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.
Gina Miller. Boris Johnson and The High Court
Having concluded ]it’s three-day hearing in a case that will determine whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks was lawful or not the judges, most of who displayed a definite anti – Brexit bias during the proceedings, must now ponder the legal – and not the political implications of the case. Their Lordships should bear in mind, though if the Remain factions wins the argument they will not, that the English ill Of Rights, which became law in 1689, states unequivocally, “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 decision of the justices is expected early next week. As thus point, it is imposssible to predict a verdict, but should they let their own political prejudices interfere with their oath of impartiality and rule that the suspension was indeed unlawful, that ruling would mean that technically the prorogation actually never happened.
Lord Pannick QC, the lawyer who represents the lead plaintiff, lawyer, millionaire businesswoman and Brazilian totty Gina Miller, told the court that Speaker Bercow should then be entitled to reconvene parliament as early as next week. Furthermore legal pundits who have obviously not familiarised themselves with the quoted clause from the Bill Of Rights are claiming Prime Minister Johnson, who effectively stands accused of lying to the Queen about his motives to suspend parliament, could face jail time. This is bollocks, to refer back to the Bill of Rights , “debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in ANY court.”
Ah yes, but that act was passed 330 years ago, and times have changes the rabid Remainers screech, showing their usual disregard for the law when the law denies them what they want. It was passed 330 years ago, but until it is repealed by act of parliament it stands. And as for Johnson misleading The Queen, that’s bollocks too, we cannot know what was actually said in their exchange because conversations between Monarch and Prime Minister are private and are never discussed publicly but The Monarch has her own legal and constitutional advisers who would not allow her to be conned or bullied into doing anything of uncertain legality
While this would be sensational stuff in normal times, and possibly force the resignation of Mr. Johnson, these are not normal times. The opposition having twice voted down acts proposed by the government to advance Brexit, have on each occasion declined to call a vote of confidence and force an election (because they know they would lose,) and have twice voted down government efforts to call an election, thus leaving the country paralyzed politically in their determination to thwart the democratic will and stop the UK leaving
The Fourth Reich The EU in line with the result of the 2016 referendum. Reports circulating in political circles suggest Boris Johnson’s government is already publicly contemplating whether, should a Remainer alliance in the Supreme Cort and parliament force the recall of parliament, the government might immediately impose a further suspension and thus run down the clock to our default leaving date, October 31st. If you are a Leave supporter there’s no need to Pannick yet, there are a few more constitutional tricks available to Boris and every silly stunt aimed at stopping Brexit ensures that when the inevitable election is held, the defeat of Labour and The Liberal Democrats is completely crushing.
How Much Does The UK Actually Send To The EU
Big kerfuffle this week over Conservative leadership contender Boris Johnson facing trial for his claim, during the EU Referendum campaign, that Britain sends £350million a week to Brussels. Originally the Remainers claimed somebody in the Leave camp had said all the money would go to the NHS. Nobody actually said that but if fanatics want something to be true, they can easily convince themselves it is.
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.
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)
Let’s be realistic, when news broke that convicted paedophile and serial sex offender Jeffrey Epstain had been found dead in his prison cell having committed suicide while awaiting trial on further charges of having sex with and procuring for sex girls and boys under the legal age of consent, and trafficking under age people around the world for the purpose of prostitution, we all thought the “suicide” bit was FAKE NEWS.
When you consider that among Epstein’s known associates who had travelled on his “Lolita Express,” the private jet that ferried the rich and famous to Epstein’s private island in The Caribbean for “house parties,” included former U.S. President Bill Clinton, the second son of Queen Elizabeth of England, Prince Andrew, top civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, actor Kevin Spacey and a host of wealthy and prominent figures from politics, business, law, entertainment and media, there were a lot of people who stood to lose both money and resputation if their names came out in a court case involving sexual misdemeanours. Now do you still believe the official narrative about Epstein hanging himself in prison?
Apparently Epstein’s defense team, the lawyers who would have tried to argue his case don’t buy the suicide narrative either. Reports are circulating that one of the lead lawyers voiced deep skepticism that Epstein hanged himself, while addressing a final hearing in a Manhattan US District Court on Tuesday, which was held to formally dismiss the charges as is typical in U.S. law when the accused is deceased, but also to still allow the testimony of crime victims to be heard in public.
Defense lawyer Reid Weingarten told Judge Richard Berman during the hearing that Epstein’s injuries were “far more consistent with assault” than suicide, especially the broken bones in his neck discovered during the autopsy after he was found dead in his jail cell on Aug. 10. It was previously revealed that Epstein’s defense attorneys had successfully lobbied for him to be taken off suicide watch on July 29, about a week before he was found dead in his cell, according to ABC News.
“Weingarten cited the defense’s own medical sources. Broken bones were found in Epstein’s neck during an autopsy after he died Aug. 10,” reports CNBC. “Such fractures are more common in cases of strangulation than in hanging.”
Weingarten told the court that Epstein didn’t appear suicidal during discussions with his lawyers and interactions the evening before his apparent early morning hours death. “We did not see a despairing, despondent, suicidal person,” the lawyer said.
Tuesday’s hearing was held to allow about 20 female witnesses, many choosing to remain anonymous, to tell the court and the world what happened to them at the hands of the wealthy sex predator and human trafficker.
Judge Berman wrote of the hearing, “The Court believes that where, as here, a defendant has died before any judgment has been entered against him, the public may still have an informational interest in the process by which the prosecutor seeks dismissal of an indictment.”
It would also appear, to Boggart Blog and The Daily Stirrer contributors that material seized from Epstein’s properties while he was held on remand contains, if reports are accurate, sufficient evidence to open investigations leading to the prosecution of several high profile Epstein associates. Ironically, this week’s District Court hearing marked the close of the federal criminal case and provide an excuse the sweep the whole sordid affair under the carpet, given Epstein’s “conveniently-timed” death.
Court Documents Expose Jeffrey Epstein’s Perverted Escapades With ‘Over 100 Young Girls’
You Don’t Have To Be A Conspiracy Theorist For The ‘Suicide’ Of Jeffrey Epstein To Stretch Your Credulity
Greenteeth Digital Publishing
The Daily Stirrer
While some Brexit supporters are furious that Boris Johnson’s initiative of meeting leaders of the EU’s main economic powers individually is some kind of betrayal and has moved us away from the likleyhood of a ‘no deal’ departure from the EU , this blog disagrees. Our opposition to the EU is not to our trading with the bloc, but to the surrender of sovereignty over our lawmaking process, border controls, defence, foreign and economic policies to Brussels. So long as we are leaving the EU and repatriating those things and control of our fisheries, agriculture and ability to negotiate our own treaties on trade, defence, migration and other areas of international relations we’re happy. Any deal that does not involve acceptance of the supremacy of EU law, uncontrolled immigration, a customs union (or an Irish backstop,) or accepting the EU’s right to negotiate treaties on our behalf is fine.
Boris Johnson seems to understand this, Theresa May did not. Her team, hamstrung by May’s belief that we could not leave without a deal, caved in to EU demands that we agree certain conditions before negotiations could begin. This put Britain in the position of a supplicant. Johnson, if his position is genuine, has shown he is prepared to lead the UK out of the Union without a deal and suddenly after months of insisting Theresa May’s disastrous deal was the only one possible.
Now faced with the reality that we can leave without a deal, the French and Germans are suddenly wiling to negotiate. As Donald Trump said, in any negotiation the worst thing you can do is let the other party know you are unwilling to walk away without a deal.
Yesterday, after meeting Johnson, France’s Emmanuel Macron, up to now the most hardline pro-EU leader, has described the Brexit ball as now in the UK’s court. He said, while the bloc does not want a no-deal exit, it would be ready if it happened.
Florian Phillipot leader of the far-right The Patriots party, commented. “Kudos to Boris Johnson, whose will and resolve have helped the UK get out of the EU, “Ultra-Europeans are in distress because Brexit is finally happening. This goes to show that when you push back against threats and blackmail, you can get things done.” ” he added.
Johnson, who has pledged to deliver Brexit no matter what, told the French president that he believed it was possible to agree a new deal before the October 31 deadline. He wants the hotly-contested Irish border backstop to be struck out of the current deal, which the EU has so far refused to renegotiate.
“Let’s get Brexit done, let’s get it done sensibly and pragmatically and in the interests of both sides and let’s not wait until October 31. Let’s get on now in deepening and intensifying the friendship and partnership between us,” he said.
Translated as literally as possible (with help from DeepL translator from a report in Swedish newspaper Expressen. No translation software is perfect and though my Swedish is rusty I get the sense of what is written and can improve the application’s clunky grammar. You may notice that the Expressen report is rather coy about the ethiic and religious background of the perpetrators in most of these attacks, that is because the paper would face legal sanctions in Sweden for reporting the facts. I am not so coy but chose not to interfere with the original content beyond making it read well — Ian Thorpe.
Following the summer’s attention-grabbing spate of rapes and sexual assaults, the sales of pepper spray for self defence have increased dramatically. The Kjell & Company retail chain believes that it will sell 90 percent more sprays in August than in June. One of the manufacturers, Plegium, has announced that sales this summer have “exploded”.
Sweden has been shaken this summer by a series of violent rapes. The most notable of these have taken place in the University city of Uppsala, where two completed rapes and two attempted rapes took place between 3 and 7 August. After the incidents, police called on the city’s women to avoid parks and alleys.
The sexual offences have provoked reaction from political reactions from political figures, most notably Christian Democrats Party (KD) leader Ebba Busch Thor, who herself is from Uppsala. “As insecurity grows, it is nothing but a welfare failure,” the KD leader wrote on Instagram.
Between March and July 2019, a suspected serial rapist attacked women in Rågsved in Stockholm. Two of the assaults ended with complete rape — and the events created terror among women in the area.
Other examples of the summer’s rape epidemic are the case of a teenage boy in Fagersta who was raped and detained by several masked men in June, the woman in central Stockholm who was raped outside her house in August, the assault on a 20-year-old woman in a park in Hällefors the same month, and so on.
Uppsala student Carolina Tuula, 23, bought a spray after the notable rape case in the city earlier in August. When asked did she feel safer with the spray she replied:
“Both yes and no, you never know. It can be difficult to get it fast enough, but you can’t go around worrying all the time. I wouldn’t say that I feel so much safer, but it does feel a little better to have a tool anyway.”
Carolina says she will soon be returning to Uppsala. The unrest in the student city has made her feel more afraid than at home in Gothenburg.
“I bought a spray for my girlfriend, because she will also move to Uppsala.
“- I wouldn’t say that I feel so much safer, but it feels a little better to have a defence weapon, anyway,” she says.
Carolina Tuula is not alone in worrying about assaults. Several retailers and manufacturers of self-defense spray tell Expressen that they have noted an explosive increase in sales.
The Bodyguard website reports that in July, it saw a 21 percent increase in sales compared to the previous year — despite the fact that more retailers are stocking self defence equipment since the market has grown.
Magnus Larsson is the chief forensic scientist in the chemistry and technology section of the National Forensic Center, which is branch of the police. He says that there is a risk people will buy an illegal spray — especially if the product is purchased abroad where the legislation may look different.
Examples of sprays that are illegal in Sweden are pepper spray and tear gas, but people should be aware that certain specific substances tht may be found in sprays are illegal in Sweden. Isopropyl alcohol and menthol are common ingredients. Then there are also colored sprays, whose purpose is to label the attacker. There are also smelly variants, says Magnus Larsson at the National Forensic Center.
According to Magnus Larsson, all of these eight substances have a tear-like effect.
Sweden’s Dystopia (omnibus)
Muslim migrants now such a threat to women in Sweden, armed police escorts accompany joggers on their runs
Migrants Rampage Through Sweden’s Second City
US Liberal Journalists Learn About Sweden’s Immigrant Violence First Hand