UKH

He gets his first win as PM because the judge reckons the lying f*cker is lying to us and not him.  Better ways to break your duck I reckon. 

I’m still waiting for the herd of SNP politicians to come out and trumpet the  righteousness of the Scottish legal system like they have been all too keen to do until quite recently.

Dude you are all over this forum.

You’ve lost me. 

I’m trying to relieve the boredom of watching Bolton vs Blackpool on TV.

When the Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful to prorogue Parliament the SNP were very eager to point out the part played in the process by the Scottish Court.

They don’t appear to be so vocal in their support this time.

Ah - I think what’s interesting about this is that the judgement was that an order was unnecessary because the court had received assurances from the govt that the law would be adhered to, and that the inference was the utterances to the public were political bullshit. It seems like a draw to me. I wonder if it would be contempt of court now if he did breach the Benn Act?

I have no idea what Johnson’s plan is or if he’s got a plan at all.

I’ve heard so many things that might happen from various commentators but who knows?

There’s even talk of a EU offering an extension without the UK asking for one.

That gets Johnson off the hook with his ‘rather die in a ditch’ comment but I’m not sure that the EU wants to take that step.

I think you've been taken in be the sloppy media reporting. This is only becomes a victory for johnson if he decides to break his promise, on oath, to the court. If he chooses to be “destructive of one of the core principles of constitutional propriety and of the mutual trust that is the bedrock of the relationship between the court and the Crown".

I think the judge was right, even though he's a Tory, and I don't say that often

You've got to read the judgement rather than go on the media reports and you'll see this is far from a victory for Boris.    What the judge says is that the Advocate General for Scotland who is also an officer of the court has formally stated that the government will not break the Benn Act and will not try and thwart its purpose.   That formal statement is enough and he doesn't need to make an order.

That seems fair to me because Boris hasn't actually broken the Benn Act yet and a court has to give credence to the word of its own senior officers and the government.  The flip side of that is that if the court is lied to by the government and Attorney General it is a serious matter.

If Boris's intention is to not send the letter he is in a significantly worse place now than he was before.

Who mentioned a victory for Johnson?

I was having a dig at the SNP.

See my reply to Tyler.

You don't have to be a nationalist to trumpet the righteousness of the Scottish legal system... 

(Although it certainly isn't perfect) 

I think the "not proven" verdict is very useful, IIRC allows another trial if new evidence comes along.

I don't think the possibility of a new trial has anything to do with whether or not the original trial resulted in a 'not proven' as opposed to a 'not guilty' verdict. The current situation is as determined by the the Double Jeopardy Act of 2011.

Not proven is an acquittal and has the same effect as not guilty. 

The original verdicts were 'proven' and 'not proven'. Somehow, and I probably used to know, guilty and not guilty have crept in.