T.R.O.Y. wrote:Thanks Sluffy, it's not true that GLP was never your focus, it's the name of this thread and you originally claimed law was being changed to deal with their abuses of the system. But I suspect this is the closest to an admission as you'll ever get.
Let's leave it there then, Happy Christmas all! Glad everyone's enjoyed another thrilling debate.
Dear God you just twist everything and simply don't understand much - don't you!!!
We are in this thread - which is about the company (not the 'services') of GLP - think FV being a different subject to BWFC playing football matches - only for the reason that YOU moved the thread
to here from comments made on a separate thread entirely!!!
The only reason we are on this thread at all - which I told you at the start was the wrong one was because YOU brought it to here
And GLP was NEVER my focus - you moron!!!
???Not sure why you think this is the right place to continue this discussion - after all it was you bringing up VAR on the Migrant thread I was responding to after all?
Just moving this to the right thread.
All the VAR decisions were adhered to, even if no one thought they were right at the time - just like the law.
Because those decisions were felt to be wrong by the consensus of those who made the rules, they were changed - just like the law does.
My analogy, which clearly you choose to scoff at, still stands.
VAR didn't change because I personally thought the rules to what it worked to at the time was wrong, they changed because those in charge reacted to the widespread disapproval of them by both those involved such as the managers, players as well as the journalists, pundits and the general public too.
It's exactly the same with the law, the law makers proposals (the elected executive) are put to a vote in Parliament to change, repeal or enact new laws for the judiciary to enforce.
The executive achieves this position by the public endorsement of their polices in their manifestos at the time of the elections.
Laws change because they are seen no longer to work, VAR changed because it was seen not to be working as people wanted it to.
It didn't change simply because I thought it to be wrong.
Specifically which law change are you likening to VAR getting updated?
I'm beginning now to realise what was in your head all this time now!!!
Let me take you back to the VAR analogy - and try not to scoff this time.
Something happened in football that created a change in it - that change resulted in the introduction of VAR.
Something happened in politics that created a change - the intervention of the judiciary - that change resulted in case law in respect of JR's.
VAR was the 'law' that everybody worked to from then on.
In respect of JR's the precedent created by the Supreme Court (Miller 2) was the 'law' that everybody worked to from then on.
Some people were happy with how VAR worked, some were not and wanted the 'law' changed - but everything that happened from the introduction of VAR in the form laid down was judged accordingly - no matter what views people had - and this would carry on indefinitely until another 'law' was passed to change (amend) or repeal it.
Some people were happy how JR's now worked following the Supreme Court ruling, some were not and wanted this 'law' changed - but everything from the introduction of the Supreme Court ruling being laid down was judged accordingly - no matter what views people had (this is where my views stem from) - and would carry on indefinitely accordingly until another law was passed to change or repeal it.
The decisions from the start of VAR that people talked about included the 'toenail' and finger pointing incidents that would never had happened prior to VAR.
The decisions from the start of the Supreme Court ruling that people talked about (including me) were the two determined JR cases brought by GLP.
(No other than these two cases have even yet to be determined (relating to possible 'politics by another means') - that's why I've been using the cases as a reference - not because my 'focus' is GLP per se!
It's worth remembering that IRAL was set up to consider possible abuse of 'politics by another means' BEFORE
GLP's two cases were even determined - not to determine if GLP HAD abused the JR's in this way. Indeed even if they had, it was still entirely legal to have done so because their two claims complied with the law at the time!
VAR was reviewed and found to be in need of change and new 'laws' were brought in to bring this about.
IRAL reviewed JR's and part of their remit was to judge if it needed changing following the Supreme court ruling - they found it did not.It's never been about GLP its always been about the constitution and perceived judicial overreach from the judiciary!!!
You've never understood this from the start despite me telling you countless times!!!It's clear to me now you held some sort of agenda against me rooted in your perceived and immovable belief that GLP/Maughan was my target - they never were!!!
They were if you like the toenail and finger pointing cases that happened and which people could use to highlight what they perceived to be the failings of VAR.
My use of GLC (remember they are the only examples I could use - there haven't been any others!!!) was what I've referred to as the concern held in regards to there now being a perceived usage and 'abuse' of JR's now to "conduct politics by another means".
Which I remind you was why the very reason why the top judges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland ruled that they should not involve themselves in the prorogue case because it was beyond their judicial remit under the constitution at the time!!!
You've twisted and contorted what I've been saying - even frequently putting words in to my mouth - often calling me a liar - simply to make them to conform and fit to what your agenda (that GLC was my 'focus') was, when they never were!!!
Your bias, preconceived and prejudicial stance has created days and days of pointless arguments all because you decided to 'judge' me (put me right) on something you construed in your head and continue to hold firm to despite all that I said, and the evidence I produced to substantiate it.
You prejudice has blinded you to the truth of the matter, has made you behave in manipulation to fit your preconceived agenda and the total inflexibility to believe other than you were right in everything so therefore I must be wrong and some how 'wriggling' to not to be seen to be.The constitution has always been my focus - I stated that on the very first post in this long drawn out thread
- you wrongly had in your head from the very start that GLC was my focus and refused to change your mind no matter what I went on to say or explain to you.
Instead you automatically rejected everything without any due contemplation or consideration and manipulated and mangled what I've said to fit your own preconceived - and totally WRONG - start point. You've had your mind fixed and made up right from the start and never dreamed of ever changing it in light of all I subsequently have said!!!
I even queried why you brought the thread from the previous one (where it first started) to here - I was talking about VAR at that time NOT the GLP!!! I even went on to talk about why the referees went on to change VAR because I was on that track and wasn't even talking about GLP at the time ffs!!!
You've been on totally the wrong horse all the time - right from the very start!
As they say...
There's non so blind that will not see, or deaf, as those that will not hear.