Mr Maugham’s outfit attempts to assert rights & in many cases the courts say No. Doesn’t strike me that his methods are that different from those of other interest- or pressure-groups that do the same, quite legitimately — using the law strategically, as one campaigning move amongst others.
This is a matter of opinion. The Supreme Court has simply rebalanced rights in line with the law. Turns out that the Stonewall etc. version of what the law meant had gone too far beyond either the statute or supportive public opinion. Not a secure basis for lawmaking, as it turned out.
the other thing you forget is quoting public opinion , i work in 100+ pubs and clubs across lincolnshire and all sites except 1 of mine are fully supportive ... thats a lot of landladies and managers and when you include customers the people knowing and supporting me runs into thousands locally
no that is your impression , same as the women causing the issues , trouble is it was clarified by the original lawmakers that the meanings you people are scrabbling in the mud to make apply were NOT the original intention , dont forget twice before the SC the FWS actions were losses
I’m not “you people.” I’ve got no dog in this fight. I am a member of the public observing that, thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the meaning of the law will become clearer. That is what it’s for. If you don’t like the consequences, you people can agitate & get Mr Maugham to bring another case
no you are "you people" , your the one quoting public opinion to big up your limited opinion and you are the one tying yourself in knots trying to explain us away , i hereby grant you your GC wings ... and now you can go home for tea and medals
Comments