advertisement


Aristocrat guilty over Gina Miller post

Paul R said:
Did you read the Supreme Court judgement? Particularly the dissent.

Whether she won or not was irrelevant, Parliament was bound to act as it has done. So the case was a colossal waste of time and money.

The only explanation for her bringing the case was the hope that Parliament, which largely disagreed with the referendum result, would act to inhibit or reverse the implementation. (Which demonstrates a failure to comprehend the constitution and where sovereignty starts)

Hence either Miller was attempting to reverse the result, or she is a complete idiot. Mull is wrong as I don't think she's an idiot.

Paul
Click to expand...

Paul

1. She won her case. The dissenting opinions are irrelevant;
2. She won, so not irrelevant;
3. Until the judgement, Parliament had no intention of acting as they subsequently did otherwise they would not have contested the legal challenge;
4. So not a waste time or money (good television too);
5. The "intention" was that specified in the legal challenge - what you choose to believe the motive was is irrelevant;
6. You are wrong. You might or not be an idiot.
 
Jo Sharp said:
The idea that Mull or Jay are somehow more knowledgeable on our constitution than JR-M is most amusing.
Click to expand...

êower m¯æðrian orgilde hwônlic Crîstes

(You're going to need an Old English translator, unless you speak fluently of course.)
 
Jo Sharp said:
The idea that Mull or Jay are somehow more knowledgeable on our constitution than JR-M is most amusing.

Perhaps they'd care to enlighten us on which part of the premise that the repeal of the European Communities Act of 1972 will restore parliamentary sovereignty to Westminster is incorrect?
Click to expand...

So even you are taken in by Mogg's obfuscation!
The point you make is irrelevant to the issue raised by Miller.
If, as it appears.. you cannot see that.. then there is little point contributing.
 
Rees-Mogg was actually supporting the Supreme Court decision in the first part of his speech.
 
Paul R said:
If that wasn't her aim then she is spectacularly stupid.

In any case her case (!) demonstrated a marked incomprehension of the constitution. An incomprehension that appears widespread.

(We've been over it literally times, so I see no point in reiterating)

Paul
Click to expand...

While threats are made to throw acid in her face and a Tory hereditary peer publish incitement to kill, you posture behind your particular nosegay. There's a surprise.
 
twotone said:
.

I've read some offensive shit on here from time to time but that above is way beyond the pale.
Click to expand...

You have the cheek to feign offence when the thread is about threats to a person seeking to uphold the role of Parliament. Says it all.
 
You using the word spastic is outrageous and you should be ashamed of yourself.

For what it's worth I voted remain and fully support Gina miller.
 
twotone said:
You using the word spastic is outrageous and you should be ashamed of yourself.

For what it's worth I voted remain and fully support Gina miller.
Click to expand...

Suggest you re-aquaint yourself with the term spastic when directed at an object, idea or notion rather than a person or people. No shame required.
 
SteveS1 said:
Suggest you re-aquaint yourself with the term spastic when directed at an object, idea or notion rather than a person or people. No shame required.
Click to expand...

The word 'spastic' as an adjective can only be applied to humans or animals.
 
twotone said:
You using the word spastic is outrageous and you should be ashamed of yourself.

For what it's worth I voted remain and fully support Gina miller.
Click to expand...


Your use of the word shame is outrageous. Reconsider your choice to be publicly triggered by language.
 
DonQuixote99 said:
Your use of the word shame is outrageous. Reconsider your choice to be publicly triggered by language.
Click to expand...

Don't know where you come from but the word spastic is a horrible word and refers to or referred to people with cerebral palsy back in the seventies and was used as an insulting term for disabled people.

I've never heard anyone using that word for about 30 years however sadly it's becoming all too common on internet sites now or the bastardised term spactard is now being used more frequently and people need to be called out whenever it's used so no I won't be reconsidering my choice of word.

Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spastic
 
There are no horrible words, only horrible people. You are labeling SteveS1 as being horrible, or at least horribly careless. I think that's a mistake on your part.
 
DonQuixote99 said:
There are no horrible words, only horrible people. You are labeling SteveS1 as being horrible, or at least horribly careless. I think that's a mistake on your part.
Click to expand...

I'm not labelling anyone I just hope that some people who think using words like spastic are acceptable think again.

IMO spastic and a couple of other words in a similar vein, which are no longer in use now, are as offensive as the N word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top