ChatterBank1 min ago
Did The Mail Gone Too Far With Their Headline?
67 Answers
https:/
Why! they even described one judge as being an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.
/// But the Mailonline appeared to have second thoughts about alerting readers to the revelation that Sir Terence was an “openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.” The headline was changed after widespread outrage across social media. ///
https:/
Why! they even described one judge as being an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.
/// But the Mailonline appeared to have second thoughts about alerting readers to the revelation that Sir Terence was an “openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.” The headline was changed after widespread outrage across social media. ///
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Not really terrified she might succeed, as I am confident she won't. I expect you wouldn't be so secure in your belief otherwise, had you read the judgement. Of course, I could be mistaken. But, at the very least, it will take some incredibly strong, as yet secret, legal argument to overturn this judgement.
And what's immoral about bringing the case anyway? The more you post about this the more it's clear that you haven't bothered to read and understand the case, the judgement, or anything else about it.
And what's immoral about bringing the case anyway? The more you post about this the more it's clear that you haven't bothered to read and understand the case, the judgement, or anything else about it.
Jim, I'm not interested in the judgement. I have no issue with it. However, the judgement has nothing to do with morality. The fact that the issue was brought before the court at all is immoral - and you agreed with that earlier on.
I don't see the argument for the appeal as 'secret'. I think that will be based on the fact the Parliament has very clearly already voted. The judgement was formed on the evidence presented, and I doubt very much that THAT evidence was presented.
But this is going around in circles and I'm repeating myself. We shall see.
I don't see the argument for the appeal as 'secret'. I think that will be based on the fact the Parliament has very clearly already voted. The judgement was formed on the evidence presented, and I doubt very much that THAT evidence was presented.
But this is going around in circles and I'm repeating myself. We shall see.
When did I agree it was immoral? Maybe a little cynical, perhaps, but that doesn't make it immoral since, after all, asking that constitutional rights be protected is... well, a constitutional right, and to exercise such rights is hardly immoral.
"I think that will be based on the fact the Parliament has very clearly already voted. The judgement was formed on the evidence presented, and I doubt very much that THAT evidence was presented. "
https:/
Just read it already. Paragraphs 72, 74 (5), 76 (7) and 105 - 108. The argument was presented, considered, and rejected.
"I think that will be based on the fact the Parliament has very clearly already voted. The judgement was formed on the evidence presented, and I doubt very much that THAT evidence was presented. "
https:/
Just read it already. Paragraphs 72, 74 (5), 76 (7) and 105 - 108. The argument was presented, considered, and rejected.
It is clear some have not read the judgement, jim, or considered it at all.
I cannot see how the litigation was immoral since it challenged whether the necessary procedure had been followed (and it hadn't), although I suspect the litigants were more interested in this because they were anti Brexit and so used this as a means to achieve their end .
But whether the litigation is seen by many as immoral has nothing to do with the judges' verdict. And if the judges had not been aware of the points you make naomi, then surely the Attorney General, must take the blame- according to the Telegraph he didn't even turn up to hear the decision.
But we'll see what the Supreme Court decides. Hopefully the government's legal team will take it more seriously next time. If it loses again it could go for a third opinion from the European Court (that would be quite funny).
I cannot see how the litigation was immoral since it challenged whether the necessary procedure had been followed (and it hadn't), although I suspect the litigants were more interested in this because they were anti Brexit and so used this as a means to achieve their end .
But whether the litigation is seen by many as immoral has nothing to do with the judges' verdict. And if the judges had not been aware of the points you make naomi, then surely the Attorney General, must take the blame- according to the Telegraph he didn't even turn up to hear the decision.
But we'll see what the Supreme Court decides. Hopefully the government's legal team will take it more seriously next time. If it loses again it could go for a third opinion from the European Court (that would be quite funny).
-- answer removed --
I don't think so, leftee. The 'AB legal experts' have simply pointed out that the judges' decision was based on their interpretation of the constitution rather than some form of malicious action to stop Brexit happening. If the judges made an error and the Supreme Court then I don't mind as it will allow us to move forward and I am sure NJ won't be upset as he is keen for A50 to be invoked. If the supreme court endorses the previous ecision it will be interesting to see the response of those who believe these judges were enemies of the people
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.