Supreme Court Hearing

Chat about Leyton Orient (or anything else)

Moderator: Long slender neck

User avatar
F*ck The Poor & Fat
Regular
Regular
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 380 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by F*ck The Poor & Fat »

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?
User avatar
Max B Gold
MB Legend
MB Legend
Posts: 12913
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:12 pm
Has thanked: 1067 times
Been thanked: 2914 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by Max B Gold »

dOh Nut wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:25 pm 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?
It might be in the moral void that you inhabit but it doesn't work for me. Sorry.
User avatar
F*ck The Poor & Fat
Regular
Regular
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 380 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by F*ck The Poor & Fat »

Max B Gold wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:32 pm
dOh Nut wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:25 pm 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?
It might be in the moral void that you inhabit but it doesn't work for me. Sorry.
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.
User avatar
Max B Gold
MB Legend
MB Legend
Posts: 12913
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:12 pm
Has thanked: 1067 times
Been thanked: 2914 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by Max B Gold »

dOh Nut wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:37 pm
Max B Gold wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:32 pm
dOh Nut wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:25 pm 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?
It might be in the moral void that you inhabit but it doesn't work for me. Sorry.
I 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.
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.
User avatar
F*ck The Poor & Fat
Regular
Regular
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 380 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by F*ck The Poor & Fat »

Max B Gold wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:58 pm
dOh Nut wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:37 pm
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.
I 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.
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.
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.
User avatar
Fisch
Tiresome troll
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

Post by Fisch »

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.
User avatar
Max B Gold
MB Legend
MB Legend
Posts: 12913
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:12 pm
Has thanked: 1067 times
Been thanked: 2914 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by Max B Gold »

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.
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.
User avatar
F*ck The Poor & Fat
Regular
Regular
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 380 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by F*ck The Poor & Fat »

Max B Gold wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:59 pm
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.
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.
Looks a strong point to me too tbh.
User avatar
Fisch
Tiresome troll
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

Post by Fisch »

Max B Gold wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:59 pm
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.

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.
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.
As a devout remainer, l won't be happy about it.
User avatar
Max B Gold
MB Legend
MB Legend
Posts: 12913
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:12 pm
Has thanked: 1067 times
Been thanked: 2914 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by Max B Gold »

Milano wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:41 pm
Max B Gold wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:59 pm
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.

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.
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.
As a devout remainer, l won't be happy about it.
Disagree you are putting the cart before the horse.
User avatar
Fisch
Tiresome troll
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

Post by Fisch »

It appears we'll have to wait until next week to see how the magnificent eleven interpret it all.
Mick McQuaid
Fresh Alias
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:38 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 289 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by Mick McQuaid »

dOh Nut wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pm
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.
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.
She's the leader of the Scottish National Party, the clue is in the name.
BoniO
Regular
Regular
Posts: 4866
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1186 times
Been thanked: 813 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by BoniO »

dOh Nut wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:25 pm 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?
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....
DuvB
Tiresome troll
Tiresome troll
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 1:27 pm
Has thanked: 1780 times
Been thanked: 304 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by DuvB »

Disoriented wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:13 am
tuffers#1 wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:21 pm
Disoriented 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.
Shame he was a Labour activist & not just a random Dad

Still prefer the

" Leave my town bloke "

Pure Class.
The 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?
How did that microphone magically appear to attach itself to his body?
User avatar
F*ck The Poor & Fat
Regular
Regular
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 380 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by F*ck The Poor & Fat »

BoniO wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:12 pm
dOh Nut wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:25 pm 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?
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....
Fair enough, Boris is the only politician who misleads the people, lying. Righto. Not a debate worth exploring methinks.
User avatar
StillSpike
Regular
Regular
Posts: 4330
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:18 pm
Has thanked: 536 times
Been thanked: 1259 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by StillSpike »

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.
Last edited by StillSpike on Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
F*ck The Poor & Fat
Regular
Regular
Posts: 3101
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:12 am
Has thanked: 238 times
Been thanked: 380 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by F*ck The Poor & Fat »

Mick McQuaid wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:08 pm
dOh Nut wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pm
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.
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.
She's the leader of the Scottish National Party, the clue is in the name.
She is also a leader with broader responsibilities than the local councils.
User avatar
Admin
Site 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

Post by Admin »

Mick McQuaid wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:08 pm
dOh Nut wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pm
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.
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.
She's the leader of the Scottish National Party, the clue is in the name.
heh.
BoniO
Regular
Regular
Posts: 4866
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:36 pm
Has thanked: 1186 times
Been thanked: 813 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by BoniO »

dOh Nut wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:17 pm
BoniO wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:12 pm
dOh Nut wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:25 pm 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?
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....
Fair enough, Boris is the only politician who misleads the people, lying. Righto. Not a debate worth exploring methinks.
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.
Captain Zep
Fresh Alias
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:17 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by Captain Zep »

dOh Nut wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:12 pm
Max B Gold wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:59 pm
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.
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.
Looks a strong point to me too tbh.
Anyone who commits a crime can be exhonerated, if it can be shown that someone could have prevented them from doing so?
User avatar
StillSpike
Regular
Regular
Posts: 4330
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:18 pm
Has thanked: 536 times
Been thanked: 1259 times

Re: Supreme Court Hearing

Post by StillSpike »

"How can I be guilty of bank robbery when they could have built a brick wall around the bank?"
User avatar
Disoriented
Boardin' 24/7
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

Post by Disoriented »

DuvB wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:10 pm
Disoriented wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:13 am
tuffers#1 wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:21 pm

Shame he was a Labour activist & not just a random Dad

Still prefer the

" Leave my town bloke "

Pure Class.
The 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?
How did that microphone magically appear to attach itself to his body?
Keep believing the fake news pedalled by the scum lying press.
Post Reply