One reader seemed unable to understand the relevance. So here it is...
"Dominic Chambers QC, appearing for Mr Santos, told the court that the sovereignty of Parliament was at stake.
Mr Chambers said: "Under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, no person or body is recognised by the law as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.
"What Parliament has enacted only Parliament can take away."
The Dame cannot make it clearer!Bloomberg suggests that Dos Santos was a client of the rapaciously expensive Lincoln's Inn firm of Edwin Coe.
Coe clients are vastly wealthy landed families.
That begs the question as to why they would take on a thirty seven year old hairdresser earning no more than £40,000 a year?
And looking at Mr Chambers's head it doesn't seem as if he needs much of Mr Dos Santos's crimping(unlike the Dame) so he cannot have been a salon client.....
 |
| NOT MUCH ON TOP! |
It really is time Edwin Coe stop playing around and told us just a little more about how they persuaded Chambers to represent Dos Santos.....
Name: Deir Dos Santos
Age: 37
Law Firm: Edwin Coe
Age: 37
Law Firm: Edwin Coe
Deir Dos Santos works as a hairdresser and "is just an ordinary guy," according to his lawyer, Dominic Chambers. “If his rights are going to be taken away, he wants it done in a proper and lawful manner." He was born in Brazil and is a British citizen.
It all looks a bit odd
ReplyDeleteIf he is a British citizen there are no rights that will be taken away from him (apart from everything we will all lose from the ludicrous Brexit decision)
ReplyDeleteThe point of this is that Chambers should state the true relationship between himself and his stooge
ReplyDeleteDear Dame
ReplyDeleteAll very well but it is exceedingly unclear what the problem is. Is the hairdresser and Outer or an Inner and what is his involvement in any legal case? Is the barrister involved in the Supreme Court case or what? I think all your readers understand that the two of them are in a relationship, but the rest of the issues are extremely vague to the point of incomprehension.
Oh dear, you have clearly been 'wintering' abroad and failed to catch up on the news. The Dame cannot make it clearer. Mr Chambers is attempting to force the Government to debate Article 50 in parliament and is pretending his friend, Mr Dos Santos, is some chappie in the street; in reality they are great friends. I hope that makes it clear for you. What sunny clime were you enjoying?
DeleteSilly me - I thought the High Court and now the Supreme Court are trying to defend the right of the people through their elected representatives to debate properly the implications of Article 50. No point "taking back control" if you then give complete power to the executive of a government rather than an elected parliament. That is going close to dictatorship.
DeleteIf you read the piece you would see that the Dame's complaint has nothing to with the rights and wrongs of Brexit. Her complaint is that Mr Chambers gave the impression that Mr Ds Santos was a concerned citizen when in fact, originally he was a leaver. Why did Chambers not come clean at the outset and tell the world that he and Dos Santos were more than good mates
DeleteOh glorious and rejoice. The two boys are an item!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRum business
ReplyDeleteSee that the Dame's blog post here has made it into Nicholas Shakespeare column today in the Mail. That should show the council how widely read this blog really is.
ReplyDelete