Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
You seem to have gone off the boil a bit recently, DINLT.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In the last 100 years, the Tories have been the most successful of our three major parties. That suggests that the British people are inherently Conservative, otherwise they wouldn't vote blue so often.
No, it suggests nothing of the sort. What it does suggest is that our nation, the whims of the populace, historic spread of political parties, constituency boundaries and legal manner of determining who forms a government is inherently favouritive towards the Conservatives.
That doesn't mean the populace is inherently conservative.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Nobody takes the Daily Mail seriously, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they say.
The Mail online is the most visited English speaking news website on the planet. There are a hell of a lot of people who take it seriously that you've just cast aside.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And for the record, their enemies of the people headline was a disgrace, even though I disagreed with the court case in the first place, as people well know.
And this is why it's hard to take you seriously at times. For all your claims of being a student of politics and being a stout defender of the sovereignty of the British Parliament, you're very quick to discard that sovereignty when it doesn't match your preferred political outcome.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.
I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.
Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.
And then the average man on the street would be just as wrong as you. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy for a reason. It takes a lot of mental hoop-jumping to argue that the death penalty is abolished when it can still be applied.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty.
Just stop digging. The death penalty was abolished after leaving the EU. The death penalty for all but treason was abolished before leaving the EU. The common man on the street would agree with that.
There would be civil war if the government made protesting illegal.
Quite possibly, but by then anyone engaging in the civil war would be arrested for indefinite detention without trial on unidentified terrorism charges. Plus plenty of people will be against a protest ban, if framed correctly.
You've got some fairly good insight on occasion DINLT, but your posting style seems to have changed drastically recently. Everything OK?
Henry wrote: You seem to have gone off the boil a bit recently, DINLT.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In the last 100 years, the Tories have been the most successful of our three major parties. That suggests that the British people are inherently Conservative, otherwise they wouldn't vote blue so often.
No, it suggests nothing of the sort. What it does suggest is that our nation, the whims of the populace, historic spread of political parties, constituency boundaries and legal manner of determining who forms a government is inherently favouritive towards the Conservatives.
That doesn't mean the populace is inherently conservative.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Nobody takes the Daily Mail seriously, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they say.
The Mail online is the most visited English speaking news website on the planet. There are a hell of a lot of people who take it seriously that you've just cast aside.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: And for the record, their enemies of the people headline was a disgrace, even though I disagreed with the court case in the first place, as people well know.
And this is why it's hard to take you seriously at times. For all your claims of being a student of politics and being a stout defender of the sovereignty of the British Parliament, you're very quick to discard that sovereignty when it doesn't match your preferred political outcome.
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
As for the Daily Mail, people probably read it for entertainment value, comedy gold. Like watching a car crash in slow motion.
As for my conservative point, the Tories got what, 50% of the vote in the 1950s, so you can hardly blame a rigged system for that. The country is, IMO, historically Conservative. Voting numbers back me on that.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.
I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.
Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.
The "average man on the street" would probably also tell you he wanted it back. "Average men on the street" are more often than not idiots, probably drunk and maybe racist and/or homophobic. That is why they are hanging around on the street.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 13:17:41
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.
I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.
Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.
And then the average man on the street would be just as wrong as you. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy for a reason. It takes a lot of mental hoop-jumping to argue that the death penalty is abolished when it can still be applied.
It was the average man on the street that saved this nation from the EU. You're damn right I back his judgement.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.
I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.
Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.
The "average man on the street" would probably also tell you he wanted it back.
That may be, but that's an argument for another day.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty.
Just stop digging. The death penalty was abolished after leaving the EU. The death penalty for all but treason was abolished before leaving the EU. The common man on the street would agree with that.
There would be civil war if the government made protesting illegal.
Quite possibly, but by then anyone engaging in the civil war would be arrested for indefinite detention without trial on unidentified terrorism charges. Plus plenty of people will be against a protest ban, if framed correctly.
You've got some fairly good insight on occasion DINLT, but your posting style seems to have changed drastically recently. Everything OK?
Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean there's anything wrong with my posting style!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/13 13:18:32
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you ask the average man on the street about the death penalty, things like serial killers, terrorists and child killers would probably get mentioned quite a lot.
I'd be very surprised if they started talking about Burgess, Philby, Maclean, or any other Cambridge spy I've left out.
Everybody knew the distinction I was getting at.
There's the death penalty, and then there's the death penalty. The average man on the street would back me on this.
And then the average man on the street would be just as wrong as you. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy for a reason. It takes a lot of mental hoop-jumping to argue that the death penalty is abolished when it can still be applied.
It was the average man on the street that saved this nation from the EU. You're damn right I back his judgement.
Which explains a lot...
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
You cannot disagree with the court case whilst simultaneously claiming to love the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Without that court case, the prime minister would have removed sovereignty from parliament.
It was the average man on the street that saved this nation from the EU. You're damn right I back his judgement.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters.
That is what I think for the judgement of the "average man on the street". I don't want average people making decisions which affect our whole country. I want the smartest people doing that. Unfortunately the smartest people don't go into politics and the average intelligence people who do go into politics believe they are smart and so ignore those smartest people when they offer advice.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/13 13:28:08
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
You cannot disagree with the court case whilst simultaneously claiming to love the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Without that court case, the prime minister would have removed sovereignty from parliament.
I see no distinction. A lot of legal experts backed Parliament, a lot of legal experts backed the use of the Royal Prerogative.
It took our finest legal minds to resolve the issue, and even then, 3 judges backed the use of the Royal Prerogative, so it's not as clear cut or as black and white as people think.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
You cannot disagree with the court case whilst simultaneously claiming to love the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Without that court case, the prime minister would have removed sovereignty from parliament.
I see no distinction. A lot of legal experts backed Parliament, a lot of legal experts backed the use of the Royal Prerogative.
It took our finest legal minds to resolve the issue, and even then, 3 judges backed the use of the Royal Prerogative, so it's not as clear cut or as black and white as people think.
A majority of 8 to 3 is clear cut. If 8 to 3 isn't clear cut then how the feth is a referendum result of 51 to 49 clear?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
You cannot disagree with the court case whilst simultaneously claiming to love the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Without that court case, the prime minister would have removed sovereignty from parliament.
Personally, I don't disagree with the course case. Parliamentary sovereignty IS important, and its only right and legally appropriate for Parliament to approve the triggering of Article 50.
I just question the motives of those who brought the case. They don't actually care about Parliamentary Sovereignty (if they did, they would be in favour of Brexit), it was just another avenue to halt or delay Brexit. Therefore, I think they did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/13 13:32:32
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
You cannot disagree with the court case whilst simultaneously claiming to love the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Without that court case, the prime minister would have removed sovereignty from parliament.
I see no distinction. A lot of legal experts backed Parliament, a lot of legal experts backed the use of the Royal Prerogative.
It took our finest legal minds to resolve the issue, and even then, 3 judges backed the use of the Royal Prerogative, so it's not as clear cut or as black and white as people think.
A majority of 8 to 3 is clear cut. If 8 to 3 isn't clear cut then how the feth is a referendum result of 51 to 49 clear?
I'm not disputing the 8 to 3 verdict in the Supreme Court case, I'm merely making the point that 3 highly experienced, and expert legal minds, clearly believed there was some merit in the government's argument about using the Royal Prerogative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: OK, even I have to admit DINLT's tub thumping style of debate is a little irritating...
Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
You cannot disagree with the court case whilst simultaneously claiming to love the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. Without that court case, the prime minister would have removed sovereignty from parliament.
Personally, I don't disagree with the course case. Parliamentary sovereignty IS important, and its only right and legally appropriate for Parliament to approve the triggering of Article 50.
I just question the motives of those who brought the case. They don't actually care about Parliamentary Sovereignty (if they did, they would be in favour of Brexit), it was just another avenue to halt or delay Brexit. Therefore, I think they did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Damn your treachery Shadow Captain! Who's side are you on?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 13:40:15
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
But if Brexit was about Parliamentary Sovereignty, brexiteers would be 100% behind the court case that ensured said parliamentary sovereignty. Most seemed puts aged that they might not get their own way.
Even if you only felt Miller brought it to stop Brexit; she's still done more to ensure sovereignty than the government has.
Are you also outraged about this brexit bill that allows cabinet members free reign to change laws as required for brexit, without clearing it with parliament? You gakking well should be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 13:48:11
Herzlos wrote: But if Brexit was about Parliamentary Sovereignty, brexiteers would be 100% behind the court case that ensured said parliamentary sovereignty. Most seemed puts aged that they might not get their own way.
Even if you only felt Miller brought it to stop Brexit; she's still done more to ensure sovereignty than the government has.
Are you also outraged about this brexit bill that allows cabinet members free reign to change laws as required for brexit, without clearing it with parliament? You gakking well should be.
If Gina Millar had been genuinely concerned for Parliamentary Sovereignty, then I would have backed her 100%
But I knew at the time she was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum, and history proved me right.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Just because I disagree with the court case, doesn't mean that I don't back the judiciary or respect the rule of law.
I never impugned that you don't respect the law. I say that you only like British parliamentary sovereignty when it suits your political agenda.
As for the Daily Mail, people probably read it for entertainment value, comedy gold. Like watching a car crash in slow motion.
So now we're ignoring facts because you don't like them?
As for my conservative point, the Tories got what, 50% of the vote in the 1950s, so you can hardly blame a rigged system for that. The country is, IMO, historically Conservative. Voting numbers back me on that.
Tories got 42.4% of the popular vote in the last election. The three main liberal, non-conservative parties got 50.4% of the popular vote. Voting numbers back me on that.
(note for completeness: UKIP got 1.8%)
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I just question the motives of those who brought the case. They don't actually care about Parliamentary Sovereignty (if they did, they would be in favour of Brexit), it was just another avenue to halt or delay Brexit. Therefore, I think they did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
I agree with you entirely on the right thing for the wrong reasons point. But your comment that one would have to vote for Brexit to truly support parliamentary sovereignty is ..... I disagree but can't be arsed rehashing the last dozen or so dismal pages of this thread.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 13:58:37
It was the average man on the street that saved this nation from the EU. You're damn right I back his judgement.
So you feel the average man is a responsible source of decisions because they agree with you?
Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean there's anything wrong with my posting style!
In the past week or so your posts have gone from a well argued but factually relaxed post, to what seems like a frothing caricature of a Brexiteer. You even proclaimed "fake news" in what seems to not involve any sarcasm at all. I'm genuinely concerned.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 13:56:10
But I knew at the time she was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum, and history proved me right.
How?
Instinct. I've been on God's Earth for a good few decades. I know bullgak when I smell it.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I agree with you entirely on the right thing for the wrong reasons point. But your comment that one would have to vote for Brexit to truly support parliamentary sovereignty is ..... I disagree but can't be arsed rehashing the last dozen or so dismal pages of this thread.
Sorry, I didn't mean quite that.
I meant that anyone who claimed "Parliamentary Sovereignty" as a reason to Brexit should be 100% behind the Miller case. Otherwise they are just hypocrites.
If Gina Millar had been genuinely concerned for Parliamentary Sovereignty, then I would have backed her 100%
So you believe someone should have taken the government to court, just not her?
But I knew at the time she was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum, and history proved me right.
Please detail, specifically and with evidence, how Gina Miller was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 13:58:57
It was the average man on the street that saved this nation from the EU. You're damn right I back his judgement.
So you feel the average man is a responsible source of decisions because they agree with you?
Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean there's anything wrong with my posting style!
In the past week or so your posts have gone from a well argued but factually relaxed post, to what seems like a frothing caricature of a Brexiteer. You even proclaimed "fake news" in what seems to not involve any sarcasm at all. I'm genuinely concerned.
I was being sarcastic about fake news. For a long time, EU defenders have dismissed the idea that the EU is interested in a defence force or heaven forbid, and army.
Recent speeches from Macron and Juncker, plus that article, make a mockery of the claims of EU supporters, hence my use of the fake news approach.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Actually, we dismiss the idea that the UK army could be coerced into being part of an EU army. It would have only ever happened with the approval of our parliament.
If Gina Millar had been genuinely concerned for Parliamentary Sovereignty, then I would have backed her 100%
So you believe someone should have taken the government to court, just not her?
But I knew at the time she was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum, and history proved me right.
Please detail, specifically and with evidence, how Gina Miller was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum.
She has publicly declared herself as an EU supporter, which is her divine right.
Court cases are expensive, and she was bankrolled by people who support the EU.
Hence, my assertion she was a front woman for something else happening behind the scenes.
There was an element of Machiavelli going on at the time.
Ed Miliband, an outspoken supporter of the EU trying to rally the troops in The Commons, Gina Miller, an outspoken supporter of the EU putting HM Government in the dock, Al Campbell, another EU supporter making trouble for Jeremy Corbyn, a known opponent of the EU, all of which was happening at the same time.
Do you think that was a coincidence? I don't
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I agree with you entirely on the right thing for the wrong reasons point. But your comment that one would have to vote for Brexit to truly support parliamentary sovereignty is ..... I disagree but can't be arsed rehashing the last dozen or so dismal pages of this thread.
Sorry, I didn't mean quite that.
I meant that anyone who claimed "Parliamentary Sovereignty" as a reason to Brexit should be 100% behind the Miller case. Otherwise they are just hypocrites.
I've just explicitly said that I'm behind it, I'm just suspicious of the motives behind it.
If Gina Millar had been genuinely concerned for Parliamentary Sovereignty, then I would have backed her 100%
So you believe someone should have taken the government to court, just not her?
But I knew at the time she was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum, and history proved me right.
Please detail, specifically and with evidence, how Gina Miller was the front woman for a rear-guard action that was trying to over turn the referendum.
She has publicly declared herself as an EU supporter, which is her divine right.
Court cases are expensive, and she was bankrolled by people who support the EU.
Hence, my assertion she was a front woman for something else happening behind the scenes.
There was an element of Machiavelli going on at the time.
Ed Miliband, an outspoken supporter of the EU trying to rally the troops in The Commons, Gina Miller, an outspoken supporter of the EU putting HM Government in the dock, Al Campbell, another EU supporter making trouble for Jeremy Corbyn, a known opponent of the EU, all of which was happening at the same time.
Do you think that was a coincidence? I don't
I think we define 'specifically', 'evidence', and 'proved' differently.
Again, you believe someone should have challenged the government in court, just not Gina Miller?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 14:13:32
I agree with you entirely on the right thing for the wrong reasons point. But your comment that one would have to vote for Brexit to truly support parliamentary sovereignty is ..... I disagree but can't be arsed rehashing the last dozen or so dismal pages of this thread.
Sorry, I didn't mean quite that.
I meant that anyone who claimed "Parliamentary Sovereignty" as a reason to Brexit should be 100% behind the Miller case. Otherwise they are just hypocrites.
I've just explicitly said that I'm behind it, I'm just suspicious of the motives behind it.
Think this is just a mix up, Herzlos has responded to my post that responded to you and I can only assume they thought I was responding to them.
Whether you're a Brexit or a Remainer though, the sensible thing to do was to support the case to prevent the undermining of sovereignty not by some foreign influence but by our own Prime Minister!
