Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Footballfirst]

2 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You're not actually a qualified Solicitor are you FF? More of an enthusiastic Court attender I believe (like some folk love going to random funerals)?

 

No legal training I'm afraid, but I'm learning more and more about legal processes.

 

I got interested in all the legal shenanigans related to Rangers, so I've continued from there.  It's actually quite interesting to see the court processes at first hand. I have yet to find a judge that doesn't have a sharp grasp on any matter presented to them.

 

The case I was attending this week (Whitehouse & Clark v the Lord Advocate) was an appeal to the Inner House about the immunity from prosecution of the Lord Advocate, Lord Carloway was also chairman of the five person bench.

 

Part of the case was about malicious prosecutions and the engagement of Article 8 of the Human Rights legislation.  Yesterday, one of the QCs was talking about a minister of state in a foreign jurisdiction who had  publicly accused a non government employee of fraud (wrongly).  Lord Carloway commented with something along the lines of .... "so if a Government Minister lied, then that could engage Article 8".   I'm sure that Lord Carloway was actually thinking about a government minister closer to home at that point.

[jake]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwigltv9mM7kAhVS6RoKHX6NCcAQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-politics-49689681&psig=AOvVaw3hskcolBkQX0mnt4Cz83cb&ust=1568477723645423

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Because that's relevant somehow?

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

 

No legal training I'm afraid, but I'm learning more and more about legal processes.

 

I got interested in all the legal shenanigans related to Rangers, so I've continued from there.  It's actually quite interesting to see the court processes at first hand. I have yet to find a judge that doesn't have a sharp grasp on any matter presented to them.

 

The case I was attending this week (Whitehouse & Clark v the Lord Advocate) was an appeal to the Inner House about the immunity from prosecution of the Lord Advocate, Lord Carloway was also chairman of the five person bench.

 

Part of the case was about malicious prosecutions and the engagement of Article 8 of the Human Rights legislation.  Yesterday, one of the QCs was talking about a minister of state in a foreign jurisdiction who had  publicly accused a non government employee of fraud (wrongly).  Lord Carloway commented with something along the lines of .... "so if a Government Minister lied, then that could engage Article 8".   I'm sure that Lord Carloway was actually thinking about a government minister closer to home at that point.

 

But surely they have therefore made their ruling on supposition and not fact as none of the judges were present at the meeting with the Queen and there were, as far as I know, no witnesses called to say there was a lie spoken.  For me it's a very dangerous precedent they have set. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Because that's relevant somehow?

 

It is. If he's commenting on the Law it would be interesting to know how much knowledge he has. And as usual from a gent like FF he has kindly replied. 

[Cruyff Turn]

5 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

David Allen Green @davidallengreen

Breaking news from @UKSupremeCourt that they will now sit with *eleven* justices for the prorogation appeal next week. Increase from the nine announced a few days ago. Same number as in the last Miller case

Have they said how many Scottish Judges? Must be at least 4 ?

[Seymour M Hersh]

5 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Or attending a football match every week etc etc etc?

 

Equating going to watch court proceedings with attending a random funeral is a bit cheeky, imo.

 

It's still a free country (well unless comrades Corbyn and McDonnell get in power) and you're entitled to your opinion. 

[RobboM]

1 minute ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

It's still a free country (well unless comrades Corbyn and McDonnell get in power) and you're entitled to your opinion. 

.... and if Corbyn and McDonnell get in power and immediately prorogue parliament for 4-5 years you'll be the first to tell the courts to keep their noses out of it?

[Seymour M Hersh]

Just now, RobboM said:

.... and if Corbyn and McDonnell get in power and immediately prorogue parliament for 4-5 years you'll be the first to tell the courts to keep their noses out of it?

 

Ludicrous post imo. 

[Footballfirst]

11 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

Have they said how many Scottish Judges? Must be at least 4 ?

I think there are currently only two Scottish Judges on the Supreme Court list, Lords Hodge and Reed.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Footballfirst

[Cruyff Turn]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

I think there are currently only two Scottish Judges on the Supreme Court list, Lords Hodge and Reed.

Cheers 👍🏼

[Footballfirst]

[Cruyff Turn]

12 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Info on their backgrounds here - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

[RobboM]

23 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Ludicrous post imo. 

Agreed!
There's no way that Corbyn would lie to the Queen and act unlawfully 🙂

 

[Justin Z]

40 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

But surely they have therefore made their ruling on supposition and not fact as none of the judges were present at the meeting with the Queen and there were, as far as I know, no witnesses called to say there was a lie spoken.  For me it's a very dangerous precedent they have set. 

 

As a former lawyer I can tell you, if that were the standard of review judges had to adhere to, requiring witnesses of government action in order to make a ruling on the purpose of that action, not only would governments get away with blatantly criminal activity all the time, literally nothing would ever get done.

 

Thankfully it's not. There is nothing dangerous, sinister, traitorous, etc. about any of these three opinions, or the ruling.

[Seymour M Hersh]

15 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Agreed!
There's no way that Corbyn would lie to the Queen and act unlawfully 🙂

 

 

Do you have any proof the Queen was lied to? I'll answer that for you . No you don't. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

8 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

As a former lawyer I can tell you, if that were the standard of review judges had to adhere to, requiring witnesses of government action in order to make a ruling on the purpose of that action, not only would governments get away with blatantly criminal activity all the time, literally nothing would ever get done.

 

Thankfully it's not. There is nothing dangerous, sinister, traitorous, etc. about any of these three opinions, or the ruling.

 

Problem is this is not the US.

[Victorian]

Girly swot trolling the rambling racist with chat about a 2nd referendum.    

 

 

[Justin Z]

5 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Problem is this is not the US.

 

But it's not--the standards by which judicial review are conducted are, in this particular case, essentially the same.

 

Lawyers can read and learn stuff in other jurisdictions than the one they're (or were) qualified in, mate. Even get a master's degree for it while they're at it.

[AlimOzturk]

24 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Girly swot trolling the rambling racist with chat about a 2nd referendum.    

 

 

 

Piggy boy has as much blame for this situation that anyone else does. 

[Cruyff Turn]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

But it's not--the standards by which judicial review are conducted are, in this particular case, essentially the same.

 

Lawyers can read and learn stuff in other jurisdictions than the one they're (or were) qualified in, mate. Even get a master's degree for it while they're at it.

Indeed, is there actually a massive difference between laws in Western Countries? Different wordings but essentially the same? 

 

I see one of the Supreme Court Judges actually studied Law at Harvard University. 

[Mikey1874]

2 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

But surely they have therefore made their ruling on supposition and not fact as none of the judges were present at the meeting with the Queen and there were, as far as I know, no witnesses called to say there was a lie spoken.  For me it's a very dangerous precedent they have set. 

 

They had the written evidence, emails and notes from within Government. Included evidence they were going to do it when they denied it in public. 

[AlphonseCapone]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

But it's not--the standards by which judicial review are conducted are, in this particular case, essentially the same.

 

Lawyers can read and learn stuff in other jurisdictions than the one they're (or were) qualified in, mate. Even get a master's degree for it while they're at it.

 

[AlphonseCapone]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

But it's not--the standards by which judicial review are conducted are, in this particular case, essentially the same.

 

Lawyers can read and learn stuff in other jurisdictions than the one they're (or were) qualified in, mate. Even get a master's degree for it while they're at it.

 

DP. 

Edited September 13, 2019 by AlphonseCapone

[Unknown user]

More Christians refusing to believe stuff without evidence, WTF?

 

Is a little blind faith too much to ask these days?

[Justin Z]

2 hours ago, Cruyff Turn said:

Indeed, is there actually a massive difference between laws in Western Countries? Different wordings but essentially the same?

 

Between Commonwealth/former empire countries, no. Scotland definitely is unique among them however with some pretty odd/suuuuuuper old school ways of doing things. But even still, extremely similar.

 

Now other western law systems that are based on Napoleonic/civil law? Extremely different from what we're accustomed to.

[Cruyff Turn]

8 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Between Commonwealth/former empire countries, no. Scotland definitely is unique among them however with some pretty odd/suuuuuuper old school ways of doing things. But even still, extremely similar.

 

Now other western law systems that are based on Napoleonic/civil law? Extremely different from what we're accustomed to.

 

So Civil Laws on Negligence in the likes of Australia, New Zealand, even America would hold similar wording/principles to Delict (Scots Law) or Tort (in English Law)?

 

or, Double Jeopardy, which I believe exists in American Law (in some States perhaps) and was something which existed/exists in Scots Law but not English Law? 

[Cruyff Turn]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

More Christians refusing to believe stuff without evidence, WTF?

 

Is a little blind faith too much to ask these days?

Christians that believe in making poor people poorer and sick people sicker are worse tbf. 😏

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Cruyff Turn said:

Christians that believe in making poor people poorer and sick people sicker are worse tbf. 😏

 

It's cool, Yellowhammer reckons about 5 loaves and 2 fish should still get through

[Justin Z]

8 hours ago, Cruyff Turn said:

So Civil Laws on Negligence in the likes of Australia, New Zealand, even America would hold similar wording/principles to Delict (Scots Law) or Tort (in English Law)?

 

or, Double Jeopardy, which I believe exists in American Law (in some States perhaps) and was something which existed/exists in Scots Law but not English Law? 

 

On the first, yes, in fact it's called tort in the US and Torts was my first ever class I attended at law school. Off the top of my head I can't think of any significant, practicable difference between tort and delict.

 

Double jeopardy is not legal under the American constitution, full stop, with a caveat: separate "sovereigns" don't count, so you could be accused of the same crime by the federal government and a state (although there are many critics of this in law). The idea originated in Roman law so it's no surprise then that it existed in Scots Law early. But it's been tempered by statute in the 21st century and "second bites at the apple" are now legal in Scotland under various circumstances.

[Cruyff Turn]

7 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

It's cool, Yellowhammer reckons about 5 loaves and 2 fish should still get through

But you won’t be able to drive to the shops to get a loaf or a fish 🤷🏼‍♂️

54 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

On the first, yes, in fact it's called tort in the US and Torts was my first ever class I attended at law school. Off the top of my head I can't think of any significant, practicable difference between tort and delict.

 

Double jeopardy is not legal under the American constitution, full stop, with a caveat: separate "sovereigns" don't count, so you could be accused of the same crime by the federal government and a state (although there are many critics of this in law). The idea originated in Roman law so it's no surprise then that it existed in Scots Law early. But it's been tempered by statute in the 21st century and "second bites at the apple" are now legal in Scotland under various circumstances.

Nice one, cheers Justin 👍🏼

[Victorian]

Nicky Morgan doing what Nicky Morgan always does by trying to cover every position.   Now reiterating a remain sentiment.    Saying she would vote remain in a 2nd referendum.

 

Asked why she's in Johnson's cabinet.     Typical blank expression,    followed by "because I'm a democrat".    

 

The reality is the additional salary and the ministerial car.    But she can clearly see the realistic possibility of a referendum coming over the horizon and it's time to prepare to change clothes yet again.

 

People like Morgan and some others in cabinet are picked for a good reason.    They tick a box in terms of supposedly adding balance and an alternative view in order to create the impression of an inclusive cabinet.    But the real reason is that Morgan is a 'useful idiot'.    Someone who has an overwhelming desperation to be involved and will do the real government's bidding without question.

 

But it's good news that Morgan is saying this.    It betrays a realisation that Johnson is not in control of events.    

 

If and when the Tories are kicked out of power and we get a LAB-LD coalition,   that waste of space will be across to the LD's before you can blink.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Victorian

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

On the first, yes, in fact it's called tort in the US and Torts was my first ever class I attended at law school. Off the top of my head I can't think of any significant, practicable difference between tort and delict.

 

Double jeopardy is not legal under the American constitution, full stop, with a caveat: separate "sovereigns" don't count, so you could be accused of the same crime by the federal government and a state (although there are many critics of this in law). The idea originated in Roman law so it's no surprise then that it existed in Scots Law early. But it's been tempered by statute in the 21st century and "second bites at the apple" are now legal in Scotland under various circumstances.

DJ act 2011. 3 exemptions.

[Mikey1874]

I'm sure we'll continue our interesting discussions on Scots law next week. 

 

But here's another example. I knew about this.

 

 

[Justin Z]

[Justin Z]

[Seymour M Hersh]

On 11/09/2019 at 22:20, Pans Jambo said:

Farage, Cameron, Boris & Mogg etc deserve a prison sentence IMO. 

Lying snake oil salesmen. Disgusting. 

 

At least they wouldn't want His to win a derby!

[Seymour M Hersh]

On 09/09/2019 at 17:59, The Real Maroonblood said:

John Bercow has been very good especially keeping the cockwombles in place particularly the Tories.

 

“Power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.” 
- Stanley Baldwin

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

“Power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.” 
- Stanley Baldwin

 

Yes indeed, just as Baldwin was referring to press magnates in his era trying to wield their political clout unchecked, so has Bercow served as an important balance against similar autocratic attitudes in the Parliament of today.

 

Excellent choice.

[Cade]

Ministers actively promoting the border being down the middle of the Irish sea.

 

This will be the EU cave-in we've been waiting for.

 

[Mikey1874]

 

[jumpship]

The health service in Guernsey is privatised. This is what a post-Brexit UK Health Service might look like when sold off to US companies.

 

[Unknown user]

25 minutes ago, jumpship said:

The health service in Guernsey is privatised. This is what a post-Brexit UK Health Service might look like when sold off to US companies.

 

 

That's one example but there are better ones. In Holland health insurance is mandatory and a few companies offer similar coverage at agreed prices with differences in price mainly relating to excess, extras like dental etc. IIRC my last plan was about 90 euros a month, but every employer I had gave me an allowance or arranged the insurance in my behalf - I'm not sure if it's mandatory for them to do so, but I know that the unemployed have theirs covered by welfare.

Hospitals are nicer, care is better, waiting lists are shorter. Hospitals have more money to spend so equipment is cutting edge.

I've always respected the NHS but I get the argument for a private system if done well and with good intentions for the healthcare system and population including the poor. And there's your problem right there. 

[ri Alban]

The Guardian should fecking ashamed of itself. Disgraceful what they've said about David Cameron's grief. Arseholes!

[AlimOzturk]

10 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

That's one example but there are better ones. In Holland health insurance is mandatory and a few companies offer similar coverage at agreed prices with differences in price mainly relating to excess, extras like dental etc. IIRC my last plan was about 90 euros a month, but every employer I had gave me an allowance or arranged the insurance in my behalf - I'm not sure if it's mandatory for them to do so, but I know that the unemployed have theirs covered by welfare.

Hospitals are nicer, care is better, waiting lists are shorter. Hospitals have more money to spend so equipment is cutting edge.

I've always respected the NHS but I get the argument for a private system if done well and with good intentions for the healthcare system and population including the poor. And there's your problem right there. 

 

My Grandad is currently seriously I'll  in hospital and would never have been Ble to afford the level of care he is currently receiving. He looks like he will pull through and we have the NHS to thank for that. 

 

The NHS is a godsend.

[Unknown user]

24 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

My Grandad is currently seriously I'll  in hospital and would never have been Ble to afford the level of care he is currently receiving. He looks like he will pull through and we have the NHS to thank for that. 

 

The NHS is a godsend.

 

I don't think you get the setup I'm trying to describe then, he wouldn't be paying for the care, that's the point of the insurance.

I'm not slagging the NHS, far from it, but I've lived in a country with a system that delivers better healthcare, I've seen it with my own eyes. 

[mutley]

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I don't think you get the setup I'm trying to describe then, he wouldn't be paying for the care, that's the point of the insurance.

I'm not slagging the NHS, far from it, but I've lived in a country with a system that delivers better healthcare, I've seen it with my own eyes. 

But you paid more for it

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, mutley said:

But you paid more for it

 

Did I though? My contributions were covered by my employers instead of it coming out of my NI contributions. 

 

In the uk we seem to think that the NHS is the normal way of doing things- it might be what we're used to but it isn't.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Smithee

[mutley]

11 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Did I though? My contributions were covered by my employers instead of it coming out of my NI contributions. 

 

In the uk we seem to think that the NHS is the normal way of doing things- it might be what we're used to but it isn't.

If your paying less per person how do the hospitals have more money to spend?

[jamboy1982]

That sounds fine but you know that boris and his pals are setting this up to sell the nhs to the yanks.