Kay Burley | Page 25 | Vital Football

Kay Burley

Made in Wigan said:
No lies were spoken (not did). An interpretation of centuries old legislation was made by or on behalf of the the AG. Following subsequent scrutiny by the SC they determined this legal interpretation to be wrong. Consequently the PM apologised to the Queen for giving her incorrect legal advice. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

If we accept all the above to be true ........ why was the government (well, Johnson) warned that what he was doing (ie proroguing parliament) was going to prove unlawful ...... which was - as you acknowledge - proven correct in the SC.

"An interpretation" .........it's another way of saying "misled" ...OOPS ! There we go again!

;)
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
I think your information is incorrect. It is true that under a Labour government the agreement was signed but it was initiated in 1994 under the Conservative government of John Major following the IRA's ceasefire announcement in that year. Talks were then initiated between most of the major players leading to the final signing of the agreement.

Source: Northern Ireland Peace Process (politics.co.uk)
Click to expand...
You need to watch
Spotlight on the Troubles: A Secret History - BBC iPlayer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0008yrj/spotlight-on-the-troubles-a-secret-history
Not an easy watch
UK Government were talking to the IRA from the very beginning, way before the Major government.
It also has interesting stuff about those nice DUP people, where they came from and who they are linked with.
 
moonay said:
If we accept all the above to be true ........ why was the government (well, Johnson) warned that what he was doing (ie proroguing parliament) was going to prove unlawful ...... which was - as you acknowledge - proven correct in the SC.

"An interpretation" .........it's another way of saying "misled" ...OOPS ! There we go again!

;)
Click to expand...
MiW rewriting history again
 
Made in Wigan said:
No lies were spoken (not did). An interpretation of centuries old legislation was made by or on behalf of the the AG. Following subsequent scrutiny by the SC they determined this legal interpretation to be wrong. Consequently the PM apologised to the Queen for giving her incorrect legal advice. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...
Yes "did" doing a lot of heavy lifting
All R-M's actions
Briefing the press, floating/threatening the idea in the press
Did R-M not go to see the Queen as well?
How do you know no lies were spoken, were you there?
 
loudmouthblue said:
Yes it was, that branch also requested/asked the CLP to request information from other CLPs to tell us where this antisemitism was taking place, of the ones that replied they said they had seen none or had no incidents recorded, the national HQ did not provide any details when asked, but by then the purge was underway of anyone who supported corbyn.
But you have no interest in that whatsoever it is another deflection to hide your support for a proven liar.

For the second time you have called me a "lazy bastard", well then show us this post number where you answered my question, that will prove I am a "lazy bastard" and shut me up, it will also show you are not the lying "bastard" you are.

If you want a reminder of the question you claimed to have answered I will repeat it.

Do you think a proven liar is fit to be PM of this country, - as you and I both know there is no post where you answered the question, just answer it now.
Click to expand...

I asked as clearly your local party was wrong following its investigation into anti semitism within the Labour ranks. Given your association to this body, it points to your competence, or specifically your lack of competence, when determining the truth and facts on many issues within this thread.

You posted two articles in an attempt to disprove your lies, and all they did was confirm them. You are also unable to identify the answer you seek from a small body of evidence contained within this thread. Now whilst this isn’t a surprise to me, it should surely be leading you to the conclusion that whatever you believe within the sphere of politics, that the exact opposite of that is most likely to be the truth.
 
moonay said:
If we accept all the above to be true ........ why was the government (well, Johnson) warned that what he was doing (ie proroguing parliament) was going to prove unlawful ...... which was - as you acknowledge - proven correct in the SC.

"An interpretation" .........it's another way of saying "misled" ...OOPS ! There we go again!

;)
Click to expand...

Laws are open to interpretation. There’s always a range of opinion in the legal profession. It’s why we have courts to make that determination 😉
 
daleks.at.the.monaco said:
Yes "did" doing a lot of heavy lifting
All R-M's actions
Briefing the press, floating/threatening the idea in the press
Did R-M not go to see the Queen as well?
How do you know no lies were spoken, were you there?
Click to expand...

It seems you know what ‘did’ means. Next time try and use it correctly. No idea if JRM visited her Majesty or not, though I highly doubt that, particularly over this issue. So for the record, are you now accusing JRM of lying to the Queen?
 
Made in Wigan said:
I asked as clearly your local party was wrong following its investigation into anti semitism within the Labour ranks. Given your association to this body, it points to your competence, or specifically your lack of competence, when determining the truth and facts on many issues within this thread.

You posted two articles in an attempt to disprove your lies, and all they did was confirm them. You are also unable to identify the answer you seek from a small body of evidence contained within this thread. Now whilst this isn’t a surprise to me, it should surely be leading you to the conclusion that whatever you believe within the sphere of politics, that the exact opposite of that is most likely to be the truth.
Click to expand...

You still avoid answering my question with another pile of deflecting crap, those articles claim reference to sources in government, the civil service and the Royal household, are they not correct, or not to believed while your 4 or 5 unnamed strategically placed MPs are legitimate sources to prove Raynor is guilty of what you claim, you really take the hypocritical buscuit with that theory.
Now unless you plan to answer my question tat will show you are not a lying "bastard" don't bother replying. Then again last word and devil is the final resort of you so I won't be holding my breath.
 
Ooooooo to Be a Wiganer said:
Sounds like you have have had a few doing foreigners for you then
Click to expand...
Yes regularly, late last year the latest, it's not my job to query if anyone declares their true income, trouble with my job was it always one that the general public paying cash did not use or need. But you have not ever seen me complaining against welfare scroungers on any message board while hypocritically avoiding paying tax. If the cap fits and all that.
 
daleks.at.the.monaco said:
You need to watch
Spotlight on the Troubles: A Secret History - BBC iPlayer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0008yrj/spotlight-on-the-troubles-a-secret-history
Not an easy watch
UK Government were talking to the IRA from the very beginning, way before the Major government.
It also has interesting stuff about those nice DUP people, where they came from and who they are linked with.
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant in the discussion which was a response to a claim by LMB that it was a Labour achievement.

As I pointed out discussions had been going on for years, and denied by government for many of them, but it was formalised by "The joint declaration on peace" or "the Downing Street declaration" under John Major's premiership.
 
Made in Wigan said:
Laws are open to interpretation. There’s always a range of opinion in the legal profession. It’s why we have courts to make that determination 😉
Click to expand...

I would agree re the interpretation .... but my point remains re the "unofficial" warnings given to the PM by (what seemed to be) the majority of expert legal opinion outside the government's own counsel.

I would also expect the Attorney General to take a conservative (small c) view of such actions, and especially so where the sway of expert legal opinion wasn't in favour of his proposed course of action.

An 11-0 verdict against them (and let's remember that the Scottish contingent also thought he lied) suggests that they went in with a case put together by the My Pillow guy !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.