supreme Court will probably overrule the decision however it still look really bad for Boris and his cronies .
How will it look bad if the court finds it legal?.
If the supreme court upholds then it looks bad but even then they've still not actually knowingly broken the law as that's the point of the court making a decision.
It looked bad before the Scottish ruling, so can you explain how this new ruling makes it look better? ". It doesn't make it look anything at the moment as this is one ruling in many. Once the rulings finalised I'll tell you if it looks bad or not. Unless you think Gina millers challenge looked bad right from the get go as well?. That's the point of having a court making rulings so people can challenge ideas and conventions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"bombshell..... scottish high court appeals win... declare prorouge in this case illegal, and they won it 3-0...... so what the bejesus happens now? i suppose you have to recall parliament... I assume the Government will appeal it, or try to take it further up the line. well there was suppose to be an appeal in the london case a week on friday, but i suppose you wont need that now.... i assume the government may try and get a date as soon as possible, but in the meantime, do you recall parliament only to potentially have it prorouged again? No order will be issued by the Court of Session until the Supreme Court makes its ruling next week. The Supreme Court has already in a number of cases overruled the Scottish Courts. (In wholly unrelated cases though). The Supreme Court will probably overrule the decision however it still look really bad for Boris and his cronies .
How will it look bad if the court finds it legal?.
If the supreme court upholds then it looks bad but even then they've still not actually knowingly broken the law as that's the point of the court making a decision.
It looked bad before the Scottish ruling, so can you explain how this new ruling makes it look better? .
It doesn't make it look anything at the moment as this is one ruling in many.
Once the rulings finalised I'll tell you if it looks bad or not.
Unless you think Gina millers challenge looked bad right from the get go as well?.
That's the point of having a court making rulings so people can challenge ideas and conventions."The damage is already done regardless of the supreme courts ruling . Boris is a proven liar | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It looked bad before the Scottish ruling, so can you explain how this new ruling makes it look better? "it actually also looked bad to the judges in the Govt vs Gina miller case.... even though the ruling in the case went the way of government, they are damning in the way that the government have used the prorougation process in the 24 page report they brought out today.... there is one more sting in the tail coming today.... god bless dominic greave.... remember there were two emergency bills that went thru on monday.... one was about publishing the operation yellowhammer documents... the other one was to release ALL documents from a certain amount of people and goverment relating to the decision to prorouge parlimanet remember that some of those ended up being used as evidence in the scottish case when we found out the timelines didn't match what the government were publically telling us.... well... ALL of those documents are suppose to be made public by 11pm this evening.... and with the yellowhammer stuff.... and the goverment seem to be stalling... now... if i was a lawyer i would get/make johnson sign a legal affidavit telling us what he told people, bearing in mind since its a legal document he could be down for committing perjury, or cross examined under oath.... and we know supreme court cases can be televised....  you know we would all watch that!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It looked bad before the Scottish ruling, so can you explain how this new ruling makes it look better?
it actually also looked bad to the judges in the Govt vs Gina miller case.... even though the ruling in the case went the way of government, they are damning in the way that the government have used the prorougation process in the 24 page report they brought out today....
there is one more sting in the tail coming today....
god bless dominic greave....
remember there were two emergency bills that went thru on monday.... one was about publishing the operation yellowhammer documents... the other one was to release ALL documents from a certain amount of people and goverment relating to the decision to prorouge parlimanet
remember that some of those ended up being used as evidence in the scottish case when we found out the timelines didn't match what the government were publically telling us....
well... ALL of those documents are suppose to be made public by 11pm this evening.... and with the yellowhammer stuff.... and the goverment seem to be stalling...
now... if i was a lawyer i would get/make johnson sign a legal affidavit telling us what he told people, bearing in mind since its a legal document he could be down for committing perjury, or cross examined under oath....
and we know supreme court cases can be televised.... you know we would all watch that!!!!"Unfortunately for Mr Grieve a little known piece of law called the Human Rights Act may stop his Humble Address. Whilst they may get the Yellow Hammer documents, the private communications could be protected by Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Act. In addition if Yellow Hammer was discussed in Cabinet those documents could be subject to the 30 Year Rule. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Gina Miller decision rested on this relevance... "A decision to prorogue Parliament is a prerogative power, a discretionary power still in the hands of the Crown. Such a decision is formally made by the Sovereign on the advice of the Privy Council. By constitutional convention the Sovereigninvariably acts on the advice of the Prime Minister." If Johnson has lied to the Queen this case will also bite his arse on Appeal. This is why Dominic Grieve asked for the relevant background data from phones, chats, SMS messages, etc. " . You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. " If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Unfortunately for Mr Grieve a little known piece of law called the Human Rights Act may stop his Humble Address. Whilst they may get the Yellow Hammer documents, the private communications could be protected by Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Act. In addition if Yellow Hammer was discussed in Cabinet those documents could be subject to the 30 Year Rule. " Discussion of government policy, by people in the pay of the Government, by any stretch of the imagination cannot be considered personal business, regardless of whether they are using government devices or personal devices. And if they are using personal devices beyond the firewall of the secure network of government . . . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If Johnson has lied to the Queen this case will also bite his arse on Appeal. " It is a resignation issue, 100% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It looked bad before the Scottish ruling, so can you explain how this new ruling makes it look better?
it actually also looked bad to the judges in the Govt vs Gina miller case.... even though the ruling in the case went the way of government, they are damning in the way that the government have used the prorougation process in the 24 page report they brought out today....
there is one more sting in the tail coming today....
god bless dominic greave....
remember there were two emergency bills that went thru on monday.... one was about publishing the operation yellowhammer documents... the other one was to release ALL documents from a certain amount of people and goverment relating to the decision to prorouge parlimanet
remember that some of those ended up being used as evidence in the scottish case when we found out the timelines didn't match what the government were publically telling us....
well... ALL of those documents are suppose to be made public by 11pm this evening.... and with the yellowhammer stuff.... and the goverment seem to be stalling...
now... if i was a lawyer i would get/make johnson sign a legal affidavit telling us what he told people, bearing in mind since its a legal document he could be down for committing perjury, or cross examined under oath....
and we know supreme court cases can be televised.... you know we would all watch that!!!!"Whats even more bizzare is the Government could have applied to have this ruling set aside, pending the Supreme Court decision next week, and they failed to, or decided not to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If Johnson has lied to the Queen this case will also bite his arse on Appeal. It is a resignation issue, 100% " Hmmm, maybe he should resign on his way to Brussels. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. " . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off." Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations." . That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm sure the marxist Dickinbottom judge will help the remainiacs. " What is a “remainiac”? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody." Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused." . No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused.. No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?." I am finding your viewpoint a little difficult to fathom to be honest. Are you saying that Boris should be allowed to carry on regardless of the fact that he is now deemed to have broken the law, and that any investigation into his behaviour should be hobbled by the human rights act? It seems to me that you are saying because he is PM he should be able to do what he likes with no recourse to parliament? I wonder how you feel about other PMs behaviour? Perhaps you would prefer Boris to be Emperor? Trouble is I think he may be more Nero than Ceasar | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused.. No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?." Did he just randomly demand it though, or is he making a case that there may be some probable cause to do so? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused.. No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?. Did he just randomly demand it though, or is he making a case that there may be some probable cause to do so? " . No he's making false allegations made from spurious speculation. If he's got ANY evidence that gov officials are using private servers for government business take it to a judge and get a court order. Until then Boris was correct, he should be told to fuck off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused.. No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?. Did he just randomly demand it though, or is he making a case that there may be some probable cause to do so? . No he's making false allegations made from spurious speculation. If he's got ANY evidence that gov officials are using private servers for government business take it to a judge and get a court order. Until then Boris was correct, he should be told to fuck off." He is a former attorney general, I am sure his knowledge of the law and parliamentary procedures far outweighs yours or mine. You seem very angry towards him? What are you scared off, your getting very worked up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused.. No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?. I am finding your viewpoint a little difficult to fathom to be honest. Are you saying that Boris should be allowed to carry on regardless of the fact that he is now deemed to have broken the law, and that any investigation into his behaviour should be hobbled by the human rights act? It seems to me that you are saying because he is PM he should be able to do what he likes with no recourse to parliament? I wonder how you feel about other PMs behaviour? Perhaps you would prefer Boris to be Emperor? Trouble is I think he may be more Nero than Ceasar ". It's not hard to fathom, Boris and all his advisers are allowed under the LAW to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. That's section 10 of the human rights act. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused.. No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?. I am finding your viewpoint a little difficult to fathom to be honest. Are you saying that Boris should be allowed to carry on regardless of the fact that he is now deemed to have broken the law, and that any investigation into his behaviour should be hobbled by the human rights act? It seems to me that you are saying because he is PM he should be able to do what he likes with no recourse to parliament? I wonder how you feel about other PMs behaviour? Perhaps you would prefer Boris to be Emperor? Trouble is I think he may be more Nero than Ceasar .
It's not hard to fathom, Boris and all his advisers are allowed under the LAW to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
That's section 10 of the human rights act.
"Irrelevant. I think a Scottish court know more about the law than you do | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused.. No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?. I am finding your viewpoint a little difficult to fathom to be honest. Are you saying that Boris should be allowed to carry on regardless of the fact that he is now deemed to have broken the law, and that any investigation into his behaviour should be hobbled by the human rights act? It seems to me that you are saying because he is PM he should be able to do what he likes with no recourse to parliament? I wonder how you feel about other PMs behaviour? Perhaps you would prefer Boris to be Emperor? Trouble is I think he may be more Nero than Ceasar .
It's not hard to fathom, Boris and all his advisers are allowed under the LAW to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
That's section 10 of the human rights act.
"You are so far off the mark here i feel tempted to say that you are trolling. You can't really be missing thepoint so much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused.. No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?. Did he just randomly demand it though, or is he making a case that there may be some probable cause to do so? . No he's making false allegations made from spurious speculation. If he's got ANY evidence that gov officials are using private servers for government business take it to a judge and get a court order. Until then Boris was correct, he should be told to fuck off. He is a former attorney general, I am sure his knowledge of the law and parliamentary procedures far outweighs yours or mine. You seem very angry towards him? What are you scared off, your getting very worked up ". I like human rights,I like privacy, I don't like the wheels of state using spurious allegations to by pass them. There's already a long line of recent government intrusion into people's privacy. We should all be angry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused.. No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?. I am finding your viewpoint a little difficult to fathom to be honest. Are you saying that Boris should be allowed to carry on regardless of the fact that he is now deemed to have broken the law, and that any investigation into his behaviour should be hobbled by the human rights act? It seems to me that you are saying because he is PM he should be able to do what he likes with no recourse to parliament? I wonder how you feel about other PMs behaviour? Perhaps you would prefer Boris to be Emperor? Trouble is I think he may be more Nero than Ceasar .
It's not hard to fathom, Boris and all his advisers are allowed under the LAW to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
That's section 10 of the human rights act.
You are so far off the mark here i feel tempted to say that you are trolling. You can't really be missing thepoint so much.". I could say the same to you. Let's put this simply, what do you think they could possibly find in there personal data that you think is criminal?. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused.. No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?. Did he just randomly demand it though, or is he making a case that there may be some probable cause to do so? . No he's making false allegations made from spurious speculation. If he's got ANY evidence that gov officials are using private servers for government business take it to a judge and get a court order. Until then Boris was correct, he should be told to fuck off. He is a former attorney general, I am sure his knowledge of the law and parliamentary procedures far outweighs yours or mine. You seem very angry towards him? What are you scared off, your getting very worked up .
I like human rights,I like privacy, I don't like the wheels of state using spurious allegations to by pass them.
There's already a long line of recent government intrusion into people's privacy.
We should all be angry."I see, so when people break the law the police won’t be allowed to access your phone ? Emails etc to try and find evidence in case it breaks the human rights act? Dominic Grieve is a former attorney general who knows far more than you do about the law and parliament . I will go with what he says over a man with his cock out on a swingers site | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A fan of the European Convention of Human Rights! Fabulous! Me too. ". Yea crazy hey | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused.. No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?. Did he just randomly demand it though, or is he making a case that there may be some probable cause to do so? . No he's making false allegations made from spurious speculation. If he's got ANY evidence that gov officials are using private servers for government business take it to a judge and get a court order. Until then Boris was correct, he should be told to fuck off. He is a former attorney general, I am sure his knowledge of the law and parliamentary procedures far outweighs yours or mine. You seem very angry towards him? What are you scared off, your getting very worked up .
I like human rights,I like privacy, I don't like the wheels of state using spurious allegations to by pass them.
There's already a long line of recent government intrusion into people's privacy.
We should all be angry.
I see, so when people break the law the police won’t be allowed to access your phone ? Emails etc to try and find evidence in case it breaks the human rights act? Dominic Grieve is a former attorney general who knows far more than you do about the law and parliament . I will go with what he says over a man with his cock out on a swingers site ". But he hasn't broken any laws, you may have noticed that he's not been arrested for anything or questioned | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You mean that's why Dominic grieve attempted to break the law asking for personal communications even from civilian civil servants and why Boris told him to fuck off. If people working for the Government are using personal devices and unsecured servers to discuss government business, that raises a whole other set of questions to be answered. . There not allowed to, unless you have evidence to suggest they have?. Otherwise Boris was right, greave can fuck off. Quite the charmer eh? Dominic Grieve and I think many, many others know what has happened and the fact is that those messages will still be there on phones and tablets and the civil servants will not have deleted them but they would not give up the material unless compelled to do so. Where do you think Grieve and others got their information? They got it from one or more civil servants who are afraid for their jobs and reputations.. That's complete speculation, take it to a court get a judgement. You can't break laws just because it suits you and that goes to Boris or anybody. Who exactly is breaking the law? Last I heard is that Johnson has just been found in breach of the law and a Commons motion was passed earlier this week that intends to shed light on the evidence and reinforce the legal opinion. If Govt staff were using private emails, chats and WhatsApp Groups to distribute Govt information - that is against the law. If they have not been doing so and all information was exchanged on official servers then there is also no problem with the request. It seems like you are getting yourself all heated and confused.. No greave demanded full access to peoples private data which is a clear breach of the human rights act section 10 which states. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If he has evidence there illegally using private servers for government business let's hear it?. Did he just randomly demand it though, or is he making a case that there may be some probable cause to do so? . No he's making false allegations made from spurious speculation. If he's got ANY evidence that gov officials are using private servers for government business take it to a judge and get a court order. Until then Boris was correct, he should be told to fuck off. He is a former attorney general, I am sure his knowledge of the law and parliamentary procedures far outweighs yours or mine. You seem very angry towards him? What are you scared off, your getting very worked up .
I like human rights,I like privacy, I don't like the wheels of state using spurious allegations to by pass them.
There's already a long line of recent government intrusion into people's privacy.
We should all be angry.
I see, so when people break the law the police won’t be allowed to access your phone ? Emails etc to try and find evidence in case it breaks the human rights act? Dominic Grieve is a former attorney general who knows far more than you do about the law and parliament . I will go with what he says over a man with his cock out on a swingers site .
But he hasn't broken any laws, you may have noticed that he's not been arrested for anything or questioned "Who hasn’t broken the law ? You are being very naive. I am sure when you work for the government you have to sign confidentiality contracts to stop you sharing important information etc. Anyway, all this will become public knowledge soon enough . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What you actually mean is let's look through his private data so we can find something to arrest him on because we haven't got anything to do it on." Look through who’s private data? If you mean Doris he has already been found guilty by a Scottish court of misleading the queen and parliament? Maybe the Supreme Court will request his ‘private data’ would you be against that as well?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What you actually mean is let's look through his private data so we can find something to arrest him on because we haven't got anything to do it on. Look through who’s private data? If you mean Doris he has already been found guilty by a Scottish court of misleading the queen and parliament? Maybe the Supreme Court will request his ‘private data’ would you be against that as well??" . Blimey I must have missed his arrest on the TV while making dinner  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You are so far off the mark here i feel tempted to say that you are trolling. You can't really be missing thepoint so much.. I could say the same to you. Let's put this simply, what do you think they could possibly find in there personal data that you think is criminal?." Are you sure that you are following what has happened today and read the threads above? 1) Dominic Grieve (ex Attorney General) has reason to believe that the PM has misled the Queen and the House and thus carried out misconduct in office. 2) In the Gina Millar case the Govt was not able to provide a single Affidavit from any of the 8 named people that the evidence that they had some responsibility for was true. It was presented as a case in its entirety and defended on the fact that it was a matter for the Crown to decide "on advice from the Privvy Council." Dominic Grieve and others have been told by civil servants that the proroguing reason was not that given to the Queen and to the House and that is why they refused to sign Affidavits. 4) Dominic Grieve now wants to see all Govt related communications regarding the proroguing of Parliament because of what he has been told by whistleblowers. 5) Today a Scottish Court has found against the Govt and next week it will be appealed. It is important for the future of democracy and standing of the office of Prime Minister that Johnson has not lied and if he has, he should be dealt with. What is more important here? Holding to account the most powerful people in the country so that they (like us) are required to uphold and obey the law or is it more important to defend a persons right to exchange sensitive Government information on private chat servers - which they should not be doing anyway. The question is obvious - if as has been whistleblown to Dominic Grieve and others - why were private chat servers being used to exchange official Govt information? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What you actually mean is let's look through his private data so we can find something to arrest him on because we haven't got anything to do it on. Look through who’s private data? If you mean Doris he has already been found guilty by a Scottish court of misleading the queen and parliament? Maybe the Supreme Court will request his ‘private data’ would you be against that as well??. Blimey I must have missed his arrest on the TV while making dinner "Yeah, you seem to be missing quite a lot. Sit down, have your dinner and try not to get yourself all confused and upset about things you don’t understand | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You are so far off the mark here i feel tempted to say that you are trolling. You can't really be missing thepoint so much.. I could say the same to you. Let's put this simply, what do you think they could possibly find in there personal data that you think is criminal?. Are you sure that you are following what has happened today and read the threads above? 1) Dominic Grieve (ex Attorney General) has reason to believe that the PM has misled the Queen and the House and thus carried out misconduct in office. 2) In the Gina Millar case the Govt was not able to provide a single Affidavit from any of the 8 named people that the evidence that they had some responsibility for was true. It was presented as a case in its entirety and defended on the fact that it was a matter for the Crown to decide "on advice from the Privvy Council." Dominic Grieve and others have been told by civil servants that the proroguing reason was not that given to the Queen and to the House and that is why they refused to sign Affidavits. 4) Dominic Grieve now wants to see all Govt related communications regarding the proroguing of Parliament because of what he has been told by whistleblowers. 5) Today a Scottish Court has found against the Govt and next week it will be appealed. It is important for the future of democracy and standing of the office of Prime Minister that Johnson has not lied and if he has, he should be dealt with. What is more important here? Holding to account the most powerful people in the country so that they (like us) are required to uphold and obey the law or is it more important to defend a persons right to exchange sensitive Government information on private chat servers - which they should not be doing anyway. The question is obvious - if as has been whistleblown to Dominic Grieve and others - why were private chat servers being used to exchange official Govt information? " . Dominic grieve wanted access to everybody's private data despite it being protected under the human rights act because he suspects without any evidence on an unknown whistleblowers "account" which he won't name. Not good enough I'm afraid, or take it to a judge in court and get a court order. Scottish law is firstly slightly different and therefore any court rulings will not apply to Boris or the government until it's heard in the supreme court. If he's passed on government business through private servers I'm all for his prosecution but we've no evidence to suggest he has and neither has Dominic, if he had he wouldn't be demanding it, he'd have just got a court order and looked. So what's Boris allowed to say on private servers to other government officials... Anything he pleases providing it's not official government business. So he's free to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. If you've got evidence to suggest he said, let's bump the Queen off and loot the foreign office then fair enough, if you've got evidence to suggest he held an opinion while imparting and receiving information for ideas on how to prorogue parliament then guess what, that's protected under section 10. If you don't like it, campaign to leave the ECHR | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What you actually mean is let's look through his private data so we can find something to arrest him on because we haven't got anything to do it on. Look through who’s private data? If you mean Doris he has already been found guilty by a Scottish court of misleading the queen and parliament? Maybe the Supreme Court will request his ‘private data’ would you be against that as well??. Blimey I must have missed his arrest on the TV while making dinner
Yeah, you seem to be missing quite a lot. Sit down, have your dinner and try not to get yourself all confused and upset about things you don’t understand ". Ok I'll sit back and wait for his arrest or the supreme court ruling and get back to you on here with an apology when I'm proved wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What you actually mean is let's look through his private data so we can find something to arrest him on because we haven't got anything to do it on. Look through who’s private data? If you mean Doris he has already been found guilty by a Scottish court of misleading the queen and parliament? Maybe the Supreme Court will request his ‘private data’ would you be against that as well??. Blimey I must have missed his arrest on the TV while making dinner
Yeah, you seem to be missing quite a lot. Sit down, have your dinner and try not to get yourself all confused and upset about things you don’t understand .
Ok I'll sit back and wait for his arrest or the supreme court ruling and get back to you on here with an apology when I'm proved wrong. "Tuesday it is then! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What you actually mean is let's look through his private data so we can find something to arrest him on because we haven't got anything to do it on. Look through who’s private data? If you mean Doris he has already been found guilty by a Scottish court of misleading the queen and parliament? Maybe the Supreme Court will request his ‘private data’ would you be against that as well??. Blimey I must have missed his arrest on the TV while making dinner
Yeah, you seem to be missing quite a lot. Sit down, have your dinner and try not to get yourself all confused and upset about things you don’t understand .
Ok I'll sit back and wait for his arrest or the supreme court ruling and get back to you on here with an apology when I'm proved wrong.
Tuesday it is then!". I'm a man of my word who likes principles. You should try it one day .
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no constitution in the UK" No written one, that's correct. But of sorts, there is. Custom and practice. The courts are the guardians of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes and there are also rumours that boris could be banned for entering scotland "Yes that is right | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After being found to have acted unlawfully, Downing Street is now briefing against the courts and their impartiality. People in Germany will tell you what this looks like. " Haven't seen any brownshirts on the streets yet or jackboots marching down Whitehall. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes and there are also rumours that boris could be banned for entering scotland "How would they do that ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After being found to have acted unlawfully, Downing Street is now briefing against the courts and their impartiality. People in Germany will tell you what this looks like. Haven't seen any brownshirts on the streets yet or jackboots marching down Whitehall." Yet being the point. It's a very slippery slope we are on at the moment. In a slightly of topic point about the differences in Scots and English law how many on here remember the Spycatcher book banned in England along with reporting on it but legal in Scotland | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After being found to have acted unlawfully, Downing Street is now briefing against the courts and their impartiality. People in Germany will tell you what this looks like. Haven't seen any brownshirts on the streets yet or jackboots marching down Whitehall. Yet being the point. It's a very slippery slope we are on at the moment. In a slightly of topic point about the differences in Scots and English law how many on here remember the Spycatcher book banned in England along with reporting on it but legal in Scotland " Shit book no wonder it was banned | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After being found to have acted unlawfully, Downing Street is now briefing against the courts and their impartiality. People in Germany will tell you what this looks like. Haven't seen any brownshirts on the streets yet or jackboots marching down Whitehall." How about far-right hooligans chanting the name of the British PM in clashes with police. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the SNP get their wish for a 2nd referendum on Scotland breaking away from the UK and the result is 52% for independence I think we should have a 3rd one on the grounds that the Scots didn’t know the full facts when they voted or some may have changed their minds or it would be bad for their economy because experts have said so . Maybe even go further and revoke that independence vote completely as we know better than them and they they are all thick ." Depends if the referendum is advisory or legally binding , | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After being found to have acted unlawfully, Downing Street is now briefing against the courts and their impartiality. People in Germany will tell you what this looks like. Haven't seen any brownshirts on the streets yet or jackboots marching down Whitehall. How about far-right hooligans chanting the name of the British PM in clashes with police. " Not the same. For comparison with 1930's Germany the police would be co-operating with them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BORIS LIED TO THE QUEEN Today's front-page headlines. No quotation marks - a statement of fact. It won't be erased by the Supreme Court, either. Is the penny dropping yet, Brexiteers? "Front page of the Times? Independent? Which paper please? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BORIS LIED TO THE QUEEN Today's front-page headlines. No quotation marks - a statement of fact. It won't be erased by the Supreme Court, either. Is the penny dropping yet, Brexiteers?
Front page of the Times? Independent? Which paper please?"Quick! Before they sell out! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After being found to have acted unlawfully, Downing Street is now briefing against the courts and their impartiality. People in Germany will tell you what this looks like. Haven't seen any brownshirts on the streets yet or jackboots marching down Whitehall. How about far-right hooligans chanting the name of the British PM in clashes with police. Not the same. For comparison with 1930's Germany the police would be co-operating with them" Which is re-assuring. But the danger signals are there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BORIS LIED TO THE QUEEN Today's front-page headlines. No quotation marks - a statement of fact. It won't be erased by the Supreme Court, either. Is the penny dropping yet, Brexiteers?
Front page of the Times? Independent? Which paper please?"I saw it on the papers review on Sky this morning about 5. Replay from last night. Might have been the Mirror. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the SNP get their wish for a 2nd referendum on Scotland breaking away from the UK and the result is 52% for independence I think we should have a 3rd one on the grounds that the Scots didn’t know the full facts when they voted or some may have changed their minds or it would be bad for their economy because experts have said so . Maybe even go further and revoke that independence vote completely as we know better than them and they they are all thick ." I think that if you prevented English people living in Scotland and Wales from voting in Indy Refs - both country’s would vote for Independence. Wales in particular is skewed by English voters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think that if you prevented English people living in Scotland and Wales from voting in Indy Refs - both country’s would vote for Independence. Wales in particular is skewed by English voters." Yes, that's true. There are 800,000 people - or is it 500,000 - who were born in England and live in Scotland. I saw some research that concluded their votes were the difference. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think that if you prevented English people living in Scotland and Wales from voting in Indy Refs - both country’s would vote for Independence. Wales in particular is skewed by English voters. Yes, that's true. There are 800,000 people - or is it 500,000 - who were born in England and live in Scotland. I saw some research that concluded their votes were the difference. " If you disallow English born living in Scotland / wales, would you allow Scottish / welsh born living in England to vote? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think that if you prevented English people living in Scotland and Wales from voting in Indy Refs - both country’s would vote for Independence. Wales in particular is skewed by English voters. Yes, that's true. There are 800,000 people - or is it 500,000 - who were born in England and live in Scotland. I saw some research that concluded their votes were the difference. " But if they are making their lives there, surely they have a right to their say? Plus, though they may have been born in England, what if their parents were Scots? There's a lot of you buggers down here! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think that if you prevented English people living in Scotland and Wales from voting in Indy Refs - both country’s would vote for Independence. Wales in particular is skewed by English voters. Yes, that's true. There are 800,000 people - or is it 500,000 - who were born in England and live in Scotland. I saw some research that concluded their votes were the difference. If you disallow English born living in Scotland / wales, would you allow Scottish / welsh born living in England to vote?" That would be a matter for you Saeson (English in Welsh) to determine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BORIS LIED TO THE QUEEN Today's front-page headlines. No quotation marks - a statement of fact. It won't be erased by the Supreme Court, either. Is the penny dropping yet, Brexiteers?
Front page of the Times? Independent? Which paper please?
I saw it on the papers review on Sky this morning about 5. Replay from last night. Might have been the Mirror.
"Ah, the Mirror.... I won't take it as gospel then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BORIS LIED TO THE QUEEN Today's front-page headlines. No quotation marks - a statement of fact. It won't be erased by the Supreme Court, either. Is the penny dropping yet, Brexiteers?
Front page of the Times? Independent? Which paper please?
I saw it on the papers review on Sky this morning about 5. Replay from last night. Might have been the Mirror.
Ah, the Mirror.... I won't take it as gospel then. "Do you believe the ruling in a Scottish court? I know you leave voters get confused when confronted with facts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ah, the Mirror.... I won't take it as gospel then. " The court ruling is the court ruling. I mean, for the goodness sake, the guy's career is littered with lies. Now judges conclude he lied to the queen. But no, no, the only people he tells the truth to are his supporters. Yeah, got that, right | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think that if you prevented English people living in Scotland and Wales from voting in Indy Refs - both country’s would vote for Independence. Wales in particular is skewed by English voters. Yes, that's true. There are 800,000 people - or is it 500,000 - who were born in England and live in Scotland. I saw some research that concluded their votes were the difference. If you disallow English born living in Scotland / wales, would you allow Scottish / welsh born living in England to vote? That would be a matter for you Saeson (English in Welsh) to determine. " Wouldn’t it be for the Scottish/ welsh to decide . I mean if they are good enough to decide English born living in Scotland / wales - you can’t vote ... then I guess it follows that they could also say Scottish/welsh born living in England - you can/can’t have a vote. Ps. Given I have a saltire enblazoned along my crock, what makes you think I’m English | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think that if you prevented English people living in Scotland and Wales from voting in Indy Refs - both country’s would vote for Independence. Wales in particular is skewed by English voters. Yes, that's true. There are 800,000 people - or is it 500,000 - who were born in England and live in Scotland. I saw some research that concluded their votes were the difference. If you disallow English born living in Scotland / wales, would you allow Scottish / welsh born living in England to vote? That would be a matter for you Saeson (English in Welsh) to determine. Wouldn’t it be for the Scottish/ welsh to decide . I mean if they are good enough to decide English born living in Scotland / wales - you can’t vote ... then I guess it follows that they could also say Scottish/welsh born living in England - you can/can’t have a vote. Ps. Given I have a saltire enblazoned along my crock, what makes you think I’m English "Sorry didnt look at the pic | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would be wrong to disqualify voters by ethnicity. The population, the people who live there, must decide, because they are the ones who must live with the consequences. " Why? In certain elections Europeans living here cant vote so you could argue the same thing that only those born in that country could vote on a independence referendum | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It would be wrong to disqualify voters by ethnicity. The population, the people who live there, must decide, because they are the ones who must live with the consequences. Why? In certain elections Europeans living here cant vote so you could argue the same thing that only those born in that country could vote on a independence referendum" Ethnicity has nothing to do with where your born though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why? In certain elections Europeans living here cant vote so you could argue the same thing that only those born in that country could vote on a independence referendum" That would be a complete nightmare to organise. Take Scotland. How many people who were born in Scotland now live elsewhere in the world? They are not on the electoral register of Scotland. Their choice to move away. They are entitled to vote where they live now, not where they do not live. How would you create a register of people born in a country? Nah, total lunacy. An electorate is the people who live there, irrespective of where they were born. The people who pay their taxes, who get their post, who spend their money, etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the SNP get their wish for a 2nd referendum on Scotland breaking away from the UK and the result is 52% for independence I think we should have a 3rd one on the grounds that the Scots didn’t know the full facts when they voted or some may have changed their minds or it would be bad for their economy because experts have said so . Maybe even go further and revoke that independence vote completely as we know better than them and they they are all thick . Depends if the referendum is advisory or legally binding , "Even if it was legally binding the old people who voted for independence don’t really count as they are going to die soon and they are stealing the future away from the younger Scots who voted to remain in the UK | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the SNP get their wish for a 2nd referendum on Scotland breaking away from the UK and the result is 52% for independence I think we should have a 3rd one on the grounds that the Scots didn’t know the full facts when they voted or some may have changed their minds or it would be bad for their economy because experts have said so . Maybe even go further and revoke that independence vote completely as we know better than them and they they are all thick . Depends if the referendum is advisory or legally binding ,
Even if it was legally binding the old people who voted for independence don’t really count as they are going to die soon and they are stealing the future away from the younger Scots who voted to remain in the UK "What a arrogant comment. With that thinking then the EU referendum shouldn't count as all the old people who voted for it have stolen the future away from all those young enough who voted remain | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the SNP get their wish for a 2nd referendum on Scotland breaking away from the UK and the result is 52% for independence I think we should have a 3rd one on the grounds that the Scots didn’t know the full facts when they voted or some may have changed their minds or it would be bad for their economy because experts have said so . Maybe even go further and revoke that independence vote completely as we know better than them and they they are all thick . Depends if the referendum is advisory or legally binding ,
Even if it was legally binding the old people who voted for independence don’t really count as they are going to die soon and they are stealing the future away from the younger Scots who voted to remain in the UK "Think youl find the majority of 16-25yr olds who voted in 2014 voted yes and when indyref2 comes they will be the ones who will get us our independence | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let England have an independence referendum and do thier job for them !" It’s not a question of ‘letting’ England have a referendum. England, for various well known reasons, has never had the appetite to be ‘solo’. It is simply not in its psyche to be on its own. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the SNP get their wish for a 2nd referendum on Scotland breaking away from the UK and the result is 52% for independence I think we should have a 3rd one on the grounds that the Scots didn’t know the full facts when they voted or some may have changed their minds or it would be bad for their economy because experts have said so . Maybe even go further and revoke that independence vote completely as we know better than them and they they are all thick . Depends if the referendum is advisory or legally binding ,
Even if it was legally binding the old people who voted for independence don’t really count as they are going to die soon and they are stealing the future away from the younger Scots who voted to remain in the UK
Think youl find the majority of 16-25yr olds who voted in 2014 voted yes and when indyref2 comes they will be the ones who will get us our independence "And who by gaining independence can inspire the Welsh to do the same | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let England have an independence referendum and do thier job for them ! It’s not a question of ‘letting’ England have a referendum. England, for various well known reasons, has never had the appetite to be ‘solo’. It is simply not in its psyche to be on its own." Are you sure ?,we seem to want have some “me time” at present with Brexit . I’d wager we would vote to break away from the union. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let England have an independence referendum and do thier job for them ! It’s not a question of ‘letting’ England have a referendum. England, for various well known reasons, has never had the appetite to be ‘solo’. It is simply not in its psyche to be on its own."
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let England have an independence referendum and do thier job for them ! It’s not a question of ‘letting’ England have a referendum. England, for various well known reasons, has never had the appetite to be ‘solo’. It is simply not in its psyche to be on its own. Are you sure ?,we seem to want have some “me time” at present with Brexit . I’d wager we would vote to break away from the union." Seems consecutive goverments disagree with you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the SNP get their wish for a 2nd referendum on Scotland breaking away from the UK and the result is 52% for independence I think we should have a 3rd one on the grounds that the Scots didn’t know the full facts when they voted or some may have changed their minds or it would be bad for their economy because experts have said so . Maybe even go further and revoke that independence vote completely as we know better than them and they they are all thick . Depends if the referendum is advisory or legally binding ,
Even if it was legally binding the old people who voted for independence don’t really count as they are going to die soon and they are stealing the future away from the younger Scots who voted to remain in the UK
Think youl find the majority of 16-25yr olds who voted in 2014 voted yes and when indyref2 comes they will be the ones who will get us our independence
And who by gaining independence can inspire the Welsh to do the same"Heres hoping scotland wales will be independent within a year | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the SNP get their wish for a 2nd referendum on Scotland breaking away from the UK and the result is 52% for independence I think we should have a 3rd one on the grounds that the Scots didn’t know the full facts when they voted or some may have changed their minds or it would be bad for their economy because experts have said so . Maybe even go further and revoke that independence vote completely as we know better than them and they they are all thick . Depends if the referendum is advisory or legally binding ,
Even if it was legally binding the old people who voted for independence don’t really count as they are going to die soon and they are stealing the future away from the younger Scots who voted to remain in the UK
Think youl find the majority of 16-25yr olds who voted in 2014 voted yes and when indyref2 comes they will be the ones who will get us our independence
And who by gaining independence can inspire the Welsh to do the same
Heres hoping scotland wales will be independent within a year "Will take more than a year alas after the divorce settlement with Westminster has been settled | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the SNP get their wish for a 2nd referendum on Scotland breaking away from the UK and the result is 52% for independence I think we should have a 3rd one on the grounds that the Scots didn’t know the full facts when they voted or some may have changed their minds or it would be bad for their economy because experts have said so . Maybe even go further and revoke that independence vote completely as we know better than them and they they are all thick . Depends if the referendum is advisory or legally binding ,
Even if it was legally binding the old people who voted for independence don’t really count as they are going to die soon and they are stealing the future away from the younger Scots who voted to remain in the UK
Think youl find the majority of 16-25yr olds who voted in 2014 voted yes and when indyref2 comes they will be the ones who will get us our independence "You and cnicht just above you need to wake up a bit. I said that to highlight how stupid the whinging remainers argument that old people who voted Leave in 2016 were stealing away their grandchildrens futures . Of course i dont believe it ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Heres hoping scotland wales will be independent within a year " Hmmm . . . if you thought extracting the United Kingdom from the European Union after 50 years is tough, multiply it by ten to extract Scotland from the United Kingdom after 300 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Heres hoping scotland wales will be independent within a year Hmmm . . . if you thought extracting the United Kingdom from the European Union after 50 years is tough, multiply it by ten to extract Scotland from the United Kingdom after 300 years. Have to multiply by triple that for Wales given over 750 years but worth it in the end " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What you actually mean is let's look through his private data so we can find something to arrest him on because we haven't got anything to do it on. Look through who’s private data? If you mean Doris he has already been found guilty by a Scottish court of misleading the queen and parliament? Maybe the Supreme Court will request his ‘private data’ would you be against that as well??. Blimey I must have missed his arrest on the TV while making dinner
Yeah, you seem to be missing quite a lot. Sit down, have your dinner and try not to get yourself all confused and upset about things you don’t understand .
Ok I'll sit back and wait for his arrest or the supreme court ruling and get back to you on here with an apology when I'm proved wrong.
Tuesday it is then!.
I'm a man of my word who likes principles.
You should try it one day.
". Nearly there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Heres hoping scotland wales will be independent within a year Hmmm . . . if you thought extracting the United Kingdom from the European Union after 50 years is tough, multiply it by ten to extract Scotland from the United Kingdom after 300 years. Hmmm not so sure ,the Gretna backstop and put trident in the South East see how they like it "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
