Does it matter that we have a lying, dishonest Prime Minister?

Sponsored Links
Notch7 said:
The case hinges on whether the courts have jurisdiction over politics, not whether he has been dishonest.
Click to expand...

And we both know what the answer to that one will be don't we old chum.;)

By the way why do you have to have an office in the garden, marital strife?
 
fillyboy said:
By the way why do you have to have an office in the garden, marital strife?
Click to expand...

Its part office, part leisure.

The office section is because Ill be working from home mostly, leisure part weekends for my wife to play saxophone, guitar, oboe and me for drinking coffee, bbqs.......


I shall be pleased to get the weatherboarding on as the blue tits are constantly pecking at the celetex!
 
Sponsored Links
Notch7 said:
I shall be pleased to get the weatherboarding on as the blue tits are constantly pecking at the celetex!
Click to expand...

Small birds love a bit of linseed oil putty, that and some feeders might distract them.
I'm sorry I did chuckle about playing the oboe, reminds me of an old Peter Cook sketch.
 
So boris is a compulsive liar, a cheat, a clown. He has all the qualities of a 2019 world leader.
 
Notch7 said:
The case hinges on whether the courts have jurisdiction over politics, not whether he has been dishonest.

If the courts rule in favour of the executive, that does not mean he didnt lie.

We know Johnson lied, its in the public domain.

It is also the reason no witness statement has been provided -because we all know a witness statement found to be false would be perjury.
Click to expand...
1 incorrect
2 correct
3 incorrect.
4 incorrect in this case
 
Seems bojo also gave a load of public money to a pole dancer...

Link

One wonders what he got in return in that top-floor flat...
 
motorbiking said:
1 incorrect
2 correct
3 incorrect.
4 incorrect in this case
Click to expand...

1: correct
They raise two legal questions. First, whether the prorogation advice is reviewable at all by the courts – that is, whether it is justiciable. Second, if it is justiciable, whether the government can show that it was exercised for a proper and not an improper purpose. Those questions have so far received different answers. That they have done so is not surprising given the novelty of the issue. Miller (No.2) and McCord have so far lost on the first question; on appeal Cherry has succeeded on both points

2.correct

3. Correct -Johnson mentioned it in an interview and it was on a memo. I agree there is a question whether it was explicitly stated or not -hence the reason why it is being tested in court.

4. It is very unusual for no witness statement to be presented.
The legal consequences of such a witness statement would have been, almost inevitably, an application to cross examine.

"The legal consequences would be that it would be a contempt of court, of course, for such a witness statement not to tell the truth
 
Maybe the Queen could be done for aiding and abetting :ROFLMAO:



My guess is Johnson will get away with it.......
 
Notch7 said:
1: correct
They raise two legal questions. First, whether the prorogation advice is reviewable at all by the courts – that is, whether it is justiciable. Second, if it is justiciable, whether the government can show that it was exercised for a proper and not an improper purpose. Those questions have so far received different answers. That they have done so is not surprising given the novelty of the issue. Miller (No.2) and McCord have so far lost on the first question; on appeal Cherry has succeeded on both points

2.correct

3. Correct -Johnson mentioned it in an interview and it was on a memo. I agree there is a question whether it was explicitly stated or not -hence the reason why it is being tested in court.

4. It is very unusual for no witness statement to be presented.
The legal consequences of such a witness statement would have been, almost inevitably, an application to cross examine.

"The legal consequences would be that it would be a contempt of court, of course, for such a witness statement not to tell the truth
Click to expand...

Just changing your answers = correcting yourself.
 
Interesting that only 7 out of the 11 judges will be in attendance when the decision is announced...

A 7-4 split with the 4 being p issed off?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top