Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Geoffrey Cox won’t resign, and Boris Johnson won’t make him – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • Leon said:

    Come on Ireland!

    They're so much more enjoyable to watch than England most of the time.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,681
    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't see why Cox should resign.

    His earnings have all come from the Bar, so that is just keeping his hand in his previous profession as a QC not lobbying. His constituents have consistently re elected him on that basis

    I love this. Really love it. The more you take this kind of line the more I know Labour will win the next election.

    You don't have a clue how angry people are about this ...
    If a few people motivated by envy don't want top non political professionals in politics then banning people from continuing to practice their profession after being elected would be a way to do so.

    If QCs, partners in city firms, surgeons etc can earn multiple times an MPs salary, almost none of them would bother standing for parliament if they were banned from still practicing and earning from their former career after election. Certainly Sir Keir is quite happy to still do paid legal work
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7484061/Keir-Starmer-pockets-6-000-15-hours-legal-work-MPs-salary.html

    Would be a far better place without many of the donkeys we are lumbered with. Might actually get some people interested in doing the job.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited November 2021
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Taz said:
    This is reminding me a bit of the old rule in Cricket around extension of the arm, and that once they looked at it scientifically it appeared virtually all bowlers were technically in breach, so they made the rules more flexible. It feels like a lot of MPs are going to be caught out, particularly with Zoom calls, and I wonder if there will be a push for zero tolerance adherence, or an attempt to distinguish a bit around the non-parliamentary work in question - eg political lobbying or significant external exployment.

    I do like that Blunt is a little off message by saying he'll accept the findings of any investigation, but basically it never even occurred to him and there's a feeding frenzy.
    I posted about Leyla Moran earlier, but was assured that because the money involved was less it was not an issue

    Amazing Lib Dems cannot see that if it is prohibited it is prohibited, and she has broken the rule with no doubt many others
    Interesting that you mentioned Moran, but not Blunt or Khan.
    When I posted about Moran I did not know about the other two
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    HYUFD said:

    I don't see why Cox should resign.

    His earnings have all come from the Bar, so that is just keeping his hand in his previous profession as a QC not lobbying. His constituents have consistently re elected him on that basis

    At least the Tories are being consistent in offering the good people of Shropshire a Birmingham lawyer to vote for……
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,681

    kle4 said:

    Taz said:
    This is reminding me a bit of the old rule in Cricket around extension of the arm, and that once they looked at it scientifically it appeared virtually all bowlers were technically in breach, so they made the rules more flexible. It feels like a lot of MPs are going to be caught out, particularly with Zoom calls, and I wonder if there will be a push for zero tolerance adherence, or an attempt to distinguish a bit around the non-parliamentary work in question - eg political lobbying or significant external exployment.

    I do like that Blunt is a little off message by saying he'll accept the findings of any investigation, but basically it never even occurred to him and there's a feeding frenzy.
    I posted about Leyla Moran earlier, but was assured that because the money involved was less it was not an issue

    Amazing Lib Dems cannot see that if it is prohibited it is prohibited, and she has broken the rule with no doubt many others
    I suppose when she saw so many across the House doing far more, and there was issue about a Zoom site (IIRC) she got enthusiastic and went for it.
    You do the crime you should do the time, you cannot be a bit pregnant.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,681
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Taz said:
    This is reminding me a bit of the old rule in Cricket around extension of the arm, and that once they looked at it scientifically it appeared virtually all bowlers were technically in breach, so they made the rules more flexible. It feels like a lot of MPs are going to be caught out, particularly with Zoom calls, and I wonder if there will be a push for zero tolerance adherence, or an attempt to distinguish a bit around the non-parliamentary work in question - eg political lobbying or significant external exployment.

    I do like that Blunt is a little off message by saying he'll accept the findings of any investigation, but basically it never even occurred to him and there's a feeding frenzy.
    I posted about Leyla Moran earlier, but was assured that because the money involved was less it was not an issue

    Amazing Lib Dems cannot see that if it is prohibited it is prohibited, and she has broken the rule with no doubt many others
    Interesting that you mentioned Moran, but not Blunt or Khan.
    When I posted about Morgan I did not know about the other two
    So you didn't even read the article you linked to
    Typical Tory stuff, try to deflect from their wrong uns and put their foot in their mouths.
  • kle4 said:

    Some recreational ideas for PBers.

    https://twitter.com/soapachu/status/1459543831754461189?s=20

    I think it's the white sports socks that really disgust me.

    I'm wearing those exact type right now. The rest of my get up is slightly different.
    As with most perversions, perfectly fine in the privacy of your own home.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Prediction: it'll be a nothing burger, Boris on 20-65 approval or something like that
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,856

    kinabalu said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    The obituaries for Johnson seem a little premature to me. Have we forgotten that governments tend to be behind in the polls in midterm? It won't necessarily be easy for them to find someone as amenable to the electorate.

    That said Boris is an instant gratification prime minister who's unlikely to be able to afford a giveaway come 2024. And he doesn't command much sense of loyalty from the troops.

    I still expect him to lead into the GE, however I no longer think he's a massive fav to be PM after it. Therefore I've cashed out my long BJ/Con positions and I'm starting again. I price it now (on PM post GE) as Johnson 50% Starmer 30% Other 20%.

    As for that 'Other', I'm picking up in Toryland the pushing of a new cult of personality around the CoE. Just as Johnson is brand "Boris" - and people know my feelings about this - so Sunak seems to be becoming "Rishi" to lots of people who know him only through the tv. An unwelcome development.
    Overegged?

    I think he's been Rishi in the papers since I noticed him.
    Yes the papers are in on it. They're lining up someone to get behind to stop the dreaded slightly left of centre Labour prevailing in the event of Johnson coming a cropper.
    This is how you come across banging on about Boris, Ed, Dave, Rishi, Nicola etc getting referred to by their names:
    image
    It's not 1st names per se that I bridle at, it's when I detect the pushing and the swallowing of a brand. Wouldn't expect everyone to get the point but I'm slightly disappointed at how few seem to.
    Some branding, calling people by *mock horror* their name!!!

    I'd have thought you'd be more concerned if you were worried about 'branding' with Sunak's sleek social media operations with his signature attached to his policies. That's not even attempting to hide the branding.

    But keep banging on about names if you like.
    Once again, it's not about names, it's about where we're getting a brand, or to put it another way, a persona in lieu of a person.

    Eg, Cameron, Blair, Brown in the world of internet punditry often got called Dave, Gordon, Tony but there was no Dave or Gordon or Tony brand to speak of. Maybe a touch of it with the latter but not really. Certainly nothing to touch the BB juggernaut.

    And you're dead right about Sunak. Well spotted there. He is hell bent on a brand. He's seen "Boris" win the sort of landslide that "Johnson" - or even "Boris Johnson" - wouldn't have been able to and he's taken notes. He wants to be a consumer product and he wants that product to be called Rishi.

    Whatever, I won't be buying it. Not because I dislike Rishi Sunak, I don't, but because I wish to retain some detachment, assess him objectively as a politician.
    Dave, Gordon, Tony all had brands in that sense. Quite strong ones.
    Not in the sense of a separate and powerful first name persona which people en masse got attracted to and as a consequence cut far more slack to than is usual for a politician. The BB is in a league of its own on this score. Starting to crumble now, thank god, but boy it's been something to see.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    Farooq said:

    Prediction: it'll be a nothing burger, Boris on 20-65 approval or something like that
    Whatever it turns out to be the whole Paterson issue has moved the fences. I'm not sure quite who did what and when, but Paterson will be an unfortunate persona-non-grata for ever. I think he deserved his initial fate (having read the documents). I think Paterson will have damned Boris to the footnotes too. He may well come back from this, but he's never going to be the great PM he wanted to be.
  • Been a lot of takes on this photo but this is the best.


  • Farooq said:

    Taz said:
    But you won't see it reported on the leftie, biased BBC
    Will anyone see the use of a parliamentary office for private work to be much of a problem? Everyone must do it, on a small scale, you take a phone call wherever you happen to be.

    And MPs must often do parliamentary work in whichever of their residencies they don't claim for. So quid pro quo.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    Heathener said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't see why Cox should resign.

    His earnings have all come from the Bar, so that is just keeping his hand in his previous profession as a QC not lobbying. His constituents have consistently re elected him on that basis

    I love this. Really love it. The more you take this kind of line the more I know Labour will win the next election.

    You don't have a clue how angry people are about this ...
    Surely not as angry as they were about the lockdowns in October? 😉
  • We're going to see more MPs fall foul of stupidly using Portcullis House for naughty meetings. I'm not sure that some posters understand why Cox is different to Moran, Blunt etc etc.

    It isn't that he was using his office for a private meeting. Its that he wasn't doing his job as an MP. Whilst being paid £stupid to spend long periods on a paradise island defending a foreign government against a corruption investigation brought by his own government that he was the most senior law officer of until very recently.

    The politics of envy has always been strong in this country. And this is a cracking example of other people being significantly richer than yow and becoming so by troughing off yow's back.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    That loud bang you heard was TSE spontaneously combusting. Lewis Hamilton has been disqualified from qualifying.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016
    edited November 2021

    They've handed Verstappen the title.

    The stewards are Tw@s

    Because? He inserted his hand all the way up Hamilton's slot and the stewards took a dim view and fined him for it. What did you want them to do instead?

    EDIT - ah! Hamilton's slot despite being violated by Verstappen's hand was not wide enough.
  • Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.
  • They've handed Verstappen the title.

    The stewards are Tw@s

    Because? He inserted his hand all the way up Hamilton's slot and the stewards took a dim view and fined him for it. What did you want them to do instead?
    Disqualify him.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    They've handed Verstappen the title.

    The stewards are Tw@s

    Because? He inserted his hand all the way up Hamilton's slot and the stewards took a dim view and fined him for it. What did you want them to do instead?
    He wanted him disqualified as well, because unless Verstappen has a DNF Hamilton pretty much can't win the title now.

    But the stewards took the view it was a technical infringement, while Mercedes were blatantly cheating.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,089

    Dr Raghib Ali MD(Epi) MPH MSc(Epi) MA DLSHTM FRCP
    @drraghibali
    ·
    4h
    As those us who supported step 4 in July said at the time, an 'exit wave' was inevitable and it was better to have it before the Winter.
    That higher level of immunity we gained is now preventing the surges we are seeing in many European countries.

    ===

    Fingers crossed...

    Professor Ferguson is also in the optimistic camp on this (as am I, for what little that's worth.) We've had a successful vaccination campaign, with extraordinarily high take-up amongst the most vulnerable; 14% of the entire population has been confirmed Covid positive by test, likely with several multiples of that having been infected but undetected due to widespread prevalence of asymptomatic and mild infections; society has now been operating with very few restrictions for four months; and the disease has been allowed to rip almost unchecked through the bulk of schools (i.e. those in England) since September, saturating the principal remaining carrier demographic in virus.

    Re-infection rates are very low, and the total size of the UK population (and, thus, the remaining pool of individuals susceptible to severe infection) is finite. The wretched disease is a formidable opponent but it's not the product of sorcery: we must, by now, have blunted its ability to cause more mass carnage.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Last Opinium was Con 37% Lab 36% so I'm guessing something like Con 33% Lab 40%. Probably.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    Hope Ireland hold on here.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Omnium said:

    Farooq said:

    Prediction: it'll be a nothing burger, Boris on 20-65 approval or something like that
    Whatever it turns out to be the whole Paterson issue has moved the fences. I'm not sure quite who did what and when, but Paterson will be an unfortunate persona-non-grata for ever. I think he deserved his initial fate (having read the documents). I think Paterson will have damned Boris to the footnotes too. He may well come back from this, but he's never going to be the great PM he wanted to be.
    I agree with most of that, but not the implication that Paterson is somehow the one who's damned Boris. That would be Boris. He has been the author of his own disgrace several times and this is once again his fault. Oh sure, he's been badly advised but at some point you need to recognise bad advice or at the very least the type of people likely to give it.
  • Been a lot of takes on this photo but this is the best.


    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Interestingly, having been neck and neck until Hamilton's disqualification, the voodoo poll HYS on the BBC is now breaking to 'wrong decision' to fine Verstappen - suggesting a sudden 75-25 split in people who wanted him disqualified.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    Well done United Ireland, great win.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    I am late to this and I apologise if this has already been done to death down thread but this story in my view shows how stupid things have got: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59275207

    Layla Moran and Crispin Blunt are being condemned because they used their office to conduct a virtual conference call for which they got fees. I mean, this is completely nuts. Who the hell cares where they were? We are all working remotely now. This isn't using the rooms and facilities of Portcullis House. Its a call. They may as well have been in the Caribbean sharing a villa with Geoffrey for all the difference that it made.

    We really need to get a grip before the last sane MP quits in disgust (I appreciate that there is an assumption in that statement which may or may not be warranted).
  • kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    Disqualified from qualifying.

    It's a bit complicated because of the sprint race thing.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,856
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    The obituaries for Johnson seem a little premature to me. Have we forgotten that governments tend to be behind in the polls in midterm? It won't necessarily be easy for them to find someone as amenable to the electorate.

    That said Boris is an instant gratification prime minister who's unlikely to be able to afford a giveaway come 2024. And he doesn't command much sense of loyalty from the troops.

    I still expect him to lead into the GE, however I no longer think he's a massive fav to be PM after it. Therefore I've cashed out my long BJ/Con positions and I'm starting again. I price it now (on PM post GE) as Johnson 50% Starmer 30% Other 20%.

    As for that 'Other', I'm picking up in Toryland the pushing of a new cult of personality around the CoE. Just as Johnson is brand "Boris" - and people know my feelings about this - so Sunak seems to be becoming "Rishi" to lots of people who know him only through the tv. An unwelcome development.
    Overegged?

    I think he's been Rishi in the papers since I noticed him.
    Yes the papers are in on it. They're lining up someone to get behind to stop the dreaded slightly left of centre Labour prevailing in the event of Johnson coming a cropper.
    This is how you come across banging on about Boris, Ed, Dave, Rishi, Nicola etc getting referred to by their names:
    image
    It's not 1st names per se that I bridle at, it's when I detect the pushing and the swallowing of a brand. Wouldn't expect everyone to get the point but I'm slightly disappointed at how few seem to.
    I'm disappointed you persist in pretending those that disagree with you about the effectiveness of such a brand are just being stupid and not 'getting' your point. We get it, we just don't put as much onto it as you appear to.
    First time I've mentioned it in ages.

    You bridle at it because, I think, you're thinking that I think you've succumbed to the Boris brand yourself, given you're an habitual user of the "Boris" handle. I can reassure you on this. I don't think that. Indeed I think the opposite - that you haven't. You don't use "Boris" in a manner that indicates to me you've succumbed.

    Always calling him "Boris" is a necessary but not sufficient piece of evidence of having succumbed. The extra evidence required lies in the tone in which "Boris" is said and discussed. Does the speaker seem to be talking about a bloke they know well and are rather fond of? Could one insert the missing words "good old" before the "Boris" without compromising the sentiment being expressed by them?

    If the answer here is 'yes' one knows one is in the presence of one who has succumbed.
    I didn't say you had mentioned it much in ages, I cannot remember the last time you did. The reason I bridle is I think it is fundamentally patronising, eg your 'disappointed how few seem [to get it]' line. I know you don't mean to be, and you're right branding is important for a politician and Boris's is powerful, but I think you present a picture where we should presume use of the name indicates someone has 'succumbed', when as you've just noted more than that is needed. I just spent a weekend in a Corbynite household which unprompted literally wished death on 'Boris' more than once - even if that is not the norm, I just find it hard to accept the brand of the name cannot equally be a hindrance to him.
    Fair enough. And yes I have just clarified and explained how it's the "Boris" babble PLUS the tone of the babble that's key. So we agree on this now. We're sorted.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    Farooq said:

    Omnium said:

    Farooq said:

    Prediction: it'll be a nothing burger, Boris on 20-65 approval or something like that
    Whatever it turns out to be the whole Paterson issue has moved the fences. I'm not sure quite who did what and when, but Paterson will be an unfortunate persona-non-grata for ever. I think he deserved his initial fate (having read the documents). I think Paterson will have damned Boris to the footnotes too. He may well come back from this, but he's never going to be the great PM he wanted to be.
    I agree with most of that, but not the implication that Paterson is somehow the one who's damned Boris. That would be Boris. He has been the author of his own disgrace several times and this is once again his fault. Oh sure, he's been badly advised but at some point you need to recognise bad advice or at the very least the type of people likely to give it.
    Of course you're right in that it's the Paterson issue rather than Paterson himself.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


  • They've handed Verstappen the title.

    The stewards are Tw@s

    Because? He inserted his hand all the way up Hamilton's slot and the stewards took a dim view and fined him for it. What did you want them to do instead?
    Disqualify him.
    Look. Touching a gentleman's rear wing is Not Allowed. So he got a big fine. But he touched Hamilton's wing area because he noticed it had been tampered with, which is cheating. So the wing has been impounded and the time set expunged.

    Anyway, Serlewis is a bloody genius at scything his way through a field - and as its a Sprint race weekend he gets to do that before the grid is formed. Had Mercedes cheated last week or next week this would have been much more serious.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited November 2021
    kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

    Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

    But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

    Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    All very Rush this Grand Prix stuff - that movie had an incident where Lauda dobbed in Hunt for a wing or other element was a few tenths of an inch too small. I'm surprised Verstappen was able to notice.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724

    kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    Disqualified from qualifying.

    It's a bit complicated because of the sprint race thing.
    So starts from the back of the grid?
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Taz said:
    This is reminding me a bit of the old rule in Cricket around extension of the arm, and that once they looked at it scientifically it appeared virtually all bowlers were technically in breach, so they made the rules more flexible. It feels like a lot of MPs are going to be caught out, particularly with Zoom calls, and I wonder if there will be a push for zero tolerance adherence, or an attempt to distinguish a bit around the non-parliamentary work in question - eg political lobbying or significant external exployment.

    I do like that Blunt is a little off message by saying he'll accept the findings of any investigation, but basically it never even occurred to him and there's a feeding frenzy.
    I posted about Leyla Moran earlier, but was assured that because the money involved was less it was not an issue

    Amazing Lib Dems cannot see that if it is prohibited it is prohibited, and she has broken the rule with no doubt many others
    Interesting that you mentioned Moran, but not Blunt or Khan.
    When I posted about Morgan I did not know about the other two
    So you didn't even read the article you linked to
    You really are out of order.

    My original post was about Moran before this article, and was making the point that Lib Dems were trying to make out it was minor

    Of course I read the article but that was not my point
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2021

    kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    Disqualified from qualifying.

    It's a bit complicated because of the sprint race thing.
    What does disqualified from qualifying mean? Is he disqualified from the race now, because he can't qualify for it?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    They've handed Verstappen the title.

    The stewards are Tw@s

    Because? He inserted his hand all the way up Hamilton's slot and the stewards took a dim view and fined him for it. What did you want them to do instead?
    Disqualify him.
    Look. Touching a gentleman's rear wing is Not Allowed. So he got a big fine. But he touched Hamilton's wing area because he noticed it had been tampered with, which is cheating. So the wing has been impounded and the time set expunged.

    Anyway, Serlewis is a bloody genius at scything his way through a field - and as its a Sprint race weekend he gets to do that before the grid is formed. Had Mercedes cheated last week or next week this would have been much more serious.
    Arguably as well it would have been potentially far more damaging if they *hadn't* disqualified him. Suppose he hadn't been, had gone from pole, Red Bull had successfully appealed later and he was disqualified from the actual races? Then he would have been in real trouble.

    Here, he can at least make it back up.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited November 2021
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

    Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

    But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

    Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
    Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    Disqualified from qualifying.

    It's a bit complicated because of the sprint race thing.
    What does disqualified from qualifying mean? If he disqualified from the race now, because he can't qualify for it?
    He can start the race but form the back of the grid only.
  • kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    Disqualified from qualifying.

    It's a bit complicated because of the sprint race thing.
    What does disqualified from qualifying mean? If he disqualified from the race now, because he can't qualify for it?
    IIRC he has to appeal to the stewards to give him special dispensation to compete, in the past it has been granted, not sure what happens in sprint race weekends.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    edited November 2021

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Jeez, this is depressing

    So many countries I love are fucked. L

    Are you suggesting a connection? That's putting a lot on yourself.
    About a decade ago there was a span of a few years in a row where after my girlfriend/fiancée/wife and I visited a foreign country, the next year there'd be a coup or other major outbreak of violence.

    It became a creepy coincidence after a while, then suddenly stopped happening.
    I managed a double header as a kid in 1974.
    Flew out of Lisbon in April the day before the Carnation Revolution overthrew Salazar.
    Left Cyprus in July the week the Turks invaded.
    Spent a lovely day on the beach in Kyrenia making friends with a local Greek Cypriot kid. The very place the Turks landed.
    Were among the last tourists to stay in Famagusta which was bombed, taken after a 2 day battle, and eventually walled off.
    I remember the coup which precipitated it. So must have been less than a week.
  • Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    Eugh. Do the sodding Picard manuever man. You look like one of the chimps off the PG Tips advert with your jacket all wrutched up like that.
  • Lewis Hamilton will start tonight's sprint qualifying race from the back of the grid.

    Remember, the seven-time world champion also has that five-place grid penalty for Sunday's race.
  • Chris Christie wants to be very clear about something: The election of 2020 was not stolen.

    “An election for president was held on November 3, 2020. Joe Biden won. Donald Trump did not,” Mr. Christie writes in his new book, “Republican Rescue: Saving the Party From Truth Deniers, Conspiracy Theorists, and the Dangerous Policies of Joe Biden.”

    NY Times
  • ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

    Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

    But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

    Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
    Yes, at least now we know why he was half a second faster than everyone else...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

    Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

    But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

    Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
    Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
    Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Been a lot of takes on this photo but this is the best.


    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.
    Yes, although not particularly by his standards in that photo. His hair is practically unruffled.
  • Mr. Eagles, remember 2012.

    Vettel spun on the first lap yet fought back for the title. And in Singapore (I think) that year he was disqualified yet I think got all the way to the podium.
  • Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.

    I dismissed that as a joke but now....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Chris Christie wants to be very clear about something: The election of 2020 was not stolen.

    “An election for president was held on November 3, 2020. Joe Biden won. Donald Trump did not,” Mr. Christie writes in his new book, “Republican Rescue: Saving the Party From Truth Deniers, Conspiracy Theorists, and the Dangerous Policies of Joe Biden.”

    NY Times

    Good thing he never suckered up to Trump.
  • kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    Disqualified from qualifying.

    It's a bit complicated because of the sprint race thing.
    So starts from the back of the grid?
    Of the sprint qualifying session later. That sets the grid order, and he takes a 5 place penalty from wherever he finishes...
  • Bottas needs to do his duty and take out Verstappen.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

    Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

    But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

    Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
    Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
    Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
    We being humanity - unless there is somewhere which has introduced hand chopping for littering, possibly Singapore.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    Good evening folks. See you all tomorrow!

    What whiter than blue Tory will have been caught with their fingers in the till by then? Or will the Tories be third behind the LD's, the public having been reminded of the existence of the lovely Layla and her friends?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,089

    Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    Eugh. Do the sodding Picard manuever man. You look like one of the chimps off the PG Tips advert with your jacket all wrutched up like that.
    You want him to move between two points in space so fast that he momentarily appears to be two rumpled winos instead of just the one? How does this help matters?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Will Hamilton do a Paterson and complain about the punishment even though he (or rather his car) was found to be guilty?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,856
    DavidL said:

    I am late to this and I apologise if this has already been done to death down thread but this story in my view shows how stupid things have got: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59275207

    Layla Moran and Crispin Blunt are being condemned because they used their office to conduct a virtual conference call for which they got fees. I mean, this is completely nuts. Who the hell cares where they were? We are all working remotely now. This isn't using the rooms and facilities of Portcullis House. Its a call. They may as well have been in the Caribbean sharing a villa with Geoffrey for all the difference that it made.

    We really need to get a grip before the last sane MP quits in disgust (I appreciate that there is an assumption in that statement which may or may not be warranted).

    I agree. If this goes the way of "MPs are all shysters" rather than "Boris Johnson is unfit for office" it would be a travesty imo.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Taz said:
    This is reminding me a bit of the old rule in Cricket around extension of the arm, and that once they looked at it scientifically it appeared virtually all bowlers were technically in breach, so they made the rules more flexible. It feels like a lot of MPs are going to be caught out, particularly with Zoom calls, and I wonder if there will be a push for zero tolerance adherence, or an attempt to distinguish a bit around the non-parliamentary work in question - eg political lobbying or significant external exployment.

    I do like that Blunt is a little off message by saying he'll accept the findings of any investigation, but basically it never even occurred to him and there's a feeding frenzy.
    I posted about Leyla Moran earlier, but was assured that because the money involved was less it was not an issue

    Amazing Lib Dems cannot see that if it is prohibited it is prohibited, and she has broken the rule with no doubt many others
    Interesting that you mentioned Moran, but not Blunt or Khan.
    When I posted about Morgan I did not know about the other two
    So you didn't even read the article you linked to
    You really are out of order.

    My original post was about Moran before this article, and was making the point that Lib Dems were trying to make out it was minor

    Of course I read the article but that was not my point
    Either you didn't notice the other names, or you did and decided that you'd make the story into a partisan one.
    I was going with the kinder interpretation that made you look better, but I'll take you at your word if you say it was the other.
  • Christie is 130 on BF for GOP nominee.

    I've taken a nibble. If Trump can't run for some reason then who knows who will emerge from a brutal primary season. He's got campaigning experience.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    edited November 2021
    Ratcliffe believes that it was the move that followed [Boris’s gaffe] a few days later, as Johnson sought to put out the fire he had started, that cost his wife most dearly. Johnson briefed friendly papers that Britain would repay the £400m it owed Iran for an unfulfilled 1970s arms deal, a move he clearly tied to Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release. According to Ratcliffe, setting that price for Nazanin and not meeting it is “why she is still held to this day”.

    Again, that one act contains multitudes. Johnson let people believe he was going to pay off the debt to Iran because he needed to get out of a hole, and that’s how he always is – telling people what they want to hear, issuing promises he won’t keep. In 2018, he assured Unionists that there would be no border down the Irish Sea; a year later he’d made a deal that would put a border down the Irish Sea. He promised “frictionless trade” after Brexit, only eventually to have a colleague admit that there would, after all, be the friction of border checks. Whether it’s £350m on the side of a bus, 40 new hospitals or a continued 0.7% on aid, a nice number thrown out by Boris Johnson should always prompt a swift counting of spoons. Richard Ratcliffe is one of many to have learned that lesson the hard way.

    Even so, Johnson is clearly too frightened to face Ratcliffe, a man frail and exhausted with hunger. Perhaps he knows that in the story of that man and his imprisoned wife all his weaknesses are laid bare – and he can’t bear to look.
  • pigeon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    Eugh. Do the sodding Picard manuever man. You look like one of the chimps off the PG Tips advert with your jacket all wrutched up like that.
    You want him to move between two points in space so fast that he momentarily appears to be two rumpled winos instead of just the one? How does this help matters?
    The other Picard maneuver.

    https://uproxx.com/tv/video-supercut-demonstrates-picard-maneuver-from-star-trek-the-next-generation/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.

    I dismissed that as a joke but now....
    I suspect its more that his weight yo-yos quite a bit and he is somewhat on the chubbier side at the moment. Of course, from personal experience, the first thing you stop doing in such a scenario is button up your jacket.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

    Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

    But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

    Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
    Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
    Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
    We being humanity - unless there is somewhere which has introduced hand chopping for littering, possibly Singapore.
    When did they stop chopping off hands for theft in Saudi Arabia?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688

    Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.

    I dismissed that as a joke but now....
    You can fix your collar for no cost though.

    I don't particularly worry that Boris should be so ill-turned-out. However the visual image is starting to match the performance. That's going to be deadly.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,856
    MV now 1.15 for the title. I think he was winning it anyway but this is a shame.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Thank goodness, i was desperate to know what the genocide deniers were thinking
  • Starting the sprint race from the back is a great asset for Hamilton. If he'd been starting the race proper from the back it'd be much worse.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688

    Christie is 130 on BF for GOP nominee.

    I've taken a nibble. If Trump can't run for some reason then who knows who will emerge from a brutal primary season. He's got campaigning experience.

    Didn't he pull out of the last race due to ill health?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Surprisingly measure vote outcome on the BBC live text -currently around 10k to 15k that the Hamilton punishment was right or wrong.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    Starting the sprint race from the back is a great asset for Hamilton. If he'd been starting the race proper from the back it'd be much worse.

    He may yet be. Remember he has a grid penalty.

    The whole situation is an epic clusterfuck. If it's accidental heads should roll at Mercedes. If it was deliberate heads should still roll for being so fucking stupid as to think they would get away with it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,856
    kle4 said:

    Will Hamilton do a Paterson and complain about the punishment even though he (or rather his car) was found to be guilty?

    Casts Toto Wolff in the BoJo role. Can we see that? Not sure.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

    Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

    But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

    Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
    Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
    Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
    We being humanity - unless there is somewhere which has introduced hand chopping for littering, possibly Singapore.
    When did they stop chopping off hands for theft in Saudi Arabia?
    That was the point - if they still do, I doubt they also do it for littering.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,089

    pigeon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    Eugh. Do the sodding Picard manuever man. You look like one of the chimps off the PG Tips advert with your jacket all wrutched up like that.
    You want him to move between two points in space so fast that he momentarily appears to be two rumpled winos instead of just the one? How does this help matters?
    The other Picard maneuver.

    https://uproxx.com/tv/video-supercut-demonstrates-picard-maneuver-from-star-trek-the-next-generation/
    Oh of course... in my defence it's been a busy day.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780

    Bottas needs to do his duty and take out Verstappen.

    He'd almost certainly miss.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    DavidL said:

    I am late to this and I apologise if this has already been done to death down thread but this story in my view shows how stupid things have got: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59275207

    Layla Moran and Crispin Blunt are being condemned because they used their office to conduct a virtual conference call for which they got fees. I mean, this is completely nuts. Who the hell cares where they were? We are all working remotely now. This isn't using the rooms and facilities of Portcullis House. Its a call. They may as well have been in the Caribbean sharing a villa with Geoffrey for all the difference that it made.

    We really need to get a grip before the last sane MP quits in disgust (I appreciate that there is an assumption in that statement which may or may not be warranted).

    It should be noted that Moran has said her actions were wrong and has apologised, and Blunt has done similar. So are you ok reconciling your defence of these MPs with an explicit acknowledgement of wrongdoing from them.
    Note that this doesn't say that the wrongdoing is particularly serious, but it is a well-established rule about the use of parliamentary resources for non-parliamentary business. I don't see anything wrong with these MPs being rapped on the knuckles.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,089
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    I am late to this and I apologise if this has already been done to death down thread but this story in my view shows how stupid things have got: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59275207

    Layla Moran and Crispin Blunt are being condemned because they used their office to conduct a virtual conference call for which they got fees. I mean, this is completely nuts. Who the hell cares where they were? We are all working remotely now. This isn't using the rooms and facilities of Portcullis House. Its a call. They may as well have been in the Caribbean sharing a villa with Geoffrey for all the difference that it made.

    We really need to get a grip before the last sane MP quits in disgust (I appreciate that there is an assumption in that statement which may or may not be warranted).

    I agree. If this goes the way of "MPs are all shysters" rather than "Boris Johnson is unfit for office" it would be a travesty imo.
    Except there's a lot of that sort of ingrained cynicism about already. The expenses episode did lasting damage.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.

    I dismissed that as a joke but now....

    Nope.

    BoZo the clown wears crumpled suits.

    It's as much part of the costume as Chaplin's trousers
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,856
    Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    Time for all Patriots to ask themselves a question. How can the fate of such a land be in the palm of this bloke's hands?
  • Bottas needs to do his duty and take out Verstappen.

    He tried that earlier in the season. Why would he do anything like that now? The team have no hold over him. Lewis needs to win fairly surely?

    He's going to chop his way through the sprint, finish high up, take the grid penalty and then repeat tomorrow. What makes you think the Honda engine is as reliable as Christian Smug thinks it is anyway...?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    I am late to this and I apologise if this has already been done to death down thread but this story in my view shows how stupid things have got: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59275207

    Layla Moran and Crispin Blunt are being condemned because they used their office to conduct a virtual conference call for which they got fees. I mean, this is completely nuts. Who the hell cares where they were? We are all working remotely now. This isn't using the rooms and facilities of Portcullis House. Its a call. They may as well have been in the Caribbean sharing a villa with Geoffrey for all the difference that it made.

    We really need to get a grip before the last sane MP quits in disgust (I appreciate that there is an assumption in that statement which may or may not be warranted).

    It should be noted that Moran has said her actions were wrong and has apologised, and Blunt has done similar. So are you ok reconciling your defence of these MPs with an explicit acknowledgement of wrongdoing from them.
    Note that this doesn't say that the wrongdoing is particularly serious, but it is a well-established rule about the use of parliamentary resources for non-parliamentary business. I don't see anything wrong with these MPs being rapped on the knuckles.
    It's a bloody stupid rule when you are talking about a video call. If they used a Zoom background which looked exactly like their office whilst parked in a MacDonald's across the road that would have been ok. Bloody stupid rules lead to bloody stupid MPs of which we already have a surfeit.
  • kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    Time for all Patriots to ask themselves a question. How can the fate of such a land be in the palm of this bloke's hands?
    Because when the alternatives where Corbyn, Hunt and May then he was the best option by far.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,856
    pigeon said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    I am late to this and I apologise if this has already been done to death down thread but this story in my view shows how stupid things have got: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59275207

    Layla Moran and Crispin Blunt are being condemned because they used their office to conduct a virtual conference call for which they got fees. I mean, this is completely nuts. Who the hell cares where they were? We are all working remotely now. This isn't using the rooms and facilities of Portcullis House. Its a call. They may as well have been in the Caribbean sharing a villa with Geoffrey for all the difference that it made.

    We really need to get a grip before the last sane MP quits in disgust (I appreciate that there is an assumption in that statement which may or may not be warranted).

    I agree. If this goes the way of "MPs are all shysters" rather than "Boris Johnson is unfit for office" it would be a travesty imo.
    Except there's a lot of that sort of ingrained cynicism about already. The expenses episode did lasting damage.
    Yes, exactly. General corrosive cynicism does nobody any good. All it does is roll the pitch for the next charlatan. I don't want this story going that way.
  • Mr. Thompson, I'd take Hunt over the incumbent. Likewise Sunak.
  • DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    A while back somebody (who would know) that the reason Boris Johnson wears ill fitting suits is that he cannot afford to buy new ones.

    I dismissed that as a joke but now....
    I suspect its more that his weight yo-yos quite a bit and he is somewhat on the chubbier side at the moment. Of course, from personal experience, the first thing you stop doing in such a scenario is button up your jacket.
    Can relate.

    I bet Boris Johnson only buys one pair of trousers when he buys a suit.

    He seems that disorganised.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    kinabalu said:

    Time for all Patriots to ask themselves a question. How can the fate of such a land be in the palm of this bloke's hands?

    Patriots didn't vote for him
  • Beautiful try.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Taz said:
    This is reminding me a bit of the old rule in Cricket around extension of the arm, and that once they looked at it scientifically it appeared virtually all bowlers were technically in breach, so they made the rules more flexible. It feels like a lot of MPs are going to be caught out, particularly with Zoom calls, and I wonder if there will be a push for zero tolerance adherence, or an attempt to distinguish a bit around the non-parliamentary work in question - eg political lobbying or significant external exployment.

    I do like that Blunt is a little off message by saying he'll accept the findings of any investigation, but basically it never even occurred to him and there's a feeding frenzy.
    I posted about Leyla Moran earlier, but was assured that because the money involved was less it was not an issue

    Amazing Lib Dems cannot see that if it is prohibited it is prohibited, and she has broken the rule with no doubt many others
    Interesting that you mentioned Moran, but not Blunt or Khan.
    When I posted about Morgan I did not know about the other two
    So you didn't even read the article you linked to
    You really are out of order.

    My original post was about Moran before this article, and was making the point that Lib Dems were trying to make out it was minor

    Of course I read the article but that was not my point
    Either you didn't notice the other names, or you did and decided that you'd make the story into a partisan one.
    I was going with the kinder interpretation that made you look better, but I'll take you at your word if you say it was the other.
    I may make errors, but I do cherish my integrity and I hope posters will accept that I will not lie or knowingly make anything up

    When I have made errors I do apologise as can be seen in my posts over the years, but sometimes and especially as I head towards my 80's I may not be as erudite as I once was when I ran my business and where most of my employees are still in touch with me over 12 years since I retired
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    Time for all Patriots to ask themselves a question. How can the fate of such a land be in the palm of this bloke's hands?
    Someone been listening to "Hurricane" by chance? For a sense of pure outrage in a song possibly only ever matched by the Lonesome death of Hattie Carroll.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,349
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

    Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

    But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

    Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
    Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
    Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
    Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.

    Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    DavidL said:



    It's a bloody stupid rule when you are talking about a video call. If they used a Zoom background which looked exactly like their office whilst parked in a MacDonald's across the road that would have been ok. Bloody stupid rules lead to bloody stupid MPs of which we already have a surfeit.

    I also think it's a very minor issue and most people outside the Commons won't care. But it's not totally stupid. We pay for the offices and expect them to be used for public purposes. If it becomes common practice to use them for all sorts of other activities, it's a slippery slope. Where it's a one-off, I agree it's really not worth worrying about - comes under the same heading as using an office pen to write a shopping list.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,856

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    Time for all Patriots to ask themselves a question. How can the fate of such a land be in the palm of this bloke's hands?
    Because when the alternatives where Corbyn, Hunt and May then he was the best option by far.
    I disagree, obviously, but let's keep the focus on the present. Is there a point to him now? Not sure there is.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Fuck the stewards.

    Verstappen gets a €50,000 fine whilst Hamilton is disqualified.

    Racist anti British stewards.

    Disqualification is a bit of an odd one, usually they just gird penalty you for stuff.
    I think they felt without it he wouldn't have been as fast.

    Of course, sometimes they do let people off for breaking the technical regs. Remember Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher at Kuala Lumpar in 2000?

    But, there was a legitimate argument that made no difference to the performance. Here, however...

    Plus Hamilton already had a penalty.
    Yes, and of course not all breaches of rules reasonably have the same punishment, we don't chop off hands for both theft and littering. On the face of it touching the car is wrong, but it take deliberate contrary action to breach car set up rules - remember I think it was BAR having a tank inside the tank or something, so they could leave fuel in for the weigh in?
    Er...I didn't know we chopped hands off at all in this country.
    Oh yes we do. It happened as recently as 1579. See R v Stubbe (1579) KB 29/215, m.20.

    Don't tell me the softies have stopped doing it.

    It was a cow of a punishment, as a Tudor cud.

    But we don't.
  • DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    He really is a scruffy twunt isn't he.

    When you have to pay your respects to the war dead at 11 but have to get blind drunk under a flyover bridge at 12 https://twitter.com/youwouldknow/status/1459525716735897601/photo/1


    Time for all Patriots to ask themselves a question. How can the fate of such a land be in the palm of this bloke's hands?
    Someone been listening to "Hurricane" by chance? For a sense of pure outrage in a song possibly only ever matched by the Lonesome death of Hattie Carroll.
    Killing in the Name.
This discussion has been closed.