Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Did The Mail Gone Too Far With Their Headline?
67 Answers
https:/
Why! they even described one judge as being an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.
/// But the Mailonline appeared to have second thoughts about alerting readers to the revelation that Sir Terence was an “openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.” The headline was changed after widespread outrage across social media. ///
https:/
Why! they even described one judge as being an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.
/// But the Mailonline appeared to have second thoughts about alerting readers to the revelation that Sir Terence was an “openly gay ex-Olympic fencer.” The headline was changed after widespread outrage across social media. ///
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//The government distributed a tax payer funded leaflet at a cost of £9million
that stated that the result would be followed by ministers. "The referendum on June 23rd is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union. This is your Decision. The Government will implement your decision".
That is what it said. None of the remainiacs were disassociating themselves from this statement at the time. But now they have suddenly seen the light, or are awarding themselves the trait of being "enlightened" haha. These are the people who see no danger in letting lawyers (who obviously don't read Government leaflets) hijack democracy. Perhaps they didn't read the leaflet because they knew they didn't have to. Parliament passed the decision to the people. The people decided. Nice little earner for the legal vultures though. If Brexit is halted the people of Britain will have had democracy snatched from them by an unholy alliance of diehard remainiacs, a fund manager, an unelected judiciary and the House of Lords.
09:04 Fri 04th Nov 2016//
I posted this yesterday. It works here too.
that stated that the result would be followed by ministers. "The referendum on June 23rd is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union. This is your Decision. The Government will implement your decision".
That is what it said. None of the remainiacs were disassociating themselves from this statement at the time. But now they have suddenly seen the light, or are awarding themselves the trait of being "enlightened" haha. These are the people who see no danger in letting lawyers (who obviously don't read Government leaflets) hijack democracy. Perhaps they didn't read the leaflet because they knew they didn't have to. Parliament passed the decision to the people. The people decided. Nice little earner for the legal vultures though. If Brexit is halted the people of Britain will have had democracy snatched from them by an unholy alliance of diehard remainiacs, a fund manager, an unelected judiciary and the House of Lords.
09:04 Fri 04th Nov 2016//
I posted this yesterday. It works here too.
naomi, I am 100% certain that the government was fully aware of the law and that no such action could be taken without a debate in parliament!
What worries me now is that unless someone in government can come up with an indisputable reason why the decision was wrong, the supreme court will inevitably make the exact same decision. All that will be achieved is a delay and several £million extra cost.
It now looks impossible that 'Brexit' can happen before the next election in 2020 as I predicted a few weeks back!
What worries me now is that unless someone in government can come up with an indisputable reason why the decision was wrong, the supreme court will inevitably make the exact same decision. All that will be achieved is a delay and several £million extra cost.
It now looks impossible that 'Brexit' can happen before the next election in 2020 as I predicted a few weeks back!
Papers can be offensive and sensationalist, it's hardly news. But it is hardly an attack on the independence of the judiciary, just a lot of complaining and questioning character/motive. Some seem to like making a mountain out of a molehill. Once upon a time folk knew it was just tomorrow's chip paper. The fact is that theyse judges gave their interpretation of the law re their interpretation of the current situation. Others may come to a different view. The legal process continues though not that fast it seems and the result will be an official interpretation and that makes the law as much as all the backroom drafting and parliamentary debate.
I'm with Naomi at 13.17.
It would be incredulous to suggest that any government would attempt to knowingly bypass given the magnitude of this issue.
As for the headline, the more eye catching it is the more impact it will have on sales.
It wasn't that long ago the Mail, to some, was facing extinction due to the threat of legal action from a certain Trump lady!
It would be incredulous to suggest that any government would attempt to knowingly bypass given the magnitude of this issue.
As for the headline, the more eye catching it is the more impact it will have on sales.
It wasn't that long ago the Mail, to some, was facing extinction due to the threat of legal action from a certain Trump lady!
Eddie at 18:38 Sat. //naomi, I am 100% certain that the government was fully aware of the law and that no such action could be taken without a debate in parliament!//
You’ll forgive me if I don’t share your claim to privileged information, but I find it impossible to believe that the government, with all its political experts and advisors, would wilfully and quite openly attempt to ignore any law relating to parliamentary procedure. Furthermore, I have to question why, when the government first promised to uphold the will of the people, with no ifs and buts, someone didn’t just mention that they couldn’t fulfil that undertaking without parliament’s approval. Such was parliament’s belief in a Remain result that members voted, quite substantially, in favour of a referendum, in effect, in light of the government’s pledge, agreeing to abide by the result. However, that misplaced confidence returned to bite them on the bum, and now they, and their equally disingenuous supporters, will do everything in their power to ensure that the will of the people is thwarted. This is not democracy in action – it is a stitch up.
//What worries me now is that unless someone in government can come up with an indisputable reason why the decision was wrong, the supreme court will inevitably make the exact same decision.//
Why would that worry you? You’re a Remainer, aren’t you?
I have no issue with the judges – they could only rule on the case presented to them - but I do take issue with the people who took this to court. It will be interesting to see what case the government presents when it appeals the decision because if this law were set in stone, as the Remainers would have us believe, there would be no case to appeal.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t share your claim to privileged information, but I find it impossible to believe that the government, with all its political experts and advisors, would wilfully and quite openly attempt to ignore any law relating to parliamentary procedure. Furthermore, I have to question why, when the government first promised to uphold the will of the people, with no ifs and buts, someone didn’t just mention that they couldn’t fulfil that undertaking without parliament’s approval. Such was parliament’s belief in a Remain result that members voted, quite substantially, in favour of a referendum, in effect, in light of the government’s pledge, agreeing to abide by the result. However, that misplaced confidence returned to bite them on the bum, and now they, and their equally disingenuous supporters, will do everything in their power to ensure that the will of the people is thwarted. This is not democracy in action – it is a stitch up.
//What worries me now is that unless someone in government can come up with an indisputable reason why the decision was wrong, the supreme court will inevitably make the exact same decision.//
Why would that worry you? You’re a Remainer, aren’t you?
I have no issue with the judges – they could only rule on the case presented to them - but I do take issue with the people who took this to court. It will be interesting to see what case the government presents when it appeals the decision because if this law were set in stone, as the Remainers would have us believe, there would be no case to appeal.
"I find it impossible to believe that the government, with all its political experts and advisors, would wilfully and quite openly attempt to ignore any law relating to parliamentary procedure."
I find it easy to believe. The politicians, who ultimately make the decisions, may well have just ignored that advice. This particular government since 2010 has a decent history of doing so, apparently.
I find it easy to believe. The politicians, who ultimately make the decisions, may well have just ignored that advice. This particular government since 2010 has a decent history of doing so, apparently.
Like, say, on Thursday you mean?
Or with the kerfuffle over Abu Hamza's extradition, another decision that Theresa May fouled up (it eventually got sorted). In fact, May has a long history of ignoring expert legal advice as Home Sec. and getting beaten in court appeals as a result. Most of them aren't so high-profile as this one, but the pattern is there.
And, heck, she's just gone and ignored the effective legal advice of three of the UK's top judges, who basically wrote a full judgement telling the government that they haven't got a leg to stand on, and she's just gone and launched an appeal against this unanimous decision anyway.
So... no. Politicians routinely ignore advice -- or, if you prefer, choose to make a different decision.
Or with the kerfuffle over Abu Hamza's extradition, another decision that Theresa May fouled up (it eventually got sorted). In fact, May has a long history of ignoring expert legal advice as Home Sec. and getting beaten in court appeals as a result. Most of them aren't so high-profile as this one, but the pattern is there.
And, heck, she's just gone and ignored the effective legal advice of three of the UK's top judges, who basically wrote a full judgement telling the government that they haven't got a leg to stand on, and she's just gone and launched an appeal against this unanimous decision anyway.
So... no. Politicians routinely ignore advice -- or, if you prefer, choose to make a different decision.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.