Ira Gaines Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Well yes, since I can actually accept a result and not cry foul wearing the tinfoil hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Cream Cheese said: It's a sham. They've already paid their money with the offer of being able to vote in the leadership election. The ruling is unlawful. I would have thought that given its a court ruling then that's the definition of lawful. On an issue like this is there a further level of appeal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 I would have thought that given its a court ruling then that's the definition of lawful. On an issue like this is there a further level of appeal? Lawful or not the fact the labour party don't want labour members to have a vote is shameful. The total opposite of democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 38 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: I would have thought that given its a court ruling then that's the definition of lawful. On an issue like this is there a further level of appeal? They have been denied leave to appeal and have had 30K worth of costs awarded against them. They really should die quietly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 57 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: I would have thought that given its a court ruling then that's the definition of lawful. On an issue like this is there a further level of appeal? A court ruling based on evidence and fact is perfectly legal. Clearly this one wasn't. There's absolutely no logic in this ruling. What possible argument could they have put forward to justify this court ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 He won't. I smell a fix coming on. Oh my! That's a cracker! Even for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Just now, Highlandmagyar said: Oh my! That's a cracker! Even for you! You're a cracker mate. Calling yourself a highlander when you couldn't be anymore of a lowlander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 You're a cracker mate. Calling yourself a highlander when you couldn't be anymore of a lowlander. You do give me a lot of laughs! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Highlandmagyar said: You do give me a lot of laughs! Thanks! Why don't you just declare your loyalty to the old lady and move down there. You're living a lie m9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 30 minutes ago, Cream Cheese said: A court ruling based on evidence and fact is perfectly legal. Clearly this one wasn't. There's absolutely no logic in this ruling. What possible argument could they have put forward to justify this court ruling? WTF? Given that you have no idea of the evidence presented, arguments made or the full judgement, the only thing showing a lack of logic here is your posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cream Cheese Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Just now, strichener said: WTF? Given that you have no idea of the evidence presented, arguments made or the full judgement, the only thing showing a lack of logic here is your posting Why shouldn't public be made aware of the evidence presented then? We're kept in the dark and told just to accept whatever the ruling is without question. Here's how it appears on the surface - People joined the labour party and paid the membership fee in order to do so. They did so under the understanding that they would be able to vote in the leadership contest. Labour are then able to overturn a court ruling which allows them to change rules right now, which negatively impact members who joined while the rules were different. Seeing as we don't actually know what evidence was presented in order to achieve this ruling, we can only speculate. Still can't come up with any possible evidence that could have been presented though and neither can you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Why shouldn't public be made aware of the evidence presented then? We're kept in the dark and told just to accept whatever the ruling is without question. Here's how it appears on the surface - People joined the labour party and paid the membership fee in order to do so. They did so under the understanding that they would be able to vote in the leadership contest. Labour are then able to overturn a court ruling which allows them to change rules right now, which negatively impact members who joined while the rules were different. Seeing as we don't actually know what evidence was presented in order to achieve this ruling, we can only speculate. Still can't come up with any possible evidence that could have been presented though and neither can you. Are you a member? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Why don't you just declare your loyalty to the old lady and move down there. You're living a lie m9. Deary me! You are a bigger queen than her. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 54 minutes ago, Cream Cheese said: Why shouldn't public be made aware of the evidence presented then? We're kept in the dark and told just to accept whatever the ruling is without question. Here's how it appears on the surface - People joined the labour party and paid the membership fee in order to do so. They did so under the understanding that they would be able to vote in the leadership contest. Labour are then able to overturn a court ruling which allows them to change rules right now, which negatively impact members who joined while the rules were different. Seeing as we don't actually know what evidence was presented in order to achieve this ruling, we can only speculate. Still can't come up with any possible evidence that could have been presented though and neither can you. The public are more than welcome to attend the court proceedings. I have no doubt that the judgement will be published in due course should you wish to critique the process and reasons. The basis of the success of the appeal would appear to be that the High Court judge determined that the NEC are ultimately responsible for setting the rules around the leadership process and therefore the process was legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 I wonder how split the NEC was on this and if the recent changes in the CLP section will have an impact on such decisions in future. At the moment the PLP and Local Authorities are dominated by right wingers but hopefully this will change with deselection so that those holding elected office will become more representative of the wider membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Tom Watson bragging on Twitter about getting costs back from Labour supporters. He really is an odious twerp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marty_j Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 21 minutes ago, Fide said: Tom Watson bragging on Twitter about getting costs back from Labour supporters. He really is an odious twerp. Watson losing the plot on twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 I wonder how split the NEC was on this and if the recent changes in the CLP section will have an impact on such decisions in future. At the moment the PLP and Local Authorities are dominated by right wingers but hopefully this will change with deselection so that those holding elected office will become more representative of the wider membership. I think he is still one short of a majority. I've not followed it closely but I think there was a plan to get rid of Ian McNicol but Momentum are just short of the numbers to do so. I may be wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 44 minutes ago, jmothecat said: I think he is still one short of a majority. I've not followed it closely but I think there was a plan to get rid of Ian McNicol but Momentum are just short of the numbers to do so. I may be wrong though. They really are showing how moronic they are by trying to mess with McNicol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 3 hours ago, Granny Danger said: I wonder how split the NEC was on this and if the recent changes in the CLP section will have an impact on such decisions in future. At the moment the PLP and Local Authorities are dominated by right wingers but hopefully this will change with deselection so that those holding elected office will become more representative of the wider membership. What is "representative of the wider membership" though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.