Response to the Mail's swivel-eyed histrionics

Response to the Mail's swivel-eyed histrionics

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.

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.

You sound surprised.

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