Para 5 - You've made a single allegation of a breach, is that all you've got?
I though the best barrister's were brief?
They sound rare. In my experience barrister's are showmen(and showwomen) and like to show off how clever and erudite they are, even if that is not the most consise route.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
*checks time-sheet*
I think I scored a zero? and apparently the same the week before that, and the week before that, and the week before that...
Para 5 - You've made a single allegation of a breach, is that all you've got?
And a really weak one as well. Does anyone seriously think that he got undue influence because of the nondescript background on his zoom session? A better, but still very weak, argument would be that it was a misuse of power/wifi facilities (we're talking pennies worth of corruption here).
I suspect the only reason this got so much coverage is that his photograph is the very incarnation of a fat cat.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.
Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
I absolutely agree and this is why the debate has become so toxic
He is leading the attacks on conservative second jobs, so it does not look good when he has earned from the same position himself
He did look very awkward when quizzed about in on the media a couple of days ago
It is time the heat was dialled down and rational was applied to just what is sensible and that which is unacceptable which was so obvious in the Paterson case
I am sure that this what we all want and most certainly is the country's wish
Yet you were quite happy to post the £100,000 figure without context in your previous post.
So you are one of the people quite happy to post inflammatory data out of context and then calling for things to be calmed down when pulled up on it with the context that explains why your original attack was utterly invalid.
The issue isn't MPs with second jobs based on their existing skillset it's MPs using their position to earn extra money.
I do not understand the attempt to defend Starmer when he was openly cross examined on BBC about his second job earnings and it is context to the discussion
See Cyclefree's post earlier - some jobs are completely fine for an MP to do others are just abuse of their position.
I do not think any of us dispute that to be fair
So you've now
1) attacked Starmer in a post, 2) got pulled up for it - 3) argued that Starmer was still in the wrong and then when pressed again 4) agree that Starmer is doing nothing wrong (which you've done by agreeing with Cyclefree's post)
I have pointed out that Starmer has been criticised by the media for his earnings from a second job but attacks others for doing the same
Off-topic but there’s case coming before the US Supreme Court this week that could have big implications for WH2024.
A New York man of Puerto Rican origin became disabled and unable to work and successfully claimed the “supplementary security income” (SSI) benefit from the Social Security Administration (SSA). He later moved to Puerto Rico to be with his family When the SSA found out they ended his SSI payments and demanded $28,000 back.
The reason? SSI is not funded by federal payroll taxes like “regular” SSA benefits such as retirement income (i.e old age pension in UK terms) but from general federal taxation, principally income tax. Puerto Ricans are not normally subject to federal taxes like income tax but they do pay the payroll taxes so while the do get social security retirement benefits they don’t get SSI.
The basis of the claim is the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment which applies to states and has been deemed by SCOTUS to apply to the federal government through the “due process” clause of the 5th amendment. By extension that means these clauses apply to federal territories such as DC. DC residents do pay federal income tax and can claim SSI, as do the residents of the US territory the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. (The term “Commonwealth” hss no special meaning either for Puerto Rico or US states that use it like Virginia. It’s like a British district council being granted the appellation of “borough” or “city”.)
So if SCOTUS rules in favour of the plaintiff then it will follow that not only will the residents of Puerto Rico be able to claim SSI, so will those of American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands That will have to be laid for, so inevitable full federal taxation including income tax will be heading their way. The territories will now have much fewer advantages from their current status, but the disadvantage of no representation in Washington other than non-voting “delegates” or “commissioners” in the House of Representatives. The argument for full statehood tor the territories will be much stronger and may be irresistible.
That would be a Democrat wet-dream right? Well maybe, maybe not. While Puerto Ricans who move to the US proper have historically tended to favour the Democrats, Puerto Rico’s internal politics historically trends more to the right. Overall most of the territories would probably be swing states, excepting the US Virgin Islands which would probably be strongly Democratic and the Northern Marianas which would probably be heavily Republican.
I understand that the US Army’s Bureau of Heraldry has flag designs ready for up to 56 stars. They may need them.
Love it. The more the merrier!
No love for joining up some of the territories as one state?
The one that makes most sense would be Guam and the Northern Marianas which are both ethnically Chamorro for the most part. They’ve had quite divergent histories since 1898 though. Guam has been a US territory ever since, save for a typically brutal Japanese occupation during WW2. The Northern Marianas was successively part of a) a German protectorate, b) a League of Nations mandate under Japan and c) a UN trust territory under the US. When the trust territory was ended and broken up into four entities, the Northern Marianas was the only one to opt for US territory. The others opted for independence with “free association“ with the US (which amounts to the US influencing their foreign policy and having a privileged economic relationship with them in return for guaranteeing their defence and their citizens having some privileges wrt US immigration).
The other neighbouring pair are Puerto Rico and the US Virign Islands, but they have no cultural affinity at all. Puerto Rico is obvioudly Hispanic, and while the USVI were Danish until purchased by the US in 1917 they spoke an English-based creole and were pretty culturally aligned to the British West Indies. They still drive on the left!
I didn't know about the driving on the left. That sounds like a good quiz question.
It’s definitely come up on the “Jeopardy” TV quiz show (American telly’s closest equivalent to “Mastermind) in recent years.
And in the British Virgin Islands they use the USD as their official currency. I'm surprised they drive on the left in the USVI as even in the BVI most of the cars are left hand drive, as I recall.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
Para 5 - You've made a single allegation of a breach, is that all you've got?
And a really weak one as well. Does anyone seriously think that he got undue influence because of the nondescript background on his zoom session? A better, but still very weak, argument would be that it was a misuse of power/wifi facilities (we're talking pennies worth of corruption here).
I suspect the only reason this got so much coverage is that his photograph is the very incarnation of a fat cat.
Nah, it's because he earns so much outside parliament that the instinct is to presume he must be the one taking the most piss with a second job, or acting improperly, when it's more that he is able to charge so much for his external work compared to most.
X takes 25k to do nothing/possibly asked questions when they shouldn't is not as sexy as 'X raked in £1MILLION'.
Para 5 - You've made a single allegation of a breach, is that all you've got?
And a really weak one as well. Does anyone seriously think that he got undue influence because of the nondescript background on his zoom session? A better, but still very weak, argument would be that it was a misuse of power/wifi facilities (we're talking pennies worth of corruption here).
I suspect the only reason this got so much coverage is that his photograph is the very incarnation of a fat cat.
Don't forget the tropical location. I didn't read much about it when the story first broke. I thought he stayed in BVI while working as an MP and doing QC things for cases in the UK. I hadn't appreciated he was actually there to serve on a government inquiry.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
10 hours a day working, with lunch at the desk. Note it doesn't say he does this all the time, just regularly.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
I worked 100 hr plus weeks from Christmas Eve until the end of January, thanks to Boris.
Generally I'm averaging 70 hours per week, but that's I'm covering maternity leave until February but offset with no commuting time.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
10 hours a day working, with lunch at the desk. Note it doesn't say he does this all the time, just regularly.
Regularly from a lawyer could mean one week per year, as long as it the same week each time.
Para 5 - You've made a single allegation of a breach, is that all you've got?
And a really weak one as well. Does anyone seriously think that he got undue influence because of the nondescript background on his zoom session? A better, but still very weak, argument would be that it was a misuse of power/wifi facilities (we're talking pennies worth of corruption here).
Not really corruption at all, just a possible breach of rules which he could/should be censured for if proven. I don't like this government at all, but I always think that Labour bleating about second jobs just smacks of the politics of envy - basically most of them wouldn't be able to get one if they tried. Plus, if one can be a constituency MP and a cabinet member it clearly proves that being a constituency MP is really a part time job!
Having said all of that, I am still flummoxed as to why any company would pay Ian Duncan Smith (one of the dumbest people in parliament) 25 pence a year! It can only be because they think it will buy influence.
Off-topic but there’s case coming before the US Supreme Court this week that could have big implications for WH2024.
A New York man of Puerto Rican origin became disabled and unable to work and successfully claimed the “supplementary security income” (SSI) benefit from the Social Security Administration (SSA). He later moved to Puerto Rico to be with his family When the SSA found out they ended his SSI payments and demanded $28,000 back.
The reason? SSI is not funded by federal payroll taxes like “regular” SSA benefits such as retirement income (i.e old age pension in UK terms) but from general federal taxation, principally income tax. Puerto Ricans are not normally subject to federal taxes like income tax but they do pay the payroll taxes so while the do get social security retirement benefits they don’t get SSI.
The basis of the claim is the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment which applies to states and has been deemed by SCOTUS to apply to the federal government through the “due process” clause of the 5th amendment. By extension that means these clauses apply to federal territories such as DC. DC residents do pay federal income tax and can claim SSI, as do the residents of the US territory the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. (The term “Commonwealth” hss no special meaning either for Puerto Rico or US states that use it like Virginia. It’s like a British district council being granted the appellation of “borough” or “city”.)
So if SCOTUS rules in favour of the plaintiff then it will follow that not only will the residents of Puerto Rico be able to claim SSI, so will those of American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands That will have to be laid for, so inevitable full federal taxation including income tax will be heading their way. The territories will now have much fewer advantages from their current status, but the disadvantage of no representation in Washington other than non-voting “delegates” or “commissioners” in the House of Representatives. The argument for full statehood tor the territories will be much stronger and may be irresistible.
That would be a Democrat wet-dream right? Well maybe, maybe not. While Puerto Ricans who move to the US proper have historically tended to favour the Democrats, Puerto Rico’s internal politics historically trends more to the right. Overall most of the territories would probably be swing states, excepting the US Virgin Islands which would probably be strongly Democratic and the Northern Marianas which would probably be heavily Republican.
I understand that the US Army’s Bureau of Heraldry has flag designs ready for up to 56 stars. They may need them.
Love it. The more the merrier!
No love for joining up some of the territories as one state?
The one that makes most sense would be Guam and the Northern Marianas which are both ethnically Chamorro for the most part. They’ve had quite divergent histories since 1898 though. Guam has been a US territory ever since, save for a typically brutal Japanese occupation during WW2. The Northern Marianas was successively part of a) a German protectorate, b) a League of Nations mandate under Japan and c) a UN trust territory under the US. When the trust territory was ended and broken up into four entities, the Northern Marianas was the only one to opt for US territory. The others opted for independence with “free association“ with the US (which amounts to the US influencing their foreign policy and having a privileged economic relationship with them in return for guaranteeing their defence and their citizens having some privileges wrt US immigration).
The other neighbouring pair are Puerto Rico and the US Virign Islands, but they have no cultural affinity at all. Puerto Rico is obvioudly Hispanic, and while the USVI were Danish until purchased by the US in 1917 they spoke an English-based creole and were pretty culturally aligned to the British West Indies. They still drive on the left!
I didn't know about the driving on the left. That sounds like a good quiz question.
It’s definitely come up on the “Jeopardy” TV quiz show (American telly’s closest equivalent to “Mastermind) in recent years.
And in the British Virgin Islands they use the USD as their official currency. I'm surprised they drive on the left in the USVI as even in the BVI most of the cars are left hand drive, as I recall.
Bermuda effectively uses the USD with their dollar pegged to it 1:1. You’ll get change for tendering US notes in Bermudian coins though. I think all the other British West Indian territories are pegged to the USD or use the Eastern Caribbean Dollar which is also pegged, not 1:1 though. Anguilla uses the EC$ but US$ are universally accepted.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
10 hours a day working, with lunch at the desk. Note it doesn't say he does this all the time, just regularly.
Regularly from a lawyer could mean one week per year, as long as it the same week each time.
True, lol. I don't think achieving 70 hours is at all difficult, especially if you aren't doing it 52 weeks a year.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
I worked 100 hr plus weeks from Christmas Eve until the end of January, thanks to Boris.
Generally I'm averaging 70 hours per week, but that's I'm covering maternity leave until February but offset with no commuting time.
Impressive but from your posting I am guessing younger than sixties? Mid forties?
The guy behind it is an ex soldier who use term the 'Pull The Pin' on life following his medical departure from the army. It's a very interesting story.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yeah, and my best marathon time is 4.02 which makes kipchoge's claims look pretty fishy
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
I worked 100 hr plus weeks from Christmas Eve until the end of January, thanks to Boris.
Generally I'm averaging 70 hours per week, but that's I'm covering maternity leave until February but offset with no commuting time.
Impressive but from your posting I am guessing younger than sixties? Mid forties?
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
Para 5 - You've made a single allegation of a breach, is that all you've got?
Fuck me, he’s written it in the third person! At least he hasn’t used the royal ‘we’. Yet.
Yes, I almost commented on that myself. At least say 'Statement on behalf of ' rather than 'Statement from' if you're going to do that.
Farooq asks whether this linguistic dissociation is a manifestation of guilt over his actions. Dissociation is something that can come from trauma and shame. Farooq wonders whether writing a statement in the third person is evidence of a guilty conscience related to the contents of the statement.
On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-
1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm
I totally disagree with that. I heard an ex-MP, Labour for what it is worth, make that arugment yesterday, he had been a part time GP whilst a serving MP, and he virtually said that he'd done it for the good of the nation unlike those filthy commercial types who do it to make money, as though being a GP is not a well paid career. Clearly the bloke is also something of a snob.
If second jobs are banned it should apply to all professions. We can not have certain professions exempted as otherwise Parliament will become even more unrepresentative than it already is, and stuffed full of certain privileged professions, many of which are already over-represented such as lawyers.
I also object to the notion that only certain professions require someone to keep one's hand in, this is true for all sorts of jobs in the modern world which changes very rapidly.
I suspect though that Parliament will choose to go for a stitch-up that looks after the interests of the lawyers, medics, and that ilk, and we will end up with a worse crop of MPs.
If you ban Doctors from keeping their hands in, they won't ever be a Doctor in the House of Commons because what would happen when they lost their seat.
The entire point of that first list is that unless you allows these people to keep their practice and skills up to date, they won't be able to return to that job were they to lose a subsequent election.
Erm, yes, but that also applies to ANYONE who becomes an MP. Losing your seat is a quick route to a long time on the dole for most, unless you are a medic or a lawyer. As I mentioned on a previous post, I think a lot of this stuff is highly spurious and based on the politics of envy. There just need to be tighter rules on lobbying
Rather than brag about how long they have worked, how about bragging about not busting one's hump? Who will own up to the lowest?
In 2018 I attended a week long case management meeting and meditation, 9am to 4.30pm with an hour for lunch, so that's 32.5 hours for the week, where I did nothing, because there was literally nothing for me to do, I had done everything in the preceding couple of months.
Work put me in a top London hotel, gave me a £150 a day stipend for food and entertaining.
Joshua Rozenburg on BBC just now has said he is not going to pass judgment on the Cox case but he queried if is it being suggested that every time an mp makes a call on a private matter or receives one, that they have to leave their office, and even possibly miss a vote in the house
I agree and it seems a sense of proportion is needed
The guy behind it is an ex soldier who use term the 'Pull The Pin' on life following his medical departure from the army. It's a very interesting story.
I’d humbly suggest that a grenade metaphor that includes a bottle of booze with a grenade pin literally sticking out the top of it is cringeworthy, even without the military charity association.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
I worked 100 hr plus weeks from Christmas Eve until the end of January, thanks to Boris.
Generally I'm averaging 70 hours per week, but that's I'm covering maternity leave until February but offset with no commuting time.
Impressive but from your posting I am guessing younger than sixties? Mid forties?
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
The guy behind it is an ex soldier who use term the 'Pull The Pin' on life following his medical departure from the army. It's a very interesting story.
I’d humbly suggest that a grenade metaphor that includes a bottle of booze with a grenade pin literally sticking out the top of it is cringeworthy, even without the military charity association.
Who could have foreseen a grenade metaphor would blow up in his face?
On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-
1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm
2. Advocating for/advising charities, pressure groups etc ie giving a voice to people, groups, opinions who might not otherwise be heard. Again this can be valuable and necessary.
3. Having other part-time jobs. The issue here is the number of them some MPs have and, if the hours devoted to them are true, how they also do their work as MPs etc. Scrutiny and transparency and avoidance of actual and potential conflicts of interest are key.
4. Using their role as MPs to make private gains. This is just an abuse of their office. The boundary between 3 and 4 is not always clear.
Some part-time roles may be worthwhile. But the defences often used - "this keeps me in touch" are too often transparently self-serving. And MPs have a woeful understanding of what an actual or potential conflict of interest means. If you are paid or have any role at all with any other organisation you have an actual or potential conflict of interest and must reveal it. You should also recuse yourself when making a decision affecting that other body.
The reason why some MPs don't do this - or affect not to understand this point - is because if they did they would be much less likely to get such roles. So they have a financial interest in pretending that these conflicts don't exist or that it is all for the greater good or to benefit their constituents. It is all self-serving nonsense.
There are plenty of ways of staying in touch with your constituents and understanding their concerns. MPs like David Amess showed this, as no doubt others do too.
Maybe the answer is not to ban all second jobs but to state that all such roles as consultants or advisors or directors can only be done on a "pro bono" basis. So constituents and Parliament get all the benefits of MPs "staying in touch" but MPs do not get any personal gain from doing the job they are paid to do by the taxpayer.
I think there are 2 and a half queries wrt that list.
Point 1 seems a slightly artificial selection of "Professions". Does that apply to all required to do CPD? Electricians? Builders? Teachers? Presumably it does.
Point 2 lets off far too many political / campaigning charities, especially issue-based setups or places with high funding from trusts.
There needs to be a point 5 about Trades Unions. There's a clear money for influence relationship, even before we get to the corrupting influence of UNITE.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
Oh look, no A16 trigger. All of that ramping by Ireland for nothing. It honestly feels like they are trying to bounce the UK into pulling the trigger and the EU into retaliating because they know a negotiated deal will be to their detriment.
I really hope people stop listening to the blue tick wankers on twitter. All of them are taking positions more extreme than the EU or UK. It's clear that both sides see no mileage in ramping this up and I'm certain now that a settlement will be forthcoming and the book will be closed on Brexit.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
With antibody rates across all age groups at at least 89% it really suggests that we should be at herd immunity now or very soon.
Edit: In the older age groups you can see the impact of booster shots now.
Testing positive for antibodies doesn't imply immunity from infection or inability to infect others, though. If only it were that simple.
Come on Chris - its a lot better than NOT testing positive for antibodies. The vaccines have reduced the severity of the disease in most hugely, and reinfection post recovery is still minimal (unless you know otherwise?). Of course some of the old, frail population will be double and triple vaccinated and still die, but if it wasn't covid, it would be pneumonia or the flu or something else.
We have virtually no NPI's in place in England yet miraculously the case numbers (I know, I know) have dropped for two weeks now. Thats what herd immunity looks like, but it doesn't mean no one will catch covid.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
Why dubious? People have a range of tolerances. It wouldn't be that surprising if he had a particularly high tolerance for the amount of work he can done in a single week.
Paaing the Daily Mail's smell test is a useful guide to this. Penning a few articles or doing some work for socially useful organisation would pass. Taking a month off to work for someone else as Cox did or acting as a paid lobbyist for a commercial organisation or a trade union is much more questionable. If second jobs are banned many Labour MPs would regret as would hypocrite in chief Ed Davey.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
I'm the same, though I can accept some people will have a lot more tolerance or ability to be effective for longer periods. But 100+? It'd be a rare person who was still any use at that point.
You can't fake being a successful QC, the instructions dry up. NB that Jonathan sumption managed to combine the job with being a highly praised and immensely productive professional historian.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.
Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
I absolutely agree and this is why the debate has become so toxic
He is leading the attacks on conservative second jobs, so it does not look good when he has earned from the same position himself
He did look very awkward when quizzed about in on the media a couple of days ago
It is time the heat was dialled down and rational was applied to just what is sensible and that which is unacceptable which was so obvious in the Paterson case
I am sure that this what we all want and most certainly is the country's wish
Yet you were quite happy to post the £100,000 figure without context in your previous post.
So you are one of the people quite happy to post inflammatory data out of context and then calling for things to be calmed down when pulled up on it with the context that explains why your original attack was utterly invalid.
The issue isn't MPs with second jobs based on their existing skillset it's MPs using their position to earn extra money.
I do not understand the attempt to defend Starmer when he was openly cross examined on BBC about his second job earnings and it is context to the discussion
See Cyclefree's post earlier - some jobs are completely fine for an MP to do others are just abuse of their position.
I do not think any of us dispute that to be fair
So you've now
1) attacked Starmer in a post, 2) got pulled up for it - 3) argued that Starmer was still in the wrong and then when pressed again 4) agree that Starmer is doing nothing wrong (which you've done by agreeing with Cyclefree's post)
I have pointed out that Starmer has been criticised by the media for his earnings from a second job but attacks others for doing the same
Really quite modest earnings for a top QC: 70 hours at £250 per hour.
It would be interesting to know who the clients were, would that show in the legal register?
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
I'm the same, though I can accept some people will have a lot more tolerance or ability to be effective for longer periods. But 100+? It'd be a rare person who was still any use at that point.
And it's a rare person who becomes a top QC. There's almost a hint of correlation here. And as I say you can't fake it, your wind and losses are there for all to see
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
I can assure I did do that sort of intense work for prolonged periods. It did have an effect on my health, which is one reason why I eventually left. But I do like and enjoy living on adrenaline, which is probably why I ended up doing and loving the job I did.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Child Grooming in SNP Types is much more of a scandal than Tory Sleaze.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Child Grooming in SNP Types is much more of a scandal than Tory Sleaze.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
I'm the same, though I can accept some people will have a lot more tolerance or ability to be effective for longer periods. But 100+? It'd be a rare person who was still any use at that point.
And it's a rare person who becomes a top QC. There's almost a hint of correlation here. And as I say you can't fake it, your wind and losses are there for all to see
Rather than brag about how long they have worked, how about bragging about not busting one's hump? Who will own up to the lowest?
Every now and then Reddit will have a topic about "easiest jobs". It's not uncommon to see people claim that they have essentially automated their job and are getting paid a good salary for very little effort each week. e.g. They run a script and a week's worth of reports are produced.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
I'm the same, though I can accept some people will have a lot more tolerance or ability to be effective for longer periods. But 100+? It'd be a rare person who was still any use at that point.
And it's a rare person who becomes a top QC. There's almost a hint of correlation here. And as I say you can't fake it, your wind and losses are there for all to see
Precisely. There's a reason he's a top QC. And it certainly isn't because he stuck rigidly to 40 hours a week.
Here we go again, that's the US Congress, Ireland and other EU countries, a majority in Northern Ireland, and Conservative peers telling the UK government to stop doing what they intend to do.
Bringing in regulations to say that people working in certain industries (NHS, care) need to be double vaccinated is fine with me. Yes, there will be problems; but we need to get as many people vaccinated as possible, and the excuses for not doing so appear thin.
However: we should bring in another group. MPs and peers should both be double vaccinated. If they don't have good reason not to be, they should resign.
As many good, if misguided, people are having to do.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Child Grooming in SNP Types is much more of a scandal than Tory Sleaze.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
Because it a rare exception not the norm.
But you accept that Child Grooming is much worse of a crime than an MP having a second job?
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Child Grooming in SNP Types is much more of a scandal than Tory Sleaze.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
Your moment has come, ‘Peado Man, hard on child grooming!’ You could get a superhero costume and everything.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
I'm the same, though I can accept some people will have a lot more tolerance or ability to be effective for longer periods. But 100+? It'd be a rare person who was still any use at that point.
And it's a rare person who becomes a top QC. There's almost a hint of correlation here. And as I say you can't fake it, your wind and losses are there for all to see
Precisely. There's a reason he's a top QC. And it certainly isn't because he stuck rigidly to 40 hours a week.
Is it because he is good at exaggerating his clients claims?
Oh look, no A16 trigger. All of that ramping by Ireland for nothing. It honestly feels like they are trying to bounce the UK into pulling the trigger and the EU into retaliating because they know a negotiated deal will be to their detriment.
I really hope people stop listening to the blue tick wankers on twitter. All of them are taking positions more extreme than the EU or UK. It's clear that both sides see no mileage in ramping this up and I'm certain now that a settlement will be forthcoming and the book will be closed on Brexit.
I watched a video recently about the Irish government's approach to Brexit. They were driven primarily by fear. It's amazing how we just completely ignored them after the referendum. I'm far from convinced that you can find a solution that will satisfy everyone. There is still no answer to where exactly the UK EU border will be? A settlement will mean compromise and some won't be happy with what is compromised.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Child Grooming in SNP Types is much more of a scandal than Tory Sleaze.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
Your moment has come, ‘Peado Man, hard on child grooming!’ You could get a superhero costume and everything.
The slogan may need a bit of work.
There's only one Child Groomer Politician - Derek McKay - and he's an SNP Type
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
I'm the same, though I can accept some people will have a lot more tolerance or ability to be effective for longer periods. But 100+? It'd be a rare person who was still any use at that point.
And it's a rare person who becomes a top QC. There's almost a hint of correlation here. And as I say you can't fake it, your wind and losses are there for all to see
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
I'm the same, though I can accept some people will have a lot more tolerance or ability to be effective for longer periods. But 100+? It'd be a rare person who was still any use at that point.
And it's a rare person who becomes a top QC. There's almost a hint of correlation here. And as I say you can't fake it, your wind and losses are there for all to see
Precisely. There's a reason he's a top QC. And it certainly isn't because he stuck rigidly to 40 hours a week.
Is it because he is good at exaggerating his clients claims?
Probably because he wins a lot. And you don't achieve that record by slacking off.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Child Grooming in SNP Types is much more of a scandal than Tory Sleaze.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
Because it a rare exception not the norm.
But you accept that Child Grooming is much worse of a crime than an MP having a second job?
It should be pointed out that neither Mackay nor any of the Conservative MPs have been convicted of crimes. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, stand accused of any.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Child Grooming in SNP Types is much more of a scandal than Tory Sleaze.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
Because it a rare exception not the norm.
But you accept that Child Grooming is much worse of a crime than an MP having a second job?
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Child Grooming in SNP Types is much more of a scandal than Tory Sleaze.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
Because it a rare exception not the norm.
But you accept that Child Grooming is much worse of a crime than an MP having a second job?
Joshua Rozenburg on BBC just now has said he is not going to pass judgment on the Cox case but he queried if is it being suggested that every time an mp makes a call on a private matter or receives one, that they have to leave their office, and even possibly miss a vote in the house
A "private matter" is a call from your doctor, or a school about your kids.
A billable call is not that, and if MPs are missing votes to make billable calls then that is exactly the problem.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Child Grooming in SNP Types is much more of a scandal than Tory Sleaze.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
Because it a rare exception not the norm.
But you accept that Child Grooming is much worse of a crime than an MP having a second job?
It should be pointed out that neither Mackay nor any of the Conservative MPs have been convicted of crimes. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, stand accused of any.
That's only because Police Scotland are Nippy's Storm Troopers nowadays.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
I'm the same, though I can accept some people will have a lot more tolerance or ability to be effective for longer periods. But 100+? It'd be a rare person who was still any use at that point.
And it's a rare person who becomes a top QC. There's almost a hint of correlation here. And as I say you can't fake it, your wind and losses are there for all to see
Precisely. There's a reason he's a top QC. And it certainly isn't because he stuck rigidly to 40 hours a week.
Is it because he is good at exaggerating his clients claims?
There's other QCs paid to point out the exaggerations, and chaps called judges who are awfully good at deciding who is right. Try again.
Rather than brag about how long they have worked, how about bragging about not busting one's hump? Who will own up to the lowest?
In 2018 I attended a week long case management meeting and meditation, 9am to 4.30pm with an hour for lunch, so that's 32.5 hours for the week, where I did nothing, because there was literally nothing for me to do, I had done everything in the preceding couple of months.
Work put me in a top London hotel, gave me a £150 a day stipend for food and entertaining.
I felt so guilty.
Isn't the purpose of a week long meditation to do nothing? Didn't know you could be paid for it though.
Perhaps a better way of looking at this is to distinguish between MPs providing a service unrelated to their role in Parliament ie those who have some actual skills and knowledge for which they would get paid even if they were not an MP and those where the primary reason they are getting paid is because they are an MP
So an MP who is a teacher getting paid for tutoring is fine. Ditto an MP with an HGV licence doing some driving or an MP lawyer providing legal advice etc.
An MP who is made an "advisor" or a "consultant" to a company - well, what service are they providing exactly? Would they get such a job if they were not an MP? These are the sorts of second jobs which need to be stopped because these are the ones where the line between providing a real service and using your political office for private gain gets blurred. These are the cases where conflicts of interest arise and the potential for corruption.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Child Grooming in SNP Types is much more of a scandal than Tory Sleaze.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
Because it a rare exception not the norm.
But you accept that Child Grooming is much worse of a crime than an MP having a second job?
It should be pointed out that neither Mackay nor any of the Conservative MPs have been convicted of crimes. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, stand accused of any.
That's only because Police Scotland are Nippy's Storm Troopers nowadays.
I'll file that claim next to the "MSM silent" one.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Child Grooming in SNP Types is much more of a scandal than Tory Sleaze.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
Because it a rare exception not the norm.
But you accept that Child Grooming is much worse of a crime than an MP having a second job?
I don't understand your point at all. When my sons were small I always used to brush their hair and tuck their shirts in.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
I'm the same, though I can accept some people will have a lot more tolerance or ability to be effective for longer periods. But 100+? It'd be a rare person who was still any use at that point.
And it's a rare person who becomes a top QC. There's almost a hint of correlation here. And as I say you can't fake it, your wind and losses are there for all to see
I thought it was fairly automatic for any barrister who became an MP - but perhaps I am wrong?
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
So the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and the Westminster Leader of the SNP who're all making big money off 2nd jobs are Tories now are they? 🤔
The mail has been attacking Boris and others every day, but I noticed yesterday that they turned their guns on Starmer who's outside earnings since 2015 were £113,975
Tried for years. Remember the donkeys?
If you are referring to the non story about Sir Keir buying some land for his Mum so that she could find a home for old donkeys, was that in the Mail or the Mail on Sunday? The papers have different editors with different agendas (and the editors hate one another according to Private Eye).
It has nothing to do with that at all
Since 2015 Keir Starmer has received £113,975 in legal fees in addition to his role as an MP
I don't like second jobs for MPs period, and there is an argument that there is an element of double standards with Starmer taking the King's shilling and the hobble cash.
However
The IDS and Paterson examples highlight a potential conflict of interest. Who are they representing in Parliament? The same with contributions to Johnson's wallpaper.
sir Geoff, quite frankly is taking the P The MP job looks like the pin money job.
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
I'm the same, though I can accept some people will have a lot more tolerance or ability to be effective for longer periods. But 100+? It'd be a rare person who was still any use at that point.
And it's a rare person who becomes a top QC. There's almost a hint of correlation here. And as I say you can't fake it, your wind and losses are there for all to see
Precisely. There's a reason he's a top QC. And it certainly isn't because he stuck rigidly to 40 hours a week.
Is it because he is good at exaggerating his clients claims?
Probably because he wins a lot. And you don't achieve that record by slacking off.
Ah, this one I do know the answer to. You organise a dinner with the secretary of the state just before they make a decision.
Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
I’ve given up asking wtf you’re on about as the answer always proves to be nothing, bit of a handicap on a site that revolves largely around political info. Stick to the outré ass sex stuff, that’s your strong point.
"In February 2020, he resigned as Finance Secretary after the Scottish Sun reported he had messaged a 16-year-old boy on social media, describing the boy as "cute" and offering to meet with him"
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messaged him
The boundary between grubbiness and illegality.
Not really.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
Reported in: Scottish Sun Daily Record Scotsman Times Daily Mail Herald Guardian The Independent The National The Telegraph BBC The Express CNN Fox Irish Times ABC News Le Figaro Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Child Grooming in SNP Types is much more of a scandal than Tory Sleaze.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
Because it a rare exception not the norm.
But you accept that Child Grooming is much worse of a crime than an MP having a second job?
It should be pointed out that neither Mackay nor any of the Conservative MPs have been convicted of crimes. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, stand accused of any.
That's only because Police Scotland are Nippy's Storm Troopers nowadays.
I'll file that claim next to the "MSM silent" one.
We all know where you stand on the #indyref2 debate.
You are now well and truly filed in the Pro-Peado box
Britain is in a different world to much of Europe now
Germany is at peak pandemic: most cases ever Hungary near pandemic peak Slovakia is at peak Czechia near peak Romania: morgues collapsing, curfew Slovenia at peak Cases surging in Serbia, Croatia, Belgium, Netherlands, the Baltics, Austria, Ireland
The vax is ameliorating much of the pain but not all of it
Perhaps a better way of looking at this is to distinguish between MPs providing a service unrelated to their role in Parliament ie those who have some actual skills and knowledge for which they would get paid even if they were not an MP and those where the primary reason they are getting paid is because they are an MP
So an MP who is a teacher getting paid for tutoring is fine. Ditto an MP with an HGV licence doing some driving or an MP lawyer providing legal advice etc.
An MP who is made an "advisor" or a "consultant" to a company - well, what service are they providing exactly? Would they get such a job if they were not an MP? These are the sorts of second jobs which need to be stopped because these are the ones where the line between providing a real service and using your political office for private gain gets blurred. These are the cases where conflicts of interest arise and the potential for corruption.
Rather than brag about how long they have worked, how about bragging about not busting one's hump? Who will own up to the lowest?
Every now and then Reddit will have a topic about "easiest jobs". It's not uncommon to see people claim that they have essentially automated their job and are getting paid a good salary for very little effort each week. e.g. They run a script and a week's worth of reports are produced.
There's another class of employee, who I call the swans. They make a job look effortless, graceful and easy, but when they're absent due to holiday or illness, any number of people run around like headless chickens trying to fill the role. Then they come back, raise an eyebrow at the mess, and serenely continue on their way.
Perhaps a better way of looking at this is to distinguish between MPs providing a service unrelated to their role in Parliament ie those who have some actual skills and knowledge for which they would get paid even if they were not an MP and those where the primary reason they are getting paid is because they are an MP
So an MP who is a teacher getting paid for tutoring is fine. Ditto an MP with an HGV licence doing some driving or an MP lawyer providing legal advice etc.
An MP who is made an "advisor" or a "consultant" to a company - well, what service are they providing exactly? Would they get such a job if they were not an MP? These are the sorts of second jobs which need to be stopped because these are the ones where the line between providing a real service and using your political office for private gain gets blurred. These are the cases where conflicts of interest arise and the potential for corruption.
Once again Paterson is the test case.
Will Randox keep paying him now?
Don't ex-MPs often go into these kind of roles anyway?
If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?
Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
I am trying to understand how he is working 70 hours a week?
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
I regularly worked those hours and more when I was running my team. There were plenty of times when I had to work through the night. I have done intense bursts of work - with similar hours - on particular projects since going freelance.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
My worst period at work averaged 55 hour weeks for about 2 months. That was pretty much a full on day every day - get up, go to work (pre WFH days a commute every day), go home, cook, eat dinner, collapse into bed, repeat. I tried not to work weekends but gave in a couple of times when we were too far behind. At the end of that I was done for and I was in my mid 30s. I am dubious of anyone who claims to work 70 hour weeks regularly, maybe they are "at work" but I question how much they actually get done if that is more than a one-off.
I'm the same, though I can accept some people will have a lot more tolerance or ability to be effective for longer periods. But 100+? It'd be a rare person who was still any use at that point.
And it's a rare person who becomes a top QC. There's almost a hint of correlation here. And as I say you can't fake it, your wind and losses are there for all to see
Precisely. There's a reason he's a top QC. And it certainly isn't because he stuck rigidly to 40 hours a week.
Is it because he is good at exaggerating his clients claims?
Probably because he wins a lot. And you don't achieve that record by slacking off.
Ah, this one I do know the answer to. You organise a dinner with the secretary of the state just before they make a decision.
Perhaps a better way of looking at this is to distinguish between MPs providing a service unrelated to their role in Parliament ie those who have some actual skills and knowledge for which they would get paid even if they were not an MP and those where the primary reason they are getting paid is because they are an MP
So an MP who is a teacher getting paid for tutoring is fine. Ditto an MP with an HGV licence doing some driving or an MP lawyer providing legal advice etc.
An MP who is made an "advisor" or a "consultant" to a company - well, what service are they providing exactly? Would they get such a job if they were not an MP? These are the sorts of second jobs which need to be stopped because these are the ones where the line between providing a real service and using your political office for private gain gets blurred. These are the cases where conflicts of interest arise and the potential for corruption.
I think that is pretty sensible. Some are getting big money for...what exactly is unclear. Generic advice on matters they might well be non expert in. What do they think they are getting money for?
Off-topic but there’s case coming before the US Supreme Court this week that could have big implications for WH2024.
A New York man of Puerto Rican origin became disabled and unable to work and successfully claimed the “supplementary security income” (SSI) benefit from the Social Security Administration (SSA). He later moved to Puerto Rico to be with his family When the SSA found out they ended his SSI payments and demanded $28,000 back.
The reason? SSI is not funded by federal payroll taxes like “regular” SSA benefits such as retirement income (i.e old age pension in UK terms) but from general federal taxation, principally income tax. Puerto Ricans are not normally subject to federal taxes like income tax but they do pay the payroll taxes so while the do get social security retirement benefits they don’t get SSI.
The basis of the claim is the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment which applies to states and has been deemed by SCOTUS to apply to the federal government through the “due process” clause of the 5th amendment. By extension that means these clauses apply to federal territories such as DC. DC residents do pay federal income tax and can claim SSI, as do the residents of the US territory the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. (The term “Commonwealth” hss no special meaning either for Puerto Rico or US states that use it like Virginia. It’s like a British district council being granted the appellation of “borough” or “city”.)
So if SCOTUS rules in favour of the plaintiff then it will follow that not only will the residents of Puerto Rico be able to claim SSI, so will those of American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands That will have to be laid for, so inevitable full federal taxation including income tax will be heading their way. The territories will now have much fewer advantages from their current status, but the disadvantage of no representation in Washington other than non-voting “delegates” or “commissioners” in the House of Representatives. The argument for full statehood tor the territories will be much stronger and may be irresistible.
That would be a Democrat wet-dream right? Well maybe, maybe not. While Puerto Ricans who move to the US proper have historically tended to favour the Democrats, Puerto Rico’s internal politics historically trends more to the right. Overall most of the territories would probably be swing states, excepting the US Virgin Islands which would probably be strongly Democratic and the Northern Marianas which would probably be heavily Republican.
I understand that the US Army’s Bureau of Heraldry has flag designs ready for up to 56 stars. They may need them.
Love it. The more the merrier!
No love for joining up some of the territories as one state?
The one that makes most sense would be Guam and the Northern Marianas which are both ethnically Chamorro for the most part. They’ve had quite divergent histories since 1898 though. Guam has been a US territory ever since, save for a typically brutal Japanese occupation during WW2. The Northern Marianas was successively part of a) a German protectorate, b) a League of Nations mandate under Japan and c) a UN trust territory under the US. When the trust territory was ended and broken up into four entities, the Northern Marianas was the only one to opt for US territory. The others opted for independence with “free association“ with the US (which amounts to the US influencing their foreign policy and having a privileged economic relationship with them in return for guaranteeing their defence and their citizens having some privileges wrt US immigration).
The other neighbouring pair are Puerto Rico and the US Virign Islands, but they have no cultural affinity at all. Puerto Rico is obvioudly Hispanic, and while the USVI were Danish until purchased by the US in 1917 they spoke an English-based creole and were pretty culturally aligned to the British West Indies. They still drive on the left!
I didn't know about the driving on the left. That sounds like a good quiz question.
It’s definitely come up on the “Jeopardy” TV quiz show (American telly’s closest equivalent to “Mastermind) in recent years.
And in the British Virgin Islands they use the USD as their official currency. I'm surprised they drive on the left in the USVI as even in the BVI most of the cars are left hand drive, as I recall.
Bermuda effectively uses the USD with their dollar pegged to it 1:1. You’ll get change for tendering US notes in Bermudian coins though. I think all the other British West Indian territories are pegged to the USD or use the Eastern Caribbean Dollar which is also pegged, not 1:1 though. Anguilla uses the EC$ but US$ are universally accepted.
Caymans have their own currency, although it's pegged to the UDS. Anguilla and Montserrat use the ECD. BVI and TCI use the USD.
Here we go again, that's the US Congress, Ireland and other EU countries, a majority in Northern Ireland, and Conservative peers telling the UK government to stop doing what they intend to do.
Joshua Rozenburg on BBC just now has said he is not going to pass judgment on the Cox case but he queried if is it being suggested that every time an mp makes a call on a private matter or receives one, that they have to leave their office, and even possibly miss a vote in the house
A "private matter" is a call from your doctor, or a school about your kids.
A billable call is not that, and if MPs are missing votes to make billable calls then that is exactly the problem.
Britain is in a different world to much of Europe now
Germany is at peak pandemic: most cases ever Hungary near pandemic peak Slovakia is at peak Czechia near peak Romania: morgues collapsing, curfew Slovenia at peak Cases surging in Serbia, Croatia, Belgium, Netherlands, the Baltics, Austria, Ireland
The vax is ameliorating much of the pain but not all of it
But we need to keep hammering the boosters. A winter with waning immunity would not be good.
Comments
Disappointing lack of stockings, oranges, and auto-asphyxiation
https://twitter.com/danwycz/status/1458404358438088706
I think I scored a zero? and apparently the same the week before that, and the week before that, and the week before that...
I'm surprised they drive on the left in the USVI as even in the BVI most of the cars are left hand drive, as I recall.
It's just a routine update of the House. The timescale for talks has already been set until the end of the month most likely.
There's not a chance of A16 being invoked before COP26 is closed.
#GetThoseBillableHoursUp
If it is 40 hours "normal working", 3 x 2 hr lunches, 2 x 3 hr dinners, and 18 hrs reading books and papers a week, that would be just about understandable to me.
If it is genuinely 70 hrs a week "normal working" I am interested in how he does it and how common it is to be capable of that.
At least he hasn’t used the royal ‘we’. Yet.
X takes 25k to do nothing/possibly asked questions when they shouldn't is not as sexy as 'X raked in £1MILLION'.
Generally I'm averaging 70 hours per week, but that's I'm covering maternity leave until February but offset with no commuting time.
Having said all of that, I am still flummoxed as to why any company would pay Ian Duncan Smith (one of the dumbest people in parliament) 25 pence a year! It can only be because they think it will buy influence.
https://www.poppyshop.org.uk/pages/pull-the-pin
The plan is to retire in a decade.
I think they even used the numbers from the relevant election.
When working I often did not have time for any sort of lunch or dinner. This is not unusual for lawyers in court or doing investigations. Plenty of criminal barristers work these sorts of hours but get paid nothing like what Cox gets.
Dissociation is something that can come from trauma and shame. Farooq wonders whether writing a statement in the third person is evidence of a guilty conscience related to the contents of the statement.
Also, bit nativist on wanting someone not only local but born local.
Work put me in a top London hotel, gave me a £150 a day stipend for food and entertaining.
I felt so guilty.
I agree and it seems a sense of proportion is needed
I earn
You claim.
He TROUSERS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Mackay
Note: the boy was acuatlly 15 when he messagned him
Point 1 seems a slightly artificial selection of "Professions". Does that apply to all required to do CPD? Electricians? Builders? Teachers? Presumably it does.
Point 2 lets off far too many political / campaigning charities, especially issue-based setups or places with high funding from trusts.
There needs to be a point 5 about Trades Unions. There's a clear money for influence relationship, even before we get to the corrupting influence of UNITE.
I really hope people stop listening to the blue tick wankers on twitter. All of them are taking positions more extreme than the EU or UK. It's clear that both sides see no mileage in ramping this up and I'm certain now that a settlement will be forthcoming and the book will be closed on Brexit.
Just a clear case of Child Grooming in SNP Type ranks.
Yet the GB MSM - silent.
=
People who are proud of drinking 70 pints a week
40% vaccination rate
Bodies in bin bags in corridors
Morgues overwhelmed
Vaxports
10pm curfew
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-romania-bucharest-pandemics-9b8b9598cb3e05bd3768878458fe43b0
It would be interesting to know who the clients were, would that show in the legal register?
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=25353
Mostly people are anti-peado (like me)
Scottish Sun
Daily Record
Scotsman
Times
Daily Mail
Herald
Guardian
The Independent
The National
The Telegraph
BBC
The Express
CNN
Fox
Irish Times
ABC News
Le Figaro
Spiegel
But I didn't find any reference to it on MSNBC or the Times of India.
Sure it was reported - But for how long for and why so little time?
This could be taking hours worked a bit too literally. Japanese court case over whether a train driver was working or not for 1 minute (£0.36 wages).
Here we go again, that's the US Congress, Ireland and other EU countries, a majority in Northern Ireland, and Conservative peers telling the UK government to stop doing what they intend to do.
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/2021/11/meeks-keating-blumenauer-and-boyle-issue-statement-on-uk-s-threat-to-invoke-article-16-of-the-northern-ireland-protocol
Bringing in regulations to say that people working in certain industries (NHS, care) need to be double vaccinated is fine with me. Yes, there will be problems; but we need to get as many people vaccinated as possible, and the excuses for not doing so appear thin.
However: we should bring in another group. MPs and peers should both be double vaccinated. If they don't have good reason not to be, they should resign.
As many good, if misguided, people are having to do.
You could get a superhero costume and everything.
The slogan may need a bit of work.
A billable call is not that, and if MPs are missing votes to make billable calls then that is exactly the problem.
Being an MP is their second job...
Didn't know you could be paid for it though.
So an MP who is a teacher getting paid for tutoring is fine. Ditto an MP with an HGV licence doing some driving or an MP lawyer providing legal advice etc.
An MP who is made an "advisor" or a "consultant" to a company - well, what service are they providing exactly? Would they get such a job if they were not an MP? These are the sorts of second jobs which need to be stopped because these are the ones where the line between providing a real service and using your political office for private gain gets blurred. These are the cases where conflicts of interest arise and the potential for corruption.
However
The IDS and Paterson examples highlight a potential conflict of interest. Who are they representing in Parliament? The same with contributions to Johnson's wallpaper.
sir Geoff, quite frankly is taking the P The MP job looks like the pin money job.
You are now well and truly filed in the Pro-Peado box
Germany is at peak pandemic: most cases ever
Hungary near pandemic peak
Slovakia is at peak
Czechia near peak
Romania: morgues collapsing, curfew
Slovenia at peak
Cases surging in Serbia, Croatia, Belgium, Netherlands, the Baltics, Austria, Ireland
The vax is ameliorating much of the pain but not all of it
Will Randox keep paying him now?