Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Disoriented wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:34 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:33 pm

Disoriented wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:31 pm

Are you accusing Johnson of hypocrisy?

Nope im accusing Snowflake leavers of it.

Fair enough, but why accuse the marionettes and let off the puppetmaster?

Who is letting off the puppet master

Jacob rhys mogg will get what is coming his way

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:55 pm

Disoriented wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:34 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:33 pm

Nope im accusing Snowflake leavers of it.

Fair enough, but why accuse the marionettes and let off the puppetmaster?

Who is letting off the puppet master

Jacob rhys mogg will get what is coming his way

Let’s hope parliament tears him a new one tomorrow fella.

Disoriented wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:56 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:55 pm

Disoriented wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:34 pm

Fair enough, but why accuse the marionettes and let off the puppetmaster?

Who is letting off the puppet master

Jacob rhys mogg will get what is coming his way

Let’s hope parliament tears him a new one tomorrow fella.

Nah they need to toy with them for 2 or 3 weeks then on his way to dying in a ditch alonside bobo
they are forced to sign letters to the EU begging fkr an extension.

I know there is more chance of Judd starting , but for the sake of Non Tories we can hope

The attorney general says it’s lawful. The Lord Chief Justice says it’s lawful. The judges who sat and are ranked beneath those two said it’s unlawful.

Has the Supreme Court just be politicised?

Boris will now put parliament against the people and he will win.

The Supreme Court politicised? It probably is, yes.

I mean, the 11 most senior Justices in the land. All public-school educated, wealthy, privileged, monied - they’ve probably been politicised since the cradle, wouldn’t you say? But not in the direction you’re suggesting.

Johnson has at least got the support of Trump, who is as honest and trustworthy as... what's that you say, Nancy?

Cases are based on the evidence put before the court. It seems that a statement from the prime minister laying out exactly why he wanted to porogue parliament for five weeks was not part of the evidence, the government lawyers went on the 'it is not your business'.

Mikero

Mikero that’s the strange bit. If he had said we want it for Brexit reasons they wouldn’t have made the findings that they came to. He denied it of course, but we know that’s why it was an extended prorogation.

Funny today he said it was for Brexit.

These are crazy days.

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:32 pm Mikero that’s the strange bit. If he had said we want it for Brexit reasons they wouldn’t have made the findings that they came to. He denied it of course, but we know that’s why it was an extended prorogation.

Funny today he said it was for Brexit.

These are crazy days.

Um - Yes, yes they absolutely would have made the findings that they came to. It would have just been a quicker cos he'd have admitted the unlawfulness.

That was the whole point. If he prorogued Parliament in order to stop Parliament doing it's job and to avoid scrutiny ("stymie-ing" Parliament as it was described in the Court of Session) then it would have been unlawful - as it was found to be.

The only "lawful" way he could prorogue was in preparation for a Queens speech. If that had been the real reason - it wasn't, we all know that, but if it was - then it would have been OK. He said it was - but with a wink to the leavers, as if to imply "it's alright lads, we all know the real reason (he couldn't help himself, could he?). It was almost like when Putin states that his people categorically didn't kill someone on foreign soil, and then grins at the camera with that "we all know we did it and what are you gonna do about it?" look.

The fact that he didn't present an affidavit was pretty telling - he knew he'd be lying - not his usual lies, the ones he tells to his editors, to his wife, to his partners, to us, to camera, to the man in the street and the man in the hospital corridor, but to the Supreme Court. He'd have gone down for that - so he didn't dare do it. The court could only judge on the evidence they had - they found, as did the Court of Session, that the reason was to stymie Parliament - and he can't just do that.

The important point is that this is a check against abuse of executive power. This is good news whatever side of the political spectrum you are on. There'd have been nothing to stop the side you don't like in the future abusing the same powers the government tried to abuse if the court had supported it's right to do so.

But what if the abuse of executive power happens to be trying to do something you like ?

Thor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:05 pm The attorney general says it’s lawful. The Lord Chief Justice says it’s lawful. The judges who sat and are ranked beneath those two said it’s unlawful.

Has the Supreme Court just be politicised?

Boris will now put parliament against the people and he will win.

Unanimous decision from the Supreme Court.

Think on that.

Mia, dis and still. I’m pleased that the checks and balances are in place and work.

However, you need real money to get access to that level of justice and that I feel is wrong.

So are you advocating for the return of legal aid, Thor?

StillSpike wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:56 pm But what if the abuse of executive power happens to be trying to do something you like ?

Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 7:21 am So are you advocating for the return of legal aid, Thor?

It should never have gone away. The only thing that should have and still should be stopped is the abuse of the system. People should be able to access justice as its proper expensive.

Boris and his fascist pals being torn a new one currently.

The behaviour of Johnson last evening, particularly his reply to Paula Sherriff who took him to task for his aggressive, & confrontational language, was a disgrace.
This man has no boundaries in his offensiveness , and boorishness, and his reference to murdered MP Jo Cox was disgusting.

I wonder how his obscene behaviour will play out with the great British public, will they start seeing him for what he is? Has the public been stirred into such an anti-Europe frenzy, they will adore him? I am no Corbyn fan, i quit the Labour Party as I didn't his modus operandi, but at least he shows some decorum and goes out out of his way to be polite. To be honest he looks anything but a potential Stalinist Dictator

The 'get brexit done' comment to honour the memory of Jo Cox was f*cking disgusting.

The brexiteers are so far gone he can say any old sh*t and get away with it. And he's whipping them up even further as that's all he's got.

It's horrible watching this play out.

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:57 am The behaviour of Johnson last evening, particularly his reply to Paula Sherriff who took him to task for his aggressive, & confrontational language, was a disgrace.
This man has no boundaries in his offensiveness , and boorishness, and his reference to murdered MP Jo Cox was disgusting.

But her screaming, angry contorted face in shouting yes shouting at the pm is ok then?

One rule for her and another for the pm. At least be consistent in condemning both for their language.

Thor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:08 am

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:57 am The behaviour of Johnson last evening, particularly his reply to Paula Sherriff who took him to task for his aggressive, & confrontational language, was a disgrace.
This man has no boundaries in his offensiveness , and boorishness, and his reference to murdered MP Jo Cox was disgusting.

But her screaming, angry contorted face in shouting yes shouting at the pm is ok then?

One rule for her and another for the pm. At least be consistent in condemning both for their language.

Whataboutery is a weak response. If you want to earn credibility as a Boarder and human being you should be condemning the PMs unacceptable behaviour.

He is a dangerous man who is further dividing this country and his dog whistle rants promote violence.

I have condemned his behaviour on this and the cash with the blonde lady.

UpminsterO wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:28 pm How many times have we seen a person after a judgment in court demonstrating they did not agree with the verdit.

After the person is escorted away shouting abuse etc we get all future references to that case as" The person was found guilty by the court" their demonstration of not agreeing to the verdit is never mentioned because it is irrelevant.

So wether you vote blue red or any other colour in the rainbow the simple fact is the courts made a decision and the PM should really watch his commentary - and I used to vote blue too.

But there is a big difference between some headbanger being dragged out of the Old Bailey screaming and the unelected PM of the UK undermining a key institution of our democracy.

All humbug