Gina Miller case thrown out bet that's wiped the smile off her smug face.

Just copy

Chestnut Sat 07-Sep-19 12:01:19

if you don't want to put the whole comment.

It's a fair point. Gina Miller wasn't elected, but I don't see that it matters. The government must obey the law, so if that's challenged, it has to be a third party who takes the government to court. It could have been an elected MP, but that would possibly have meant taking one's own Parliamentary party to court.

Anybody can challenge somebody for breaking the law. Money usually puts people off.

The point about Miller having rich backers is a bit rich considering how many super-wealthy backers the Conservative and Brexit Parties have. I can't imagine they're donating money because they're all altruistic.

MaizieD I always make it clear what I'm replying to but some people don't do that or don't know how to do it. I'm referring for instance to this comment:
What a nasty thing to say! Nasty to support it too. Is it any wonder some of us have little respect for the opinions of such unpleasant people?
It doesn't say what or whom it refers to and is in itself a rather nasty and intolerant comment! We should respect everyone's right to an opinion even if we don't agree with it, without resorting to such language.

I took it that Labaik was responding to the 'such language' of the OP. And I am afraid that I cannot respect such language- never mind the opinion.

It seems that a lot of people are offended or upset by the OP's language. So I'd like to ask you the following question:

Would you be equally offended or upset if the post referred to Nigel Farage instead of Gina Miller?

Would you still be posting how 'nasty' and 'unpleasant' the language was? Or is it only remainers who deserve your respect?

I am absolutely positive there would be people on her complaining if somebody wrote an OP about Farage having a smile wiped off his smug face.

growstuff - but not the same people. I want to know if the same people would be complaining. Those who have posted here that they find that language so offensive.

Given that Gina Miller has been threatened so many times makes me think that the term 'wiping the smile off her smug face' even worse. It's a vile, nasty thing to say and one can almost feel the venom behind it. I still don't understand why gransnet has allowed it.

I also think that people that dislike Farage probably put things in a more eloquent way. The title is, imo, the language of the gutter and that's where it deserves to be.

I have never seen so much pearl clutching in my life!
It’s hysterical!?
You would think it was a string of four letter words, utterly
Ridiculous.

And of course, if the smug smile was being wiped off Johnson’s face, most of the pearl clutchers would be eager to laugh about it and all pile in.

Spot on Lemon

Gina Miller is an extraordinarily brave woman. How many of us could ever, even with the financial resources behind her, have done what she has done in the best interests of our country?

The essential difference between Miller, as opposed to Farage and Johnson, is the she is trying to ensure that our democracy conforms to the Rule of Law. Whereas Johnson and Farage are doing their best to destroy it.

P.S. It wasn't just Miller in the current case. There was also John Major and 70 MPs.

GM has received threats of physical harm including acid attacks ( that’d wipe the smug smile off her face I bet) and death threats. A man was jailed for 12 weeks for using FB to ask for someone to kill her. Shame on the OP - surely it’s possible to criticise her without resorting to that type of language . PS John Major is a white man - I wonder if that’s at all relevant in the lack of criticism he’s been given on this matter?

The essential difference between Miller, as opposed to Farage and Johnson, is the she is trying to ensure that our democracy conforms to the Rule of Law. Whereas Johnson and Farage are doing their best to destroy it.

MaizieD The essential difference between Farage and Johnson, as opposed to Miller, is that they are trying to ensure our democracy conforms to the will of the people. Whereas Miller is doing her best to destroy it.

The bit that annoys me about Gina is she stated she speaks for everyone. Well, she does not speak for me.

That isn't what Maizie wrote. Maizie is absolutely correct. Miller and the others are trying to ensure that the government follows the law. Government has to be according to the law, which, of course, can be democratically changed by parliament. That's how the UK's parliamentary democracy works.

Once governments are allowed to flout the law, we become no better than a third world dictatorship. It wouldn't matter what the people wanted because the government wouldn't even give it a vote. Is that what you really want?

She’s using the courts not leading armed rebellion. Our judicial system is part of our democratic structure - are you suggesting that we should only allow people we agree with to have access to the courts?

Heseltine understands totally that our Laws must stand- and that this is now way beyond Brexit.

www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/366852104245925/

newnanny says that GM doesn't speak for her. Absolutely fine.
BUT when BJ says we all want brexit, we all want an immediate GE he certainly doesn't speak for me or, even going by the referendum result, for the majority of the population. By that I .mean the whole population and not just the proportion that voted out!
GM, John Major and the significant number of MPs throughout the UK who are attempting to have some control exerted over BJ and co - well they do speak for me!

Same here, mcem. Whatever the outcome of all this, I still want to live in a country not ruled by tin pot dictators and a pound shop Trump.

Lots of faux outrage on here from the usual suspects.

Labiak declares 'the title is language of the gutter' really think you need to get out more dear lol.

Susiewoozie plays the race card 'PS John Major is a white man' blah blah blah, for the record I hope the smile has been wiped off his face as well.

Women in politics routinely get social media abuse that references their sex, black women in politics regularly get social media abuse that references their colour and their sex - not just the beliefs they hold. These are facts - uncomfortable as that might be for some to accept. If a black woman and a white man are involved in the same legal action but most vitriol is aimed at the black woman, then mentioning that fact is not playing any cards at all.

Any genuine intelligent answers to my very basic questions about trust?
(Not just the puffing about taking back control which we'd never lost)