Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th

[Bluntwrapped]

Are you joking? Have you looked in the 'what have you bought' or 'what watch do you wear' threads recently? People on here are not in financial hardship, the only hardship for most people on here seemingly is figuring out what to spend all their surplus money on.

I suppose that is the Tory way. Empathy goes no further than of ones own back pocket. Essentially 'as long as I'm ok I couldn't give a **** about everyone else' type mentality.

It's particularly sad how driven people are to maintain this shallow shell of an existence.

 

[jjwf]

Yes. You know the numerous times I've asked you to substantiate your claim that the tribunal ruling you mentioned creates a binding precedent? That evidence. It's quite telling you won't just put up... perhaps heed the guidance of the well known saying...

I have already substantiated my claims, like I said put up a case that has gone the other way, oh wait a minute you cannot, just like you've never seen the inside of a tribunal or a court involving work matters. I'm sure if one had you would be able find it.

 

[Uther]

I suppose that is the Tory way. Empathy goes no further than of ones own back pocket. Essentially 'as long as I'm ok I couldn't give a **** about everyone else' type mentality.

It's particularly sad how driven people are to maintain this shallow shell of an existence.

It's certainly evident in a few posters on this forum! Then you have people who argue for 10 pages in a 'you're wrong, no you're wrong' playground fight, totally ignoring what the thread is about.

 

[chroniclard]

May is looking less strong and stable every day. Also sad to see 8.1% people saying they wouldn't vote.

 

[jjwf]

Not presenting you with a case which has gone the other way doesn't mean the one you mentioned created a binding precedent.

What's up, you simply cannot produce a case that went for the defendant. Until such time that a case goes against the plaintiff or an appeal is successful it does create a binding precedent.

 

[Kenai]

I'll be amazed if anyone has proved anything before a mod deletes all this

 

[datalol-jack]

 

[Tefal]

I suppose that is the Tory way. Empathy goes no further than of ones own back pocket. Essentially 'as long as I'm ok I couldn't give a **** about everyone else' type mentality.

It's particularly sad how driven people are to maintain this shallow shell of an existence.

But at the same time you seriously cannot expect people to work hard just to fund the feckless and essentially worthless living a shell of an existence producing nothing but problems and children.


There has to be a minimum level of self sufficiency all ablebodied people should achive.

And to some extent the disabled too many seem to be of the opinion a person has a disability so they should be shoved a cheque each week to ease thier own concionse and thats it.

Which is debatably a far more heartless approach and robs the disabled of the opportunity to really live thier lives

 

[Ryan-3]

I suppose that is the Tory way. Empathy goes no further than of ones own back pocket. Essentially 'as long as I'm ok I couldn't give a **** about everyone else' type mentality.

It's particularly sad how driven people are to maintain this shallow shell of an existence.

It's exactly this. When those I'm Alright Jack people say those "who are poor should just do x, y or z and they'll be more like me," it really ****** me off.

But at the same time you seriously cannot expect people to work hard just to fund the feckless and essentially worthless living a shell of an existence producing nothing but problems and children.

I agree 100% with this, but I don't really see that much of an effect on these people under the current government. I still see them keeping their kids quiet with a sausage roll on their way to get a new iPhone, after a hard day lying in bed.

I would like to hear why people are looking to vote for the Lib Dems at this election. I'm not sure what they offer over Labour at this election, apart from wanting 16 and 17 year olds to be able to vote, which is something I'm not entirely sure of. It seems to be too hard at times for those my age (22) to get off their **** and find out and vote. Although the last time any party catered for those my age, they tripled our tuition fee's and put us as a bigger burden on the taxpayer.

 

[jjwf]

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't. Put up or shut up.

Edit :: if you say god exists and I ask you to prove it, to do so you can't just say either, 'okay, he exists, because I said so' or 'prove he doesn't'. That's basically been your approach here!

Not my approach at all, its in black and white, whether you chose to believe the ruling or not is immaterial.

 

[Greebo]

Are you joking? Have you looked in the 'what have you bought' or 'what watch do you wear' threads recently? People on here are not in financial hardship, the only hardship for most people on here seemingly is figuring out what to spend all their surplus money on.

agreed. I suspect most forum members are in the top 10% wealth of the UK.

 

[Kenai]

It's exactly this. When those I'm Alright Jack people say those "who are poor should just do x, y or z and they'll be more like me," it really ****** me off.

I would like to hear why people are looking to vote for the Lib Dems at this election. I'm not sure what they offer over Labour at this election, apart from wanting 16 and 17 year olds to be able to vote, which is something I'm not entirely sure of. It seems to be too hard at times for those my age (22) to get off their **** and find out and vote.

Initially they were the only party to have voiced any sort of intent to not go hammer and tong for full-bore hard brexit. Labour had just been silent on the issue when this poll was created and so the Lib Dems were the only party offering any sort of alternative position for those concerned with the effects of Brexit.

Now Labour have commented that they would seek to guarantee current EU residents rights and aim for retention of single market access, they'll probably take some of that support back.

 

[RDM]

What's up, you simply cannot produce a case that went for the defendant. Until such time that a case goes against the plaintiff or an appeal is successful it does create a binding precedent.

I don't think, by UK Law, it gives a binding precedent. You are correct that UK law can and does depend on precedent but it isn't binding and it usually takes several cases before it makes it fairly solid.

In short, you are right that it gives precedent but wrong in that precedent is binding.

 

[Kenai]

Not my approach at all, its in black and white, whether you chose to believe the ruling or not is immaterial.

Could we at least skip to the part where you acknowledge he's asking you to prove that the ruling becomes a binding precedent, rather than constantly reasserting what the ruling said?

 

[Bluntwrapped]

It's certainly evident in a few posters on this forum! Then you have people who argue for 10 pages in a 'you're wrong, no you're wrong' playground fight, totally ignoring what the thread is about.

If most of the playground stuff stems from rabid Brexiteers (it looks that way), in context to the vote it says everything about rationale and legitimacy of UK politics today.

 

[Rroff]

I would like to hear why people are looking to vote for the Lib Dems at this election. I'm not sure what they offer over Labour at this election, apart from wanting 16 and 17 year olds to be able to vote, which is something I'm not entirely sure of. It seems to be too hard at times for those my age (22) to get off their **** and find out and vote.

Personally the reason I've been contemplating voting Lib Dem and even voting at all this time around is that I believe the main 2 parties need to be reminded of what they are supposed to be doing and right now is the possibly one opportunity in a life time for the country to do that.

EDIT: Sadly Tim Farron is not exactly inspiring me towards that end though - again he has possibly an opportunity of a lifetime here and is just ******* it away so far.

 

[jjwf]

I don't think, by UK Law, it gives a binding precedent. You are correct that UK law can and does depend on precedent but it isn't binding and it usually takes several cases before it makes it fairly solid.

In short, you are right that it gives precedent but wrong in that precedent is binding.

There's already been more than one case. Just about every company are implementing it so that says something.

 

[Freakbro]

I don't think, by UK Law, it gives a binding precedent. You are correct that UK law can and does depend on precedent but it isn't binding and it usually takes several cases before it makes it fairly solid.

In short, you are right that it gives precedent but wrong in that precedent is binding.

There are 3 types of legal precedent :

Original precedent

Original precedent arises where the point of law in the case before the court has never been considered before and there has been no previous judicial decision on it. In such cases, the judge must use his or her own discretion in reaching a final judgment. They will generally adopt an approach known as reasoning by analogy, whereby they will looks at cases which involve a similar principle to the one they are dealing with and apply similar rules.

Binding precedent

Binding precedent is ‘normal’ precedent. It requires a court to follow a previous court decision made in a previous case in the same way. For a precedent to be binding on a judge in a later case, the material facts of the two cases must be similar. The precedent is only binding on courts lower or equal to the court where the precedent was made.

Persuasive precedent

Persuasive precedent is where a lower court makes a decision and a higher court can or may be allowed to use the precedent or decision, but they are not legally obliged to. There have been cases where lawyers will bring up evidence to show that the material facts of their case was the same as a decision made in an inferior court. It is up to the judge to decide if the case is sufficiently similar to allow them to take the merits of the case into consideration when they are making their judgment.

So a binding precedent only applies to courts of an equal or lower standing and as such would say to be fully binding across the legal system has to be set by the highest court.

 

[Bluntwrapped]

But at the same time you seriously cannot expect people to work hard just to fund the feckless and essentially worthless living a shell of an existence producing nothing but problems and children.


There has to be a minimum level of self sufficiency all ablebodied people should achive.

And to some extent the disabled too many seem to be of the opinion a person has a disability so they should be shoved a cheque each week to ease thier own concionse and thats it.

Which is debatably a far more heartless approach and robs the disabled of the opportunity to really live thier lives

The trouble with that is generalising who is and isn't a benefits sponger is flawed to a point in being false. It doesn't work.

The genuine cases require the same paperwork, the same demoralising process, if you've never been in a position of having absolutely nothing, how does it make you qualified to pass judgement on others or determine what is best?

The point is those responsible for making the decision, couldn't be any further removed from the reality of the circumstance.

The difference is the willingness to acknowledge this is the case or continuing with flawed data and/or intelligence. The flawed data option will always produce a flawed result.

 

[Dolph]

The trouble with that is generalising who is and isn't a benefits sponger is flawed to a point in being false. It doesn't work.

The genuine cases require the same paperwork, the same demoralising process, if you've never been in a position of having absolutely nothing, how does it make you qualified to pass judgement on others or determine what is best?

The point is those responsible for making the decision, couldn't be any further removed from the reality of the circumstance.

The difference is the willingness to acknowledge this is the case or continuing with flawed data and/or intelligence. The flawed data option will always produce a flawed result.

Hence why a universal basic income is a better idea. Stop means testing people, stop compensating people for bad decisions, and stop punishing people for not complying with arbitrary rules.

Only adjust the system relating to simple, objective and measurable changes, and apply it to everyone the change applies to (for example, having a child could increase payment)

It will never fly though, as this country likes being able to punish or reward people based on ideology, and we don't have sufficient legal protections to prevent it.