pink fish media

Go Back   pink fish media > discussion > off topic

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #196  
Old 12-08-17, 05:15 PM
thebiglebowski thebiglebowski is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul R View Post
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/do...6-judgment.pdf it is quite interesting.

Paul
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.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 13-08-17, 12:03 AM
stevec67 stevec67 is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 20,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul R View Post
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.

Paul
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.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 13-08-17, 03:35 AM
Sue Pertwee-Tyr Sue Pertwee-Tyr is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul R View Post
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/do...6-judgment.pdf it is quite interesting.

Paul
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.
__________________
call me Steve
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 13-08-17, 07:00 AM
Still Still is online now
oh, Jeremy Corbyn!
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 23,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul R View Post
This is ignorant bollocks start to end. Why do you feel the need to spew falsehoods all over your forum?

Paul
Your delusional beliefs re: possession of a holy grail of all knowledge will be your undoing.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 14-08-17, 01:25 PM
Paul R Paul R is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 17,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebiglebowski View Post
The courts didn't choose anything, parliament sets the rules and the courts enforce them.
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.

Quote:
you are upset that someone disagreed with you and are basically having a tantrum.
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
Reply With Quote
  #201  
Old 14-08-17, 01:50 PM
TheDecameron TheDecameron is offline
Unicorns fart glitter.
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 32,960
Had you thought about emigrating?
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 14-08-17, 02:16 PM
wyjsar wyjsar is offline
A pig ignorant tw*t apparently
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul R View Post
I'm upset about the idiocy and ignorance on display here and elsewhere.
If you posted less frequently there would be less of it about.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 14-08-17, 02:31 PM
TheDecameron TheDecameron is offline
Unicorns fart glitter.
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 32,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul R View Post

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
That took you over a month from when this thread condemning the attacks on Gina Miller was opened. By comparison Trump only took 48 hours to condemn the Charlottesville mob. Trump wins.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 15-08-17, 02:30 PM
Paul R Paul R is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 17,244
So I was supposed to condemn something before Gina Miller announced it to the Guardian? Brave New World.

And I think you have your Trump time line wrong. The issue is that he was supposed to single out the Nazi element, his Corbynesque original statement not being deemed adequate by those seeking rote condemnation of the obviously vile.

Paul
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 28-08-17, 08:25 AM
Sue Pertwee-Tyr Sue Pertwee-Tyr is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,203
Toff seems to have withdrawn his appeal against the sentence. I suspect learning that the sentence could also be increased if things didn't go his way might have been a deciding factor.
__________________
call me Steve
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 28-08-17, 09:03 AM
SteveS1 SteveS1 is offline
I heard that, pardon?
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Pertwee-Tyr View Post
Toff seems to have withdrawn his appeal against the sentence. I suspect learning that the sentence could also be increased if things didn't go his way might have been a deciding factor.
The message was that it likely would. Toff's lawyer then put that to his client and his enthusiasm for an appeal waned.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 28-08-17, 10:02 AM
thebiglebowski thebiglebowski is offline
pfm Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,031
I was tempted to start a gofundme appeal to cover his legal costs when I heard that.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 28-08-17, 12:51 PM
TheDecameron TheDecameron is offline
Unicorns fart glitter.
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 32,960
He's completely skint, so he'll save on his utility bills while inside. I assume other "like-minded individuals" are coughing up for his QC's ill conceived approach to the appeal court.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
pink fish media