Boris is not giving up and not stepping down.
It isnât supreme, itâs corrupt - or at least 350 parliamentarians are, for overriding the wishes of the majority of their constituents.
Iâve just posted this on his Twitter page: Donât lose your confidence, Boris. I look on it as youâre one patriot up against 350 traitors, and Iâm sure there are about 1.7 + million other patriots out there who feel the same. Wish that I shared your ârespectâ for the 11 judges. lol
I know one thing (and Iâd rather not know it!), and thatâs if heâs prevented from achieving his pledge to have us out on 31 October the shit really will hit the fan.
As one of todayâs press front pages says âWeâve been shafted by the elitists.â Iâd insert âwell and trulyâ in there somewhere. lol
I canât believe that we were asked to make a simple referendum decision: it wasnât complicated, nor multiple choice, it was either âWe want to remainâ, or âWe want out.â, and 4 fucking years on, our servants are still denying our decision. âdemocracyâ? âidiocracyâ? Forget it - oligarchy is the name of the game. And if I see that Miller womanâs ugly mug on my tv screen again Iâll chuck the remote at it. Actually Iâd give anything to know whatâs in it for her - there must be something? Oh, and as Iâve asked before, whoâs paying her legal costs? Theyâre probably coming out of our latest contribution to the EU? Think of the irony in that? 
âBoris Johnsonâs suspension of parliament unlawful, supreme court rulesâ
And in the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies âWell they would, wouldnât they!â 
lol
Can someone explain to me what law he broke - I thought parliament was suspended every year for the party conferences so why illegal this time?
Iâll give Jen a chance to answer that because sheâs more articulate than I am. If she doesnât, Iâll try and explain, but it might not be until tomorrow mornimng.
This definition might shed some light on what is fast becoming a bit of a shamâŚ
Illegal means that it is forbidden by a law that has been passed.
Unlawful means that it is not authorised by law because no such law has been passed.
another way of expressing:
Illegal and unlawful have slightly different meanings, although they are often used interchangeably. Something that is illegal is against the law, whereas an unlawful act merely contravenes the rules that apply in a particular context. Thus handball in soccer is unlawful, but it is not illegal.
Unlawful seems to be different than breaking a law !
From what I understood from the ruling he simply attempted to prevent parliament from questioning brexit dealings instead of what was suggested using the time to prepare for a queens speach.
I donât think laws were broken per se as a law had never been passed to say prorogation was not allowed for x number of weeks.
1 Like
Thatâs a very interesting and enlightening post, thank you. Iâve often wondered about the uses of illegal and unlawful. Iâd just love for some subtle distinction like that to discredit and render void the High Courtâs judgement. 
Me neither - As far as I know there is no law preventing proroguation - it happens every 12 months FFS
So if Boris doesnât send the letter will he be breaking the law - which law?
Letter ?? what to extend the deadline for exiting the E.U. ?
Thatâs another sham. If he has to write a letter I suspect that could be worded in a million deifferent ways 
perhaps the court will have to approve that wording before sending.
It really is becoming a circus and I cannot see the future when whatever will happen has happened and all of a sudden the country is back to normal whatever normal will mean in the future of British politics. Credibilty is being lost rapidly.
Sad days
Massage the numbers a bit and this applies to our President Trump also. Our Demwit traitors are collectively undermining our system of government in refusing to accept the results of the 2016 election. They are wasting taxpayer money and denying the country legislative actions that are needed to improve our lotâŚin their incessant concentration on removing a duly elected President from office and subverting the will of the American voters.
A similar scenario applies to the denial of the Brexit vote. The will of the people is being subverted.
Why have a ballot issue if the results are not to be permitted to occur?
For THAT purpose yes, to stifle parliament from doing their jobâŚNO
Boris broke no law. It was a rhetorical question.
1 Like
Suppose that Johnson was deceptive with the Queen? Donât know that weâll ever know what he said to herâŚ
Do you have conclusive proof that is the case? Like I said in the RH, that is simply conjecture and ânot beyond reasonable doubt.â
Parliament had 3 1/2 years to debate Brexit. Now they go to court over an additional 4-5 days than normal prorogation which happens every September for the party conferences. Now I would say, they are the ones who have a motive, to stop Brexit.
The shit will certainly get sprayed very soon. It will be clear that the only two options left are no deal or revoke Article 50. Guess what these Remainers will try to do? That is why they are so desperate for that little bit of extra time.
Edit: I suppose democracy isnât a big thing with you when it doesnât go your way. Does the fact that 17.4million, the majority who voted to leave, have any bearing? Many people who voted remain want to see this farce over and done with too. To them, democracy is greater than stay or leave. However, the Establishment and those associated with it, plus a number of extremely vocal loonies want to achieve remain by any means possible, including overturning democracy and installing a tyrannical dictatorship. In fact I would argue that is what they want. Thus this has become more than simply leave or remain. It is democracy versus tyranny.
You might have seen the crap that former PM David Cameron is getting, over divulging snippets of conversations with the Queen.
It is taboo to discuss anything that is said to or said by or even gesticulated by the Queen.
Iâm not the one that needs anythingâŚThatâs for your Supreme Court. This is why Iâve asked you how YOUR Supreme Court works. Our Supreme Court decisions are followed by briefs that explain the ruling viewâŚ
Donât you think the Queen is old enough to make her own mind up?
Thatâs a whole other issue that I havenât even been addressingâŚ
Iâm discussing Johnsonâs motivation for prorogation of parliament which the UK Supreme Court found to be unlawful.
No one is beyond deception. And for the record, I asked the question while pointing out that we donât know what Johnsonâs conversation with the Queen was, and likely wonâtâŚ