Jump to content
jumpship

Brexit Negotiations

Recommended Posts

redjambo
3 minutes ago, Cade said:

Boris doubling down on his impossible bridge between Stranraer and Larne.

 

Muppet couldn't even build a bridge across the feckin Thames.

 

 

Which ultimately cost the taxpayers £43 million. :)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/17/absurd-vanity-project-for-our-age-boris-johnson-garden-bridge

 

Maybe we could plant trees along the Stranraer-Larne bridge? I wonder, can orange trees survive the northern UK climate?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobboM
4 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I see your point, but the problem is that the Tories were unable to deal with it internally. They knew that ultimately it would break up their party if they didn't hold a referendum, hence Cameron's gamble. They are primarily to blame for the whole fiasco, I think we probably agree with that. However, I remember thinking during the referendum campaign "What the heck are Labour doing?!" due to their lack of a strong cohesive message. And top of the pyramid was Corbyn. Even now, he's vacillating. He's no good as a party leader - he needs to be in the party apparatus somewhere, definitely, but not as leader, imo.

Fair do's Red. For "unable" I'd say "unwilling" and that was the point I was trying to make to Brighton Jambo, that Labour were required to do the referendum heavy lifting in order to save the Tory party. Otherwise I'd certainly agree with you on Corbyn's general ineffectiveness in the referendum campaign and, just as frustratingly, beyond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
Just now, RobboM said:

Fair do's Red. For "unable" I'd say "unwilling" and that was the point I was trying to make to Brighton Jambo, that Labour were required to do the referendum heavy lifting in order to save the Tory party. Otherwise I'd certainly agree with you on Corbyn's general ineffectiveness in the referendum campaign and, just as frustratingly, beyond.

 

Cheers RM. I still think that "unable" is more apt, since I can't think of anything else that the Tories could have done to try and prevent the haemorrhaging of their supporters to the UKIP. Even the referendum wasn't guaranteed to stop that process of the split in the right-wing support, but Cameron had the idea that if Remain won then it would at least stem the flow.

 

I guess the main problem is that on the issue of Europe, we probably need a re-alignment of the parties, where each party (or new party) adopts a more solid approach to the issue. However, that would require the Tories and Labour to cede membership and representatives and both are worried about what that would entail regarding their overall power on the UK political scene. To be fair to the Tories, they appear to have bitten the bullet, decided to move to the right, and begun that process already with the election of Boris by the faithful. It's an ideal opportunity at the same time for those parties who have more solid positions - the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Greens, Brexit party, principally - to attract supporters away from the "big 2".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
30 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

“Even if it destroyed Scotland.”

Can’t believe you posted that.

Apologies, I couldn't think of another word which was as dramatic. But I'll stand by my thinking, you could tell me Scotland would be in the shit for a century, and I'd say so, where do I sign.

 

Edited by ri Alban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Real Maroonblood
1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

I couldn't think of another word which was as dramatic. But I'll stand by my thinking, you could tell me Scotland would be in the shit for a century, and I'd say so, where do I sign.

 

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
Just now, The Real Maroonblood said:

:thumbsup:

I feel like i have pissed in my own cornflakes. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

I feel like i have pissed in my own cornflakes. :D

 

That's perfectly allowed. However, signing a piece of paper which would allow you to also piss in the cornflakes of 5.4 million other people for a century might be a bit too much. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
38 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

A GE, with first past the post, waged on the single issue of Brexit? Not a great idea.

 

I can't believe your comment in bold. You *are* as bad as the no-deal Brexiteers, ri.

I'm not really. Just trying to make a point. No deal Brexiters have as much right as you and I to a deal. Something needs to be done and if the Tories gain a 50+odd seat majority, who can argue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
3 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

That's perfectly allowed. However, signing a piece of paper which would allow you to also piss in the cornflakes of 5.4 million other people for a century might be a bit too much. ;)

Cider flavoured!

 

 

 

 

:mmtaxi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
Just now, ri Alban said:

I'm not really. Just trying to make a point. No deal Brexiters have as much right as you and I to a deal. Something needs to be done and if the Tories gain a 50+odd seat majority, who can argue?

 

If we have a referendum and "No-deal Brexit" wins, who am I to stand in their way? Similarly if we have a general election and the Tories run on a clear "no deal" basis and win a majority of seats in Parliament.

 

It's the folk in the rest of the UK I would feel sorry for if that happpened. At least I would have the potential safety blanket of independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

If we have a referendum and "No-deal Brexit" wins, who am I to stand in their way? Similarly if we have a general election and the Tories run on a clear "no deal" basis and win a majority of seats in Parliament.

 

It's the folk in the rest of the UK I would feel sorry for if that happpened. At least I would have the potential safety blanket of independence.

 

After EU exit, something has to be done about the likes of BJ and JRM. Their antics have been criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
6 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

If we have a referendum and "No-deal Brexit" wins, who am I to stand in their way? Similarly if we have a general election and the Tories run on a clear "no deal" basis and win a majority of seats in Parliament.

 

It's the folk in the rest of the UK I would feel sorry for if that happpened. At least I would have the potential safety blanket of independence.

John Curtis has the Tories gaining a 40+ majority at the next GE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

John Curtis has the Tories gaining a 40+ majority at the next GE.

 

It will all come down to tactical voting, whether on a personal level or with party agreements. Farage, for example, has already said that he won't oppose Tory candidates who have supported no-deal the whole way through (i.e. never voted at any point for any of May's deals). This is why using a general election as a means of asking a single question is a bad idea. Would the LIb Dems and Labour come to an arrangement in England? I'm not sure that an arrangement would be needed here in Scotland as I think the SNP *should* romp home, but it still might be useful in marginal seats with strong Tory contenders. Every seat would count and no chances could be taken.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

It will all come down to tactical voting, whether on a personal level or with party agreements. Farage, for example, has already said that he won't oppose Tory candidates who have supported no-deal the whole way through (i.e. never voted at any point for any of May's deals). This is why using a general election as a means of asking a single question is a bad idea. Would the LIb Dems and Labour come to an arrangement in England? I'm not sure that an arrangement would be needed here in Scotland as I think the SNP *should* romp home, but it still might be useful in marginal seats with strong Tory contenders. Every seat would count and no chances could be taken.

 

 

Lib/lab could be on, if it wasn't for Jo Swinson. She's a nightmare with a superiority complex.

 

Scottish guestimate.

51 SNP

4 Libdems

3 Tories

1 labour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
Just now, ri Alban said:

Lib/lab could be on, if it wasn't for Jo Swinson. She's a nightmare with a superiority complex.

 

Scottish guestimate.

51 SNP

4 Libdems

3 Tories

1 labour

 

I disagree about Jo Swinson. I don't think she's as good as Vince Cable was, but I still like her.

 

But anyway, 3 Tories is 3 Tories too many. The other parties need to make sure that the Tories leave any general election with precisely zero seats in Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterion
13 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

John Curtis has the Tories gaining a 40+ majority at the next GE.

 

That would be grim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterion
3 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Lib/lab could be on, if it wasn't for Jo Swinson. She's a nightmare with a superiority complex.

 

I disagree - she’s a career politician who will be pragmatic to further her career.

 

She sold out her morales and never pushed back on any Tory policies during her time in that coalition. If she gets a shot at a decent cabinet position she’d take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
15 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

John Curtis has the Tories gaining a 40+ majority at the next GE.

good, would just hasten the inevitable Scottish Independence. If england wants to vote for a far right, racist leader of an increasingly right-wing tory party then stuff them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban

Received an email to join the audience of Debate Night. I wonder what question to ask?

:interehjrling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions
On 09/09/2019 at 09:38, dobmisterdobster said:

I'm not bothered about tax avoidance in the slightest.

 

 

Yachts gonna have to be paid for somehow. Tax avoidance... in a galaxy far ,far away....  sorry in a tax haven far far away from UK shores lives the utter replies who have contributed a big fat feck all to the NHS, schools and public spending to help those who are really poor ..   In fact they have made a fortune out of it.   One word gangsters..

70687604_1461592297315402_5757914246000148480_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scott herbertson
26 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

John Curtis has the Tories gaining a 40+ majority at the next GE.

 

 

i think it would be even bigger if he wasn't dumb enough to refuse a deal with Farage. I'm astonished that he doesn't seem to have something in place. If i was Boris, which thank God I'm not, I would have been saying to Farage -"if they block No deal  I'm going for a People's Vote, election and if you stand aside it will be a 3 line whip pre-selection issue for all Tory candidates to sign up to that'. Also find some post election position for 'Sir Nigel' etc....

 

Without the Brexit party the polls indicate Tories would have 40% plus and that would gibve them a landslide win at any election - majority in 3 figures, especially as Labour has no coherent stance on Brexit

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions
5 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

i think it would be even bigger if he wasn't dumb enough to refuse a deal with Farage. I'm astonished that he doesn't seem to have something in place. If i was Boris, which thank God I'm not, I would have been saying to Farage -"if they block No deal  I'm going for a People's Vote, election and if you stand aside it will be a 3 line whip pre-selection issue for all Tory candidates to sign up to that'. Also find some post election position for 'Sir Nigel' etc....

 

Without the Brexit party the polls indicate Tories would have 40% plus and that would gibve them a landslide win at any election - majority in 3 figures, especially as Labour has no coherent stance on Brexit

 

 

 

 

What a pile of utter right wing desperation dog  shite.UK gov polls have put Labour ahead, recently and i know they can change  daily. SNP are going to romp home in Scotland. In fact old bojo Boris and dracionion victorian Mogg Rees are fueling the fire of the SNPS cause, very dangerous political game they are playing. They can ignore Scotland but Scotland under the SNP will  not be ignoring them.

Edited by maroonlegions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
16 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

What a pile of utter right wing desperation dog  shite.UK gov polls have put Labour ahead, recently and i know they can change  daily. SNP are going to romp home in Scotland. In fact old bojo Boris and dracionion victorian Mogg Rees are fueling the fire of the SNPS cause, very dangerous political game they are playing. They can ignore Scotland but Scotland under the SNP will  not be ignoring them.

Yougov

Con 32%

Lab 23%

Libdem 19%

Brexit party 14%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Montgomery Brewster
1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

I disagree about Jo Swinson. I don't think she's as good as Vince Cable was, but I still like her.

 

But anyway, 3 Tories is 3 Tories too many. The other parties need to make sure that the Tories leave any general election with precisely zero seats in Scotland.

And 1 red Tory  too many as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scott herbertson
35 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

What a pile of utter right wing desperation dog  shite.UK gov polls have put Labour ahead, recently and i know they can change  daily. SNP are going to romp home in Scotland. In fact old bojo Boris and dracionion victorian Mogg Rees are fueling the fire of the SNPS cause, very dangerous political game they are playing. They can ignore Scotland but Scotland under the SNP will  not be ignoring them.

 

 

LOL - I'm very very far from the right. you've read my post completely wrong. I'm talking about the possible British election scenario. I believe (and hope) the SNP will sweep the lot in Scotland but I think the right will win most seats in England, and have a massive majority if a deal can be done between the tories and Farage. The likely result wil be independence, which will be ideal.


UK Polling report is an excellent site if you are interested in the polls

 

Here is a (lengthy but erudite) article from there - note that the predicition is based on 14.3% for Brexit Party - clearly if that reduces substantially and goes to the Tories they will have a UK landslide, with an SNP landslide in Scotland

 

 

Forecast #GE2019 – 12th September 2019
by Forecast UK – Peter
This is our latest forecast for a potential November 2019 General Election in the UK.

The forecast below is our standard forecast. It is based on a General Election occuring on the day of the forecast.

What does your forecast show? – We try to give as much information as possible, but only where it is statistically significant. We show a 50% confidence interval on the regional vote share for the major parties and the mid-point of the range of likely seat possibilites.

What do you use for your forecast? – We use all the latest polling data, where available. We also look at the betting markets and other information to help guide our forecast. We calculate the interaction between the support for the parties on as local a level as statistically possible and then use this to run a Monte Carlo simulation of the election.

What has changed since the last forecast? – New polls from ComRes poll and YouGov have confirmed a clear trend in Conservative and Labour support that we have seen previously but not to a level of statistical significance.

What do you predict will happen in Seat X? What is the probability of Party Y having more votes than Z? – As we approach the election we reduce uncertainity in our model and are able to answer questions like this. Whilst we do not automatically publish a prediction for each seat, we can indicate a most likely outcome if required and also probabilities of victory for each candidate.

I want to ask a question / get in touch – Write a comment below to get in touch.

Key Features
The overall summary of our forecast is “Hung Parliament – Possible Labour / SNP / Lib Dem coalition”.

Our forecast has been updated with the introduction of new data indicating a clear movement of support from the Conservatives to Labour over the past week. This movement in support has evaporated any opportunity for the Conservatives to form a Government.

Although we continue to see evidence of a collapse in the Labour Party’s support across the country, this is now roughly matched by the fall in support for the Conservatives. Outside of London and Wales we see no evidence that the Conservatives will pick up any seats from Labour at all. Indeed, in some seats that Labour won from the Conservatives in 2017, Labour may even increase their majorities.

As a contrast we expect a resurgent Liberal Democrat party to win half of the seats where they were second to the Conservatives in 2017. In Scotland we expect the SNP to regain almost all their losses in 2017 to Labour and the Conservatives.

We see good evidence that support for the Brexit Party is slipping away across the country. This may be due to a news cycle that has emphasised parties that are sitting in the Commons. It may also be due to Brexit Party voters moving to the Conservatives.

Large amounts of polling in the past week has enabled us to firm up our current forecast.

Our Northern Ireland forecast is based on limited data, primarily a poll from Lucid Point last month.

UK Forecast
Party % Vote Forecast Change on 2017
Conservatives 30.2% (27.4% – 33.0%) 294 – 303 -23 to -14
Labour 25.0% (22.9% – 27.1%) 237 – 243 -25 to -19
SNP 3.4% 50 – 51 +15 to +16
Liberal Democrats 19.3% (18.4% – 20.2%) 34 – 40 +22 to +28
Brexit Party 14.3% (11.5% – 16.1%) 1 – 2 +1 to +2
Plaid Cymru 0.4% 2 – 4 -2 to 0
Green 4.0% (3.5% – 4.5%) 0 -2 -1 to +1
Independent 0-2
Speaker 1 –
Northern Ireland 18
Most likely result – Hung Parliament
Potential Labour / SNP / Lib Dem coalition.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0912/1075402-ni-brexit-challenge/

 

A legal challenge in Belfast High Court that argued the UK government's Brexit strategy will damage the Northern Ireland peace process has been dismissed.

Lord Justice Bernard McCloskey delivered his ruling on three joined cases against British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's handling of the UK's European Union exit.

The trio of challenges contended that a no-deal Brexit on 31 October would undermine agreements involving the Irish and UK governments that were struck during the peace process and which underpin cross-border cooperation.

The UK government rejected that contention during two days of legal proceedings in the High Court.

In his written ruling, the judge said: "I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.

The UK government rejected that contention during two days of legal proceedings in the High Court.

In his written ruling, the judge said: "I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.

"Virtually all of the assembled evidence belongs to the world of politics, both national and supra-national.

"Within the world of politics the well-recognised phenomena of claim and counterclaim, assertion and counter-assertion, allegation and denial, blow and counter-blow, alteration and modification of government policy, public statements, unpublished deliberations, posturing, strategy and tactics are the very essence of what is both countenanced and permitted in a democratic society."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cade

Aye, NI judge saying more or less the same thing as the English courts:

Since Westminster politics is run by tradition and convention and not bound in actually enforceable constitutional Laws, a court cannot make a legal judgement.

 

Which is mildly terrifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alfajambo
48 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0912/1075402-ni-brexit-challenge/

 

A legal challenge in Belfast High Court that argued the UK government's Brexit strategy will damage the Northern Ireland peace process has been dismissed.

Lord Justice Bernard McCloskey delivered his ruling on three joined cases against British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's handling of the UK's European Union exit.

The trio of challenges contended that a no-deal Brexit on 31 October would undermine agreements involving the Irish and UK governments that were struck during the peace process and which underpin cross-border cooperation.

The UK government rejected that contention during two days of legal proceedings in the High Court.

In his written ruling, the judge said: "I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.

The UK government rejected that contention during two days of legal proceedings in the High Court.

In his written ruling, the judge said: "I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.

"Virtually all of the assembled evidence belongs to the world of politics, both national and supra-national.

"Within the world of politics the well-recognised phenomena of claim and counterclaim, assertion and counter-assertion, allegation and denial, blow and counter-blow, alteration and modification of government policy, public statements, unpublished deliberations, posturing, strategy and tactics are the very essence of what is both countenanced and permitted in a democratic society."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1134530/Brexit-news-BBC-UK-EU-Michel-Barnier-European-Union-Theresa-May-Conservative-Party

 

Brexit OUTRAGE: Barnier caught admitting he will 'use Ireland' in negotiations with UK

 

Michel Barnier was filmed plotting with EU counterparts to use Ireland in Brexit negotiations to try to get the upper hand over the UK. The French negotiator claimed there was a “strategic and tactical reason” to “use Ireland for the future negotiations”. Filmed on the BBC’s Brexit: Behind Closed Doors, Mr Barnier said: “We are at a key point. In fact, we were ready on Friday to make this agreement but it stuck on the backstop

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

Andrew Bridgen saying the the SNP pressurised the Court of Session.

 

Shameful stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy
1 minute ago, Victorian said:

Andrew Bridgen saying the the SNP pressurised the Court of Session.

 

Shameful stuff.

 

These claims, both for and against what was said, need to be accompanied by evidence. Otherwise no one can believe who said what or who didn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
6 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

These claims, both for and against what was said, need to be accompanied by evidence. Otherwise no one can believe who said what or who didn’t. 

What are you in about. Only one set of idiots are making claims, the English right wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy
4 minutes ago, XB52 said:

What are you in about. Only one set of idiots are making claims, the English right wing.

 

I’m on about backing up claims. If you or anyone else has evidence that these claims are false then let’s see it otherwise it’s pure speculation, guess work, wishful thinking or scurrilous claims. That also applies to the original claim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobboM
2 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

I’m on about backing up claims. If you or anyone else has evidence that these claims are false then let’s see it otherwise it’s pure speculation, guess work, wishful thinking or scurrilous claims. That also applies to the original claim.

 


If I claimed that you had pressurised the Court of Session ... how would you prove that you didn't?

I might (or almost certainly don't) have proof that you did .... but you cannot prove that you didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cade

Remember that we have the presumption of innocence in this nation (for now at least).

It's up to the complainant to prove you did what they say you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
7 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

I’m on about backing up claims. If you or anyone else has evidence that these claims are false then let’s see it otherwise it’s pure speculation, guess work, wishful thinking or scurrilous claims. That also applies to the original claim.

 

Again, what are you on about. There are only Tory smears about our judges, no opposite claims at all. You just can't bring yourself to criticise these right wing loonies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cade

Bercow uses a speech to a legal think-tank to call for a properly codified UK constitution instead of the byzantine and unenforcable conventions and traditions that masquerade as due process in the current set-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
24 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

These claims, both for and against what was said, need to be accompanied by evidence. Otherwise no one can believe who said what or who didn’t. 

 

I watched him saying it on C4 news and just added it here.     You can go looking for mention of it on the Internet or decide not to.    Ignore it.     Your choice.

 

He said just that.    Without a hint of hesitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy
2 minutes ago, RobboM said:


If I claimed that you had pressurised the Court of Session ... how would you prove that you didn't?

I might (or almost certainly don't) have proof that you did .... but you cannot prove that you didn't.

 

Id invite you to the court to a meeting where you could present your claims to the relevant people and see or here their and my side of the story.  If a lie or in political speech an untruth on either side was established then the proof needed would be established. 

This should happen especially as history shows many untruths and false claims have been made around Brexit. 

We need the truth and the truth from both sides because if the truth had been told we would be in the mess we are in now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
1 minute ago, Cade said:

Bercow uses a speech to a legal think-tank to call for a properly codified UK constitution instead of the byzantine and unenforcable conventions and traditions that masquerade as due process in the current set-up.

 

Agreed. About time too. Conventions and traditions can work if everyone acts in a responsible manner, but not if individuals start abusing the system. Where is no trust, there needs to be law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

For the avoidance of future doubt and only speaking for myself,    if I say a person said or did something,   I might reference my comment or might not.     Anyone else is perfectly entitled to take whatever notice of it they choose to,   or none at all.      This is an open discussion and everyone can fact-check if they choose to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy
4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I watched him saying it on C4 news and just added it here.     You can go looking for mention of it on the Internet or decide not to.    Ignore it.     Your choice.

 

He said just that.    Without a hint of hesitation.

 

I have no doubt he said it but was he challenged on it and asked for evidence that this pressure was actually applied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
1 minute ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

Id invite you to the court to a meeting where you could present your claims to the relevant people and see or here their and my side of the story.  If a lie or in political speech an untruth on either side was established then the proof needed would be established. 

This should happen especially as history shows many untruths and false claims have been made around Brexit. 

We need the truth and the truth from both sides because if the truth had been told we would be in the mess we are in now.

 

With due respect, what are you on about, DB?

 

If Andrew Bridgen claims that the SNP pressurised the Court of Session, then it is up to him to back up those claims or shut up, not to others to disprove them.

 

Surely even you can see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy
7 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Again, what are you on about. There are only Tory smears about our judges, no opposite claims at all. You just can't bring yourself to criticise these right wing loonies

 

Im on about the truth and backing up claims form right wing loonies or even left wing loonies. If you have evidence to the contrary let’s see it. You make a claim the on or in the press then let’s see the evidence. To many times people make claims and get away with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy
2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

With due respect, what are you on about, DB?

 

If Andrew Bridgen claims that the SNP pressurised the Court of Session, then it is up to him to back up those claims or shut up, not to others to disprove them.

 

Surely even you can see that.

 

Bridgen needs to provide evidence that these claims are true as do the people saying he’s talking ballox. That’s what I’m on about. To much claim and counterclaim without evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
Just now, Dannie Boy said:

 

I have no doubt he said it but was he challenged on it and asked for evidence that this pressure was actually applied. 

 

Sorry,  thought you were challenging claims made on here.

 

No he wasn't really.    He's entitled to his say at the end of the day.    But it's dangerous ground to normalise accusations of impartiality against the judiciary.      Where next?      Do we eventually see people being harrassed as they visit a polling station one day?     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
Just now, Dannie Boy said:

 

Bridgen needs to provide evidence that these claims are true as do the people saying he’s talking ballox. That’s what I’m on about. To much claim and counterclaim without evidence.

 

No, the folk saying he is talking bollocks don't need to prove a thing. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Anyway, how on earth could you actually prove that no interference had taken place - 24/7 audio and visual observation of all three judges? It's a ridiculous proposition.

 

This is one of the ways in which fake news is created. We need evidence from folk making claims, otherwise it's just all hot air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian

I don't think Bridgen or Kwarteng are obliged to provide evidence or facts in order to say even the most ridiculous things,   or in Kwarteng's case,   to insinuate things without saying they are his beliefs.    Or to plant a seed in the minds of the public.      The trouble is that the norms of self control and reasonable responsibility are being broken.    It's getting worse and worse.     More and more people are pushing the boundaries of responsible conduct and it's not being adequately called out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy
6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Sorry,  thought you were challenging claims made on here.

 

No he wasn't really.    He's entitled to his say at the end of the day.    But it's dangerous ground to normalise accusations of impartiality against the judiciary.      Where next?      Do we eventually see people being harrassed as they visit a polling station one day?     

 

My main challenge was in this instance Bridgen making such a claim without evidence. My wider claim is that I’m pee off with anyone making claims which are purely speculative. A good addition to any claim should imo be ended in imo. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...