You have my full attention.
Who was who, when, what and how ?
Show yourselves !

Or perhaps Hanover has the better story...

You had sex with other mods at the old place :gasp:

So who were all in the gang then ?

I'm the best of us. — Michael

Course you are, babe :starstruck:

Give me a life time of promises and a world of dreams
Speak the language of love like you know what it means
Mm, and it can't be wrong, take my heart and make it strong, babe

You're simply the best, better than all the rest
Better than anyone, anyone I ever met

I'm stuck on your heart, I hang on every word you say
Tear us apart, baby, I would rather be dead — Tina

Speak for yourself :razz:

:smile:
A cold hose down might perk you up !
Do you have a piggy collection you dust down daily ? :nerd:
Sorry, way off topic - but then again...

:roll: :yawn: :smile:

Hmmm. OK. Thanks for your perspective.

The admins and moderators were definitely better at the old place. — Michael

I had thought this might be sarcasm.

Just because admin and mods were a little more engaged and active doesn't necessarily mean they were better at their roles. I think the current lot show a good balance.

Members were of a 'high calibre', huh. Maybe that's why I never participated.
There are members here who have all kinds of qualifications in philosophy. But there are also those who just want to read, think and write critically and creatively.
Was the other forum so exclusive, then ?
Did you perform better there?

I love to read the writings of the better informed and the creative explorers.
Some threads are way beyond my comprehension.
However, there is so much room here for most interests. I love that.

The current forum also has specific categories.
Not seeing anything 'special' that marks the old place out.

You miss a particular poster's activity on certain topics ? Ethics and Philosophy of Language .
Well, that might have happened anyway. As you know, people and circumstances change.

I just don't get all the yearning for the 'good old days' that some here express.
If posters were of a 'high calibre', they would 'get over it', no ?

Thanks for the natter :smile:

What does that mean in this context ? You don't agree with what I said ?

So, let me ask again -

You can't deny there was something special about that forum...
— Wallows

For example? What made it special ? — Amity

Fortunately the most popular thread was preserved: http://web.archive.org/web/20080317184743/http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/gassendi1-temp-ban-14586.html — Paul

Wow - 14 pages on a temporary ban on a poster. Such passion.

You can't deny there was something special about that forum... — Wallows

For example? What made it special ?

I'm curious. I hear quite a bit of nostalgic yearning for the old place.
I can't remember ever participating in it. I don't know why I didn't.
Guess I stick to one forum at a time. Guess it's a comfort thing.
You get to know people...and their quirks. When to tease, titillate and torture :cool:

It takes time to start again. Renew and refresh.

A new day emerged and this place replaced what once was. Street parties, dancing until comatose, flailing about with serpents, and blood curdling screams marked the arrival of our humble abode.

His name was Jamalrob. — Hanover

Well done that Jamalrob and crew :smile:

Exactly.
Proroguing parliament - what a wheeze, eh?

Wheeze
INFORMAL•BRITISH
a clever or amusing scheme, idea, or trick.
"a new wheeze to help farmers"
synonyms:scheme, plan, idea, tactic, move, stratagem, ploy, gambit, device, manoeuvre, contrivance... — Online dictionary

As well as avoiding scrutiny of a Hard Brexit, prorogation gives more time for the photo ops with children, bulls, police, fish and whatever as the PM tours the country electioneering.
A benevolent dictatorship?

Breaking news, Johnson is going to re-name Great Britain the Titanic. — Punshhh

Let's not be tempted to make this all about Johnson. There is another thread specially for him. It's easy to mix them up. Another thing I am guilty of is simply reporting the latest news. I forget where I am.
Should we not be bringing in, and connecting, the philosophical perspective more than the political and legal ?
At least, we are talking about 'democracy' and issues of media and social manipulation.
Otherwise, this thread could just as easily be swept into a Lounge area? *
Just thinking aloud...

* Scrap all that. I see this thread is under 'Interesting stuff'- politics and current affairs not political philosophy :smile:

I was right in what I said earlier. — Michael

This: 'For the sake of democracy the judiciary must be able to rule on whether or not its intention and length are lawful.'

I agree with your thoughts on this. As with the final Scottish legal opinion.

Meanwhile Johnson and team have misrepresented the finding of the English court as being for them. It is not. And is now under appeal.

We must wait for the UK supreme court. There is to be a 3 day hearing, starting on 17th September to look at all 3 appeals from Edinburgh, Belfast and London.

A Bridge connecting Scotland and Ireland. Majorly big distraction. Totally taking the piss.
Why is he getting away with all this utter bullshit ? Another huge waste of time, money and resources.

Johnson originally floated this idea in an interview with the Sunday Times last year. At the time his proposal was considered fanciful, but this week Channel 4 News revealed that government officials have been asked to produce a paper on the costs and benefits of such a plan.

The original Sunday Times story about Johnson’s proposal provoked a memorable letter to the paper from a retired offshore engineer who said the idea was “about as feasible as building a bridge to the moon”

It looks like this has not been tested before and so the Supreme Court will have to set precedent. I expect it will rule that the executive will have to be accountable to the judiciary, as otherwise a prime minister can silence the very parliament he or she is accountable to at will, exposing a gaping hole in our constitution — Punshhh

Well, at least the Scottish Parliament is still open for business.

'Nicola Sturgeon has said the Scottish government’s copy of the Yellowhammer no-deal Brexit scenario plans was marked “base scenario”, disputing claims by Michael Gove that the documents were a worst case scenario.

Sturgeon told first minister’s questions at Holyrood it was “completely outrageous” that the UK government was contemplating a situation where medicines would be in short supply. She said it was essential that Westminster was urgently reconvened, to allow MPs to question ministers on Brexit and the Yellowhammer forecasts.

The first minister told MSPs:
The question for the prime minister and the government is why on earth parliament is still suspended - if any government needed scrutiny, it’s this one.'

If it's not justiciable then short of a violent rebellion, what stops a malicious government from proroguing Parliament indefinitely? For the sake of democracy the judiciary must be able to rule on whether or not its intention and length are lawful. — Michael

I would hope there are other means other than violence. That would play into their hands.
Joanna Cherry ( in the Channel 4 interview ) remarks that the action to shut down Parliament so as to avoid scrutiny of the damaging effects of Brexit is more like that of a fascist dictatorship.

There is another aspect being played out.
Johnson is angling for 'the People v Parliament' where he is at one with the 'People'.
Next up, will it be 'the People v the Courts' ?

'We spoke to former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption and asked him whether we are now facing a constitutional crisis.' From:

https://www.channel4.com/news/lord-sumption-we-havent-yet-got-to-the-people-against-the-courts-maybe-well-get-there-one-day

A third legal perspective on prorogation.

Judges in Belfast have ruled that Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was lawful and would not damage the Northern Ireland peace process.

The high court decision follows a landmark ruling by Scottish judges on Wednesday that said the prime minister acted illegally in proroguing parliament in order to stifle debate in the Commons.

The Belfast case, involving three cases, turned on partially different legal issues to the cases heard in London and Edinburgh. — Owen Bowcott

Edit to add.
Correction from Guardian Live:

'Here is our latest story on the judgment from the high court in Belfast on Brexit. I’ve corrected the earlier post on this (see 11.38am) because it said the prorogation legal challenge was thrown out.

In fact, it was the argument that a no-deal Brexit would undermine the Good Friday agreement that was rejected.
A claim about prorogation being unlawful was excluded on the grounds that it is being decided in the cases in England and Wales.'

Two legal systems - two different outcomes.

A parallel case was heard by the high court in London last week with a different outcome. The judges neither rejected nor accepted the claimant’s view of the government’s ulterior motive. They declared instead that a prime minister’s agenda for prorogation was a point of political contention, so not justiciable.

This vexed matter now passes on to the supreme court. If the Scottish appeal court’s verdict prevails, prorogation will have to be undone. The prime minister will be steeped in disgrace to depths that would once have submerged the career of any politician. Even if the English high court interpretation ends up being preferred, the dishonesty of Mr Johnson’s prorogation gambit has been recorded as a matter of fact. The salient technical question is not whether he is a liar, but whether a constitutional procedure based on his lies should be invalidated.
— Editorial

If the matter of prorogation is 'not justiciable' then how can it be properly and effectively contested.
Parliament has been shut down, so where can it go...?
We wait and see.

SNP’s Joanna Cherry: ‘I would be cautiously optimistic Supreme Court will follow lead of Scottish court’

https://www.channel4.com/news/snps-joanna-cherry-i-would-be-cautiously-optimistic-supreme-court-will-follow-lead-of-scottish-court

Brexit and Johnson
Prorogation means he avoids regular Parliamentary scrutiny. Important Investigative Select Committees are not held. Yesterday the cowardly PM took to Facebook.
From the satirical politics sketch:

Midway through an afternoon on which he had avoided facing 45 minutes of prime minister’s questions and a further two hours of interrogation at the liaison committee by proroguing parliament, Boris Johnson decided he would subject himself to a gruelling 14 minutes of cross-examination in “people’sPMQs” on Facebook Live. — John Crace

Talking of Facebook.This.
'Data, Democracy and Dirty Tricks'.

All summer in No.10, the Prime Minister and his chief adviser Dominic Cummings laid the groundwork for an early election to fix their version of Brexit.

Both know how crucial targeted online adverts will be in that campaign, just as they were in the referendum in 2016 and in Donald Trump’s presidential election.  But how robust are the rules governing the tech giants like Facebook? — Jon Snow

Excellent 6 minutes worth. Covering constitutional crises in both UK and USA and the issue of freedom of speech.

https://www.channel4.com/news/roger-mcnamee-facebooks-business-model-of-converting-peoples-lives-into-data-is-morally-wrong

Indeed.

We cut off her head.

From 'Letters' in the Guardian.

...It has been clear from the outset that the people behind Brexit have very clear intentions.

The EU is a capitalist entity that not only rejects the worst aspects of the US system but has the clout to resist its encroachments.

The disaster capitalists who want to discard laws designed to limit the ill effects of capitalism on employment, the environment, the climate, food, health etc and unleash an unrestricted race to the bottom will get even richer if Brexit goes through.

This was always the purpose behind Brexit, whatever lies have been put up to hide it. These are not people who will be harmed by a no-deal Brexit; on the contrary, the potential to take advantage of it is almost unlimited.
— Jeremy Cushing

[my bolds]

So, this seems straightforward.The EU v the USA ?
Progress and protect with the more enlightened v Regress with the Hard-Right removing rights.
The rhetoric of 'you are either with us, or against us'.

Is it as simple as that ? We will never walk alone but which path will we follow...

"To achieve no-deal Brexit, Boris Johnson has exploited the weakness of our democracy."

It’s been obvious for decades that the eight-word British constitution established in 1689 – what the crown assents in parliament is law – is a decaying, time-worn construct on which to protect and advance today’s democracy...

...Those countries that use referendums a lot, Switzerland and Ireland, for example, have elaborate rules for how they are conducted. In Britain, typically, there are no pre-agreed rules, just ad-hoc legislation arising from the particular power conjuncture of the day: the Cameron government on the run before its rightwing Eurosceptic zealots...

...To win then and now, those in favour of EU membership needed to recognise they had to trump the narrative of an undemocratic Europe by recognising more profound democratic failings at home. Balking at such radicalism, Remain instead found itself the advocate of a hard-to-justify status quo; an archaic state, a decaying democracy and rampant social inequality inflamed by fears of immigration. Leave was allowed to blame it all on the EU – cover for their ultra-rightwing ambitions.

A wholesale change of mindset was needed. Remain should have stood for a re-democratised Britain that put power in the hands of the people and for transformative economic and social change that would make Britain better, not worse. To leave the EU, it should have said, would be to abandon that prospect. — Will Hutton

[ my bolds]
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/01/sheer-scale-of-crisis-facing-britains-constitution-has-been-laid-bare

I'm from Ireland. The kink here is a potential return to violence. If the UK crashes out with no-deal, there'll have to be a hard border on the island, and that means the Good Friday agreement is down the tubes. That's a deadly serious issue. — Baden

Yes.
It is serious and fraught with dangers.
With no clear answers and no trust in Johnson, how will it be solved ? The latest:

European officials have accused Boris Johnson of “reneging” on pledges to uphold the Good Friday agreement, ahead of the prime minister’s first meeting with his Irish counterpart.

Johnson will meet the Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, in Dublin on Monday at a tumultuous moment in the Brexit process, with only 52 days until the UK’s departure. Talks are set to be tense as fears grow in Dublin and Brussels that the British prime minister is backsliding on promises to protect the tightly knit economic and social links on the island of Ireland.

“The commitment to all aspects and all the provisions of the letter and spirit of the Good Friday agreement recently seems to be taken more lightly than before,” a senior diplomat from a continental member state told the Guardian. “This avoidance of the hard border, it is not just a desire, it is not just about preferences, it is legal obligation.”...

...A UK government spokesperson firmly rejected suggestions the government was not committed to the Good Friday agreement. “We are committed to the common travel area, to upholding the rights of citizens of Northern Ireland, to ongoing north-south cooperation, to retaining the benefits of the single electricity market. We remain firmly committed to peace in Northern Ireland and the Belfast agreement.

“The Belfast/Good Friday agreement neither depends upon, nor requires a particular customs or regulatory regime. The broader commitments in the Belfast/ Good Friday agreement include parity of esteem, partnership, democracy and a peaceful means of resolving differences. This would be best met if we could explore solutions other than the backstop.”

“We have been clear that we are happy to accept a legally binding commitment not to put infrastructure, controls or checks at the border. We hope the EU do likewise.”
— Jennifer Rankin

What's your point concerning Brexit ?
— Amity

What is Jeremy Corbyn's current condition for agreeing a general election? — Galuchat

Come on.
Spit it out. What is your point ?

How is Royal Assent obtained in the UK? — Galuchat

Easy enough to google

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/

Hint: Is it Parliament, or the Queen's Government which makes laws? — Galuchat

How laws are made:
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/
The role of the Queen:
https://www.bmsf.org.uk/about-the-monarchy/the-queen/the-queen-in-the-government/

The whole process is archaic.

The difference between parliament and government:

https://www.parliament.uk/education/about-your-parliament/parliament-and-government/

What's your point concerning Brexit ?

Which everway you turn there are intractable problems like this. More cold hard facts for the leavers to chew on. — Punshhh

Not just the leavers. The undecided. And remainers who might be thinking 'Enough already' - a soft Brexit is better than a hard one. Some compromise to reach a majority is required. Otherwise this will be never-ending. I am not convinced that another referendum or general election will accomplish this.

People and politicians are tired of it all. This is when mistakes happen.
Johnson and co are making this more difficult. However, people are easily hoodwinked by the lies.
They are persuaded by easy rhetoric and believe media messages even as they disbelieve.

I am getting pretty tired of the generalisations and accusations flying around. We need concise facts in easy to understand format before rational decision making. Trouble is that it is more about stirring up emotions. Politicians behaving badly might inspire some to extreme anger and violence. It is grossly irresponsible that Johnson is talking about not following the law.

The cold, hard facts have been around for some time in various reports, some of which are still kept hidden. For the general public, leavers, remainders and the undecided - it is essential that before they vote that the consequences are made absolutely clear. I know some who didn't vote last time because they they didn't know. It is only when it hits home personally in travel, business, jobs or family that it becomes real.

So, who gains from Brexit and how? Rees-Mogg 'the Lying Tory' Brexit Billionaire.
Many people decided based on emotion and basic bus promises.
Immigration and the NHS - two main issues. Do we need to leave the EU to solve the problems ?
No.

Sounds easy, doesn't it ?
Trouble is Johnson is being an arse. And even if an extension is achieved, there is still trouble afoot.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/06/backstop-boris-johnson-brexit-deal-changes-defence-workers-rights

Hey ho...

Just read this on Guardian Live:
'Boris Johnson has said he will win a new Brexit deal at next month’s EU summit by using his “powers of persuasion”, and rejected calls for a further extension to article 50.

The prime minister said he had no plans to accept the new legislation which would require him to write to the EU asking for a “pointless” delay to Brexit, during a visit to Aberdeenshire on Friday.'

Delusional and irresponsible - just one way to describe this character.

Google returned this:

'On Monday Austria’s foreign minister, Alexander Schallenberg, said the bloc would keep open the possibility of an extension to the UK’s membership beyond 31 October.

Schallenberg said: “Of course our thread of patience doesn’t go on forever. But in the past two years, we have put in a lot of energy to make an orderly exit possible. Secondly, a disorderly exit would have many consequences that we can not foresee in its entirety when it comes to financial flows and services.'

From:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/02/eu-could-declare-no-deal-brexit-as-major-natural-disaster

All this talk of 'doing or dying' - 'dying in a ditch' - 'surrender bill '- 'coward' - 'rebels'- 'traitors'.
The ditch isn't by the wayside, it's about trench warfare.
It stirs up more division and potential for violence.
It is designed to inflame and it is scary stuff.
Politicians and staff continue to receive death threats *
The nastiness is being intensified by Johnson's advisor Cummings.
Should there be an investigation into this man and his malign influence ?

* Just one example:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/caroline-spelman-quits-tory-mp-to-stand-down-over-abuse-and-death-threats-which-left-her-wearing-a4230241.html

From the Guardian Politics Live:
'Harriet Harman, the Labour former deputy leader and the chair of the joint committee on human rights, has joked that so many moderate Tories are being driven out of the party that she is thinking of holding an inquiry.

"When are we going to wake-up to what’s going on here? Caroline Spelman, elected, thoroughly decent, hard-working MP driven out of Parlt. We can’t stand by while MPs driven out or retreat behind security gates? "

This article and BTL comments might give you a better idea than anything I could offer up.
Things are changing so quickly, it is all quite bewildering.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/06/early-late-election-labour-brexit-october-johnson

Diversion, and taking some heat off the Boris Cummings faction. All that wasted effort. We are talking about it, and that is a win, because important suff passes by unnoticed. — unenlightened

Yes. However still very useful as an anti-Tory campaign tool.
We can talk about both that and the Boris Cummings faction.
But such images are more influential in manipulating the public, either way. I would say.

Excellent analysis :up:

But perhaps worse than that deal is they’re giving up their one remaining bargaining chip: a no deal Brexit.
— NOS4A2

The best alternative to no agreement is throwing the UK a bone.

Any deal is better than no deal, so "no deal" isn't and never has been a bargaining chip because it's the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. It's entirely possible though this is exactly what the political outcome will be, because politics isn't a negotiation. However, the EU in this process is acting as the technocratic bureacracy it is, bereft of politics and just straight negotiations because the political mandate has been set out 2 years ago. So political commitments of UK politicians that they'll deliver on Brexit with "no deal" if they have to, has no effect on the stance of the EU. — Benkei

[my bolds]

Exactly this.
There is no bargaining chip. The Tories are not in negotiations.
See:
https://www.channel4.com/news/are-brexit-talks-really-yielding-progress

The Corbyn 'Chicken' was on the cover of the UK Sun. Not on the Scottish or Irish Sun, reflecting different views towards the Tories. In Scotland: 'Floppy Johnson Can't Get An Election'.

The current Westminster government is being increasingly seen as the 'English Nationalist Party'.
See heated comments by frustrated European negotiator in video below:

Excellent Matt Frei piece ! 5 minutes.

https://www.channel4.com/news/are-brexit-talks-really-yielding-progress

But don't imagine that pose was anything but deliberate. — unenlightened

It has backfired on him.
[ just as his accusations against whistleblower Dr.Nicholl have.
https://www.channel4.com/news/dr-david-nicholl-if-rees-mogg-wants-to-repeat-that-outside-of-parliament-i-will-sue
After significant pressure, he has since apologised: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/rees-mogg-condemned-for-comparing-doctor-to-disgraced-anti-vaxxer-autism ]

He is a nasty piece of work. People will react against this in any election. Hopefully.

This R-M pose has been circulated worldwide. Wonderful to see this installation by the anti-Brexit campaigners 'Led by Donkeys'. Captions include 'Lying Tory' - ' No one voted for this' - 'They're Lying'.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-edinburgh-castle_uk_5d70bc33e4b09bbc9ef9fe47

Front pages are divided between focusing on Boris Johnson’s multiple defeats and calling Jeremy Corbyn an election ‘chicken’.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/pm-cornered-how-the-papers-covered-johnsons-horror-day-in-commons

It has passed. Watch this space or the Guardian Politics Live.
I still have fears...

Deleted by mistake - it was about the Corbyn 'Chicken' front page of the UK Sun and my wish that the opposition would use images to counteract.

That there is now one being used worldwide to show the 'lying Tory' Rees-Mogg gladdens my heart.

Tories are 'Ready' with their dirty tricks election campaign - as are the right-wing newspapers.
Corbyn bring branded as 'chicken' with his 'surrender bill'. Apparently Johnson is to spew more bile from the lectern in an address to the nation. A pity there is no immediate opportunity for the oppostion to reply.

No 10 sets outs Boris Johnson's election message to voters

General elections are all about choices and what Boris Johnson has been been doing this week has been trying to frame the forthcoming election as a choice between someone who will deliver Brexit by 31 October and someone who won’t. CCHQ could not be clearer about this.

Jeremy Corbyn’s #SurrenderBill means more talk, more delay, more indecision.

BorisJohnson will deliver Brexit by 31st October so we can get Britain back on the road to a brighter future.

So why is No 10 pushing this argument? Because voters like to hear it, according to Politico’s Jack Blanchard. Here is an extract from his London Playbook briefing yesterday.

[A senior government minister} also predicted the opposition parties are playing straight into [Dominic] Cummings’ hands — and that the Tories are now on course to win a snap election. “I’ve seen the numbers from CCHQ, it really is black and white,” they said. “People want it done. They love it when we talk about schools, hospitals and police; they love it when we talk about broadband; they hate it when we talk about Brexit — and these people have just voted to talk more about Brexit. Nobody wants to spend three, six months rowing about Brexit.” To repeat, this may well prove to be the case.

— Guardian Politics Live

Good points.
But I have said enough and now beyond the point of caring.

But please assist me: which one do you have in mind?
— tim wood
Request denied. — Amity

I replied to further PM request from Tim.
The answer was in a previous response, easy enough to find :

[As I read the above, implicit is that everyone is operating within the bounds of good faith]
The question was, what to do about them what don't. The answer seems to be, nothing.
— tim wood

Not true. — Amity