JohnfromUK

Despite being in "The Mail", This is quite illuminating; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7510479/SIR-ROBBIE-GIBB-wheres-outrage-Brexiteers-demonised.html It was part of a wider look at the 'threatening language' used by various MPs here; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7509345/When-comes-abuse-heres-proof-Labour-cohorts-bad-else.html

Before the Supreme Court existed, I do not know where the challenge might have been made. However, despite in both cases causing some 'harrumphing', the action doesn't seem to have been challenged in any court.

Not that I am aware of from where I read about them

In relatively recent times; Clement Atlee (Labour) prorogued Parliament to prevent the Lords delaying his bill to nationalise the steel industry in 1948 and used prorogation to assist in reducing the Lords powers by ammending the Parliament Act of 1911 John Major (Conservative) prorogued Parliament to prevent discussion of the 'cash for questions affair' (1997) The difference between these cases (both of which were done for political reasons) and the Johnson case recently was that they were not challenged in the Supreme Court (which did not exist until Blair introduced it in October 2009).

I think that type of 'crab' joint is a mainly Westley Richards feature. This is the joint area of my Powell from 1871.

I suspect that is probably quite right; the majority of mentions of 'crab joint" I have seen are in American auction/dealer site listings, but it is now used by the UK auction houses (who of course have a significant American clientèle). It seems to be a Westley Richards 'speciality', as other 'wood bar/bar in wood' guns don't have the same crustacean like design for the wood overlap from the forend over the join/hinge area.

Of course there will; Senior Party members children for a start.

This https://www.theexplora.com/the-hammer-guns-of-westley-richards/ enlightens a bit about the 'crab joint'. It is Westley Richards own 'house magazine'.

I have heard both used. I don't know which is right, or they may both be right. Westley Richards (wood bar) guns also often had what is known (I think) as a 'crab joint' where the forend met the action bar knuckle.

Cox is a firm leaver; the other two are remainers. I see no prospect for agreement.

He is reported to have been the highest paid of all MP's before he had to give up for his government job.

The Parliamentary incarnation of Rumpole of the Bailey (with a touch of Brian Blessed).

You can see where the term 'poison dwarf' came from though.

No one apart from the Queen and Johnson know what was said. We have a very bizarre situation at the moment: A referendum was held - the result was clear - the government (and main opposition party) had promised to carry through the result. Parliament has acted to prevent that - strongly encouraged by the speaker and aided by the opposition To sort it out - the prime minister has asked for a general election The ludricous terms of the fixed parliaments act effectively leave the calling of an election timing now to the leader of the opposition!!! The Leader of the Opposition despite repeatedly calling for an election (as recently as yesterday) is actually actively preventing one happening The business put before Parliament (which is normally set by the Leader of the House and put in the daily business by the speaker) seems to now be selected by the speaker not the leader of the house by using irregular emergency procedures. So we have a government who cannot set the business of the house (because the way the Speaker is behaving), and cannot call an election - which is blocked by the leader of the opposition.

There is still no 'defined limit'. Lawyers always leave the door open for more fees from further 'clarifications in case law'.

I am not a lawyer, so this is simply a summary of what I have read Much of law is set in 'case law'. The actual written law tries to cover off most aspects, but often the things that get challenged and not clear in 'black and white'. In this case as I understand it - there was no written time limit on what was the maximum leagl length of time for which Parliament could be suspended by prorogation. The Attorney General took the view that it was legal - and though longer than usual, was really no different to usual. (In addition much of the time was 'party conference season' when they normally don't sit anyway). The actual additional time above the usual party conference break of 3 weeks was only a week or possibly two I believe. However - the prorogation was challenged (3 times in fact, once again by Gina Miller in the Supreme Court). One challenge was in a lower court in London, one (in Scotland). These produced a split result. Therefore an appeal was made to the Supreme Court (by Miller and others) and the Supreme court has decided that 5 weeks prorogation was too long and had 'political motives' preventing proper parliamentary scruting. This has now set 5 weeks as 'illegal' in 'case law' which now can be used as a law itself in any future cases - however shorter prorogations may not be illegal. So - in summary prorogation itself is legal and normal practice. - before the Supreme Court ruling - it was open to interpretation on what length might be 'excessive' and therefore illegal. - after the Supreme Court ruling it is now illegal at 5 weeks in length where this is for 'political' reasons of stopping parliamentary scrutiny. Bear in mind that both Major and Blair prorogued parliament to stop scrutiny (though for less time).

My situation exactly as well.

I often have the same thought as you. Nice gun; I have a similar bar in wood Powell from 1871, but sadly no case. I do however have the correct label (original and unused) given to me by Peter Powell when I bought the gun from William Powell about 32 years ago now.

We will have to agree to differ on that.

The way Momentum 'police' their party is a bit like the Gestapo - and actually - it isn't a laughing matter.

I would not agree with that. I have seen what Labour governments can do. I do not believe even a no deal Brexit will be that bad.

I would be senile enough to be in the Lords. I'm told the benches are more comfortable - and it's easier to doze off. By then I will have as much idea what 5% means as Diane Abbott has now. I cannot see myself ever being a 'friend of the party'. I might be able to go in disguise as Momentum with a long leather coat, steel rimmed glasses, Homberg hat and a limp.

I think they were missed earlier than that. Despite my current siding I voted Remain - for the very simple reason that I couldn't see how leave would actually be 'put into practice'. Cameron went to the EU pre referendum and 'negotiated' some 'relaxations' - mainly if I remember right on benefits claimants rights to claim immediately and a waiver for 'ever closer union'. Frankly these were nowhere near enough, but the smug people thought they had the result in the bag for remain, so we got virtually nothing. When it became clear that the vote wasn't to be a walkover for remain, Project Fear was launched - drawing in even Obama (who would leave office shortly anyway). That simply put peoples backs up - and was (in my view) the final push that got leave over the line. Since then, many like myself simply believe the outcome MUST be carried out - for democracy. IF there is another referendum - I will vote leave (as will countless other former marginal remainers). The exception might be IF we had a Corbyn government - in which case remaining in the EU would come in handy to bail us out when he (inevitably) bankrupts the country. We wpuld then go from a major net contributor to being like Greece - living on German handouts.

In 50 years I will be 112 (and undoubtedly very senile) - surely I can be retired by then!

I believe (but can't find my source) that McDonnell has said they will borrow much of it - but with no immediate prospect of paying it back (or plan to pay it back) ........ ever. Unlike Venezuela - we don't have vast reserves of oil against which to mortgage our children's future. We struggle to pay back our existing debt (the rate of increase has come down, but the debt is already MASSIVE), so we will loose our credit rating - and be charged a great deal more in interest to borrow.