Thought for the day:"I’ve been bald for years, but I still have my comb. I just can’t part with it."
A miscellany today ... enjoyed this little set :
In other news - The Vlammeder Aadlers (Flaming Eagles from Belgium) found this chocolate sweet at the last event and it appealed to the childish nature in them ... Now they want a Song about eh Dickmann's Ho Hum - have to put my mind to it !!
Climate control is in the news at the moment - and of course those who made fun of the youngsters for demonstrating while making use of lots of "non-Green" behaviour are now being venomously attacked on Social Media... I do not follow football and really know little about football players of commentators other than Gary Lineker advertisign Walkers Crisps, but was listening to a discussion with Mr Lineker where he was comparing the tribal nature of football fans and the tribal nature that is developing among those on social media... "Be in my team or hate and vitriol will be extended to you and everything you stand for " It seemed very true - just look at Brexit and now this reaction to climate change. The number of "if you believe this or support this then just unfriend me immediately" appearing fr many different theses is increasing expotentially in my humble opinion.
Bt on the subject of whether we are "Green" or not - this little snippet came up and is so true...
And in other news - one of the memes going around was pick a number and I will answer the question about songs... The answer seemed far more simple tome...
 |
| OOPS! |
And if you suffer from Arachnophobia... something to think about...
Breaking News - Proroging was illegal - interesting times
(Guardian)
The supreme court has ruled that Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen that parliament should be prorogued for five weeks at the height of the Brexit crisis was unlawful.
The judgment from 11 justices on the UK’s highest court follows an emergency three-day hearing last week that exposed fundamental legal differences over interpreting the country’s unwritten constitution.
The first legal question the judges had to resolve was whether the prime minister’s decision – exploiting residual, royal prerogative powers – was “justiciable” and could consequently be subjected to scrutiny by the courts. The English high court declined to intervene; the Scottish appeal court concluded that judges did have legal authority to act.
The judgment from 11 justices on the UK’s highest court follows an emergency three-day hearing last week that exposed fundamental legal differences over interpreting the country’s unwritten constitution.
The first legal question the judges had to resolve was whether the prime minister’s decision – exploiting residual, royal prerogative powers – was “justiciable” and could consequently be subjected to scrutiny by the courts. The English high court declined to intervene; the Scottish appeal court concluded that judges did have legal authority to act.
Lawyers for the Scottish claimants and for the businesswoman and campaigner Gina Miller argued that, in suspending parliament, Johnson was motivated by an “improper purpose” – namely avoiding parliamentary control over his policies. MPs and peers, they urged, should be recalled this week.
Government lawyers told the court, which sits in Westminster directly opposite parliament, that the justices should not enter into such a politically sensitive area, which was legally “forbidden territory” and constitutionally “an ill-defined minefield that the courts are not properly equipped to deal with”.
Government lawyers told the court, which sits in Westminster directly opposite parliament, that the justices should not enter into such a politically sensitive area, which was legally “forbidden territory” and constitutionally “an ill-defined minefield that the courts are not properly equipped to deal with”.
Despite torrential rain, the first members of the public began queueing outside for seats in the supreme court at 5.20am on Tuesday eager to be present for the historic decision.
The decision was read out by Lady Hale, the president of the supreme court. Unusually, none of the parties were provided with advance copies of the judgment due to its extreme sensitivity. Only seven of the 11 justices who heard the case were present in court on Tuesday.
And that about wraps up my Tuesday ..
Cheers !
No comments:
Post a Comment