Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Punters remain uneasy about the Mid Beds by-election – politicalbetting.com

13»

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,226
    LOL

    "If you can't see that! If you are that blind!" -- Rep. Scott Perry gets very mad at a reporter who asks him what actual evidence Republicans have against Biden (he never cites evidence!)
    https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1701686360833155417
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,226
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,226
    Broken business model.

    https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2023/09/11/are-10-percent-of-spotify-streams-really-fake/
    ...According to the Financial Times, JP Morgan analysts found that if someone uploaded their own 30-second track to Spotify and programmed their phone to listen to it on repeat for 24 hours a day, they would receive $1,200 in monthly royalties. Executives estimate that as much as 10% of all music streams are “fake” — artificially inflated from streaming farms where devices run services like Spotify on loop specifically to boost the listening count of these tracks...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,226
    Important update on myocarditis from Covid mRNA vaccines for people age 12-39 who received bivalent boosters:
    only 2 cases among over 550,000 people dosed
    Presented at CDC meeting today

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1701798110148886632
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,515
    Andy_JS said:

    A government with a working majority in the HoC can do pretty much anything it likes, because it can change any laws it doesn't like. There isn't anything new about any of that AFAIK.

    It isn’t that simple. @HYUFD’s “etc” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. If we’re going to be academic about it there is discussion in case law regarding whether judges could overall statute in very certain and specific special circumstances. For example, for fragrant human rights abuses. Abolition of fundamental common law rights, etc.

    We’ve had this discussion before and I was told I was wrong but I did a whole paper on this at law school. Probably my best piece of work. Academic sure, as in reality power would sit with who had the power to enforce, but this whole discussion is academic.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,226

    Andy_JS said:

    A government with a working majority in the HoC can do pretty much anything it likes, because it can change any laws it doesn't like. There isn't anything new about any of that AFAIK.

    It isn’t that simple. @HYUFD’s “etc” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. If we’re going to be academic about it there is discussion in case law regarding whether judges could overall statute in very certain and specific special circumstances. For example, for fragrant human rights abuses. Abolition of fundamental common law rights, etc.

    We’ve had this discussion before and I was told I was wrong but I did a whole paper on this at law school. Probably my best piece of work. Academic sure, as in reality power would sit with who had the power to enforce, but this whole discussion is academic.
    It's a load of bollocks anyway, as you can't change laws without consequences for other stuff.
    A government that tried to do "pretty much anything it likes" would get snarled up in a legal tangle very rapidly.
    Unless it decided to abolish all laws - and the you just end up with something like Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Putin's Russia.

    HYUFD is either a fool, or thinks we are.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,226
    I remarked a day or so back on how forested vast tracts of Korea are.

    Much of their forest was replaced postwar.

    Full Reforestation After War: How South Korea Did It
    https://www.theearthandi.org/amp/full-reforestation-after-war-how-south-korea-did-it

    Of course they don't have sheep farming.


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,932

    Andy_JS said:

    A government with a working majority in the HoC can do pretty much anything it likes, because it can change any laws it doesn't like. There isn't anything new about any of that AFAIK.

    It isn’t that simple. @HYUFD’s “etc” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. If we’re going to be academic about it there is discussion in case law regarding whether judges could overall statute in very certain and specific special circumstances. For example, for fragrant human rights abuses. Abolition of fundamental common law rights, etc.

    We’ve had this discussion before and I was told I was wrong but I did a whole paper on this at law school. Probably my best piece of work. Academic sure, as in reality power would sit with who had the power to enforce, but this whole discussion is academic.
    No judges can't override statute law, we have no written constitution and statute law is supreme over common law
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,515
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    A government with a working majority in the HoC can do pretty much anything it likes, because it can change any laws it doesn't like. There isn't anything new about any of that AFAIK.

    It isn’t that simple. @HYUFD’s “etc” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. If we’re going to be academic about it there is discussion in case law regarding whether judges could overall statute in very certain and specific special circumstances. For example, for fragrant human rights abuses. Abolition of fundamental common law rights, etc.

    We’ve had this discussion before and I was told I was wrong but I did a whole paper on this at law school. Probably my best piece of work. Academic sure, as in reality power would sit with who had the power to enforce, but this whole discussion is academic.
    No judges can't override statute law, we have no written constitution and statute law is supreme over common law
    Sigh
This discussion has been closed.