| Prorogation 10:44 - Sep 24 with 13157 views | waynekerr55 |
Illegal. Will Boris resign? |  |
| |  |
| Prorogation on 17:26 - Sep 24 with 972 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Prorogation on 17:25 - Sep 24 by bluey_the_blue |
He could do, if in power. Which will never happen.
Again, this was all obvious after Major prorogued. That wasn't a concern to people.
Doesn't really change much. Leave on Oct 31st still the legal position. |
If you ignore the other legal position that is. |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 17:27 - Sep 24 with 969 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Prorogation on 13:53 - Sep 24 by waynekerr55 |
"misunderstanding the law"
Not knowing the law is not a defence - Sirjohnalot can confirm if I'm correct? (PS - cheque for advice en route  ) |
It can in some cases, for example theft, has to be intention to be dishonest, eg I got a French lady (I think) a not guilty when she’d taken out of date for from a shop as in her country, it’s not legal to sell food past its sell by date.
What Baroness Hale said was that his actions were unlawful, but didn’t say illegal. This isn’t my area of law but I think the difference is unlawful is wrong in constitutional law whereas illegal is a breach of criminal law.
However her also saying "It is impossible for us to conclude on the evidence... that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks..." does push you think he absolutely lied to the Queen.
Incredible ruling. |  | | |
| Prorogation on 17:31 - Sep 24 with 945 views | Jackfath |
Here's mt question for Question Time this Thursday.
Do the panel think, because Boris lied to The Queen, he should now be beheaded? |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 17:31 - Sep 24 with 945 views | longlostjack |
| Prorogation on 17:27 - Sep 24 by Sirjohnalot |
It can in some cases, for example theft, has to be intention to be dishonest, eg I got a French lady (I think) a not guilty when she’d taken out of date for from a shop as in her country, it’s not legal to sell food past its sell by date.
What Baroness Hale said was that his actions were unlawful, but didn’t say illegal. This isn’t my area of law but I think the difference is unlawful is wrong in constitutional law whereas illegal is a breach of criminal law.
However her also saying "It is impossible for us to conclude on the evidence... that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks..." does push you think he absolutely lied to the Queen.
Incredible ruling. |
I’ve studied the matter in some depth. Unlawful is wrong in constitutional law whereas illegal is a sick bird. |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 17:35 - Sep 24 with 920 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Prorogation on 17:27 - Sep 24 by Sirjohnalot |
It can in some cases, for example theft, has to be intention to be dishonest, eg I got a French lady (I think) a not guilty when she’d taken out of date for from a shop as in her country, it’s not legal to sell food past its sell by date.
What Baroness Hale said was that his actions were unlawful, but didn’t say illegal. This isn’t my area of law but I think the difference is unlawful is wrong in constitutional law whereas illegal is a breach of criminal law.
However her also saying "It is impossible for us to conclude on the evidence... that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks..." does push you think he absolutely lied to the Queen.
Incredible ruling. |
Bloody foreigners, coming here stealing our out of date food... |  | | |
| Prorogation on 17:35 - Sep 24 with 932 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Prorogation on 17:31 - Sep 24 by longlostjack |
I’ve studied the matter in some depth. Unlawful is wrong in constitutional law whereas illegal is a sick bird. |
If I had a hat, I would raise it to you.
Brilliant | | | |
| Prorogation on 17:37 - Sep 24 with 928 views | Kilkennyjack |
| Prorogation on 17:31 - Sep 24 by longlostjack |
I’ve studied the matter in some depth. Unlawful is wrong in constitutional law whereas illegal is a sick bird. |
😂😂 |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Prorogation on 17:47 - Sep 24 with 906 views | Joe_bradshaw |
I see Boris strongly disagrees with the verdict of the court.
In a recent poll carried out in Swansea prison 99% of inmates said the same thing. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Prorogation on 17:54 - Sep 24 with 889 views | WarwickHunt |
| Prorogation on 17:47 - Sep 24 by Joe_bradshaw |
I see Boris strongly disagrees with the verdict of the court.
In a recent poll carried out in Swansea prison 99% of inmates said the same thing. |
Mandy Rice-Davies was unavailable for comment. |  | | |
| Prorogation on 18:13 - Sep 24 with 854 views | majorraglan |
| Prorogation on 17:47 - Sep 24 by Joe_bradshaw |
I see Boris strongly disagrees with the verdict of the court.
In a recent poll carried out in Swansea prison 99% of inmates said the same thing. |
Indeed he does as do the readers of the Telegraph, Mail and Express, in fact one of the papers has done a rather distasteful (in my opinion) feature on the judges. These are some of the most distinguished legal minds in the U.K. and their opinion and judgement has to be respected.
As has been said, if Corbyn had suspended Parliament for his own ends there would be ructions. The law of the land and Parliamentary sovereignty has to be respected, other wise we will turn in to one of those tin pot dictatorships. Johnson should resign, but he won’t. | | | |
| Prorogation on 18:36 - Sep 24 with 826 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Prorogation on 18:13 - Sep 24 by majorraglan |
Indeed he does as do the readers of the Telegraph, Mail and Express, in fact one of the papers has done a rather distasteful (in my opinion) feature on the judges. These are some of the most distinguished legal minds in the U.K. and their opinion and judgement has to be respected.
As has been said, if Corbyn had suspended Parliament for his own ends there would be ructions. The law of the land and Parliamentary sovereignty has to be respected, other wise we will turn in to one of those tin pot dictatorships. Johnson should resign, but he won’t. |
I laughed out loud when I saw Darren Grimes moaning about the Supreme Court and someone asked him in response how much constitutional law they had covered in his fashion degree. | | | |
| Prorogation on 18:42 - Sep 24 with 802 views | BrynCartwright |
| Prorogation on 18:13 - Sep 24 by majorraglan |
Indeed he does as do the readers of the Telegraph, Mail and Express, in fact one of the papers has done a rather distasteful (in my opinion) feature on the judges. These are some of the most distinguished legal minds in the U.K. and their opinion and judgement has to be respected.
As has been said, if Corbyn had suspended Parliament for his own ends there would be ructions. The law of the land and Parliamentary sovereignty has to be respected, other wise we will turn in to one of those tin pot dictatorships. Johnson should resign, but he won’t. |
Surely they ARE the most distinguished legal minds in the U.K.? |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 18:44 - Sep 24 with 794 views | Darran |
#prayforboris |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 18:46 - Sep 24 with 790 views | Lohengrin |
| Prorogation on 18:42 - Sep 24 by BrynCartwright |
Surely they ARE the most distinguished legal minds in the U.K.? |
Or the pillars propping up Bleak House? |  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| Prorogation on 18:59 - Sep 24 with 758 views | BrynCartwright |
| Prorogation on 18:46 - Sep 24 by Lohengrin |
Or the pillars propping up Bleak House? |
No, they are without doubt or equivocation the most celebrated legal minds in the UK. | |
| |
| Prorogation on 19:07 - Sep 24 with 739 views | Lohengrin |
| Prorogation on 18:59 - Sep 24 by BrynCartwright |
No, they are without doubt or equivocation the most celebrated legal minds in the UK. |
It appears they have more fans than Elvis this afternoon. | |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| Prorogation on 19:14 - Sep 24 with 726 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Prorogation on 19:07 - Sep 24 by Lohengrin |
It appears they have more fans than Elvis this afternoon. |
Have a look at the full judgement and find something in there that isn’t legally sound. Baroness Hale is in Gray’s’s Inn, the same as me. She’s incredible, completely neutral and would never make any judgement on anything less than the laws | | | |
| Prorogation on 19:22 - Sep 24 with 704 views | Jango |
| Prorogation on 18:36 - Sep 24 by londonlisa2001 |
I laughed out loud when I saw Darren Grimes moaning about the Supreme Court and someone asked him in response how much constitutional law they had covered in his fashion degree. |
A similar question could be asked to many on this thread. | | | |
| Prorogation on 19:22 - Sep 24 with 703 views | AnotherJohn |
The thing that puts us in unknown territory is the Fixed Term Parliament Act, and the bizarre situation whereby Johnson has offered a general election twice only to find this blocked by opposition MPs. To my mind that makes the image of the 'coup' or power grab implausible. Unfortunately the opposition prefers a zombie government that can prevent 'no deal', however the majority of voters cast their votes.
The problem with the Supreme Court decision is that it pulls out one element from several that are feeding into a full-blown constitutional crisis. It will be interesting to read the Court's detailed reasoning about why Article 9 of the Bill of Rights does not apply. In any event this judgement will change the law textbooks. | | | |
| Prorogation on 19:30 - Sep 24 with 682 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Prorogation on 19:22 - Sep 24 by AnotherJohn |
The thing that puts us in unknown territory is the Fixed Term Parliament Act, and the bizarre situation whereby Johnson has offered a general election twice only to find this blocked by opposition MPs. To my mind that makes the image of the 'coup' or power grab implausible. Unfortunately the opposition prefers a zombie government that can prevent 'no deal', however the majority of voters cast their votes.
The problem with the Supreme Court decision is that it pulls out one element from several that are feeding into a full-blown constitutional crisis. It will be interesting to read the Court's detailed reasoning about why Article 9 of the Bill of Rights does not apply. In any event this judgement will change the law textbooks. |
Article nine of the Bill of Rights? Parliamentary privilege? That refers to debates and/proceedings in parliament not being questioned in court. It’s the clause that gives parliamentarians protection from libel and slander.
The whole point of this case was that prorogation was not subject to a debate or isn’t a proceeding of parliament itself. It’s a prerogative power exercised by the monarch. Article nine can’t possibly apply. I haven’t read the judgement in full yet but I doubt it will be mentioned because it’s entirely irrelevant. | |
| |
| Prorogation on 19:33 - Sep 24 with 667 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Prorogation on 19:22 - Sep 24 by Jango |
A similar question could be asked to many on this thread. |
Only of those disagreeing surely?
Anyone agreeing isn’t required to have any knowledge, they’re simply deferring to the Supreme Court justices’ knowledge of the law. Who were unanimous. | | | |
| Prorogation on 19:37 - Sep 24 with 658 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Prorogation on 19:22 - Sep 24 by AnotherJohn |
The thing that puts us in unknown territory is the Fixed Term Parliament Act, and the bizarre situation whereby Johnson has offered a general election twice only to find this blocked by opposition MPs. To my mind that makes the image of the 'coup' or power grab implausible. Unfortunately the opposition prefers a zombie government that can prevent 'no deal', however the majority of voters cast their votes.
The problem with the Supreme Court decision is that it pulls out one element from several that are feeding into a full-blown constitutional crisis. It will be interesting to read the Court's detailed reasoning about why Article 9 of the Bill of Rights does not apply. In any event this judgement will change the law textbooks. |
But isn’t that what they have allowed by declaring what Johnson did unlawful ? Parliament is now free to debate again. | | | |
| Prorogation on 19:48 - Sep 24 with 627 views | monmouth |
| Prorogation on 19:37 - Sep 24 by Sirjohnalot |
But isn’t that what they have allowed by declaring what Johnson did unlawful ? Parliament is now free to debate again. |
Johnson now saying that the ruling frustrates brexit even though he claimed prorogation was nothing to do with brexit.
Get them out, the whole stinking barrel of shit, and flush them away forever. |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 19:53 - Sep 24 with 618 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Prorogation on 19:48 - Sep 24 by monmouth |
Johnson now saying that the ruling frustrates brexit even though he claimed prorogation was nothing to do with brexit.
Get them out, the whole stinking barrel of shit, and flush them away forever. |
He’s a cross examiner’s dream. | | | |
| Prorogation on 19:56 - Sep 24 with 607 views | AnotherJohn |
| Prorogation on 19:37 - Sep 24 by Sirjohnalot |
But isn’t that what they have allowed by declaring what Johnson did unlawful ? Parliament is now free to debate again. |
Your line of reasoning isn't entirely clear to me. My point is that it is unprecedented for a PM to continue in his role when he cannot command a Commons majority and has already offered a general election. Do you mean that Parliament is now free to debate a motion for an early election under the FTPA, or a motion of no confidence? As far as I can see it is not the debate that is the issue, but the unwillingness of many MPs to support one or other motion to trigger an election. They prefer to extract political advantage in a zombie Parliament. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
