Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule

[JAG]

15 minutes ago, Bruntoid said:

I’m struggling with that - the big money has been made on shorting the pound - why would they back Miller ? 

I don't presume to understand currency speculation. I am pretty sure that Ms Miller has some big money behind her though!

Edited September 24, 2019 by JAG

[DannyCarlton]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The only message the serial

liar Johnson needs to hand HM is his resignation.

 Apparently he is going to ask for a "legal" proroguation. The Queen will probably look through the curtains when he knocks on the door and whisper, "Phillip, go and tell that plonker that I'm not in".

[beautifulthailand99]

Rejoice , rejoice three times I say rejoice for  sovereign parliament and a sovereign judiciary. Shame we have a lying , philandering PM though. 

[Bruntoid]

After today it’s clear Johnson has the same chances of coming out of this with any credibility as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest and he’s the guy the leavers have pinned all their hopes on ! 

 

That really is justice. 

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Yeah, I've been reading it. It references John Major (who prorogued for 3 weeks before an election in 1997 for his own ends) and Gina Miller (who is bankrolled by dubious foreign interests), and of course the unwritten constitution, which we conveniently can't refer to on account of it not existing in written form.

 

It's b*****it. No written laws have been broken.

 

That's why you don't have a real answer to my question "Which law was broken?".

That’s what judges are for.

 

Read their judgement 

[HansumFarang]

6 minutes ago, Bruntoid said:

I’m struggling with that - the big money has been made on shorting the pound - why would they back Miller ? 

 

According to the BBC, George Soros had given Gina Miller's "Best for Britain" campaign £800,000 as of June 2018. I'd say he was a well-known currency speculator.

 

Of course, now I am a racist, since I mentioned George Soros name.

[JamesBlond]

Madness. It's not for the judiciary to tell parliament what to do. The judiciary has now politicised itself when it must be kept out of politics. Who made or influenced this decision? One little old lady? What if that judge was politically biased? Whether or not this particular woman is biased is besides the point - the point is that a court's decision, swayed by who-knows-what personal motives, is being allowed to dictate British politics and British culture for decades to come. Did the judges take into consideration the fact that the purpose of the proroguement is to defend the lawful enactment of the British public's lawful referendum decision, which would otherwise be severely jeopardised?

This is just insane.

[DannyCarlton]

2 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

According to the BBC, George Soros had given Gina Miller's "Best for Britain" campaign £800,000 as of June 2018. I'd say he was a well-known currency speculator.

 

Of course, now I am a racist, since I mentioned George Soros name.

No. Just a mad as a hatter conspiracy theorist.

[evadgib]

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Please do give us your expert legal opinion.

Is there room for anyone elses?

Edited September 24, 2019 by evadgib

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, JamesBlond said:

Who made or influenced this decision? One little old lady? What if that judge was politically biased?

No, 11 senior supreme cout judges decided unanimously.

[beautifulthailand99]

4 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

According to the BBC, George Soros had given Gina Miller's "Best for Britain" campaign £800,000 as of June 2018. I'd say he was a well-known currency speculator.

 

Of course, now I am a racist, since I mentioned George Soros name.

it's the joos pulling the strings over in loonsville as usual.....

[HansumFarang]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s what judges are for.

 

Read their judgement 

 

Parliament makes laws, judges uphold them. But I don't see any law made by Parliament being broken here. Yes, I have read the judgement. Have you?

 

A lot of people are not going to accept that the Supreme Court's decision is neutral and unbiased, since it is based on a highly subjective interpretation of the "unwritten constitution". That puts the Supreme Court in a very precarious position.

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

Have you got room for another one?

Always. Maybe you could give us your ajudication in the form of a meme or one of Robin Tilbrooks hilarious tweets.

[Bruntoid]

7 minutes ago, JAG said:

I don't presume to understand currency speculation. I am pretty sure that Ms Miller has some money behind her though!

Of course she has - her legal bill will be enormous but to believe it is from currency speculators makes no sense whatsoever unless they had insider knowledge of the verdict (infact she’s on record as slating Soros for using Brexit to speculate) - which I guess a woe is me conspiracy theorist is about to announce

[HansumFarang]

2 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

No. Just a mad as a hatter conspiracy theorist.

 

Ah, I am a conspiracy theorist for mentioning a well-documented donation made by a currency speculator to Gina Miller.

 

I didn't even mention his name in my first post.

[Jane Dough]

At least this should mean the end of Dominic Cummings. This toxic rat manipulated the three decade campaign of hate to alienate the proletariat and turn the gullible against our friends in Europe. This campaign was then upped several notches for the referendum and he got his desired result that flew in the face of good sense and amity. This sniveling weasel has connived and deceived and has never been voted in by anyone. Boris - being little more than an opportunistic simpleton - invested his immediate future in the hands of Cummings and has become, as they say at Eton, "a right cropper". Until the British people appreciate that the true power is not with either the government or the courts but with the civil servants, they have no hope. One would have hoped that "Yes, Minister" would have educated them. They laughed at the sit-com but didn't fully appreciate how true it was.

 

Rooster

[DannyCarlton]

5 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Ah, I am a conspiracy theorist for mentioning a well-documented donation made by a currency speculator to Gina Miller.

 

I didn't even mention his name in my first post.

If the tinfoil cap fits, wear it.

[HansumFarang]

3 minutes ago, Bruntoid said:

Of course she has - her legal bill will be enormous but to believe it is from currency speculators makes no sense whatsoever unless they had insider knowledge of the verdict (infact she’s on record as slating Soros for using Brexit to speculate) - which I guess a woe is me conspiracy theorist is about to announce

 

I already posted the link for you:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44331013

 

"The biggest individual donor is international financier George Soros, a Hungarian-born US citizen, who has given Best for Britain £800,000 in total so far, with £400,000 of that coming since the start of the year through his pro-European Open Society Foundation."

 

I couldn't care less that George Soros is the individual in question. Having a foreign currency speculator influencing British politics is not a good thing - and I only mentioned that in response to somebody who suggested that foreign billionaires had financed the Brexit campaign.

[Bruntoid]

4 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Ah, I am a conspiracy theorist for mentioning a well-documented donation made by a currency speculator to Gina Miller.

 

I didn't even mention his name in my first post.

But you are ill informed - when the donation was made as you have stated Miller CONDEMNED it as undemocratic and the organisation of being secretive. She also went on to to say publically that ALL backers should be revealed for the sake of transparency.

 

Its amazing what you find when you remove the spin. 

[Sujo]

The right always has to blame everyone else when proved wrong. They think the world is against them.

 

Perhaps a mirror would help them.

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Madness. It's not for the judiciary to tell parliament what to do. The judiciary has now politicised itself when it must be kept out of politics. Who made or influenced this decision? One little old lady? What if that judge was politically biased? Whether or not this particular woman is biased is besides the point - the point is that a court's decision, swayed by who-knows-what personal motives, is being allowed to dictate British politics and British culture for decades to come. Did the judges take into consideration the fact that the purpose of the proroguement is to defend the lawful enactment of the British public's lawful referendum decision, which would otherwise be severely jeopardised?

This is just insane.

What, like politicians make laws for everyone (except politicians) to follow?

 

Are you sure that’s what you want?!

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

It wouldn't fit YOUR head. Guaranteed....

Why

[HansumFarang]

3 minutes ago, Bruntoid said:

But you are ill informed - when the donation was made as you have stated Miller CONDEMNED it as undemocratic and the organisation of being secretive. She also went on to to say publically that ALL backers should be revealed for the sake of transparency.

 

Its amazing what you find when you remove the spin. 

 

And that was when she gave the money back was it?

 

 

[Sujo]

Just now, HansumFarang said:

 

Yes, you leftist folks are marvellously good at shutting down debate by attacking people rather than their arguments.

Have u looked at the climate thread lately? 

[bannork]

15 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Parliament makes laws, judges uphold them. But I don't see any law made by Parliament being broken here. Yes, I have read the judgement. Have you?

 

A lot of people are not going to accept that the Supreme Court's decision is neutral and unbiased, since it is based on a highly subjective interpretation of the "unwritten constitution". That puts the Supreme Court in a very precarious position.

Johnson said the progurement of Parliament was to prepare for the Queen's speech. The judges said that normally take 4 days not 5 weeks.

The judges said the period running up to October 31st was a critical time for the nation, and Parliament, wherein the sovereign power of the nation resides, deserves and indeed needs, to be heard.

Edited September 24, 2019 by bannork

[Sujo]

Just now, HansumFarang said:

 

And that was when she gave the money back was it?

 

 

Why should she. Did she say it should be returned or that it should be public?

[JAG]

34 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

Parliament makes laws, judges uphold them. But I don't see any law made by Parliament being broken here. Yes, I have read the judgement. Have you?

 

A lot of people are not going to accept that the Supreme Court's decision is neutral and unbiased, since it is based on a highly subjective interpretation of the "unwritten constitution". That puts the Supreme Court in a very precarious position.

It is a very long time since I studied the British Constitution and its legal system, but I did so as part of my professional education, (as I said, a long time ago). My memory is clouded, but I know that in a "common law" system such as ours, judges can indeed make "case law", which can be interpreted and referenced in future judgements. However, judgements on parliamentary matters are by convention, returned to parliament to resolve. If parliamentary proceedings are unable to resolve them, and an impasse is arrived at, then (again by convention) the matter is resolved by calling a general election. As I said it was a long time ago, but I am sure that was the "Directing Staff answer". Looked at from that perspective, todays judgement is remarkable, and sets a surprising precedent.

Edited September 24, 2019 by JAG

[Slip]

15 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Madness. It's not for the judiciary to tell parliament what to do. The judiciary has now politicised itself when it must be kept out of politics. Who made or influenced this decision? One little old lady? What if that judge was politically biased? Whether or not this particular woman is biased is besides the point - the point is that a court's decision, swayed by who-knows-what personal motives, is being allowed to dictate British politics and British culture for decades to come. Did the judges take into consideration the fact that the purpose of the proroguement is to defend the lawful enactment of the British public's lawful referendum decision, which would otherwise be severely jeopardised?

This is just insane.

You are talking utter rubbish.  11 senior judges. Personal motives? Yes they did take the circumstances into account.  The Supreme Court made a decision in law.  They were at pains to point that out.  Your tinfoil hat nonsense matches that of other (some seemingly deluded) posters on this thread. 

[JamesBlond]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What, like politicians make laws for everyone (except politicians) to follow?

 

Are you sure that’s what you want?!

What I want is:

a) parliament to do its job

b) the judiciary to do its job

As neither of these are doing their job, I want the PM to do whatever is necessary.

In any case, I do not recognise the court's right to make this decision.

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Ah, I am a conspiracy theorist for mentioning a well-documented donation made by a currency speculator to Gina Miller.

 

I didn't even mention his name in my first post.

So somebody is alleged to have given Gina Millar some money.

 

Hiw did that influence the ruling of 11 Supreme Court Judges?