| Our prime minister 11:51 - Sep 24 with 22518 views | rochdaleriddler |
After the ruling of the Supreme Court surely he has to resign? I’m not wanting to start a brexit post here. His actions have been ruled unlawful by our most senior court, not been a great few days coming after the revelations of his dalliance with the American woman |  |
| |  |
| Our prime minister on 10:03 - Sep 25 with 1717 views | D_Alien |
| Our prime minister on 08:54 - Sep 25 by DaleFan7 |
I'd be happy to be proven wrong in my statement, if you can show me a quote from them that has commented on it?
I'm not saying that wasn't the reason for it. I'm saying the Supreme Court didn't comment on it. |
To be fair to rr, the court was of the opinion that prorogation was called to prevent parliamentary scrutiny, which is what rr meant (i think) by "silence it"
What the court didn't do, as i explained yesterday, was refer to a reason for wishing to avoid scrutiny |  |
| |
| Our prime minister on 10:12 - Sep 25 with 1695 views | jonahwhereru |
It is almost impossible to get 11 people in a room and find out they are all remainders. Let alone 11 that are all aged 55+.
TrueLy believe that the actions of the government where taken to prevent parliamentary scrutiny. Despite the strongest denials at the time. Once the judgement was handed down it is strange how Brexit supporting MP’s where saying this will damage the chances of getting a deal. Seems to me the executive has been found out.
The legal precedent here is huge, far bigger than Brexit. Personally I do think constitutionally any government should have its actions help up for legal scrutiny. It is just fundamentally unsafe to have the executive being in a position where they outside the laws which they also introduce through legislation. Going forward I hope the Supreme Court judges can now fade into the background and continue with there usual body of work. The very last thing we need is for that court to become like the American one where the politics of new appointees is more important than their abilities in Law. |  | | |
| Our prime minister on 12:21 - Sep 25 with 1614 views | steofthedale |
Bad judgements make bad law.
This is a bad judgement.
Parliament had opportunity following the proregation to either hold a vote of no confidence or support the request for a general election. Either course would have prevented proregation.
To refuse either course was a political decision.
The supreme Court judgement is therefore supportive of an entirely political decision of parliament and therefore in error. | |
| |
| Our prime minister on 12:52 - Sep 25 with 1577 views | D_Alien |
Just to add a very important rebuttal, following proceedings in parliament today, to the point that was made yesterday in this thread regarding (i paraphrase) "if a judgement is made that an action was unlawful, it must have been unlawful at the time it was undertaken"
In fact, it has now been established that what happened in the Supreme Court was the creation of "new law", which had previously been a matter of parliamentary convention
NO LAW WAS BROKEN BY THE PRIME MINISTER AT THE POINT WHEN THE DECISION TO PROROGUE PARLIAMENT WAS TAKEN
[Post edited 25 Sep 2019 13:32]
| |
| |
| Our prime minister on 13:15 - Sep 25 with 1550 views | James1980 |
Can someone tell me, the difference between unlawful and illegal?  | |
| |
| Our prime minister on 13:24 - Sep 25 with 1534 views | judd |
| Our prime minister on 13:15 - Sep 25 by James1980 |
Can someone tell me, the difference between unlawful and illegal? |
Illegal is an action not permitted by law.
Unlawful is when there is no law passed to allow an action. |  |
| |
| Our prime minister on 13:37 - Sep 25 with 1508 views | Molly |
| Our prime minister on 13:24 - Sep 25 by judd |
Illegal is an action not permitted by law.
Unlawful is when there is no law passed to allow an action. |
I agree with your definition of unlawfull Judd, but I always thought illegal was a very sick bird. | | | |
| Our prime minister on 13:37 - Sep 25 with 1511 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Our prime minister on 12:52 - Sep 25 by D_Alien |
Just to add a very important rebuttal, following proceedings in parliament today, to the point that was made yesterday in this thread regarding (i paraphrase) "if a judgement is made that an action was unlawful, it must have been unlawful at the time it was undertaken"
In fact, it has now been established that what happened in the Supreme Court was the creation of "new law", which had previously been a matter of parliamentary convention
NO LAW WAS BROKEN BY THE PRIME MINISTER AT THE POINT WHEN THE DECISION TO PROROGUE PARLIAMENT WAS TAKEN
[Post edited 25 Sep 2019 13:32]
|
Wow, who has established this? Does Lady Hale know? What utter nonsense. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Our prime minister on 13:42 - Sep 25 with 1493 views | James1980 |
| Our prime minister on 13:37 - Sep 25 by Molly |
I agree with your definition of unlawfull Judd, but I always thought illegal was a very sick bird. |
 | |
| |
| Our prime minister on 13:47 - Sep 25 with 1482 views | D_Alien |
| Our prime minister on 13:37 - Sep 25 by BigDaveMyCock |
Wow, who has established this? Does Lady Hale know? What utter nonsense. |
Be careful of citing something as nonsense before you fully understand it
Lady Hale doesn't "need to know" - she already knew it, not that it makes any difference to the validity of her judgement and that of her fellow justices. In fact, it's an established principle that a court can create new legally binding judgements on matters which it deems fit
The "new law" issue came up during the debate in parliament around the advice given by the Attorney General to the government. No-one on any side of the house disputed that it was "new law", even to the extent of debating whether a government with a majority in parliament might want to take pass legislation to change it
[Post edited 25 Sep 2019 13:48]
| |
| |
| Our prime minister on 13:48 - Sep 25 with 1479 views | judd |
| Our prime minister on 13:37 - Sep 25 by Molly |
I agree with your definition of unlawfull Judd, but I always thought illegal was a very sick bird. |
Depends on the clause | |
| |
| Our prime minister on 13:50 - Sep 25 with 1474 views | D_Alien |
| Our prime minister on 13:48 - Sep 25 by judd |
Depends on the clause |
Or being up before the beak | |
| |
| Our prime minister on 14:01 - Sep 25 with 1450 views | diver |
Boris should appeal before the European court I am sure he will win!! | | | |
| Our prime minister on 14:01 - Sep 25 with 1450 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Our prime minister on 13:47 - Sep 25 by D_Alien |
Be careful of citing something as nonsense before you fully understand it
Lady Hale doesn't "need to know" - she already knew it, not that it makes any difference to the validity of her judgement and that of her fellow justices. In fact, it's an established principle that a court can create new legally binding judgements on matters which it deems fit
The "new law" issue came up during the debate in parliament around the advice given by the Attorney General to the government. No-one on any side of the house disputed that it was "new law", even to the extent of debating whether a government with a majority in parliament might want to take pass legislation to change it
[Post edited 25 Sep 2019 13:48]
|
What is a ‘law’? As well as legislation (an enacted law) it can be, for example, a convention. Your original post referred to Parliamentary convention. Have a think about that and how the Court unanimously found that the government’s decision to prorogue was unlawful.
What ‘new law’ did they create that was retrospectively applied? | |
| |
| Our prime minister on 14:05 - Sep 25 with 1435 views | D_Alien |
| Our prime minister on 14:01 - Sep 25 by BigDaveMyCock |
What is a ‘law’? As well as legislation (an enacted law) it can be, for example, a convention. Your original post referred to Parliamentary convention. Have a think about that and how the Court unanimously found that the government’s decision to prorogue was unlawful.
What ‘new law’ did they create that was retrospectively applied? |
It's not my definition, but that of all parliamentarians who were enabled to debate the matter today thanks to the correct decision of the Supreme Court | |
| |
| Our prime minister on 17:59 - Sep 25 with 1346 views | EllGazzell |
| Our prime minister on 08:00 - Sep 25 by nordenblue |
Eyy that would be fair, if reports are to be believed with alleged 10 of the 11 remainers the outcome was hardly a surprise either.
Let's get rid of the current crop and bang your boy JC in he's always been known to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, perfecto |
Reports where? Do you have a link? |  |
| |
| Our prime minister on 18:18 - Sep 25 with 1326 views | rdale39 |
Ha ! ,think it's bad now ?? , just wait til nigel farage is prime minister, "then watch the snowflakes melt". | | | |
| Our prime minister on 21:36 - Sep 25 with 1239 views | mingthemerciless |
| Our prime minister on 18:18 - Sep 25 by rdale39 |
Ha ! ,think it's bad now ?? , just wait til nigel farage is prime minister, "then watch the snowflakes melt". |
I don't think I'll live that long. | | | |
| Our prime minister on 05:32 - Sep 26 with 1125 views | foreverhopefulDale |
| Our prime minister on 21:36 - Sep 25 by mingthemerciless |
I don't think I'll live that long. |
Or any of the world’s glaziers will be around by then. |  |
| |
| Our prime minister on 06:00 - Sep 26 with 1112 views | Sandyman |
| Our prime minister on 05:32 - Sep 26 by foreverhopefulDale |
Or any of the world’s glaziers will be around by then. |
Especially the ones at Old Trafford |  | | |
| Our prime minister on 08:54 - Sep 26 with 1050 views | downunder |
| Our prime minister on 05:32 - Sep 26 by foreverhopefulDale |
Or any of the world’s glaziers will be around by then. |
We have them on the South Island. Been to see the Fox Glacier. It's mint! |  | | |
| Our prime minister on 09:00 - Sep 26 with 1045 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Our prime minister on 17:59 - Sep 25 by EllGazzell |
Reports where? Do you have a link? |
There is no link to made up stuff | |
| |
| Our prime minister on 15:13 - Sep 29 with 909 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Our prime minister on 13:16 - Sep 24 by D_Alien |
She was eligible to be on them, but whether she was eligible for the resulting funding is a different matter |
Sunday Times saying today she wasn’t eligible to be on three of them, and Johnson’s team overruled officials to get her on them. Also claims they were definitely in a sexual relationship. That for me is misconduct in public office at least | |
| |
| Our prime minister on 15:47 - Sep 29 with 862 views | D_Alien |
| Our prime minister on 15:13 - Sep 29 by rochdaleriddler |
Sunday Times saying today she wasn’t eligible to be on three of them, and Johnson’s team overruled officials to get her on them. Also claims they were definitely in a sexual relationship. That for me is misconduct in public office at least |
Yep, read that too
It was the ST that broke the story a couple of weeks ago, but as it's evolved the question of her eligibility has changed from how it was first reported. That in itself isn't the main issue though - nor is being in an extramarital relationship; it's the funds/grants that her company received as a result
Will be interesting to see how this unfolds further
[Post edited 29 Sep 2019 15:51]
| |
| |
| Our prime minister on 15:51 - Sep 29 with 853 views | mingthemerciless |
| Our prime minister on 15:13 - Sep 29 by rochdaleriddler |
Sunday Times saying today she wasn’t eligible to be on three of them, and Johnson’s team overruled officials to get her on them. Also claims they were definitely in a sexual relationship. That for me is misconduct in public office at least |
Nah, he was just having IT lessons. Anybody know where I can get some like that ? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
