The verdict of the Supreme Court, that Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament, NOT for the purpose of stopping pro EU factions from preventing the UK having a no strings break from the EU as a (long overdue) result of the 2016 referendum, and it’s result which surprised the elites and the citizens of our recently renamed capital city Wankeristan, has divided the country even more deeply than the brexit vote itself.
Answers given to this question posed on Quora.com reveal that above all, the pro EU side, while totally opposed to referenda which do not return the result they want, are quite happy with judges who overreach their judicial authority and usurp the lawmaking powers of parliament to their unelected selves, so long as their verdict is the one Remain supporters want.
What does it say about Boris Johnson when 11 senior judges unanimously call his prorogue unlawful and he still says they are wrong?
What does it say about the judiciary when 11 Supreme Court Justices ignore the law because they are determined to stitch up Boris Johnson. Article 9 of the Bill Of Rights (1689) clearly states that “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;”
The Supreme Court Justices, showing that they are corrupt rather than stupid although they may well be both, chose to pretend they believed proroguation was not part of the normal proceedings of parliament. In fact it is a routine process that must be performed in order that one parliamentary session can be ended and another one begun.
You are incorrect. They determined in this case that no reason was given and no reasonable reason could be given for suspending Parliament for five weeks. They are saying the the PM does not have the right to suspend Parliament for no reason or for a length of time not consistent with the reasoning for the suspension.
If this had not been up held the Government could close Parliament indefinitely. That clearly should not be allowed.
I also notice that you are calling these judges corrupt with any evidence.
I have plenty of evidence that the Supreme Justices are corrupt and repeatedly find in favour of certain interest groups, and that the Supreme Court is a politcal device created by Tony Blair to rule on constutional matters he could never hope to get past parliament, and that its members are not the most senior judges in the land but most of it is not relevant to this question, is far too long to summarise meaningfully in a comment and is being fully covered by online news and commentary sites like Unherd and Spiked.
The point people are missing here is that these court cases need not have happened had the combined opposition parties tabled a no confidence motion and brought down the government or supported one of the governments attempts to call an early election. Instead the opposition decided to put their political interests ahead of the national interest and leave us without an effective government rather than face the prospect of losing an election..
The opposition’s problem is while there is no majority in parliament for Leave means Leave, there is also no majority for Leave With Theresa May’s Deal or Remain, and the as long as parliament will not allow Leave With No Deal, the EU will not agree to renegotiate May’s withdrawal agreement.
Most of the comments on the Quora question above and the Supreme Court ruling on the proroguation of parliament (including my own I have to admit,) went with the respondant’s wider position on Brexit, but it is interesting to note that of the answers from people who claimed legal expertise, none mentioned this rather important fact:
The eleven justices all made a single judgment; there was no dissenting opinion, which is odd considering that equally senior judges including the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Master of the Rolls already made a decision which was precisely the opposite of that of the Supreme Court decided.
Now clearly those Remain supporters who claimed that legally the Supreme Court judges are the most senior legal authorities in the land have far less knowledge of the judicial hierarchy than one would expect from legal professionals. Perhaps the fact that the Supreme Court is not an ancient and venerable institution but a recent politically innovation created at the behest of the traitor and war criminal Tony Blair and packed with New Labour political appointees (probably for the purpose of protecting Blair and his cronies from justice should their war crimes and acts of treason ever be prosecuted,) has something to do with it.
It is widely suggested that the whole of the judiciary has a pro – EU bias, ans the Supreme Court Justices are not the first to allow their political prejuduces to overrule their duty of impartiality.
The judge in the Robin Tilbrook case, in which the plaintiff argued that Theresa May had overreached her authority in agreeing an extension to Article 50 without putting it to parliament and therefore the UK had legally left the EU on March 19, 2019, in the words of Tlbrook’s case, ” wilfully deliberately knowingly and intentionally failed to declare his ‘conflicts of interest'” – which by the way mainstream media failed to inform the people about!
The MSM could not report honestly about the judge’s conflict of interest, because they would then have to explain what the case was about. What scant coverage it was given presented Tilbrook, a legal professional, as an obsessive nutcase driven by hatred of the European Union The Establishment are desperate to suppress any mention of the Tilbrook case, which is why there were been a total news blackout about it. If the Tilbrook case was generally known about, then there would be inexorable public pressure for Robin Tilbrook to at least be given a fair hearing. Any fair, impartial court would almost certainly find in Robin Tilbrook’s favour – and we would immediately be out of the EU. Hence the total news blackout.
Judge LJ Hickinbottom ruled Tilbrook’s claim ‘Totally Without Merit’. Hickinbottom is a Fellow of the European Legal Institute and therefore sworn to promote EU law throughout the ‘Community’ as well as the recipent of many lucrative commissions by virtue of holding that position.
The EU is of course a lawers’ wet dream, the giant bureaucracy produced swathes of new laws every week, most so arcane only an army of lawyers could interptret them in any meaningful way. The practice of Law mis certainly the fastest growing industry in the EU and given the collapse of manufacturing and agriculture due to the burden of bureaucratic law placed on producers might sooon be the largest industry.
The debate over Boris Johnson’s bid to negotiate a Brexit deal within deadlines agreed by his predecessor is going on amid amid a fierce legal battle in the UK Supreme Court that entered a third day on Wednesday. The case is in esssence a bid by the Labour and Liberal Deomcrat parties to usurp power without having to face an election which Labour would surely lose, while political minnows The Liberal Democrats would fall well short of a majority.
Legal challenges to the government argued Johnson suspended the Parliament to silence the MPs over the EU exit, while the prime minister had earlier referred to the move as one scheduled to pave the way for the Queen to deliver a speech on the country’s legal course for the upcoming year. He stressed the prorogation had been given royal consent, with Mr Rees-Mogg, who travelled to Balmoral for the Queen’s approval, hitting back it was “nonsense” to suggest she had been misled over the decision.
One has to believe Rees – Mogg, the Monarch has her own team of legal advisers would would have told herr to withhold the Royal Assent from anything of dodgy legality.
The defence in the Supreme Court on behalf of the UK government is arguing the decision to prorogue Parliament was a political matter and is not in the courts’s jurisdiction.
Earlier in September, Boris Johnson suspended MPs’ work for five weeks (a period which included what would have been a four week break for party conferences, with the parliamentarians not scheduled to return until 14 October after the combined opposition, having voted down government proposals to effect Brexit, twice ducked the opportunity to force an election and voted down government motions to hold an election election, as the debate in the country around a no-deal exit from the EU became exceptionally heated, totally polarising the nation.
Despite having rejected the opportunity to put the dispute to the electorate, MPs voted en masse for a bill that forces the prime minister to delay Brexit until the end of January if there is no agreed trade deal with the EU.
[ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Writerbeat ] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Greenteeth & Daily Stirrer on YouTube ] … [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] … [ Minds ] … [ <a href=https://medium.com/@greenboggartIan on Medium ] … [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] … [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer News Roundup]
… [ Boggart Network News ]
Forget what three Buckfast swilling, deep fried Mars Bar scoffing judges in chilly Jockoland said earlier in the week and whatever you have heard about Boris Johnson lying to the Queen (The Queen’s conversations with her Prime Ministers are confidential so nobody knows if Boris lied to our Betty or not, but if he did and anything he advised was illegal her own advisers would have warned her to withhold assent to the prorogation of parliament.
The Scottish court judgement is nothing but a cheap political stunt by a bunch of biased, SNP supporting bent lawyers aimed at giving The Mad Wee Hag Sturgeon ammunition for her next bid to make Scotland independent from the UK and thus the biggest economic basket case in Europe (if Scotland was an independent nation now they would be further up shit creek and even more bereft of paddles than Greece. .
And Boggart Blog is not the only digital news sheet that thinks so. We may be a scurrilous little blog, but look at what the highly respected, subscrioption only web news site for financial professionals, Eurointelligence has to say:
We expect this to be of more significance to the debate over Scottish independence than to Brexit. Legal commentators, including the retired Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, expect the UK Supreme Court to side with the English ruling rather than the Scottish one.
Advantage Boris who is already one set up because the High Court in England ruled in his favour, as it should, while constitutionally Scottish courts cannot possibly have jurisdiction over the whole of the UK.
If the Supreme Court, as we expect, does not intervene on prorogation, that leaves Hilary Benn’s legislation – requiring Johnson to seek an extension to the Art. 50 withdrawal period – as the main tactical approach left for Remainers.
But Johnson has the possibility of launching a legal challenge to Benns law, if he wants to.
The No No Deal law does nothing if such a challenge is upheld (as it should be), but the government team may have better ideas than issuing a challenge as Eurointelligence reports:
The act has been repeatedly and mistakenly described in the British media as “taking no deal off the table”, which illustrates how few journalists have bothered to even read the plain words of its text. Johnson is required by the act to send a letter to the European Council requesting an extension until 31st January 2020. But the act only requires that he send this letter on October 19. Even then, he only has to send the letter if parliament hasn’t agreed to either a deal or a no-deal exit by that date. Both scenarios being explicitly allowed by the legislation. Moreover, it allows Johnson to withdraw the letter if the House of Commons votes in favour of either a withdrawal agreement or of no-deal exit between 19th October and 31st October.
We think the Remainers committed a strategic error. It was a mistake to leave the machinery of government in Johnson’s hands between now and October 31. He will be the only person in the room negotiating and speaking to other heads of government. It also leaves plenty of avenues at his disposal for frustrating an extension request. However watertight Hillary Benn’s legislation might seem, one thing it cannot do is muzzle the prime minister or limit his right to make political statements, both within the House of Commons and at the European Council in October. It also means Johnson now has five more weeks to dominate the UK media agenda, unimpeded by parliamentary questioning thanks to prorogation.
So in the end whatever Remainers do, short of calling a vote of no confidence and forcing an election, which after their idiotic performance over the past few week the opposition will surely lose, they cannot stop no deal. Quite simply, so long as Boris can string things out until 31 October, no deal is the default legal position. All the Remainers antics and the bigoted Jock judges have achieved is to make anything but no deal almost impossible.
Good work, Remainers.
Pro Brexit protestors outside parliament accuse Remainer MPs of teason (picture RT)
In the wake of a bunch of offal scoffing, Buckie swilling, ginger whinger judges in Chilly Jocko Land declaring Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament illegal (like its anything to do with them,) we have more totally disgusting, anti – democratic shenanigans from rabid remainers in politics and the media today.
The Edinburgh establishment have always taken themselves too seriously of course, they were even delusional enough to believe their little country could be an independent nation. In fact Scotland is such an economic basket case, with only 1/12th of the total UK population it accounts for around half the deficit. And yet three old drunks in an Edinburgh court are upset at suggestions their decision to try and jerk their paymasters strings is politically motivated. Of course it was politically motivated, while most Scottish people are fine, the Edinburgh political set are obsessive haters of all things British, particularly our wealth on which their little country is dependent.
However the Buckie – soaked Jocks have managed to cause some trouble in London as their outlandish and totally unconstitutional ruling has given rabid Remainers in London an opportunity to try again to deny the democratically expressed will of the people.
The ruling has now been used to mount a challenge to the legality of PM Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament in the UK’s top courts. The case is not about the constitution or whether prorogation is legal, (it is, and is the only way to end a parliamentary session,) it is fundamentally about a group of British MPs who are hoping that when they are thrown outr of office by voters disgusted at their self interested behaviour, they can step up to lucrative EU jobs. And they believe that by reversing the result of the 2016 EU referendum they will curry favour with the EU bureaucracy, a Brexit analyst has said.
Alastair Donald, associate director of the Academy of Ideas, believes the court case against Johnson’s prorogation shows that pro-EU MPs who are upset at the prospect of the UK leaving the bloc are desperate to thwart the “democratic decision” of the British people.
Donald is also a contributor for BrexitCentral, an organization that is “unapologetically optimistic” about a post-Brexit Britain. He hit out at the decision made by the Scottish Court of Session on Wednesday that ruled Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was “unlawful.”
The three judges at Scotland’s highest court in Edinburgh who ruled that the prorogation of parliament on Monday night by Johnson was unconstitutional denied their ruling was politically motivated and claimed that is is unacceptable to suggest judges may be biased. One of the judges, Lord Brodie, told the court that the “tactic to frustrate parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful.”
All three are however known to be sympathetoc to the Srty’s obsessive pursuite of independence. And the pro – independence mob in Edinburgh are as blinkers as the far left loonies of Corbyn’s Labour Party. It is as unlikely that they are as incapable of being unbiased on matters pertaining to the English parliament as tortoise is of of playing a violin.
Johnson should be worried about the ruling although the High Court in England has already ruled the issue is not a matter for the courts but for parliament. This usurpation of parliamentary power should also concern British society at large, Donald insisted, because the “democratic process is being ripped up in front of our eyes.”
<a href="https://originalboggartblog.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/the-tory-collaborators-working-with-eu-to-stop-brexit-exposed/"The Tory Collaborators Working With EU To Stop Brexit Exposed
Anarchy In The UK — and elsewhere. (An analysis of ANARCHISM: a much misunderstood political philosophy)
The really big news often does not get reported in mainstream media. Remember that bombshell report from the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons in which their inspectors concluded the Douma Poison Gas Attack in Syria was not carried out by Assad forces but bt rebel groups supplied and supported by the USA and NATO? No?
Not surprising really, unless you read “crazy conspiracy theorists” like Caitlin Johnson, David Icke and me you will still be under the impression that President Obama had provided ‘irrefutable evidence’ of Assad’s guilt. That evidence consisted of nothing more substantial than Barack ‘was sure’ it was Assad, and the only reason a person would doubt him was ‘white supremacist racism Yo Blud!”
Such is the state of mainstream news reporting. For those of us who like to dig a bit deeper it is no surprise that the biggest story of the year so far in British news is being completely blanked by print and broadcast news.
It is global news, reported in the USA, Australia, Cyprus (where I get my info on it,) and India. Yet the UK media have thrown a blockade around it.
Because the story will expose the absolute corruption of our political system and send a shock wave through Europe that will probably tear the EU apart. The Government in the UK know it is inevitable the real story must emerge of how our politicians have colluded with EU bureaucrats to overturn the referendum result and keep Britain in the Union as it moves closer to becoming a politically integrated superstate.
The news that the UK is out of the EU by law, having left on the 29th March 2019, by law. Theresa May had no constiutional authority to extend Article 50. This Judicial verdict in a case now before the High Court could and ought to bring down the UK government and see May and several of her ministers charged with treason. What news could and would be big enough to divert the worlds attention from fake news about The Russians allegedly interfereing in the US election, The inept attempts of the US Democratic Party to impeach and remove from office the elected president on charges of … well they’ll let us know when they have thought of something that might stick What news is big enough globally to distract not just UK news but world news?
1. To publicize this case in the USA and force it onto the agenda here in the UK
2. We must not allow the UK Government the opportunity to distract the world from what the illegally did to the USA .
This video is the revised version. the original has had over 30k views in two days there is interest! Listen to @RobinTilbrook and what he says about the media blockade… what he says about real news not being reported
1. To publicize this case in the USA and force it onto the agenda here in the UK
2. We must not allow the UK Government the opportunity to distract the world from what the illegally did to the USA .
This video is the revised version. the original has had over 30k views in two days there is interest! Listen to @RobinTilbrook who launched the case challenging Theresa May and calling her to account for her crime, and what he says about the media blockade… what he says about real news not being reported:
Brexit has terrified ‘Brussels bubble’ – German insider
The EU elite “lost faith in their own appeal and abilities” following the Brexit referendum vote and the surge in support for nationalist parties. The knee jerk response of the Brussels bubble was to try (and fail) to punish Britain for defing Brussels in the same way as they had punished small nations like Greece, Portugal and Ireland, which in their perception was the only way to prevent the EU breaking apart.
Brexit-supporting Fishermen Worried May Will Sell Them out After ‘30 Years of Torment
British fishermen fear Theresa the Appeaser May will sell out their industry to the EU, as Brussels negotiator Michel Barnier courts their European rivals in Denmark. It is outrageous, but typical of the Euronazis approach to negotiations that Brussels is making promises to EU member states about what they will be allowed to do in british territorial waters…
Trump Gets Tough after EU Threatens Taxes on Jeans, Bourbon, and Harley-Davidsons
U.S. President Donald Trump is adopting a tough on the European Union, after the Union’s unelected leaders threatened to impose punitive tariffs on leading American brands in retaliation for his attempts to protect the jobs of American steelworkers. “So now we will also impose import tariffs,” threatened Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the unelected European Commission, at an event in Hamburg, Germany.
Brexit-supporting Fishermen Worried May Will Sell Them out After ‘30 Years of Torment
British fishermen fear Theresa the Appeaser May will sell out their industry to the EU, as Brussels negotiator Michel Barnier courts their European rivals in Denmark. It is outrageous, but typical of the Euronazis approach to negotiations that Brussels is making promises to EU member states about what they will be allowed to do in …
Liam Fox Savages Labour’s ‘Betrayal’ Brexit Plan with UK in EU Customs Union
We’ve said it before and its certain all of us will say it again. If you lumped the whole of the parliamentary Labour Party together, they would just about equal the intellect of a retarded five year old suet pudding. Why would any sane person want to keep us in the EU customes union, which …
Europhile Tory Patten brands votes like Brexit ‘appalling and a sin against parliamentary democracy’
Former Conservative Cabinet minister ‘Lord’ Chris Patten has spoken of his ‘horror’ over Brexit and warned the EU was ‘devouring’ his party as Remainers rage, raged against the dying of the Europe projects hoping to block the flagship EU bill during the first day of a marathon 48-hour debate. Long time Europhile and elitist meritocrat …
Corbyn Comes Out: UK Can’t Stay in EU Single Market After Brexit
He’s been a lifelong opponent of the unemocratic, protectionist EU who has been held to ransome for a year and a half by the rabid remainmers in his party. now at last Jeremy Corvyn has come out of the closet and said there can be no half – arsed, half – in, half – out …
Why Brexit: A Reader Explains
In answer to the question “Why Does Britain Want To Leave The European Union” posed in a comment thread (in one of our other locations) a reader gave this explicit answer which is worth sharing as widely as possible. Why does the United Kingdom want to leave the European Union? David Reardon, M.A. International Relations …
Could Italy’s Banking Crisis Drag Down Mario Draghi?
The latest banking crisis in Italy risks focusing scrutiny on the leadership of both the Bank of Italy and Italy’s financial markets regulator Consob. The decision to give the central bank’s current Chairman Ignazio Visco a fresh six-year mandate despite his having presided over one of the worst banking crises in living memory …
Why does the United Kingdom want to leave the European Union?
I worked for the European Commission, the administrative branch of the EU governing bureaucracy for several years, though I was not an official but an external consultant. On the way to my office in the Batement Jean Monnet in Luxembourg City every morning I would pass a large plaque, The words etched on it described the vision of Monnet, Coudenhove – Kalergi, Robert Schuman, Paul – Henri Spaak and others, of a Europe in which there were no French people, no Germans, Italians, Dutch, Belgians and eventually, as the community expanded, no Britons, Spaniards Portuguese, Greeks, Austrians, Swedes etc., only Europeans,
EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini said in Malta on Friday that accession talks with Turkey have not been halted, following a Turkish referendum that gave President Erdogan dictatorial powers. Despite this rejection of the democratic principle all EU members are in theory expected to uphold, Mogherini still wants the predominently Islamic middle easter nation, to join.
“Do your research?” seems to be the latest fashion on internet comment threads for trying to undermine sombody’s contribution without actually being able to write a rebuttal or construct an argument challenging what they have offered. It has replaced “Do the math,” or the rather silly “Do the science,” but like them only shows the person using it is sadly deficient in rhetorical skills.
I came across an article today which employed the “do your research” technique without actually using thise words. It was about the appointment to the US Supreme Court of Justice Kavanaugh, and the attempt to block his elevation by a woman named Christine Blasey Ford, who accused the judge of sexually assaulting her over 30 years ago at a student drinking party. Blasey Ford could not remember the date or location of the alleged offence, nor could she produce any witnesses to back her allegation, in fact those she named as witnesses denied any knowledge of an offence having taken place. As the US Supreme Court is not important to us in Britain this story serves as an illustration of how people on the internet, on TV and Radio news and in the newspapers try to manipulate opinion.
In an article titled “Ford Wins Credibility Battle but Not The War” the author argues that tratification of Kavanaugh’s appointment should have been blocked because Blasey Ford was a more credible witness. Using the usual liberal / left wing trick of stating his opinion as if it is an uncentastable fact he cited Kavanaugh’s answers to three questions put to him by senator Joe Kennedy (yeas one of The Kennedy’s but not one of The Dead Kennedys,)
The three questions and Kavanaugh’s answers were:
Kennedy asked Kavanaugh to swear before God and country to a series of questions he was about to ask him.
Kavanaugh agreed to do so.
First, Kennedy asked Kavanaugh if he had sexually assaulted Ford. Kavanaugh responded with what he perceived to be evidence that he did not do it. It was a Democratic conspiracy to destroy his reputation.
Next Kavanaugh was asked if he had violated Ms. Ramirez. He answered with more of what he considered proof that he did not do it. Again, it was an allegation orchestrated by the Democrats.
Third, he was asked if he had exposed his penis to a third woman. Again, Kavanaugh offered what he considered evidence that he did not do this act. Namely, it was a conspiracy made up by a porn actress’s lawyer.
The problem with Kavanaugh’s answers to Sen. Kennedy is that a truthful answer would have been a simple yes or no.
Had Kavanaugh looked Kennedy in the eyes and answered no, I would have graded him as equally credible or more credible than Ford. He did not. I believe Dr. Ford and not Judge Kavanaugh.
How does this relate to “Do your research?”
What the writer is asking us to do here is believe his version of the exchange instead of doing our research. Kennedy’s questions, taken out of context and without reference to what had been said previously still do not lead an unbiased person to concur with the author’s opinion. In fact Kavanaugh had already denied the allegations many times, and in rhetorical terms he is refusing here to dignify the most lurid version of Blasey Ford’s accusation with a denial. It is moot to suggest Kavanaugh failed to provide proof that he did not perpetrate the acts he is accused of, in legal terms it is impossible to prove a negative and therefore the burden of proof rests on the accuser.
Christine Blasey Ford, a Democratic Party activist, a vociferous critic of Donald Trump (who appointed Kavanaugh to the supreme court, an appointment that was seen as hugely damaging to the Democratic Party, and a feminist, did not report the assault at the time it is alleged to have taken place, or mention it for thirty years as Kavanaugh rose through the ranks of the US judicial system to its pinnacle. That in itself, and the timing of her accusation should arouse suspicion about her credibility. But to liberals, interested only in disrupting the Trump presidency it doesn’t.
And had the author done his research, he would have known that Blasey Ford, far from being the credible adversary in this case, was, according to classmates, not the shy ingenue she and her supporters claimed but an enthusiastic party girl and something of a raver. In fact the college yearbook for that year makes an oblique reference to her reputation. So while it is likely that someone did once push their genitals in her face at a party, it is also understandable that she might have trouble remembering who and at what party.
Such cheap tricks are how politics is played now. If only people who say (or imply,) “Do your research,” would first do their research.
The UK’s Supreme Court, has ruled on the legal status of Scottish, that the Scottish Parliament does not have legal standing to demand the right to veto the EU Withdrawal Act.
The judgement specifically states that the Scottish Bill contravenes both the t he original devolution settlement, The Scotland Act, and the Tory/DUP government’s recent European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which withdrew some devolved powers from the Scottish Parliament and returned them to Westminster. The Tory/DUP European Union (Withdrawal) Act Schedule 4 specified that it overruled the Scotland Act devolution settlement.
They can take our lives, but they’ll never take our deep fried Mars Bars (Picture: still from Braveheart – Wikimedia Commons)
You can read the full judgement, but the significant parts are paragraphss 47 to 65, which state clearly that neither the Scotland Act nor the Sewell Convention in any way limits the power of the UK Parliament to legislate for Scotland, even in devolved areas, without any need for consent from Scottish ministers or parliament. The justices specifically explain that London ministers have complete power under the Scotland Act, without needing consent from the Scottish Parliament or further endorsement from the Westminster parliament, to impose secondary legislation on Scotland.
The Supreme Court said in its press release for the media:
What is the effect of the UK Withdrawal Act on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in relation to the Scottish Bill? The UK Withdrawal Act is not a reserved matter but it is protected against modification under Schedule 4 . Several provisions of the Scottish Bill in whole or in part amount to modifications of the UK Withdrawal Act. These are: section 2(2) ; section 5 ; section 7(2)(b) and 7(3) [103-104]; section 8(2) ; section 9A ; section 9B ; section 10(2), 10(3)(a) and 10(4)(a) [108-110]; section 11 [111-113]; section 13B, section 14, section 14A, section 15, section 16, section 19(1) and section 22 (to the extent that these provisions relate to section 11) [114-118, 120-121]; section 26A(6) ; and section 33 and Schedule 1 paragraphs 11(a) and 16 [123-124].
The judgement reaffirms Scotland’s colonial status and the London view that the Scotland Act did not recognise any inherent Scottish rights, but rather graciously handed down from above some powers that London may change at a whim, exactly as though Scotland were an English County Council. All of which was addressed in the independence referendum of 2014, when Scottish voters heard all the philosophical arguments for full independence, weighed these against the extent to which Scotland’s economy is dependent on England, and decisively rejected independence.
Taking all this into account, the part of the judgement which states that it was not in itself outside the remit of the Scottish Parliament to pass a bill which relates solely to the domestic effects of EU withdrawal, that is utterly irrelevant in the wider scheme of things.
Incidentally it is worth noting that all the hysterical lefties currently running round screeching Trump said he’s a nationalist, that means he’s a Nazi because Hitler was a National Socialist, Gertmany’s ‘far right’ AfD are Nazis because Hitler etc.,” or “Italy’s ‘far right’ Lega are Nazis because …” and Sweden’s ‘far right’ Sweden Democrats blah blah, because nationalism is evil.” have never uttred a word against the far left neo-stalinists of The Scottish Nationalist Party. Just thought I’d mention that because recently I’d had some very amusing exchanges with liberals and lefties for pointing out that if you say all Nationalism is evil because Trump and Hitler are nationalists, then you are saying Gandhi and the Dalai Lama are evil because they are also nationalists.
Liberals and lefties don’t have very good literacy skills because they unanimously say, “But you can’t compare Gandhi to Hitler …”
I’m not comparing of course, I’m contrasting, in the hope (a forlorn hope in the case of brainwashed liberals and lefties perhaps, that readers who do not already understand that nationalism is not specifically about invading Poland or exerminating ethic minorities. Nationalist, like liberal, can only ever be loosely defined.
A drop in the value of appple shares has pushed the godlike technology corporation back below Microsoft’s market capitalisation for the first time since May 2010, taking a big enough bite out of Apple’s valuation to lose the company its spot as the most valuable US company.
Earlier today , Apple share proces tumbled after reports that the US Supreme Court appears willing to allow a lawsuit to go forward that claims Apple has unfairly monopolized the market for the sale of iPhone apps.
As Associated Press reports, the court has heard arguments in Apple’s effort to shut down an antitrust lawsuit.
Chief Justice John Roberts was alone among the nine justices in seeming ready to agree with Apple.
The suit by iPhone users could force Apple to cut the 30 percent commission it charges software developers whose apps are sold exclusively through Apple’s App Store.
A judge could triple the compensation to consumers under antitrust law if Apple ultimately loses the suit.
Justice Stephen Breyer used to teach antitrust law at Harvard Law School. He says the consumers’ case seemed straightforward.
Apple argues it’s merely a pipeline between app developers and consumers.
A ruling against Apple could result in hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. The company is sitting on almost a trillion dollars in cash. Though fanboys are claiming this would be a fleabite to Apple, which is holding a billion dollars in cash, things are more complicated than that. Apple’s cash mountain is profit (from robbing users with their monopolistic marketing policies) offshored to avoid tax. The moment they start repatriating that, the taxman is going to be on their case.
And as is usually the case with these tech companies that think they are above the law, once the case reveals how they have stolen from users, public trust will evaporate. That’s what will really hurt.
The UK High Court on Monday ruled against a bid by a users group to sue Google for allegedly collecting sensitive data from 4.4 million iPhone users in England and Wales. The High Court judgement stated, “there is no dispute that it is arguable that Google’s alleged role in the collection, collation, and use of data obtained via the Safari Workaround was wrongful, and a breach of duty.”
Justice Mark Warby, presiding, said it had been blocked because claims that people had suffered material damages were not supported by the facts, as well as the impossibility of calculating the number of iPhone users affected. The collection of data was “wrongful and a breach of duty,” he said, but ruled that there was insufficient evidence “damages” had been incurred to allow the law suit to go ahead. The Judge has a point, but we should ask now, why is the UK government through its communications regulator OFCOM not prosecuting Google on behalf of the public, when it is blatantly obvious these data pirates violated about a million proivacy and data protection laws.
The legal challenge was instigated by a group calling itself Google You Owe Us, and was a representative action — a claim brought by an individual on behalf of a group of people. It alleged that Google, a unit of the US tech company Alphabet, had bypassed privacy settings oniPhones (not difficult, Apple are not the technology gods they sell themselves as,) between August 2011 and February 2012 to collect data for sale to advertisers for the purpose of targeting internet users with advertising matter based on their internet browsing habits. It launched legal action last November.
Richard Lloyd, leader of the users’ group Google You Owe Us, called the decision “extremely disappointing” and said there were plans to appeal. “Today’s judgement effectively leaves millions of people without any practical way to seek redress and compensation when their personal data has been misused,” he said.
“The privacy and security of our users is extremely important to us. This claim is without merit, and we’re pleased the Court has dismissed it,” a Google spokesperson said. Well they would, wouldn’t they?
Read more on Google: Google turns 20: In search of next multibillion-dollar company
In a case that could halt the development of GM crops around the world, and thus the push by a few global corporations to gain control of the food supply, a court San Francisco this week awarded $289 million in damages to a former school groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, whose lawyers claimed Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller gave him terminal cancer. The award consists of $40 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages.
Johnson’s trial was fast-tracked due to the severe state of his non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system he says was triggered by Roundup and Ranger Pro, a similar glyphosate based herbicide that he was a=obliged by his job to use up to 30 times per year. His doctors didn’t think he’d live to live to see the verdict.
Johnson told the court that he had been involved in two accidents during his work in which he was soaked with the herbicide. The first of these occurred in 2012. Two years later, the 46-year-old father of two was diagnosed with lymphoma – which has since covered as much as 80% of his body in lesions.
Monsanto says it will appeal the verdict.
“Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews — and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world — support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement.
Monsanto is now a subsidiary of Germany’s Bayer AG, which closed on its $66 billion purchase of the agrochemical company in June.
On Tuesday, Johnson’s attorney Brent Wisner urged jurors to hold Monsanto liable and slap them with a verdict that would “actually change the world” – after arguing that Monsanto knew about glyphosate’s risks of cancer, but decided to ignore and bury the information.
According to a report in The Guardian, Johnson’s lawsuit against is the first such case against Monsanto to complete the full trial process over allegations that the chemical sold under the Roundup brand is linked to cancer. Thousands have made similar legal claims across the United States. Many of these are still tied up in the labyrinthine procedures of the American justice system and many other complainants have either run out of money or simply given up.
The Johnson case focused on the chemical glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, which Monsanto began marketing as Roundup in 1974. The company began by presenting it as a “technological breakthrough” that could kill almost every weed without harming humans or the environment. –SHTFplan.com
In September, 2017 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that glyphosates were not likely carcinogenic to humans, based on a decades-long study. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s cancer arm issued an opposite statement – warning that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Johnson’s case is not part of the consolidated proceedings in Missouri, Delaware or California state court, where some 2,000 similar cases are pending. It’s also separate from a federal multidistrict litigation waiting to be heard by US District Judge Vance Chabria of San Francisco – who allowed hundreds of Roundup lawsuits to proceed to trial after ruling that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to hear the cases despite calling a plaintiff’s expert opinions “shaky.”
Documents released in August of 2017 led to questions over Monsanto’s efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup.
As the New York Times commented last year, leaked internal emails, among other things, reveal ethical objections from former employees to “ghost writing” research studies that were pawned off as ‘independent’ analyses.
These documents detail the meaures to which the Monsanto was willing to resport in order to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.
A similar issue appeared in academic research. A biologist involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”
The newly disclosed emails also reveal internal discussions which cast some doubt over whether internal scientists actually believed in the company’s external messaging that Roundup was, in fact, safe. In the bigger picture these documents will throw into doubt legal judgements in many other cases, as they strongly suggest Monsanto have misled the courts in their evidence.