Cummings and goings...
Discussion
Tuna said:
markyb_lcy said:
Illegal and unlawful seem reasonably interchangeable to me but of course I’m not legal expert.
There is a fairly important distinction 
One of the reasons Boris wasn't clapped in irons or sent to the colonies 
Fair comment.
Tuna said:
youngsyr said:
Would you like a list?!
Let's take them one by one, starting with his unprecedented and illegal suspension of Parliament (proroguing).
Hardly worth responding if you're going to lie. Proroguing was not illegal, and did not in the event prevent democratic decisions being made as I understand it. Unlike the attempts to "Stop Brexit", which certainly were about enabling a minority overturn a majority decision. I presume you were against that given your high moral standards?Let's take them one by one, starting with his unprecedented and illegal suspension of Parliament (proroguing).
What other 'destruction of democracy' were you thinking of? Or was that it - parliament had a slightly longer holiday?
Your "understanding" is in direct contrast to the highest court in the land, but then "fake news!" I guess, right?.
The Supreme Court said:
The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/boris-johnsons-suspension-of-parliament-unlawful-supreme-court-rules-prorogueI found it fascinating at the time that when a Prime Minister prorogues Parliament and all 11 Supreme Court Justices unanimously rule he acted unlawfully in doing so and in their ruling say:
"The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.”
That the thing people get hung up on is whether unlawful is the same as illegal.
Focus on the behaviour and the intent behind it.
"The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.”
That the thing people get hung up on is whether unlawful is the same as illegal.
Focus on the behaviour and the intent behind it.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I found it fascinating at the time that when a Prime Minister prorogues Parliament and all 11 Supreme Court Justices unanimously rule he acted unlawfully in doing so and in their ruling say:
"The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.”
That the thing apologistspeople get hung up on is whether unlawful is the same as illegal.
Focus on the behaviour and the intent behind it.
."The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.”
That the thing apologists
Focus on the behaviour and the intent behind it.
Fixed that for you.
For me, the larger concern was quite how many MPs had campaigned under a very clear manifesto the core tenet of which they then did everything in their power to reject...
Clarke had class in how he went about it. That's about it.
The proroguing achieved nothing, and frustrated nothing. The intent was to achieve a flagship policy of the government.
As it then worked out, all the issues with delivering that policy were resolved via a GE (one that Corbyn had to be shamed into delivering).
Let's not forget that at the time we had a minority government that the Opposition (and some Tory MPs) did everything in their power to prevent being able to operate without calling a vote of no confidence or being willing to support a bill under the FTPA.
When it comes to frustrating the ability of Parliament and Government to operate, virtually no one in the House of Commons comes out looking good.
Clarke had class in how he went about it. That's about it.
The proroguing achieved nothing, and frustrated nothing. The intent was to achieve a flagship policy of the government.
As it then worked out, all the issues with delivering that policy were resolved via a GE (one that Corbyn had to be shamed into delivering).
Let's not forget that at the time we had a minority government that the Opposition (and some Tory MPs) did everything in their power to prevent being able to operate without calling a vote of no confidence or being willing to support a bill under the FTPA.
When it comes to frustrating the ability of Parliament and Government to operate, virtually no one in the House of Commons comes out looking good.
Tuna said:
Lotobear said:
Heard on the local news tonight that CV19 has spiked in Durham in the last few days - does anyone know if this is linked to DC's trip up to Durham earlier this year - surely it's not a coincidence?
That's not how coronavirus works. Incubation time is days, not months.mx5nut will be along shortly with a weak attempt at point scoring.
I said earlier in this thread i recognised Cummings , I know I worked on the family estate in Durham back in the day as I'm from Durham , but I've just been speaking to a mate who asked if I remember him from being a doorman in europes worst nightclub " klute " in Durham .
And I do !
Google Klute Durham !
And I do !
Google Klute Durham !
markyb_lcy said:
Tuna said:
markyb_lcy said:
Illegal and unlawful seem reasonably interchangeable to me but of course I’m not legal expert.
There is a fairly important distinction One of the reasons Boris wasn't clapped in irons or sent to the colonies Fair comment.
Google said:
illegal ~ contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Focus on the behaviour and the intent behind it.
The intent behind it was to break the log jam of some distinctly undemocratic members of parliament who were determined to stop the government delivering on the mandate it had committed to.Of course some people are more than happy for government to be held to ransom on the grounds that it supports their personal points of view, and hell, preventing any forward motion is not unlawful, so that's fine and hang democracy
The comment by Francois to General Richards should be embarassing to any Tory supporter. Not only is it wholly inappropriate for anyone to talk to a General like that but it seems to be forgotten that the Tories have been in power for the last decade, subjected Defence to massive cuts, attempted to privatise most of it and most recently inflicted upon it a completely farcical re-organsiation, then make threats like "Cummings is going to get you....." Even if it was a joke, who the actual fk has overseen this last decade of disasters?, oh thats right....
k has overseen this last decade of disasters?, oh thats right....bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I found it fascinating at the time that when a Prime Minister prorogues Parliament and all 11 Supreme Court Justices unanimously rule he acted unlawfully in doing so and in their ruling say:
"The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.”
That the thing people get hung up on is whether unlawful is the same as illegal.
Focus on the behaviour and the intent behind it.
They are. They saw it as an action that got them one step closer to the holy grail of Brexit and the people most vocally against it were the "other team"."The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.”
That the thing people get hung up on is whether unlawful is the same as illegal.
Focus on the behaviour and the intent behind it.
Two reasons why they'd support just about anything regardless of ethics or lawfulness.
mx5nut said:
They are. They saw it as an action that got them one step closer to the holy grail of Brexit and the people most vocally against it were the "other team".
Two reasons why they'd support just about anything regardless of ethics or lawfulness.
Just think - your bitter opposition to Brexit made Cummings look like the better option.Two reasons why they'd support just about anything regardless of ethics or lawfulness.
Let that sink in for a little bit
Then pat yourself on the back.Dom could be in on the military review then? Wonder where his expertise is, probably take his Zenit along for a few snaps as well. Some Tory MP's going to start to gulp a bit. He don't like getting called into committees to explain stuff, it's beneath him.
Wonder who waved his security through.
Wonder who waved his security through.
Zirconia said:
Dom could be in on the military review then? Wonder where his expertise is, probably take his Zenit along for a few snaps as well. Some Tory MP's going to start to gulp a bit. He don't like getting called into committees to explain stuff, it's beneath him.
Wonder who waved his security through.
Not unprecedented, the national security adviser has no security experience. I have been assured that this is perfectly normal and not a political appointment because he is 'a safe pair of hands' and an all round good egg......Wonder who waved his security through.
Tuna said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Focus on the behaviour and the intent behind it.
The intent behind it was to break the log jam of some distinctly undemocratic members of parliament who were determined to stop the government delivering on the mandate it had committed to.Of course some people are more than happy for government to be held to ransom on the grounds that it supports their personal points of view, and hell, preventing any forward motion is not unlawful, so that's fine and hang democracy
I was as frustrated at the time as I imagine you were; the 'remainers' were wilfully ignoring the electorate's instructions and trying to impose their own will.
The democratic solution was an election rather than trying to lock the other side out by leaving the key in the back door. Boris should have conceded the threat of no deal to unlock the Opposition (as effectively happened later), rather than lying about the prorogation. Boris' problem with courts is they're not bound by political leanings or taking public statements at face value- they saw it for what it was rather than what he said it was.
That's a problem with Boris; he sometimes lies when he doesn't need to.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
ood intention isn't an excuse to breach democracy, though.
I was as frustrated at the time as I imagine you were; the 'remainers' were wilfully ignoring the electorate's instructions and trying to impose their own will.
The democratic solution was an election rather than trying to lock the other side out by leaving the key in the back door. Boris should have conceded the threat of no deal to unlock the Opposition (as effectively happened later), rather than lying about the prorogation. Boris' problem with courts is they're not bound by political leanings or taking public statements at face value- they saw it for what it was rather than what he said it was.
That's a problem with Boris; he sometimes lies when he doesn't need to.
All very fair points. I think we reached a low in politics last year, and whilst messy, the response was not unexpected. In many ways we were lucky that Farage turned out to be a busted flush and didn't manage to capitalise on the frustrations.I was as frustrated at the time as I imagine you were; the 'remainers' were wilfully ignoring the electorate's instructions and trying to impose their own will.
The democratic solution was an election rather than trying to lock the other side out by leaving the key in the back door. Boris should have conceded the threat of no deal to unlock the Opposition (as effectively happened later), rather than lying about the prorogation. Boris' problem with courts is they're not bound by political leanings or taking public statements at face value- they saw it for what it was rather than what he said it was.
That's a problem with Boris; he sometimes lies when he doesn't need to.
One of the issues here seems to be that certain political groups were so used to manipulating the process, that they have been shocked when confronted with concerted opposition. It doesn't justify the behaviour in any way, but the faux indignation when brinkmanship led to an aggressive response is tiresome.
biggbn said:
Zirconia said:
Dom could be in on the military review then? Wonder where his expertise is, probably take his Zenit along for a few snaps as well. Some Tory MP's going to start to gulp a bit. He don't like getting called into committees to explain stuff, it's beneath him.
Wonder who waved his security through.
Not unprecedented, the national security adviser has no security experience. I have been assured that this is perfectly normal and not a political appointment because he is 'a safe pair of hands' and an all round good egg......Wonder who waved his security through.
PRTVR said:
Is he not replacing Mark Sedwill? The one with all the experience, who said I think that Huawei should have a part in our 5 G network when everyone and his dog was saying no.
The everyone and his dog obviously does not include BJ who continued to allow Huawei involvement. Very glad BJ gave him £250k of our money to leave so as to appoint someone with no national security experience.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff