I read on one of my many strollsie unapproved right wing blogs that it's been done before Major apparently did it during the expense scandal Was major taken to court Wish I was a lawyer Is it true miller got legal aid for taking Boris to court
I’ll keep asking, in a court case the accused and prosecution get to see the evidence, what evidence have you seen, did her majesty bring a case because she was lied to, no, it was because crybabies couldn’t accept that to prorogue parliament occurs every few years, what Boris did was constitutionally correct but the only people who cried foul were remainers, they made this case about Brexit, not the leavers. All the people that gave evidence agains Boris’s move ARE pro EU, are dedicated remainers, so,please stop telling me otherwise.
Think Miller had lawyers queuing round the block offering their time to take that ****ing charlatan down.
We'll have to wait for all the ardent Remainers to answer that question as they were all there at the time; only the Leavers weren't invited to the audience.
Mate give your head a shake, he lied to the whole country and has just been found out. Is he also lying about investing in police, nhs ,education etc etc. Its all he does is lie. But I love him, hes the best tory PM ever, a complete laugh a minute at his pure incompetency! Dont bang on about wanting the courts out of eu hands and then whinge when they get used properly. Very hypocritical indeed. Remember what your father let telling you Turkish, he was trying to hammer something on to you
We want to make our own laws and have sovereignty back!! Cry me a ****ing river. This happens without any interference from the EU and people dont like it. ****jng hilarious!
What will be will be. Everyone and every country in the world now knows what a hypocrite and blatant liar we have running the country! Fun times
On the subject of that hardened crim, Bo "The Premier" Johnson... This, from James O'Brien (Constitutional Expert): "Illegal means that it is forbidden by a law that has been passed. Unlawful means that it is not authorised by law because no such law has been passed." Many new laws come about through courts having to make judgements in areas where laws have not been passed. This is what the Supreme Court has had to do. Boris proroguing Parliament was not illegal because there was no area of law forbidding it. It has now been tested, determined in the opinion of the Supreme Court judges to be unlawful, which means that if he does it again it would presumably now be illegal. Johnson may be a liar as to his motives for proroguing Parliament - we can all draw our own conclusions on that - but he did not commit a criminal act in this instance. On the other hand, MPs such as the Rt. Hon. David Lammy, calling for civil disobedience, are calling for citizens to actively refuse to obey certain laws. Of course, Remainers will argue that's perfectly acceptable because he is on their side. "Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government. By some definitions, civil disobedience has to be nonviolent to be called 'civil'. Hence, civil disobedience is sometimes equated with peaceful protests or nonviolent resistance." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience I find it hilarious, the faux outrage towards Johnson - of whom it is once more necessary to state that I am no fan of - when I'm willing to bet that every single one of us on this Board has broken the law in one way, shape or form. I'm sure most of us have smoked some pot, pinched some stationery at work, fiddled an expense claim for £2.34, exceeded the speed limit, maybe chanced a drive when potentially over the limit, used our mobile phones whilst driving... maybe even beaten somebody up for whatever motive. We might consider these petty by comparison, but they're no less laws broken.
Not according to the supreme court fella. He acted unlawfully, not my fault he lied. Not my fault he prorogued parliment under false pretences. As for evidence that I've seen, what the **** are you on about??? You really should have listened to your old man!!
It all comes down to those horrible facts again, it's a fact he is a liar, it's a fact that he lied to both the monarch and the people he is supposed to serve. Oh well I'm sure the same people going ape **** would have had the same response had it been Corbyn
When did he ****ing lie to the country, when did he lie to to the Queen, SHOW ME THE ****ING PROOF, how did he lie about investing in the police, NHS, Education etc, and yes we want the courts out of Eu hands especially the eleven lying remainer Eu employed ****s in the Supreme Court, you give your head a shake Bob because you’ve had it buried in the sand to long, REMAIN STARTED THIS ****ING ****, ALL,OF IT BECAUSE THEY LIKE YOU CANNOT ACCEPT A DEMOCRATIC RESULT, CANNOT ACCEPT THEY TRIGGERED ARTICLE 50, THUS PASSING INTO THE LAW YOUR SO PROUD OF THAT WE ARE TO LEAVE THE ****ING EU ON 29TH MARCH 2019 CANNOT ACCEPT THEY LIED ON THEIR MANIFESTO’S . REMAIN have told more ****ing lies in the last 3 years than billy Liar in the whole ****ing book and you’re believing them, and yes I know what my dad tells me, look in a mirror you’ll see who he means.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49814927 Let's see if the Teflon Don can make this one go away, what is it with right wing politicians and being absolute traitors?
I been travelling Staines and only heard Corbtn had got what be wanted on Brexit, to gp on fence sitting, and not the details. I wanted him to back Remain as the majority of Labour support, and think this will cost him votes in a GE. Hope I'm wrong and he manages to convince voters that his aim of reconciliation of the 2 sides is the best one. If he went Norway model, clearly staying in the single market as now, like Uber I gather, I'd take that as the best compromise between the Leave and Remain sides
What Boris did was risky, but it was fine lines whether it was unlawful. Lower courts found what he did was lawful. 10 of the 11 Supreme Court judges are known to be Remain Interesting that an ex-Law Lord, and one of the most intelligent men ever to be called to the Bench, Jonathan Sumption, said today that he would have given the same advice that Geoffrey Cox did.
It wasnt fine lines as to whether it was unlawful. It was unanimous. It wasnt about remain or leave. And Jonathon Sumpton would have given bad advice then also! You're totally confused. Do you believe that Boris prorogued parliment in order to prepare for her majesty speech?
If I'm correct, I think DT said there were 3 people on here who actually wanted a no deal. The rest I presume who voted leave would like a deal yeah?
Question here for you Bob, when parliament voted to trigger article 50 it states quite clearly in said article 50 that if after 2 years of negotiations if no deal is agreed we leave on WTO terms, this was passed into Law, ours and the corrupt eu’s surely 600 assholes should be in court for breaking your beloved law that they have acted illegally/ unlawfully. You cannot have it all your own way Bob, there is not one law for one and not for another, you stop being so gullible as well believing only your side of the argument. This is not over, ring your glorious comrade Jezzbollah up and tell him you want a general election to decide who right or wrong, you might be surprised to find 65% of people think Boris is doing ok.
It was about Remain or leave Bob, don’t be so naive, the Remain campaign brought a spurious case to the law courts to prevent as they say us leaving the EU without a deal.
