Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Sailtheworld

Tromking wrote: »

Desperate stuff.
As per Ivader's post, the invitation to back up your accusation of lying still stands.

If the lack of a Youtube clip with Lady Hale shouting 'liar, liar pants on fire' gives you the comfort of some plausible deniability I pity you. All because you're so scared about having the brexit rug pulled out from underneath you.

I've backed it up. Boris' version of the truth didn't stack up according to the Supreme Court. You of all people should know better - you complain about not being listened to - it's little wonder you keep get the shaft.

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

Man, you are really flailing about now. If it is not explicit, it didn’t happen. Jeez. What do you need? To lie down for a while, it seems.

No, explicit means the accusation wasn't clear and exact rather than it didn't happen. At least try and understand what the word means before pulling me up on them.

Tromking

Sailtheworld wrote: »

If the lack of a Youtube clip with Lady Hale shouting 'liar, liar pants on fire' gives you the comfort of some plausible deniability I pity you. All because you're so scared about having the brexit rug pulled out from underneath you.

I've backed it up. Boris' version of the truth didn't stack up according to the Supreme Court. You of all people should know better - you complain about not being listened to - it's little wonder you keep get the shaft.

Oh I see, we’ve gone from “liar” to “Boris’ version of the truth”. Nuff said.
Promise me you’ll buck up.

phillw

lvader wrote: »

The ruling was pretty comprehensive, you should maybe read it rather than throw around baseless accusations.

To be fair they couldn't rule on whether he lied, because he avoided perjuring himself by making no comment to the court. They therefore didn't need to rule on whether he lied, because they could rule what he did was unlawful in any event as he had given no mitigating circumstances.

Daily Mail readers are normally upset that people can make no comment to reduce their punishment.

Moe_The_Bartender

Sailtheworld wrote: »

No, explicit means the accusation wasn't clear and exact rather than it didn't happen. At least try and understand what the word means before pulling me up on them.

OK. Let's try again. You said that the accusation of lying was implicit. That's after you actually said that Boris was judged to have lied and that’s when you started backtracking. Then you resort to the dictionary and give us a different meaning to explicit and claim that the accusation wasn't clear and exact. I've no idea what dictionary you’re using but explicit does not mean that at all.

Why not quit before you make yourself look even sillier?

lvader

phillw wrote: »

To be fair they couldn't rule on whether he lied, because he avoided perjuring himself by making no comment to the court. They therefore didn't need to rule on whether he lied, because they could rule what he did was unlawful in any event as he had given no mitigating circumstances.

Daily Mail readers are normally upset that people can make no comment to reduce their punishment.

So he didn't lie, hence they didn't rule he did.

phillw

lvader wrote: »

So he didn't lie, hence they didn't rule he did.

He didn't personally lie to the court no.

They found that the evidence that was provided (his tick) did not prove that the decision was made so they could have a queen's speech, even though that was the case that his lawyer put forward.

We don't know whether he lied to the queen, because we don't know what he said to the queen.

His criticism of the outcome of the court because it would now allow MPs to scrutinize him, clearly shows that he lied to us and the MPs.

Moe_The_Bartender

phillw wrote: »

His criticism of the outcome of the court because it would now allow MPs to scrutinize him, clearly shows that he lied to us and the MPs.

It shows nothing of the kind. You're making stuff up again.

lvader

phillw wrote: »

He didn't personally lie to the court no.

They found that the evidence that was provided (his tick) did not prove that the decision was made so they could have a queen's speech, even though that was the case that his lawyer put forward.

We don't know whether he lied to the queen, because we don't know what he said to the queen.

His criticism of the outcome of the court because it would now allow MPs to scrutinize him, clearly shows that he lied to us and the MPs.

He didn't need to lie, he used his PM powers under the advise that it was entirely legal. The high court agreed with this. The Supreme court created by Tony Blair in 2009 took a different view.

phillw

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

It shows nothing of the kind. You're making stuff up again.

So you think these two ideas

We're not proroguing to prevent scrutiny
The supreme count has allowed parliament to scrutinize

aren't in conflict?

Or are you saying that his slippery nature of making it appear he is saying something that he isn't, is the cause of this misunderstanding?

I'd be interested in why you think he tried to prorogue.