Quote Originally Posted by scotcher
Have you anything new to say that actually refutes anything that has been said? Have you uncovered some constitutional loop-hole or secret mechanism in British law that allows a minister to decide the outcome of a court case that we don't know about? And have you divined a motive for Blair to wish to do so in this case, even assuming that such a loop-hole existed?

Basically, do you have anything of any value to add to the discussion, or are you just going to keep posting meaningless quips ad ignorantiam until everyone else loses interest, and you don't have to listen to things that don't suit your ridiculous prejudices any more?
Can you show a little more tolerance to another man's opinion, please? I'v just answered to laxxy's post.