XPost: 24hoursupport.helpdesk, alt.politics.scorched-earth, uk.politics.misc
XPost: uk.legal, alt.politics.uk
From: abelard3@abelard.org
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:35:38 +0000, The Todal
wrote:
>On 24/01/2017 11:21, Judith wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:51:20 +0000, GB wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/01/2017 10:46, burfordTjustice wrote:
>>>> Seems Brexit is dead! You were told the vote meant nothing.
>>>
>>> More than usually nonsensical. Even by your standards.
>>
>>
>> What an outrageous decision !!!!
>>
>> How can a bunch of judges who are "enemies of the people" go against the
wishes
>> of the British people, the Daily Mail, some of the lovely people here, and
the
>> bitch Theresa May and her right wing party who she is trying to appease.
>>
>>
>> Unless of course the Supreme Court know more about the law of the land than
the
>> Tory Party and its supporters and this has just been a total waste of money
and
>> time.
>>
>> Difficult one that.
>To be fair, I think Theresa May relied on advice from her Attorney
>General and from the team of government lawyers at the Treasury. I don't
>suppose she knows any law at all. I'm not sure what her specialist
>subject is - maybe the fauna and flora of the Swiss Alps.
>
>What it shows is the down-side of a government making cutbacks and
>economies in government services. The in-house team of lawyers is not a
>team of the brightest and best. Without wishing to be unkind, it isn't
>likely that any of them would have excelled in their profession if they
>had been in private practice. The Attorney General is a very mediocre
>barrister who had no past experience in constitutional law. They gave
>the advice that they knew their masters wanted to hear.
3/8th of these geniuses voted that she was able
5/8 voted no...
1 more and it would be 50/50
lawyers are not the sharpest of people...
they are no more sharp when they do what you want than
when they do the opposite
--
www.abelard.org
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
