Afat Hairyape
@hairyloon
Call me grumpy if you want to, but don't follow me if it's just to try and beg money or sell me something, and if you want to have a conversation, then try something better than "Hello". It's beginning to get annoying.
Both are clear examples of the neglect of his duty, and both were an abuse of the public's trust. Those are the defining characteristics of the offence. See the CPS guidance for more details.
I disagree. It was a straightforward, "Once in a generation" opportunity to vote against the actual government (& parliament as well), rather than just voting on its makeup. In the circumstances, what reasonable electorate could vote for them? They voted for the "Unfinished business" Nigel promised.
Is anyone here old enough to remember when leaking cocks were strictly enforced?
As I understand it, he didn't want to be an MP anyway: he was persuaded by the £5 million. Which makes it a bribe, unless they can make the case that he has performed his function as an MP properly.
They may have no choice because we never legally left and the whole thing was a scam. Apparently there was no decision to leave. Without a decision that meets our constitutional requirements, the A50 notice was not valid and everything that followed it is void. We call it the #BobbyEwingBrexit...
He's right though: what he has spent the money on *is* none of our business. The fact that the interviewers keen asking it instead of the questions that matter suggests that they may not be cut out for journalism.
Odd that they can accuse each other of serious crimes, and nobody turns a hair.
Legally the act said nothing of the sort and if you think that all sides said it was binding, then show us some proof. Meanwhile, explain this away: he said that that result would not be final and that was the result that the nation delivered. This was much more convincing than Cameron's pamphlet.
There's a petition here that you might like... petition.parliament.uk/petitions/75...
As I have said before, and will keep saying until someone shows why I am wrong, the proper answer here is to prosecute the directors for misconduct in public office. The Corporation is so far from impartial that it amounts to abuse of the public's trust.
Andy appears to have answered that adequately, but then blocked you so you can't see the answer. I'll concede that Labour has done some good things, but that doesn't make them good. Hitler passed an act against animal cruelty: that didn't make him good.
Here you go: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/can_... I thought you might find this bit particularly interesting.
Ah, the purpose of the act was to make provision for the punishment of persons who send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety, but the act applies to communication which is indecent or grossly offensive. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/2...
Well he appears to be arguing that there wasn't a constitutional crisis, but there would be if parliament told the truth. I think that doesn't stand up. And yes, that would be better: that was the point I was trying to make. :) I did write to Mr Benn a few times: the relevant highlights are below.
Sorry, did I use the wrong link? Specifically this bit: all those assertions are true.
It wasn't binding when we voted, but they made it binding after the fact. Read the introduction to the EU NoW Bill. It says, in other words, that the purpose of the bill is to make the promise that they made before the vote into law so that the referendum becomes a decision.
It wasn't binding in law, but it was binding in fact. For that reason, among others, David Cameron should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office. Such a prosecution would open the door to resolving the problem.
Did you hear about the two ladies threatened with arrest for wearing "Free Palestine" T-Shirts. The law is here: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/1... I am not giving an opinion on it, save to suggest that if you suspect the crime has been committed, then you should call in and report it...
Because the alternative was to recognise the result indicated a breakdown of confidence in parliament. Hilary Benn almost got it... He essentially said that if parliament told the truth, they would have to face the truth. He didn't put it quite that way though. hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017...
I'll just leave this here. It is part of a crime report submitted to West Yorkshire Police. You will never guess the official reason why no action was taken. Though you are free to make an FOI request to them to find out...
What did the Met say when you complained about their lack of action? What did the mayor say in their review of that complaint?