No he isn't uncomfortable just because he is in the SC. He knows he is dealing with judges who were having tons of fun yesterday basking in being the serious decision makers about Parliament vs Executive but who today are not going to let him talk about the reality of the endpoint of the decision they are making.
'.It is appalling that these ignorant and irresponsible men should be cutting [ ] to bits as if they were dividing a cake.'
I think it would be a huge clusterfvck if the supremes made a positive finding of improper purpose. I don’t see that the evidence that’s been led supports it. (Although obv we all know that’s what happened.)
Well that was always going to be the dilemma wasn't it? Bit of a fudge and a huge embarrassment to say nothing of what johnny normal will think if the SC says the case against the govt in effect hasn't been made?
"Well yes mutters but do you think they can impute that based on what you’ve heard?"
But that isn't their role is it?
And the Scots court heard it all properly and made a finding of improper motive on the facts in front of them.
This whole devolution thing is a bit of a cluster fook - if they find it justiciable could they send it back to the CoA given that the Scots have already determined that fact? Who gets the tie breaker if the CoA says it isn't proven on the facts and the Scots say it is?
I suppose the Supreme Court could say it is justiciable but that the Scots were just wrong on their determination of facts. I mean that isn't likely but its not unheard of is it for an appelate court to determine that there was no reasonable way for a lower court to have made the factual determination they did based off of the evidence available to them (albeit I'm not sure they've actually argued that?).
That guy (Fordham) was legit. Not only did he actually seems to know what he was talking about, but more importantly his bundle referencing was smooth af.
I met her at a reception in the Law Society once when she was giving out prizes for something and I was shortlisted (and did not win - as always) and she said "Hello, I'm Brenda Hale" and I said "I know! And I'm..." with a huge smile on my face as it was such a normal conversation and she said "I know" back, which made us both laugh. I said she only knew my name because it was on her shortlist briefing papers but I knew her because she was a jurisprudential legend. She chuckled like my granny. Oddest moment of an odd few years.
Beeb has shut down the live feed, presumably until 2pm.
Not going to divert off topic but I miss the White Book days.
It is astounding how much leeway some of these advocates are getting for completely shoddy work and submissions - presumably the SC are conscious of the cameras and media coverage but if anything I think that should bolster them to carry on as it should be done and publicly b0ll0ck into next week the worst transgressions for all to see. They are being far too accommodating - turn it around, make it clear this is not 'Judge Rinder' or 'The Jeremy Kyle Show and lay some firm parameters down.
If Hale just said "listen sonny, this isn't Judge Rinder" and pressed the big red button on the desk and gave him a big X brrrrr then I would give up my job and campaign tirelessly for however long it took to make her Prime Minister.
This is rof gold and has brought me out of hibernation.
To answer your question Teclis, yes we reached 1,000+ in the great Owl thread of 2006 (2007?) which brought about the icon (is the icon still a new thing on new rof?)
The one thing that has shot through the absolute bollox this Board has become for the last 3+ years is a thread that at its core is about a Supreme Court hearing and ruling over Brexit / some w@nky sub-side of it and yet it's got back to what ROF used to be about and has finally managed to repel (for many, many posts and pages now - and I trust every effort will be made to keep it so) the tired, boring and repeated attempts to drum Brexit arguments into pretty much everything. That it's about bundling in a case that is at the heart of Brexit is all the more for the good.
Long live threads on bundling or whatever that brings this Board back to camaraderie and long may we have such octo-tun discourse without twunts derailing and reducing almost everything on here to division and divisiveness.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Banging it home relentlessly all over the Board is just fvcking boring and ruins this place. The Bundles Thread has brought something back which those doing that have largely taken away from ROF. Less is more but the good stuff is always good.
Appeal by Gucci because their earlier advisors (Mishcons) had given duff advice and not shown that Gucci had used their interlocking G's in the UK. Unsurprisingly the appeal was not run by Mishcons.
Bundles are organised, work as a team
Bundles are tidy and Wombles are clean
Underground, overground, Bundling free
The Bundles of Bundledon Common are we
I am thinking of pitching an animated series about Bundling to the BBC
0
2
No he isn't uncomfortable just because he is in the SC. He knows he is dealing with judges who were having tons of fun yesterday basking in being the serious decision makers about Parliament vs Executive but who today are not going to let him talk about the reality of the endpoint of the decision they are making.
'.It is appalling that these ignorant and irresponsible men should be cutting [ ] to bits as if they were dividing a cake.'
0
1
Inferences may be drawn in the absence of a clear denial of improper motives mutters. Large fat fvck off inferences.
0
1
He's only got 3 minutes left.
Major (Garnier) at 12.10.
0
4
Amended version just uploaded. Same address.
0
2
oh no. Garnier. Oh my god no.
0
3
I think it would be a huge clusterfvck if the supremes made a positive finding of improper purpose. I don’t see that the evidence that’s been led supports it. (Although obv we all know that’s what happened.)
0
2
This man is shouty.
0
3
But isn't it actually already a huge clusterfook and isn't this precisely what's occurred?
0
0
Who's this? He's quite ranty.
0
3
Ooh smooth dual referencing there
0
2
Well that was always going to be the dilemma wasn't it? Bit of a fudge and a huge embarrassment to say nothing of what johnny normal will think if the SC says the case against the govt in effect hasn't been made?
0
2
Well yes mutters but do you think they can impute that based on what you’ve heard? It’s all a bit *gestures vaguely*
maybe the ranty man took on board Brenda’s earlier comments about amplification and has overcorrected
0
1
I didn't know 3 Turd's Buildings had any counsel involved in this. I thought that was a licensing set.
0
2
a quiz! i love quizzes!
0
1
that was a pretty shit quiz tbf
0
0
'let's do a quick quiz!' Heh
0
1
this guy has just been described as an 'ubergeek' on the Guardian blog
bet he would love this thread
0
2
It's the inference Mutters. But even ignoring the lack of witness statement I think there's improper motive on the known facts.
0
1
Garnier/major is apparently going to lead a case about fiduciary duties of estate agents. Should be lolsome.
0
3
"Well yes mutters but do you think they can impute that based on what you’ve heard?"
But that isn't their role is it?
And the Scots court heard it all properly and made a finding of improper motive on the facts in front of them.
This whole devolution thing is a bit of a cluster fook - if they find it justiciable could they send it back to the CoA given that the Scots have already determined that fact? Who gets the tie breaker if the CoA says it isn't proven on the facts and the Scots say it is?
0
1
This guy does seem v good. Some relevant actual cases on judicial review. Not in the spirit of this kind of thing!
0
2
"That wasn't said in a vacuum"
Would have been impressive if it had been.
0
5
That’s what I mean arbiter. I don’t understand what happens
0
1
tweet from David Allen Green
Now Michael Fordham for Welsh government
Fordham is the author of the most detailed practitioner guide on judicial review https://www.wildy.com/isbn/9781509922833/judicial-review-handbook-6th-ed-hardback-hart-publishing-f1868ab7-a7bd-494e-a411-fd0f5dfe75f4 …
He may be only barrister to have read and considered every single judicial review case ever
Ubergeek
Hence why this is case-heavy
0
3
Aaah Queenie. He is an actual judicial review specialist. Fancy that.
0
1
I suppose the Supreme Court could say it is justiciable but that the Scots were just wrong on their determination of facts. I mean that isn't likely but its not unheard of is it for an appelate court to determine that there was no reasonable way for a lower court to have made the factual determination they did based off of the evidence available to them (albeit I'm not sure they've actually argued that?).
0
3
blackstone cha's site has crashed
0
3
*watchthrobber checks phone*
ROF haven't mentioned me for a while.
*watchthrobber fondles watch*
0
2
That guy (Fordham) was legit. Not only did he actually seems to know what he was talking about, but more importantly his bundle referencing was smooth af.
0
3
oooh, mood lighting.
0
1
Ohhhhh here we go
0
4
Fordham’s bundle referencing was sublime. Full rof marks.
0
1
I think Eadie's sour face is now absorbing all the light in the room.
0
2
Fordham is like the RoF god now
seriously what has happened to the lighting?
0
2
btw watching this on YouTube rather than the Supreme Court website seems much better quality and less buffering (for me at least).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWQ2CUPtdpA
0
2
I am mesmerised by garnier’s hair. Has he had a just for men accident or is it just the sour lighting that’s making it look so yellow?
0
2
This thread needs Judo.
0
2
my feed crashed, they appear to have adjourned, until when?
0
1
2pm
0
1
I think they need a long lunch. Who do you think will be laying into the red wine?
0
1
Ahh, Baroness Hale's lovely, isn't she?
0
4
So lovely! Shame she’s retiring soon
0
2
I met her at a reception in the Law Society once when she was giving out prizes for something and I was shortlisted (and did not win - as always) and she said "Hello, I'm Brenda Hale" and I said "I know! And I'm..." with a huge smile on my face as it was such a normal conversation and she said "I know" back, which made us both laugh. I said she only knew my name because it was on her shortlist briefing papers but I knew her because she was a jurisprudential legend. She chuckled like my granny. Oddest moment of an odd few years.
0
1
Oh bless. She just seems thoroughly lovely. So nice when talented people are not unmitigated arseholes.
0
4
Is it worth reading into this thread or better to get a trainee to do it and provide a brief synopsis?
0
2
It's worth getting a trainee to put it into a paginated, chronological bundle, with privileged material redacted.
0
5
So enjoying this thread.
Beeb has shut down the live feed, presumably until 2pm.
Not going to divert off topic but I miss the White Book days.
It is astounding how much leeway some of these advocates are getting for completely shoddy work and submissions - presumably the SC are conscious of the cameras and media coverage but if anything I think that should bolster them to carry on as it should be done and publicly b0ll0ck into next week the worst transgressions for all to see. They are being far too accommodating - turn it around, make it clear this is not 'Judge Rinder' or 'The Jeremy Kyle Show and lay some firm parameters down.
Hale is now on my afternoon tea wishlist.
0
0
Chlorinated bundles??!!
We don't want chlorinated bundles over here.
0
3
If Hale just said "listen sonny, this isn't Judge Rinder" and pressed the big red button on the desk and gave him a big X brrrrr then I would give up my job and campaign tirelessly for however long it took to make her Prime Minister.
0
1
Posted this on the other thread by mistake
Muttley19 Sep 19 14:22
Reply|
Report
| Reply |
Report
I find it interesting that Pannick has brought his twin brother to court
Muttley19 Sep 19 14:22
Reply|
Report
| Reply |
Report
All three people currently in shop buy their glasses frames from SpodsRus.
0
4
BUNDLING NEVER SLEEPS!
0
3
a wimba weh a wimba weh
In the bundle
the mighty bundle
The mishcon creeps tonight...
0
4
that's all our IJs sorted for this arvo
0
0
AAAAAND that's octotun
0
4
Has this ever happened before?
0
2
This is rof gold and has brought me out of hibernation.
To answer your question Teclis, yes we reached 1,000+ in the great Owl thread of 2006 (2007?) which brought about the icon (is the icon still a new thing on new rof?)
0
2
Why can't they agree on how to pronounce prorogue and prorogation?
0
1
Lord Pannick has got 6 kids
0
2
octotun or octutun?
0
0
Does anybody know if Nexis is knocking about?
0
2
Lady H thanking everyone involved in the preparation of materials which were in "an organised form".
What trial was she watching?
0
3
Lady Hale is praising the bundles!
0
1
Kimmy, I bet you were googling to see whether Pannick had a brother, after Muttley's comments - amirite?
0
3
...with the notable exception of Mishcon, who nearly fooked the whole proceedings. Hearing adjourned.
0
3
hehe! I googled him but not to check on twinness
0
2
Oh. Just me then.
0
2
0
2
From Dux's separate thread:
----
[This] thread is perfect and pure ROF, Dux.
Absolutely, beautifully perfect.
The one thing that has shot through the absolute bollox this Board has become for the last 3+ years is a thread that at its core is about a Supreme Court hearing and ruling over Brexit / some w@nky sub-side of it and yet it's got back to what ROF used to be about and has finally managed to repel (for many, many posts and pages now - and I trust every effort will be made to keep it so) the tired, boring and repeated attempts to drum Brexit arguments into pretty much everything. That it's about bundling in a case that is at the heart of Brexit is all the more for the good.
Long live threads on bundling or whatever that brings this Board back to camaraderie and long may we have such octo-tun discourse without twunts derailing and reducing almost everything on here to division and divisiveness.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Banging it home relentlessly all over the Board is just fvcking boring and ruins this place. The Bundles Thread has brought something back which those doing that have largely taken away from ROF. Less is more but the good stuff is always good.
0
3
OCTO-TUN!!
0
2
It was an Octutun.
Now a Nonutun.
0
1
Next not now
0
1
If you are in the mood for seeing Mishcon mistakes.. here is one
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o42414.pdf
Appeal by Gucci because their earlier advisors (Mishcons) had given duff advice and not shown that Gucci had used their interlocking G's in the UK. Unsurprisingly the appeal was not run by Mishcons.
0
2
Sound trouble.
Judg"e"ment.
fooking beeb.
0
2
Is all now forgiven? Wait till the costs application!
0
1
ooooh Sorrydid... extra ‘e’s only acceptable in a Shaman song.
0
1
I just thought I’d bump this in case we need a laugh later. Also is this a record for a thread?
0
5
Certainly gets the award for my favourite ever
0
2
I Put this in a searchable spreadsheet at one point. Will have to look it up.
0
2
It’s coming home!
0
5
bump
0
0
bump to kill that awful TERF JKR
0
3
JKR thread*
0
0
This used to be over 900 posts before some contributors were deleted.
0
0
Heh
0
2
Bundles are organised, work as a team
Bundles are tidy and Wombles are clean
Underground, overground, Bundling free
The Bundles of Bundledon Common are we
I am thinking of pitching an animated series about Bundling to the BBC
0
3
Is that the Bond Dickinson theme tune Judy?
Join the discussion