Supreme Court Hearing
Moderator: Long slender neck
- F*ck The Poor & Fat
- Regular
- Posts: 3101
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am
- Has thanked: 238 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
Politician shown to be a slimy lying Asrehole. Shock horror. I thought it was part of the requirements for getting the job.
The lowest of the low usually get to be party leader. Ain’t that how it works?
The lowest of the low usually get to be party leader. Ain’t that how it works?
- Max B Gold
- MB Legend
- Posts: 12913
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:12 pm
- Has thanked: 1067 times
- Been thanked: 2914 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
It might be in the moral void that you inhabit but it doesn't work for me. Sorry.
- F*ck The Poor & Fat
- Regular
- Posts: 3101
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am
- Has thanked: 238 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
I have a pretty low opinion of our politicians right now Max. Piss ups and breweries spring to mind. Worst bunch of party leaders in living memory in my opinion. Including the SNP. The lunatics really are running the asylum. I can’t see an reason why my opinion should be different.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:32 pmIt might be in the moral void that you inhabit but it doesn't work for me. Sorry.
- Max B Gold
- MB Legend
- Posts: 12913
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:12 pm
- Has thanked: 1067 times
- Been thanked: 2914 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
I'm not sure you are right about Nicola. Her politics aren't my cup of tea but I do have a lot of respect for her abilities.dOh Nut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:37 pmI have a pretty low opinion of our politicians right now Max. p*ss ups and breweries spring to mind. Worst bunch of party leaders in living memory in my opinion. Including the SNP. The lunatics really are running the asylum. I can’t see an reason why my opinion should be different.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:32 pmIt might be in the moral void that you inhabit but it doesn't work for me. Sorry.
- F*ck The Poor & Fat
- Regular
- Posts: 3101
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am
- Has thanked: 238 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
Locally she may be OK but wider seems a one trick pony. Well two. Both basically ignoring the results of referendums because she don’t like them.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:58 pmI'm not sure you are right about Nicola. Her politics aren't my cup of tea but I do have a lot of respect for her abilities.dOh Nut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:37 pmI have a pretty low opinion of our politicians right now Max. p*ss ups and breweries spring to mind. Worst bunch of party leaders in living memory in my opinion. Including the SNP. The lunatics really are running the asylum. I can’t see an reason why my opinion should be different.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:32 pm
It might be in the moral void that you inhabit but it doesn't work for me. Sorry.
- Fisch
- Tiresome troll
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:58 am
- Has thanked: 236 times
- Been thanked: 193 times
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
Fascinating stuff from the 'm'luds'. It seems to me that James Eadie's point that HM's opposition could have stopped the prorogation at any time by tabling a motion of no confidence in the government. That they chose not to do that, he claims, was their political decision and thus the supreme court should not intervene. Sounds like a strong position I'd say. I heard nothing in Lord Pannick's closing remarks to rebut it.
- Max B Gold
- MB Legend
- Posts: 12913
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:12 pm
- Has thanked: 1067 times
- Been thanked: 2914 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
It's a very weak argument because there is nothing to suggest the majority of MPs wished to propose a no confidence motion and they were not the ones who wanted to close down parliament.Milano wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:56 pm Fascinating stuff from the 'm'luds'. It seems to me that James Eadie's point that HM's opposition could have stopped the prorogation at any time by tabling a motion of no confidence in the government. That they chose not to do that, he claims, was their political decision and thus the supreme court should not intervene. Sounds like a strong position I'd say. I heard nothing in Lord Pannick's closing remarks to rebut it.
- F*ck The Poor & Fat
- Regular
- Posts: 3101
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am
- Has thanked: 238 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
Looks a strong point to me too tbh.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:59 pmIt's a very weak argument because there is nothing to suggest the majority of MPs wished to propose a no confidence motion and they were not the ones who wanted to close down parliament.Milano wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:56 pm Fascinating stuff from the 'm'luds'. It seems to me that James Eadie's point that HM's opposition could have stopped the prorogation at any time by tabling a motion of no confidence in the government. That they chose not to do that, he claims, was their political decision and thus the supreme court should not intervene. Sounds like a strong position I'd say. I heard nothing in Lord Pannick's closing remarks to rebut it.
- Fisch
- Tiresome troll
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:58 am
- Has thanked: 236 times
- Been thanked: 193 times
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
Whether or not a majority of MPs wanted a general election (via a N/C motion) is moot. lf they'd wanted to stop the prorogation they had the opportunity. If they'd prefer not to risk their status as MPs then stopping prorogation was clearly not that important ergo they are using the supreme court for political expedience. For that reason, l'd gamble that whatever complicated form of words the SC produce, it won't force a resumption of parliament. I suspect they'll dump the onus on Mr Speaker.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:59 pmMilano wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:56 pm Fascinating stuff from the 'm'luds'. It seems to me that James Eadie's point that HM's opposition could have stopped the prorogation at any time by tabling a motion of no confidence in the government. That they chose not to do that, he claims, was their political decision and thus the supreme court should not intervene. Sounds like a strong position I'd say. I heard nothing in Lord Pannick's closing remarks to rebut it.
It's a very weak argument because there is nothing to suggest the majority of MPs wished to propose a no confidence motion and they were not the ones who wanted to close down parliament.
As a devout remainer, l won't be happy about it.
- Max B Gold
- MB Legend
- Posts: 12913
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:12 pm
- Has thanked: 1067 times
- Been thanked: 2914 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
Disagree you are putting the cart before the horse.Milano wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:41 pmWhether or not a majority of MPs wanted a general election (via a N/C motion) is moot. lf they'd wanted to stop the prorogation they had the opportunity. If they'd prefer not to risk their status as MPs then stopping prorogation was clearly not that important ergo they are using the supreme court for political expedience. For that reason, l'd gamble that whatever complicated form of words the SC produce, it won't force a resumption of parliament. I suspect they'll dump the onus on Mr Speaker.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:59 pmMilano wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:56 pm Fascinating stuff from the 'm'luds'. It seems to me that James Eadie's point that HM's opposition could have stopped the prorogation at any time by tabling a motion of no confidence in the government. That they chose not to do that, he claims, was their political decision and thus the supreme court should not intervene. Sounds like a strong position I'd say. I heard nothing in Lord Pannick's closing remarks to rebut it.
It's a very weak argument because there is nothing to suggest the majority of MPs wished to propose a no confidence motion and they were not the ones who wanted to close down parliament.
As a devout remainer, l won't be happy about it.
- Fisch
- Tiresome troll
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:58 am
- Has thanked: 236 times
- Been thanked: 193 times
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
It appears we'll have to wait until next week to see how the magnificent eleven interpret it all.
-
- Fresh Alias
- Posts: 792
- Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:38 am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 289 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
She's the leader of the Scottish National Party, the clue is in the name.dOh Nut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pmLocally she may be OK but wider seems a one trick pony. Well two. Both basically ignoring the results of referendums because she don’t like them.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:58 pm
I'm not sure you are right about Nicola. Her politics aren't my cup of tea but I do have a lot of respect for her abilities.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 4866
- Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:36 pm
- Has thanked: 1186 times
- Been thanked: 813 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
You're trying too hard to make it seem like Boris is no worse than any other politician. Politicians lie so Boris is the norm is your stance. That's not the case at all as Boris has been caught out so often, and at a whole new level of lying, that he's on a different level. How do you know when Boris is lying?
His lips are moving....
-
- Tiresome troll
- Posts: 1202
- Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 1:27 pm
- Has thanked: 1780 times
- Been thanked: 304 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
How did that microphone magically appear to attach itself to his body?Disoriented wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:13 amThe fella was there in his capacity as a father. He was perfectly entitled to tell Johnson of his experience at Whipps. The clown saying there was no press there was laughable?tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:21 pmShame he was a Labour activist & not just a random DadDisoriented wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:11 pm
Quite right too, although I enjoyed much more the impassioned savaging Johnson received from a father at Whipps Cross today.
Showed the clown up yet again for the liar he is.
Still prefer the
" Leave my town bloke "
Pure Class.
- F*ck The Poor & Fat
- Regular
- Posts: 3101
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am
- Has thanked: 238 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
Fair enough, Boris is the only politician who misleads the people, lying. Righto. Not a debate worth exploring methinks.BoniO wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:12 pmYou're trying too hard to make it seem like Boris is no worse than any other politician. Politicians lie so Boris is the norm is your stance. That's not the case at all as Boris has been caught out so often, and at a whole new level of lying, that he's on a different level. How do you know when Boris is lying?
His lips are moving....
- StillSpike
- Regular
- Posts: 4330
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:18 pm
- Has thanked: 536 times
- Been thanked: 1259 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
It didn't. He wasn't wearing a mic, that lie, by Guido Fawkes, has been debunked already (check https://fullfact.org/online/omar-salem- ... icrophone/)
Sadly, as Churchill once said, a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got it's trousers on. Helped along by useful idiots.
Sadly, as Churchill once said, a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got it's trousers on. Helped along by useful idiots.
Last edited by StillSpike on Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- F*ck The Poor & Fat
- Regular
- Posts: 3101
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am
- Has thanked: 238 times
- Been thanked: 380 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
She is also a leader with broader responsibilities than the local councils.Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:08 pmShe's the leader of the Scottish National Party, the clue is in the name.dOh Nut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pmLocally she may be OK but wider seems a one trick pony. Well two. Both basically ignoring the results of referendums because she don’t like them.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:58 pm
I'm not sure you are right about Nicola. Her politics aren't my cup of tea but I do have a lot of respect for her abilities.
- Admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3299
- Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:41 am
- Has thanked: 369 times
- Been thanked: 1154 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
heh.Mick McQuaid wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:08 pmShe's the leader of the Scottish National Party, the clue is in the name.dOh Nut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pmLocally she may be OK but wider seems a one trick pony. Well two. Both basically ignoring the results of referendums because she don’t like them.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:58 pm
I'm not sure you are right about Nicola. Her politics aren't my cup of tea but I do have a lot of respect for her abilities.
-
- Regular
- Posts: 4866
- Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:36 pm
- Has thanked: 1186 times
- Been thanked: 813 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
As you well know that's not what I said. Of course some other politicians lie and mislead, as do some ex IT Directors. Boris, a proven liar, is a morally corrupt, self-serving liar of epic proportions and PM to us lucky plebs. You must be proud of him.dOh Nut wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:17 pmFair enough, Boris is the only politician who misleads the people, lying. Righto. Not a debate worth exploring methinks.BoniO wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:12 pmYou're trying too hard to make it seem like Boris is no worse than any other politician. Politicians lie so Boris is the norm is your stance. That's not the case at all as Boris has been caught out so often, and at a whole new level of lying, that he's on a different level. How do you know when Boris is lying?
His lips are moving....
-
- Fresh Alias
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:17 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 14 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
Anyone who commits a crime can be exhonerated, if it can be shown that someone could have prevented them from doing so?dOh Nut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:12 pmLooks a strong point to me too tbh.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:59 pmIt's a very weak argument because there is nothing to suggest the majority of MPs wished to propose a no confidence motion and they were not the ones who wanted to close down parliament.Milano wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:56 pm Fascinating stuff from the 'm'luds'. It seems to me that James Eadie's point that HM's opposition could have stopped the prorogation at any time by tabling a motion of no confidence in the government. That they chose not to do that, he claims, was their political decision and thus the supreme court should not intervene. Sounds like a strong position I'd say. I heard nothing in Lord Pannick's closing remarks to rebut it.
- StillSpike
- Regular
- Posts: 4330
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:18 pm
- Has thanked: 536 times
- Been thanked: 1259 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
"How can I be guilty of bank robbery when they could have built a brick wall around the bank?"
- Disoriented
- Boardin' 24/7
- Posts: 6534
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:06 pm
- Location: Valhalla
- Awards: Idiot of the year 2020
- Has thanked: 509 times
- Been thanked: 305 times
Re: Supreme Court Hearing
Keep believing the fake news pedalled by the scum lying press.DuvB wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:10 pmHow did that microphone magically appear to attach itself to his body?Disoriented wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:13 amThe fella was there in his capacity as a father. He was perfectly entitled to tell Johnson of his experience at Whipps. The clown saying there was no press there was laughable?