Oooo there's some fun statistical games in this one.
"About three-quarters of the victims of domestic killings of adults are women. The number of those killed last year reached a five-year high of 173, an increase of 32 on the previous year."
There were 726 homicides in the UK in the year ending March 2018. About 85% of the victims were male. They quote a stat about "victims of domestic killings" because the victims are disproportionately women in that specific circumstance. They want us to be outraged about "more women killed" without even bothering to say "we also care about the minority of male domestic murders" and not even acknowledging that women are vastly underrepresented as victims of violent crime.
It's so fucking crazy to see them say "But more women...!" And the just bat away "But more men..." even when the more men are more in absolute terms - Hundreds more murdered men than murdered women, but murder is a women's issue you guys.
As for the law - The accused has the right face their accuser. End of story.
The accused is not obliged to have a lawyer. They must be allowed to defend themselves. This means they must be allowed to question witnesses.
If you remove this ability to question a witness who has accused them, then we remove due process.
How can we have due process of law if an accused cannot question whether the accuser is lying?
Turns out Tatiana McGrath is inspiring people everywhere!
Weird fucking stuff here. This is clown world.
To start with; the headline is mental. So, Boris has said he would comply with the courts ruling if they said the prorogation was unlawful. Apparently they then tried to push him to not then lawfully prorogue after that, as if this decision on the constitutional legality of proroguing would make future, unknown prorogation impossible when this is simply impossible.
Second, look at this quote:
"But Lady Hale intervened: “It could be said it was in pursuit of democracy rather than opposed to it. To enforce the will of the House of Commons [to exert its authority over the unelected Lords]...” Keen replied that prorogation on that occasion was an example of a government doing so “where the executive wish to pursue a political objective and they are entitled to do so”."
The judge seems to think that "in pursuit of democracy" changes the legality of proroguing. But that is, at a minimum, a matter of opinion. Keen's response that she should should the fuck and pay attention to the actual case at hand; proroguing as a political tool; instead of ideas like democracy that are vastly outside the courts jurisdiction.
Boris' lawyer said that there was precedent of political prorogugation, and that this should be adhered to. After all, that is the law as it stands. For the court to change that is to, in effect, create new law from whole cloth.
...The problem was not that people thought Boris has never once lied. The problem was that you are the head of a news organisation that is obliged by fucking law to be impartial. So when you walk out on stage and say, to paraphrase, "the prime minister is a fucking liar" people had problems with that.
Shock! Horror! Feminists don't get their way! Oh and the strippers liked their job and wanted to keep working. And apparently this is such a shocking situation that it is news...
Another case heard in the high court of England and Wales deemed the issue “political” and non-justiciable.
This is a seriously important piece of the British constitution. The courts cannot overrule political decision, end of story.
Ms Chakrabati either knows this and is lying, or she doesn't know is completely inappropriate to be a candidate for attorney general.
Her complaint that it "stifled debate" is simply bullshit.
“Once you’ve dealt with that hurdle you go on to decide whether on the facts of this case, Boris Johnson and his chums were abusive. Whether they abused their prerogative power, to suspend parliament, to shut it down in this way.”
Define abuse for me please. What does that mean? How could it ever be abusive to end a session of parliament? The timing might be more or less favorable for the government, but when parliament has sat for the longest time since the Long Parliament (incidentally they only stopped sitting because Cromwell literally expelled them at gun point) ending the session could not possibly be abusive. It had to fucking end sometime, you know? And for someone who is a lawyer to say "that's abusive because it might stop me getting what I want" is fucking disgusting. She should know better. Abuse of process relates to the process, not to the outcome.
As it turns out you insufferable cunts, it is possible for things you don't like to happen legally.
Just to be clear - A BBC reporter at the press conference said that had Boris appeared it would have been absolute pandemonium, as protesters were screaming within feet of the speakers.
To say "Boris is humiliated..." is to utterly fucking lie. Boris asked for the same staging as previously, indoors in somewhere quiet. They tried to force him to go outdoors surrounded by wolves and he declined. When your set up job fails, don't lie to my face and say the person who dodged it was humiliated by smelling a rat.
When your headline has already been proven false by the time it appears here, you are shit tier journalism. This is what I would expect from The Canary.
Proof if any were needed that the Muslim community are a fucking time bomb. The government saw a not-for-profit that was writing chill teenage and young adult content about headscarves and whatever and decided "Hey this is a pretty good picture of Islam to put across" and so funded it.
When the audience found out that this fun, chill content they enjoyed was funded by the government (their own government by the way) then it instantly became a betrayal of the Muslim community. Because as we know, Muslims make their own laws, and don't pay tax and keep to themselves. They don't want you.
To put it another way -
Government - "Hey young Muslim women, you seem pretty cool and secular. We're just going to create a space for you to hang out and enjoy being secular and western"
Muslim women - "ABSOLUTELY HARAM"
You hear that guys? If we just smarmily watch our fucking language then there will be no more extremism.
How can someone who is the head of a body designed to counter Jihadism be an utter and complete fucking cuck to Islam? How can she be so ill informed as to say "Just say the right things and they will stop killing and raping"
Urgh. So many weasel words.
"New assessments in the report found producing healthy, sustainable food would actually cut food prices, as the condition of the land improves."
When they say "healthy and sustainable" what they mean is people eating crickets. They want subsidies taken away from beef, which will likely make beef too expensive for almost everyone, and granted to whatever else they have decided is better to bring the cost of that down.
They are not calling for a cut in subsidies. They just want their nightmarish Soylent Green future to be subsidised instead.