Extraordinary Times

As I understand it a court has found that the prime minister has lied to the queen on a question of policy - in times past this would be a matter for immediate resignation - now the possiblity doesn't even seem to be being mentioned.  Crazy times.

I am sure that young Alex will be taking the defamation point and pursuing it ruthlessly.

I look forward to him demonstrating to the courts that his reputation for truthfulness has been harmed.

Really?  They found that the purpose of the prorogation was for the purpose of "stymying Parliament".  Is that the reason Johnson gave the Queen?

To be fair though I was wrong, it is being mentioned by virtually everyone...

To say nothing of the various statutory defences available. 

And that Cummings is ignorant of the law. In the process of cutting off his nose to spite his face. Happy to give him a handy shortcut by ripping the whole of his face off tbf. 

The whole saga is becoming increasingly indistinguishable from Trumpism now.

The narcissist leader who is going to sweep away the deep state establishment and empower the people, completely ignoring that said leader is an ultra-privileged establishment figure who holds the people in complete contempt and is looking to enrich himself and his circle of connections. 

A party and a voter base who are happy to instantly abandon every principle they claimed to have to follow a leader who will indulge their xenophobia and hatred of the other. 

The liberal elite who think that this time pointing out the lies and hypocrisy will turn everyone against the leader, because they can't come to terms with the fact that his supporters just don't give a shit and never actually believed in any of the things they claimed to.

"

I am sure that young Alex will be taking the defamation point and pursuing it ruthlessly.

I look forward to him demonstrating to the courts that his reputation for truthfulness has been harmed."

 

hehmax 

heh @ strutts

Guy - I think Grieve MP has raised that point and it is an important point. What did the advice say and there must be a written version. 

Where is JRM - what did he say to the Queen when presenting the papers, what questions were asked and what was his response. I assume though that these details will be privileged. 

 

I suppose AG's written advice to the government cannot be construed as AG's legal advice to the Queen also or is it the case that the AG acts always for the Queen and the government of the day - together. In other words, is the Queen required to follow AG's written opinion or can she seek alternative advice and if yes would that be from the Privy Council?

Whatever in the courts finding show that Johnson and co lied to the public and parliament- should be enough to go