TIGHTCHOKE Posted September 29, 2019 Report Share Posted September 29, 2019 An interesting article from old historian David Starkey in the Mail on Sunday. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516507/DAVID-STARKEY-historic-Supreme-Court-judgement.html "How does it come about that the law is one thing on Wednesday, September 11 and quite another on Tuesday, September 24? That something could be legal on the former day and illegal on the latter? For that is the position the Government and the country now find themselves in. What happened in those 13 momentous days? Did Parliament pass a new Act which changed the law? Was an important, but forgotten precedent, rediscovered? Neither, I fear. Instead – as happens in many of the best courtroom dramas – a cunning, super-clever barrister pulled the wool over the eyes of a panel of judges." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted September 29, 2019 Report Share Posted September 29, 2019 Well the Supreme Court decision certainly suits the parliamentary establishment! 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oisin og Posted September 29, 2019 Report Share Posted September 29, 2019 2 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: “.......a cunning, super-clever barrister pulled the wool over the eyes of a panel of judges." Yeah! All eleven of the most senior judges in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted September 29, 2019 Report Share Posted September 29, 2019 20 minutes ago, oisin og said: Yeah! All eleven of the most senior judges in the UK. Senior being the word. Old and out of touch with the real world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 29, 2019 Report Share Posted September 29, 2019 Odd that they were unanimous. Please don't tell me this was a cut and dried issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 14 hours ago, Gordon R said: Odd that they were unanimous. Please don't tell me this was a cut and dried issue. How very dare you think that? 😁😁😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 According to the top jockey law professor, they all managed to get it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Clavata Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 17 hours ago, bostonmick said: Senior being the word. Old and out of touch with the real world Just the judges or anyone senior? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said: Just the judges or anyone senior? Those judges. Most of the house of Lords.. And quite a few of the high Court. Judges. They live in a bubble protected by privilege. There are many other places where people of great age are in positions of power and make rules about lives they know nothing about. There is a lot of politicians who suffer the same ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 13 minutes ago, bostonmick said: Those judges. Most of the house of Lords.. And quite a few of the high Court. Judges. They live in a bubble protected by privilege. There are many other places where people of great age are in positions of power and make rules about lives they know nothing about. There is a lot of politicians who suffer the same ignorance. For one moment I thought you were talking about members of the Tory Party. 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 The Supreme Court is a bit of an oddity. It was created as a political expedient by Tony B-liar who wanted to remove the power of the Law Lords because he wanted to be able to impose more control over the legal process. Perhaps he still can It operates outside the rest of the UK legal system, and unlike the High Court which resides in a magnificent building in the strand the Supreme Court sits in a rather unattractive little building called the Middlesex Guildhall. I would first of all like to know how the Judges are/were appointed, I can't believe that Tony B-liar would have set it up using Judges that were in any way impartial. That simply wasn't his style. It appears his legacy lives on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
das Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 10 minutes ago, oowee said: For one moment I thought you were talking about members of the Tory Party. 🤣 Bostonmick spot on, the rest a remainers poor jibe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Clavata Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 50 minutes ago, bostonmick said: There are many other places where people of great age are in positions of power and make rules about lives they know nothing about. Yes, my daughter, born in 2000 experienced this first hand in June 2016. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 9 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said: Yes, my daughter, born in 2000 experienced this first hand in June 2016. 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsbob Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) In June 2016 the people were given a democratic decision. And people of all ages ethnicity, social status and political beliefs voted to leave the EU. The old fools living in bubbles have beens subverting the will of the people ever since. Edited September 30, 2019 by sportsbob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted September 30, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 5 minutes ago, sportsbob said: In June 2016 the people were given a democratic decision. And people of all ages voted to leave the EU. The old fools living in bubbles have been subverting the will of the people ever since. That was when democracy died in this country! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsbob Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: That was when democracy died in this country! My post was advising this gentleman what the lesson is that his daughter is living through 55 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said: Yes, my daughter, born in 2000 experienced this first hand in June 2016. If some crooked MPs and other corrupt persons had not stirred the remoaners up we may be on our road to recovery by now. Interestingly the devision it will leave amongst the people come what may will be felt for many years to come. Edited September 30, 2019 by sportsbob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pushkin Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) So - given that Starkey has revealed that the case given by the barrister was on false or fudged information, is there no means to appeal the decision that was given? I think some 17 and a half million voters (and counting) would like to see their old fashioned and honest democracy to be upheld? I ask this in all sincerity and would appreciate anyone who can advise on this? Pushkin🤔 Edited September 30, 2019 by Pushkin Spelling error Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McSpredder Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 3 hours ago, sportsbob said: In June 2016 the people were given a democratic decision. The referendum was held on a basis of one person, one vote. An MP's view counts 70,000 times as much as that of any ordinary citizen (650 MPs for 46 million electors). Does your MP display sufficient intellectual or moral superiority to make his/her opinion worth so many times more than your own? On the same basis, a Supreme Court judge's opinion is apparently worth 4.2 million times as much as that of an ordinary citizen. Many judges are lawyers who spent their entire previous careers presenting wholly biased arguments. Can we be confident that they suddenly switch to acting in a wholly impartial manner, as soon as they are appointed? And can we have any respect for the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division, now that the UK Supreme Court has apparently declared them to be ignorant of the law? If you expect all senior judges to be particularly wise, think again. Some of them say surprising things, and this link quotes a few opinions expressed by Lord Denning: https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/11/7-of-lord-dennings-most-controversial-comments/ Experienced lawyers have occasionally shown themselves to be totally out of touch with the world, one memorable instance being the Lady Chatterley trial where the prosecutor asked "Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?", apparently unable to imagine that some jurors might not be able to afford a team of domestic servants, or that male jurors perhaps did not censor their wives' reading material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB1 Posted October 1, 2019 Report Share Posted October 1, 2019 On 29/09/2019 at 19:46, TIGHTCHOKE said: An interesting article from old historian David Starkey in the Mail on Sunday. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516507/DAVID-STARKEY-historic-Supreme-Court-judgement.html "How does it come about that the law is one thing on Wednesday, September 11 and quite another on Tuesday, September 24? That something could be legal on the former day and illegal on the latter? For that is the position the Government and the country now find themselves in. What happened in those 13 momentous days? Did Parliament pass a new Act which changed the law? Was an important, but forgotten precedent, rediscovered? Neither, I fear. Instead – as happens in many of the best courtroom dramas – a cunning, super-clever barrister pulled the wool over the eyes of a panel of judges." Superbly written 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted October 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2019 5 hours ago, KB1 said: Superbly written 👍 Does make you wonder where it all goes next though doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted October 1, 2019 Report Share Posted October 1, 2019 15 hours ago, Raja Clavata said: Yes, my daughter, born in 2000 experienced this first hand in June 2016. Thats terrible for her ! Did she not experience it in 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 17 too ? I mean, why dont we lower the voting age to 16 , but why stop there ? Why couldnt you vote on her behalf in 2001 ? Oh but you did ! Why dont we do what labour is suggesting and let every single foreign national vote in this country ? Cant see a problem , can you ? Maybe we can vote in their elections as well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Clavata Posted October 1, 2019 Report Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Rewulf said: Thats terrible for her ! Did she not experience it in 2001, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 17 too ? I mean, why dont we lower the voting age to 16 , but why stop there ? Why couldnt you vote on her behalf in 2001 ? Oh but you did ! Why dont we do what labour is suggesting and let every single foreign national vote in this country ? Cant see a problem , can you ? Maybe we can vote in their elections as well.... Now you’re being 😜 Part of the problem is in likening the 2016 vote to GE votes every 4 or 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted October 1, 2019 Report Share Posted October 1, 2019 35 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said: Now you’re being 😜 You started it ! 35 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said: Part of the problem is in likening the 2016 vote to GE votes every 4 or 5 years. You are of course correct, the referendum was nothing like a GE. GE s are respected by all political parties straight away, and enacted, unlike our 'once in a lifetime , and will be delivered' referendum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB1 Posted October 1, 2019 Report Share Posted October 1, 2019 7 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: Does make you wonder where it all goes next though doesn't it? It's an absolute farce🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.