| Guardian front page today on 11:16 - Apr 4 with 2629 views | pickles110564 |
What about the facebook one's from Labour, do they count? |  | |  |
| Guardian front page today on 11:20 - Apr 4 with 2607 views | XYZ |
| Guardian front page today on 11:16 - Apr 4 by pickles110564 |
What about the facebook one's from Labour, do they count? |
Not really, if you know they're from Labour. These ads don't disclose who is paying for them - i.e. secret funders have spent £0.5m spiffing around Brexit ads in the last few months.
Why wouldn't they want to be known? |  | | |
| Guardian front page today on 11:35 - Apr 4 with 2569 views | No9 |
| Guardian front page today on 11:20 - Apr 4 by XYZ |
Not really, if you know they're from Labour. These ads don't disclose who is paying for them - i.e. secret funders have spent £0.5m spiffing around Brexit ads in the last few months.
Why wouldn't they want to be known? |
One has to wonder why the name 'Boris Johnson' appears on just about all this type of enquiry. | | | |
| Guardian front page today on 11:47 - Apr 4 with 2547 views | Swansea_Blue |
They've finally found some evidence for who's behind the Britain's Future adds have they? I'm surprised it wasn't Banks if I'm honest.
It's as murky as feck. |  |
| |
| Guardian front page today on 11:50 - Apr 4 with 2529 views | No9 |
| Guardian front page today on 11:47 - Apr 4 by Swansea_Blue |
They've finally found some evidence for who's behind the Britain's Future adds have they? I'm surprised it wasn't Banks if I'm honest.
It's as murky as feck. |
& it is no credit to the present government that they are doing nothing about it.
Maybe they know where it will lead to? | | | |
| Guardian front page today on 11:56 - Apr 4 with 2513 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Guardian front page today on 11:50 - Apr 4 by No9 |
& it is no credit to the present government that they are doing nothing about it.
Maybe they know where it will lead to? |
I'm still amazed that we're in a situation where the result of the referendum would probably have been voided, or at least suspended pending enquiries, had it been legally binding. But because it was advisory the breaches of electoral law can be ignored. How the heck does that work without undermining the integrity of the system? I'd be saying the same whichever way the vote went.
Talking about cheating, have you seen this - proper naughty. Nearly got away with it too 😂
| |
| |
| Guardian front page today on 11:58 - Apr 4 with 2503 views | lowhouseblue |
| Guardian front page today on 11:56 - Apr 4 by Swansea_Blue |
I'm still amazed that we're in a situation where the result of the referendum would probably have been voided, or at least suspended pending enquiries, had it been legally binding. But because it was advisory the breaches of electoral law can be ignored. How the heck does that work without undermining the integrity of the system? I'd be saying the same whichever way the vote went.
Talking about cheating, have you seen this - proper naughty. Nearly got away with it too 😂
|
'the result of the referendum would probably have been voided, or at least suspended' do you have a legally credible source for this assertion? |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Guardian front page today on 12:00 - Apr 4 with 2492 views | No9 |
| Guardian front page today on 11:58 - Apr 4 by lowhouseblue |
'the result of the referendum would probably have been voided, or at least suspended' do you have a legally credible source for this assertion? |
Think about it | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Guardian front page today on 12:03 - Apr 4 with 2475 views | No9 |
| Guardian front page today on 11:56 - Apr 4 by Swansea_Blue |
I'm still amazed that we're in a situation where the result of the referendum would probably have been voided, or at least suspended pending enquiries, had it been legally binding. But because it was advisory the breaches of electoral law can be ignored. How the heck does that work without undermining the integrity of the system? I'd be saying the same whichever way the vote went.
Talking about cheating, have you seen this - proper naughty. Nearly got away with it too 😂
|
As bad if not worse than the tory whips trying to get his side to break pairing agreements?
If nothing else this brexit muddle has really told us who the 'nasty party' really is | | | |
| Guardian front page today on 12:03 - Apr 4 with 2472 views | lowhouseblue |
| Guardian front page today on 12:00 - Apr 4 by No9 |
Think about it |
so that's a 'no' from you. let's wait and see if there's a more interesting answer. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Guardian front page today on 12:17 - Apr 4 with 2417 views | lowhouseblue |
i think you missed the word 'credible'. in the case you refer to, having dismissed the appeal on all 7 grounds, the judge noted that “the applicants clearly oppose the uk leaving the eu; and hold strong views to that effect” … “judicial review is not, and should not be regarded as, politics by another means.” | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Guardian front page today on 12:17 - Apr 4 with 2416 views | XYZ |
That's the one. I believe it was the Sue Wilson case. All the pleadings and arguments are available online. | | | |
| Guardian front page today on 12:22 - Apr 4 with 2396 views | lowhouseblue |
| Guardian front page today on 12:17 - Apr 4 by XYZ |
That's the one. I believe it was the Sue Wilson case. All the pleadings and arguments are available online. |
you know the case failed? [Post edited 4 Apr 2019 12:25]
| |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Guardian front page today on 12:25 - Apr 4 with 2386 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Guardian front page today on 11:58 - Apr 4 by lowhouseblue |
'the result of the referendum would probably have been voided, or at least suspended' do you have a legally credible source for this assertion? |
As in someone to quote, no.
Although if it was binding a court could have ordered it to be rerun on the basis of the Electoral Commission findings. Because it wasn't binding, they could not, it was simply a Parliamentary or Government matter, neither of whom seem to care. I'm fairly sure that's the legal position. | |
| |
| Guardian front page today on 12:25 - Apr 4 with 2386 views | XYZ |
| Guardian front page today on 12:22 - Apr 4 by lowhouseblue |
you know the case failed? [Post edited 4 Apr 2019 12:25]
|
Not very good on the law are you?
Check my post history and you'll find a few references to this case, each setting out the decision and reasons for it.
The result of the case does not mean that valid and authoritative legal arguments were not made during the proceedings.
The ball's in your court now - go find an authoritative counter argument. [Post edited 4 Apr 2019 12:26]
| | | |
| Guardian front page today on 12:29 - Apr 4 with 2364 views | lowhouseblue |
| Guardian front page today on 12:25 - Apr 4 by XYZ |
Not very good on the law are you?
Check my post history and you'll find a few references to this case, each setting out the decision and reasons for it.
The result of the case does not mean that valid and authoritative legal arguments were not made during the proceedings.
The ball's in your court now - go find an authoritative counter argument. [Post edited 4 Apr 2019 12:26]
|
a lawyer made a case. the court rejected it. lawyers can argue a whole range of things, sometimes eloquently, but we rely on the courts, and the courts alone, to determine what is a valid and authoritative legal argument.
I think this is a great case where people want something to be true, because it fits their political view, and they think that asserting it strongly enough makes it true.
if you're going to question my legal knowledge, perhaps share your own legal qualifications first, eh. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Guardian front page today on 12:33 - Apr 4 with 2347 views | lowhouseblue |
| Guardian front page today on 12:25 - Apr 4 by Swansea_Blue |
As in someone to quote, no.
Although if it was binding a court could have ordered it to be rerun on the basis of the Electoral Commission findings. Because it wasn't binding, they could not, it was simply a Parliamentary or Government matter, neither of whom seem to care. I'm fairly sure that's the legal position. |
"Although if it was binding a court could have ordered it to be rerun on the basis of the Electoral Commission findings. Because it wasn't binding, they could not"
again that's just an assertion. it is not legally established to be so. asserting stuff doesn't make it true. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Guardian front page today on 12:35 - Apr 4 with 2337 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Guardian front page today on 12:29 - Apr 4 by lowhouseblue |
a lawyer made a case. the court rejected it. lawyers can argue a whole range of things, sometimes eloquently, but we rely on the courts, and the courts alone, to determine what is a valid and authoritative legal argument.
I think this is a great case where people want something to be true, because it fits their political view, and they think that asserting it strongly enough makes it true.
if you're going to question my legal knowledge, perhaps share your own legal qualifications first, eh. |
That case is talking about a different issue to the one being discussed here. That was a case that the referendum as run (advisory) should still be overturned. We were talking about the position that had it been legally binding there would have been a legal route for it to be overturned. | |
| |
| Guardian front page today on 12:35 - Apr 4 with 2335 views | XYZ |
| Guardian front page today on 12:29 - Apr 4 by lowhouseblue |
a lawyer made a case. the court rejected it. lawyers can argue a whole range of things, sometimes eloquently, but we rely on the courts, and the courts alone, to determine what is a valid and authoritative legal argument.
I think this is a great case where people want something to be true, because it fits their political view, and they think that asserting it strongly enough makes it true.
if you're going to question my legal knowledge, perhaps share your own legal qualifications first, eh. |
Utter b*llocks. It wasn't about the result of that case. It had nothing to do with the result of that case. It was an interesting side point to the argument they were making in that case.
I've worked in and around the law for 30 years. I have a law degree. I have two other professional qualifications. I work with lawyers every day. Clients use me to run their lawyers because they know the lawyers won't be able to dick me around.
Now, as I said, you've got the legal argument you asked for. It's up to you to find the counter argument. | | | |
| Guardian front page today on 12:42 - Apr 4 with 2304 views | XYZ |
| Guardian front page today on 12:35 - Apr 4 by XYZ |
Utter b*llocks. It wasn't about the result of that case. It had nothing to do with the result of that case. It was an interesting side point to the argument they were making in that case.
I've worked in and around the law for 30 years. I have a law degree. I have two other professional qualifications. I work with lawyers every day. Clients use me to run their lawyers because they know the lawyers won't be able to dick me around.
Now, as I said, you've got the legal argument you asked for. It's up to you to find the counter argument. |
Ah, the downarrow from lowhouse. So eloquent. | | | |
| Guardian front page today on 12:42 - Apr 4 with 2303 views | lowhouseblue |
| Guardian front page today on 12:35 - Apr 4 by XYZ |
Utter b*llocks. It wasn't about the result of that case. It had nothing to do with the result of that case. It was an interesting side point to the argument they were making in that case.
I've worked in and around the law for 30 years. I have a law degree. I have two other professional qualifications. I work with lawyers every day. Clients use me to run their lawyers because they know the lawyers won't be able to dick me around.
Now, as I said, you've got the legal argument you asked for. It's up to you to find the counter argument. |
great then you can provide a link to a court finding that the result would have been over-ruled. not someone's argument that that would have been the outcome. otherwise you're just making a rather shouty assertion. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Guardian front page today on 12:45 - Apr 4 with 2280 views | BlueBadger |
| Guardian front page today on 12:35 - Apr 4 by XYZ |
Utter b*llocks. It wasn't about the result of that case. It had nothing to do with the result of that case. It was an interesting side point to the argument they were making in that case.
I've worked in and around the law for 30 years. I have a law degree. I have two other professional qualifications. I work with lawyers every day. Clients use me to run their lawyers because they know the lawyers won't be able to dick me around.
Now, as I said, you've got the legal argument you asked for. It's up to you to find the counter argument. |
Good old Lowehouse, he's really embracing our expert-free future. |  |
| |
| Guardian front page today on 12:47 - Apr 4 with 2274 views | XYZ |
| Guardian front page today on 12:42 - Apr 4 by lowhouseblue |
great then you can provide a link to a court finding that the result would have been over-ruled. not someone's argument that that would have been the outcome. otherwise you're just making a rather shouty assertion. |
You're making yourself look a bit silly now.
It wasn't a binding referendum, therefore there is no court case. Comprendez vous?
Now, as you've taken up peoples time finding what you asked for, maybe show the courtesy of finding a counter argument or conceding you can't. | | | |
| Guardian front page today on 12:53 - Apr 4 with 2245 views | lowhouseblue |
| Guardian front page today on 12:47 - Apr 4 by XYZ |
You're making yourself look a bit silly now.
It wasn't a binding referendum, therefore there is no court case. Comprendez vous?
Now, as you've taken up peoples time finding what you asked for, maybe show the courtesy of finding a counter argument or conceding you can't. |
ah, there was no court case. so all your have is an argument which a court may or may not uphold. and in the absence of anything more you're therefore just making an assertion.
I don't need to provide a counter argument - my point is only that you are making an unproven assertion. for it to be unproven I don't need to show that it is wrong - just that it is unproven. and we've now agreed that. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
