We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
Very obvious that the PoW is an entirely honourable man led astray by wrong uns. His only failing was to be loyal to his toothpaste squeezer for far too long.
Indeed, oddly he was more loyal to his toothpaste squeezer than he was to his first wife, a trait he shares with the PM.
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
The activists are delusional but COP26 seems to have been a tremendous success.
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
That is not how it is being reported from Glasgow this morning
How it is being reported by whom?
Certain groups have an agenda to report and its only natural that people 'bank' the commitments that have been made then instantly move on to seeking more.
Ask yourself whether three years ago it would have seemed plausible or believable that the USA, China and India would all have signed up to Net Zero this century at COP26. You'd likely have been laughed at.
Sky and the BBC are reporting on the latest communication issued half an hour ago
Sky have wholeheartedly embraced a 'green' zealot agenda with their climate show etc and have publicly said they view it as their responsibility to not be neutral and instead to push the agenda along to get climate change dealt with. So they're not exactly neutral here. Nothing will ever be 'good enough' for them.
Again, would you have thought three years ago that at COP26 the USA, China and India would have all committed to Net Zero? Yes or not?
The commitment has been made but according to many it is not enough to reduce the emissions below 2.5%
We'll see.
Remember that we are already at 1.2 so only 1.3 more degrees from here at the worst case, it could have been a lot worse than that.
If it is kept to 1.5 then that's not even a third of a degree from here.
That does rather assume that all counties do actually follow through with action.
It also ignores the CO2 not allocated to individual countries, such as the military, international aviation, and I think commercial shipping.
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
<<Pretty inevitable though as the Tory party required all candidates to sign up to support the "Oven Ready Deal*" in order to stand in Dec 2019.>>
What's more uncanny is how many have been part of the hardcore of "Spartans", I think, rather than simply those who signed up to the deal. This includes all of Paterson, IDS, Fox, Whittingdale and Steve Baker, for instance.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
A majority is a majority. Clearly substantial numbers of Protestants must do in order to have a majority.
How would ripping up the protocol be respecting both communities?
Did you read the poll that I linked?
That's not clear and I can't see the data tables for that poll, they don't seem to be published on that link, so I tried to read it but couldn't.
Ripping up the protocol would be respecting the unionist community, just like not installing a hard border with the Republic is respecting the nationalist community.
There is detail in the link, and opinion in NI is shifting to more strongly favour the NIP.
"Figure 1. Opinion of Brexit and the Protocol Larger shifts can be seen regarding views more specifically on the Protocol. The proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree that the Protocol provides an appropriate means for managing the effects of Brexit for Northern Ireland has increased to 53% compared to 46% in June. A slightly larger increase can be seen in responses to whether the Protocol is on balance ‘a good thing’ for Northern Ireland. In the latest poll, 52% of respondents agree, whereas in June it was 43%. "
Incidentally 87% distrust the UK government on the issue, only 44% distrust the EU.
52% or 43% is no basis for ensuring peace in Northern Ireland as per the aims of the GFA, you need close to 100% for that.
In any case you can remove the NI Protocol and the Irish Sea border and still have no hard border in Ireland by using a technical solution at the Irish border as the UK government originally proposed
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
Very obvious that the PoW is an entirely honourable man led astray by wrong uns. His only failing was to be loyal to his toothpaste squeezer for far too long.
Indeed, oddly he was more loyal to his toothpaste squeezer than he was to his first wife, a trait he shares with the PM.
At least the PoW is loyal to his second wife.
Well who knows, when a man marries his mistress then all he is doing is creating a new vacancy.
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
Mr. Sandpit, it's clearly an outrage to ask the EU to do what they promised to do...
Were you this outraged when the UK Government passed legislation which specifically was set up to undo a legal commitment from the UK government to the EU?
If only some people had warned breaking international agreements would have negative consequences for the UK.
Frost and Johnson need to stand firm, and say that yes they have decided to invoke Article 16 unless an acceptable to the UK compromise is reached - and that due to the failure of the Protocol to date that includes scrapping the ECJs role.
In what sense is the protocol failing? The majority in Northern Ireland support it.
A very slender majority, so do a majority of both communities support it, or just one?
Peace in NI is supposed to be about respecting both communities or did you forget that?
Its failing because its lost the support of the Unionist community, plus its leading to trade diversion which of course is a trigger for Article 16.
I’m sure there were recently folk on here telling everyone winning a by-election by 1% was still a win.
Which is the case.
This isn't a by-election though.
A very slender majority in a poll isn’t a majority? Gotcha.
Mixed issues here. Of course a slender majority is a majority. In the politics of NI everything has to face both ways, so there needs to be a plurality of support from more than one group for anything to work.
And of course NI is a place where you can set fire to a bus because you are either for or against, or indeed indifferent towards, the same thing.
Yes, but it is clear that ripping up the protocol has only minority support in NI, so fails to meet the "plurality of support from more than one group" measure.
Martina Anderson summarises it well in this little clip with Frost:
It is quite possible that she will be the First Minister of NI come May.
Sadly in NI there are always more questions. For myself I quite like the NI deal because it gently leads towards a united island of Ireland which is the only sensible solution (either as part of a British Isles state or as a united single Ireland state).
As to ripping up the protocol, yes. But (especially with unionists) the question invariably which needs answering is not what you don't want but what you do. Unionists are perfectly capable of saying no to getting rid of something and saying no to having it.
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
Mr. Eagles, if you're referring to (I forgot what the actual 'thing' was) the 'limited' breach of law then, from fuzzy memory, I was against it on the basis that signing up to something and then immediately reneging upon it was not terribly clever.
And, if you were outraged by that, why are you not outraged by the EU signally failing to keep their promise? Loathing Boris Johnson is no excuse for giving the EU a free pass to renege upon commitments.
<<Pretty inevitable though as the Tory party required all candidates to sign up to support the "Oven Ready Deal*" in order to stand in Dec 2019.>>
What's more uncanny is how many have been part of the hardcore of "Spartans", I think, rather than simply those who signed up to the deal. This includes all of Paterson, IDS, Fox, Whittingdale and Steve Baker, for instance.
Yes it is almost as if Brexit was a way for them to enrich themselves and their friends.
Mr. Eagles, if you're referring to (I forgot what the actual 'thing' was) the 'limited' breach of law then, from fuzzy memory, I was against it on the basis that signing up to something and then immediately reneging upon it was not terribly clever.
And, if you were outraged by that, why are you not outraged by the EU signally failing to keep their promise? Loathing Boris Johnson is no excuse for giving the EU a free pass to renege upon commitments.
I'm outraged at both but the EU resiling was inevitable once the government announced the Internal Market Bill.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
I really missed a trick when I was done for speeding a few years back. I should have just judged it incorrect. What a mug!
Unfortunately for you (And me) the laws on speeding are strict liability…
@Dura_Ace has reportedly had some success in challenging them. (In several ways.)
The first rule is don't fucking admit it if you get pulled over.
"How fast do you think you were going?"
Just tell them you were going whatever the speed limit is. It's up to them to prove otherwise.
Always lawyer up and contest absolutely everything. Cops are as thick as fuck and often make mistakes.
My overall record is 50% win rate and I was guilty as fuck every time.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
I really missed a trick when I was done for speeding a few years back. I should have just judged it incorrect. What a mug!
Unfortunately for you (And me) the laws on speeding are strict liability…
@Dura_Ace has reportedly had some success in challenging them. (In several ways.)
The first rule is don't fucking admit it if you get pulled over.
"How fast do you think you were going?"
Just tell them you were going whatever the speed limit is. It's up to them to prove otherwise.
Always lawyer up and contest absolutely everything. Cops are as thick as fuck and often make mistakes.
My overall record is 50% win rate and I was guilty as fuck every time.
When you to do get pulled over an excuse of mine that generally worked was
'I had cruise control on at 58mph and the limit here is 60, your systems must be on the blink, when did you last calibrate it?' and they were like 'off you go.'
This sleaze finding is a lot of fun. Hundreds of pent up journalists have been let off the leash. Since racism sexism and homophobia have off the menu they've been trawling around looking for a raison d'etre and now they've found one........
......and horror of horrors it's an honorable one! Who'd have thought?
Mr. Sandpit, it's clearly an outrage to ask the EU to do what they promised to do...
Were you this outraged when the UK Government passed legislation which specifically was set up to undo a legal commitment from the UK government to the EU?
If only some people had warned breaking international agreements would have negative consequences for the UK.
Who was it that triggered Article 16 already, because of vaccine nationalism rather than anything to do with the actual Treaty?
Post of the day and the only one really needed on this thread. But we have to chat to pass the time so maybe some Art 16 punditry. Will we be triggering it or is it the usual blowhard posturing? I say the latter. I also hope it is because it helps absolutely nobody to throw Ireland under the bus, risk turbulence in NI, and kick off a trade war with the EU. I don't even think it would be a net vote winner for Johnson. People are wising up.
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
Very obvious that the PoW is an entirely honourable man led astray by wrong uns. His only failing was to be loyal to his toothpaste squeezer for far too long.
Indeed, oddly he was more loyal to his toothpaste squeezer than he was to his first wife, a trait he shares with the PM.
At least the PoW is loyal to his second wife.
The chat on the R4 court circular this morning was that it was his second wife that wanted Fawcett out. I get the impression she’s increasingly wearing the Anderson & Sheppard breeks.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
I really missed a trick when I was done for speeding a few years back. I should have just judged it incorrect. What a mug!
Unfortunately for you (And me) the laws on speeding are strict liability…
@Dura_Ace has reportedly had some success in challenging them. (In several ways.)
The first rule is don't fucking admit it if you get pulled over.
"How fast do you think you were going?"
Just tell them you were going whatever the speed limit is. It's up to them to prove otherwise.
Always lawyer up and contest absolutely everything. Cops are as thick as fuck and often make mistakes.
My overall record is 50% win rate and I was guilty as fuck every time.
Did you use the classic - "When was your speed gun last calibrated? When does the manufacturer say it should have been calibrated? Are you trained to use this speed gun? When were you trained?"
There was a solicitor who was so successful at using those 4 questions that he ended up being illegally harassed by the police. Because he was too successful at getting people off.
Actually calibrating the equipment and training people to use it was out of the question, apparently.
i see Sadiq Khan has struck again with his grim view of the world and no imagination or soul. His legacy will be forced wearing of facemasks and the stopping of a highly innovative and world landmark tulip tower. Great legacy that
That tower would have been a money losing eyesore.
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
Very obvious that the PoW is an entirely honourable man led astray by wrong uns. His only failing was to be loyal to his toothpaste squeezer for far too long.
Indeed, oddly he was more loyal to his toothpaste squeezer than he was to his first wife, a trait he shares with the PM.
At least the PoW is loyal to his second wife.
The chat on the R4 court circular this morning was that it was his second wife that wanted Fawcett out. I get the impression she’s increasingly wearing the Anderson & Sheppard breeks.
Oh she's doing a Meghan Markle is she? The papers will be all over her criticising her, am I right?
Post of the day and the only one really needed on this thread. But we have to chat to pass the time so maybe some Art 16 punditry. Will we be triggering it or is it the usual blowhard posturing? I say the latter. I also hope it is because it helps absolutely nobody to throw Ireland under the bus, risk turbulence in NI, and kick off a trade war with the EU. I don't even think it would be a net vote winner for Johnson. People are wising up.
Yes, I think just the usual hot air and sabre rattling.
I am not convinced that it gets the juices flowing on this island.
Mr. Sandpit, it's clearly an outrage to ask the EU to do what they promised to do...
Were you this outraged when the UK Government passed legislation which specifically was set up to undo a legal commitment from the UK government to the EU?
If only some people had warned breaking international agreements would have negative consequences for the UK.
Who was it that triggered Article 16 already, because of vaccine nationalism rather than anything to do with the actual Treaty?
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
I really missed a trick when I was done for speeding a few years back. I should have just judged it incorrect. What a mug!
Unfortunately for you (And me) the laws on speeding are strict liability…
@Dura_Ace has reportedly had some success in challenging them. (In several ways.)
The first rule is don't fucking admit it if you get pulled over.
"How fast do you think you were going?"
Just tell them you were going whatever the speed limit is. It's up to them to prove otherwise.
Always lawyer up and contest absolutely everything. Cops are as thick as fuck and often make mistakes.
My overall record is 50% win rate and I was guilty as fuck every time.
Did you use the classic - "When was your speed gun last calibrated? When does the manufacturer say it should have been calibrated? Are you trained to use this speed gun? When were you trained?"
Nope, I don't engage with them. It's their job to prove it, not mine to disprove it. I leave all that to my solicitor.
I always lodge a complaint for threatening behaviour just throw a bit more complication into the proceedings for them.
Morning all! Another day, another angle in the relentless "One rule for us, another for Boris" story. This time it is the civil servants bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate that traitorous bully Patel after she was found to have broken the Ministerial Code.
It is the ability of the man at the top to overturn and overrule the process that is under review. Why does this play you may be asking? Because he flew to COP26, said "we are not corrupt" and said "rule breakers will be punished".
Patel broke the rules and was not punished. We're likely to have that reinforced next Thursday. Johnson breaks the rules - repeatedly openly lying at the dispatch box. The entire Treasury Bench breaks the rules as pulled up by the Speaker. Then we have Johnson and the "money was only resting in the account" funding fandango over nut-nut's wallpaper.
Why on earth did he have to say "we are not corrupt" and "rule breakers will be punished" with all this hanging over him? When the finger once again points to Patel breaking the rules what will he do? When that highlights that he ignored the rules and corruptly protected her what will he do?
How can Ministerial appointments be a matter for judicial review?
That's ridiculous.
It would be ridiculous for there to be a judicial review into her appointment. But as that isn't under investigation you can rest easy.
bringing a judicial review of Boris's decision to exonerate ... Patel
What's actually being judicially reviewed here ?
From what I have read it appears to be literally that. Patel was found in breach, Johnson "judged" the findings were incorrect and ignored the code. Does the PM have the ability to overturn findings made by the code against senior ministers? remember that Number 10 has already declared that any investigation that finds Boris Johnson in breach of the code would also be overturned by the PM.
I really missed a trick when I was done for speeding a few years back. I should have just judged it incorrect. What a mug!
Unfortunately for you (And me) the laws on speeding are strict liability…
@Dura_Ace has reportedly had some success in challenging them. (In several ways.)
The first rule is don't fucking admit it if you get pulled over.
"How fast do you think you were going?"
Just tell them you were going whatever the speed limit is. It's up to them to prove otherwise.
Always lawyer up and contest absolutely everything. Cops are as thick as fuck and often make mistakes.
My overall record is 50% win rate and I was guilty as fuck every time.
Did you use the classic - "When was your speed gun last calibrated? When does the manufacturer say it should have been calibrated? Are you trained to use this speed gun? When were you trained?"
Nope, I don't engage with them. It's their job to prove it, not mine to disprove it. I leave all that to my solicitor.
I always lodge a complaint for threatening behaviour just throw a bit more complication into the proceedings for them.
I meant at the magistrates court stage. The solicitor in question would, essentially, turn up and ask those 4 questions for every case. Which would cause the charges to be dropped in the majority of the cases he handled.
Apparently a lot of forces still don't regularly service and test their speed guns.
Mr. Sandpit, it's clearly an outrage to ask the EU to do what they promised to do...
Were you this outraged when the UK Government passed legislation which specifically was set up to undo a legal commitment from the UK government to the EU?
If only some people had warned breaking international agreements would have negative consequences for the UK.
Who was it that triggered Article 16 already, because of vaccine nationalism rather than anything to do with the actual Treaty?
Bad faith begets bad faith.
Good faith could be demonstrated, by the implementation of the already agreed trusted trader scheme.
If the use of the offices wasn’t declared, how does Galloway (and Guido by the sounds of it) know that this happened?
As with Geoffrey Trough the proof is self-evident - photos published by the MPs.
The question is of course how much under the legal spend limit are they? And how much weight would the court place on conducting a phone bank from 1 location or another? Does "I am calling from the office of MP x" win the election in a way that "I am calling on behalf of x" wouldn't?
Can't see how Galloway gets the result overturned, and even if he did the by-election will be a thumping reinforcement of the overturned result as they always are. He's clearly having fun sticking it to his former party though!
If the use of the offices wasn’t declared, how does Galloway (and Guido by the sounds of it) know that this happened?
As with Geoffrey Trough the proof is self-evident - photos published by the MPs.
The question is of course how much under the legal spend limit are they? And how much weight would the court place on conducting a phone bank from 1 location or another? Does "I am calling from the office of MP x" win the election in a way that "I am calling on behalf of x" wouldn't?
Can't see how Galloway gets the result overturned, and even if he did the by-election will be a thumping reinforcement of the overturned result as they always are. He's clearly having fun sticking it to his former party though!
The complaint is that they were using public office for private use (as is the Labour Party's complaint about Cox).
If the use of the offices wasn’t declared, how does Galloway (and Guido by the sounds of it) know that this happened?
As with Geoffrey Trough the proof is self-evident - photos published by the MPs.
The question is of course how much under the legal spend limit are they? And how much weight would the court place on conducting a phone bank from 1 location or another? Does "I am calling from the office of MP x" win the election in a way that "I am calling on behalf of x" wouldn't?
Can't see how Galloway gets the result overturned, and even if he did the by-election will be a thumping reinforcement of the overturned result as they always are. He's clearly having fun sticking it to his former party though!
Using government premises (and possibly phone lines) for party political activity is definitely against the rules, as is failing to declare use of the offices in question as costs in kind on the return form.
Whether or not these are serious enough to overturn the result, well IANAL but it seems unlikely several months later.
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
The activists are delusional but COP26 seems to have been a tremendous success.
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
That is not how it is being reported from Glasgow this morning
How it is being reported by whom?
Certain groups have an agenda to report and its only natural that people 'bank' the commitments that have been made then instantly move on to seeking more.
Ask yourself whether three years ago it would have seemed plausible or believable that the USA, China and India would all have signed up to Net Zero this century at COP26. You'd likely have been laughed at.
Sky and the BBC are reporting on the latest communication issued half an hour ago
Sky have wholeheartedly embraced a 'green' zealot agenda with their climate show etc and have publicly said they view it as their responsibility to not be neutral and instead to push the agenda along to get climate change dealt with. So they're not exactly neutral here. Nothing will ever be 'good enough' for them.
Again, would you have thought three years ago that at COP26 the USA, China and India would have all committed to Net Zero? Yes or not?
The commitment has been made but according to many it is not enough to reduce the emissions below 2.5%
We'll see.
Remember that we are already at 1.2 so only 1.3 more degrees from here at the worst case, it could have been a lot worse than that.
If it is kept to 1.5 then that's not even a third of a degree from here.
That does rather assume that all counties do actually follow through with action.
It also ignores the CO2 not allocated to individual countries, such as the military, international aviation, and I think commercial shipping.
Well of course, yes, though that'd be true of any action promised during or in the build-up to COP.
But surely anyone who's honest would say that the USA promising to reach Net Zero by 2050, China by 2060 and India by 2070 is much better than they were expecting just three to four years ago when this COP was starting to be planned.
You could fit the current non sleazy Tory MPs in a phone box.
A Conservative MP who is paid £30,000 a year by lobbyists for the packaging industry asked ministers to limit laws to tackle plastic pollution.
Mark Pawsey, the MP for Rugby since 2010, used parliamentary questions to urge ministers not to introduce tougher laws on single-use plastics.
At the same time he was paid £2,500 a month to be chairman of the Foodservice Packaging Association (FPA), a lobbying group that represents some of the largest manufacturers of plastic packaging in the UK, according to City AM. Greenpeace described the revelations as “deeply concerning”.
In June last year, a few months after Pawsey took up his role at the FPA, he told MPs that he was upset that the government was banning single-use plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers and he welcomed a delay in introducing the law.
If the use of the offices wasn’t declared, how does Galloway (and Guido by the sounds of it) know that this happened?
I think they tweeted it pics of them doing it.
This is much worse than Cox's transgression.
Looks a simple enough case that Galloway should win
Does that mean they have to re run the by election?
Potentially if he wins the case.
However I'm at a loss as to what was actually gained from doing the calls inside the House Of Commons beyond MPs not having to walk to Labour HQ.
Yeah, as idiotically stupid as these MPs have been there is still a long way to go before we see the Gorgeous one back in the Commons: 1. Does the Labour return have enough headroom to add notional spend for these offices without going over the limit? If so they'll get a mild slap at most. 2. Does using an MP's office for a phone call sway the person on the end of the line more than a call from a different office would? An undeclared leaflet calling Galloway names (c.f. Phil Woolas) would have been more damaging and influential 3. If the court does decide to overturn the result how does Galloway persuade people that they voted wrong? Do we have any examples of these recall by-elections where the original result isn't just repeated with a bigger majority?
It is fun though. As I said, the takedown of Johnson will have some entertaining side casualties. I did enjoy the "eugh why doesn't Rashford concentrate on the day job" from an MP who wasn't concentrating on her day job - great fun.
Who would want to be an MP? Can we have a piece from Anonymous (definitely not @Tissue_Price obviously...) on what drove them to volunteer themselves for this piranha-tank scrutiny?
Mr. Eagles, nice excuse. But an excuse nonetheless.
The EU have a commitment and they're failing to keep it or even pretend to attempt it.
An explanation not an excuse. If I kick you in the shins then I'm expecting the same or worse.
Well to be fair then, the EU sequencing Northern Ireland before the trade talks, and prioritising the N/S border over the E/W one was in itself a kick in the shins.
Looks like COP26 is colliding between the activists demands and the world's leaders recognition about the selling of the costs and practicalities to their electorates and their ability to govern
COP26 is another kicking the can down the road but of course the entire failure for countries to agree is, according to some is the fault of Boris
Boris has been idiotic, and there are real questions about his own future, not least from his angry backbenchers but COP26 was set to disappoint some as there are far too many conflicting interests across the countries of the world to act in unison
The activists are delusional but COP26 seems to have been a tremendous success.
All major emitters have now pledged to get to Net Zero - when COP26 was first pencilled in I doubt many would have thought that was viable at the time.
Don't let the delusional activists who want us to be at zero by tomorrow move the Overton Window so far to make everything a failure. The whole world committing to get to Net Zero is an incredible moment in history.
That is not how it is being reported from Glasgow this morning
How it is being reported by whom?
Certain groups have an agenda to report and its only natural that people 'bank' the commitments that have been made then instantly move on to seeking more.
Ask yourself whether three years ago it would have seemed plausible or believable that the USA, China and India would all have signed up to Net Zero this century at COP26. You'd likely have been laughed at.
Sky and the BBC are reporting on the latest communication issued half an hour ago
Sky have wholeheartedly embraced a 'green' zealot agenda with their climate show etc and have publicly said they view it as their responsibility to not be neutral and instead to push the agenda along to get climate change dealt with. So they're not exactly neutral here. Nothing will ever be 'good enough' for them.
Again, would you have thought three years ago that at COP26 the USA, China and India would have all committed to Net Zero? Yes or not?
The commitment has been made but according to many it is not enough to reduce the emissions below 2.5%
We'll see.
Remember that we are already at 1.2 so only 1.3 more degrees from here at the worst case, it could have been a lot worse than that.
If it is kept to 1.5 then that's not even a third of a degree from here.
That does rather assume that all counties do actually follow through with action.
It also ignores the CO2 not allocated to individual countries, such as the military, international aviation, and I think commercial shipping.
What we need to do is kickoff a nationalistic competition between China, India and the US as to who can reduce CO2 more.
There are some indications that that is what is happening - especially between India and China (early stages).
If the use of the offices wasn’t declared, how does Galloway (and Guido by the sounds of it) know that this happened?
As with Geoffrey Trough the proof is self-evident - photos published by the MPs.
The question is of course how much under the legal spend limit are they? And how much weight would the court place on conducting a phone bank from 1 location or another? Does "I am calling from the office of MP x" win the election in a way that "I am calling on behalf of x" wouldn't?
Can't see how Galloway gets the result overturned, and even if he did the by-election will be a thumping reinforcement of the overturned result as they always are. He's clearly having fun sticking it to his former party though!
Using government premises (and possibly phone lines) for party political activity is definitely against the rules, as is failing to declare use of the offices in question as costs in kind on the return form.
Whether or not these are serious enough to overturn the result, well IANAL but it seems unlikely several months later.
I was looking specifically at the by-election. Looking at the screen grab I'm not clear that any of those MPs are in Portcullis House which was the Cox transgression. You absolutely can use your constituency office for party work - the party has to pay a notional amount for rent and it all needs to be declared.
So if they're in constituencies I don't think its the same offence. It isn't a "you cannot" like with Portcullis House. Just that you need to declare it. I assume they are getting money in from their CLPs (?) so not declaring it is bloody stupid.
If the use of the offices wasn’t declared, how does Galloway (and Guido by the sounds of it) know that this happened?
As with Geoffrey Trough the proof is self-evident - photos published by the MPs.
The question is of course how much under the legal spend limit are they? And how much weight would the court place on conducting a phone bank from 1 location or another? Does "I am calling from the office of MP x" win the election in a way that "I am calling on behalf of x" wouldn't?
Can't see how Galloway gets the result overturned, and even if he did the by-election will be a thumping reinforcement of the overturned result as they always are. He's clearly having fun sticking it to his former party though!
Using government premises (and possibly phone lines) for party political activity is definitely against the rules, as is failing to declare use of the offices in question as costs in kind on the return form.
Whether or not these are serious enough to overturn the result, well IANAL but it seems unlikely several months later.
I was looking specifically at the by-election. Looking at the screen grab I'm not clear that any of those MPs are in Portcullis House which was the Cox transgression. You absolutely can use your constituency office for party work - the party has to pay a notional amount for rent and it all needs to be declared.
So if they're in constituencies I don't think its the same offence. It isn't a "you cannot" like with Portcullis House. Just that you need to declare it. I assume they are getting money in from their CLPs (?) so not declaring it is bloody stupid.
Constituency offices are fine - for most MPs they’re primarily the party office anyway, and the rent arrangement is the other way around. Government-owned offices are the problem.
If the MPs constituency offices were used, and these are local party offices anyway, then I don’t see there’s any offence except in the mind of Mr Galloway. Maybe he’s assuming Parliamentary offices in Portcullis House, in which case the campaigners do have a case to answer.
BBC Scotland @BBCScotland · 21h Gas and air is the most popular pain relief in childbirth, but many don't realise its climate impact.
That this is remotely the mother to be's concern during labour... is a view.
A spoof surely. This is one to focus once once China and India have ceased all coal production and use, all air travel is at zero emissions and the completion of electricity from renewables worldwide.
I don't know if anyone has responded to @TimT on one of the previous threads re his question about the Markle case and whether drafting a letter to her father on the basis that it might be leaked undermines her privacy claim.
This area of the law is a very complicated one and not one I am expert in.
The better way to look at it is this, however. She got summary judgment ie the court ruled that her claim was unanswerable and there was no need even to hear any evidence. That is quite a high bar. The default assumption is that a claim should go to a full trial even if one party's chances are low.
If there is evidence that the factual basis on which the court made the judgment was wrong, then the Court of Appeal may overturn the summary judgment. It does not mean that she will lose at trial. It just means that the newspaper may have an arguable defence ie that there is the possibility that it might succeed and that it would be unjust to deny it that chance.
The fact that Meghan's counsel has had to admit that some of her evidence misled the court at the previous hearing does not help, of course. Courts take a very dim view of that. And if she has to give evidence it will potentially lay her open to some difficult cross-examination. The parties would be best advised to settle.
But the claim was about the letter not about the book. The fact that she may have co-operated with the authors of the book does not necessarily undermine a claim for privacy over a letter. It rather depends on the evidence about how and why she wrote it and the legal basis for the claim to privacy.
I don't know if anyone has responded to @TimT on one of the previous threads re his question about the Markle case and whether drafting a letter to her father on the basis that it might be leaked undermines her privacy claim.
This area of the law is a very complicated one and not one I am expert in.
The better way to look at it is this, however. She got summary judgment ie the court ruled that her claim was unanswerable and there was no need even to hear any evidence. That is quite a high bar. The default assumption is that a claim should go to a full trial even if one party's chances are low.
If there is evidence that the factual basis on which the court made the judgment was wrong, then the Court of Appeal may overturn the summary judgment. It does not mean that she will lose at trial. It just means that the newspaper may have an arguable defence ie that there is the possibility that it might succeed and that it would be unjust to deny it that chance.
The fact that Meghan's counsel has had to admit that some of her evidence misled the court at the previous hearing does not help, of course. Courts take a very dim view of that. And if she has to give evidence it will potentially lay her open to some difficult cross-examination. The parties would be best advised to settle.
But the claim was about the letter not about the book. The fact that she may have co-operated with the authors of the book does not necessarily undermine a claim for privacy over a letter. It rather depends on the evidence about how and why she wrote it and the legal basis for the claim to privacy.
In short - it's complicated.
It now appears that the reason she had to admit to misleading the court, was that a witness (her former communications secretary) came forward, with a chain of emails discussing what she said hadn’t been discussed.
If the use of the offices wasn’t declared, how does Galloway (and Guido by the sounds of it) know that this happened?
I think they tweeted it pics of them doing it.
This is much worse than Cox's transgression.
Looks a simple enough case that Galloway should win
Yah.
We get an interesting by election to bet on.
Although perhaps they might use the defence the MP for Don Valley has used and an old photograph.
They can use that if they're sure it's an old photo. Risky if it isn't though, perjury being a crime and all that.
They should have just used last year's "here I am in the constituency" photo like the honourable member for the Don Valley.
You do wonder where all this is going to end and all because of Boris's ill judged effort to save Paterson
This must be his biggest error in a litany of them and may well end his Premiership
Interesting article in Conhome referencing Rishi who for me is the obvious successor and cannot come soon enough
Not as much of an error as that of Paterson, Cox, IDS, Leadsome, Mogg and the rest of the old fart gang who didn't think about what stones would be overturned in sending Boris down this path.
I don't know if anyone has responded to @TimT on one of the previous threads re his question about the Markle case and whether drafting a letter to her father on the basis that it might be leaked undermines her privacy claim.
This area of the law is a very complicated one and not one I am expert in.
The better way to look at it is this, however. She got summary judgment ie the court ruled that her claim was unanswerable and there was no need even to hear any evidence. That is quite a high bar. The default assumption is that a claim should go to a full trial even if one party's chances are low.
If there is evidence that the factual basis on which the court made the judgment was wrong, then the Court of Appeal may overturn the summary judgment. It does not mean that she will lose at trial. It just means that the newspaper may have an arguable defence ie that there is the possibility that it might succeed and that it would be unjust to deny it that chance.
The fact that Meghan's counsel has had to admit that some of her evidence misled the court at the previous hearing does not help, of course. Courts take a very dim view of that. And if she has to give evidence it will potentially lay her open to some difficult cross-examination. The parties would be best advised to settle.
But the claim was about the letter not about the book. The fact that she may have co-operated with the authors of the book does not necessarily undermine a claim for privacy over a letter. It rather depends on the evidence about how and why she wrote it and the legal basis for the claim to privacy.
In short - it's complicated.
It now appears that the reason she had to admit to misleading the court, was that a witness (her former communications secretary) came forward, with a chain of emails discussing what she said hadn’t been discussed.
Not sure the judge would be too impressed by that.
The newspaper, of course, has no intention of settling for anything other than a large payment from Mrs Sussex, plus all their costs.
All we know is that has been reported in the media, and that means there might be some biases and inaccuracies.
If it as reported, then the interactions with the authors occurred on multiple occasions, on a routine bases. It's not something I'd expect her just to have 'forgotten', especially when asked in relation to a court case.
IMV she and her team have been very dishonest, and her apology is such as well.
Having said that, whilst it shoes her to be dishonest, as a non-lawyer I cannot see it having much bearing on the stories regarding the letters to her father. ANL deserved to lose on that.
If the use of the offices wasn’t declared, how does Galloway (and Guido by the sounds of it) know that this happened?
I think they tweeted it pics of them doing it.
This is much worse than Cox's transgression.
Looks a simple enough case that Galloway should win
Yah.
We get an interesting by election to bet on.
Although perhaps they might use the defence the MP for Don Valley has used and an old photograph.
They can use that if they're sure it's an old photo. Risky if it isn't though, perjury being a crime and all that.
They should have just used last year's "here I am in the constituency" photo like the honourable member for the Don Valley.
You do wonder where all this is going to end and all because of Boris's ill judged effort to save Paterson
This must be his biggest error in a litany of them and may well end his Premiership
Interesting article in Conhome referencing Rishi who for me is the obvious successor and cannot come soon enough
Not as much of an error as that of Paterson, Cox, IDS, Leadsome, Mogg and the rest of the old fart gang who didn't think about what stones would be overturned in sending Boris down this path.
Poor Boris, being sent down that path by the 'old fart gang'. Or perhaps he could have said 'no'? He is the PM, after all.
If the use of the offices wasn’t declared, how does Galloway (and Guido by the sounds of it) know that this happened?
As with Geoffrey Trough the proof is self-evident - photos published by the MPs.
The question is of course how much under the legal spend limit are they? And how much weight would the court place on conducting a phone bank from 1 location or another? Does "I am calling from the office of MP x" win the election in a way that "I am calling on behalf of x" wouldn't?
Can't see how Galloway gets the result overturned, and even if he did the by-election will be a thumping reinforcement of the overturned result as they always are. He's clearly having fun sticking it to his former party though!
Using government premises (and possibly phone lines) for party political activity is definitely against the rules, as is failing to declare use of the offices in question as costs in kind on the return form.
Whether or not these are serious enough to overturn the result, well IANAL but it seems unlikely several months later.
I was looking specifically at the by-election. Looking at the screen grab I'm not clear that any of those MPs are in Portcullis House which was the Cox transgression. You absolutely can use your constituency office for party work - the party has to pay a notional amount for rent and it all needs to be declared.
So if they're in constituencies I don't think its the same offence. It isn't a "you cannot" like with Portcullis House. Just that you need to declare it. I assume they are getting money in from their CLPs (?) so not declaring it is bloody stupid.
Constituency offices are fine - for most MPs they’re primarily the party office anyway, and the rent arrangement is the other way around. Government-owned offices are the problem.
If the MPs constituency offices were used, and these are local party offices anyway, then I don’t see there’s any offence except in the mind of Mr Galloway. Maybe he’s assuming Parliamentary offices in Portcullis House, in which case the campaigners do have a case to answer.
Not sure that's right. Constituency offices are not Party offices. I'd be surprised if same rules did not apply to them as to Portcullis House.
If the use of the offices wasn’t declared, how does Galloway (and Guido by the sounds of it) know that this happened?
I think they tweeted it pics of them doing it.
This is much worse than Cox's transgression.
Looks a simple enough case that Galloway should win
Yah.
We get an interesting by election to bet on.
Although perhaps they might use the defence the MP for Don Valley has used and an old photograph.
They can use that if they're sure it's an old photo. Risky if it isn't though, perjury being a crime and all that.
They should have just used last year's "here I am in the constituency" photo like the honourable member for the Don Valley.
You do wonder where all this is going to end and all because of Boris's ill judged effort to save Paterson
This must be his biggest error in a litany of them and may well end his Premiership
Interesting article in Conhome referencing Rishi who for me is the obvious successor and cannot come soon enough
Not as much of an error as that of Paterson, Cox, IDS, Leadsome, Mogg and the rest of the old fart gang who didn't think about what stones would be overturned in sending Boris down this path.
Poor Boris, being sent down that path by the 'old fart gang'. Or perhaps he could have said 'no'? He is the PM, after all.
He could have and he should have.
But that shouldn't stop others at fault for being criticized for their political stupidity.
I don't know if anyone has responded to @TimT on one of the previous threads re his question about the Markle case and whether drafting a letter to her father on the basis that it might be leaked undermines her privacy claim.
This area of the law is a very complicated one and not one I am expert in.
The better way to look at it is this, however. She got summary judgment ie the court ruled that her claim was unanswerable and there was no need even to hear any evidence. That is quite a high bar. The default assumption is that a claim should go to a full trial even if one party's chances are low.
If there is evidence that the factual basis on which the court made the judgment was wrong, then the Court of Appeal may overturn the summary judgment. It does not mean that she will lose at trial. It just means that the newspaper may have an arguable defence ie that there is the possibility that it might succeed and that it would be unjust to deny it that chance.
The fact that Meghan's counsel has had to admit that some of her evidence misled the court at the previous hearing does not help, of course. Courts take a very dim view of that. And if she has to give evidence it will potentially lay her open to some difficult cross-examination. The parties would be best advised to settle.
But the claim was about the letter not about the book. The fact that she may have co-operated with the authors of the book does not necessarily undermine a claim for privacy over a letter. It rather depends on the evidence about how and why she wrote it and the legal basis for the claim to privacy.
If the use of the offices wasn’t declared, how does Galloway (and Guido by the sounds of it) know that this happened?
I think they tweeted it pics of them doing it.
This is much worse than Cox's transgression.
Looks a simple enough case that Galloway should win
Yah.
We get an interesting by election to bet on.
Although perhaps they might use the defence the MP for Don Valley has used and an old photograph.
They can use that if they're sure it's an old photo. Risky if it isn't though, perjury being a crime and all that.
They should have just used last year's "here I am in the constituency" photo like the honourable member for the Don Valley.
You do wonder where all this is going to end and all because of Boris's ill judged effort to save Paterson
This must be his biggest error in a litany of them and may well end his Premiership
Interesting article in Conhome referencing Rishi who for me is the obvious successor and cannot come soon enough
“ cannot come soon enough “ isn’t there danger doing it too soon? The sheen come off, the time for change is get rid of Rishi. Maybe cannot come soon enough is bad timing for maximum effect?
We can vote out sleazy and corrupt governments and MPs but how do we get the rid of the sleazy largest benefit scroungers in the country who are our unelected rulers?
The Prince of Wales’s right-hand man and the head of his charity has resigned amid a “cash for honours” inquiry.
Michael Fawcett stood down as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation after questions were raised in the autumn about the awarding of a CBE to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire, in 2016.
It was alleged that Mahfouz had sent thousands of pounds to fixers with links to the Prince of Wales on assurances that he could receive the honour. Mahfouz denies wrongdoing. Fawcett, who had been accused of offering to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship, was said to be “heartbroken and shattered”.
Comments
Fawcett clearly made a mistake and has done the honourable thing
It also ignores the CO2 not allocated to individual countries, such as the military, international aviation, and I think commercial shipping.
What's more uncanny is how many have been part of the hardcore of "Spartans", I think, rather than simply those who signed up to the deal. This includes all of Paterson, IDS, Fox, Whittingdale and Steve Baker, for instance.
In any case you can remove the NI Protocol and the Irish Sea border and still have no hard border in Ireland by using a technical solution at the Irish border as the UK government originally proposed
If only some people had warned breaking international agreements would have negative consequences for the UK.
As to ripping up the protocol, yes. But (especially with unionists) the question invariably which needs answering is not what you don't want but what you do. Unionists are perfectly capable of saying no to getting rid of something and saying no to having it.
And, if you were outraged by that, why are you not outraged by the EU signally failing to keep their promise? Loathing Boris Johnson is no excuse for giving the EU a free pass to renege upon commitments.
"How fast do you think you were going?"
Just tell them you were going whatever the speed limit is. It's up to them to prove otherwise.
Always lawyer up and contest absolutely everything. Cops are as thick as fuck and often make mistakes.
My overall record is 50% win rate and I was guilty as fuck every time.
'I had cruise control on at 58mph and the limit here is 60, your systems must be on the blink, when did you last calibrate it?' and they were like 'off you go.'
......and horror of horrors it's an honorable one! Who'd have thought?
The EU have a commitment and they're failing to keep it or even pretend to attempt it.
If the use of the offices wasn’t declared, how does Galloway (and Guido by the sounds of it) know that this happened?
There was a solicitor who was so successful at using those 4 questions that he ended up being illegally harassed by the police. Because he was too successful at getting people off.
Actually calibrating the equipment and training people to use it was out of the question, apparently.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/11/geoffrey-cox-mp-to-do-more-paid-work-this-month-for-british-virgin-islands
This is much worse than Cox's transgression.
I am not convinced that it gets the juices flowing on this island.
It was never fine and legit.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=yELHemcQn10
I always lodge a complaint for threatening behaviour just throw a bit more complication into the proceedings for them.
Apparently a lot of forces still don't regularly service and test their speed guns.
https://tinyurl.com/cwmzwyww
We get an interesting by election to bet on.
Although perhaps they might use the defence the MP for Don Valley has used and an old photograph.
"Beautiful to see the nation come together on #RemembranceDay2021 - you can see the drop in demand for electricity here"
https://mobile.twitter.com/NationalGridESO/status/1458794786450780167
The question is of course how much under the legal spend limit are they? And how much weight would the court place on conducting a phone bank from 1 location or another? Does "I am calling from the office of MP x" win the election in a way that "I am calling on behalf of x" wouldn't?
Can't see how Galloway gets the result overturned, and even if he did the by-election will be a thumping reinforcement of the overturned result as they always are. He's clearly having fun sticking it to his former party though!
However I'm at a loss as to what was actually gained from doing the calls inside the House Of Commons beyond MPs not having to walk to Labour HQ.
Whether or not these are serious enough to overturn the result, well IANAL but it seems unlikely several months later.
But surely anyone who's honest would say that the USA promising to reach Net Zero by 2050, China by 2060 and India by 2070 is much better than they were expecting just three to four years ago when this COP was starting to be planned.
1. Does the Labour return have enough headroom to add notional spend for these offices without going over the limit? If so they'll get a mild slap at most.
2. Does using an MP's office for a phone call sway the person on the end of the line more than a call from a different office would? An undeclared leaflet calling Galloway names (c.f. Phil Woolas) would have been more damaging and influential
3. If the court does decide to overturn the result how does Galloway persuade people that they voted wrong? Do we have any examples of these recall by-elections where the original result isn't just repeated with a bigger majority?
It is fun though. As I said, the takedown of Johnson will have some entertaining side casualties. I did enjoy the "eugh why doesn't Rashford concentrate on the day job" from an MP who wasn't concentrating on her day job - great fun.
Who would want to be an MP? Can we have a piece from Anonymous (definitely not @Tissue_Price obviously...) on what drove them to volunteer themselves for this piranha-tank scrutiny?
Home Office have spent £10,000 on Dominos Pizza for the illegal immigrants arriving at Dover over the last few days.
https://twitter.com/Steve_Laws_/status/1459082391721582594
So everything since is surely easily explained.
There are some indications that that is what is happening - especially between India and China (early stages).
So if they're in constituencies I don't think its the same offence. It isn't a "you cannot" like with Portcullis House. Just that you need to declare it. I assume they are getting money in from their CLPs (?) so not declaring it is bloody stupid.
BBC Scotland
@BBCScotland
·
21h
Gas and air is the most popular pain relief in childbirth, but many don't realise its climate impact.
That this is remotely the mother to be's concern during labour... is a view.
This must be his biggest error in a litany of them and may well end his Premiership
Interesting article in Conhome referencing Rishi who for me is the obvious successor and cannot come soon enough
More climate change is caused by using a chef's blowtorch gadget to make crème brûlée
If the MPs constituency offices were used, and these are local party offices anyway, then I don’t see there’s any offence except in the mind of Mr Galloway. Maybe he’s assuming Parliamentary offices in Portcullis House, in which case the campaigners do have a case to answer.
This area of the law is a very complicated one and not one I am expert in.
The better way to look at it is this, however. She got summary judgment ie the court ruled that her claim was unanswerable and there was no need even to hear any evidence. That is quite a high bar. The default assumption is that a claim should go to a full trial even if one party's chances are low.
If there is evidence that the factual basis on which the court made the judgment was wrong, then the Court of Appeal may overturn the summary judgment. It does not mean that she will lose at trial. It just means that the newspaper may have an arguable defence ie that there is the possibility that it might succeed and that it would be unjust to deny it that chance.
The fact that Meghan's counsel has had to admit that some of her evidence misled the court at the previous hearing does not help, of course. Courts take a very dim view of that. And if she has to give evidence it will potentially lay her open to some difficult cross-examination. The parties would be best advised to settle.
But the claim was about the letter not about the book. The fact that she may have co-operated with the authors of the book does not necessarily undermine a claim for privacy over a letter. It rather depends on the evidence about how and why she wrote it and the legal basis for the claim to privacy.
In short - it's complicated.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/11/11/duchess-sussex-aide-came-forward-privacy-case-regretting-not/
Not sure the judge would be too impressed by that.
The newspaper, of course, has no intention of settling for anything other than a large payment from Mrs Sussex, plus all their costs.
If it as reported, then the interactions with the authors occurred on multiple occasions, on a routine bases. It's not something I'd expect her just to have 'forgotten', especially when asked in relation to a court case.
IMV she and her team have been very dishonest, and her apology is such as well.
Having said that, whilst it shoes her to be dishonest, as a non-lawyer I cannot see it having much bearing on the stories regarding the letters to her father. ANL deserved to lose on that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59238413
But that shouldn't stop others at fault for being criticized for their political stupidity.
(Morning all)
Maybe cannot come soon enough is bad timing for maximum effect?