Untrue. I objected to the referendum when it was first mooted. That opposition hardened as the campaigning went on and became outright when the level of interference became known. The result itself was irrelevant to that, even though the outcome would have been so much less a disaster if it hadn't happened.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Yep, just more evidence for how hollow all the waffle is.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

What I said was that Yaxley-Lennon's activities disrupted police enquiries by forcing them to divert resources and threatened Court cases. Both are true. That one Judge decided that the case in front of him could proceed doesn't alter that. The threat was there. The police and lawyers had to spend time dealing with Y-L's activities, which could have been better used elsewhere.

For years, Y-L has promoted himself as the leader of a particularly obnoxious political viewpoint, which has Islamophobia as one of its central tenets. The grooming gangs were used by him as a vehicle to promote himself. Nothing he ever did, or said, indicated the slightest compassion for their victims.

During this the police and social services were dealing with the issues, but in ways that many here don't approve of. There was a strategy. It wasn't just ignored, or the responsibility of "social liberals and leftists"! It appears to have been determined by the government, who requested a news embargo to allow the work to proceed unhindered. Y-L disrupted that. That failures have subsequently been revealed doesn't change any of that. All it does is raise questions about the wisdom of the strategy given the under-resources that existed.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Yes they did. It was the only thing that could have, and did, give the whole sorry affair any legitimacy.

Along with those brave Tory MPs who put their country's interests above their own and ended up being shafted by Johnson, I believe this was the most calamitous failure of our Parliamentary democracy in modern history. It could, and should, have been avoided. But it wasn't. So Brexit has happened and cannot be legally challenged.

That doesn't though mean the events which led up to that point were themselves legitimate, let alone wise.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Yes it is! You cited "Greek origins". As I am sure you know, only male citizen could vote at that time. No women, no "foreigners" or their descendents, no slaves. So only about 30% of the adult population.

So it's theoretically democratic, but practically not.

Democracy has evolved somewhat since then, though no doubt you would prefer the original system.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Right so it never occurred to the Remain campaign, the SNP, Greens etc to challenge it in court. Well that just confirms how useless a campaign Remain ran or they took legal advice and were told they would not win because it was fair.

And then we go back to Parliament who chose to approve it you want it both ways. You want MPs to have the final say which they did and then you complain they made the wrong decision.

Edited by Badger11 (01 Nov 2021 12.24pm)

One more point