KopTalk

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 9 of 17 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 16 17
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By Stanley Park
Originally Posted By EnergisedReds
Prorogation unlawful, Bojo wants to try anything to win the election even if it's unlawful. The farce is getting bigger and bigger


Legal technicality but it was void not unlawful it would be unlawful if boris took exactly the same action again. The courts interpretated the law and came to a precendent decision which will impact interpretation of the law going forward. Boris did not break the law

Please offer a correction


This is what I read was said by the supreme court, I didn't make it up, I won't dare.

"This court has Ö concluded that the prime ministerís advice to Her Majesty [ to suspend parliament] was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect should be quashed"

Can I consider the correction offered?

Last edited by EnergisedReds; 25/09/19 02:18 PM.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
They declared it void which means it has no legal effect it can only be unlawful if it was repeated as the interpretation of the law was created at that point. It's also constitutional law not criminal law happy to be proved wrong


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By Stanley Park
They declared it void which means it has no legal effect it can only be unlawful if it was repeated as the interpretation of the law was created at that point. It's also constitutional law not criminal law happy to be proved wrong


Did they say it was unlawful as well or not? If it was criminal law Boris would have had to be bailed out, not sure what your point is.

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Vish it was unlawful at and from that point the judges made a new law and interpretation.

Prior to the judges decision Johnson had the advice of the attorney general (this has been sufficient for generations) it also was upheld by the English court

So Johnson is hardly the master criminal although no doubt shaggy with the IQ of a bluebottle would claim it


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By Stanley Park
Vish it was unlawful at and from that point the judges made a new law and interpretation.

Prior to the judges decision Johnson had the advice of the attorney general (this has been sufficient for generations) it also was upheld by the English court

So Johnson is hardly the master criminal although no doubt shaggy with the IQ of a bluebottle would claim it


They didn't create a new law, they just gave the interpretation of the law which also creates precedence. So the act was unlawful, whether Bojo did it in good faith or not is another matter.

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Originally Posted By EnergisedReds
Originally Posted By Stanley Park
Vish it was unlawful at and from that point the judges made a new law and interpretation.

Prior to the judges decision Johnson had the advice of the attorney general (this has been sufficient for generations) it also was upheld by the English court

So Johnson is hardly the master criminal although no doubt shaggy with the IQ of a bluebottle would claim it


They didn't create a new law, they just gave the interpretation of the law which also creates precedence. So the act was unlawful, whether Bojo did it in good faith or not is another matter.


Aspects of their judgement did change the structure of the law. The legal relationship between the queen and the prime minster is now changed. Johnson consulted the attorney general every other prime minister in history would have done no more. You are right the judges did make a new precendent that's why it could not be illegal prior to that point only after and at the point of their judgement


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By Stanley Park
Originally Posted By EnergisedReds
Originally Posted By Stanley Park
Vish it was unlawful at and from that point the judges made a new law and interpretation.

Prior to the judges decision Johnson had the advice of the attorney general (this has been sufficient for generations) it also was upheld by the English court

So Johnson is hardly the master criminal although no doubt shaggy with the IQ of a bluebottle would claim it


They didn't create a new law, they just gave the interpretation of the law which also creates precedence. So the act was unlawful, whether Bojo did it in good faith or not is another matter.


Aspects of their judgement did change the structure of the law. The legal relationship between the queen and the prime minster is now changed. Johnson consulted the attorney general every other prime minister in history would have done no more. You are right the judges did make a new precendent that's why it could not be illegal prior to that point only after and at the point of their judgement


They said in their judgement that it was unlawful isn't it? Not knowing or not understanding the law doesn't mean you can break it. I agree though that Bojo didn't know he was breaking the law, poor fellow.

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Vish as I keep saying it was unlawful at that point and hence void. I don't fully understand the legal complexities but a constitutional lawyer did say on TV the judges had effectively changed the law in order to make judgement. What Johnson did would have been legal up to that point and it's not just this bercow has made changes to our parliamentary procedure centuries of process have been ripped up. And all this to stop us leaving the EU. My personal opinion is the judges are not impartial. I was at hillsborough and remember what the judges said about that ? Decades later it was found to be a pack of lies. Judges are human beings Vish they have their personal views just like we do.


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By Stanley Park
Vish as I keep saying it was unlawful at that point and hence void. I don't fully understand the legal complexities but a constitutional lawyer did say on TV the judges had effectively changed the law in order to make judgement. What Johnson did would have been legal up to that point and it's not just this bercow has made changes to our parliamentary procedure centuries of process have been ripped up. And all this to stop us leaving the EU. My personal opinion is the judges are not impartial. I was at hillsborough and remember what the judges said about that ? Decades later it was found to be a pack of lies. Judges are human beings Vish they have their personal views just like we do.


Well, if you believe that so many people in respectable institutions are impartial, then you will have a major problem living in UK. To have all the 11 judges to be impartial would be quite something you know.

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Originally Posted By EnergisedReds
Originally Posted By Stanley Park
Vish as I keep saying it was unlawful at that point and hence void. I don't fully understand the legal complexities but a constitutional lawyer did say on TV the judges had effectively changed the law in order to make judgement. What Johnson did would have been legal up to that point and it's not just this bercow has made changes to our parliamentary procedure centuries of process have been ripped up. And all this to stop us leaving the EU. My personal opinion is the judges are not impartial. I was at hillsborough and remember what the judges said about that ? Decades later it was found to be a pack of lies. Judges are human beings Vish they have their personal views just like we do.


Well, if you believe that so many people in respectable institutions are impartial, then you will have a major problem living in UK. To have all the 11 judges to be impartial would be quite something you know.


What's going on in Britain right now is unbelievable 11 biased judges would surprise me not one bit. Never thought I would say that. Where it will end not sure it's getting very dangerous


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Page 9 of 17 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 16 17

Moderated by  KopTalk Team 

Link Copied to Clipboard
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Advertisements
Liverpool FC Discussion
Tim Steidten responds to Liverpool rumours
by Dunk - 14/02/24 12:52 PM