Paphos Life

Dominic Cummings: Anger at MPs 'not surprising', PM's adviser says

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49847304

By what right does a civil servant pronounce on political issues, especially as it is he, directly or indirectly, who is instrumental in the cause for the anger?

He isn't a civil servant. He is a special advisor and therefore a political appointment.

Who pays him?

They are paid out of the Public Purse so in that respect, they are Crown Employees but are not subject to the same terms and conditions as Civil Servants (ie they don't abide by the Civil Service Code of Conduct).

Devil wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:27 pm

Dominic Cummings: Anger at MPs 'not surprising', PM's adviser says

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49847304

By what right does a civil servant pronounce on political issues, especially as it is he, directly or indirectly, who is instrumental in the cause for the anger?

By what right are judges now allowed to actually make a law. Especially judges who find in favour of an anti Brexit faction claiming that the Prime Minister lied to the Queen, but not actually having any evidence of what was said at the meeting of The Queen and the Prime Minister?

outasite wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:39 pm By what right are judges now allowed to actually make a law. Especially judges who find in favour of an anti Brexit faction claiming that the Prime Minister lied to the Queen, but not actually having any evidence of what was said at the meeting of The Queen and the Prime Minister?

The judges have not made any law. They have only decreed that certain actions by the government were unlawful and they returned the decisions to the Government/Commons for correction. Furthermore, there is nothing in their decision to support or not support Brexit.

outasite wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:39 pm

Devil wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:27 pm

Dominic Cummings: Anger at MPs 'not surprising', PM's adviser says

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49847304

By what right does a civil servant pronounce on political issues, especially as it is he, directly or indirectly, who is instrumental in the cause for the anger?

By what right are judges now allowed to actually make a law. Especially judges who find in favour of an anti Brexit faction claiming that the Prime Minister lied to the Queen, but not actually having any evidence of what was said at the meeting of The Queen and the Prime Minister?

You are either at it and stirring, or naive in the extreme. It has been totally reported, But just for your benefit;

• Boris was totally clear that the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit
  Parliament did not accept that he was being honest about only extending for reasons to enable other business
  A number of MPs took the case to the Scottish courts to rule on whether the additional time was lawful - and won
  Gina Millar took a private case to the English courts and they ruled they weren’t sure that it was a matter for them - i.e. Boris didn’t win, as he claimed, or as all his cabinet still claim
  The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it was judicial for the supreme courts to intercede in these matters AND that therefore Boris had also unlawfully prorogued parliament
  This meant that the privy council had lied to the queen and that Boris had lied to parliament
  Boris refuses to apologise
  The cabinet accepts the ruling, but refuses to accept it was the correct decision
  This is inflammatory in itself, as it causes the populace, like yourself, to believe the lies from the cabinet that the decision was about brexit and that the judiciary were wrong to rule and that Boris was being unfairly treated or that the judiciary was delaying brexit

I assume now that you know the facts, that you’d retract the statement?

Jimgward wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:08 pm

outasite wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:39 pm

Devil wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:27 pm
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49847304

By what right does a civil servant pronounce on political issues, especially as it is he, directly or indirectly, who is instrumental in the cause for the anger?

By what right are judges now allowed to actually make a law. Especially judges who find in favour of an anti Brexit faction claiming that the Prime Minister lied to the Queen, but not actually having any evidence of what was said at the meeting of The Queen and the Prime Minister?

You are either at it and stirring, or naive in the extreme. It has been totally reported, But just for your benefit;

• Boris was totally clear that the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit
  Parliament did not accept that he was being honest about only extending for reasons to enable other business
  A number of MPs took the case to the Scottish courts to rule on whether the additional time was lawful - and won
  Gina Millar took a private case to the English courts and they ruled they weren’t sure that it was a matter for them - i.e. Boris didn’t win, as he claimed, or as all his cabinet still claim
  The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it was judicial for the supreme courts to intercede in these matters AND that therefore Boris had also unlawfully prorogued parliament
  This meant that the privy council had lied to the queen and that Boris had lied to parliament
  Boris refuses to apologise
  The cabinet accepts the ruling, but refuses to accept it was the correct decision
  This is inflammatory in itself, as it causes the populace, like yourself, to believe the lies from the cabinet that the decision was about brexit and that the judiciary were wrong to rule and that Boris was being unfairly treated or that the judiciary was delaying brexit

I assume now that you know the facts, that you’d retract the statement?

Can you post a link that shows the English court didn’t think it was a matter for them? Because the report I read quite clearly states the exact opposite. I’ve copied it here for your benefit. “In a ruling this morning by three senior judges — Lord Burnett of Maldon, Sir Terence Etherton and Dame Victoria Sharp — Johnson was found to have not acted unlawfully. However, the High Court did grant permission for the case to go the Supreme Court for an appeal, which will be heard on 17 September.”

Happy in Cyprus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:42 am

Jimgym wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 10:37 pmCan you post a link that shows the English court didn’t think it was a matter for them? Because the report I read quite clearly states the exact opposite. I’ve copied it here for your benefit. “In a ruling this morning by three senior judges — Lord Burnett of Maldon, Sir Terence Etherton and Dame Victoria Sharp — Johnson was found to have not acted unlawfully. However, the High Court did grant permission for the case to go the Supreme Court for an appeal, which will be heard on 17 September.”

And is not the Supreme Court a higher court than the High Court?

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling.

You can't get any more definitive a ruling than the Supreme Court. Unless of course you'd like to appeal to the ECJ

Did I say it wasn't? I am referring to the comment Jingward made where he said "Gina Millar took a private case to the English courts and they ruled they weren’t sure that it was a matter for them - i.e. Boris didn’t win, as he claimed, or as all his cabinet still claim" which is patently untrue. Hence my posting on the judges ruling.

Jimgward wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:08 pm

outasite wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:39 pm

Devil wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:27 pm
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49847304

By what right does a civil servant pronounce on political issues, especially as it is he, directly or indirectly, who is instrumental in the cause for the anger?

By what right are judges now allowed to actually make a law. Especially judges who find in favour of an anti Brexit faction claiming that the Prime Minister lied to the Queen, but not actually having any evidence of what was said at the meeting of The Queen and the Prime Minister?

You are either at it and stirring, or naive in the extreme. It has been totally reported, But just for your benefit;

• Boris was totally clear that the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit
  Parliament did not accept that he was being honest about only extending for reasons to enable other business
  A number of MPs took the case to the Scottish courts to rule on whether the additional time was lawful - and won
  Gina Millar took a private case to the English courts and they ruled they weren’t sure that it was a matter for them - i.e. Boris didn’t win, as he claimed, or as all his cabinet still claim
  The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it was judicial for the supreme courts to intercede in these matters AND that therefore Boris had also unlawfully prorogued parliament
  This meant that the privy council had lied to the queen and that Boris had lied to parliament
  Boris refuses to apologise
  The cabinet accepts the ruling, but refuses to accept it was the correct decision
  This is inflammatory in itself, as it causes the populace, like yourself, to believe the lies from the cabinet that the decision was about brexit and that the judiciary were wrong to rule and that Boris was being unfairly treated or that the judiciary was delaying brexit

I assume now that you know the facts, that you’d retract the statement?

Nope. Only when I see evidence that the supreme court saw written evidence that Johnson and the Privy Council lied to the Queen and in fact only wished to prorogue in order to set out their manifest for inclusion in the Queen's Speech will I withdraw. If the supreme court had sight of the written details of his talk with the Queen then it seems to have been kept very quiet. They made their judgement on the findings of a Scottish court which I would say also didn't have sight of any written details of the talks between Johnson and the Queen.
This entire "ruling" has been leveraged by opposition parties who have no wish to see us leave the EU.

When the Advocate for Northern Ireland tried to introduce evidence relating to Brexit he was given short shrift by the the Supreme Justices and told in no uncertain terms the case was nothing to do with Brexit but about trying to stifle debate.
The appeals came from the four High Courts so you're incorrect to say it was just about the Scottish High Court.

Jim

Cummmings gets over 140,000 pa out of the public purse. Given that he is a political adviser and not a career Civil Servant, I feel it would be more appropriate if he was paid by the Conservative party.

The inner house of the Scottish court of sessions concluded Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen had been “motivated by the improper purpose of stymying parliament”.

I.e. Boris lied about it’s purpose and therefore the reasons given to the Queen for proroguing, were lies.

The Supreme Court did not overtly say that Boris Johnson lied to the Queen about the reasons for his prorogation of Parliament, but several lawmakers have already said that is the implication of its judgement.

Importantly, the judges ruled on the effect of the prorogation rather than attempting to define the motive, which allowed it to deliver a devastating judgement without explicitly accusing Johnson of lying to the monarch.

Because the effect of the suspension was unlawful, the judges did not need to consider Johnson's motive.

Here's the key part of the ruling:

"It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful."
The court did, however, uphold the decision taken by Scotland's highest civil court, which went further in its ruling by saying that Johnson did mislead the Queen.

Unlawful means that there are no laws to cover prorogation. Now laws will have to be made to cover it, another waste of public money.

They did not say that Boris's actions were illegal, something that most fail to see, or will not see.

I haven’t seen anyone saying his actions were illegal. He could announce a proroguing of Parliament until Xmas and it wouldn’t be illegal... but if he told the Queen it was because he needed more time to get his `Xmas list sorted.......

Firefly wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:33 pm Unlawful means that there are no laws to cover prorogation. Now laws will have to be made to cover it, another waste of public money.

They did not say that Boris's actions were illegal, something that most fail to see, or will not see.

I don't know where you get your definitions from. The SOED says:

UNLAWFUL adj.
ME.
[from UN-1 + LAWFUL.]

1. Against the law; illegal. ME.

F. W. Farrar A fresh edict..declared Christianity to be an unlawful religion. Guardian He told the jury murder was unlawful killing.

b. Of offspring: illegitimate. E17.

2. Of a person: not obeying the law; acting illegally. LME.

3. Contrary to moral standards. L15.

S. Johnson The allurements of unlawful pleasure.

4. Contrary to a rule; irregular. rare. E18.

Phrases: unlawful assembly a meeting likely to cause a breach of the peace or to endanger the public. unlawful homicide: see HOMICIDE noun

Boris' actions were illegal, full stop.

Devil.

My information is directly from my M.P. If you think that you know better than him, so be it.

Devil

Black's Law Dictionary defines unlawful as "not authorized by law, illegal." Illegal is defined as "forbidden by law, unlawful." Semantically, there is a slight difference. It seems that something illegal is expressly proscribed by statute, and something unlawful is just not expressly authorized.

I think this backs up my post.

Honestly - if this had been Corbyn, most of you would be looking for capital punishment for treason! The outcry in the nation would drown us all out!

But because it’s good old Boris, old Boris the buffoon, Boris the chap, Boris the gent, Boris the scholar....

Maybe you should realise he is Boris the liar, Boris the Cad, Boris the snake, Boris the cheat, Boris the fool - totally manipulated by Cummings, as despicable a rat as you could meet. He makes Alastair Campbell look like an innocent child.

[quote=Jimgward post_id=97929 time=1569670825 user_id=360]
The inner house of the Scottish court of sessions concluded Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen had been “motivated by the improper purpose of stymying parliament”.

I.e. Boris lied about it’s purpose and therefore the reasons given to the Queen for proroguing, were lies.

The Supreme Court did not overtly say that Boris Johnson lied to the Queen about the reasons for his prorogation of Parliament, but several lawmakers have already said that is the implication of its judgement.

Importantly, the judges ruled on the effect of the prorogation rather than attempting to define the motive, which allowed it to deliver a devastating judgement without explicitly accusing Johnson of lying to the monarch.

Because the effect of the suspension was unlawful, the judges did not need to consider Johnson's motive.

Here's the key part of the ruling:

"It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful."
The court did, however, uphold the decision taken by Scotland's highest civil court, which went further in its ruling by saying that Johnson did mislead the Queen.
[/quote


The supreme court ruled that " in the *absence* of evidence in the Government's favour, this is indicative of guilt.
As of that ruling it is no longer possible in the UK to enjoy innocent until proven - proven by evidence I would assume - guilty.