He fought the law, and the law won

Talk about anything you want in here.

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6128
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by loan_star » Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:38 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:20 am
Darlogramps wrote:
EDJOHNS wrote:[
Ah Democracy....
and means that goods with short sell by dates will become scarce (not only bacon and cheese but also insulin too).

You have already been told and assured that medical supplies wil NOT be a problem as they have flights ready to go if need be. But hey, keep on throwing incorrect mud.
Presume you can find something official to back yourself up here?

You tend to have trouble backing yourself up so I won’t hold my breath.

P.S. Does anyone know what “incorrect mud” looks like?
EDJOHNS has gone awfully quiet when asked to provide evidence to back himself up.

Again.
Well he did ssay on the other thread that you were on ignore so he probably hasn't seen the post.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:40 pm

And the multiple other occasions he’s been asked to provide evidence for his claims but hasn’t? What about those?

And is it the behaviour of a rational, sensible person, to ignore requests for evidence and make out that is some kind of personal attack?

EDJOHNS is behaving like the playground bully. Throws his weight around but the minute anyway stands up to him, he runs off crying.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6128
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by loan_star » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:32 pm

Doesn't matter how much you ask, if he cant see your posts then he isn't going to reply.
Maybe hes just sick of the arguing. Theres times someone can put what they believe is evidence up to support their view but there will be someone that doesn't believe that evidence and will try and pick holes in it. When that happens its time to walk away because agreement will never be reached.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:58 pm

loan_star wrote:Doesn't matter how much you ask, if he cant see your posts then he isn't going to reply.
Maybe hes just sick of the arguing. Theres times someone can put what they believe is evidence up to support their view but there will be someone that doesn't believe that evidence and will try and pick holes in it. When that happens its time to walk away because agreement will never be reached.
Not sure what this waffle is, but none of it is relevant.

I’m merely pointing out his reaction to being asked to justify himself is to lash out at others and hide away.

That tells you a lot about his character and lack of intellect.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6128
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by loan_star » Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:27 pm

Nothing wrong at all with what I said, he's ignoring you and doesn't want to bother with you.
If thats waffle in your eyes then so be it.

EDJOHNS
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by EDJOHNS » Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:51 pm

loan_star wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 7:38 pm

Well he did say on the other thread that you were on ignore so he probably hasn't seen the post.


Correct and fully intended, sadly he came back because |I saw this !!




Darlogramps wrote:

P.S. Does anyone know what “incorrect mud” looks like?
EDJOHNS has gone awfully quiet when asked to provide evidence to back himself up.

Again.

Nop. Having shown you have no ability to take note of any evidence when offered I see no point in carrying on.




Post by Darlogramps » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:40 pm

EDJOHNS is behaving like the playground bully. Throws his weight around but the minute ANYWAY stands up to him, he runs off crying.


For someone who takes such delight in pointing out others mistakes you really should not offer up the evidence of your own fallibility





by Darlogramps » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:40 pm

And is it the behaviour of a rational, sensible person, to ignore requests for evidence and make out that is some kind of personal attack?

EDJOHNS is behaving like the playground bully. Throws his weight around but the minute anyway stands up to him, he runs off crying.



Post by Darlogramps » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:58 pm

I’m merely pointing out his reaction to being asked to justify himself is to lash out at others and hide away.

That tells you a lot about his character and lack of intellect.



Is it the "behaviour of a rational sensible person" to sit at a computer all day every day and cause argument and keep that going even when told the other person has no intention of continuing.

Is it not in fact the attitude of a bully who, being ignored, goes to another place to try to continue a non existent fight?

The only person I have "lashed out at" is you. The only reason I lashed out at you is because you are an obnoxious self opinionated prat.

And with that I return you to the ignore list and hope people don't bother to feed your need for the public eye by responding to your self aggrandizing Bullshine

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:06 pm

EDJOHNS wrote: Is it not in fact the attitude of a bully who, being ignored, goes to another place to try to continue a non existent fight?

The only person I have "lashed out at" is you. The only reason I lashed out at you is because you are an obnoxious self opinionated prat.

And with that I return you to the ignore list and hope people don't bother to feed your need for the public eye by responding to your self aggrandizing Bullshine
That’s the second time you claim to have put me on your Ignore list, only to then reply immediately. You’re clearly reading everything I post, why pretend otherwise? It’s hardly ignoring me if you’re responding directly to me!

But now we know you can’t resist taking a peak at what I’m saying, let’s try again - can you provide any evidence to back up your claims?

We’re all waiting....
EDJOHNS wrote:.Having shown you have no ability to take note of any evidence when offered I see no point in carrying on.
You keep saying this, but again never go into detail. Which bits of evidence have I ignored? The one single video of Merkel from which you declare is representative of 83 million people? That’s not ignoring it, but simply pointing out the flaw of coming to a conclusion about an entire nation based on one short video.

Disputing the evidence isn’t the same as dismissing it. It’s for you to then justify why it proves the point. You didn’t do that because you couldn’t.

P.S. I’m more than happy for an unpleasant, thuggish xenophobe like yourself to dislike me. If you dislike me, I’ve done something correct.

Last edited by Darlogramps on Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:33 am

loan_star wrote:Nothing wrong at all with what I said, he's ignoring you and doesn't want to bother with you.
If thats waffle in your eyes then so be it.
So, about him ignoring me, we actually know EDJOHNS is reading everything. As proven in his previous reply.

Therefore we can conclude he’s using it as a ruse to avoid scrutiny of his own worthless opinions, which justifies my observations about his character.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6128
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by loan_star » Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:27 pm

I would think it’s down to the fact I quoted you in my reply. He mustn’t see the original message if you are on block.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:51 pm

loan_star wrote:I would think it’s down to the fact I quoted you in my reply. He mustn’t see the original message if you are on block.
Except he’s done exactly the same before. Claimed to have blocked me, then replied and so on. He devoted a whole thread to it months back.

Like I say, he claims to want to ignore me but is reading everything I post and he’s responding (see above).

Which means he’s seeing the requests for evidence but is hiding away from it, because he doesn’t have any.

It’s OK for you to admit you’re wrong loan_star.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

karlo-cardiff
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:16 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by karlo-cardiff » Sat Oct 05, 2019 5:27 am

Isnt it time to stop this borefest..... Every thread that becomes boring always involves 1 particular individual!!!

Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk


User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6128
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by loan_star » Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:51 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:51 pm
loan_star wrote:I would think it’s down to the fact I quoted you in my reply. He mustn’t see the original message if you are on block.
Except he’s done exactly the same before. Claimed to have blocked me, then replied and so on. He devoted a whole thread to it months back.

Like I say, he claims to want to ignore me but is reading everything I post and he’s responding (see above).

Which means he’s seeing the requests for evidence but is hiding away from it, because he doesn’t have any.

It’s OK for you to admit you’re wrong loan_star.
But I’m not wrong. He’s seen the quoted comment and then quite possibly unblocked you again to see what you have been saying again.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:56 pm

karlo-cardiff wrote:Isnt it time to stop this borefest..... Every thread that becomes boring always involves 1 particular individual!!!

Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk
And you’re extending that. Bravo boyo.

I find you saying you find things boring to be tedious in itself. If it’s boring, it’s bizarre to comment on them.
Last edited by Darlogramps on Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:05 pm

loan_star wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:51 pm
loan_star wrote:I would think it’s down to the fact I quoted you in my reply. He mustn’t see the original message if you are on block.
Except he’s done exactly the same before. Claimed to have blocked me, then replied and so on. He devoted a whole thread to it months back.

Like I say, he claims to want to ignore me but is reading everything I post and he’s responding (see above).

Which means he’s seeing the requests for evidence but is hiding away from it, because he doesn’t have any.

It’s OK for you to admit you’re wrong loan_star.
But I’m not wrong. He’s seen the quoted comment and then quite possibly unblocked you again to see what you have been saying again.
That’s literally what I’m saying has happened! Can’t you read?

What’s the point of blocking someone if you’re going to take them off to see what they’re saying? He’s done it at least three times now.

You’re literally arguing against yourself now. First you claimed he didn’t remove me to see what I said, and now you’re saying he is. At least be consistent.

And as you’re getting yourself in such a tangle, I can declare victory.

ImageImageImage
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:03 pm

What exactly is any of this achieving?

Gramps: you make the occasional decent post but you should try forgiving people and moving on sometimes. This petty vindictiveness doesn't help anyone and it completely derails the thread as it''s now turned into nothing more than a pissing contest. Even the way you initially asked for evidence was vindictive, and attempting to get a rise out of said person. And then you decide to start a fight with with everyone else because why? They wronged you sometime in in the past in a different thread?

Anyone care to get this thread back on track?

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:47 pm

I'll try:

Lady Hale in non-impartiality shocker. Turns out she has an axe to grind against Johnson and men in general:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/supre ... son-644421

Will the left now call her sexist and declare her an unperson? Will they fuck.

Plus she has a clear bias which throws the supreme court decision (and the supreme court itself) into question, not that I agreed with it to begin with.

EDJOHNS
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by EDJOHNS » Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:01 am

DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:47 pm
I'll try:

Lady Hale in non-impartiality shocker. Turns out she has an axe to grind against Johnson and men in general:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/supre ... son-644421

Will the left now call her sexist and declare her an unperson? Will they fuck.

Plus she has a clear bias which throws the supreme court decision (and the supreme court itself) into question, not that I agreed with it to begin with.
The only question is, is there anyone out there who is still shocked by this sort of "news"?.
Let's start with Who picked the panel of judges? Whoever it was certainly did not think about perceptions. 10 remainers and 1 leaver? You are going to get a totally unbiased view from a split like that.
I am so exhausted by it all the only interest I have left is to wonder what the hell BJ has up his sleeve. I doubt the offer he made will be accepted but he still seems supremely confident we are leaving on 31st. Can it possibly be any other than in some way making the extensions we have had "null and void and of no consequence"?

EDJOHNS
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by EDJOHNS » Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:08 am

loan_star wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:51 pm
Darlogramps wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:51 pm
loan_star wrote:I would think it’s down to the fact I quoted you in my reply. He mustn’t see the original message if you are on block.
Except he’s done exactly the same before. Claimed to have blocked me, then replied and so on. He devoted a whole thread to it months back.

Like I say, he claims to want to ignore me but is reading everything I post and he’s responding (see above).

Which means he’s seeing the requests for evidence but is hiding away from it, because he doesn’t have any.

It’s OK for you to admit you’re wrong loan_star.
But I’m not wrong. He’s seen the quoted comment and then quite possibly unblocked you again to see what you have been saying again.
Let it go loan star, even in this "argument" he changes things to fit his agenda. The word is not BLOCK but IGNORE.
What you said was exactly what I did.
There really is no point in continuing to try to discuss anything with him as we all know he is always correct from behind a keyboard, but would not have the balls to say boo if stood face to face

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:31 am

EDJOHNS wrote:
loan_star wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:51 pm
Darlogramps wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:51 pm
loan_star wrote:I would think it’s down to the fact I quoted you in my reply. He mustn’t see the original message if you are on block.
Except he’s done exactly the same before. Claimed to have blocked me, then replied and so on. He devoted a whole thread to it months back.

Like I say, he claims to want to ignore me but is reading everything I post and he’s responding (see above).

Which means he’s seeing the requests for evidence but is hiding away from it, because he doesn’t have any.

It’s OK for you to admit you’re wrong loan_star.
But I’m not wrong. He’s seen the quoted comment and then quite possibly unblocked you again to see what you have been saying again.
Let it go loan star, even in this "argument" he changes things to fit his agenda. The word is not BLOCK but IGNORE.
What you said was exactly what I did.
There really is no point in continuing to try to discuss anything with him as we all know he is always correct from behind a keyboard, but would not have the balls to say boo if stood face to face
Says the elderly xenophobe who hides away from providing evidence when requested.

You’re in no position to lecture anyone about speaking face-to-face. You run off when challenged on here, so goodness knows how much of a coward you’d be in real life.

And block is the same thing as ignore. Even that is beyond your tiny little mind.

Last edited by Darlogramps on Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:41 am

DarloOnTheUp wrote: Even the way you initially asked for evidence was vindictive, and attempting to get a rise out of said person.
No it wasn’t. It was a request for him to back himself up, nothing more than that. Don’t twist things to suit your arguments, you’re better than that.

What was it you said in another thread? Attack the evidence not me. Yet your entire post is an attack on me and criticism of my character.

My issue is EDJOHNS makes ludicrous statements and refuses to justify it.

Under pressure, EDJOHNS cracks all the time. He lashes out, gets abusive, plays the victim and is now pretending to hide behind the ignore button. Does anyone think that is the behaviour of a decent, intelligent bloke? Of course it’s not. No one should be able to make a ludicrous statement and then hide away from justifying it.

The man is an insult to basic decency and intelligence and anyone defending his behaviour (and providing excuses for his xenophobia - as you did) is just as contemptible.

Try condemning his abusiveness, racism and cowardice before making ad hominem attacks on me.
Last edited by Darlogramps on Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:41 am, edited 3 times in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:52 am

DarloOnTheUp wrote:I'll try:

Lady Hale in non-impartiality shocker. Turns out she has an axe to grind against Johnson and men in general:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/supre ... son-644421

Will the left now call her sexist and declare her an unperson? Will they fuck.

Plus she has a clear bias which throws the supreme court decision (and the supreme court itself) into question, not that I agreed with it to begin with.
Biased man accuses person who thinks differently to him of being biased.

And what of the 10 other supreme justices? Are they all in on this grand conspiracy?

This is nonsensical and you know it. You’re an intelligent bloke, but indulging in conspiracy theories because it’s more of a comfort blanket than facing reality is spineless and naive (at best).

This is something we see on ALL sides - smearing people who think differently as having ulterior motives. It’s right out of the Corbynista or Tommy Robinson playbook.

Also, what was it you said about not going for people’s character? Yet here you are doing just that about Lady Hale. Seems “don’t go after their character” is a mantra that’s optional if it comes to someone you disagree with.

Johnson overstretched himself by proroguing for as long as he did. He misled the monarch and broke the law. He should have resigned.

He wanted a five-week prorogation when four to six days is more than enough. Why? To shut down scrutiny from Parliament in the run up to the Brexit deadline. We know this because the Supreme Court provided a thorough, evidence-based judgement on this, and the Government failed to provide a sufficient justification for the length of prorogation.

If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:31 am

I see my points fell on deaf ears again, never mind.

And I'll condemn whatever I want to condemn, thank you very much. I know it contradicts with your belief that you've got the moral highground (hint: you haven't) but that's not my problem. Now EDJOHNS is also a racist? When did that happen? As if constantly referring to him as a xenophobe in an attempt to utterly destroy his character was bad enough, now you're making up new labels. Great, absolutely great. There's a difference between ad hominem attacks (as you put it) and attempting to completely destroy someone's character whereby said person becomes non-redeemable. They're basically an unperson in your eyes, and you want everyone else to think the same. Well no, I won't. You ain't the good guy here, no matter how much you try to convince yourself, and everyone else, that you are.

I won't condemn him for being those things as I don't agree with the labels. I also don't see things in such black and white terms as you. I've tried to explain all this in another thread but it's clearly gone over your head.

Either way, it completely ruins the thread. Now I'm part of the same bloody pissing contest. You antagonise people on purpose in a vindictive manner, the thread descends into s***, all the while you play the victim and try and take the moral highground. Well I'm sorry, but no, you have no right to. I also don't see the point in continuing like this: I'm willing to move on and get back to the topic in hand.

With regards to the Supreme Court, it's not a conspiracy theory to question something. The Supreme Court is only a recent thing (it sounds like an old English tradition but it isn't) as it was set up in 2009.

It's my belief that the courts should not have gotten involved in this as it's purely a political matter, as decided by the High Court. It also sets a dangerous precedent.

Then throw in the clear bias of the Supreme Court judges and it puts the whole thing into question.

If the Supreme Court is going to have bias, and get involved in political decisions, then we need a system like the USA. As it stands, a bunch of unelected, biased judges have ruled against all precedent. Plus it's yet another attempt by the Remainers to overturn the democratic result of 2016, and it's getting tiresome.

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:57 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
DarloOnTheUp wrote:I'll try:

Lady Hale in non-impartiality shocker. Turns out she has an axe to grind against Johnson and men in general:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/supre ... son-644421

Will the left now call her sexist and declare her an unperson? Will they fuck.

Plus she has a clear bias which throws the supreme court decision (and the supreme court itself) into question, not that I agreed with it to begin with.
Biased man accuses person who thinks differently to him of being biased.

And what of the 10 other supreme justices? Are they all in on this grand conspiracy?

This is nonsensical and you know it. You’re an intelligent bloke, but indulging in conspiracy theories because it’s more of a comfort blanket than facing reality is spineless and naive (at best).

This is something we see on ALL sides - smearing people who think differently as having ulterior motives. It’s right out of the Corbynista or Tommy Robinson playbook.

Also, what was it you said about not going for people’s character? Yet here you are doing just that about Lady Hale. Seems “don’t go after their character” is a mantra that’s optional if it comes to someone you disagree with.

Johnson overstretched himself by proroguing for as long as he did. He misled the monarch and broke the law. He should have resigned.

He wanted a five-week prorogation when four to six days is more than enough. Why? To shut down scrutiny from Parliament in the run up to the Brexit deadline. We know this because the Supreme Court provided a thorough, evidence-based judgement on this, and the Government failed to provide a sufficient justification for the length of prorogation.
This agreement thing is catching on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:45 pm

DarloOnTheUp wrote:With regards to the Supreme Court, it's not a conspiracy theory to question something. The Supreme Court is only a recent thing (it sounds like an old English tradition but it isn't) as it was set up in 2009.

It's my belief that the courts should not have gotten involved in this as it's purely a political matter, as decided by the High Court. It also sets a dangerous precedent.

Then throw in the clear bias of the Supreme Court judges and it puts the whole thing into question.

If the Supreme Court is going to have bias, and get involved in political decisions, then we need a system like the USA. As it stands, a bunch of unelected, biased judges have ruled against all precedent. Plus it's yet another attempt by the Remainers to overturn the democratic result of 2016, and it's getting tiresome.
It’s called the Supreme Court for a reason, it’s higher than the High Court - it’s the ultimate arbiter on interpretation of the law, it doesn’t make laws and it doesn’t make political decisions. It sits in judgment when asked to clarify a point of law and when it has already been through the lower courts.

But if you’re wanting to rely only on politicians (especially Johnson who is a moral bankrupt in every sphere of his life) to adhere to procedures and principles of our gentlemen’s agreement of an unwritten constitution, then the unlawful proroguing of Parliament is one example of an eventual outcome.

As Darlogramps has already stated, the 11 justices unanimously and comprehensively set out their reasoning for the judgment, have a read of it or watch the statement:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/prorogation/index.html

If you think the Supreme Court is biased and you believe that is a bad thing, why are you wanting politically appointed judges? Imagine how bad judgments would be if the justices were political appointees! We’d have the American mess of political obstruction and judgments based on affiliation to a party - instead of the separation of The Law and The Executive we have here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:03 pm

QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:45 pm
It’s called the Supreme Court for a reason, it’s higher than the High Court - it’s the ultimate arbiter on interpretation of the law, it doesn’t make laws and it doesn’t make political decisions. It sits in judgment when asked to clarify a point of law and when it has already been through the lower courts.
Yet it was only recently created, and by a Labour government.
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:45 pm
As Darlogramps has already stated, the 11 justices unanimously and comprehensively set out their reasoning for the judgment, have a read of it or watch the statement:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/prorogation/index.html
I know the judgment, and I disagree with it.
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:45 pm
If you think the Supreme Court is biased and you believe that is a bad thing, why are you wanting politically appointed judges? Imagine how bad judgments would be if the justices were political appointees!
This is a strawman: I didn't say I wanted politically appointed judges. I said if the judges are going to get involved in political decisions, and if they are going to have clear biases, then our current system doesn't work.
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:45 pm
We’d have the American mess of political obstruction and judgments based on affiliation to a party
Yeah I know, I'm glad we agree on this point, and this is exactly what I was getting at.

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by QuakerPete » Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:29 pm

DarloOnTheUp wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:45 pm
It’s called the Supreme Court for a reason, it’s higher than the High Court - it’s the ultimate arbiter on interpretation of the law, it doesn’t make laws and it doesn’t make political decisions. It sits in judgment when asked to clarify a point of law and when it has already been through the lower courts.
Yet it was only recently created, and by a Labour government.
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:45 pm
As Darlogramps has already stated, the 11 justices unanimously and comprehensively set out their reasoning for the judgment, have a read of it or watch the statement:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/prorogation/index.html
I know the judgment, and I disagree with it.
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:45 pm
If you think the Supreme Court is biased and you believe that is a bad thing, why are you wanting politically appointed judges? Imagine how bad judgments would be if the justices were political appointees!
This is a strawman: I didn't say I wanted politically appointed judges. I said if the judges are going to get involved in political decisions, and if they are going to have clear biases, then our current system doesn't work.
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:45 pm
We’d have the American mess of political obstruction and judgments based on affiliation to a party
Yeah I know, I'm glad we agree on this point, and this is exactly what I was getting at.
Seriously, you think the setting up of the Supreme Court by a Labour Government is relevant? You think the timing is relevant?Your conspiracy theories are going into overload.
“If the Supreme Court is going to have bias, and get involved in political decisions, then we need a system like the USA” - you started off with a false and unproven premise of bias and added a “need” for the American system as the alternative. Theirs *are* political appointees.
The Supreme Court will be gutted you disagree with their judgment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:14 pm

QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:29 pm
Seriously, you think the setting up of the Supreme Court by a Labour Government is relevant? You think the timing is relevant?Your conspiracy theories are going into overload.
Sorry, I didn't explain myself properly there. I meant that it's only a very recent invention by a government with a specific worldview, not that it was a conspiracy or anything. There were issues with the concept of a Supreme Court pointed out at its inception, and it appears these are showing now. It certainly isn't infallible or immune from criticism as you're attempting to portray.
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:29 pm
“If the Supreme Court is going to have bias, and get involved in political decisions, then we need a system like the USA” - you started off with a false and unproven premise of bias and added a “need” for the American system as the alternative. Theirs *are* political appointees.
It's not unproven, most of them are Remainers, and Lady Hale clearly has a bias against Boris Johnson, and is reveling in that fact.

And again, another strawman: I said if the Supreme Court is going to get involved in political decisions, and have clear biases, then we need a system like the USA's.

I didn't say I wanted this, I didn't say this was the only option, I said our current system doesn't work as it stands, so we'd need something different if the above is going to be the norm.

I don't think it will be the norm though as it's only being done to stop Brexit, but the issues with the Supreme Court in its current guise are clear to see.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:49 pm

The depths to which DOTU has plummeted, having previously been a respectable poster on here, borders on the tragic.
DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:31 am
I see my points fell on deaf ears again, never mind.

And I'll condemn whatever I want to condemn, thank you very much. I know it contradicts with your belief that you've got the moral highground (hint: you haven't)
I absolutely have. EDJOHNS made out-and-out xenophobic remarks. Xenophobia - the irrational fear or dislike of foreigners.

EDJOHNS: "I hate the arrogant warmongering bastards with a passion"
EDJOHNS: "I openly detest them as a race, that is my right. I "

On those two remarks alone, even someone with a moderate level of intelligence can see that easily fits the description of a xenophobe. EDJOHNS literally admits it himself. It's nothing to do with labelling, or woke faux-outrage, as you're feebly trying to claim. Nor is it anyhing to do with attempting to claim any sort of moral high-ground.

I'm simply calling out his xenophobia, and his unwillingness to justify himself. It's a dangerous state of affairs if we let people start making statements like that without being challenged.
DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:31 am
Now EDJOHNS is also a racist? When did that happen?
He views them as a race. He openly detests them without justification, and believes he has a right to "detest them as a race". That's when he became a racist.
DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:31 am
They're basically an unperson in your eyes, and you want everyone else to think the same. Well no, I won't. You ain't the good guy here, no matter how much you try to convince yourself, and everyone else, that you are.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, other than exposing EDJOHNS for what he is. I'm simply not prepared to let someone get away with making xenophobic remarks and think he can provide no justification when challenged. That you fail to condemn him suggests you probably sympathise with his views.
DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:31 am
I've tried to explain all this in another thread but it's clearly gone over your head.
I read every word of your pathetic explanation and laughed. It was feeble, an insult. At no point did you attempt to justify his remarks or explain why they were in anyway defensible. Just hysterical ranting about labelling. I've not referred back to it because I've treated your pathetic apologism for xenophobia with the contempt it deserved, and discounted it.
DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:31 am
Either way, it completely ruins the thread. Now I'm part of the same bloody pissing contest. You antagonise people on purpose in a vindictive manner, the thread descends into s***, all the while you play the victim and try and take the moral highground.
What an insight we have into your twisted beliefs.

Xenophobia and racism - absolutely a person's right to do so, according to you.
Disagreeing with it on an internet messageboard - outrageous, not on. Absolute disgrace! - again according to you.

Your priorities are in entirely the wrong order fella.

For clarity, calling out xenophobia and racism is nothing to do with victim playing or claiming a moral high ground. It’s plain common decency, and you appear to have lost yours with your childish need to play the insurgent against system.
DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:31 am
Well I'm sorry, but no, you have no right to.
I have every right to. You might not dislike it, but getting involved in arguments and extending them is your choice, as is mine to reply. I'm going to call out and challenge xenophobia and racism. If you don't like that, tough s*** but that says more about you and your apologism than it does anything else.
Last edited by Darlogramps on Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlogramps
Posts: 4790
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

He fought the law, and the law won

Post by Darlogramps » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:17 am

With regards to the Supreme Court, it's not a conspiracy theory to question something. The Supreme Court is only a recent thing (it sounds like an old English tradition but it isn't) as it was set up in 2009.
It's not, but it would be a conspiracy theory to say this is an attempt at overturning Brexit, as you have done. The justices' judgement is explicit in saying this is nothing to do with Brexit, but actually an assessment on whether the act of prorogation should have some form of judicial oversight, and whether the prorogation last month was actually lawful. And the Supreme Court found unanimously that it was not.

Therefore Boris, having misled the Monarchy and lied to Parliament and the country, should have resigned.
It's my belief that the courts should not have gotten involved in this as it's purely a political matter, as decided by the High Court. It also sets a dangerous precedent.
The courts NOT getting involved hands dangerous levels of power to any Executive. Don't like something Parliament decides? Just prorogue it until a more politically convenient time. This is a question of who holds the Executive to account. And if the Executive shuts down the Legislature, the only other form of checks and balances within the British constitution is the Judiciary.

Back in 2016, I voted Leave and one of the main reasons for that was Parliamentary sovereignty and accountability. Politicians must be held directly accountable by those they serve.

The EU detests this and there are multiple examples of this (the fact its only elected body, EU Parliament, can barely propose legislation, while the EU Commission, which provides the bulk of the legislation is entirely unelected.) See also the EU's behaviour with regards the rejected EU Constitution in 2005 (which the French and the Dutch rejected in referenda. What did the EU do? They repackaged it as the Lisbon Treaty and got everyone to sign it a couple of years anyway. And when Ireland rejected that treaty in a 2008 referendum, they were told to vote again a year later). Also see Greece - told that in order to accept a bailout which would have prevented it going bust, it must accept stringent social reforms, imposed by unelected bureaucrats in the EU, IMF and ECB. Pension pots raided, the public sector shrunk drastically, youth unemployment at 50% (Oh and a consequential spike in suicide rates too). But those bureaucrats imposing these terms never once faced any democratic recourse.

In Britain, we can kick out politicians who are doing a bad job in elections. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it is direct democracy. It's also a representative democracy whereby we elect politicians to vote on our behalf. As such, Parliament is sovereign and, however much we may like or dislike the outcome, votes in the Commons and any subsequent laws they pass, MUST be respected.

It is dangerous for our democracy if a Government is able to shut down these methods of checks and balances because it dislikes what Parliament is saying. If a Government cannot function, as is the current state of affairs, it should call an election (and I've been critical in other threads of MPs blocking elections but not achieving anything in Parliament).
It's not unproven, most of them are Remainers, and Lady Hale clearly has a bias against Boris Johnson, and is reveling in that fact.
Is she? Besides joking about a deliberately inflammatory remark Boris himself made, I'm struggling to see her clear bias against Boris.

Are most of them Remainers? Can you corroborate that? And so what if they are Remainers? Are you implying all 11 justices let their political beliefs corrupt their judgement? Again, you would need to provide something to support that, otherwise you're just sniping about something you disagree with.

Final question from me. If you read the Supreme Court judgement, the central plank of that judgement is proroguing Parliament for five weeks was unprecedented, given most prorogations last little more than a week (or certainly the type Boris was trying to sell last month do anyway!)

So why do you think Boris wanted to prorogue for that long?
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

EDJOHNS
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: He fought the law, and the law won

Post by EDJOHNS » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:41 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:49 pm


I absolutely have. EDJOHNS made out-and-out xenophobic remarks. Xenophobia - the irrational fear or dislike of foreigners.

EDJOHNS: "I hate the arrogant warmongering bastards with a passion"
EDJOHNS: "I openly detest them as a race, that is my right. I "

On those two remarks alone, even someone with a moderate level of intelligence can see that easily fits the description of a xenophobe. EDJOHNS literally admits it himself. It's nothing to do with labelling, or woke faux-outrage, as you're feebly trying to claim. Nor is it anyhing to do with attempting to claim any sort of moral high-ground.

I'm simply calling out his xenophobia, and his unwillingness to justify himself. It's a dangerous state of affairs if we let people start making statements like that without being challenged.
DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:31 am
Now EDJOHNS is also a racist? When did that happen?
He views them as a race. He openly detests them without justification, and believes he has a right to "detest them as a race". That's when he became a racist.

DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 11:31 am
Either way, it completely ruins the thread. Now I'm part of the same bloody pissing contest. You antagonise people on purpose in a vindictive manner, the thread descends into s***, all the while you play the victim and try and take the moral highground.
What an insight we have into your twisted beliefs.

Xenophobia and racism - absolutely a person's right to do so, according to you.
Disagreeing with it on an internet messageboard - outrageous, not on. Absolute disgrace! - again according to you.

Your priorities are in entirely the wrong order fella.

For clarity, calling out xenophobia and racism is nothing to do with victim playing or claiming a moral high ground. It’s plain common decency, and you appear to have lost yours with your childish need to play the insurgent against system.



Ok enough is enough. You "called out" my so called xenophobia and racism. You made your point. You have invaded other posts with your ranting.

Yes I have seen your comments but chose not to bother with your inane ramblings further so ignored you.
There comes a point, (and you passed it long ago) when you have gone way past what is reasonable. You have ignored comment, twisted and invented others to suit your pathetic ranting attack

I have my opinions and am entitled to them. You say I have refused to give reason, you are a liar. I said quite openly my views come from working with them since the mid 60's until I retired in 2012. You may not like that but no way do you have any right whatever to demand instance after instance over a period spanning 50 years

If you wish to take this further, (if you have the balls), (I would very much doubt it), meet up and say your piece to my face. £50 to any charity if you find the guts to do it.

If you think I have IN ANY WAY said anything that breaks the law then feel very free to go and report me to the police. I will be quite happy to talk to them. They after all are the appropriate authority to deal with your rantings.

Now, my bet is you have not the guts to do either but 1 way or the other, time to put up or shut up and stop ruining threads simply because you have a sad pathetic life that you need to feel you liven up by attacking as many people as you can day after day.

Clear statement... You, Darlogramps, are a COWARD and a keyboard BULLY.

Post Reply