At this rate it feels like a great way to pick up tons of anti-Scottish quotes from the government, so even if it doesn't fly you've gotten a great case for IndyRef2.
I mean
That's happening already, albeit not directly from the government
There's no shortage of brexiteers surprised and appalled to discover that:
1) Scotland has a distinct legal system from England and Wales; and
2) that constitutionally E&W law does not and cannot in any sense "overrule" decisions in Scottish or NI courts
The more thoughtful are particularly exercised by the fact that Scots law does not consider the actions of the monarch outside the scope of the law, as E&W law does ("we should exert ourselves at once to drive [the King] out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King").
Some of them are no doubt going to be further distressed to find out that, when hearing the Court of Session appeal, the Supreme Court will sit as a court of Scots law
As an American, that sounds... normal?
Well, the lack of an overarching body of law is strange, but the idea that Scotland has their own separate jurisprudence isn't. Even US federal court districts can have different legal precedents on the same issues, even though they're all ruling on the same body of written law.
At this rate it feels like a great way to pick up tons of anti-Scottish quotes from the government, so even if it doesn't fly you've gotten a great case for IndyRef2.
I mean
That's happening already, albeit not directly from the government
There's no shortage of brexiteers surprised and appalled to discover that:
1) Scotland has a distinct legal system from England and Wales; and
2) that constitutionally E&W law does not and cannot in any sense "overrule" decisions in Scottish or NI courts
The more thoughtful are particularly exercised by the fact that Scots law does not consider the actions of the monarch outside the scope of the law, as E&W law does ("we should exert ourselves at once to drive [the King] out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King").
Some of them are no doubt going to be further distressed to find out that, when hearing the Court of Session appeal, the Supreme Court will sit as a court of Scots law
As an American, that sounds... normal?
Well, the lack of an overarching body of law is strange, but the idea that Scotland has their own separate jurisprudence isn't. Even US federal court districts can have different legal precedents on the same issues, even though they're all ruling on the same body of written law.
Scots law and E&W law aren't even the same body of law, in a lot of areas separate but equivalent legislation needs to be passed in both jurisdictions to ensure compatibility. Same for NI.
More generally, unfamiliarity worth the idea that the UK has more than one legal system is a particular "little englander" trope
At this rate it feels like a great way to pick up tons of anti-Scottish quotes from the government, so even if it doesn't fly you've gotten a great case for IndyRef2.
I mean
That's happening already, albeit not directly from the government
There's no shortage of brexiteers surprised and appalled to discover that:
1) Scotland has a distinct legal system from England and Wales; and
2) that constitutionally E&W law does not and cannot in any sense "overrule" decisions in Scottish or NI courts
The more thoughtful are particularly exercised by the fact that Scots law does not consider the actions of the monarch outside the scope of the law, as E&W law does ("we should exert ourselves at once to drive [the King] out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King").
Some of them are no doubt going to be further distressed to find out that, when hearing the Court of Session appeal, the Supreme Court will sit as a court of Scots law
As an American, that sounds... normal?
Well, the lack of an overarching body of law is strange, but the idea that Scotland has their own separate jurisprudence isn't. Even US federal court districts can have different legal precedents on the same issues, even though they're all ruling on the same body of written law.
Scots law and E&W law aren't even the same body of law, in a lot of areas separate but equivalent legislation needs to be passed in both jurisdictions to ensure compatibility. Same for NI.
More generally, unfamiliarity worth the idea that the UK has more than one legal system is a particular "little englander" trope.
At this rate it feels like a great way to pick up tons of anti-Scottish quotes from the government, so even if it doesn't fly you've gotten a great case for IndyRef2.
I mean
That's happening already, albeit not directly from the government
There's no shortage of brexiteers surprised and appalled to discover that:
1) Scotland has a distinct legal system from England and Wales; and
2) that constitutionally E&W law does not and cannot in any sense "overrule" decisions in Scottish or NI courts
The more thoughtful are particularly exercised by the fact that Scots law does not consider the actions of the monarch outside the scope of the law, as E&W law does ("we should exert ourselves at once to drive [the King] out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King").
Some of them are no doubt going to be further distressed to find out that, when hearing the Court of Session appeal, the Supreme Court will sit as a court of Scots law
As an American, that sounds... normal?
Well, the lack of an overarching body of law is strange, but the idea that Scotland has their own separate jurisprudence isn't. Even US federal court districts can have different legal precedents on the same issues, even though they're all ruling on the same body of written law.
Scots law and E&W law aren't even the same body of law, in a lot of areas separate but equivalent legislation needs to be passed in both jurisdictions to ensure compatibility. Same for NI.
More generally, unfamiliarity worth the idea that the UK has more than one legal system is a particular "little englander" trope.
So, it's like state law. Understood.
Not as such, an analogy to the US system can give the misleading impression that there is some overarching law that applies in all jurisdictions (an equivalent of federal law). There isn't. There is only E&W law, Scots law, and the law of Northern Ireland. Westminster can pass legislation that applies in any jurisdiction, but generally it can't pass one act that applies in its entirety to all.
There is arguably an exception in that cases decided in the Supreme court, specifically pertaining to the acts of devolution, apply in all jurisdictions, but it's a narrow one
+3
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
it is pretty unusual as a system because at first blush it makes no sense and then you realise it makes no sense and that is Good
At this rate it feels like a great way to pick up tons of anti-Scottish quotes from the government, so even if it doesn't fly you've gotten a great case for IndyRef2.
I mean
That's happening already, albeit not directly from the government
There's no shortage of brexiteers surprised and appalled to discover that:
1) Scotland has a distinct legal system from England and Wales; and
2) that constitutionally E&W law does not and cannot in any sense "overrule" decisions in Scottish or NI courts
The more thoughtful are particularly exercised by the fact that Scots law does not consider the actions of the monarch outside the scope of the law, as E&W law does ("we should exert ourselves at once to drive [the King] out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King").
Some of them are no doubt going to be further distressed to find out that, when hearing the Court of Session appeal, the Supreme Court will sit as a court of Scots law
As an American, that sounds... normal?
Well, the lack of an overarching body of law is strange, but the idea that Scotland has their own separate jurisprudence isn't. Even US federal court districts can have different legal precedents on the same issues, even though they're all ruling on the same body of written law.
Scots law and E&W law aren't even the same body of law, in a lot of areas separate but equivalent legislation needs to be passed in both jurisdictions to ensure compatibility. Same for NI.
More generally, unfamiliarity worth the idea that the UK has more than one legal system is a particular "little englander" trope.
So, it's like state law. Understood.
Not as such, an analogy to the US system can give the misleading impression that there is some overarching law that applies in all jurisdictions (an equivalent of federal law). There isn't. There is only E&W law, Scots law, and the law of Northern Ireland. Westminster can pass legislation that applies in any jurisdiction, but generally it can't pass one act that applies in its entirety to all.
There is arguably an exception in that cases decided in the Supreme court, specifically pertaining to the acts of devolution, apply in all jurisdictions, but it's a narrow one
Yeah, I realized after posted that I've should have said, "like State law if and when there is no applicable Federal law."
Or perhaps more accurately "Like when the US Government makes a request to the states about something protected by the 10th amendment (i.e. the one that says anything not set by the Federal Government is up to the states)" where some states might have a law or legal precident that says they have to comply, some might have one where they have to given the Feds the middle finger and not comply, and some might have no specific law, and it's up to the current state government and/or court system to decide whether they have to comply or not, and the Feds can't use a "yes" in one state to overturn a "no" in another, even if it was won in court (unless it was the appropriate federal district or US Supreme Court)
Like when that fraudulent voter fraud committee a few years back tried to get the states to hand over their voting rolls, and the answers they got were basically "Fuck you," "our laws fortunately say we have to respond with 'Fuck you,'" and "while we wish we could say 'Fuck you,' our laws say we have to comply, at least to a point."
Oh I wonder where the name Yellowhammer came from for the project of the same name, so I googled it. It’s a kind of bird apparently. This stuck out to me as interesting factoid about said bird.
Its song has a rhythm like "A little bit of bread and no cheese"
That is uh, either a terrible coincidence of totally intentional.
It is also the state bird of Alabama for whatever reason.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
From the Guardian's Liveblog.
No further police action against Leave.EU
While Johnson was speaking, Scotalnd Yard announced that no further action will be taken against Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign founded by businessman Arron Banks and spearheaded by Nigel Farage.
A Met statement said:
“On 5 August 2019 the MPS submitted a file to the CPS for Early Investigative Advice in relation to the Leave.EU investigation and this advice has now been received.
“It is clear that whilst some technical breaches of electoral law were committed by Leave.EU in respect of the spending return submitted for their campaign, there is insufficient evidence to justify any further criminal investigation.
“Leave.EU’s responsible person has been has been told that they will face no further police action.”
The force said investigations into the spending returns of Vote Leave and BeLeave were ongoing.
Can't decide if the bolded deserves a "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown." or "Eat at Arby's." Definitely not a good sign for future elections.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
She has quite a good thread on how this all doesn't add up.
+5
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The Leave.EU campaign broke the law + The Conservatives are in power (...sorta) + The Conservatives have gone all in on Brexit = Don't prosecute or investigate further because it will be politically inconvenient for the government
Adds up pretty well to me.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
My first random baseless supposition here would be that, like the conservatives in the US, if you dig into the financing of this stuff too much, you will find russian money and other shady shit like that. And so everyone is trying to avoid opening that up.
Boris Johnson has said he "won't be deterred by anybody" from leaving the EU on 31 October.
The prime minister said he was "cautiously optimistic" of getting a Brexit deal, but the UK would leave by the deadline "whatever happens".
EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said he did not have "reasons to be optimistic" over getting a deal.
Mr Johnson will meet him and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Monday for talks.
During the PM's speech, at the Convention of the North in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, he was heckled by an audience member who told him to "get back to Parliament" and "sort out the mess that you have created".
Can Boris actually see a way to survive doing this? Not for the country (ha!), but for him politically?
I clearly don't know much about parliamentary procedure, but is there any way that parliament can pre-load the consequences?
If I publicly stated I was going to commit a serious crime on a specific day, if I was clearly intending to commit that crime, and I was clearly capable of committing that crime, and despite being told it was a crime if I did so, I said I was going to do it anyway, I feel confident that the police would be there to arrest me the moment I attempted the crime.
I mean, assuming they can't stop it any other way first, the very least that should happen is BoJo going to lockup the moment Brexit is made official, pending charges, etc.
It just boggles my mind that a minority PM is declaring he's going to disobey a direct edict from parliament. I mean, if he had a majority, he'd be able to be protected (ie, what Trump is doing), but he doesn't have that, mostly because he stuck the knife into a good portion of his own side.
So worst case, what could they do? He ignores the law, they arrest him and then what? Remove him as PM for being a criminal, then replace him with someone to go and beg the EU not to destroy us because of one criminal? Who'd they pick? Corbyn'd never get approved.
I think the circumstances in which you can arrest someone for a crime they haven't committed yet are pretty slim and that's a good thing.
Oh, absolutely.
While you can be charged for crimes in advance (plotting an act of terror, etc), this isn't one of those things.
I'm more wanting to avoid the "Well, he said these things, now that's happened, what next?". Just saying parliament should be prepared to take action, along with the relevant law enforcement agency, so that if it DOES happen, in the immediate aftermath, the consequences for the Prime Minister are ready, and preferably public.
If it's going to be a parliamentary free-for-all, BoJo might think he gets to skate on legal consequences, even if he has to deal with political ones. If it's made clear that no, if you do this, parliament fully intends to see you locked up, and the full force of the law is brought down on your head, fuck you very much, you had your chance.
Because if Brexit happens, debating what happens to the PM is going to be VERY low on the "Shit's all fucked, we need to make sure there's food and medicine now!" scale. Having it pre-established solves that, and might even make the PM reconsider. I doubt it, but a small chance is better than none.
+5
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I think the circumstances in which you can arrest someone for a crime they haven't committed yet are pretty slim and that's a good thing.
Oh, absolutely.
While you can be charged for crimes in advance (plotting an act of terror, etc), this isn't one of those things.
I'm more wanting to avoid the "Well, he said these things, now that's happened, what next?". Just saying parliament should be prepared to take action, along with the relevant law enforcement agency, so that if it DOES happen, in the immediate aftermath, the consequences for the Prime Minister are ready, and preferably public.
If it's going to be a parliamentary free-for-all, BoJo might think he gets to skate on legal consequences, even if he has to deal with political ones. If it's made clear that no, if you do this, parliament fully intends to see you locked up, and the full force of the law is brought down on your head, fuck you very much, you had your chance.
Because if Brexit happens, debating what happens to the PM is going to be VERY low on the "Shit's all fucked, we need to make sure there's food and medicine now!" scale. Having it pre-established solves that, and might even make the PM reconsider. I doubt it, but a small chance is better than none.
A smart government would already be negotiating contingency agreements with other countries to shore that up. Because right now the only countries the UK could request aid from are an ocean away, and a quick response is going to be fantastically expensive. You know how much it costs to air freight food, and drugs from the US or Canada to the UK. Shit loads. Doing it on boats would be significantly cheaper, but you need to be planning for that a few months ago honestly, now is late but doable.
But calling on November 1st about trying to arrange the logistics to get that done would be fantastically expensive.
Seems kind of daft if there's only personal accountability in it for the PM, as opposed to everyone following his "orders", as well as a lawsuit to block them from being implemented.
I think the circumstances in which you can arrest someone for a crime they haven't committed yet are pretty slim and that's a good thing.
Oh, absolutely.
While you can be charged for crimes in advance (plotting an act of terror, etc), this isn't one of those things.
I'm more wanting to avoid the "Well, he said these things, now that's happened, what next?". Just saying parliament should be prepared to take action, along with the relevant law enforcement agency, so that if it DOES happen, in the immediate aftermath, the consequences for the Prime Minister are ready, and preferably public.
I mean, are you sure this isn't plotting an act of terror?
I wasn't able to find the definition, but this seems pretty close in spirit.
Checked further, and it seems that the terrorist act needs to be designed to intimidate an international government body or the public, not just an illegal act leading to massive damage for a political/idealogical purpose.
No further police action against Leave.EU
While Johnson was speaking, Scotalnd Yard announced that no further action will be taken against Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign founded by businessman Arron Banks and spearheaded by Nigel Farage.
A Met statement said:
“On 5 August 2019 the MPS submitted a file to the CPS for Early Investigative Advice in relation to the Leave.EU investigation and this advice has now been received.
“It is clear that whilst some technical breaches of electoral law were committed by Leave.EU in respect of the spending return submitted for their campaign, there is insufficient evidence to justify any further criminal investigation.
“Leave.EU’s responsible person has been has been told that they will face no further police action.”
The force said investigations into the spending returns of Vote Leave and BeLeave were ongoing.
Can't decide if the bolded deserves a "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown." or "Eat at Arby's." Definitely not a good sign for future elections.
"They broke the law and we're not pressing charges" is both an accurate and unacceptable abbreviation of that statement.
No further police action against Leave.EU
While Johnson was speaking, Scotalnd Yard announced that no further action will be taken against Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign founded by businessman Arron Banks and spearheaded by Nigel Farage.
A Met statement said:
“On 5 August 2019 the MPS submitted a file to the CPS for Early Investigative Advice in relation to the Leave.EU investigation and this advice has now been received.
“It is clear that whilst some technical breaches of electoral law were committed by Leave.EU in respect of the spending return submitted for their campaign, there is insufficient evidence to justify any further criminal investigation.
“Leave.EU’s responsible person has been has been told that they will face no further police action.”
The force said investigations into the spending returns of Vote Leave and BeLeave were ongoing.
Can't decide if the bolded deserves a "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown." or "Eat at Arby's." Definitely not a good sign for future elections.
"They broke the law and we're not pressing charges" is both an accurate and unacceptable abbreviation of that statement.
They broke the law, and we have all the clear evidence needed to prove it...
A bearded Tommy Robinson tucked into a McDonald's and joked 'First stop, hairdressers' as he was released from prison today after serving nine weeks behind bars for contempt of court.
The unkempt English Defence League founder emerged with uncut hair and a beard as he was greeted by supporters who had gathered outside HMP Belmarsh in south-east London.
Photographs and video posted on social media showed Robinson smiling and laughing as he walked free, after serving just two months of a nine month sentence, reduced to 19 weeks because of time served.
The anti-Islam campaigner joked about visiting a barbers as he grabbed his beard and said: 'I know I look a mess - have fun with your memes!' and added that he looked like a 'ginger, cowardly convert.'
A flat end after all the hysteria of Robinson getting A LITERAL DEATH SENTENCE.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
LONDON (Reuters) - Former British prime minister David Cameron, who took the decision in 2016 to hold a referendum on the country’s membership of the European Union, said another vote may be needed to resolve the Brexit impasse.
Go away Dave.
+5
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
It is also the state bird of Alabama for whatever reason.
*bird trivia alert*
The yellowhammer of Europe (the one with the call "a little bit of bread and no cheese") is a cute little yellow bunting.
The name is also used in Alabama for a completely different and larger bird, the northern flicker, a kind of woodpecker (whose call is very, very similar to the insane laughter of the pileated woodpecker.)
It might've gotten the local nickname "yellowhammer" since in eastern North America, the underside of flickers' wings are bright yellow. I don't really know the etymology, and anyway this is offtopic. Just explaining if anyone was wondering.
LONDON (Reuters) - Former British prime minister David Cameron, who took the decision in 2016 to hold a referendum on the country’s membership of the European Union, said another vote may be needed to resolve the Brexit impasse.
Go away Dave.
Blimey, he doesn't say.
Should've thought of that possibility four years ago, shouldn't you, Dave.
Mind you, if there's an upside here it's the likes of the Sun and Mail plastering their front pages with "Johnson and Gove lied", even if that is accompanied by "says Cameron".
Isn't that twat Cameron one of the fathers of Brexit?
Kind of, in the sense that sometimes a mad scientist might create a monster to work for him and then be shocked when the monster starts eating villagers.
He was being called on to carry out the referendum on brexit by a loud minority and he acquiesced, thinking it would be easily shut down and give him a free win.
So he instigated it for his own reasons but never really wanted it or expected it to actually happen.
Isn't that twat Cameron one of the fathers of Brexit?
Kind of, in the sense that sometimes a mad scientist might create a monster to work for him and then be shocked when the monster starts eating villagers.
He was being called on to carry out the referendum on brexit by a loud minority and he acquiesced, thinking it would be easily shut down and give him a free win.
So he instigated it for his own reasons but never really wanted it or expected it to actually happen.
A couple of days ago Bercow gave a talk, largely concerning changes in the House of Commons since he's been speaker. He makes it pretty clear that the House would not stand by if Boris tries to No-Deal out
Non brexit related, but it looks like the sharp uptick in violence and disruption means that Glasgow City Council is once again pondering banning, or at least heavily restricting, sectarian marches
I'm curious whether the fact that Glasgow City Council is now an SNP adminstration factors into this. My sense is (and I could be massively wrong about this) that they are less likely to be wedded to the kind of informal networks whose influence probably led to the council shying away from taking strong action in the past
LONDON (Reuters) - Former British prime minister David Cameron, who took the decision in 2016 to hold a referendum on the country’s membership of the European Union, said another vote may be needed to resolve the Brexit impasse.
Go away Dave.
You can tell he’s got a book to sell.
PSN Fleety2009
+6
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Really, I think he's just been waiting for Boris to reach the office of PM so he can return the knife Boris used in the referendum.
Posts
As an American, that sounds... normal?
Well, the lack of an overarching body of law is strange, but the idea that Scotland has their own separate jurisprudence isn't. Even US federal court districts can have different legal precedents on the same issues, even though they're all ruling on the same body of written law.
Scots law and E&W law aren't even the same body of law, in a lot of areas separate but equivalent legislation needs to be passed in both jurisdictions to ensure compatibility. Same for NI.
More generally, unfamiliarity worth the idea that the UK has more than one legal system is a particular "little englander" trope
So, it's like state law. Understood.
Not as such, an analogy to the US system can give the misleading impression that there is some overarching law that applies in all jurisdictions (an equivalent of federal law). There isn't. There is only E&W law, Scots law, and the law of Northern Ireland. Westminster can pass legislation that applies in any jurisdiction, but generally it can't pass one act that applies in its entirety to all.
There is arguably an exception in that cases decided in the Supreme court, specifically pertaining to the acts of devolution, apply in all jurisdictions, but it's a narrow one
Yeah, I realized after posted that I've should have said, "like State law if and when there is no applicable Federal law."
Or perhaps more accurately "Like when the US Government makes a request to the states about something protected by the 10th amendment (i.e. the one that says anything not set by the Federal Government is up to the states)" where some states might have a law or legal precident that says they have to comply, some might have one where they have to given the Feds the middle finger and not comply, and some might have no specific law, and it's up to the current state government and/or court system to decide whether they have to comply or not, and the Feds can't use a "yes" in one state to overturn a "no" in another, even if it was won in court (unless it was the appropriate federal district or US Supreme Court)
Like when that fraudulent voter fraud committee a few years back tried to get the states to hand over their voting rolls, and the answers they got were basically "Fuck you," "our laws fortunately say we have to respond with 'Fuck you,'" and "while we wish we could say 'Fuck you,' our laws say we have to comply, at least to a point."
That is uh, either a terrible coincidence of totally intentional.
Can't decide if the bolded deserves a "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown." or "Eat at Arby's." Definitely not a good sign for future elections.
Steam | XBL
Get the flying fuck out of here.
Glad I'm leaving this piece of shit country.
She has quite a good thread on how this all doesn't add up.
Adds up pretty well to me.
If I publicly stated I was going to commit a serious crime on a specific day, if I was clearly intending to commit that crime, and I was clearly capable of committing that crime, and despite being told it was a crime if I did so, I said I was going to do it anyway, I feel confident that the police would be there to arrest me the moment I attempted the crime.
I mean, assuming they can't stop it any other way first, the very least that should happen is BoJo going to lockup the moment Brexit is made official, pending charges, etc.
It just boggles my mind that a minority PM is declaring he's going to disobey a direct edict from parliament. I mean, if he had a majority, he'd be able to be protected (ie, what Trump is doing), but he doesn't have that, mostly because he stuck the knife into a good portion of his own side.
Yup. Be ready to take action on the 19th by all means, in the event he's not just blustering. But not until then.
I'm acutely aware of the time pressure, but I still think that's important.
Oh, absolutely.
While you can be charged for crimes in advance (plotting an act of terror, etc), this isn't one of those things.
I'm more wanting to avoid the "Well, he said these things, now that's happened, what next?". Just saying parliament should be prepared to take action, along with the relevant law enforcement agency, so that if it DOES happen, in the immediate aftermath, the consequences for the Prime Minister are ready, and preferably public.
If it's going to be a parliamentary free-for-all, BoJo might think he gets to skate on legal consequences, even if he has to deal with political ones. If it's made clear that no, if you do this, parliament fully intends to see you locked up, and the full force of the law is brought down on your head, fuck you very much, you had your chance.
Because if Brexit happens, debating what happens to the PM is going to be VERY low on the "Shit's all fucked, we need to make sure there's food and medicine now!" scale. Having it pre-established solves that, and might even make the PM reconsider. I doubt it, but a small chance is better than none.
But calling on November 1st about trying to arrange the logistics to get that done would be fantastically expensive.
I mean, are you sure this isn't plotting an act of terror?
I wasn't able to find the definition, but this seems pretty close in spirit.
If you can't beat em....
<rides off on unicorn>
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
"They broke the law and we're not pressing charges" is both an accurate and unacceptable abbreviation of that statement.
Steam: adamjnet
They broke the law, and we have all the clear evidence needed to prove it...
A flat end after all the hysteria of Robinson getting A LITERAL DEATH SENTENCE.
Go away Dave.
*bird trivia alert*
The yellowhammer of Europe (the one with the call "a little bit of bread and no cheese") is a cute little yellow bunting.
The name is also used in Alabama for a completely different and larger bird, the northern flicker, a kind of woodpecker (whose call is very, very similar to the insane laughter of the pileated woodpecker.)
It might've gotten the local nickname "yellowhammer" since in eastern North America, the underside of flickers' wings are bright yellow. I don't really know the etymology, and anyway this is offtopic. Just explaining if anyone was wondering.
*end of bird trivia alert*
Blimey, he doesn't say.
Should've thought of that possibility four years ago, shouldn't you, Dave.
Mind you, if there's an upside here it's the likes of the Sun and Mail plastering their front pages with "Johnson and Gove lied", even if that is accompanied by "says Cameron".
Steam | XBL
Kind of, in the sense that sometimes a mad scientist might create a monster to work for him and then be shocked when the monster starts eating villagers.
He was being called on to carry out the referendum on brexit by a loud minority and he acquiesced, thinking it would be easily shut down and give him a free win.
So he instigated it for his own reasons but never really wanted it or expected it to actually happen.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
A couple of days ago Bercow gave a talk, largely concerning changes in the House of Commons since he's been speaker. He makes it pretty clear that the House would not stand by if Boris tries to No-Deal out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49651136
It would be about fucking time
I'm curious whether the fact that Glasgow City Council is now an SNP adminstration factors into this. My sense is (and I could be massively wrong about this) that they are less likely to be wedded to the kind of informal networks whose influence probably led to the council shying away from taking strong action in the past
You can tell he’s got a book to sell.