Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 1350 of 1552 < 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 >

silvertop Portishead 06 Oct 19 8.56pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Narcissists always find a way to be 'right' no matter what happens. You are imprisoned by your own dogma. Pot. Kettle

silvertop

Portishead 06 Oct 19 8.56pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Narcissists always find a way to be 'right' no matter what happens. You are imprisoned by your own dogma.

Pot.

Kettle

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 06 Oct 19 9.05pm
Originally posted by silvertop Laughable conspiracy theory tosh. From you I expect better. You are welcome to look into the background of the eleven judges and come to your own conclusion. The obvious bias just makes it ridiculous that 11 politically appointed and motivated judges can overrule a system of government that has been in place for over 300 years. That is worrying, but I guess people don't need to worry while they are getting their own way. When things change though. Red and Blue Army!

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 06 Oct 19 9.05pm

Originally posted by silvertop

Laughable conspiracy theory tosh. From you I expect better.

You are welcome to look into the background of the eleven judges and come to your own conclusion. The obvious bias just makes it ridiculous that 11 politically appointed and motivated judges can overrule a system of government that has been in place for over 300 years. That is worrying, but I guess people don't need to worry while they are getting their own way. When things change though.

Red and Blue Army!

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 06 Oct 19 9.15pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Narcissists always find a way to be 'right' no matter what happens. You are imprisoned by your own dogma. As no-one who really knows me would ever describe me as a "narcissist" that made me think, and then laugh. So thanks for that. I certainly don't feel imprisoned by anything. The truth always sets you free and I think I have found it over this but I can always be proved wrong. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 06 Oct 19 9.15pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Narcissists always find a way to be 'right' no matter what happens. You are imprisoned by your own dogma.

As no-one who really knows me would ever describe me as a "narcissist" that made me think, and then laugh. So thanks for that.

I certainly don't feel imprisoned by anything. The truth always sets you free and I think I have found it over this but I can always be proved wrong.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 06 Oct 19 9.22pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC You are welcome to look into the background of the eleven judges and come to your own conclusion. The obvious bias just makes it ridiculous that 11 politically appointed and motivated judges can overrule a system of government that has been in place for over 300 years. That is worrying, but I guess people don't need to worry while they are getting their own way. When things change though. Do you actually understand how a Supreme Court justice is appointed? Or do you just think you do? For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 06 Oct 19 9.22pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

Do you actually understand how a Supreme Court justice is appointed? Or do you just think you do?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 06 Oct 19 9.26pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Do you actually understand how a Supreme Court justice is appointed? Or do you just think you do? I've actually looked into it - which is pretty obviously a lot more than you have done. Red and Blue Army!

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 06 Oct 19 9.26pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Do you actually understand how a Supreme Court justice is appointed? Or do you just think you do?

I've actually looked into it - which is pretty obviously a lot more than you have done.

Red and Blue Army!

Spiderman Horsham 06 Oct 19 9.38pm
I Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Firstly is it actually true? All I have heard from Chakrabati is that she regards Lady Hale as a "heroine". She would know her from the House of Lords and quite possibly from her other legal work, as both are advocates with an interest in promoting the advancement of women. Secondly why would it matter if it is true? Judges and MPs have friends, but it doesn't mean that affects their capacity to do their jobs. Judges leave their personal life, and personal opinions, in their homes. Their only master is the law. Never forget that the decision a week or so ago was unanimous. Lady Hale just happened to be the one who delivered it. Who knows who are the personal friends, and opinions, of the other 10 justices. This is the tabloids just trying to wind up people like you and undermine our legal system. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Firstly I think any friendship/ close connections should have been divulged prior to the case. Secondly can you explain what you mean by “people like you” what am I like? Everyone on here see you as a know all so I look forward to your response

Spiderman

Horsham 06 Oct 19 9.38pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Firstly is it actually true?

All I have heard from Chakrabati is that she regards Lady Hale as a "heroine". She would know her from the House of Lords and quite possibly from her other legal work, as both are advocates with an interest in promoting the advancement of women.

Secondly why would it matter if it is true? Judges and MPs have friends, but it doesn't mean that affects their capacity to do their jobs. Judges leave their personal life, and personal opinions, in their homes. Their only master is the law. Never forget that the decision a week or so ago was unanimous. Lady Hale just happened to be the one who delivered it. Who knows who are the personal friends, and opinions, of the other 10 justices.

This is the tabloids just trying to wind up people like you and undermine our legal system. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Firstly I think any friendship/ close connections should have been divulged prior to the case.
Secondly can you explain what you mean by “people like you” what am I like? Everyone on here see you as a know all so I look forward to your response

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 06 Oct 19 9.56pm
[Link] One of Wisbech's neighbours. Pro USA & Israel

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 06 Oct 19 9.56pm

[Link]

One of Wisbech's neighbours.

Pro USA & Israel

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 06 Oct 19 10.19pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC I've actually looked into it - which is pretty obviously a lot more than you have done. I did over a week ago when this nonsense first started to circulate. Here are the biographies of each. Not much there to indicate any political affiliations, let alone bias:- [Link] Judges are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who receives recommendations from a selection commission. So you explain. Where am I wrong? For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 06 Oct 19 10.19pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I've actually looked into it - which is pretty obviously a lot more than you have done.

I did over a week ago when this nonsense first started to circulate.

Here are the biographies of each. Not much there to indicate any political affiliations, let alone bias:-

[Link]

Judges are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who receives recommendations from a selection commission.

So you explain. Where am I wrong?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 06 Oct 19 10.29pm
Originally posted by Jimenez [Link] One of Wisbech's neighbours. If you knew much about Mr Robertson's politics then I wouldn't be too quick to be associated with him! I once had a fierce exchange with his father over his obsessive hatred of anything that suggested we become closer to our European neighbours and his use of his business, and it's advertising, to promote his views. Mind you, Trago does offer bargains and I am a regular buyer there! For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 06 Oct 19 10.29pm

Originally posted by Jimenez

[Link]

One of Wisbech's neighbours.

If you knew much about Mr Robertson's politics then I wouldn't be too quick to be associated with him!

I once had a fierce exchange with his father over his obsessive hatred of anything that suggested we become closer to our European neighbours and his use of his business, and it's advertising, to promote his views.

Mind you, Trago does offer bargains and I am a regular buyer there!

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 06 Oct 19 10.33pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I did over a week ago when this nonsense first started to circulate. Here are the biographies of each. Not much there to indicate any political affiliations, let alone bias:- [Link] Judges are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who receives recommendations from a selection commission. So you explain. Where am I wrong? I read the biographies and thought that there were quite a few indications of likely political bias. You read them and thought there was no indication of any. That's not to say you are definitely wrong - but that is where we differ. As for political bias. Firstly, the way that they were selected from the Lords and the way they were set up. It was all political at the time - supposed to be a way to not let the Lords have any actual power. Hilariously enough though, perhaps without knowing, an even more select bunch than the Lords have a greater say than the Lords did. Aren't some of them even judges that worked in EU courts? And then there are plenty of other factors in the make up of the judges that lead me to believe that there are several there who would not support Brexit. However, perhaps they have just done what they see as right and proper. People are well within their rights to want this examined and by no means it is an entirely invalid argument that the court has political bias. That cannot be countered by constant reminding of their apparent independence and impartiality - these are just opposing views that many may have. Red and Blue Army!

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 06 Oct 19 10.33pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I did over a week ago when this nonsense first started to circulate.

Here are the biographies of each. Not much there to indicate any political affiliations, let alone bias:-

[Link]

Judges are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who receives recommendations from a selection commission.

So you explain. Where am I wrong?

I read the biographies and thought that there were quite a few indications of likely political bias. You read them and thought there was no indication of any. That's not to say you are definitely wrong - but that is where we differ.
As for political bias. Firstly, the way that they were selected from the Lords and the way they were set up. It was all political at the time - supposed to be a way to not let the Lords have any actual power. Hilariously enough though, perhaps without knowing, an even more select bunch than the Lords have a greater say than the Lords did.
Aren't some of them even judges that worked in EU courts? And then there are plenty of other factors in the make up of the judges that lead me to believe that there are several there who would not support Brexit. However, perhaps they have just done what they see as right and proper. People are well within their rights to want this examined and by no means it is an entirely invalid argument that the court has political bias.
That cannot be countered by constant reminding of their apparent independence and impartiality - these are just opposing views that many may have.

Red and Blue Army!

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 06 Oct 19 10.36pm
Originally posted by Spiderman I Firstly I think any friendship/ close connections should have been divulged prior to the case. Secondly can you explain what you mean by “people like you” what am I like? Everyone on here see you as a know all so I look forward to your response Why reveal anything about your personal life? Judges are not ever required to do that as it is, quite correctly, assumed that they put all such things aside when considering what is lawful and what is not. Only if a defendant was known to the Judge, in any way, could that be a relevant matter. In this case there were no defendants. It was an action that was ruled unlawful. By "people like you" I am referring, pretty obviously, to the opinions you, and several others, have repeatedly expressed in earlier posts which I am attempting to show are based on incorrect information, innuendo or conspiracy theory. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 06 Oct 19 10.36pm

Originally posted by Spiderman

Why reveal anything about your personal life? Judges are not ever required to do that as it is, quite correctly, assumed that they put all such things aside when considering what is lawful and what is not.

Only if a defendant was known to the Judge, in any way, could that be a relevant matter. In this case there were no defendants. It was an action that was ruled unlawful.

By "people like you" I am referring, pretty obviously, to the opinions you, and several others, have repeatedly expressed in earlier posts which I am attempting to show are based on incorrect information, innuendo or conspiracy theory.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 06 Oct 19 10.37pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle If you knew much about Mr Robertson's politics then I wouldn't be too quick to be associated with him! I once had a fierce exchange with his father over his obsessive hatred of anything that suggested we become closer to our European neighbours and his use of his business, and it's advertising, to promote his views. Mind you, Trago does offer bargains and I am a regular buyer there! Doesn't Pimlico Plumbers do the same? Pro USA & Israel

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 06 Oct 19 10.37pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

If you knew much about Mr Robertson's politics then I wouldn't be too quick to be associated with him!

Mind you, Trago does offer bargains and I am a regular buyer there!

Doesn't Pimlico Plumbers do the same?

Pro USA & Israel

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 06 Oct 19 10.52pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC I read the biographies and thought that there were quite a few indications of likely political bias. You read them and thought there was no indication of any. That's not to say you are definitely wrong - but that is where we differ. Please identify these for me and explain where the bias arises. As for political bias. Firstly, the way that they were selected from the Lords and the way they were set up. It was all political at the time - supposed to be a way to not let the Lords have any actual power. Hilariously enough though, perhaps without knowing, an even more select bunch than the Lords have a greater say than the Lords did. As the Law Lords were selected in exactly the same way I have no idea what you mean. The only substantive difference seems to me that they can no longer take part in debates or vote so are now even less political then before. Aren't some of them even judges that worked in EU courts? And then there are plenty of other factors in the make up of the judges that lead me to believe that there are several there who would not support Brexit. However, perhaps they have just done what they see as right and proper. People are well within their rights to want this examined and by no means it is an entirely invalid argument that the court has political bias. That cannot be countered by constant reminding of their apparent independence and impartiality - these are just opposing views that many may have. Lady Arden and Lord Reed are "ad hoc" judges for the European Court of Human rights, being called upon to adjudicate when required. The UK providing such support as one of the 28 is very sensible. That's 2 from 12 who have even the slightest connection, which is hardly surprising given we are actually members! "Other matters" is just empty blather. If there is any evidence then identify it. Otherwise it is what I say it is. Conspiracy theory. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 06 Oct 19 10.52pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

Please identify these for me and explain where the bias arises.

As for political bias. Firstly, the way that they were selected from the Lords and the way they were set up. It was all political at the time - supposed to be a way to not let the Lords have any actual power. Hilariously enough though, perhaps without knowing, an even more select bunch than the Lords have a greater say than the Lords did.

As the Law Lords were selected in exactly the same way I have no idea what you mean. The only substantive difference seems to me that they can no longer take part in debates or vote so are now even less political then before.

Aren't some of them even judges that worked in EU courts? And then there are plenty of other factors in the make up of the judges that lead me to believe that there are several there who would not support Brexit. However, perhaps they have just done what they see as right and proper. People are well within their rights to want this examined and by no means it is an entirely invalid argument that the court has political bias.
That cannot be countered by constant reminding of their apparent independence and impartiality - these are just opposing views that many may have.

Lady Arden and Lord Reed are "ad hoc" judges for the European Court of Human rights, being called upon to adjudicate when required. The UK providing such support as one of the 28 is very sensible. That's 2 from 12 who have even the slightest connection, which is hardly surprising given we are actually members! "Other matters" is just empty blather. If there is any evidence then identify it. Otherwise it is what I say it is. Conspiracy theory.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

DANGERCLOSE London 07 Oct 19 7.34am
[Tweet Link]

DANGERCLOSE

London 07 Oct 19 7.34am

[Tweet Link]

Midlands Eagle 07 Oct 19 8.06am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I once had a fierce exchange with his father over his obsessive hatred of anything that suggested we become closer to our European neighbours and his use of his business, and it's advertising, to promote his views. A bit like yourself, your views and your usage of HOL to promote them

Midlands Eagle

07 Oct 19 8.06am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

A bit like yourself, your views and your usage of HOL to promote them

Spiderman Horsham 07 Oct 19 8.26am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Why reveal anything about your personal life? Judges are not ever required to do that as it is, quite correctly, assumed that they put all such things aside when considering what is lawful and what is not. Only if a defendant was known to the Judge, in any way, could that be a relevant matter. In this case there were no defendants. It was an action that was ruled unlawful. By "people like you" I am referring, pretty obviously, to the opinions you, and several others, have repeatedly expressed in earlier posts which I am attempting to show are based on incorrect information, innuendo or conspiracy theory. In your opinion. So we are back to the...."you lot" are so stupid that you believe anything you read...how arrogant you are

Spiderman

Horsham 07 Oct 19 8.26am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Only if a defendant was known to the Judge, in any way, could that be a relevant matter. In this case there were no defendants. It was an action that was ruled unlawful.

By "people like you" I am referring, pretty obviously, to the opinions you, and several others, have repeatedly expressed in earlier posts which I am attempting to show are based on incorrect information, innuendo or conspiracy theory.

In your opinion. So we are back to the...."you lot" are so stupid that you believe anything you read...how arrogant you are

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 07 Oct 19 9.22am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It's not a conspiracy theory to research into the background of the judges and see pertinent reasons for political bias. You are acting as if everything in this world is simply black and white. It isn't - I would have thought you might realise that sometimes there is more than meets the eye. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory. Two are current EU judges - by your own admission. When Brexit happens out of a job. Not much of a stretch. A new one is Scottish and was a supporter of independence. Are they likely to have a political bias? Some are former EU judges - would they have anything to lose? Some are former Labour peers. As already stated, these are mainly the law lords with a different name. Hardly impartial. Only ten years ago half were party affiliated. Red and Blue Army!

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 07 Oct 19 9.22am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It's not a conspiracy theory to research into the background of the judges and see pertinent reasons for political bias.
You are acting as if everything in this world is simply black and white. It isn't - I would have thought you might realise that sometimes there is more than meets the eye. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory. Two are current EU judges - by your own admission. When Brexit happens out of a job. Not much of a stretch. A new one is Scottish and was a supporter of independence. Are they likely to have a political bias?
Some are former EU judges - would they have anything to lose? Some are former Labour peers. As already stated, these are mainly the law lords with a different name. Hardly impartial. Only ten years ago half were party affiliated.

Red and Blue Army!

DANGERCLOSE London 07 Oct 19 9.43am
[Tweet Link]

DANGERCLOSE

London 07 Oct 19 9.43am

[Tweet Link]

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 19 9.45am
Originally posted by Spiderman In your opinion. So we are back to the...."you lot" are so stupid that you believe anything you read...how arrogant you are Where have I suggested anyone is "stupid"? Confirmation bias is a pretty common occurrence. All I have pointed out is that it is in play here. If that means that you think you are being stupid then join the club. We all are from time to time. The important thing is to recognise it. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 19 9.45am

Originally posted by Spiderman

In your opinion. So we are back to the...."you lot" are so stupid that you believe anything you read...how arrogant you are

Where have I suggested anyone is "stupid"?

Confirmation bias is a pretty common occurrence. All I have pointed out is that it is in play here. If that means that you think you are being stupid then join the club. We all are from time to time. The important thing is to recognise it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

cryrst The garden of England 07 Oct 19 10.04am
Ironic that boris might go to te supreme court to check the legality or correctness of the instruction to force him to ask for an extension. Let's see if the judges uphold it or find it ok. Maybe this will be a surprise result. A bit like brexit. I think I know what will happen.

cryrst

The garden of England 07 Oct 19 10.04am

Ironic that boris might go to te supreme court to check the legality or correctness of the instruction to force him to ask for an extension.
Let's see if the judges uphold it or find it ok.
Maybe this will be a surprise result.
A bit like brexit.
I think I know what will happen.

Page 1350 of 1552 < 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Site Map