No surprise to anyone

[transam]

that's interesting.

I haven't seen anyone claim that Cummings is a decent, honest, trustworthy man.

Show me.

he obviously told porkie pies at that select committee than

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Is this the same court that ruled that illegals, illegal .. illegals?

So no, no surprise

Refugees, asylum seekers are not illegal. They have arrived in UK in the only way possible and claimed asylum.
That's not illegal by any stretch of the imagination. It's their human and international right.
Hard luck if you don't like it. It's international law.
The UK has had about 100 years to design systems and procedures to process asylum seekers in a humane and speedy process.
Yet still, year after year, we hear the system is unfit for purpose and has reached breaking point.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

LOL. What a stupid answer.

You don't agree that the court makes mistakes then? That say certain Irish people freed from prison were in fact guilty terrorists, or certain people freed only to rape and murder again were not originally murderers and rapists? Or that the "will of Parliament" is often misinterpreted by the Court and misconstrued by shrewd lawyers

No, I suspect you just pick and choose which law and judgements are good or bad depending on how it sits with your twisted political ideology

You can't say the courts are wrong because you don't like their decision on one case either.
Everyone makes mistakes, even the courts. Some of the cases you have quoted are criminal cases which are totally different from constitutional cases.
The courts can not be wrong in deciding on a constitutional issue.
You can't just pick and choose which law and judgements are good or bad depending on how it sits with your twisted political ideology

 

[Captain Nemesis]

No, I suspect you just pick and choose which law and judgements are good or bad depending on how it sits with your twisted political ideology

Whereas you decree that courts are "wrong" when in reality its simply that you just dont like what the law says.

Do courts make mistakes? Of course, thats why we have appeals. Strange, isnt it, that you DGAS about the possibility of mistakes when you bay for the death penalty, but bang on about them when citing things which are not mistakes but just decisions you wish they hadnt made.

Actually, no, thinking about it, it isnt strange at all.

The government can appeal the decisions which you dont like. Maybe the Supreme Court will find that the High Court was wrong. Maybe they wont. Maybe you will continue to rage that the court is wrong because you dont want the law to say what it does. And maybe the govt will trash the very bedrock of our tripartite separation of powers by making itself exempt from having to obey the law.

 

[^woody^]

Whereas you decree that courts are "wrong" when in reality its simply that you just dont like what the law says.

Do courts make mistakes? Of course, thats why we have appeals. Strange, isnt it, that you DGAS about the possibility of mistakes when you bay for the death penalty, but bang on about them when citing things which are not mistakes but just decisions you wish they hadnt made.

Actually, no, thinking about it, it isnt strange at all.

The government can appeal the decisions which you dont like. Maybe the Supreme Court will find that the High Court was wrong. Maybe they wont. Maybe you will continue to rage that the court is wrong because you dont want the law to say what it does. And maybe the govt will trash the very bedrock of our tripartite separation of powers by making itself exempt from having to obey the law.

OK, good effort, you're promoted to General Twaddle.

Johnny boy's question, was "are you surprised?" I said I was not, and put forward other examples of UK Court''s other questionable decisions to demonstrate why no-one should be surprised at the nonsense coming out of courts nowadays. And this is just another example.

But as you appear to know a great deal about the OP, can you explain exactly what law has been broken, and what penalties apply to that transgression?

 

[JohnD]

Johnny boy's question, was "are you surprised?"

another false allegation by woody.

 

[^woody^]

another false allegation by woody.

WTF? It's the thread title!

 

[^woody^]

But as you appear to know a great deal about the OP, can you explain exactly what law has been broken, and what penalties apply to that transgression?

Come on General (sorry @Captain Nemesis ), have you done any googling yet?

Let me assist. The Judge apparently said ""The claimant is entitled to a declaration that the decision ........ gave rise to apparent bias and was unlawful."

So is such a declaration the same as judgement that law has been broken? If so what law?

Is "apparent bias" breaking any law? If so what law?

Happy Googling

 

[Captain Nemesis]

I ... put forward other examples of UK Court''s other questionable decisions to demonstrate why no-one should be surprised at the nonsense coming out of courts nowadays.

Please tell us what expertise you have in jurisprudence, what knowledge you have of the law, and what familiarity you have with the cases you cite.

Unless the answers are "a lot, a lot, and a lot", then your classification of "nonsense" lacks all credibility, and is in fact just the frothing of a RWL with a typical RWL grasp of reality and respect for the law.

Its ironic, really, that people like you bang on so much about people breaking the law, how the very existence of some of them here makes them illegal, how criminals should be deported, or killed, or whatever, and yet youre always at the front of the queue to rubbish laws and decry courts when they do not conform to your twisted political ideology.

But as you appear to know a great deal about the OP, can you explain exactly what law has been broken, and what penalties apply to that transgression?

I dont have to.

Through my taxes I employ experts (High Court judges) to do that for me.

What expertise do you have in jurisprudence, what knowledge you have of the law and the penalties which apply to transgressions of it?

 

[Captain Nemesis]

another false allegation by woody.

WTF? It's the thread title!

Thread title "No surprise to anyone"

Woody's allegation

Johnny boy's question, was "are you surprised?"

So thats

Truth and Evidence 1:0 ^woody^

AGAIN.

 

[transam]

Come on General (sorry @Captain Nemesis ), have you done any googling yet?

Let me assist. The Judge apparently said ""The claimant is entitled to a declaration that the decision ........ gave rise to apparent bias and was unlawful."

So is such a declaration the same as judgement that law has been broken? If so what law?

Is "apparent bias" breaking any law? If so what law?

Happy Googling

I assume you know who general is ?

yes exactly

 

[^woody^]

Please tell us what expertise you have in jurisprudence, what knowledge you have of the law, and what familiarity you have with the cases you cite.

Unless the answers are "a lot, a lot, and a lot", then your classification of "nonsense" lacks all credibility, and is in fact just the frothing of a RWL with a typical RWL grasp of reality and respect for the law.

Its ironic, really, that people like you bang on so much about people breaking the law, how the very existence of some of them here makes them illegal, how criminals should be deported, or killed, or whatever, and yet youre always at the front of the queue to rubbish laws and decry courts when they do not conform to your twisted political ideology.



I dont have to.

Through my taxes I employ experts (High Court judges) to do that for me.

What expertise do you have in jurisprudence, what knowledge you have of the law and the penalties which apply to transgressions of it?

Oh I see. You don't know the answers then. You don't know what the declaration means or what law has been broken - if any law has actually been broken.

General Waffle reporting for duty. SA!

 

[JohnD]

Continuing torrent of nonsense from woody.

 

[JohnD]

Returning to the subject, it is no surprise that we currently have a government with contempt for the law and decent honest behaviour, as well as for international agreements.

Brexers and Borisites like that.

 

[noseall]

Brexers and Borisites like that.

Of course they do. They are under some illusion that 'we stand alone' and that we can make a success of that.

Bloody idiots must envy the North Korea model.