OV9

Posted: **Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:46 pm**

First against the fucking wall...

Posted: **Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:05 pm**

evostick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:27 pm

Dear lord this thread is depressing.

All the referendum-losing bedwetters are being consumed by their own hatred and fear.

Cheer up fellas.

It might never happen.

Posted: **Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:07 pm**

NotoriousREV wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:46 pm First against the fucking wall...

I don't think that you could handle it Dave. A sensitive bloke like you would be traumatised by such violence.

You'd be better off being in some middle-management role I reckon. Like making sure that the marksmen have all got enough bullets and don't misgender each other or something.

Doesn't hurt to have a little dream to go along with your impotent rage though I suppose.

How's the porsche anyway? Do you get more clunge checking you out in it than you did in the Stagea?

Posted: **Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:19 pm**

It's about the same. Bitches love 60:40 folding rear seats about as much as Porsches.

Posted: **Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:10 pm**

12 days till its over...... say a few EU folk

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... l#comments

Posted: **Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:53 am**

Beany wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:02 pm
Apart from the press they arranged for it.

So they arranged the press in advance, then claimed there was no press, as DSLRs clicked and clacked and the BBC filmed it.

But no, "There's no press here"

This is reality denial on an epic, flat earther scale.

I’m no Boris apologist but I did wonder if he was drawing some sort of distinction between an organised PR opportunity and the press just following him everywhere. Glad you’ve confirmed that wouldn’t be true anyway.

I did think Boris’s tactic of saying different things to different people (aka lying) would assist him in getting a deal with the EU. Unfortunately he’s under more scrutiny now so his inconsistencies (aka lies) are simply revealed almost instantly each time. Doh!

Posted: **Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:28 pm**

Gone quiet the abusive singles today.

Posted: **Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:51 pm**

Broccers wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:28 pm Gone quiet the abusive singles today.

Posted: **Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:56 pm**

Interesting development from back home today - perhaps a solution to the border problem...

https://meanwhileinireland.com/fine-gae ... monwealth/

Posted: **Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:50 pm**

Rich B wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:51 pm
Broccers wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:28 pm Gone quiet the abusive singles today.

So the Supreme court will not get involved.

Posted: **Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:50 pm**

Broccers wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:50 pm
Rich B wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:51 pm
Broccers wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:28 pm Gone quiet the abusive singles today.

So the Supreme court will not get involved.

? It’s been in the Supreme Court for the last 3 days.

Posted: **Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:02 am**

Gone quiet? Well, until the judgment is issued (probably Monday) by the Supreme Court there's not much to say, is there?

Already we have:
- a law which has already been given Royal assent which compels Boris to seek an extension if he doesn't manage to agree a deal
- the EU voting to agree an extension if one is requested
- chatter (presumably stemming from Cummings) about what would happen if Boris breaches the law

The Supreme Court judgment will have no particular bearing on the above; the Benn Act was a belt and braces approach just in case the prorogation hearings didn't progress quickly enough. So the Supreme Court's judgment is more of a new chapter for the constitutional law textbooks than anything which will change the Brexit process.

Posted: **Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:07 am**

I had it all on in the background and if anything else was very interesting. My gut is they won't deem it unlawful but who knows.

Posted: **Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:16 am**

My gut is they will, but as I say, it doesn't matter either way after the Benn Act was passed.

Maybe you should take up constitutional law, Broccers? I haven't had a chance to follow it except by looking at Twitter comments occasionally.

Posted: **Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:23 am**

Jobbo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:16 am
Maybe you should take up constitutional law, Broccers?

But then he would be an expert and the people are tired of experts. It's the Brexit Paradox.

Posted: **Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:27 am**

Jobbo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:16 am My gut is they will, but as I say, it doesn't matter either way after the Benn Act was passed.

Maybe you should take up constitutional law, Broccers? I haven't had a chance to follow it except by looking at Twitter comments occasionally.

I'm too thick

The first day was telling for me tho Lord Pannick looked very amateurish with big chunks missing out of the files he was referring to - how to infuriate your judges so when looking back they will remember that. Yesterday Ronan Lavery QC had nothing to say on the actual subject in hand and sat down well before his time was up. The rest was good.

Posted: **Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:31 am**

The filing issues were due to a court issue and nothing to do with either counsel.

Posted: **Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:37 am**

Jobbo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:16 am My gut is they will, but as I say, it doesn't matter either way after the Benn Act was passed.

Maybe you should take up constitutional law, Broccers? I haven't had a chance to follow it except by looking at Twitter comments occasionally.

I would agree with you. I think they will find it unlawful given (from the limited commentary I've read) the court seems concerned with the outside scenario that if they come out saying the matter is non-justiciable or that an ulterior motive behind a decision to prorogue is not illegal, that it opens the door to, say, a 6 month prorogation.

I'm sure there's a way to slice it so that they do rule this long (but yet short) prorogation legal, however, I would've thought that's like to have a bigger impact on the case law in relation to judicial review generally going forwards (again, presuming they don't find a way to distinguish and specify that this ruling relates only to prorogations specifically).

Posted: **Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:39 am**

NotoriousREV wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:31 am The filing issues were due to a court issue and nothing to do with either counsel.

I'd imagine it was each team that provided their own documentation? Anyhow noone elses was in such a mess.

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:38 am**

Getting quite exciting at the Supreme Court now...

OV9

Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!

Re: Bye Bye Boris!