Howdy, Stranger!

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

Let’s party Number 10 style – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited December 2021 in General
imageLet’s party Number 10 style – politicalbetting.com

The panto season appears to have started early this year. Appropriately enough it relates to a Xmas party which happened at 10, Downing Street around this time last year. Oh, yes it did! Oh, no it didn’t! say others – mostly unmemorable junior Ministers. And even if it did no rules were broken. A big fuss about nothing, yet others will say. Hmmm ….. those who were fined for breaking the Covid rules might disagree. The hospitality venues who lost business last year might also have some thoughts on the matter. Now, in an exciting new twist, the Met Chief and Justice Minister (Dick and Dom) have decided to join in the fun. Asked why the police are not investigating a possible breach of the Covid regulations, Cressida Dick has said that the police do not investigate “retrospective breaches” of the law. Well, that’s the end of the criminal justice system then. And, indeed, of the need for any police forces. What on earth does she think a crime is if not a “retrospective breach“. Perhaps poor Cressida – overwhelmed by all the scandals which have occurred on her watch (the latest being the Met’s policing failures at the Euros 2020 Wembley match) – has given up on any attempt at improving her force’s behaviour and has decided that removing its very purpose for existence is the only way to go. That way the police can never fail. Hooray! All those unemployed policemen can become HGV drivers. So there is that. Prince Charles will be relieved: no need for any unpleasant conversations about Royals trading their status and ability to confer honours for cash. Andrew too will be wondering whether this exciting new concept of not investigating “retrospective breaches” could be exported pronto across the Atlantic.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 99,680
    edited December 2021
    First?

    Edit - Oh yes.
  • 2nd.

    Like delta.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,298

    First?

    Edit - Oh yes.

    Oh no you aren't!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,088
    Great header. @Cyclefree giving Marina Hyde a run for her money.
  • Great header, Cyclefree.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,088
    FPT:
    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Just to hark the herald angels back a little to what we were discussing earlier re parties -

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/dec/05/ben-jennings-on-boris-johnson-and-the-no-10-christmas-party-cartoon

    That's a brutal cartoon.
    Neither funny or true.

    But it is in the guardian…
    In what sense is the cartoon not true @Charles?
  • More from the school of journalistic bollx concerning the virus.

    Allison Pearson
    @AllisonPearson
    ·
    33m
    In the over 70s, 44% of those in ICU are unvaccinated compared to 55% who had two doses.
    In younger age groups, the no of unvaxxed in ICU is higher.
    By far the biggest factor for ICU COVID admission is not vaccination status but obesity.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710
    edited December 2021

    FPT:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Just to hark the herald angels back a little to what we were discussing earlier re parties -

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/dec/05/ben-jennings-on-boris-johnson-and-the-no-10-christmas-party-cartoon

    That's a brutal cartoon.
    Neither funny or true.

    But it is in the guardian…
    In what sense is the cartoon not true @Charles?
    Boris wasn’t at the No 10 after work (in house) drinks.
  • I think we all know that these shenanigans are as nothing compared to forgetting to put your mask back on while chatting to a couple of pensioners 2 meters away from you at a funeral.

  • Neil Henderson
    @hendopolis
    ·
    7m
    THE SUN: Throw away the key #TomorrowsPapersToday
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,656
    eek said:

    FPT:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Just to hark the herald angels back a little to what we were discussing earlier re parties -

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/dec/05/ben-jennings-on-boris-johnson-and-the-no-10-christmas-party-cartoon

    That's a brutal cartoon.
    Neither funny or true.

    But it is in the guardian…
    In what sense is the cartoon not true @Charles?
    Boris wasn’t at the No 10 after work (in house) drinks.
    Facts, who needs them?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,656

    I think we all know that these shenanigans are as nothing compared to forgetting to put your mask back on while chatting to a couple of pensioners 2 meters away from you at a funeral.

    Remind me again the color of the rosette they were wearing before I comment.
  • Andra putting some clear water between him and the populist nutters, GB News burnt fingers perhaps..


  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,088
    edited December 2021

    More from the school of journalistic bollx concerning the virus.

    Allison Pearson
    @AllisonPearson
    ·
    33m
    In the over 70s, 44% of those in ICU are unvaccinated compared to 55% who had two doses.
    In younger age groups, the no of unvaxxed in ICU is higher.
    By far the biggest factor for ICU COVID admission is not vaccination status but obesity.

    Indeed. The graph on page 45 of the latest ICNARC covid report is very clear on the massive impact vaccination status has on ICU admissions. I cannot work out how to post the graph but the report is here:

    https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/f87422d2-5f54-ec11-9139-00505601089b

    For comparison, fig 25 on page 31 shows that higher BMIs are a factor but not (excuse the pun) a massive one.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited December 2021

    Andra putting some clear water between him and the populist nutters, GB News burnt fingers perhaps..


    Andrew Neil used to be a Mr Swedish approach....he got caught out a number of times doing an Alister Haimes, quoting some dodgy stats by carefully selected the date range.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710
    RobD said:

    eek said:

    FPT:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Just to hark the herald angels back a little to what we were discussing earlier re parties -

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/dec/05/ben-jennings-on-boris-johnson-and-the-no-10-christmas-party-cartoon

    That's a brutal cartoon.
    Neither funny or true.

    But it is in the guardian…
    In what sense is the cartoon not true @Charles?
    Boris wasn’t at the No 10 after work (in house) drinks.
    Facts, who needs them?
    It’s the bit that annoys me about this “story” - there are plenty of truthful things you can pin on Boris yet the media focus on one’s that were (just about) allowed under the rules,
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,719

    More from the school of journalistic bollx concerning the virus.

    Allison Pearson
    @AllisonPearson
    ·
    33m
    In the over 70s, 44% of those in ICU are unvaccinated compared to 55% who had two doses.
    In younger age groups, the no of unvaxxed in ICU is higher.
    By far the biggest factor for ICU COVID admission is not vaccination status but obesity.

    She's a very versatile journalist - capable of writing total bollox on any subject you'd care to mention.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    FPT:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Just to hark the herald angels back a little to what we were discussing earlier re parties -

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/dec/05/ben-jennings-on-boris-johnson-and-the-no-10-christmas-party-cartoon

    That's a brutal cartoon.
    Neither funny or true.

    But it is in the guardian…
    In what sense is the cartoon not true @Charles?
    The direct link to a parent’s death
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710
    Charles said:

    FPT:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Just to hark the herald angels back a little to what we were discussing earlier re parties -

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/dec/05/ben-jennings-on-boris-johnson-and-the-no-10-christmas-party-cartoon

    That's a brutal cartoon.
    Neither funny or true.

    But it is in the guardian…
    In what sense is the cartoon not true @Charles?
    The direct link to a parent’s death
    Someone’s mum has died of COVID every day since April 2020.
  • More from the school of journalistic bollx concerning the virus.

    Allison Pearson
    @AllisonPearson
    ·
    33m
    In the over 70s, 44% of those in ICU are unvaccinated compared to 55% who had two doses.
    In younger age groups, the no of unvaxxed in ICU is higher.
    By far the biggest factor for ICU COVID admission is not vaccination status but obesity.

    She's a very versatile journalist - capable of writing total bollox on any subject you'd care to mention.
    She can be quite funny at times, but this is just claptrap.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    FPT:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Just to hark the herald angels back a little to what we were discussing earlier re parties -

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/dec/05/ben-jennings-on-boris-johnson-and-the-no-10-christmas-party-cartoon

    That's a brutal cartoon.
    Neither funny or true.

    But it is in the guardian…
    In what sense is the cartoon not true @Charles?
    The direct link to a parent’s death
    Someone’s mum has died of COVID every day since April 2020.
    But not as a result of a No10 party which Boris didn’t attend (according to you - I’ve no idea as I haven’t had time to read the papers recently)
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,689
    Charles said:

    FPT:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Just to hark the herald angels back a little to what we were discussing earlier re parties -

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/dec/05/ben-jennings-on-boris-johnson-and-the-no-10-christmas-party-cartoon

    That's a brutal cartoon.
    Neither funny or true.

    But it is in the guardian…
    In what sense is the cartoon not true @Charles?
    The direct link to a parent’s death
    I don't think the cartoon is saying the putative lockdown breach was responsible for a death the next day. I must say, if you really think that's what the cartoon is saying it's a very strange interpretation.
    The cartoon isn't very good. Ben Jennings' cartoons are usually pretty weak, and this is no exception.
  • Andra putting some clear water between him and the populist nutters, GB News burnt fingers perhaps..


    Andrew Neil used to be a Mr Swedish approach....he got caught out a number of times doing an Alister Haimes, quoting some dodgy stats by carefully selected the date range.
    What's he talking about 1m+ cases?
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710
    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    FPT:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Just to hark the herald angels back a little to what we were discussing earlier re parties -

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/dec/05/ben-jennings-on-boris-johnson-and-the-no-10-christmas-party-cartoon

    That's a brutal cartoon.
    Neither funny or true.

    But it is in the guardian…
    In what sense is the cartoon not true @Charles?
    The direct link to a parent’s death
    Someone’s mum has died of COVID every day since April 2020.
    But not as a result of a No10 party which Boris didn’t attend (according to you - I’ve no idea as I haven’t had time to read the papers recently)
    The cartoon doesn’t imply cause and effect it just talks about 2 independent facts - note the comma between them.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 99,680
    edited December 2021
    Fucking typical.

    FIA give Verstappen a 10 second time penalty for causing a collision

    Still leaves him p2.

    A fair penalty would have been a 20 place grid penalty for the next race.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,088
    edited December 2021
    Charles said:

    FPT:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Just to hark the herald angels back a little to what we were discussing earlier re parties -

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/dec/05/ben-jennings-on-boris-johnson-and-the-no-10-christmas-party-cartoon

    That's a brutal cartoon.
    Neither funny or true.

    But it is in the guardian…
    In what sense is the cartoon not true @Charles?
    The direct link to a parent’s death
    There were boozy parties, Johnson was at at least one of them, the parents of many people died every day.

    The cartoon doesn't claim there was a direct link.

    Come on, you can do better than that: "Boris never sang those words, wearing a Santa outfit, whilst swigging from a bottle of Bozzinger."
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,088

    Fucking typical.

    FIA give Verstappen a 10 second time penalty for causing a collision

    Still leaves him p2.

    A fair penalty would have been a 20 place grid penalty for the next race.

    Just get ready for the shitstorm that's going to errupt when Verstappen wipes Hamilton out on the first corner at hte Abu Dhabi race.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited December 2021

    Fucking typical.

    FIA give Verstappen a 10 second time penalty for causing a collision

    Still leaves him p2.

    A fair penalty would have been a 20 place grid penalty for the next race.

    10 seconds to be served in the next race. What does that even mean, when about in the next race?

    EDIT: No, seems Sky called that wrong, they've just corrected themselves.
  • Fucking typical.

    FIA give Verstappen a 10 second time penalty for causing a collision

    Still leaves him p2.

    A fair penalty would have been a 20 place grid penalty for the next race.

    Just get ready for the shitstorm that's going to errupt when Verstappen wipes Hamilton out on the first corner at hte Abu Dhabi race.
    As it stands they're tied aren't they? Does that mean Verstappen is in the lead due to countback?
  • Fucking typical.

    FIA give Verstappen a 10 second time penalty for causing a collision

    Still leaves him p2.

    A fair penalty would have been a 20 place grid penalty for the next race.

    10 seconds to be served in the next race. What does that even mean, when about in the next race?
    No, 10 second penalty in this race. So 10 seconds added to his race time.
  • Fucking typical.

    FIA give Verstappen a 10 second time penalty for causing a collision

    Still leaves him p2.

    A fair penalty would have been a 20 place grid penalty for the next race.

    Just get ready for the shitstorm that's going to errupt when Verstappen wipes Hamilton out on the first corner at hte Abu Dhabi race.
    Jerez 97 precedent applies.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,030
    edited December 2021
    Excellent post! Rules don’t apply to Tory poliiticians and other Dicks. Now, back in your box with me and all the other little people, Ms. Cyclefree.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,757

    Fucking typical.

    FIA give Verstappen a 10 second time penalty for causing a collision

    Still leaves him p2.

    A fair penalty would have been a 20 place grid penalty for the next race.

    So he just has to take Hamilton out and the title is his.

    This is theatre not sport. It is the Kent Walton ITV World of Sport wrestling on wheels.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710

    Fucking typical.

    FIA give Verstappen a 10 second time penalty for causing a collision

    Still leaves him p2.

    A fair penalty would have been a 20 place grid penalty for the next race.

    Just get ready for the shitstorm that's going to errupt when Verstappen wipes Hamilton out on the first corner at hte Abu Dhabi race.
    As it stands they're tied aren't they? Does that mean Verstappen is in the lead due to countback?
    Yep 9 wins to 8 (well 8.5 to 8) but that doesn’t make any difference
  • Fucking typical.

    FIA give Verstappen a 10 second time penalty for causing a collision

    Still leaves him p2.

    A fair penalty would have been a 20 place grid penalty for the next race.

    10 seconds to be served in the next race. What does that even mean, when about in the next race?
    No, 10 second penalty in this race. So 10 seconds added to his race time.
    Sky Sports News said next race, but they've just come back from the ads and said its for this race.

    What a bad joke. What kind of penalty is that. Surely a grid penalty for the next race would be fairer, what's the point for a time penalty in a completed race?
  • Are F1 fans STILL going on about their bore-fest?

    :lol:
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,689

    Fucking typical.

    FIA give Verstappen a 10 second time penalty for causing a collision

    Still leaves him p2.

    A fair penalty would have been a 20 place grid penalty for the next race.

    So he just has to take Hamilton out and the title is his.

    This is theatre not sport. It is the Kent Walton ITV World of Sport wrestling on wheels.
    Yup
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited December 2021
    TIMES: PM plans to let ministers throw out legal rulings. #TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/UiGhpufOmf

    What could possibly go wrong.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 11,475
    edited December 2021

    TIMES: PM plans to let ministers throw out legal rulings. #TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/UiGhpufOmf

    What could possibly go wrong.

    Be you ever so high, the law is whatever's convenient for Boris. (Which is also on-topic.)

  • Neil Henderson
    @hendopolis
    ·
    15m
    STAR: Wanted: ⁦

    @DominicRaab‘s missing brain #TomorrowsPapersToday
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,689

    TIMES: PM plans to let ministers throw out legal rulings. #TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/UiGhpufOmf

    What could possibly go wrong.

    Nothing. Changing the balance of power has never had unintended consequence. Every student of history knows this.
  • HolesBayViewHolesBayView Posts: 81
    edited December 2021

    TIMES: PM plans to let ministers throw out legal rulings. #TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/UiGhpufOmf

    What could possibly go wrong.

    Pretty misleading headline, though, isn't it? By "ministers" it means "parliament" - and it's perfectly legitimate for parliament to pass new laws...
  • TIMES: PM plans to let ministers throw out legal rulings. #TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/UiGhpufOmf

    What could possibly go wrong.

    Sic semper tyrannis.
  • TIMES: PM plans to let ministers throw out legal rulings. #TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/UiGhpufOmf

    What could possibly go wrong.

    There's a tight by-election on next week, you say? Red meat for the doorsteps.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,000
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    FPT:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Just to hark the herald angels back a little to what we were discussing earlier re parties -

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/dec/05/ben-jennings-on-boris-johnson-and-the-no-10-christmas-party-cartoon

    That's a brutal cartoon.
    Neither funny or true.

    But it is in the guardian…
    In what sense is the cartoon not true @Charles?
    The direct link to a parent’s death
    Someone’s mum has died of COVID every day since April 2020.
    So, 18/12 wasn't it? Let's say UK is a closed system to start with, and guess that there were 4 virus transmissions in that party, which is modest tbh. Between 21-24/12, one cycle, there were around 160k positive tests. So, on average, about 1/40000th of every infection and death that has occurred since then would be propogated from that Downing Street party. That's around 2 UK deaths.

    (To be fair, that's probably a better result than them staying on late to work on Tory policy.)

    But, then, UK isn't a closed system and imports and exports might be considered. This was early in the Kent wave, in London, so although Alpha was ultimately a weaker lineage than Delta (though I'm not sure whether Delta is a successor lineage), if any Alpha was spread, there would probably be a higher death toll.

    Government do seem to have needed to isolate a lot. Would be interesting if any attendees did test positive in the following days and whether there was a superspreader event.

    This is very rough and supposition, but for any hard facts you glean as a journalist, it would be possible to work out the likely average results by what happened since.
  • TIMES: PM plans to let ministers throw out legal rulings. #TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/UiGhpufOmf

    What could possibly go wrong.

    Sic semper tyrannis.
    I thought you were 101st Airborne Division?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,330
    Thanks for the entertaining header.

    I am confused about Braverman and Raab. They appear to have both been competent and respected lawyers in their past lives. It is hard to understand how, after a few years in politics, they can fall to the point where they can be used in such a humiliating way. Both come across as complete clowns. The contrast with Geoffrey Cox and Robert Buckland is very noticeable.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,281
    IANAL.
    But anything cooked up by Braverman needs inspection at arm's length with a peg on the nose.
  • TIMES: PM plans to let ministers throw out legal rulings. #TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/UiGhpufOmf

    What could possibly go wrong.

    There's a tight by-election on next week, you say? Red meat for the doorsteps.
    The week after next I believe
  • "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,088

    Fucking typical.

    FIA give Verstappen a 10 second time penalty for causing a collision

    Still leaves him p2.

    A fair penalty would have been a 20 place grid penalty for the next race.

    Just get ready for the shitstorm that's going to errupt when Verstappen wipes Hamilton out on the first corner at hte Abu Dhabi race.
    Jerez 97 precedent applies.
    Let's hope it's not Adelaide 1994!
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,689

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation.
    If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,756
    edited December 2021
    If the various reports about Omicron being very infectious but not very serious are correct, its inevitable spread may end up acting like a natural vaccination, one that the anti-vaxxer crowd probably won't be able to avoid.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,281
    Farooq said:

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation.
    If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
    Indeed.
    Plus. Previous governments of all stripes have had stuff struck down.
    Their reaction has been we say X, the Courts say Y. Let's have a long think about why exactly that may be, and possibly work out a route to Z.
    Not we have a majority of 80 so X it is!!!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,281

    Farooq said:

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation.
    If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
    Retrospective breaches of the law cannot be investigated, but judges’ decisions are to be struck down retroactively.

    England is entering the twilight zone.
    We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.
    Gloomy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,284
    edited December 2021
    Clashes broke out this evening at a Zemmour rally between his supporters and anti racism campaigners in northeast Paris. At one point Zemmour even ended up in a headlock before his security team wrestled him away.

    'In an hour-and-a-half-long speech to an estimated crowd of 10,000, Mr Zemmour promised to “reconquer” France and set out his vision of “zero immigration” as he launched salvos against the Left and mainstream media.

    "If I win this election, it won't be another rotation of power but a reconquest of the greatest country in the world,” he said to cheers from the crowd. “Join us.”

    He said he was calling his party "Reconquest", a name that evokes the historic period known as the Reconquista, when Christian forces drove Muslim rulers from the Iberian peninsula.

    “From the first week of my mandate, zero immigration will become a clear objective of our policy,” Mr Zemmour - who has been described as the French Donald Trump - told flag-waving supporters at an exhibition hall.

    During his speech, about a dozen activists from the French campaign group SOS Racisme rose to their feet shouting “No to racism,” prompting attendees to throw punches and chairs, images showed. '

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/12/05/eric-zemmour-supporters-gather-paris-campaign-launch/
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 3,689
    HYUFD said:

    Clashes broke out this evening at a Zemmour rally between his supporters and anti racism campaigners in northeast Paris. At one point Zemmour even ended up in a headlock before his security team wrestled him away.

    'In an hour-and-a-half-long speech to an estimated crowd of 10,000, Mr Zemmour promised to “reconquer” France and set out his vision of “zero immigration” as he launched salvos against the Left and mainstream media.

    "If I win this election, it won't be another rotation of power but a reconquest of the greatest country in the world,” he said to cheers from the crowd. “Join us.”

    He said he was calling his party "Reconquest", a name that evokes the historic period known as the Reconquista, when Christian forces drove Muslim rulers from the Iberian peninsula.

    “From the first week of my mandate, zero immigration will become a clear objective of our policy,” Mr Zemmour - who has been described as the French Donald Trump - told flag-waving supporters at an exhibition hall.

    During his speech, about a dozen activists from the French campaign group SOS Racisme rose to their feet shouting “No to racism,” prompting attendees to throw punches and chairs, images showed. '

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/12/05/eric-zemmour-supporters-gather-paris-campaign-launch/

    It wasn't a headlock, it was just a plucky Scoobie trying to find out who is hiding under the Nosferatu mask.
    Turns out it's just Nosferatu.
  • On-topic, I'd prefer a really big voodoo poll rather than a small poll that has been weighted to within an inch of its life.

    Congratulations! Over 700 comments on the last thread, and you managed to make probably the only on-topic contribution just as the thread was closing.

    Shame you’re wrong.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 11,475
    edited December 2021

    On-topic, I'd prefer a really big voodoo poll rather than a small poll that has been weighted to within an inch of its life.

    Congratulations! Over 700 comments on the last thread, and you managed to make probably the only on-topic contribution just as the thread was closing.

    Shame you’re wrong.
    If the poll is large enough, it will approach randomness, whereas bad sampling and heavy weighting often mislead.

    ETA another thing voodoo polls often get right is asking just a single question rather than keep the poor respondent answering for half an hour, at the end of which only the partisan and barking mad are left.
  • Farooq said:

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation.
    If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
    I mean the former.

    If a Judge interprets a law badly, and Parliament clarifies the law for next time, then that is Parliament doing its own job.

    It is for Parliament to determine what the law is, not Judges.
  • RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    EU and NATO states swing behind US belief that Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine after unprecedented level of intelligence-sharing, as allies back Biden’s demand for tough deterrence package ahead of Putin call https://ft.com/content/b287f2e3-3b8b-4095-b704-c255a943c84c @FinancialTimes

    https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1467592759632543744?s=20

    Realistically NATO boots on the ground is the only thing that will really stop the Russians.
    I've said before that dealing with Russia is a case of containment. You just have to draw the line somewhere and hold it; and from that point it starts to become possible to deal with the Russian regime rather than from the current position of dithering, grandiose rhetoric, huffing and puffing, various sanctions - basically cowardice.

    The Russians will keep testing and I suspect that there will never be a 'boots on the ground' response because it won't be politically possible. So they will probably eventually sweep up a large part of Eastern Europe unopposed; it will not be an invasion, but compliant regimes. And all this could happen very quickly.

    I'm a bit sceptical. The Ukraine has played the "Russians poised to invade" card every month for quite a while now, and because they DID invade previously it looks credible and of course they're nervous, but I don't see that Putin gets much out of it except a rebellious population. My guess is he'll trade a pullback for Germany opening the controversial gas pipeline.
    I think that’s Panglossian, Nick.
    It fails to acknowledge Putin’s ideological drive to retake what he sees as lost territory.
    It ain’t just Ukraine who is assessing this likely risk.
    According to people who actual knew Putin, he is a Greater Russian Nationalist. Its is an article of that faith, that any territory that Russia has ever held must be part of Russia again, going all the way back to the Tsars.
    Surely he wouldn't invade Poland and Finland?
    Not until after occupying the Baltic States, incorporating Belorussia, and completing the conquest of Ukraine. After completing those, then, sure, why wouldn't he?
    I wonder whether Western strategists are wondering how they can get Putin to turn his ire on Xi without threatening the West.
    I doubt it. He seems more interested in reclaiming lost land, and there ain’t much of that in the far east.
    You’re looking at that region the wrong way round: it is China (and to a very minor extent Japan) that have desires on the Russian far east.

    The volume of Chinese migrant workers and businesses from Manchuria up north of the river is immense, far outweighing the tiny Russian and indigenous local populations. The Russians are, understandably, very jittery about the situation. It is colonisation in all but name.

    (Trivia: the finale of the latest Bond movie, where Bond ****, was rather improbably supposed to be located in the disputed southern Kurile islands. If there’s one part of the world Mickey Mouse RN warships won’t be f’ing about it’s the Kurile islands.)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,656

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    EU and NATO states swing behind US belief that Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine after unprecedented level of intelligence-sharing, as allies back Biden’s demand for tough deterrence package ahead of Putin call https://ft.com/content/b287f2e3-3b8b-4095-b704-c255a943c84c @FinancialTimes

    https://twitter.com/HenryJFoy/status/1467592759632543744?s=20

    Realistically NATO boots on the ground is the only thing that will really stop the Russians.
    I've said before that dealing with Russia is a case of containment. You just have to draw the line somewhere and hold it; and from that point it starts to become possible to deal with the Russian regime rather than from the current position of dithering, grandiose rhetoric, huffing and puffing, various sanctions - basically cowardice.

    The Russians will keep testing and I suspect that there will never be a 'boots on the ground' response because it won't be politically possible. So they will probably eventually sweep up a large part of Eastern Europe unopposed; it will not be an invasion, but compliant regimes. And all this could happen very quickly.

    I'm a bit sceptical. The Ukraine has played the "Russians poised to invade" card every month for quite a while now, and because they DID invade previously it looks credible and of course they're nervous, but I don't see that Putin gets much out of it except a rebellious population. My guess is he'll trade a pullback for Germany opening the controversial gas pipeline.
    I think that’s Panglossian, Nick.
    It fails to acknowledge Putin’s ideological drive to retake what he sees as lost territory.
    It ain’t just Ukraine who is assessing this likely risk.
    According to people who actual knew Putin, he is a Greater Russian Nationalist. Its is an article of that faith, that any territory that Russia has ever held must be part of Russia again, going all the way back to the Tsars.
    Surely he wouldn't invade Poland and Finland?
    Not until after occupying the Baltic States, incorporating Belorussia, and completing the conquest of Ukraine. After completing those, then, sure, why wouldn't he?
    I wonder whether Western strategists are wondering how they can get Putin to turn his ire on Xi without threatening the West.
    I doubt it. He seems more interested in reclaiming lost land, and there ain’t much of that in the far east.
    You’re looking at that region the wrong way round: it is China (and to a very minor extent Japan) that have desires on the Russian far east.

    The volume of Chinese migrant workers and businesses from Manchuria up north of the river is immense, far outweighing the tiny Russian and indigenous local populations. The Russians are, understandably, very jittery about the situation. It is colonisation in all but name.

    (Trivia: the finale of the latest Bond movie, where Bond ****, was rather improbably supposed to be located in the disputed southern Kurile islands. If there’s one part of the world Mickey Mouse RN warships won’t be f’ing about it’s the Kurile islands.)
    That’s the point I was making. He has no ambitions in that area, so why would he be persuaded to focus his expansionism there? Defending the area is another matter entirely, and no one would be condemning Russia for aggression against their own territory.
  • Arch Labourite stooge Professor Hugh Pennington accuses the Tories of playing politics. It takes one to know one!

    - “But there is always politics lurking behind the scenes – it can be good politics or bad but there is always politics – and you probably won’t know what was going on for 20 years.”

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-covid-vaccine-could-beat-25618953

    Labour politics = good
    Tory politics = bad
    SNP politics = bad

    Pennington’s one of those highly intelligent chaps that’s as daft as a brush. Like Raab.

    But, like that other rotted SLab talent Gordon Brown, Pennington’s stopped watch does occasionally tell the right time.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,298
    darkage said:

    Thanks for the entertaining header.

    I am confused about Braverman and Raab. They appear to have both been competent and respected lawyers in their past lives. It is hard to understand how, after a few years in politics, they can fall to the point where they can be used in such a humiliating way. Both come across as complete clowns. The contrast with Geoffrey Cox and Robert Buckland is very noticeable.

    You are hugely overstating how competent and respected both Raab and
    Braverman are. Raab was not taken on as a lawyer by Linklaters at the end of his articles. Braverman was an average barrister who was somewhat economical with the actualite of her CV as a barrister and whose attempt at arguing the criminal law in the case of the Harper case (the policeman killed by being dragged behind a car) was dismissed as utterly hopeless and misguided by the court in terms of politely withering contempt.

    Buckland is no great shakes. He hardly set the Welsh circuit on his fire with his oratory.

    Cox for all his faults actually knows that a lawyer must give his honest legal advice and not just what his client wants to hear. He, more than anyone, ironically enough, is responsible for Johnson being PM. It was his legal advice on May's deal which scuppered her final chance to get it through and set the stage for Johnson to grab the crown. He would not trim his legal advice to suit her political needs.

    Farooq said:

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation.
    If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
    I mean the former.

    If a Judge interprets a law badly, and Parliament clarifies the law for next time, then that is Parliament doing its own job.

    It is for Parliament to determine what the law is, not Judges.
    Er.... no....... have you ever heard about the common law? It's been the law of these islands for hundreds of years.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Farooq said:

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation.
    If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
    I mean the former.

    If a Judge interprets a law badly, and Parliament clarifies the law for next time, then that is Parliament doing its own job.

    It is for Parliament to determine what the law is, not Judges.
    Please don't embarrass yourself talking nonsense about the law again. I have fee-paying work to do this week and won't have the time to correct the many mistakes you will undoubtedly make. Thank you.

    There's always the Northern Irish protocol. We haven't heard about that for a while. 🤔
    I didn't say anything about the law, I was referring to Parliament's ability to change the law. That's different.

    Do you deny that if Parliament is unhappy with how the law is applied that they can change the law for going forwards?

    I specifically agreed that Parliament should NOT pass retrospective changes. Though it does have the ability to do so too, I find it extremely unethical to do it.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,748
    edited December 2021
    Andy_JS said:

    If the various reports about Omicron being very infectious but not very serious are correct, its inevitable spread may end up acting like a natural vaccination, one that the anti-vaxxer crowd probably won't be able to avoid.

    Yeah, it could be the virus the British originally had a plan for, ie you can't stop it but it's not too serious, so if there's a response it's just to try to reduce the size of the peak to stop the healthcare system falling over.

    I'm not sure whether they'll be able to adjust to this, or whether their system of always fighting the last war prevents them from fighting the last war but one.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,849
    edited December 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    Farooq said:

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation.
    If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
    I mean the former.

    If a Judge interprets a law badly, and Parliament clarifies the law for next time, then that is Parliament doing its own job.

    It is for Parliament to determine what the law is, not Judges.
    Er.... no....... have you ever heard about the common law? It's been the law of these islands for hundreds of years.
    Er…. no..…. surely you mean the southern two-thirds of these islands?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,756

    Cyclefree said:

    Farooq said:

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation.
    If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
    I mean the former.

    If a Judge interprets a law badly, and Parliament clarifies the law for next time, then that is Parliament doing its own job.

    It is for Parliament to determine what the law is, not Judges.
    Er.... no....... have you ever heard about the common law? It's been the law of these islands for hundreds of years.
    Er…. no..…. surely you mean the southern two-thirds of these islands?
    Isn't there an element of common law in Scottish law?
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,085
    I see Bob Dole (Republic Presidential candidate) died yesterday (aged 98 despite being almost killed in WW2) - I used to think he was somewhat extreme .... and then look what happened to the Republican Party. I cant help but wonder how today's politicians will be judged.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 608
    Wow so no 10 wants to just ignore judges rulings. You’d expect to see this in a banana Republic not the UK , very sad and disturbing . Good luck trying to lecture other countries on democracy.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Farooq said:

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation.
    If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
    I mean the former.

    If a Judge interprets a law badly, and Parliament clarifies the law for next time, then that is Parliament doing its own job.

    It is for Parliament to determine what the law is, not Judges.
    Please don't embarrass yourself talking nonsense about the law again. I have fee-paying work to do this week and won't have the time to correct the many mistakes you will undoubtedly make. Thank you.

    There's always the Northern Irish protocol. We haven't heard about that for a while. 🤔
    Andy_JS said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Farooq said:

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation.
    If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
    I mean the former.

    If a Judge interprets a law badly, and Parliament clarifies the law for next time, then that is Parliament doing its own job.

    It is for Parliament to determine what the law is, not Judges.
    Er.... no....... have you ever heard about the common law? It's been the law of these islands for hundreds of years.
    Er…. no..…. surely you mean the southern two-thirds of these islands?
    Isn't there an element of common law in Scottish law?
    Yes, of course! And has been since long before the Union. I was being a bit mischievous.

    I am no expert on Scots law, but my understanding is that common law plays a far more minor role than it does in English law, where it is the very foundation of the entire legal system.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 5,519
    edited December 2021

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Morning all.

    Now that it's party season, what should the government do if the courts hand down a judgement making cocaine testing de facto mandatory at no.10 and on the parliamentary estate ?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,756
    nico679 said:

    Wow so no 10 wants to just ignore judges rulings. You’d expect to see this in a banana Republic not the UK , very sad and disturbing . Good luck trying to lecture other countries on democracy.

    The government can pass whatever laws they want anyway, as long as they persuade enough MPs to support whatever it is.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,552

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Morning all.

    Now that it's party season, what should the government do if the courts hand down a judgement making cocaine testing de facto mandatory at no.10 and on the parliamentary estate ?
    I don't believe British judges have that power.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 5,519
    edited December 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Morning all.

    Now that it's party season, what should the government do if the courts hand down a judgement making cocaine testing de facto mandatory at no.10 and on the parliamentary estate ?
    I don't believe British judges have that power.
    If only they did..

    I see the newspapers' bizarre and very curious ignoring of the story continues.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    F1: well, my predictions were utterly wrong. Alas.

    A few quick notes (not doing a post-race thingummyjig):

    Verstappen's initial 'letting Hamilton pass' approach was just stupid. The conniving DRS position is fair enough as others have done it, but the way it was done was daft. At the same time, Hamilton had time and space to pass (confusion more understandable due to slow radio and numerous VSCs).

    However, he did appear to get double-penalised (time penalty and investigation post-race, as well as having to let Hamilton pass having tried that once, albeit clumsily).

    The 5s time penalty was only 5s less than Hamilton got for punting Verstappen into a 50G race-finishing crash in Silverstone...

    However, if you were a script writer, having them level on points for the final race is the way to go. But Hamilton's simply had the faster car for the last few races, by a clear margin.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,756
    "Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has told Sky News he is to call in police after claims that drug abuse is rife in the Houses of Parliament.

    Sir Lindsay is demanding a drugs crackdown - including sniffer dogs prowling the corridors - amid growing evidence of cannabis and cocaine being used openly. Allegations include a claim that a former MP put his drug dealer on the parliamentary payroll, claiming he was a member of staff, as a way of paying him for drugs. And, according to a report in The Sunday Times, the same former MP is rumoured to have dealt drugs himself and at least one parliamentary aide has been sacked for taking cocaine."

    https://news.sky.com/story/commons-speaker-sir-lindsay-hoyle-to-call-in-police-over-claims-of-drug-abuse-in-the-houses-of-parliament-12487771
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 5,519
    edited December 2021
    Andy_JS said:

    "Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has told Sky News he is to call in police after claims that drug abuse is rife in the Houses of Parliament.

    Sir Lindsay is demanding a drugs crackdown - including sniffer dogs prowling the corridors - amid growing evidence of cannabis and cocaine being used openly. Allegations include a claim that a former MP put his drug dealer on the parliamentary payroll, claiming he was a member of staff, as a way of paying him for drugs. And, according to a report in The Sunday Times, the same former MP is rumoured to have dealt drugs himself and at least one parliamentary aide has been sacked for taking cocaine."

    https://news.sky.com/story/commons-speaker-sir-lindsay-hoyle-to-call-in-police-over-claims-of-drug-abuse-in-the-houses-of-parliament-12487771

    Haha.

    People are actually dealing cocaine in the Commons, while the government threatens to remove the liberty of MDMA and LSD users to travel, from a position of great traditional moral authority. One should never doubt that our rulers mean what they say.

    One shouldn't laugh.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,150
    Re: the Downing Street Party/ies. It would be interesting to know if (and if so how) they were reported last December/January. I find it very difficult to believe that they were only known about by journalists *now*.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if they were referenced within some typical Sunday newspapers “in depth” piece, as some sort of drab, subdued affair where staff were glumly sitting around in the office after official working hours trying to drum up whatever festive spirit they could manage. As for “the rules”, I distinctly remember loads of comment (as so common through the pandemic) of how inconsistent/and or loopholes they were with. One particular example being how absurd it was that you could sit around with a few bottles of alcohol in the office, but woe betide anybody who tried to organise exactly the same thing in a private house.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,333
    .

    Cyclefree said:

    Farooq said:

    "Parliament to pass an interpretation bill" . . . that's not ministers overruling judges, that's Parliament passing laws as its sovereign to do.

    That is entirely reasonable. If the courts pass anything that Parliament doesn't like then Parliament must be allowed to correct the course by passing a new bill to override it.

    Depends what they mean, which is far from clear to my non-expert eyes. If they mean legislating forwards then yeah, ok, but I don't feel comfortable about converyor-belt legislation.
    If it's striking down judges' decisions, then it resembles (is?) retroactive legislation. That cannot be tolerated, even by you.
    I mean the former.

    If a Judge interprets a law badly, and Parliament clarifies the law for next time, then that is Parliament doing its own job.

    It is for Parliament to determine what the law is, not Judges.
    Please don't embarrass yourself talking nonsense about the law again. I have fee-paying work to do this week and won't have the time to correct the many mistakes you will undoubtedly make. Thank you.

    There's always the Northern Irish protocol. We haven't heard about that for a while. 🤔
    I didn't say anything about the law, I was referring to Parliament's ability to change the law. That's different.

    Do you deny that if Parliament is unhappy with how the law is applied that they can change the law for going forwards?

    I specifically agreed that Parliament should NOT pass retrospective changes. Though it does have the ability to do so too, I find it extremely unethical to do it.
    What this legislation is about is limiting judges’ ability to hold ministers to the laws that Parliament has passed. In other words enabling the executive to bend the law.
    That is dangerous.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 5,519
    edited December 2021
    The idea that the government might think this new crackdown would finger Labour or Liberal Democrat MP's or associates, in the light of cocaine traces being found nearest the offices of Johnson himself and another Tory, doesn't add up.

    It looks more like panic in advance of something to me.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,085

    The idea that the government would think that this new crackdown would finger Labour MP's or associates, in the light of cocaine traces being found nearest the offices of Johnson himself and another Tory, doesn't add up.

    It looks more like panic in advance pf something to me.

    Didnt Michael Gove admit to partaking in his `wilder days'..... I
  • The idea that the government would think that this new crackdown would finger Labour MP's or associates, in the light of cocaine traces being found nearest the offices of Johnson himself and another Tory, doesn't add up.

    It looks more like panic in advance pf something to me.

    Didnt Michael Gove admit to partaking in his `wilder days'..... I
    And there are more than a few other leading Tories rumoured to be on good terms with Boris's "powder rooms of North London" in media circles.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 26,108
    edited December 2021
    Good morning everyone. Colder again, and rain is forecast. Rain can, if course, be expected in a British winter.
    Crackdown..... there's an appropriate word in the circumstances .... after crackdown has been tried in the 'War on Drugs' and doesn't seem to work. What would work is legalising one or two 'softer drugs', unless of course cocaine use, prevalent, certainly at one time, AIUI, among the nobility and gentry, is now so widespread that it's the drug of choice.

    And if it is, then the war has been well and truly lost, and we'll have to think of a completely new strategy.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,330
    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Thanks for the entertaining header.

    I am confused about Braverman and Raab. They appear to have both been competent and respected lawyers in their past lives. It is hard to understand how, after a few years in politics, they can fall to the point where they can be used in such a humiliating way. Both come across as complete clowns. The contrast with Geoffrey Cox and Robert Buckland is very noticeable.

    You are hugely overstating how competent and respected both Raab and
    Braverman are. Raab was not taken on as a lawyer by Linklaters at the end of his articles. Braverman was an average barrister who was somewhat economical with the actualite of her CV as a barrister and whose attempt at arguing the criminal law in the case of the Harper case (the policeman killed by being dragged behind a car) was dismissed as utterly hopeless and misguided by the court in terms of politely withering contempt.

    Buckland is no great shakes. He hardly set the Welsh circuit on his fire with his oratory.

    Cox for all his faults actually knows that a lawyer must give his honest legal advice and not just what his client wants to hear. He, more than anyone, ironically enough, is responsible for Johnson being PM. It was his legal advice on May's deal which scuppered her final chance to get it through and set the stage for Johnson to grab the crown. He would not trim his legal advice to suit her political needs.

    For sure - they are both ultimately second rate lawyers, unlike Starmer who reached the top of the profession. But it isn't exactly easy to get either a training contract at Linklaters (Raab) or to be called to the bar and practice for 10 years or so (Braverman). In terms of Parliament they are intellectual heavyweights. However, their attempts at legal independence are little short of pathetic.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 8,257



    (Trivia: the finale of the latest Bond movie, where Bond ****, was rather improbably supposed to be located in the disputed southern Kurile islands. If there’s one part of the world Mickey Mouse RN warships won’t be f’ing about it’s the Kurile islands.)

    I had to sit through it last week as Mrs DA wanted to see it (she is a cultural anglophile). The only thing of any note I took from it was that the DB5 was obviously a fake with a modern DOHC inline 6 (maybe a 2JZ) and they hadn't bothered to overdub it with the correct engine sound.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,150
    darkage said:

    Cyclefree said:

    darkage said:

    Thanks for the entertaining header.

    I am confused about Braverman and Raab. They appear to have both been competent and respected lawyers in their past lives. It is hard to understand how, after a few years in politics, they can fall to the point where they can be used in such a humiliating way. Both come across as complete clowns. The contrast with Geoffrey Cox and Robert Buckland is very noticeable.

    You are hugely overstating how competent and respected both Raab and
    Braverman are. Raab was not taken on as a lawyer by Linklaters at the end of his articles. Braverman was an average barrister who was somewhat economical with the actualite of her CV as a barrister and whose attempt at arguing the criminal law in the case of the Harper case (the policeman killed by being dragged behind a car) was dismissed as utterly hopeless and misguided by the court in terms of politely withering contempt.

    Buckland is no great shakes. He hardly set the Welsh circuit on his fire with his oratory.

    Cox for all his faults actually knows that a lawyer must give his honest legal advice and not just what his client wants to hear. He, more than anyone, ironically enough, is responsible for Johnson being PM. It was his legal advice on May's deal which scuppered her final chance to get it through and set the stage for Johnson to grab the crown. He would not trim his legal advice to suit her political needs.

    For sure - they are both ultimately second rate lawyers, unlike Starmer who reached the top of the profession. But it isn't exactly easy to get either a training contract at Linklaters (Raab) or to be called to the bar and practice for 10 years or so (Braverman). In terms of Parliament they are intellectual heavyweights. However, their attempts at legal independence are little short of pathetic.
    In this particular case I think that Raab is just likely to have been a victim of being an extremely poor communicator. He was simply trying to exploit something said (whether you agree with it or not) by Cressida Dick specifically about retrospective investigation of Covid breaches - generally a waste of time and resources, given the penalties involved - and almost zero success rate in the courts. You can’t issue an “on-the-spot” fine 12 months after the event,and there’s not much point in issuing a warning in relation to laws that are no longer in place. But in attempting to exploit it in defence of the Government, and communicating particularly badly, he has come across as rejecting the entire basis of our legal system.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,094
    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    nico679 said:

    Wow so no 10 wants to just ignore judges rulings. You’d expect to see this in a banana Republic not the UK , very sad and disturbing . Good luck trying to lecture other countries on democracy.

    The government can pass whatever laws they want anyway, as long as they persuade enough MPs to support whatever it is.
    Really I never knew ! You’re missing the point entirely , enacting legislation that just overrides a judges ruling is quite different to enacting legislation that addresses any judgement and seeks to alter the original law.

    The fact that this story isn’t the main headline across all outlets is deeply troubling .
    It's the sort of arrogant, "the Law is only for the little people" approach that you would expect to be cooked up by a bunch of cokeheads.

    Make you wonder if this government isn’t the ultimate Oxford Bullingdon club escapade planned long, long ago. Perhaps after smashing up the country and doing what the hell they like, Boris and co will pay for the damage.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,756
    nico679 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    nico679 said:

    Wow so no 10 wants to just ignore judges rulings. You’d expect to see this in a banana Republic not the UK , very sad and disturbing . Good luck trying to lecture other countries on democracy.

    The government can pass whatever laws they want anyway, as long as they persuade enough MPs to support whatever it is.
    Really I never knew ! You’re missing the point entirely , enacting legislation that just overrides a judges ruling is quite different to enacting legislation that addresses any judgement and seeks to alter the original law.

    The fact that this story isn’t the main headline across all outlets is deeply troubling .
    Sorry, that was a silly comment by me.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 26,108
    Thinking about it, I'm somewhat surprised at the idea that passports and driving licenses could be removed consequent on a conviction for drug use. Surely the penalty should be related to the offence.
    And this seems to be a new idea, or at least one not used before in modern times.
    Wee could of course stop people with a conviction for drug offences coming here, as the US does.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    nico679 said:

    Wow so no 10 wants to just ignore judges rulings. You’d expect to see this in a banana Republic not the UK , very sad and disturbing . Good luck trying to lecture other countries on democracy.

    The government can pass whatever laws they want anyway, as long as they persuade enough MPs to support whatever it is.
    Really I never knew ! You’re missing the point entirely , enacting legislation that just overrides a judges ruling is quite different to enacting legislation that addresses any judgement and seeks to alter the original law.

    The fact that this story isn’t the main headline across all outlets is deeply troubling .
    It's the sort of arrogant, "the Law is only for the little people" approach that you would expect to be cooked up by a bunch of cokeheads.

    Have they considered a career running F1 teams?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 608
    Andy_JS said:

    nico679 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    nico679 said:

    Wow so no 10 wants to just ignore judges rulings. You’d expect to see this in a banana Republic not the UK , very sad and disturbing . Good luck trying to lecture other countries on democracy.

    The government can pass whatever laws they want anyway, as long as they persuade enough MPs to support whatever it is.
    Really I never knew ! You’re missing the point entirely , enacting legislation that just overrides a judges ruling is quite different to enacting legislation that addresses any judgement and seeks to alter the original law.

    The fact that this story isn’t the main headline across all outlets is deeply troubling .
    Sorry, that was a silly comment by me.
    No worries . This latest attack on the judiciary is very worrying . This would mean that citizens seeking judicial review could win their case and the government could just ignore this , it would by effect put people off seeking judicial review . It’s an attack on the rights of citizens .
This discussion has been closed.