1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Where we are now: The site is back up and running! The character set encoding issue has been fixed so old posts should now look ok. I am currently working on themes/skins etc and I will be deleting the temporary green skin very soon as it has many issues. I will do a very quick variation on the stock blue skin first just to get a light-grey background and san-serif font, and I will set this as default. Later this week I will hopefully add a professional third-party skin in pfm colours (life is way too short to do this crap myself, and I've found one I really like than needs next to no tweaking). We are getting there slowly...
    Dismiss Notice
  3. May I please request people check and update their email address if it is out if date. I ask as I’m getting countless bounce errors as the server fails to send notifications through etc. I’ll eventually figure out how to send these to a black hole somewhere, but it makes sense to address it at source as quite a few folk are obviously not getting the thread and conversations notifications they have set in their preferences.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Aristocrat guilty over Gina Miller post

Discussion in 'off topic' started by HairyHaggis, Jul 11, 2017.

  1. wyjsar

    wyjsar Nothing but heart

    Ah no, no irony in your post.
     
  2. Paul R

    Paul R pfm Member

    I explained why you were wrong, it requires a second order analysis, a looking into the implications rather than the surface action. And what happened in Parliament demonstrates that I was correct in my assessment. The Miller court case was a waste of time, a spoiler.

    Whatever. It was mostly Mail borne hysteria and that's not something I consider very significant.

    But I think it is quite reasonable to be upset about an attempt by an elite to usurp a popular vote.

    It's also reasonable in a wider context (and see the dissenting opinions) to consider that the courts instructing the government how to deal with Parliament was an inversion of the proper relationship, Parliament is the boss, yet had to wait on the courts in an action triggered by a private party. Emasculating.

    And, as we say, the court action was meaningless. Parliament had to either dissolve itself or permit the referendum to be acted upon.

    So that's another time.

    Paul
     
  3. Paul R

    Paul R pfm Member

    Not if you consider the views of Supreme Court judges interesting.

    The action changed nothing, it was irrelevant.

    You've confused Parliament and government.

    See above for 2.

    It's possible to reason about intentions.

    You've failed to illustrate your point.

    Paul
     
  4. Paul R

    Paul R pfm Member

    I know you have trouble with objectivity, but this is a bit of a low.

    Do you think legal argument should be influenced by criminal acts?

    Paul
     
  5. russel

    russel ./_dazed_and_confused

    Hmm, interesting how you think someone with deep knowledge and ability to lead Britain in the 19th century is somehow qualified to lead Britain in the 21st.
     
  6. SteveS1

    SteveS1 I heard that, pardon?

    Your position is very telling Paul, it's a verdict you should have been happy with and TM wasted huge amounts of money first by not avoiding it and then with a vexatious appeal seeking to be 'populist'.

    The Supreme Court's decision was given on appeal from the High Court's ruling that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the prime minister, may not be used to nullify rights that parliament has enacted through primary legislation.

    It was as simple as that. You may well be right that, in the circumstances the process amounted to a rubber stamp, but it was parliament's rubber stamp and not for the executive to ignore it. There is a very clear path for that sort of thing in future if May had got away with it.
     
  7. TheDecameron

    TheDecameron Unicorns fart glitter.

    It would appear the woman who is subject of this thread wouldn't have even got to court to present her legal argument if some of your political bed fellows had their way.

    Then of course there's the barely legal approach -


    [​IMG]

    It strikes me your pirouetting has become more seedy of late ( check thread title for further information).
     
  8. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    As with most on the hard/"alt"/Tea Party fringes of the political right Paul is perfectly happy with authoritarianism, anti-science and ignoring established legal process and protocols when it suits his agenda or biases. Same story with climate science etc. For the rest of us Gina Miller holding an unbelievably arrogant and pig-headed government intent upon riding roughshod over the law of the land to account was a wonderful thing. She should be given a seat in the HoL!
     
  9. Still

    Still gyldengourd

    tory Jesus time!

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Mullardman

    Mullardman Resident Philistine

    Eminently reasonable.

    But Gina Miller's case was not an attempt to usurp a popular vote.
     
  11. Cav

    Cav pfm Member

    Quite.
     
  12. TheDecameron

    TheDecameron Unicorns fart glitter.

    That though, is how it looks to the nativist right. "Black, female boat jumper" defies the will of that particular elite- hence the acid attack threats and incitement to kill.
     
  13. Paul R

    Paul R pfm Member

    I was primarily unhappy that the courts chose to get in between Parliament and government, at the behest of a private citizen. It seemed to be a question that didn't need answering, because if Parliament is sovereign then it doesn't need the courts to tell the government how to behave.

    You can read the full judgement at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf it is quite interesting.

    Paul
     
  14. Paul R

    Paul R pfm Member

    This is ignorant bollocks start to end. Why do you feel the need to spew falsehoods all over your forum?

    Paul
     
  15. Cav

    Cav pfm Member

    You really have no understanding about Parliament, Government, and the Law.

    The Court did not choose to "get in the way" of anything. The Court decides matters of Law which are brought before them.

    You link to a judgement which you have either not read or, if read, do not understand....
     
  16. thebiglebowski

    thebiglebowski pfm Member

    The courts didn't choose anything, parliament sets the rules and the courts enforce them.

    you are upset that someone disagreed with you and are basically having a tantrum.
     
  17. stevec67

    stevec67 pfm Member

    Nonsense. Parliament is sovereign and sets the laws, but is still subject to the laws it has itself set and to that end has to abide by any court decisions relating to the law.
     
  18. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr pfm Member

    My recollection is that all the noises coming out of government were that it was not intending to give Parliament the chance to fulfil the role it clearly had, on the subject. Parliament, at the time, seemed to be so shellshocked it appeared to be passively rolling over and accepting that. Faced with this, it is surely right that somebody stood up and got the courts to insist that both sides of the executive did the thing they were supposed to do, and had been elected to do. For which, various parties were branded enemies of the people.
     
  19. Still

    Still gyldengourd

    Your delusional beliefs re: possession of a holy grail of all knowledge will be your undoing.
     
  20. Paul R

    Paul R pfm Member

    Which is obviously why we need a court to make a decision. Decision, means a choice. Did you read the dissenting opinions?

    It was completely within the court's power to step back from interposing itself between Parliament and government.

    What?

    I'm upset about the idiocy and ignorance on display here and elsewhere, but in this particular case I had it exactly right.

    Looking forward to seeing those threatening Gina Miller in court and then jail, a direct threat is much more serious than our looney aristocrat's criminal activity.

    Paul
     

Share This Page