Kangaroo Court in Edinburgh

[Agrivator]

I cannot understand how three unelected judges sitting in Edinburgh can decide such a massive issue in such a short time.

It seems to me that they found our Prime Minister guilty of a very serious crime in his absence and without the involvement of any Jury.

To me that is not a fair and independent Judiciary by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[M-J-G]

It will make no difference.

 

[jellybean]

Why do you expect justice? and is there such a thing anyway?

 

[Highland Mule]

Yet strangely the (Brexiteer) justice minister has confirmed that he believes they have acted correctly in ruling as they did.

 

[Amcnab]

Good on them. Need someone to bring Bozo and Cummings to heel

 

[Muck Spreader]

I cannot understand how three unelected judges sitting in Edinburgh can decide such a massive issue in such a short time.

It seems to me that they found our Prime Minister guilty of a very serious crime in his absence and without the involvement of any Jury.

To me that is not a fair and independent Judiciary by any stretch of the imagination.

Well someones got to call him to account, and it can't now be parliament. If the supreme court uphold the Scottish decision that BoJo deliberately lied to the Queen, it will be the first time in history that a serving PM has been found guilty of such a deliberate act.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Given the Queen & Bojo were not present in court the decision is little more than an act of political sabotage.

These judges were never in the position to rule on anything.

Obviously the Queen has her own advisors .. and she certainly didn't ask these three what their opinions were.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Given the Queen & Bojo were not present in court the decision is little more than an act of political sabotage.

These judges were never in the position to rule on anything.

Obviously the Queen has her own advisors .. and she certainly didn't ask these three what their opinions were.

No UK monarch has ever appeared in court since Charles 1st. But the Scottish court has an absolute right to judge on deliberate false information given to their monarch.

 

[gone]

Wow, the MPs are the problem, Parliament is the problem, the rule of law is the problem, the judges are the problem, the constitution is the problem.
Most countries that have gone down this road have regretted it at their leisure.

 

[wanton dwarf]

No UK monarch has ever appeared in court since Charles 1st. But the Scottish court has an absolute right to judge on deliberate false information given to their monarch.

What false information ?

Given neither you nor they were there how the FK would you know or they ?

As stated the Queen has a whole host of adivsors who probably know far more on her role than these judges will ever know.

Exactly the same for Boris.

What we have is a court that is totally out of it's depth in every sense possible.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Wow, the MPs are the problem, Parliament is the problem, the rule of law is the problem, the judges are the problem, the constitution is the problem.
Most countries that have gone down this road have regretted it at their leisure.

Only the Scottish supreme court has ruled against the government.

I wonder why ? Who would have thunk it.

 

[Agrivator]

Well someones got to call him to account, and it can't now be parliament. If the supreme court uphold the Scottish decision that BoJo deliberately lied to the Queen, it will be the first time in history that a serving PM has been found guilty of such a deliberate act.

You obviously didn't read my post.

Why are three judges allowed to act like a lynch mob. Whether or not the PM lied to the queen is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the decision on whether or not he is guilty can only be decided by a fair trial. And that has not taken place.

If you disagree with that, you are just part of the baying mob.

 

[capfits]

I cannot understand how three unelected judges sitting in Edinburgh can decide such a massive issue in such a short time.

It seems to me that they found our Prime Minister guilty of a very serious crime in his absence and without the involvement of any Jury.

To me that is not a fair and independent Judiciary by any stretch of the imagination.

As opposed to the uniformed keyboard warrior eh?

 

[wanton dwarf]

As opposed to the uniformed keyboard warrior eh?

I haven't seen anyone claiming to be informed about what went on between Boris Johnson & the Queen other than 3 judges who were never there.

 

[Exfarmer]

Virtually all western democracies, have to answer to the law. We are unique in having no constitution which gives politicians and courts free reign. Perhaps this is a wake up call?

 

[Muck Spreader]

What false information ?

Given neither you nor they were there how the FK would you know or they ?

As stated the Queen has a whole host of adivsors who probably know far more on her role than these judges will ever know.

Exactly the same for Boris.

What we have is a court that is totally out of it's depth in every sense possible.

What is there to know? BoJo and Cummings put forward the Prorogation on the basis of suddenly needing to start a new Parliamentary session, whilst being in the middle of the biggest parliamentary crisis the UK has faced since WW2. This was seen as deliberately misleading by the Scottish Courts who have the right to act in cases of political manipulation involving the monarch. Interestingly if the Supreme Court fail to uphold the Scottish Courts verdict, Cummings has let it be known they are thinking of Proroguing Parliament up to the 31st of October.

 

[Highland Mule]

I haven't seen anyone claiming to be informed about what went on between Boris Johnson & the Queen other than 3 judges who were never there.

I'm pretty sure that Boris and the Queen weren't 'there', insofar as they didn't meet (HM was at Balmoral and Boris sent JRM to do his bidding). Hence it would be reasonable to assume that much of the correspondence is retrievable.

 

[wanton dwarf]

What is there to know? BoJo and Cummings put forward the Prorogation on the basis of suddenly needing to start a new Parliamentary session, whilst being in the middle of the biggest parliamentary crisis the UK has faced since WW2. This was seen as deliberately misleading by the Scottish Courts who have the right to act in cases of political manipulation involving the monarch. Interestingly if the Supreme Court fail to uphold the Scottish Courts verdict, Cummings has let it be known they are thinking of Proroguing Parliament up to the 31st of October.

Neither the Queen or Boris gave evidence so the ruling was made based on conjecture.

As stated multiple times now the Queen has her own advisors who know far more about the requirements of the state than you or the judges will ever know.

 

[wanton dwarf]

I'm pretty sure that Boris and the Queen weren't 'there', insofar as they didn't meet (HM was at Balmoral and Boris sent JRM to do his bidding). Hence it would be reasonable to assume that much of the correspondence is retrievable.

So after 3.5 years of Brexit the Queen and Boris "forgot" about it, pull the other one.

 

[Highland Mule]

So after 3.5 years of Brexit the Queen and Boris "forgot" about it, pull the other one.

Sorry, I may be missing something. Can you put that remark in context? The request to prorogue parliament was not delivered by Boris, that much I am clear about. What did the Queen 'forget'?