My initial post in this thread linked to one of a tiny number of corporate media articles concerning this court case - a complete departure from when Europhile Gina Miller launched her legal action - and in it a law professor and ex-judge expressed conflicting opinions on its merits and prospects of success. I also criticised the BBC and Farage for keeping shtum about the proceedings over the course of the next eight weeks and counting. You took umbrage at the notion the BBC would purposely hide that information, and in a weak riposte, that I'm sure even the BBC adoring Cyril would be too embarrassed to make, you said an audience member asked a question on Question Time presumably as unequivocal evidence to the contrary.

The link to a lawyer blog you provided wasn't nearly as dogmatic as you claimed. Here's the critical paragraph: 'Like Mrs Miller, Mr Tilbrook needs to persuade the Court he has an arguable case that should proceed to a full hearing. He is likely to fail, both on the papers and when he applies to renew his application. This has nothing to do with his perspective on Brexit, but because his case is so weak on the law'.

Her learned opinion has been proven to be wrong because it will proceed to a full hearing, which you would have known had you taken more care perusing my first post.