• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Ragey Erasmus said:
For any that have heard, Farage was going round saying his bank account had been closed, he was being persecuted by the WOKE and was being forced out of the country. The latest updates seem to indicate that, as usual, he was lying. It turns out he lost his exclusive account because it had a minimum threshold for how much you had to keep in there to have the account (which he fell below) and that he was offered another standard account the same as us plebs have.

But something something "man of the people" something "WOKE!" something. Really can't understand how anyone could think privately educated, city banker, politician, media presenter = man of the people and not absolutely drenched in establishment.
Click to expand...
Yep he's basically not rich enough for Coutts and getting his money from RT. Using the Trump playbook and playing the victim to twist it to make himself relevant again.
 
 
Not Mike Brown's Sock said:
In fairness this was such a huge change of precedent, challenging it in court was important purely from that front. It's a big change to what has been done before.
Click to expand...
Why? Just because is done differently to before doesn't make it wrong. How can it be possible for an inquiry to do it's job if the organisation it is investigating gets to decide what material is relevant? If your point is to check whether the inquiry had legal authority well then again it would have been ridiculous if the high court had ruled against the inquiry. It would be absurd that a government can set up an inquiry and then limit what is information available to it. This government already has a long track record of misleading and hiding facts. Transparency should be at the heart of democracy to nullify corruption, but this government uses any excuse to try and hide it's actions from public scrutiny. As for any concerns about private lives, well ministers and civil servants shouldn't be using equipment provided for work for private use.
 
Reiser99 said:
Why? Just because is done differently to before doesn't make it wrong. How can it be possible for an inquiry to do it's job if the organisation it is investigating gets to decide what material is relevant? If your point is to check whether the inquiry had legal authority well then again it would have been ridiculous if the high court had ruled against the inquiry. It would be absurd that a government can set up an inquiry and then limit what is information available to it. This government already has a long track record of misleading and hiding facts. Transparency should be at the heart of democracy to nullify corruption, but this government uses any excuse to try and hide it's actions from public scrutiny. As for any concerns about private lives, well ministers and civil servants shouldn't be using equipment provided for work for private use.
Click to expand...
It wasn't really for the Gov to decide, that's not how it works normally - all the lawyers apparently have access and work through it all to determine what is relevant and what isn't before it is passed on, it's not a vase of Rishi going "no not that bit".

Take A Campbell's diaries for example, they didn't all get released to the enquiries he faced, he made them AV to the lawyers who then determined the relevance.

I'm not fussed about the release, but given it completely broke convention, challenging it was not unreasonable.

Absolute Comms failure from the Govt mind you...
 
Not Mike Brown's Sock said:
It wasn't really for the Gov to decide, that's not how it works normally - all the lawyers apparently have access and work through it all to determine what is relevant and what isn't before it is passed on, it's not a vase of Rishi going "no not that bit".

Take A Campbell's diaries for example, they didn't all get released to the enquiries he faced, he made them AV to the lawyers who then determined the relevance.

I'm not fussed about the release, but given it completely broke convention, challenging it was not unreasonable.

Absolute Comms failure from the Govt mind you...
Click to expand...
So when you say all lawyers who do you mean? Who is deciding what is relevant, because unless I've missed it, the whole issue was that the government were saying it wasn't relevant and those working for the enquiry weren't even allowed to look to see if they were relevant?
 
Reiser99 said:
So when you say all lawyers who do you mean? Who is deciding what is relevant, because unless I've missed it, the whole issue was that the government were saying it wasn't relevant and those working for the enquiry weren't even allowed to look to see if they were relevant?
Click to expand...
Yeah my understanding is the government lawyers were saying they were irrelevant and in a a normal court of law they can't make that determination they have to disclose everything to oppositions lawyers. Then if they dispute it coming out in court it goes to a judge due to relevancy. But the government were saying they didn't even have to disclose it which any judge will them to f off.
 

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
7 8 9
Replies
162
Views
7K
pagliaccio_euforico
pagliaccio_euforico
Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
4K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
26 27 28
Replies
554
Views
22K
McTallshort
McTallshort
T
Is anyone using a club management system for their local club?
Replies
0
Views
844
Try-Hard Tackler
T
M
Had to stare someone down at a red light
Replies
6
Views
1K
The Seeker
The Seeker

Latest posts

Top