O/T Democracy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigLadonOS

All I can say is that you two read it one way and I read it another. Text is just text and without knowing the context behind it it is left to your own conclusion. At the end of the day I can only say that your conclusions are wrong.

---

Interested to know how you think I read it. I made no comment except to copy and paste your post.

I reckon we should have a fourth court that out trumps them all

We've got Jacks - the normal court
Queens - the high court
Kings - the Supreme court

So why not an ultra-supreme court - play the jokers.

So if you get a verdict you don't like you keep progressing it until you get the verdict you want.

The sky's the limit

Seems to work with Remainers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller

Interested to know how you think I read it. I made no comment except to copy and paste your post.

---

What then was your reason for copying & pasting,Just for the hell of it?
I think there was a reason which for some reason you wish to keep to yourself........pathetic. Come clean man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

I don't think that you have got the hang of how Courts work. A full Supreme Court trumps three High Court judges by a massive degree. The Supreme Court will make their own decision and the notion that they would be unwilling to overturn a High Court decision because it would make the judges there look unfit for purpose is laughable.

I've always had an interest in constitutional law and the judgement is going to make fascinating reading and will be debated by academics for years. It could entirely redefine the relationship between the courts and government. I don't think BoJo had that in mind.

---

BL has at least had the balls to offer his opinion on the possible outcome but some clever dick has seen fit to call it laughable
What do you think will be the outcome or are you going to wait till they give their ruling & then give us all the benefit of your wisdom?
As usual you've said nothing that in any way could be construed as an opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

I’m a bit annoyed, John, because the speaker in Biggie’s video has rather stolen my thunder on some of my points on this.

The common theme to the economic theories of Communism and Socialism is the notion of the abolition of the private ownership of Capital (i.e. Capitalism) and its replacement by common ownership of the means of production.

I think you may be getting hung up on labels. The Russian Empire (or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, if you prefer) and the Eastern European countries that fell under its influence may have claimed to be Communist states, but Marx would have been turning in his London grave at that notion. They may have practiced the abolition of the private ownership of capital, but they never even approached a state that could be called Communist. They were stuck in Marx’s transitional Socialist state and the people who lived there paid the price (and are still doing so to a slowly diminishing degree – hence the large Westward migration that we saw post 2004).

The Scandinavian countries are not Socialist states. They are universally committed to free-market Capitalist economics (albeit the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund is a major investor in Norwegians companies and, indeed, many companies around the world). The Swedish government is just completing a sell off of state owned assets that is aimed at paying down their Sovereign debt in order to reduce the burden on future generations – a move that is diametrically opposite to the notion that they are Socialist and diametrically opposite to the plans of the current Labour set up.

Again, with Scandinavia I think the issue may be one of labelling – many people who call themselves Socialist aren’t really – they simply believe in a larger welfare state and other mechanisms aimed at achieving a more equitable distribution of wealth. I used to think that of the current Labour set up until they announced their intention to seize 10% of the capital of every decent sized British company – a move that will sign the death warrant on hundreds of thousands of jobs and pension fund values.

Marx was wrong. Socialism doesn’t work (and neither will Communism if a state ever gets round to trying to practice it). People who work hard, innovate and are willing to take risks to improve their lot want and expect to directly benefit from that. When you tell those people that the product of their hard work, innovation or risk taking will be taken into common ownership they tend to stop working hard, innovating or taking risk to try to improve their lot. Eliminating the effect of market forces by creating state owned monopolies exacerbates the problem. That’s why a few lucky East Germans got to drive round in Trabants whilst their Western neighbours drove round in VWs, BMWs, Mercs and Audis. It’s why South Korea has spawned industrial giants like Samsung and LG, whilst their neighbours to the North have spawned poverty and misery (although, in fairness, the South Koreans were helped by their close realtionshiop with the US).

Are you going to the Bristol game next week?

---

Ah Mr Kerr. Read your critique of Socialism now tell me why Capitalism does work. I'm all ears. How does capitalism work for the homeless, jobless, oppressed, poor. Just a thought... Give me some examples...

Indeed could it nor be argued that because there are people who are impoverished etc in the world through no fault of their own that capitalism does not work. No, hang on, I will take that back it does for a few...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

I don't think that you have got the hang of how Courts work. A full Supreme Court trumps three High Court judges by a massive degree. The Supreme Court will make their own decision and the notion that they would be unwilling to overturn a High Court decision because it would make the judges there look unfit for purpose is laughable.

I've always had an interest in constitutional law and the judgement is going to make fascinating reading and will be debated by academics for years. It could entirely redefine the relationship between the courts and government. I don't think BoJo had that in mind.

---

I know how the judicial system works so I do not need lecturing from you and as far as I know the law is the law, but the point I am making is how can 3 high court judges be wrong? Are you suggesting that they do not know the law and therefore are not fit for purpose?

Also the Scottish judicial system works in a different way than the English system works so in theory they could be both right! But if they return a vote against Boris it will look like the courts are deliberately moving in on political matters to either trespass on future rulings or to inhibit Brext or even both.

What gets me is how anyone can guess what Boris was thinking? How the **** do you make a judgement on how you think a person was thinking and then take them to court on guesswork? Totally ****ing stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigLadonOS

What gets me is how anyone can guess what Boris was thinking? How the **** do you make a judgement on how you think a person was thinking and then take them to court on guesswork? Totally ****ing stupid.

---

The law already works that way on "hate crimes".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigLadonOS

What gets me is how anyone can guess what Boris was thinking? How the **** do you make a judgement on how you think a person was thinking and then take them to court on guesswork? Totally ****ing stupid.

---

How on earth can anyone guess what Boris was thinking when it's odds on even he doesn't know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by great_fire

The law already works that way on "hate crimes".

---

Don't be so stupid. It uses evidence given for and against a person and then makes a judgement. No judge would ever let a case go to court if the only evidence the prosecution had was they thought he was going to do something. It would rightly be scrapped before it got that far.