Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
Excuse me, he is not my Beloved Boris, I didn't vote for him and he was not my choice for PM, so less of this tone.
Secondly, I have not passed any personal view, other than I expected this kind of judgement.
Thirdly, Governments are tested all the time on the law, it does not make them corrupt, this is the basis of checks and balances within our unwritten "Constitution", to stop them acting in a corrupt way. So you are also indeed wrong.
|
1) I apologise & withdraw that part of my comment
2) If they are found guilty of either breaking the law or acting unlawfully, then imho they're corrupt
---------- Post added at 13:11 ---------- Previous post was at 13:10 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Has the advice he gave to the Queen been published? I don't think it has, so how can anyone say that?
It was the impact of the prorogation that made the decision unlawful not the reasons behind it.
|
These are Lady Hales words, read the transcript of the judgement !!!!!!
---------- Post added at 13:14 ---------- Previous post was at 13:11 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
More rubbish.
Words in rulings matter - no mention of the word corrupt was used. Stop telling lies.
---------- Post added at 13:10 ---------- Previous post was at 13:07 ----------
Yes the twaddle from you is coming thick and fast today.
No he is not corrupt, the court did not use such wordings in in the rulings, which matters a damn lot.
|
So, therefore by your logic someone who acts unlawfully can be considered trustworthy?
Is that right?
A simple yes or no will do.