[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

the supreme court have unanimously stated that he broke the law, so he did break the law, it was unlawful. You can't have a government that makes the laws of the country that they expect all to abide by, no ifs no but's, turning round and ignoring the supreme court or saying that they are wrong. The hypocrisy is amazing

Well surely the attorney general should take some of the blame then ,as the PM asked him if it was lawful,I think we should just have an election now, it's such a farce, and of course no one should purposely break the law.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Well surely the attorney general should take some of the blame then ,as the PM asked him if it was lawful,I think we should just have an election now, it's such a farce, and of course no one should purposely break the law.

I think most lawyers probably would have agreed with the AG at the time as did the High Court

The Supreme Court have decreed it unlawful but there's not really any obvious law that has been broken, they've just decided it's an affront to our constitution which itself is not written down anywhere so it's all pretty nebulous. The Supreme Court have effectively set a new law or precedent themselves by making this ruling.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I think most lawyers probably would have agreed with the AG at the time as did the High Court

The Supreme Court have decreed it unlawful but there's not really any obvious law that has been broken, they've just decided it's an affront to our constitution which itself is not written down anywhere so it's all pretty nebulous. The Supreme Court have effectively set a new law or precedent themselves by making this ruling.

Some are suggesting because it was an 11-0 verdict the judges were remainers as if it was an unbiased vote you'de have got a at least a couple voting differently, I hope that's not true, as it means we cant trust anyone,but to be honest its hard to now.Apparently John Major tried to do the same thing but it wasn't taken to court, but this time it has getting more confused by the day

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Some are suggesting because it was an 11-0 verdict the judges were remainers as if it was an unbiased vote you'de have got a at least a couple voting differently, I hope that's not true, as it means we cant trust anyone,but to be honest its hard to now.Apparently John Major tried to do the same thing but it wasn't taken to court, but this time it has getting more confused by the day

Anyone suggesting nonsense like that is..well a bit of an idiot tbh. Yeah, 11 supreme court judges were biased and just voted as they want to stop brexit..judges always vote on personal reasons, afterall..

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Some are suggesting because it was an 11-0 verdict the judges were remainers as if it was an unbiased vote you'de have got a at least a couple voting differently, I hope that's not true, as it means we cant trust anyone,but to be honest its hard to now.Apparently John Major tried to do the same thing but it wasn't taken to court, but this time it has getting more confused by the day

have you ever had any dealings with judges? I've had a few encounters and even if you believe in yourself 100%, these people are on a completely different planet and can judge against you. To get 11 judges agreeing on something is a big achievement. Leaving or remaining is a trivial concern to judges, it just doesn't enter into their thought processes, they deal in abstract concepts not real world issues

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

have you ever had any dealings with judges? I've had a few encounters and even if you believe in yourself 100%, these people are on a completely different planet and can judge against you. To get 11 judges agreeing on something is a big achievement. Leaving or remaining is a trivial concern to judges, it just doesn't enter into their thought processes, they deal in abstract concepts not real world issues

I have yes,in the case of Butler Sloss ,she imo caused no end of heartache for the family of a murdered toddler as she thwarted the parents pleas at every turn,and yes Ive been called up for jury service aswell,but they are human and have their beliefs so it does go a long way to how they see things, I know if the case I was on was the murder of lets say a child,I would be wanting them guilty before I ever got into court, you cant change your mind thought, I don't believe judges are any different,they are supposed to be I know,but we are supposed to be a lot of things we are not.Judges are humas like us so will have thoughts on what they want.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Well surely the attorney general should take some of the blame then ,as the PM asked him if it was lawful,I think we should just have an election now, it's such a farce, and of course no one should purposely break the law.

remember the previous attorney general, when he was asked to comment on the changes to the back stop, and then loads of people disagreed with his interpretation, and May looked like she could have stabbed him there and then

When there is no precedent to fall back on, the law can get very interpretive, thats why they used 11 judges on the supreme court, it could have been much smaller.

For me it's about respect for the law, there are many laws we don't agree with, but as law abiding citizens we abide by the law.

The PM should abide by the law, which he has, and if he wants the population to follow his laws, it's not a good look to try and get around it at every opportunity