Colin Mills
@oxsoc.bsky.social
Christminster sociologist. Currently living the good life on the bequest of a motor industry magnate and hanging out in an ex night club.
You seem to be very angry about the state of affairs in your country. If I lived in the US I'd be angry to. But I don't. My remarks were about the legal facts of the matter *in the UK*. So, pull your neck in, damp down your cultural imperialism & if you apologise I won't block you.
September 6, 2025 at 6:32 AM
You seem to be very angry about the state of affairs in your country. If I lived in the US I'd be angry to. But I don't. My remarks were about the legal facts of the matter *in the UK*. So, pull your neck in, damp down your cultural imperialism & if you apologise I won't block you.
More like because they don't exist. And anyone who reads the thread will see that. A bit sad that you don't care they can see you for the liar you self evidently are. But, it takes all sorts. Go well. I'm blocking you now.
September 5, 2025 at 10:00 PM
More like because they don't exist. And anyone who reads the thread will see that. A bit sad that you don't care they can see you for the liar you self evidently are. But, it takes all sorts. Go well. I'm blocking you now.
OK. I'll put us both out of our misery & block you. Then we'll both be happy & can go about our business according to our own lights.
September 5, 2025 at 8:52 PM
OK. I'll put us both out of our misery & block you. Then we'll both be happy & can go about our business according to our own lights.
I think I wiil. I'm tired of your obtuseness.
September 5, 2025 at 8:50 PM
I think I wiil. I'm tired of your obtuseness.
What "most people" believe about the matter is irrelevant to the point I was originally making. It is of no consequence whatsoever. You want a different law to the one we have? Fine, then legislators have to enact it. I was saying & have said nothing more than that.
September 5, 2025 at 8:49 PM
What "most people" believe about the matter is irrelevant to the point I was originally making. It is of no consequence whatsoever. You want a different law to the one we have? Fine, then legislators have to enact it. I was saying & have said nothing more than that.
No. I'm simply stating what the constitutional position is. Nothing more, nothing less. You accept that this is the constitutional position, right?
September 5, 2025 at 8:45 PM
No. I'm simply stating what the constitutional position is. Nothing more, nothing less. You accept that this is the constitutional position, right?
Happy to have that argument at 30,000 feet. I've got a parachute, you haven't. OK?
September 5, 2025 at 8:42 PM
Happy to have that argument at 30,000 feet. I've got a parachute, you haven't. OK?
Well, we are both good then.
September 5, 2025 at 8:39 PM
Well, we are both good then.
They turned out not to be rights at all. It happens. That's how the constitution works. As I said, right at the beginning, legislators can change the law. That is their job. You seem to be getting angry about an argument fashioned out of your own imagination.
September 5, 2025 at 8:39 PM
They turned out not to be rights at all. It happens. That's how the constitution works. As I said, right at the beginning, legislators can change the law. That is their job. You seem to be getting angry about an argument fashioned out of your own imagination.
Please try to make even minimal sense. Where did I claim that bluesky was a court room? You've got one shot at this. If you obfusgate, attribute to me something I didn't say, or equivocate I'm just going to block you.
September 5, 2025 at 8:34 PM
Please try to make even minimal sense. Where did I claim that bluesky was a court room? You've got one shot at this. If you obfusgate, attribute to me something I didn't say, or equivocate I'm just going to block you.
I know nothing of any value about US constitutional law. All I am stating is what, as a matter of fact, is the case in the UK. And making the obvious point that if legislators don't like the law as it currently stands they have the power to change it. In what way is that controversial?
September 5, 2025 at 8:31 PM
I know nothing of any value about US constitutional law. All I am stating is what, as a matter of fact, is the case in the UK. And making the obvious point that if legislators don't like the law as it currently stands they have the power to change it. In what way is that controversial?
You might as well dispute the application of the law of gravity as it applies on earth. You may feel you ought to. But it is not going to do you any good. Maybe it escaped your attention but at no point have I said anything at all about what the law should be.
September 5, 2025 at 8:26 PM
You might as well dispute the application of the law of gravity as it applies on earth. You may feel you ought to. But it is not going to do you any good. Maybe it escaped your attention but at no point have I said anything at all about what the law should be.
? Who claimed it was? What is the relevance of that apercu?
September 5, 2025 at 8:22 PM
? Who claimed it was? What is the relevance of that apercu?
If you don't know by now it is beyond my power to help you.
September 5, 2025 at 8:19 PM
If you don't know by now it is beyond my power to help you.
Intellectually you can accept or reject whatever you like. In the court room the SC's opinion rules. It's as simple as that.
September 5, 2025 at 8:18 PM
Intellectually you can accept or reject whatever you like. In the court room the SC's opinion rules. It's as simple as that.
The SC *decides* what the law is when there is a dispute about its interpretation. Whatever it says it is, it is. That is its constitutional role. This is not a matter which can be disputed. It is a constitutional fact. Legislators can change that law. That is also a constitutional fact.
September 5, 2025 at 8:15 PM
The SC *decides* what the law is when there is a dispute about its interpretation. Whatever it says it is, it is. That is its constitutional role. This is not a matter which can be disputed. It is a constitutional fact. Legislators can change that law. That is also a constitutional fact.
OK. I now can see that you are nothing more than a bare faced liar. I've been patient & polite to you despite the fact you have been abusive - as everyone can see. You've run out of rope. And now you are blocked.
September 5, 2025 at 8:09 PM
OK. I now can see that you are nothing more than a bare faced liar. I've been patient & polite to you despite the fact you have been abusive - as everyone can see. You've run out of rope. And now you are blocked.
I'm afraid you are making no sense. Consult a constitutional lawyer. They will tell you exactly what I have told you. No need to take my word for it. Try it & see for yourself. If you actually want to know the truth.
September 5, 2025 at 8:06 PM
I'm afraid you are making no sense. Consult a constitutional lawyer. They will tell you exactly what I have told you. No need to take my word for it. Try it & see for yourself. If you actually want to know the truth.
It is not false. No doubt you wish it were false, but that is not the same thing. When the SC ruled it ruled on what the law is & always has been, It did not change the law. This is a fundamental legal doctrine. It's not a matter of my or anyone else's opinion. Sorry if it is inconvenient.
September 5, 2025 at 8:00 PM
It is not false. No doubt you wish it were false, but that is not the same thing. When the SC ruled it ruled on what the law is & always has been, It did not change the law. This is a fundamental legal doctrine. It's not a matter of my or anyone else's opinion. Sorry if it is inconvenient.
The SC decided what the law has always been. That's it. It is no more complicated than that. I am claiming nothing else. Legislators have the power to change the law. which was my original point.
September 5, 2025 at 7:54 PM
The SC decided what the law has always been. That's it. It is no more complicated than that. I am claiming nothing else. Legislators have the power to change the law. which was my original point.
Regardless of whether that is true or not, what on earth does it have to do with anything I have claimed in this thread? The normal conversational convention is you respond to things the OP has said not things you yourself wish they had said.
September 5, 2025 at 7:51 PM
Regardless of whether that is true or not, what on earth does it have to do with anything I have claimed in this thread? The normal conversational convention is you respond to things the OP has said not things you yourself wish they had said.
But you told me they were named. I can't see them. You however apparently know them, but are coy about revealing them. Which seems a bit obtuse. Or are you a bit of a fibber?
September 5, 2025 at 7:49 PM
But you told me they were named. I can't see them. You however apparently know them, but are coy about revealing them. Which seems a bit obtuse. Or are you a bit of a fibber?
I'd be very interested to see the evidence that Sumption ever acted as a litigator (not a judge) in matters of employment rights. Company law, banking, EU, constitutional law, yes. Employment law? None I know of, but obviously since you made the claim, you know better.
September 5, 2025 at 7:36 PM
I'd be very interested to see the evidence that Sumption ever acted as a litigator (not a judge) in matters of employment rights. Company law, banking, EU, constitutional law, yes. Employment law? None I know of, but obviously since you made the claim, you know better.
Have a good evening. Unfortunately the law & legal arguments are not about making people feel good. They are what they are.
September 5, 2025 at 7:28 PM
Have a good evening. Unfortunately the law & legal arguments are not about making people feel good. They are what they are.
Have you got any rational points to make at all? It doesn't sound like it. Perhaps sign up for an anger management course.
September 5, 2025 at 7:20 PM
Have you got any rational points to make at all? It doesn't sound like it. Perhaps sign up for an anger management course.