You are doing the same as Stirling. Offering an opinion on the behaviour of the girl and not on the law involved. Which none of us are really qualified to attempt.

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.

The law has decided that she cannot come back.

My opinion, and I'm confident that of the vast the majority is that she is getting off lightly as it is.

Sometimes the existing procedure is not fit for purpose when dealing with such exceptional occurrences. 'Justice' cannot be applied in the traditional form. There is a greater interest that has to be served.

It was an unusual circumstance caused by very unusual events. Labour had jammed the wheels of government by refusing every single Brexit option and then refusing to go to a general election against a minority government.

When the fixed term parliament act was written no one could have foreseen a circumstance when an opposition would turn down a chance of having a GE against a minority government.... despite JC calling for one every Wednesday for weeks.

Whilst he did break the law in looking for a solution, every legal avenue had been blocked and no viable alternative option to get government moving had been put forward by the opposition. Labour's actions leading up to it were undemocratic. Unfortunately, the law is a blunt instrument, so Labour didn't break the law, even though there behaviour was no better. In the eyes of reasonable people, Boris came out better than Corbyn, as the election result showed.

Who loses a GE to a minority government... by a landslide?

As written it has so been decided. Whether a political dispensation and an exception are made in the future remains to be seen. I would not rule that out, indeed I think it is more than likely.

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.

She has lost on appeal to the Supreme Court so she is not coming back. Furthermore case law is set so it is very unlikely any other similar perpetrators will be treated differently moving forwards. Notwithstanding that, the point Matov raised was one of questioning the law and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it as opposed to the outcome of the decision. And he makes a good point

Where do I suggest I do?

I have expressed no opinion on the matter, nor will I as I am not well enough informed and prefer to rely on those who are.

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.