Fao Naomi

[spathiphyllum]

[jim360]

OG's post also misses the mark. England, Northern Ireland and Scotland have differing legal systems, and the cases were also slightly different, so it's not all that surprising that the judgements may be different.

And, for that matter, the fact that it's called a "judgement" and not a "proof" should give the game away: it's always down at least somewhat to an interpretation of how law applies to a given case.

[spathiphyllum]

V_E shares a youtube video to prove his point uploaded by the account.. "WE GOT A PROBLEM".

[Zacs-Master]

'Scottish politics is irrelevant'

A Scottish court was chosen because the 300 year old law enabled the Scots to forfeit James VII as their king and establish their sovereign right to choose a Government.

Politics are irrelevant are they?

[THECORBYLOON]

ZM, the Scottish Court of Session was chosen because the English High Court wasn't sitting at the time.

[jim360]

I'd expect better of you ZM than to pander to that sort of nonsense.

[Khandro]

//.......but it'll be a shortage of cheddar in Carrefours, not brie* in Tesco.//

*or Comté

[dannyk13]

Corby, The English High Court rendered this decision:-
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/court-challenges-prorogation

[Zacs-Master]

TCL / Jim. You're deluded.

The 76 MPs used a case based partly on the Claim of Right Act, passed by the Scottish Parliament in 1689. This tack wasn't available in an English Court.

[jim360]

That's Scottish Law as it is today, not Scottish politics as it was 300 years ago.

[Zacs-Master]

It matters not a jot. It's still part of the Scottish Constitution and was identified as a tool to get what they (the MPs) wanted which wasn't possible in the UK.

[THECORBYLOON]

ZM, was the decision based solely on the Claim of Right Act?

I am sure it will be clearer when the full decision is released to-morrow.

[jim360]

And, in any case, the fact is, as TCL said, that they couldn't have brought the case in English Courts in July/August, because they weren't sitting.

What's the game here? Undermining the legitimacy of the courts is just low.

[Zacs-Master]

No, TCL, that's why I wrote 'based partly'.

[Old_Geezer]

So, one is being informed that the Scottish legal system allows opinions to be expressed as facts and a judgement based on that ? The Scots probably would benefit from examining that part of their legal system again then.

[Zacs-Master]

Jim, do you have any evidence that they even tried to use an English court?

What's the game here?

It seems to be 'political naivety'.

[jim360]

Yes, I do: an entirely related case went to (and lost in) the High Court recently.

Also, no, nobody is saying anything remotely like that, OG.

[Zacs-Master]

Link please.

[jim360]

And, again, ZM: what is the point of trying to use an English Court in the Summer when it isn't even sitting?!

Political naivety indeed. There's a legal process to follow: the judges involved are independent; the judgements they've reached may or may not be upheld when it comes to the Supreme Court, but when that decision is made it will have the respect of every party concerned.

[Old_Geezer]

It's what the "missed the mark" comment indicates.

[jim360]

The High Court case. But you must have seen it, surely?

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Miller-No-FINAL-1.pdf