Yellowhammer document released: but title changed and no15 redacted

SirGalahad · 12 Sep 2019

Lower said:
If i insinuated that then i must make myself clearer.

The Scottish judges have clearly interfered in politics. The piece of law that the case was brought under does not apply in England and it appears to me that they have applied their own assessment of the reasons for prorogation.

As the specific piece of law that the case was brought under does not exist in English law, i will be interested to see how the supreme court handle it and how it applies UK wide.

So now you are talking nonsense again and again.

https://www.ft.com/content/12097e7c-d47f-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77

Scottish constitutional law, in particular, does not share the deference to prerogative powers of its English counterpart. There are no “no-go areas” in the constitution for an unimpressed Scottish judge.

The key to the decision was the curious matter of the missing witness statement:

For the record I do not believe that Bojo broke the law but I do believe it will be proven once the whatsapp messages and emails are released that he lied about the reason.

festive · 12 Sep 2019

SirGalahad said:
Read the judgements and understand the differences - what you have insinuated is the Scottish Judges have interfered in politics - complete and utter lie.

Singapore-on-the-Thames?

The sweaty socks have taken a different approach to the English courts, i wouldn't be surprised if there were some strings pulled and favours cashed in on peado or other fetish threats to ensure the judges complied

. Doesn't matter really, the 'damage' has been done, it's about dragging Boris through much sh't as possible until some sticks and it's enough to sway public opinion this is all this ever is.

Supreme courts will bat it away.

See my other post this is selfish games going on fck brexit fck the country they can wait, we want no.10.

SirGalahad · 12 Sep 2019

Lower said:
Where have I suggested that? Why are you so determined to frustrate a deal?

Time and time again you push forward the same broken debunked argument that all we need to do is threaten a no deal, fine lets walk away. But then you argue we can, once we left have more leverage and negotiate a deal.

It's bonkers.

Failing that it's the threat of a low tax, low regulated country which will require the destruction of the public sector and peoples lives - if thats what you think is beneficial then put your reasons forward.

Lower · 12 Sep 2019

SirGalahad said:
So now you are talking nonsense again and again.

https://www.ft.com/content/12097e7c-d47f-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77

Scottish constitutional law, in particular, does not share the deference to prerogative powers of its English counterpart. There are no “no-go areas” in the constitution for an unimpressed Scottish judge.

The key to the decision was the curious matter of the missing witness statement:

For the record I do not believe that Bojo broke the law but I do believe it will be proven once the whatsapp messages and emails are released that he lied about the reason.

Are you accusing me of nonsense because i don't agree with you?

I can't read the article you've linked to. Try this one:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...old-scottish-law-passed-crown-william-orange/

SirGalahad · 12 Sep 2019

festive said:
The sweaty socks have taken a different approach to the English courts, i wouldn't be surprised if there were some strings pulled and favours cashed in on peado or other fetish threats to ensure the judges complied . Doesn't matter really, the 'damage' has been done, it's about dragging Boris through much sh't as possible until some sticks and it's enough to sway public opinion this is all this ever is.

Supreme courts will bat it away.

See my other post this is selfish games going on fck brexit fck the country they can wait, we want no.10.

How do you keep such madness from not poluuting your everyday life?

SirGalahad · 12 Sep 2019

Lower said:
Are you accusing me of nonsense because i don't agree with you?

I can't read the article you've linked to. Try this one:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...old-scottish-law-passed-crown-william-orange/

You don't have a sub to the FT?

EFLImpudence · 12 Sep 2019

Lower said:
I mean that they want to be able to exert control over us even though we're not part of the EU. They want us to continue to be bound by their standards,

Well, you will have to be if you want to sell to them.

their laws and their rules.

Do they?

They certainly don't want a low tax competitor on their doorstep as an example.

Don't they? They don't seem to have done much to thwart the UK's tax havens while members.

I don't expect a better deal than being a member and no, i do not expect them to be at all benevolent. We're leaving the EU, why would they benevolent!

You said it.

I expect them to negotiate hard for their own advantage as they have and we must be able to negotiate hard back, which i don't think we did under May. However, some members of parliament seem to expect them to be benevolent and just offer us a better deal than they've already offered when they have no incentive to do so.

That seems to be more the brexiters' point of view.

You posts don't seem to make much sense.

JohnD · 12 Sep 2019

Lower said:
The Scottish judges have clearly interfered in politics.

Are you Lord Carloway, the Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General? Who is the most senior judge in Scotland, the head of the judiciary, and the presiding judge of the College of Justice, the Court of Session, and the High Court of Justiciary?

Or are you Baroness Hale of Richmond, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom?

Or are you a leading expert in British Constitutional Law?

Or are you some loud-mouthed old **** on the internet, throwing in his personal opinion on matters he knows nothing about?

SirGalahad · 12 Sep 2019

Lower said:
Are you accusing me of nonsense because i don't agree with you?

I can't read the article you've linked to. Try this one:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...old-scottish-law-passed-crown-william-orange/

Yes. I copied the relevant part of the article.

JohnD · 12 Sep 2019

Definitely the last option.

Lower · 12 Sep 2019

JohnD said:
Are you Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice?

Or are you a leading expert in British Constitutional Law?

Or are you some loud-mouthed old **** on the internet, throwing in his personal opinion on matters he knows nothing about?

Old, no. Personal opinion, yes. Matters i know nothing about, maybe. I think i know enough to have an opinion but certainly don't claim to know everything.

****? Really resorting to name calling?

You have an opinion, it may be different to mine and i might completely disagree with it, but you're entitled to your views and i respect that. But to start throwing around insults in what i thought was a civil discussion is pretty poor form.

Lower · 12 Sep 2019

SirGalahad said:
You don't have a sub to the FT?

nope, torygraph

JohnD · 12 Sep 2019

Lower said:
nope, torygraph

and you say you're not old???

festive · 12 Sep 2019

SirGalahad said:
How do you keep such madness from not poluuting your everyday life?

If you for one moment think this is just about making sure the public are protected from liars then you're more of a blinkered boy than i thought you were.

fillyboy · 12 Sep 2019

Lower said:
But to start throwing around insults in what i thought was a civil discussion is pretty poor form.

They can't help themselves Lower, as soon as they start to lose an argument, the insults start to flow. It's all they have.

Yellowhammer document released: but title changed and no15 redacted

Similar threads