Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by horsefly

  1. I'll let my gay friends with children know they have chosen not to reproduce. Although it may come as a shock to the kids that they don't exist.
  2. Jesus! You need to do some basic biology old boy. Homosexual behaviour occurs naturally throughout the animal kingdom. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of FACT.
  3. When you answer my question I will bother giving you a reply. If you insist on responding with deflection drivel I won't.
  4. Oh dear! The rainbow symbol is DIRECTLY a symbol of equality, which is DIRECTLY an objective and legal requirement of the employer. Try again, and this time answer the question you were asked. What is the connection between the poppy (which I wear btw) and employment equality legislation?
  5. What a shame that players weren't wearing rainbow symbols back in this man's day. Things might have turned out very different for him
  6. Perhaps you would like to explain to me the connection between wearing a poppy and the protection of workers' rights with regard to equality legislation. My university certainly demanded I wear a name badge as a condition of my employment. Had I an objection to wearing one and refused to do so I would have been disciplined. Are you saying they should not have had a right to do so?
  7. No doubt I should have been clearer that I didn't intend to suggest any equivalence between the proroguing of parliament and the Rwanda act. Nor do I think there is any equivalence. They are two separate points that I intended to illustrate my general point about the complexity of the relationship between the lawmakers (parliament) and the judiciary. Let me try a different approach that takes us much further back than the constitutional consequences of the Glorious Revolution (that you rightly intimated as a pivotal moment in our constitutional history). If there is anywhere that deserves to be the starting point of a debate on the relationship between the sovereign power in the land and the law of the land it is surely the Magna Carte. For me, the truly transformational aspect of that agreement was its establishment of a very clear and fundamental principle that the sovereign power of the ruling monarch did not extend so far as denying his subjects recourse to justice through the law of the land. That principle remains as applicable now as it was then. We have merely replaced a sovereign ruling monarch with a sovereign ruling parliament. No democracy is possible without acknowledgement of that principle. However, one of the most important (but often overlooked) consequences of that is that the relationship between the lawmakers and the judiciary is intrinsically and necessarily messy. A genuine democracy demands two things of the law which are always in complex tension: (1) That the laws of the land are determined by a democratically elected government. (2) That the laws of the land protect each citizen/subject from the abuse of power by government. That tension should not be seen as problematic or unwanted. It is absolutely necessary for democracy to flourish. Democracy should be messy. It is the clarity of a single ideological objective and lack of messiness that is the mark of an authoritarian dictatorship. Dictatorships entice by promises of a simple common unity, but always deliver depravity and the persecution of dissenters. Dictatorships "succeed" by dropping the second demand of the law as I have expressed it above. They "succeed" by (involuntarily) co-opting the judiciary into the political objectives of their authoritarianism. It's why the first objective of every proto-dictatorship in history is to take control of the judiciary. So, to cut swiftly to clarifying my current concerns. I'm not suggesting the current government are Na*zis. What I am suggesting is that in the course of the last few years this government has tended towards solutions to the "messiness" of democracy, re the relationship between government and judiciary, in ways that have tilted the exercise of their authority worryingly towards the authoritarian. Witness Braverman's restrictions on the right to protest, witness the government's declaration of Rwanda as safe de jure as if it was safe de facto. Of course, it is not for the judiciary to determine government policy. It is, however, essential to our democracy that the judiciary holds the government to account both, in terms of the law of the land, and in their duty to protect citizens from authoritarian abuse of their individual rights. There is no simple formula that ensures the relationship between government and judiciary is productive. Fundamentally it requires a willingness and cooperation in a common general purpose to defend the principles of a diverse democratic society. It seems to me that that willingness and cooperation is very much under pressure at the the moment. Long live democracy, long live the rule of law, and long live the "messiness" essential to the both of those.
  8. A weird way to describe it, but fair enough. In which case why do you think homosexuality isn't likewise a "default position at birth" too. I have yet to meet a single gay person who said he "chose" to be gay rather than found himself to be gay. Jean Paul Sartre made a rather interesting point about sex when he observed that an erection is not something that is under control of the will (no doubt many men wish that they could just will it into being) . It is a bodily assertion of desire that surpasses and negates choice. What you do with the resulting tumescence is indeed a matter of choice, but the cause of its arrival wasn't.
  9. Footballers are employees. They have a right to be protected by exactly the same equality legislation as any other employee in any other business or career. Employers seeking to ensure that their employees from minority groups are properly protected are absolutely right to do so. I find it weird that some fans (and indeed some fellow footballers) find it so objectionable to see overt demonstrations that football is a sport that regards ALL players of ALL sexualities, races, (etc, etc) to be welcome as equal participants.
  10. Can you remember the moment when you chose to be heterosexual?
  11. The relationship between the lawmakers (parliament) and an independent judiciary is by its very nature an extremely complex process in any functioning democracy. Yes, parliament is sovereign as the ultimate law making body, but its sovereignty is defined within an interplay of established law, custom and practice, and fundamental principles that underpin the limits of democratic power. Otherwise a government could simply declare all previous law null and void, ban future elections, and declare itself the only legal party permitted to govern. We saw this interplay in force when Johnson enacted the proroguing of parliament, and had his government's "authority" to legislate this overturned by the Supreme Court. In the case being referred to (above) parliament passed a law declaring a foreign country (Rwanda) as de facto safe purely on the grounds that IT had SAID it was safe. It overturned a Supreme Court ruling that was founded on independent criteria and evidence that it was not safe. This was a blatant use of parliament's law making authority to pursue party political convenience, seriously threatening the independence of the judiciary and the fundamental role it plays in any democratic system. The Rwanda policy was NOT included in the Conservative Party manifesto, so the government couldn't even claim its actions in this case reflected a mandate it had received from the voting public. Churchill was the chief proponent of the ECHR precisely because he wanted to prevent national governments taking control of the judiciary in this manner. He was a chief witness in seeing where that sort of authoritarian control of the judiciary by government leads.
  12. You're too thick to bother with any more. People will make their own minds up about your utterly absurd tripe.
  13. Exactly what Jools would have said 🤣
  14. Maybe you don't, if you get my drift 😜
  15. Load of Squit gave you the perfect answer, but why it needed anyone to point out to you that NO ONE has been named by chalking "thank you jurors" on a pavement, is beyond belief. But to give you credit, whenever one thinks you couldn't say anything dumber, you always manage to exceed expectations.
  16. FFS! You just don't know when to stop digging, do you. "Why do it?" would be the soundest ever advice you could give yourself just before you post yet another of your absurdly stupid posts. 🤣🤣🤣
  17. Bloody evil chalk-wielding monsters forcing those poor innocent MAGA thugs into making involuntary threats of violence
  18. https://www.cdntribel.com/public/uploads/post_videos/0f794730-1ecd-11ef-a0f6-13e27f7c5b68@ea15eeb2-5b3f-4d76-8938-a740494e279f.mp4 trumpguiltyvid.mp4
  19. So we must no longer exercise the freedom of speech to praise jurors for carrying out their duty because some supporters of a criminal might get angry with them. You truly are an utter tw*at.
  20. Yeah, because they will be as safe as houses from the MAGA mob so long as no one reminds them that it was 12 jurors that found Trump guilty. You truly do enjoy making a great t*t of yourself, don't you 😂
  21. He'll get a non-custodial sentence (probation, suspended sentence, etc, etc) which he will inevitably breach, which could then very well result in him doing time
  22. Yeah! But they didn't read the Daily Mail, I bet.
  23. Yep! I'm expecting "You're a f***king c**T" to be incoming in vast quantities at any moment 🤣
  • Create New...