British Politics

[UFGN]

Why is the AG allowed to use legal privilege to avoid disclosing what advice he gave to the government?

Hes a government minister as well. Its clearly in the public interest for him to disclose everything

Because that's basic Client / Attorney practice, used all round the world.

Its the same for a Dr not exposing sensitive medical information without permission from the patient.

He may be a minister but his legal oath actually comes first, you can be disbarred for leaking legal information, again, without permission.

Yes yes I know all that

But this is a cabinate minister giving advice to the prime minister. That advice should be public

[Phil71]

Why is the AG allowed to use legal privilege to avoid disclosing what advice he gave to the government?

Hes a government minister as well. Its clearly in the public interest for him to disclose everything

Because that's basic Client / Attorney practice, used all round the world.

Its the same for a Dr not exposing sensitive medical information without permission from the patient.

He may be a minister but his legal oath actually comes first, you can be disbarred for leaking legal information, again, without permission.

Yes yes I know all that

But this is a cabinate minister giving advice to the prime minister. That advice should be public

Really?

You think all of that stuff should be made public?

[UFGN]

Why is the AG allowed to use legal privilege to avoid disclosing what advice he gave to the government?

Hes a government minister as well. Its clearly in the public interest for him to disclose everything

Because that's basic Client / Attorney practice, used all round the world.

Its the same for a Dr not exposing sensitive medical information without permission from the patient.

He may be a minister but his legal oath actually comes first, you can be disbarred for leaking legal information, again, without permission.

Yes yes I know all that

But this is a cabinate minister giving advice to the prime minister. That advice should be public

Really?

You think all of that stuff should be made public?

I have no issue with it remaining private until such time as the legality of that advice is called into question.

Someone has done a naughty. A very very naughty. A lied to the Queen and shut down Parliament naughty. I think we have a right to know the Whos and hows and whens

[DiamondGooner]

Really?

You think all of that stuff should be made public?

I have no issue with it remaining private until such time as the legality of that advice is called into question.

Someone has done a naughty. A very very naughty. A lied to the Queen and shut down Parliament naughty. I think we have a right to know the Whos and hows and whens[/quote]

He already made a statement on that.

He gave the advice and he stands by it, he said he accepts the SC ruling but says it was a law invented today it was not a law of rule a week ago. hence why his advice at the time about it not being illegal was correct.

............ which is what I've been saying all along.

Your just regurgitating Guardian type headlines of "lying to Queen", "breaking the law" etc which is a load of propaganda.

I don't support propaganda from any quarter and I won't accept it from Remain either.

[UFGN]

Let me make this clear

Youve been saying the same because you agree with him..... but he lost. He was wrong. His decision was unlawful.

The AG made it clear that the SC was allowed to do what it did. He agrees.

It leaves a grubby mess. It was wrong. It was an attempt to bully and lie to get the governments way.

The legality of his advice has, as I said, been called into question and it should be public

[DiamondGooner]

His words in full .............

He also defended the “sound advice” he provided the Prime Minister with over his decision to suspend Parliament.

Mr Cox said: "This advice was sound advice at the time."

The Attorney General said: "We were disappointed that, in the end, the Supreme Court took a different view and, of course, we respect the judgment of the court.

"Given the Supreme Court's judgment in legal terms, the matter is settled.

"And, as the honourable lady will know, I am bound by the long-standing convention that the views of the law officers are not disclosed outside the Government without their consent.

"However, I will consider over the coming days whether the public interest might require a greater disclosure of the advice given to the Government on this subject."

[DiamondGooner]

Let me make this clear

Youve been saying the same because you agree with him..... but he lost. He was wrong. His decision was unlawful.

The AG made it clear that the SC was allowed to do what it did. He agrees.

It leaves a grubby mess. It was wrong. It was an attempt to bully and lie to get the governments way.

The legality of his advice has, as I said, been called into question and it should be public

Well let me make this clear .............

You can only "break the law" when something is law.

Who and when was it agreed that prorouging Parliament should only be for a week? who set this timescale? where is it written as a rule or law for that matter?

Oh right, it isn't.

The SC has already admitted that they themselves have made the decision to declare it illegal, not from any written law but of their own opinion that Johnson had over reached.
This is NOT backed up by any law or written law, what the SC has done is used its powers to close a loop hole.

So a week ago this wasn't law, the AG gave his advise over a week ago meaning he is right and tbf, I think he knows more about the law than you do.

Before you come back quacking saying "Well the SC says otherwise" so what, they decided this yesterday, if there was a law they could raise this subject wouldn't of even made it to Supreme Court or passed day 1.

They've adhoc'd this ruling, end of story and again your letting your bias get in the way of facts.

[UFGN]

Let me make this clear

Youve been saying the same because you agree with him..... but he lost. He was wrong. His decision was unlawful.

The AG made it clear that the SC was allowed to do what it did. He agrees.

It leaves a grubby mess. It was wrong. It was an attempt to bully and lie to get the governments way.

The legality of his advice has, as I said, been called into question and it should be public

Well let me make this clear .............

You can only "break the law" when something is law.

Who and when was it agreed that prorouging Parliament should only be for a week? who set this timescale? where is it written as a rule or law for that matter?

Oh right, it isn't.

The SC has already admitted that they themselves have made the decision to declare it illegal, not from any written law but of their own opinion that Johnson had over reached.
This is NOT backed up by any law or written law, what the SC has done is used its powers to close a loop hole.

So a week ago this wasn't law, the AG gave his advise over a week ago meaning he is right and tbf, I think he knows more about the law than you do.

Before you come back quacking saying "Well the SC says otherwise" so what, they decided this yesterday, if there was a law they could raise this subject wouldn't of even made it to Supreme Court or passed day 1.

They've adhoc'd this ruling, end of story and again your letting your bias get in the way of facts.

Its a shame you cant read

The legality of his advice has been CALLED INTO QUESTION and should be made public

And by the way, STFU with your usual accusations of bias. YOU are biassed.

[DiamondGooner]

Its a shame you cant read

The legality of his advice has been CALLED INTO QUESTION and should be made public

And by the way, STFU with your usual accusations of bias. YOU are biassed.

Why am I biased? I'm neither a Remainer or a Leaver so who am I biased towards? I just hate whenever Remainer's get a whiff of victory they and their media explode in victory parades and front page propaganda, then we have to see that stupid wench Gina Miller trotting out in front of the media claiming she has bought the Gov't to heel when the last time she did it, it resulted in them triggering article 50 and making the process legit lol.

So unless YOU can't read I thought me pasting his comments were clear .............

His advice was legal at the time of giving it, now your asking them to look into that, sure, but as you know there is no written rule or law to refer to hence my position all along.

[UFGN]

Its a shame you cant read

The legality of his advice has been CALLED INTO QUESTION and should be made public

And by the way, STFU with your usual accusations of bias. YOU are biassed.

Why am I biased? I'm neither a Remainer or a Leaver so who am I biased towards? I just hate whenever Remainer's get a whiff of victory they and their media explode in victory parades and front page propaganda, then we have to see that stupid wench Gina Miller trotting out in front of the media claiming she has bought the Gov't to heel when the last time she did it, it resulted in them triggering article 50 and making the process legit lol.

So unless YOU can't read I thought me pasting his comments were clear .............

His advice was legal at the time of giving it, now your asking them to look into that, sure, but as you know there is no written rule or law to refer to hence my position all along.

Oh sorry I forgot

Everyone is biassed except you

Yet you support Boris and wont criticise him for anything

Bells on mate

[DiamondGooner]

Oh sorry I forgot

Everyone is biassed except you

Yet you support Boris and wont criticise him for anything

Bells on mate

Not everyone is biased, but you certainly are.

When you say I support Boris lets make it clear, I don't support his politics but I do support his endevour to push this issue to the limit and shake Labour off their fence in the process so we can actually get a conclusion.

The opposition bench is and has been trying to stall and shows no signs of stating policy, Boris's aggression is forcing them to pick a corner.

Why should I criticize him for running circles around a bunch of anti-democratic politicians? I'm glad he's doing it, he's also forcing the hand of the EU.

Maybe your happy to keep this Brexit crap up for another 4 yrs but I'd rather it come to a head sooner rather than later.

Our politicians have been a national disgrace and none of them are going to be forgiven any time soon.

The fact that Corbyn can't even beat the Con's in this state is telling, British politics has become an extremist shambles.

[Phil71]

Johnson is a disgrace for abusing his power, and the majority of this Parliament are a disgrace for wasting everyone’s time over the past three years, and continuing to waste time playing stupid, selfish political games.

A pox on the whole fuckng lot of them.

[EliteKiller]

What law did Boris Johnson break?

Boris Johnson's prorogation did break the law, but as the SC said it broke constitutional, not criminal law.

By preventing Parliament's right to hold the government to account, he broke the rules governing how the UK functions.

What he did was "unlawful" - meaning it wasn't permitted or conforming to the law. But it was not "illegal" - which would mean forbidden by law.

There is currently no suggestion that Johnson broke a criminal law, and after the SC ruling only a fool would make one.

This means he cannot be convicted, or, as some have suggested, go to jail.

If you don't understand the rule of law you really shouldn't post inaccurate post after inaccurate post ....

The legality of the AG's advice has never been called into question ... well it has but only by the ill-informed ... the fact that it proved inaccurate is between a lawyer and his client, if every tine a lawyer advised his client to plead innocent and they were then found guilty, we'd run out of lawyers in a few weeks.

Too many people, journalists, bloggers and internet warriors run their mouths off with zero understanding of the technicalities they are pretending to be familiar with ... no wonder the country is so f***ked up.

[DiamondGooner]

More and more and more fake news.

What did I said in my prediction about a week ago ........... there is no danger the EU will kick us out on October the 31st and that they will extend, its all just tough talk and bluster.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 21356.html

I'm completely disgusted with Parliament, we need a GE to kick some of this lot out, the Remainer side were banding around in their commons speeches slandering Boris and it just looked like trashy rhetoric.
Then there's Boris badgering Corbyn for a GE, do you know how bad it looks when Corbyn has to keep dodging it?

Corbyn is just simply tragic, Boris is running around flipping tables and the Remainer's whether they realise it or not are committing treason on the public by contacting the EU telling them to not offer Boris a deal.

We need to have a GE.

[UFGN]

Brexit party members earn more from second jobs than any other group in the European parliament, according to transparency campaigners who are warning about potential conflicts of interest.

An annual study by Transparency International showed that Nigel Farage is no longer the best-paid British MEP by second job. Now in seventh place among the 227 MEPs with outside earnings, Farage earns about €360,000 (£319,000) a year from his media company, Thorn in the Side.

The Brexit party’s London member Ben Habib is the EU’s best-paid MEP. Elected in May, Habib declared €960,000 annual earnings from First Property Group, the property fund manager he founded.

Three other Brexit party MEPs make the top 10 ahead of Farage. At No 3 is Ann Widdecombe, who declared a second income of €240,000-€480,000 a year. The former Tory minister and reality TV contestant makes between €5,000 and €10,000 a month writing her Daily Express column, with a further €20,000 a month coming in from speaking and broadcasting.

As I said, if youre being sold a dream, keep a close eye on the salesmen

Brexit party really sticking it to the establishment, right?

Right?