Gina Miller - Supreme Court

[baggieal]

I wouldn't mind slipping her a sneaky one to be honest Al' .

68 - thought you had better standards mate! Corbyn may have done a 2 for 1 with old ma Abbott!!!

[Albionic68]

68 - thought you had better standards mate! Corbyn may have done a 2 for 1 with old ma Abbott!!!

I've got standards Al' but there's nothing wrong in letting them dip once in a while.

They'd never fall as low as Diane Abbottopotamus though.

Corbyn must have one hell of a constitution, that or zero standards whatsoever (who would've thunk it.......?) .

[stripes39]

I've got standards Al' but there's nothing wrong in letting them dip once in a while.

They'd never fall as low as Diane Abbottopotamus though.

Corbyn must have one hell of a constitution, that or zero standards whatsoever (who would've thunk it.......?) .

Miller's on her third husband 68 so there might be time for you yet. Just don't ask her about the financial business her and her husband run that hasn't made a profit since it was formed in 2008. Or the law degree she claimed both on her web site and publicity material to have but doesn't then blamed it on a copywriting error or her previous husband getting investigated for financial irregularities or The Charity Commission calling her a publicity seeker for the way she acted when running her charity.....apart from that you should get on just fine old chap

[Albionic68]

Miller's on her third husband 68 so there might be time for you yet. Just don't ask her about the financial business her and her husband run that hasn't made a profit since it was formed in 2008. Or the law degree she claimed both on her web site and publicity material to have but doesn't then blamed it on a copywriting error or her previous husband getting investigated for financial irregularities or The Charity Commission calling her a publicity seeker for the way she acted when running her charity.....apart from that you should get on just fine old chap

Cheers for the tips '39 but I've no desire to hold her interviews .

[Wick5y]

The reason it’s at the Supreme Court is that they say Johnson only prorogued Parliament to hide his ulterior aim. I think they need to be up before the beak themselves as they obviously have only brought the case to court to hide their ulterior aim .