Johnson misled the Queen

[Bulletguy]

 

If true then he needs to be immediately held to account on this.

 

[747]

That man has already shown himself to be a scheming Rat, so many people will see it for what it is ... pure childish spite. He seems to be the only one who cannot see that he is now a sad joke. *-)

[Bulletguy]

747 - 2019-09-09 7:25 PM

 

That man has already shown himself to be a scheming Rat, so many people will see it for what it is ... pure childish spite. He seems to be the only one who cannot see that he is now a sad joke. *-)

And there's me thinking you were a big Johnson fan? :->

 

It keeps getting better.....all documents and details on Yellowhammer to be disclosed to parliament. comms on no deal planning and proroguing parliament. So Downing street shredders will be working to melting point and Cummings will have already shipped in a fresh load of burner phones.

 

Neither Cummings or Johnson are QC's.....Grieve is, so knows the law.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-parliament-no-deal-vote-operation-yellowhammer-dominic-cummings-a9098311.html

[747]

Ooh, got another one on the line, hook line and sinker. :D

 

Are you sure I was talking about our saviour Boris? :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

Yellowhammer was drawn up by Eeyore's treasury department *-) .......

 

It's pretty clear from the interview on LBC with Moggy, that the treasury employed ranting Loser lunatics like Dr Nicol to write it *-) ...........

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-49597981/jacob-rees-mogg-dr-nicholl-as-irresponsible-as-dr-wakefield

[Bulletguy]

pelmetman - 2019-09-10 9:01 AM

 

Yellowhammer was drawn up by Eeyore's treasury department *-) .......

 

It's pretty clear from the interview on LBC with Moggy, that the treasury employed ranting Loser lunatics like Dr Nicol to write it *-) ...........

Which backfired on Mogg who cowardly hid behind parliamentary privilege to slander and defame a highly respected Consultant. He had to apologise after Britains chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, wrote personally lambasting his comments which were utterly despicable.

 

Outside of parliament Mogg would have been hauled into court and rightly sued.

 

You're a hypocrite, a serial leecher and abuser of NHS.

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2019-09-10 3:25 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-09-10 9:01 AM

 

Yellowhammer was drawn up by Eeyore's treasury department *-) .......

 

It's pretty clear from the interview on LBC with Moggy, that the treasury employed ranting Loser lunatics like Dr Nicol to write it *-) ...........

Which backfired on Mogg who cowardly hid behind parliamentary privilege to slander and defame a highly respected Consultant. He had to apologise after Britains chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, wrote personally lambasting his comments which were utterly despicable.

 

Outside of parliament Mogg would have been hauled into court and rightly sued.

 

You're a hypocrite, a serial leecher and abuser of NHS.

 

Highly respected my a*se *-) ........

 

He's just another rabid Remoaner >:-) .........

 

 

[Bulletguy]

pelmetman - 2019-09-10 11:14 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-09-10 3:25 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-09-10 9:01 AM

 

Yellowhammer was drawn up by Eeyore's treasury department *-) .......

 

It's pretty clear from the interview on LBC with Moggy, that the treasury employed ranting Loser lunatics like Dr Nicol to write it *-) ...........

Which backfired on Mogg who cowardly hid behind parliamentary privilege to slander and defame a highly respected Consultant. He had to apologise after Britains chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, wrote personally lambasting his comments which were utterly despicable.

 

Outside of parliament Mogg would have been hauled into court and rightly sued.

 

You're a hypocrite, a serial leecher and abuser of NHS.

 

Highly respected my a*se *-) ........

 

He's just another rabid Remoaner >:-) .........

Well Mr Gobsh1te.......get off your miserable ass and have a face to face with Dr Nicholl to make the same slanderous comparison Mogg used and lets see where you end up. You haven't got the guts and just a spineless coward.

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2019-09-10 11:47 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-09-10 11:14 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-09-10 3:25 PM

 

pelmetman - 2019-09-10 9:01 AM

 

Yellowhammer was drawn up by Eeyore's treasury department *-) .......

 

It's pretty clear from the interview on LBC with Moggy, that the treasury employed ranting Loser lunatics like Dr Nicol to write it *-) ...........

Which backfired on Mogg who cowardly hid behind parliamentary privilege to slander and defame a highly respected Consultant. He had to apologise after Britains chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, wrote personally lambasting his comments which were utterly despicable.

 

Outside of parliament Mogg would have been hauled into court and rightly sued.

 

You're a hypocrite, a serial leecher and abuser of NHS.

 

Highly respected my a*se *-) ........

 

He's just another rabid Remoaner >:-) .........

Well Mr Gobsh1te.......get off your miserable ass and have a face to face with Dr Nicholl to make the same slanderous comparison Mogg used and lets see where you end up. You haven't got the guts and just a spineless coward.

 

Hadn't you noticed?..........I treat all Remoaners the same ;-) .........

 

With contempt >:-) .......

[Fast Pat]

And now on BBC1 the Queen's Christmas Message. This programme contains strong language from the start.

[747]

Yes, that will be true if we have a Labour Government.

 

She will probably be in the Caribbean as a Tax exile by then ... as will be anyone else who can afford the airfare. :D

[Fast Pat]

Give some thought as to why he lied?

 

"Currently, £8,274,350,000 (£8.3 billion) of aggregate short positions has been held by hedge funds connected to the Prime Minister and his Vote Leave campaign, run by his advisor Dominic Cummings, on a ‘no deal’ Brexit."

 

So sovereignty has a price.

 

[Barryd999]

Fast Pat - 2019-09-11 9:35 PM

 

Give some thought as to why he lied?

 

"Currently, £8,274,350,000 (£8.3 billion) of aggregate short positions has been held by hedge funds connected to the Prime Minister and his Vote Leave campaign, run by his advisor Dominic Cummings, on a ‘no deal’ Brexit."

 

So sovereignty has a price.

 

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/

 

Its pointless though. Brexiteers wont read it, they dont want to hear how Brexit was all about the rich getting richer and giving the plebs something to vote for that was just a load of bollox. Head in the sand.

 

 

[Bulletguy]

Fast Pat - 2019-09-11 9:35 PM

 

Give some thought as to why he lied?

 

"Currently, £8,274,350,000 (£8.3 billion) of aggregate short positions has been held by hedge funds connected to the Prime Minister and his Vote Leave campaign, run by his advisor Dominic Cummings, on a ‘no deal’ Brexit."

 

So sovereignty has a price.

Exactly.

 

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/

 

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/03/13/the-disaster-capitalism-club-vote-leave-backers-who-made-billions-from-brexit/

[Bulletguy]

Barryd999 - 2019-09-11 10:11 PM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-09-11 9:35 PM

 

Give some thought as to why he lied?

 

"Currently, £8,274,350,000 (£8.3 billion) of aggregate short positions has been held by hedge funds connected to the Prime Minister and his Vote Leave campaign, run by his advisor Dominic Cummings, on a ‘no deal’ Brexit."

 

So sovereignty has a price.

 

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/

 

Its pointless though. Brexiteers wont read it, they dont want to hear how Brexit was all about the rich getting richer and giving the plebs something to vote for that was just a load of bollox. Head in the sand.

Snap on posting! Yeah stand by for the nutty remarks from FreakyFrank. *-)

 

Interesting tweets on Cadwalladrs twitter;

 

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1171838817470431234

[John52]

What Johnson is doing is just how dictators start.

The Unelected Head of State gives the Unelected Prime Minister power to stop the Elected Parliament.

Is this our Unelected Head of State defending our Democracy. *-)

But there are still those in the Elected Parliament with a conscience who will hold him to account - even at the cost of their own jobs.

[John52]

And if the opposition agreed to an election before 31 October whats to stop Johnson changing the election date till after his no-deal Brexit?

The Irish PM summed Johnson up pretty well when commenting on their talks. He said they won't swap a legally binding agreement for a promise. Which sums up what the international community thinks of Johnson's promises. And yet we are asked to believe they will not only give him a better deal than they offered Theresa May, but a better deal than we have already - encouraging everyone else to leave *-)

[John52]

Fast Pat - 2019-09-11 9:35 PM

 

Give some thought as to why he lied?

 

"Currently, £8,274,350,000 (£8.3 billion) of aggregate short positions has been held by hedge funds connected to the Prime Minister and his Vote Leave campaign, run by his advisor Dominic Cummings, on a ‘no deal’ Brexit."

 

So sovereignty has a price.

 

...and they can stop an EU wide tax treaty getting into their Tax Havens by leaving the EU first.

 

But what sort of loser supports a no-deal Brexit when his income is in pounds and his expenditure in Euros :D

[Guest pelmetman]

"Yesterday saw the publication of the court judgment that vindicated the Government over the prorogation of Parliament. Following the High Court’s dismissal last week of Gina Miller and Sir John Major’s claim that the prorogation was an "unlawful abuse of power", the full ruling of Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queen's Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp concluded that it was "not a matter for the courts" and the decision was "purely political" - and therefore not capable of challenge in the courts. In their judgment, they stated:

 

"We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable [capable of challenge]. It is not a matter for the courts… The Prime Minister's decision that Parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy."

 

Kinda looks like Tuesday should put the cherry on the top.........instead of Haggis >:-) ........

 

 

[John52]

pelmetman - 2019-09-12 8:30 AM

 

"Yesterday saw the publication of the court judgment that vindicated the Government over the prorogation of Parliament. Following the High Court’s dismissal last week of Gina Miller and Sir John Major’s claim that the prorogation was an "unlawful abuse of power", the full ruling of Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queen's Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp concluded that it was "not a matter for the courts" and the decision was "purely political" - and therefore not capable of challenge in the courts. In their judgment, they stated:

 

"We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable [capable of challenge]. It is not a matter for the courts… The Prime Minister's decision that Parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy."

 

Kinda looks like Tuesday should put the cherry on the top.........instead of Haggis >:-) ........

 

 

Does the Mad Hatter believe that judges appointed by the Prime Minister are independent of the Prime Minister :D

[Fast Pat]

pelmetman - 2019-09-12 8:30 AM

 

"Yesterday saw the publication of the court judgment that vindicated the Government over the prorogation of Parliament. Following the High Court’s dismissal last week of Gina Miller and Sir John Major’s claim that the prorogation was an "unlawful abuse of power", the full ruling of Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queen's Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp concluded that it was "not a matter for the courts" and the decision was "purely political" - and therefore not capable of challenge in the courts. In their judgment, they stated:

 

"We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable [capable of challenge]. It is not a matter for the courts… The Prime Minister's decision that Parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy."

 

Kinda looks like Tuesday should put the cherry on the top.........instead of Haggis >:-) ........

 

 

So if we get a Corbyn government and he prorogues Parliament for the full five years whilst he carries out his dastardly plan, you don't think the courts should intervene?

[Guest pelmetman]

Fast Pat - 2019-09-12 8:43 AM

 

pelmetman - 2019-09-12 8:30 AM

 

"Yesterday saw the publication of the court judgment that vindicated the Government over the prorogation of Parliament. Following the High Court’s dismissal last week of Gina Miller and Sir John Major’s claim that the prorogation was an "unlawful abuse of power", the full ruling of Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queen's Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp concluded that it was "not a matter for the courts" and the decision was "purely political" - and therefore not capable of challenge in the courts. In their judgment, they stated:

 

"We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable [capable of challenge]. It is not a matter for the courts… The Prime Minister's decision that Parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy."

 

Kinda looks like Tuesday should put the cherry on the top.........instead of Haggis >:-) ........

 

 

So if we get a Corbyn government and he prorogues Parliament for the full five years whilst he carries out his dastardly plan, you don't think the courts should intervene?

 

Thanks for the heads up 8-) ...........

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2019-09-12 8:42 AM

 

pelmetman - 2019-09-12 8:30 AM

 

"Yesterday saw the publication of the court judgment that vindicated the Government over the prorogation of Parliament. Following the High Court’s dismissal last week of Gina Miller and Sir John Major’s claim that the prorogation was an "unlawful abuse of power", the full ruling of Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queen's Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp concluded that it was "not a matter for the courts" and the decision was "purely political" - and therefore not capable of challenge in the courts. In their judgment, they stated:

 

"We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable [capable of challenge]. It is not a matter for the courts… The Prime Minister's decision that Parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy."

 

Kinda looks like Tuesday should put the cherry on the top.........instead of Haggis >:-) ........

 

 

Does the Mad Hatter believe that judges appointed by the Prime Minister are independent of the Prime Minister :D

 

Do you believe that judges appointed by Sturgeon are not rabid Nationalists? >:-) ..........

 

 

[Fast Pat]

pelmetman - 2019-09-12 8:45 AM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-09-12 8:43 AM

 

So if we get a Corbyn government and he prorogues Parliament for the full five years whilst he carries out his dastardly plan, you don't think the courts should intervene?

 

Thanks for the heads up 8-) ...........

 

 

And your answer to the actual question is? Remember we don't have a written constitution so our laws are based on precedents, if the courts cannot intervene that goes for all governments - is that what you want?

[Guest pelmetman]

Fast Pat - 2019-09-12 9:21 AM

 

pelmetman - 2019-09-12 8:45 AM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-09-12 8:43 AM

 

So if we get a Corbyn government and he prorogues Parliament for the full five years whilst he carries out his dastardly plan, you don't think the courts should intervene?

 

Thanks for the heads up 8-) ...........

 

 

And your answer to the actual question is? Remember we don't have a written constitution so our laws are based on precedents, if the courts cannot intervene that goes for all governments - is that what you want?

 

Do you really think the country would allow a Communist to prorogue Parliament for 5 years? (lol) ........

 

You need to cut back on the loopy juice >:-) .........