@dekkzz78 But that was the point. He was suppose to lead, he did get tough with the descenters but clearly, these days, nobody in this country wants a leader. They say they do but they don't really and the courts are now willing plunge the country even further down the sewer and people think that's OK because it suites their short sighted views. If Boris had said he was revoking article 50 I'd have been happy with that, at least it would have ended. But we're no better off, nothing has changed.
Conversation
Notices
-
dick_turpin (dickturpin@mastodon.org.uk@mastodon.org.uk)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 10:09:17 UTC dick_turpin -
rpcutts (rpcutts@brainvom.it)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 11:09:30 UTC rpcutts @dick_turpin @dekkzz78 and others think that's OK because they believe that the rule of law still has a place in modern society.
-
dick_turpin (dickturpin@mastodon.org.uk@mastodon.org.uk)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 11:44:47 UTC dick_turpin @rpcutts @dekkzz78 And if the Scottish court (I wonder why they went to Scottishland?) had thrown it out then it wouldn't have been "Rule of law" and if the High court throws it out on Tuesday it won't be "Rule of law" sounds to me like the referendum all over again. "It's not legally binding" #LeSigh
-
Stephen Michael Kellat (alpacaherder@mastodon.sdf.org)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 11:45:58 UTC Stephen Michael Kellat @rpcutts @dick_turpin @dekkzz78 None of the very recent events count as “rule of law” being vindicated. If anything Speaker Bercow was trying to be the second coming of the dastardly rogue Speaker William Lenthall from the English Civil War.
-
rpcutts (rpcutts@brainvom.it)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 11:50:31 UTC rpcutts @dick_turpin @dekkzz78 well, you're right, it's not legally binding, just because you say things that are true in a sarcastic way doesn't make them false.
So for one point, the Scottish court got involved because, for now, they are still part of the UK.
And to the other point, no, despite how you seem to enjoy projecting what my opinions are. If thy had found in favour of the government, which I feel they probably should have, then yes thet would have been rule of law.
-
rpcutts (rpcutts@brainvom.it)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 11:53:04 UTC rpcutts @dick_turpin @dekkzz78 and the High court has already found in favour of the government (which, yes, is also a part of the rule of law). So I assume you meant the Supreme Court.
And yes if the Supreme Court finds in favour of the government which I imagine the will and think, on balance, they probably should. That will be an application of the rule of law.
Things can't just happen because somebody wants them to, no matter how frustrating or complex. These institutions exist for a reason.
-
dick_turpin (dickturpin@mastodon.org.uk@mastodon.org.uk)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 11:53:17 UTC dick_turpin @rpcutts @dekkzz78 I have no idea what your political views are. If anything they're a mystery to me as one minute I think your on one side and the next I think you're on the other. I can only respond to what you write how I feel or at least a response in terms of how I feel to what is written, if that makes sense?
-
rpcutts (rpcutts@brainvom.it)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 11:56:21 UTC rpcutts @dick_turpin
ok, mate, my appols.but please understand that a phrase like
" had thrown it out then it wouldn't have been "Rule of law" and if the High court throws it out on Tuesday it won't be "Rule of law" "
Comes across as complete bad faith. So I get riled.
_standing down_ 😘
(I'm a conservative, I believe in these institutions and these mechanisms and hate to see them trampled under the weight of populism.)
-
dick_turpin (dickturpin@mastodon.org.uk@mastodon.org.uk)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 12:01:57 UTC dick_turpin @rpcutts Hmm? OK, I apologise. I think what I was trying to say was, the phrase "Rule of law" at the moment, in this whole #Brexit cesspool is meaningless. yet *some* people (Not necessarily you) bandy it around as some sort of argument winning stick.
P.S. Yes, I do mean the High Court.
-
rpcutts (rpcutts@brainvom.it)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 12:10:30 UTC rpcutts @dick_turpin but to the point, it's hard to see the Supreme Court deciding that this is a legal matter, honstly can't see it.
Bottom line for me is that it was a political move. (Completely against convention, which, as a rule, I think should be frowned upon and discoouraged). But our constitioin a is unorganised, spread out, and in this case, as far as I know, unwritten. So for the scottish cout to declare it unconstitutional in the eyes of the law is a heckin stretch. The Supremes won't.
-
dick_turpin (dickturpin@mastodon.org.uk@mastodon.org.uk)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 12:13:00 UTC dick_turpin @rpcutts And there was me thinking the High Court would throw it out because otherwise they would have had to send the Rozzers round to Liz's house. 🤣
-
dick_turpin (dickturpin@mastodon.org.uk@mastodon.org.uk)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 12:15:39 UTC dick_turpin @rpcutts And there was me thinking the High Court would throw it out because otherwise they would have had to sent the Rozzers round to Liz's house. 🤣
-
rpcutts (rpcutts@brainvom.it)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 12:16:25 UTC rpcutts -
dick_turpin (dickturpin@mastodon.org.uk@mastodon.org.uk)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2019 12:20:24 UTC dick_turpin @rpcutts I think he would have been far more polite.
-