The Unofficial and Independent Leyton Orient Message Board
https://lofcforum.com/forum1/phpBB3/
That’s all most of us have to go on. Nobody knows for sure. Personally I feel a no deal Brexit is not the best solution, but what do I know! What does anybody know!
Precisely! And yet we've allowed certain politicians to manipulate public discourse and set us all against each other over something that we've not got a f*cking clue about. Everyone is entrenched in their opinions, and are set against whoever they perceive as being of different beliefs, as if any of this actually means anything to us.dOh Nut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:42 pmThat’s all most of us have to go on. Nobody knows for sure. Personally I feel a no deal Brexit is not the best solution, but what do I know! What does anybody know!
So many conflicting opinions amongst those that “do” like our elected experts. And what a bunch they are.
It must have meaning otherwise why the conflict?Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:51 pmPrecisely! And yet we've allowed certain politicians to manipulate public discourse and set us all against each other over something that we've not got a f*cking clue about. Everyone is entrenched in their opinions, and are set against whoever they perceive as being of different beliefs, as if any of this actually means anything to us.dOh Nut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:42 pmThat’s all most of us have to go on. Nobody knows for sure. Personally I feel a no deal Brexit is not the best solution, but what do I know! What does anybody know!
So many conflicting opinions amongst those that “do” like our elected experts. And what a bunch they are.
RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:49 amNo . He was told by the Attorney General , Geoffrey Cox that proroguing parliament was lawful .
My question is what legal advice did Cox obtain and from who and can we see it please?Disoriented wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:16 pmRedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:49 amNo . He was told by the Attorney General , Geoffrey Cox that proroguing parliament was lawful .
He doesn’t have his own brain?
(Don’t respond - I know the answer)
What do you mean? What do you mean what do I mean? What do you mean what do I mean what do you mean? Etc. Every day life for us individuals trying to work out what the feck is going on in the House of Cu.. sorry Commons.Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:59 pmIt must have meaning otherwise why the conflict?Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:51 pmPrecisely! And yet we've allowed certain politicians to manipulate public discourse and set us all against each other over something that we've not got a f*cking clue about. Everyone is entrenched in their opinions, and are set against whoever they perceive as being of different beliefs, as if any of this actually means anything to us.dOh Nut wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:42 pm
That’s all most of us have to go on. Nobody knows for sure. Personally I feel a no deal Brexit is not the best solution, but what do I know! What does anybody know!
So many conflicting opinions amongst those that “do” like our elected experts. And what a bunch they are.
I think that what you mean is that the things that give meaning are overall trivial and almost materially irrelevant to the actors in this debacle but they have emotional and psychological purchase.HTH.
Eh?point nine one eight wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:20 pm Why should he resign, done nothing wrong. We have no written constitution so judges are singing in the wind trying to make it up as they go along.
They will fella.Orient_Man_And_Boy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:50 am ‘Unlawful’ is not the same as ‘Illegal’.
The Court maintains that Mr Johnson did something without the support of the Law, but not against the law, because such laws have never been laid to the Statute Book.
Eleven judges have formed the opinion (since no law exists) that the advice and subsequent actions were unsustainable without a legal framework within which to operate .. and should therefore cease and be declared null and void.
If laws had been broken, action would ensue.
Disoriented wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:02 amThey will fella.Orient_Man_And_Boy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:50 am ‘Unlawful’ is not the same as ‘Illegal’.
The Court maintains that Mr Johnson did something without the support of the Law, but not against the law, because such laws have never been laid to the Statute Book.
Eleven judges have formed the opinion (since no law exists) that the advice and subsequent actions were unsustainable without a legal framework within which to operate .. and should therefore cease and be declared null and void.
If laws had been broken, action would ensue.
More than you fellaDisoriented wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:11 amEh?point nine one eight wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:20 pm Why should he resign, done nothing wrong. We have no written constitution so judges are singing in the wind trying to make it up as they go along.
Do you even understand what the rule of law is?
Interesting but I wonder if it is possible to look at damages/compensation awarded under civil law as punishment.spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:11 am Lots of undefined terms here. In the context of this case, there is talk of unlawful, illegal etc. In this context people can pretty much define the words to mean what they like.
What I think is important to remember is there is Criminal Law and Civil Law.
To act contrary to criminal law you are acting illegally / unlawfully and can expect to face the risk of prosecution and punishment. Eg commit a murder and if convicted you will go to prison
To act contrary to civil law is not the same. It is not a criminal offence (generally) to breach a civil law and you will not be punished/ face punishment for it. For example if you order & pay for a widget from me and I am unable to supply the widget, you can sue me for the return of your money, for my breach of contract, but I am not facing a punishment for breaching the civil law.
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:18 amInteresting but I wonder if it is possible to look at damages/compensation awarded under civil law as punishment.spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:11 am Lots of undefined terms here. In the context of this case, there is talk of unlawful, illegal etc. In this context people can pretty much define the words to mean what they like.
What I think is important to remember is there is Criminal Law and Civil Law.
To act contrary to criminal law you are acting illegally / unlawfully and can expect to face the risk of prosecution and punishment. Eg commit a murder and if convicted you will go to prison
To act contrary to civil law is not the same. It is not a criminal offence (generally) to breach a civil law and you will not be punished/ face punishment for it. For example if you order & pay for a widget from me and I am unable to supply the widget, you can sue me for the return of your money, for my breach of contract, but I am not facing a punishment for breaching the civil law.
