Re: Surely it's time for a cull of these pinstriped chancers : Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:47 pm  

Response to the Mail's swivel-eyed histrionics

Response to the Mail's swivel-eyed histrionics

Re: Surely it's time for a cull of these pinstriped chancers : Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:03 pm  

Chris28 wrote: Response to the Mail's swivel-eyed histrionics He doesn't seem to mention (unless it's lost in jargon) that alot of prospective judicial reviews do not go ahead because the insturments of the state back down beforehand.

Chris28 wrote: Response to the Mail's swivel-eyed histrionics He doesn't seem to mention (unless it's lost in jargon) that alot of prospective judicial reviews do not go ahead because the insturments of the state back down beforehand.

Re: Surely it's time for a cull of these pinstriped chancers : Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:26 pm  

So, basically, the Daily Mail is trumpeting utter nonsense through its nether orifice.

Unfortunately, out there in Pooterland, the Mail's version will by now be considered to be unassailable, proven, iron-clad fact.

Re: Surely it's time for a cull of these pinstriped chancers : Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:25 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

So, basically, the Daily Mail is trumpeting utter nonsense through its nether orifice.

You sound surprised.

Re: Surely it's time for a cull of these pinstriped chancers : Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:40 am  

Dally wrote:

He doesn't seem to mention (unless it's lost in jargon) that alot of prospective judicial reviews do not go ahead because the insturments of the state back down beforehand.

The only time I've seriously threatened judicial review, UKBA backed down pretty sharpish. Mentioning it in passing usually gets them panicking too, so I suspect you may be right