Sam-AVFC Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: As i understand it there was nothing wrong with the evidence it was just that it was prepared by a legal team and given to the witnesses , the evidence itself wasn't a lie ( see previous link to the broadcast) I've missed something here, but what exactly is the evidence? I don't see how evidence can be true if it's being fed to people without first hand experience. Surely there are two types of evidence: Documents (emails, recordings, financial records etc) Witnesses (I saw/heard something happen) You can't say that something happened so the evidence is true, the person being asked to make the statement simply didn't witness it happen. If a witness to an event is not willing to speak up there is no evidence, just hearsay. Please do set me straight if I've got mixed up as I'm not sure exactly what evidence you're all talking about! Edit - I appreciate the link you posted may explain this. Sorry if it does and I'm asking you to paraphrase but I wont be able to listen for a few hours. Edited September 25, 2019 by Sam-AVFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, a m ole said: So essentially you're speculating that she would have been biased and not done her job properly if she'd had the slightest opportunity to do so? I mean, believe what you want I guess. at no point did i say i believed anything ... i was trying to add to a debate , it would appear the debate is closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 16 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said: She didn't call it the "greatest day of her life" then, which changes the tone quite a bit! In the quote you posted she said she was proud of the case as it was fighting constitutional issues with principles established around the time of the English Civil War. Am I being stupid, or is there absolutely nothing in that quote that has anything to do with the actual issue of Brexit? you are being stupid as this court case was nothing to do with Brexit ... this case was all about constitutional issues , as per the verdict they gave down which stated "something like " their view was it had the effect of preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification I used the words "something like" in my sentence but i've read it, and she actually said one of my proudest moments and not the greatest day of her life , I'll admit that was a poor use of words from my side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) I thought Barry Sheerman was going to keel over there. Fair to say he wasn't impressed with the Geoffrey Cox's speech. Edited September 25, 2019 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 I guess its important to discuss how we got into this mess, but its not sorting out Brexit is it. Maybe they should put a pin in this, and get onto what the plan for Brexit is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 25, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Genie said: Maybe they should put a pin in this, and get onto what the plan for Brexit is. Its here.... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 3 hours ago, tonyh29 said: you are being stupid as this court case was nothing to do with Brexit ... this case was all about constitutional issues , as per the verdict they gave down which stated "something like " their view was it had the effect of preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification I used the words "something like" in my sentence but i've read it, and she actually said one of my proudest moments and not the greatest day of her life , I'll admit that was a poor use of words from my side I think we're on the same page with your first paragraph; my whole point was that it seems to be the constitutional precedents that excite her as opposed to anything to do with Brexit. It still astonishes me that anyone can be outraged by a decision that something has to be 'reasonably justified'. Pedantic I know, but it also doesn't look like she said the second bit. That was The Guardian paraphrasing the following quote that I was referring to in my last post: “I’m proud of the [article 50, Gina] Miller case because it was a classic constitutional issue about what the government could do and what parliament could do,” Hale explained. “It was reminiscent of the 17th-century battle between parliament and the king. We were reinforcing principles that had been established then.” I know it might seem petty, but to me "one of my produest moments" is much easier to see as a political declaration (albeit still only be implied) than "I'm proud of". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 23 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said: I know it might seem petty, but to me "one of my produest moments" is much easier to see as a political declaration (albeit still only be implied) than "I'm proud of". tbf you should probably direct your thoughts on this to the source that linked me to the guardian article Hale: article 50 case my proudest moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: tbf you should probably direct your thoughts on this to the source that linked me to the guardian article But again in that article they also attribute her saying it's one of her proudest moments to the same quote - they just removed the "I'm proud of the Miller case", which was a direct quote, and replaced it with '[She said it was] one of her proudest moments'. I can't see any news source that actually puts the statement in quotation marks and they all seem to link it to the same quote which definitely doesn't say what that. Quote Lady Hale is quoted as describing the ruling in Miller as one of her proudest moments. ’It was a classic constitutional issue about what the government could do and what parliament could do,’ the newspaper quotes Hale as saying. ’It was reminiscent of the 17th-century battle between parliament and the king. We were reinforcing principles that had been established then.’ I'm definitely unimpressed with the journalists being misleading, but you take the flack as you're the one who brought it to my attention in this thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Sam-AVFC said: But again in that article they also attribute her saying it's one of her proudest moments i went to the trouble of quoting the headline they used for you "my proudest moment" .. it's definitely them that deserves the flack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: i went to the trouble of quoting the headline they used for you "my proudest moment" .. it's definitely them that deserves the flack I know you did in your post before last, but let's be honest it took a bit of wrangling! Originally these are what you said: Quote Hale already called her article 50 decision something like the greatest day of her life Quote i thought her article 50 comment was widely known I know you said she said 'something like' which is fair (and valid to not bother with a direct quote), but it looks like the papers embellished the whole thing and she never said anything like this. I always find it odd how one paper makes a statement like this then they all follow on with the same mistake. Maybe she did say something like that seperately, but it was off the record so they have to paraphrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 It's pretty obvious what she means. She's a law geek, top of her class at Cambridge, professor of Law, and was able to give a ruling on something similar to a case interesting her from the 1700s. It's a huge stretch to politicise that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 25, 2019 Author Moderator Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Sam-AVFC said: I always find it odd how one paper makes a statement like this then they all follow on with the same mistake. Off topic, really, but it's not remotely surprising once you realise that much of what's published is basically stories nicked off each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said: It's pretty obvious what she means. She's a law geek, top of her class at Cambridge, professor of Law, and was able to give a ruling on something similar to a case interesting her from the 1700s. It's a huge stretch to politicise that. I’m not aware anyone was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 hour ago, snowychap said: What a load of nonsense from No 10. Why would the Queen agree and sign it, given that literally exactly this was declared unlawful literally yesterday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: What a load of nonsense from No 10. Why would the Queen agree and sign it, given that literally exactly this was declared unlawful literally yesterday? The argument would probably be that literally exactly this was not declared unlawful literally yesterday. They declared the advice given to the Queen at the end of August unlawful and thus that the prorogation that happened on September 9th was as though it didn't happen. They also put forward a standard by which any future prorogation should be judged. As per the evidence given to the Court (and I think agreed by all sides), the Queen is ppretty much a rubber stamper (not the words used) in the process. It may well be bluster from the Downing Street source but I don't think your reading of the case and judgment is quite right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, snowychap said: The argument would probably be that literally exactly this was not declared unlawful literally yesterday. They declared the advice given to the Queen at the end of August unlawful and thus that the prorogation that happened on September 9th was as though it didn't happen. They also put forward a standard by which any future prorogation should be judged. As per the evidence given to the Court (and I think agreed by all sides), the Queen is ppretty much a rubber stamper (not the words used) in the process. It may well be bluster from the Downing Street source but I don't think your reading of the case and judgment is quite right. I'm sure you're right, but it's not going to happen, and if it did, it would be back in court before the end of the week. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Remember thinking Theresa May was the worst PM we’ve ever had? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts