Log In
Register
6.43am
17 October 2013
Offline
You’re talking about the ECtHR I’m suggesting that the ECJ will begin to intervene in areas that it currently can’t…..Then add those two courts together and wave our legal sovereignty goodbye……We’re half way there already…….
Add to that the increasing scope and powers of the EU Parliament and Council and even our own Parliament autonomy is under threat……
But we ain’t there yet……..and hopefully a future return to the people will ensure that they recognise that our current MPs are not fit for purpose and kick them out…….
You’ll no doubt have a different view to me as to who should be or shouldn’t be dispensed with.
Let’s hope it’s put to the vote soon……..Interesting.
4.44pm
9 March 2017
Offline https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/24…..index.html
Regardless of what you think about abortion, these people are idiots and are getting what they deserve.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
5.41pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline
5.55pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline It’s an awful case since the procedure was an abortion, but these type of cases happen in every medical system around the world.
You hear of doctors amputating the wrong limb, removal of the wrong kidney, giving a woman a mastectomy or hysterectomy…
So many examples of doctors making mistakes because they don’t follow the right procedures.
It’s right that medical staff who make massive errors because they haven’t followed the right procedures face negligence charges and are accountable to criminal law.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Dark Overlord"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
5.59pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline Trump is one step closer to being impeached: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0…..trump.html
As much as I despise Trump, I don’t want him to be impeached- Pence is worse…
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
Dark Overlord, Dark Overlord, Dark Overlord#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 
2017 awards: 
2018 awards:
2019 awards: 
2020 awards:
2021 awards:
6.57pm
9 March 2017
Offline I do find it fascinating that it’s Nancy Pelosi that’s doing this considering that if Trump gets impeached for his misconduct and Pence gets impeached as well for his involvement in Trump’s misconduct, then she would become president and while i feel Nancy would be a way better president than Trump, this does make me question her ethics since it puts into question whether she actually cares about the people or if she only wants to impeach Trump for personal gain.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
7.27pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Though it has to be said, @Dark Overlord, that Pelosi has resisted the calls of her party so far to move forward on impeachment.
There comes a time when if you don’t take a stand you’re politically weakened, even within your own party.
Trump has said he’s going to release the full unredacted conversation with the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky. He has also admitted that it was his decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine, and that in the same call he repeatedly urged Zelensky to launch a criminal investigation into a possible Presidential rival and his son, and that he may have a different view on the military aid should that investigation go ahead (as accused by the whistleblower), it would be a clear abuse of Presidential power; using his position and blackmail to smear a political opponent.
If Trump does release the full unredacted conversation (which he has been withholding), and it turns out to be a perfectly normal conversation between Presidents, he has nothing to worry about.
It’s the fact that he has been so resistant to doing that has cornered Pelosi into having to go for an impeachment investigation.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.35pm
17 October 2013
Offline 
It’s all a cunning plan by the Democrats who know that Biden will be an embarrassing Presidential candidate ………And likely to be chewed up by Trump.
They hope to damage two birds with one stone…….Letting their media loose on Trump can’t be a bad thing…at least a useful distraction, while all the time the Republicans dish the dirt on Biden……. that’s more acceptable way of ridding themselves of him than falling on one of their own……
This won’t go anywhere but Pelosi can say, ‘Well we’ve tried Impeachment….That didn’t go well..I know!!!, (adjust dentures) Let’s think of something new….Like non-extreme policies that we can beat trump on’……And sideline the Squad, Maxine and Green at the same time….masterful!
8.10pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline A good bashing of the left of politics, @Wigwam, however it doesn’t explain the whistleblower who had to have high security clearance within the White House to have had any access or knowledge of the call.
I think there are good people who aim to do their best on both sides of the divide (and it shouldn’t be forgotten that many Republicans have criticised Trump over what is reported to have happened in this call).
It’s a shame you feel that the motives of everyone on the left always has to be attacked and be presented as a massive conspiracy. For myself, though firmly on the left, I’m glad that I’m able to see there are many good people on the right who I just don’t happen to agree with politically.
I’d never want to arrive at a position where I viewed everybody on the right as having ulterior motives aimed at undermining democracy.
I have as much disdain for chunks of the left as I do for chunks of the right, but am glad I’m able to see many good people on both sides.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.05pm
17 October 2013
Offline The whistleblower?
Let’s wait and see just how much he knew…….And how far removed he was from the source.
Trump will be putting out a transcript shortly.
As for the left?…..They are the opposition….they are playing to win, (what is impeachment if it’s not in this case a long promised political tool to bash Trump) and it’s the same for the right, they play to win…….Didn’t you ever play sport? It’s certainly permissible to hand out a bashing to your opposition as long as you accept without whining when you inevitably take one too……You can still remain on good terms…Friends even.
If I didn’t hand out an occasional…. as you say…. ‘ good bashing of the Left’ there would only be the regular beatings of the right and nauseating virtue signalling to plough through here……
I think Pelosi has been quite clever…….I say that as a compliment.
You don’t get anywhere in politics without a certain amount of low animal cunning……and more Machiavelli in your genes than there is Native American in Warren’s DNA….. Better that than virtue signalling at the first opportunity…….
I must add ‘VS’ to my list of ‘Pet peeves’
10.03pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline We’ll never know who the whistleblower is, that’s protected.
We do know everybody who has access to Presidential calls are highly vetted though.
It’s frightening just how divided the political debate has become, and I’m sorry but I can’t recall any time when you have suggested someone on the left is being unfairly attacked, but you always seem to defend the majority of those on the right.
I’ll criticise those I disagree with on both sides. After decades of Labour Party membership, I left the Labour Party within days of Corbyn becoming leader because I didn’t agree with the direction he would and is taking the party in.
I’ve only voted once for a Labour candidate since Corbyn became leader, and that was in the London mayoral election, a position largely separated from the party.
Even your “compliment” of Nancy Pelosi for being clever in how she’s playing the game is backhanded, while I see it as a necessity on her part as she had two thirds of her party demanding that now was the time to move, as I said previously. It ain’t no clever ploy to swing the party back toward the centre, just a woman looking to hold onto her job.
Hell, I can easily come up with a credible theory of it being a Trump conspiracy to discredit the Democrats just as easily as you can come with it being a Pelosi conspiracy to regain control of her party.
Trump asks a trusted aide to go to the legitimate department that investigates such things. A report is done into it. He then has it anonymously leaked that there has been an accusation into Trump actions during the call, giving details of what is accused, making sure the Democrats get the sniff of a scandal. He then refuses to release the result of the investigation, and says he will only release a heavily redacted transcript of the call.
Once the bait is taken, he says he’ll release the call unredacted, knowing there’s nothing in it because it’s all been a set-up, but it gives him another stick to beat his Democratic opponents over the head with during the next election. (Has Trump released his tax returns yet.)
Equally as feasible as your portrayal of the Democratic reasoning, I think.
Just as earlier you gave this impression of European Union institutions conspiring to overtake national governments when any moves in that direction would need a qualified majority, and that the UK had a veto against any such move (something we are unlikely to regain should we decide to rejoin in a decade or so realising we were better off in than out).
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
2.22am
17 October 2013
Offline That’s consecutive posts where you’ve piously inched yourself above me by clambering the sunlit up-lands of the moral high ground.
Firstly although you state you’re ‘firmly on the left’ you see the good and bad on all sides while seemingly I can’t….Then you painfully acknowledge that you can’t recall me ever defending a left-wing figure that was being unjustly attacked……..As you know that scenario is as rare as rocking horse s**t on this forum.
I’m sure I’ve complimented Anthony Benn…….But he was fervently anti EU so that probably doesn’t count……
I defend Trump and others like Mogg and Johnson precisely because the attacks are often so personal or based on ridicule …..The Left has a habit of heading for the moral high-ground by going for the man instead of the ball….(Ring a bell?).
It goes like this….Antifa…..’Nazis are bad’….’You can hit Nazis, you have a duty to’…… and then they call anyone who disagrees with them a Nazis……
The right in general attack policies, they don’t see their opponents on the left as evil…….Whereas the Left invariably see the right wing politicians as evil……Not you of course!
FYI I’ve never been a member of any political party and turned the Freemasons down twice…….Just memberships of the odd Squash and Chess clubs….From the late 60’s I voted Labour until the miner’s strikes which I saw as a threat to democracy……I changed to Thatcher….Then back to Blaire (God help me!). Switched to Cameron and will next vote for either The Brexit party or Johnson depending on how much I concur with their stance on EU……
Depends on the policies………
I’m very anti EU…..From Kalergi onwards, with his Ode to Joy, Pan Europe flags and pennants you’d have to be blind not to see its piece-by-piece, cut-by-cut Federalist ambitions….. From the 1970s it was recognised in the British national Archive that the UK would eventually have less autonomy within a future EU than any of the 50 States of America……
I don’t like that……
I don’t expect agreement we both have an established bias……..
I still firmly believe we will leave the EU……But I don’t know that.
There’s lots of these videos around but Peter Hitchens…(preferred his brother) gives a short run-down on the trajectory of the EU…….Prizes for spotting the glaring typo….or maybe it was a Freudian slip…..(That’s where you use one word when you mean a mother.)…!!
Please knock yourself out with the VS stuff help yourself to the moral high ground it don’t signify for me……Because I thoroughly enjoy talking with you.
PS Here’s a compliment…… you’ve forgotten more about The Beatles than I’ll ever know….
Cheers
3.49am
17 October 2013
Offline Getting back to the Supreme Court’s ruling this video posits some very pertinent questions……..
4.51am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline The one thing he ignores is that video completely is the judgement of the Scottish Inner House of the Court of Session (the equivalent of the England’s High Court, where the Gina Miller case was heard). The Scottish Court repeatedly asked for a legal statement on behalf of the Government from either the Prime Minister or the Cabinet Secretary explaining the reasons why a 5 week prorogation was necessary. They refused to supply one, as they did to the UK Supreme Court.
There were two appeals being heard. The Government’s against the Scottish Court’s finding of fact, and Gina Miller’s against the English High Court dismissal of her case as it was non-judicial as it was a matter of High Politics.
The Supreme Court followed the finding of fact laid out by the Scottish Inner House. Once they had decided that the Scottish Court had been correct in deciding that it was judicial because the prorogation is an act of the Executive and not something Parliament can challenge within the House, and that the English High Court was wrong in deciding it was non-judicial, it was always going to be the case that they would follow the finding of fact more than dismissal.
The Government’s case, in the end, failed because they were not were prepared to explain in a sworn statement why five weeks were necessary to prepare for the Queen’s Speech when the standard is four to six days.
That is not to say that John Major didn’t abuse the prerogative powers during his time as PM, just that there was no Supreme Court to take it to because at that time the judges sat in the House of Lords. Blair’s innovation with the creation of the Supreme Court 20 years ago was to remove the judges from the House of Lords and give them Independence from political influence.
It says a lot that the pro-Brexit commentator concentrates on the dismissed Gina Miller case while completely ignoring the finding of fact from the Scottish Inner House.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
5.15am
17 October 2013
Offline So the assumption of innocence until proven guilty no longer applies in English Common law?
….And the Supreme Court unanimously accept from John Major his testimony (this remember coming from someone who prorogued Parliament himself when he was PM for 3 weeks) that Prorogation should never be for more than 5 o 6 days?
Constitutional goal posts have been moved here but they started their journey due to the Speaker’s partisan wheeling and dealings at every stage to facilitate delays…….
The nice difference between law and democracy is that the law follows, or decides on it’s rulings in theory by an interpretation of the letter of the law…….
Democracy works by the will of the people……..That has not happened here and this mess stems from that abuse……
5.32am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline The Scottish Inner House had already found the Government guilty as a finding of fact. The UK Supreme Court needed evidence from the Government to overturn that finding of fact. The Government’s lawyers offered arguments as to why they should decide it was non-judicial, but the Government refused to produce a sworn statement on why five weeks were necessary.
You come back to the basis of criminal law, and the caution:
You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
The Government chose not to say anything, instead relying on legal arguments, and it harmed their defence.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
6.36am
17 October 2013
Offline You completely ignore that The High Court or Court of Session…….Ruled prior to the Supreme courts ruling that the issue was non-justiciable.
The Supreme Court has just made a new law without establishing guilt only the suspicion of guilt.
They will now be called upon to rule on which issues in the future are of significant importance to rule out prorogation…….
A rod for their own backs….unsatisfactory.
We have a Parliament set against the people…..
Let’s have a vote and adhere to the result…However close the division of votes…Either way…….Bring it on.
7.35am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline No, I ignore neither.
The decision of the Outer House of the Court of Session was overturned by the Inner House, the highest court in the UK to hear the case before the UK Supreme Court heard the case.
The English High Court decided to skip the Court of Appeal because of the time sensitive nature of the case and send it straight to the UK Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court gave precedence to the Scottish case because it was the highest court to have heard the case and had found the act of prorogation unlawful as a finding of fact. The Gina Miller case was the secondary case because it had been dismissed.
There were two appeals being heard alongside each other. The Government challenging the guilty verdict of the Inner House, and Gina Miller challenging the dismissal by the High Court.
Once the Supreme Court agreed that the Inner House were correct in that their case was judicial, it naturally followed that they would find High Court had erred in its belief that her case, which was substantially about the same issues, was non-judicial.
As I keep returning to, the first thing for the Supreme Court to decide was whether the Inner Court’s finding of fact was wrong in law. They decided it was not.
All 11 judges of the Supreme Court sat on this case. Something that rarely happens. All 11 found the prorogation unlawful.
The Government decided to rely on legal argument, deciding not to offer any witness statements (which were requested by both the Inner House and the Supreme Court), and lost 11-0 at the Supreme Court.
I expected a split decision, most legal experts expected a split decision, that when the judgement arrived it was 11-0, unanimous, shows the weakness of the case put forward by the Government.
To think otherwise is to accuse the 11 highest judges in the UK of political bias and their integrity being questionable.
Something I have just spent two hours watching the Attorney General in the House, in his deep baritone, saying they should never be accused of.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
8.10am
17 October 2013
Offline Yes I watched that too……. in the Speaker’s words the Attorney General was very mellifluous …………
You’ll note that the AG’s opinion disagreed with the Supreme Court’s….. as did other legal minds prior to the ruling………He accepts, as he is bound to do the Court’s findings….However, do you deny even supporters of the appeal were surprised by the Supreme’s Court ruling and its unanimity?
No one saw that coming
This is not over……Everyone I’ve spoken to… except you…… feels betrayed by the repeated hurdles put in the path of leave by a parliament that gave the green light to a referendum and said they would abide by its result……Who then (80%) stood in a general election on a manifesto that promised they would respect the leave vote…..Who voted to trigger Article 50 and subsequently 3 times, (on both sides of the House), voted against a leave deal……Asking for one extension with no plan……Followed up by asking for another extension with no plan…….and now after voting for the Benn Act that denies the Government the power to leave without a deal will ask for another extension again with no plan other than deliberate delay……
The frustration with MPs is building……..And now there’s a perception that the Speaker and the legal elite however they wrap it up in legalese, red tape and arcane procedural tricks is against the people too……..
Democracy is fine it seems as long as the people vote the way the elites want them too….
Ah well??
Let’s see how things work out…..I still have faith.
8.49am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline See, I don’t see the case as being about Brexit, even though it is taking place in the context of Brexit.
Had the Supreme Court come back and said prorogation was non-judicial, that too would have set precedent about Parliamentary Sovereignty. It would have made the Executive (the Government) unanswerable to Parliament because any Government in the future could prorogue Parliament for any length of time when things got sticky.
In the end, that was what the case was about. Prorogation is only now used to prepare for the Queen’s Speech, and it was about setting a legal definition for the period of time needed for that.
Otherwise you could have a Government proroguing for much of the year, only allowing Parliament to sit for a couple of weeks to deal with finance bills.
I have already said that that it was 11-0 was a shock. I expected a split decision against the Government – 6-5, 7-4, 8-3 – with the dissenting opinions being very against the majority.
I haven’t seen anyone who expected a unanimous decision. That it was was damning, especially given the language.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
4 Guest(s)