Howdy, Stranger!

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

The markets edge back to Johnson but 2022 exit still odds on – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,161
edited February 2022 in General
The markets edge back to Johnson but 2022 exit still odds on – politicalbetting.com

Latest from our Boris Johnson markets:To leave PM role in 2022 – 57% (was 79% a week ago)To go before April – 12% (was 45%)Tory leader at next General Election – 28% (was 16%)Tory MPs to trigger no-confidence vote this month – 30%Trade ?? https://t.co/rvm2Y4XIFf #PMQs pic.twitter.com/mSmlCUgHkV

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    No conf this month looks value
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
  • I would just say that while Boris avoided a mutiny today, I am fairly confident Boris will face a vonc soon

    I would go as far as to suggest that if he does receive a FPN, he may apologise and say that he is putting himself forward in his own voc to his conservative mps
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    A Third World War might fit his frame. Prepare the plane for Moscow.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    MISTY said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
    But they are Southend West - Labour / Lib Dems not standing so Tory win on a tiny vote
    Birmingham Erdington - safe Labour even before Bozo blew any chance of the Tories winning up.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,913
    MISTY said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
    Only one a Tory held seat, where the only opponent of any significance is UKIP. so near certain Tory hold.

    The other a safe Labour seat.
    '
    So no problems for Boris in either (unless maybe UKIP won Southend West tomorrow, which is highly unlikely)
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    eek said:

    MISTY said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
    But they are Southend West - Labour / Lib Dems not standing so Tory win on a tiny vote
    Birmingham Erdington - safe Labour even before Bozo blew any chance of the Tories winning up.
    How bad will the tory vote be in Erdington?

    And how good will the Labour vote be?

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,011
    Off topic:

    One of the joys of reading old books is that you sometimes find things between the pages. This morning I turned a page of my 1940 copy of "The Crowthers of Bankdam" and discovered a newspaper cutting from 1952.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited February 2022
    Hahaha

    "But the amount of a fixed penalty notice increases with each subsequent one given. Here's what I think those figures would be:

    🥳20.5.20 £100
    🥳19.6.20 £200
    🥳13.11.20 £800
    🥳13.11.20 £1,600
    🥳17.12.20 £3,200
    🥳14.1.21 £6,400

    Total: £12,300"

    https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1488808714547126273

    ETA Finally Boris gets to understand "exponential."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,913
    MISTY said:

    eek said:

    MISTY said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
    But they are Southend West - Labour / Lib Dems not standing so Tory win on a tiny vote
    Birmingham Erdington - safe Labour even before Bozo blew any chance of the Tories winning up.
    How bad will the tory vote be in Erdington?

    And how good will the Labour vote be?

    As long as the Tories hold second place in Erdington it will make zero impact, Labour would be expected to hold it comfortably even pre Partygate
  • MISTY said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
    I had forgotten those. The Tories should win the Southend one considering that they are the only main party and the others are unknowns, fruitcakes and far-right
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    edited February 2022
    Something I never knew but it's surprisingly cheap (posted from twitter it's not me being a nosey bastard)


    Fesshole Roll of paper
    @fesshole
    ·
    4m
    Little known fact but it costs only £1.50 to get a copy of the will of anyone who's died in the last 25 years from the http://gov.uk website. Whenever I'm bored I search for a dead celebrity's will and have a poke around their business like a nosey bastard
  • I would just say that while Boris avoided a mutiny today, I am fairly confident Boris will face a vonc soon

    I would go as far as to suggest that if he does receive a FPN, he may apologise and say that he is putting himself forward in his own voc to his conservative mps

    You keep projecting your wishes on to Boris and assuming he will behave appropriately. He will not do so. If he gets away with this I expect him to keep his head down and say nothing and do nothing because why would he take a chance on starting something that might go against him?

    At most he will make a meaningless blather of an apology and then just carry on because it has always worked for him in the past.
    My information from a most reliable source indicates a vonc is near and a FPN will bring it about
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,913

    MISTY said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
    I had forgotten those. The Tories should win the Southend one considering that they are the only main party and the others are unknowns, fruitcakes and far-right
    Highly amusing though that Labour and LD supporters and diehard Remainers are praying for a UKIP victory in Southend West tomorrow as the best way of getting a VONC in Boris anytime soon
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    IshmaelZ said:

    Hahaha

    "But the amount of a fixed penalty notice increases with each subsequent one given. Here's what I think those figures would be:

    🥳20.5.20 £100
    🥳19.6.20 £200
    🥳13.11.20 £800
    🥳13.11.20 £1,600
    🥳17.12.20 £3,200
    🥳14.1.21 £6,400

    Total: £12,300"

    https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1488808714547126273

    ETA Finally Boris gets to understand "exponential."

    Johnson can't afford that!

    Just get me Lord Brownlow on the blower.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826

    The Tories are stuck with Johnson. So are we, unfortunately.

    Why? He now appears to be a drag on their ratings.

    The Tories are in danger of losing their well earned reputation for ruthlessness. Come on boys it's time to act.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,248
    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, I

    rkrkrk said:

    Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings.
    But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.

    And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.

    The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.

    It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.

    Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.

    Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.

    Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
    Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
    The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.

    And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?

    So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.

    For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
    The problem for the progressive, here, is that you have two minorities (yes, women, 51% etc. But) with conflicting stances on the same issue.

    There is literally no solution that satisfies both 100%.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,913

    I would just say that while Boris avoided a mutiny today, I am fairly confident Boris will face a vonc soon

    I would go as far as to suggest that if he does receive a FPN, he may apologise and say that he is putting himself forward in his own voc to his conservative mps

    You keep projecting your wishes on to Boris and assuming he will behave appropriately. He will not do so. If he gets away with this I expect him to keep his head down and say nothing and do nothing because why would he take a chance on starting something that might go against him?

    At most he will make a meaningless blather of an apology and then just carry on because it has always worked for him in the past.
    My information from a most reliable source indicates a vonc is near and a FPN will bring it about
    Your most reliable source being Mrs BigG I presume
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, I

    rkrkrk said:

    Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings.
    But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.

    And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.

    The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.

    It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.

    Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.

    Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.

    Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
    Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
    The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.

    And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?

    So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.

    For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
    The problem for the progressive, here, is that you have two minorities (yes, women, 51% etc. But) with conflicting stances on the same issue.

    There is literally no solution that satisfies both 100%.
    +1 - it's why I now trying to avoid conversations on the topic on here. Even though I agree with Cyclefree this is an issue that just can't be fixed.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    I would just say that while Boris avoided a mutiny today, I am fairly confident Boris will face a vonc soon

    I would go as far as to suggest that if he does receive a FPN, he may apologise and say that he is putting himself forward in his own voc to his conservative mps

    You keep projecting your wishes on to Boris and assuming he will behave appropriately. He will not do so. If he gets away with this I expect him to keep his head down and say nothing and do nothing because why would he take a chance on starting something that might go against him?

    At most he will make a meaningless blather of an apology and then just carry on because it has always worked for him in the past.
    My information from a most reliable source indicates a vonc is near and a FPN will bring it about
    FPN just kicks the can, again. You can simply not pay if you want to dispute liability, and fight the case in court. That buys him 28 days from issue plus time for case to get to a heavily congested court. He could have won anothe GE by then or at least outlasted May/Cameron as PM. So it'll be We must await the court's decision.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    LauraK. saying Priti and Johnson rejected Basu for the Met. for being too political. Patel was overruled by Johnson and extended Dick's term. Patel wants to recruit from outside the Met. Presumably someone more politically sympathetic to Priti.
  • HYUFD said:

    I would just say that while Boris avoided a mutiny today, I am fairly confident Boris will face a vonc soon

    I would go as far as to suggest that if he does receive a FPN, he may apologise and say that he is putting himself forward in his own voc to his conservative mps

    You keep projecting your wishes on to Boris and assuming he will behave appropriately. He will not do so. If he gets away with this I expect him to keep his head down and say nothing and do nothing because why would he take a chance on starting something that might go against him?

    At most he will make a meaningless blather of an apology and then just carry on because it has always worked for him in the past.
    My information from a most reliable source indicates a vonc is near and a FPN will bring it about
    Your most reliable source being Mrs BigG I presume
    Actually it is in the HOC and please do not insult my wife of near 60 years who does not do politics
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    What a lot of twaddle from both of them. Tedious, infantile shite

    Imagine if you just first tuned into to see the biggest spectacle of weekly British politics. THIS

    Are you new to PMQs?
    And the thing is, the infantile stuff is what they, and the public, want from PMQs. If it weren't, they would have changed it by now. It's why Bercow was talking bollocks whenever he went on a tangent about people watching not liking what they saw etc.
    This poll's a bit old, but it doesn't really seem to bear out what you're saying:
    https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/pmqs-poll
    I don't believe the respondents, I think it is an example where people reply with what they think they should be saying rather than what they believe, social desirability bias. It's loud, brash and partisan, and we know that we should say that is wrong.

    Take the 67% saying there is 'too much party political point scoring', that's a load of nonsense. People love political point scoring, we reward our politicians for it, and we tend not to reward those who don't create a spectacle or who genuinely try to cooperate with their opponents.

    If we didn't like partisan theatrics we would not have gotten into a situation where they are rewarded, or face no consequences, for indulging in it.
    Maybe. I don't enjoy the party political points scoring.
    I would be tempted to say that Leon's "You really are quite a strange person" is perhaps accurate, but seeing as the majority agree with me I'll have to think it over.
    Oh, I don't enjoy it (or watch it). I don't even think most people would claim to enjoy it. But I think the actions of the public, or non-actions, speak for themselves. Politicians modulate their behaviour if they think they piss off 67% of people (while happy to piss off the other political side, if it pleases their own).
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    HYUFD said:

    MISTY said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
    I had forgotten those. The Tories should win the Southend one considering that they are the only main party and the others are unknowns, fruitcakes and far-right
    Highly amusing though that Labour and LD supporters and diehard Remainers are praying for a UKIP victory in Southend West tomorrow as the best way of getting a VONC in Boris anytime soon
    I note Dave Nellist is standing as a Socialist candidate in Erdington...?? wonder if Labour are the shoo-in everybody thinks.

    And of course Reform will probably run a candidate....

  • IshmaelZ said:

    Hahaha

    "But the amount of a fixed penalty notice increases with each subsequent one given. Here's what I think those figures would be:

    🥳20.5.20 £100
    🥳19.6.20 £200
    🥳13.11.20 £800
    🥳13.11.20 £1,600
    🥳17.12.20 £3,200
    🥳14.1.21 £6,400

    Total: £12,300"

    https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1488808714547126273

    ETA Finally Boris gets to understand "exponential."

    What does it matter how much it is? He won't be paying - they'll get a Tory donor to pay.
  • MISTY said:

    eek said:

    MISTY said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
    But they are Southend West - Labour / Lib Dems not standing so Tory win on a tiny vote
    Birmingham Erdington - safe Labour even before Bozo blew any chance of the Tories winning up.
    How bad will the tory vote be in Erdington?

    And how good will the Labour vote be?

    I could see Labour getting up to 60% which would be slightly higher than the 58-59% they got in 1997 and 2017. The Tories will probably get about 30% so that would be a 10% swing from Con to Lab like Old Bexley and Sidcup.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    I would just say that while Boris avoided a mutiny today, I am fairly confident Boris will face a vonc soon

    I would go as far as to suggest that if he does receive a FPN, he may apologise and say that he is putting himself forward in his own voc to his conservative mps

    You keep projecting your wishes on to Boris and assuming he will behave appropriately. He will not do so. If he gets away with this I expect him to keep his head down and say nothing and do nothing because why would he take a chance on starting something that might go against him?

    At most he will make a meaningless blather of an apology and then just carry on because it has always worked for him in the past.
    My information from a most reliable source indicates a vonc is near and a FPN will bring it about
    FPN just kicks the can, again. You can simply not pay if you want to dispute liability, and fight the case in court. That buys him 28 days from issue plus time for case to get to a heavily congested court. He could have won anothe GE by then or at least outlasted May/Cameron as PM. So it'll be We must await the court's decision.
    To be honest it had not occurred to me he would be so stupid but then this is Boris, so thank you
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,248

    LauraK. saying Priti and Johnson rejected Basu for the Met. for being too political. Patel was overruled by Johnson and extended Dick's term. Patel wants to recruit from outside the Met. Presumably someone more politically sympathetic to Priti.

    The idea of recruiting outside the Met and even the UK police forces has been going on for years.

    The police objections to this are mostly to do with fear of having someone at the top who doesn't agree that the first priority of the head of the Met is "protecting the Met". As in protecting against significant reform.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    MISTY said:

    eek said:

    MISTY said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
    But they are Southend West - Labour / Lib Dems not standing so Tory win on a tiny vote
    Birmingham Erdington - safe Labour even before Bozo blew any chance of the Tories winning up.
    How bad will the tory vote be in Erdington?

    And how good will the Labour vote be?

    I could see Labour getting up to 60% which would be slightly higher than the 58-59% they got in 1997 and 2017. The Tories will probably get about 30% so that would be a 10% swing from Con to Lab like Old Bexley and Sidcup.
    https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/33675/02-02-2022/dave-nellist-standing-for-birmingham-erdington

    Might knock a few percentage points off the labour score?
  • eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, I

    rkrkrk said:

    Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings.
    But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.

    And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.

    The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.

    It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.

    Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.

    Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.

    Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
    Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
    The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.

    And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?

    So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.

    For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
    The problem for the progressive, here, is that you have two minorities (yes, women, 51% etc. But) with conflicting stances on the same issue.

    There is literally no solution that satisfies both 100%.
    +1 - it's why I now trying to avoid conversations on the topic on here. Even though I agree with Cyclefree this is an issue that just can't be fixed.
    I also avoid this standing row. If it is going to carry on in this thread then I will come back later when hopefully they argued themselves out
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    LauraK. saying Priti and Johnson rejected Basu for the Met. for being too political. Patel was overruled by Johnson and extended Dick's term. Patel wants to recruit from outside the Met. Presumably someone more politically sympathetic to Priti.

    The idea of recruiting outside the Met and even the UK police forces has been going on for years.

    The police objections to this are mostly to do with fear of having someone at the top who doesn't agree that the first priority of the head of the Met is "protecting the Met". As in protecting against significant reform.
    I'm not a fan of presuming 'getting an outsider in to shake things up' will be a panacea for an organisation. Sometimes things are the way they are for a good reason, and if you go in with the intent of a shakeup when it is not needed, rather than being prepared to shake things up, you can just piss a load of people off for no good reason.

    But sometimes it is very, very necessary. When an organisation or institution gives the impression that it has reached the inevitable stage of protecting itself being the main priority, it's time for external forces to wade in.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions
  • eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    If it does happen, as a non Tory I would applaud Tory MPs who take a stand on this, it shows there are still some decent people left in the party.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    edited February 2022
    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,248

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, I

    rkrkrk said:

    Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings.
    But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.

    And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.

    The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.

    It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.

    Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.

    Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.

    Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
    Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
    The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.

    And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?

    So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.

    For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
    The problem for the progressive, here, is that you have two minorities (yes, women, 51% etc. But) with conflicting stances on the same issue.

    There is literally no solution that satisfies both 100%.
    +1 - it's why I now trying to avoid conversations on the topic on here. Even though I agree with Cyclefree this is an issue that just can't be fixed.
    I also avoid this standing row. If it is going to carry on in this thread then I will come back later when hopefully they argued themselves out
    The problem is that it is a real issue. For both sides. Not some culture wars nonsense. The only solution is one where everyone is equally unhappy, probably.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    The consent pop-ups we are subjected to on all websites are unlawful

    https://www.iccl.ie/news/gdpr-enforcer-rules-that-iab-europes-consent-popups-are-unlawful/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,248
    kle4 said:

    LauraK. saying Priti and Johnson rejected Basu for the Met. for being too political. Patel was overruled by Johnson and extended Dick's term. Patel wants to recruit from outside the Met. Presumably someone more politically sympathetic to Priti.

    The idea of recruiting outside the Met and even the UK police forces has been going on for years.

    The police objections to this are mostly to do with fear of having someone at the top who doesn't agree that the first priority of the head of the Met is "protecting the Met". As in protecting against significant reform.
    I'm not a fan of presuming 'getting an outsider in to shake things up' will be a panacea for an organisation. Sometimes things are the way they are for a good reason, and if you go in with the intent of a shakeup when it is not needed, rather than being prepared to shake things up, you can just piss a load of people off for no good reason.

    But sometimes it is very, very necessary. When an organisation or institution gives the impression that it has reached the inevitable stage of protecting itself being the main priority, it's time for external forces to wade in.
    It was clear a number of years ago that that the UK police forces in general, live in that zone. Hence the the idea of Bill Bratton - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14990609
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,375
    HYUFD said:

    MISTY said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
    I had forgotten those. The Tories should win the Southend one considering that they are the only main party and the others are unknowns, fruitcakes and far-right
    Highly amusing though that Labour and LD supporters and diehard Remainers are praying for a UKIP victory in Southend West tomorrow as the best way of getting a VONC in Boris anytime soon
    No, we're really not praying for a UKIP victory. If I'm typical, which I suspect I am, I am utterly indifferent to the outcome of the Southend West by-election. Happy to see multiple right-wing parties fighting like rats in a sack, and expect to see a comfortable Tory win.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,630
    edited February 2022
    FPT
    eek said:

    And some new threads for TSE because this just screams you (in quiet tasteful mode)

    https://www.tkmaxx.com/uk/en/mens-early-access/blue-striped-three-piece-suit/p/23602210

    As if I would ever shop at TK Maxx, I do have some taste.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    If it does happen, as a non Tory I would applaud Tory MPs who take a stand on this, it shows there are still some decent people left in the party.
    It's on my list of "things that will never happen".
  • kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    I think it is the sort of thing that could push people over. If they were prevaricating already, it is perfectly possible that this sort of thing would be enough. It is pretty low and very reminiscent of the behaviour of Trump
  • eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    I was on the phone earlier speaking to a political friend, I dropped the c-bomb when talking about Boris Johnson and this.

    My friend was shocked, as he known me for twenty years and I've only dropped the c-bomb once before.

    When talking about Mark Reckless.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,989
    edited February 2022

    kle4 said:

    LauraK. saying Priti and Johnson rejected Basu for the Met. for being too political. Patel was overruled by Johnson and extended Dick's term. Patel wants to recruit from outside the Met. Presumably someone more politically sympathetic to Priti.

    The idea of recruiting outside the Met and even the UK police forces has been going on for years.

    The police objections to this are mostly to do with fear of having someone at the top who doesn't agree that the first priority of the head of the Met is "protecting the Met". As in protecting against significant reform.
    I'm not a fan of presuming 'getting an outsider in to shake things up' will be a panacea for an organisation. Sometimes things are the way they are for a good reason, and if you go in with the intent of a shakeup when it is not needed, rather than being prepared to shake things up, you can just piss a load of people off for no good reason.

    But sometimes it is very, very necessary. When an organisation or institution gives the impression that it has reached the inevitable stage of protecting itself being the main priority, it's time for external forces to wade in.
    It was clear a number of years ago that that the UK police forces in general, live in that zone. Hence the the idea of Bill Bratton - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14990609
    Terrible decision by May to veto it.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    I think it is the sort of thing that could push people over. If they were prevaricating already, it is perfectly possible that this sort of thing would be enough. It is pretty low and very reminiscent of the behaviour of Trump
    Sadly not. If 54 MPs had a backbone/morals they would have lettered Brady Old Lady long, long ago. They haven't, and they haven't.

    Boris is going nowhere.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,078

    HYUFD said:

    MISTY said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
    I had forgotten those. The Tories should win the Southend one considering that they are the only main party and the others are unknowns, fruitcakes and far-right
    Highly amusing though that Labour and LD supporters and diehard Remainers are praying for a UKIP victory in Southend West tomorrow as the best way of getting a VONC in Boris anytime soon
    No, we're really not praying for a UKIP victory. If I'm typical, which I suspect I am, I am utterly indifferent to the outcome of the Southend West by-election. Happy to see multiple right-wing parties fighting like rats in a sack, and expect to see a comfortable Tory win.
    As always HYFUD tries to tell us what we actually beleive, which is precisely the kind of arrogance that has led us to this contemptible farce of a government.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,248
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, I

    rkrkrk said:

    Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings.
    But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.

    And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.

    The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.

    It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.

    Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.

    Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.

    Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
    Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
    The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.

    And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?

    So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.

    For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
    The problem for the progressive, here, is that you have two minorities (yes, women, 51% etc. But) with conflicting stances on the same issue.

    There is literally no solution that satisfies both 100%.
    There are solutions which give an acceptable compromise to both and which are in line with the science and facts and proper risk assessment.

    But when one side says that biological facts are untrue and should be ignored and the other says you cannot ignore biological facts, there is only one choice to be made. Surely?

    It's like arguing that there is no compromise acceptable to flat earthers and those who say that the earth is not flat and therefore nothing can be done. At some point, policies have to be based on facts.

    Gender dysphoria is a fact. It needs treatment and much better and more easily available treatment than is currently the case. I strongly support this.

    But a man claiming that he can simply become a woman just by saying so without any medical diagnosis and without having to do anything at all is not a fact. But a wish.

    I may as well say that I can turn the wooden table I'm sitting at into gold and demand that the law accords with my feeling on this topic.

    Indeed I wish it would because my energy bill has gone up.

    So I had better go and earn some money to pay for it all.

    Till later.
    Yes, the a solution will involve compromise. Compromise is not a dirty word*. It is the only way that democracy works.

    I don't especially like compromise. In the case of NI, compromise meant paying sociopathic gangsters 6 figures a year to play politician. But on the upside, they aren't out smashing quite so many teenager kneecaps.

    Mind you, NI has slipped from it's position as the best place in the world to get joint reconstructive surgery. All that practice meant the surgeons there were being recommended to all the top athletes.

    *Someone else can copy-pasta the BlackAdder joke here.
  • FPT

    eek said:

    And some new threads for TSE because this just screams you (in quiet tasteful mode)

    https://www.tkmaxx.com/uk/en/mens-early-access/blue-striped-three-piece-suit/p/23602210

    As if I would ever shop at TK Maxx, I do have some taste.
    Plenty of good stuff in TK Maxx. You have to sift through 90% of the shite, but for a tightarse like me that despite being fabulously wealthy balks at paying £100 for a pair of jeans elsewhere, it is worth a visit.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,989
    edited February 2022
    eek said:

    Something I never knew but it's surprisingly cheap (posted from twitter it's not me being a nosey bastard)


    Fesshole Roll of paper
    @fesshole
    ·
    4m
    Little known fact but it costs only £1.50 to get a copy of the will of anyone who's died in the last 25 years from the http://gov.uk website. Whenever I'm bored I search for a dead celebrity's will and have a poke around their business like a nosey bastard

    That has to be costing the government money to offer that service. What the max cost of an FOI request?
  • Following on from last night's discussion.


  • eekeek Posts: 28,368
    edited February 2022

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    I was on the phone earlier speaking to a political friend, I dropped the c-bomb when talking about Boris Johnson and this.

    My friend was shocked, as he known me for twenty years and I've only dropped the c-bomb once before.

    When talking about Mark Reckless.
    As I said earlier today - as it's been allowed it's the sort of thing that tells me Labour should hold a commission on constitutional reform and then build the newly reformed Parliament somewhere else such as Nottingham or (actually scrub Nottingham) - Stoke....
  • eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    If it does happen, as a non Tory I would applaud Tory MPs who take a stand on this, it shows there are still some decent people left in the party.
    There are plenty of decent people in the Tory Party, just as there were plenty of decent people in the Labour Party when the alleged anti-Semite was still leader
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,248

    eek said:

    Something I never knew but it's surprisingly cheap (posted from twitter it's not me being a nosey bastard)


    Fesshole Roll of paper
    @fesshole
    ·
    4m
    Little known fact but it costs only £1.50 to get a copy of the will of anyone who's died in the last 25 years from the http://gov.uk website. Whenever I'm bored I search for a dead celebrity's will and have a poke around their business like a nosey bastard

    That has to be costing the government money to offer that service.
    The Romans started the idea of making wills a formal, public thing. It was a big part of their administration, IIRC.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,989
    edited February 2022
    As soon as you hear well I will send a letter when / unless they ain't doing it.

    David Davis conditions he placed on it were laughable.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329

    Off topic:

    One of the joys of reading old books is that you sometimes find things between the pages. This morning I turned a page of my 1940 copy of "The Crowthers of Bankdam" and discovered a newspaper cutting from 1952.

    How interesting was it? I wonder why you would cut out a piece from a paper and then have no use so it ends up in a book. Unless it was designed to be a bookmark
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,552
    John Hopkins University.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

    "Lockdowns, school closures and limiting gatherings only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2% at 'enormous economic and social costs', study finds
    Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths
    Economists who carried out review said border closures had virtually zero effect on Covid mortality (-0.1%)
    However, researchers found closing nonessential shops was most effective intervention, causing 10.6% fall"
  • kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    I think it is the sort of thing that could push people over. If they were prevaricating already, it is perfectly possible that this sort of thing would be enough. It is pretty low and very reminiscent of the behaviour of Trump
    Sadly not. If 54 MPs had a backbone/morals they would have lettered Brady Old Lady long, long ago. They haven't, and they haven't.

    Boris is going nowhere.
    I am still confident he will be gone by June.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    FPT

    eek said:

    And some new threads for TSE because this just screams you (in quiet tasteful mode)

    https://www.tkmaxx.com/uk/en/mens-early-access/blue-striped-three-piece-suit/p/23602210

    As if I would ever shop at TK Maxx, I do have some taste.
    Plenty of good stuff in TK Maxx. You have to sift through 90% of the shite, but for a tightarse like me that despite being fabulously wealthy balks at paying £100 for a pair of jeans elsewhere, it is worth a visit.
    Oh the online stuff is great at times - I like a particular German brand for jackets and other items and TK Maxx is great for offering stuff at 1/3 the price it would otherwise cost.
  • HYUFD said:

    MISTY said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Alastair Meeks
    @AlastairMeeks
    Doesn't look as if Jim has fixed it for Boris Johnson.

    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1488861824384651267

    I think Boris is safe until May's elections. Perhaps he will find an excuse to cancel them
    Two by-elections before May, too.
    I had forgotten those. The Tories should win the Southend one considering that they are the only main party and the others are unknowns, fruitcakes and far-right
    Highly amusing though that Labour and LD supporters and diehard Remainers are praying for a UKIP victory in Southend West tomorrow as the best way of getting a VONC in Boris anytime soon
    No, we're really not praying for a UKIP victory. If I'm typical, which I suspect I am, I am utterly indifferent to the outcome of the Southend West by-election. Happy to see multiple right-wing parties fighting like rats in a sack, and expect to see a comfortable Tory win.
    A UKIP victory is not something anyone who believes in decency should hope for. While it seems appealing to cause Big Clown some embarrassment, having fascists in parliament is not something we should wish for.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,630
    edited February 2022
    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,784
    Bugger. I responded to you @BartholomewRoberts on the last thread a good hour after everyone else moved on.

    I wondered why it was so quiet here. I thought you had all decided to stop posting to wind me up.
  • kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    I think it is the sort of thing that could push people over. If they were prevaricating already, it is perfectly possible that this sort of thing would be enough. It is pretty low and very reminiscent of the behaviour of Trump
    Realistically what did the MPs think they were getting when they voted him in? They always knew that this is who he is.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Sob. I have to leave Galle tomorrow

    The hotel barman has got so used to me he makes me a special snack of sliced cucumber and raw apple, spiced with pepper, salt and chili

    It’s unexpectedly delicious
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,759

    As soon as you hear well I will send a letter when / unless they ain't doing it.

    David Davis conditions he placed on it were laughable.

    He's very good and very bad. One moment he's sensible, the next he's talking crap. He's a politician to keep out of Government - Dianne Abbot, Ed Davey and Steve Baker also seem to be of that ilk.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,989
    edited February 2022
    If you wanted to criticise Starmer's time at CPS, the absolutely shit show when it came to prosecuting others over noncing.

    William Roache and Rolf Harris were beyond embarrassingly bad, its was total incompetence.

    The first, even a cursory glance into the "evidence", found Roache never owned or had access to the house and car the accusers stated, while it could be proved being at the studio filming during the dates when they were supposed to happen. And on top of that, the police totally screwed up and allowed the partner of one woman to sit in on the interviews and to tell the tale for her, which obviously challenged in court as a no no.

    And the Harris case, he nearly got away with it as the CPS hadn't provided any evidence he was at the event where it was claimed he abused a girl, so his legal representation continually said this was a super famous individual and you don't have a single piece of evidence to prove he was at this event. It was only a member of the public coming forward with evidence they found in the loft and the judge allowing it under special circumstances.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway, I

    rkrkrk said:

    Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings.
    But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.

    And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.

    The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.

    It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.

    Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.

    Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.

    Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
    Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
    The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.

    And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?

    So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.

    For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
    The problem for the progressive, here, is that you have two minorities (yes, women, 51% etc. But) with conflicting stances on the same issue.

    There is literally no solution that satisfies both 100%.
    There are solutions which give an acceptable compromise to both and which are in line with the science and facts and proper risk assessment.

    But when one side says that biological facts are untrue and should be ignored and the other says you cannot ignore biological facts, there is only one choice to be made. Surely?

    It's like arguing that there is no compromise acceptable to flat earthers and those who say that the earth is not flat and therefore nothing can be done. At some point, policies have to be based on facts.

    Gender dysphoria is a fact. It needs treatment and much better and more easily available treatment than is currently the case. I strongly support this.

    But a man claiming that he can simply become a woman just by saying so without any medical diagnosis and without having to do anything at all is not a fact. But a wish.

    I may as well say that I can turn the wooden table I'm sitting at into gold and demand that the law accords with my feeling on this topic.

    Indeed I wish it would because my energy bill has gone up.

    So I had better go and earn some money to pay for it all.

    Till later.
    What if you are stuck in an outmoded view of what a woman is.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,913

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Savile also was invited to Chequers by Blair

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/scots-pop-guru-alan-mcgee-23546990
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,552
    eek said:

    The consent pop-ups we are subjected to on all websites are unlawful

    https://www.iccl.ie/news/gdpr-enforcer-rules-that-iab-europes-consent-popups-are-unlawful/

    Best news of the year so far.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,248
    Andy_JS said:

    John Hopkins University.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

    "Lockdowns, school closures and limiting gatherings only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2% at 'enormous economic and social costs', study finds
    Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths
    Economists who carried out review said border closures had virtually zero effect on Covid mortality (-0.1%)
    However, researchers found closing nonessential shops was most effective intervention, causing 10.6% fall"

    Great Barrington Declaration supporter publishes paper in favour of Great Barrington Declaration.....

    Surprise!

    Shock!

    Horror!

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,759
    Leon said:

    Sob. I have to leave Galle tomorrow

    The hotel barman has got so used to me he makes me a special snack of sliced cucumber and raw apple, spiced with pepper, salt and chili

    It’s unexpectedly delicious

    When you land in blighty you'll feel good though. Home! And back to unimportant.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    edited February 2022

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Did she really spend NYE with him on 11 consecutive occasions? I mean, I watch Jools Holland every NYE, but them I'm a boring ****.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,826
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Savile also was invited to Chequers by Blair

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/scots-pop-guru-alan-mcgee-23546990
    He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,784
    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Did she really spend NYE with him on 11 consecutive occasions? I mean, I watch Jools Holland every NYE, but them I'm a boring ****.
    Yeah but you don't gate crash his gaff on 11 consecutive NYE. Or do you?
  • tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Did she really spend NYE with him on 11 consecutive occasions? I mean, I watch Jools Holland every NYE, but them I'm a boring ****.
    There's some doubt about this, Savile said he spent 11 consecutive Christmases but those who knew Thatcher said it wasn't likely, a few, but not 11.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,572

    If you wanted to criticise Starmer's time at CPS, the absolutely shit show when it came to prosecuting others over noncing.

    William Roache and Rolf Harris were beyond embarrassingly bad, its was total incompetence.

    The first, even a cursory glance into the "evidence", found Roache never owned or had access to the house and car the accusers stated, while it could be proved being at the studio filming during the dates when they were supposed to happen. And on top of that, the police totally screwed up and allowed the partner of one woman to sit in on the interviews and to tell the tale for her, which obviously challenged in court as a no no.

    And the Harris case, he nearly got away with it as the CPS hadn't provided any evidence he was at the event where it was claimed he abused a girl, so his legal representation continually said this was a super famous individual and you don't have a single piece of evidence to prove he was at this event. It was only a member of the public coming forward with evidence they found in the loft and the judge allowing it under special circumstances.

    Taking this away from politics for a moment: the thing about the Rolf Harris case is the stuff he admitted to in court was so urgh that his public career was over anyway.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,248

    If you wanted to criticise Starmer's time at CPS, the absolutely shit show when it came to prosecuting others over noncing.

    William Roache and Rolf Harris were beyond embarrassingly bad, its was total incompetence.

    The first, even a cursory glance into the "evidence", found Roaches never owned or had access to the house and car the accusers stated, while it could be proved being at the studio filming during the dates when they were supposed to happen. And on top of that, the police totally screwed up and allowed the partner of one woman to sit in on the interviews and to tell the tale for her, which obviously challenged in court as a no no.

    And the Harris case, he nearly got away with it as the CPS hadn't provided any evidence he was at the event where it was claimed he abused a girl, so his legal representation continually said this was a super famous individual and you don't have a single piece of evidence to prove he was at this event. It was only a member of the public coming forward with evidence they found in the loft and the judge allowing it under special circumstances.

    Some bizarre stuff has been going on for years.

    I was told of the following....

    An ex-soldier was being prosecuted for stuff that was supposed to have happened in Africa. A former commander heard about it and asked some questions... So he suggested (being a posh) that the ex-solider talk to his (the posh's) family lawyers.

    A barrister there demolished the case for the prosecution in a couple of hours. A junior even dug up video from CNN of the soldier in question being in Bosnia at the time of the alleged offence.

    The original defense lawyer was angry. And within days, someone in the MOD reached out to threaten the former commanding officer - he was in the HAC - and demand he withdraw legal help....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,989
    edited February 2022

    Andy_JS said:

    John Hopkins University.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

    "Lockdowns, school closures and limiting gatherings only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2% at 'enormous economic and social costs', study finds
    Meta-analysis of 24 studies found Covid lockdown restrictions caused just 0.2% reduction in virus deaths
    Economists who carried out review said border closures had virtually zero effect on Covid mortality (-0.1%)
    However, researchers found closing nonessential shops was most effective intervention, causing 10.6% fall"

    Great Barrington Declaration supporter publishes paper in favour of Great Barrington Declaration.....

    Surprise!

    Shock!

    Horror!

    Putting aside the biases of the author, the problem with even trying to look at this is everything is interconnected. Trying to disentangle this is nearly impossible.

    Its the same with some of these studies about where people (think) they contracted COVID. You remember doing certain activities more than others and people generally don't suspect they might have caught it from a member of their household or a friend, often if they didn't have symptoms at the time they met them.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,759
    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Did she really spend NYE with him on 11 consecutive occasions? I mean, I watch Jools Holland every NYE, but them I'm a boring ****.
    Zero chance in my view. Even once seems a longshot.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Savile also was invited to Chequers by Blair

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/scots-pop-guru-alan-mcgee-23546990
    He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
    Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).

    I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sob. I have to leave Galle tomorrow

    The hotel barman has got so used to me he makes me a special snack of sliced cucumber and raw apple, spiced with pepper, salt and chili

    It’s unexpectedly delicious

    When you land in blighty you'll feel good though. Home! And back to unimportant.

    Are you off your bloody rocker? February? Go back to Britain???

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    I’m going back to Colombo, The only reason I’m leaving this sublime place in Galle is because the fricking Sri Lankans are having a national holiday so everywhere in Galle is full

    But I have found this new gaff. Looks OK. 5 stars, £90 a night.

    Sri Lanka is insanely cheap, as I may have menshed

    https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g293962-d597086-Reviews-Cinnamon_Grand_Colombo-Colombo_Western_Province.html
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,759
    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sob. I have to leave Galle tomorrow

    The hotel barman has got so used to me he makes me a special snack of sliced cucumber and raw apple, spiced with pepper, salt and chili

    It’s unexpectedly delicious

    When you land in blighty you'll feel good though. Home! And back to unimportant.

    Are you off your bloody rocker? February? Go back to Britain???

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    I’m going back to Colombo, The only reason I’m leaving this sublime place in Galle is because the fricking Sri Lankans are having a national holiday so everywhere in Galle is full

    But I have found this new gaff. Looks OK. 5 stars, £90 a night.

    Sri Lanka is insanely cheap, as I may have menshed

    https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g293962-d597086-Reviews-Cinnamon_Grand_Colombo-Colombo_Western_Province.html
    Ok, so in a Leon sort of way you're saying yes.
  • tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Did she really spend NYE with him on 11 consecutive occasions? I mean, I watch Jools Holland every NYE, but them I'm a boring ****.
    There's some doubt about this, Savile said he spent 11 consecutive Christmases but those who knew Thatcher said it wasn't likely, a few, but not 11.
    Boris's dead cat has worked. We are sitting around discussing how often Savile spent Christmas at Chequers.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,826
    edited February 2022
    tlg86 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Savile also was invited to Chequers by Blair

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/scots-pop-guru-alan-mcgee-23546990
    He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
    Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).

    I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
    It did get to the top of the dept in question, so far as I can see. Whether it was ministerial level is not clear and I don't have time to rake around in that very sorry history. It's one thing to complain that SKS didn't prosecute Mr Saville for his crimes (though if there was no good case in the legal sense ...) and quite anohter to actually let him into the institution to make them in the first place - not, one presumes, knowingly. This may explain Tory nervousness.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Look, there’s my weird bar snack on the left. Cheers

    Stuff like this makes me appreciate the miracle of the internet. 200 years ago if I wanted to tell you all about the snack I was having I would have had to write you all individual letters with a goose quill, describing my snack with words, then put the sealed letters on a tea clipper bound for England and you’d only have learned about my snack maybe a year later as the letters slowly made their way across the island of Britain in carriages to your various hovels and mansions. Now I can just do this:





    This is what the internet was FOR, all along
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sob. I have to leave Galle tomorrow

    The hotel barman has got so used to me he makes me a special snack of sliced cucumber and raw apple, spiced with pepper, salt and chili

    It’s unexpectedly delicious

    When you land in blighty you'll feel good though. Home! And back to unimportant.

    Are you off your bloody rocker? February? Go back to Britain???

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    I’m going back to Colombo, The only reason I’m leaving this sublime place in Galle is because the fricking Sri Lankans are having a national holiday so everywhere in Galle is full

    But I have found this new gaff. Looks OK. 5 stars, £90 a night.

    Sri Lanka is insanely cheap, as I may have menshed

    https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g293962-d597086-Reviews-Cinnamon_Grand_Colombo-Colombo_Western_Province.html
    Ok, so in a Leon sort of way you're saying yes.
    Yes
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,913
    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sob. I have to leave Galle tomorrow

    The hotel barman has got so used to me he makes me a special snack of sliced cucumber and raw apple, spiced with pepper, salt and chili

    It’s unexpectedly delicious

    When you land in blighty you'll feel good though. Home! And back to unimportant.

    Are you off your bloody rocker? February? Go back to Britain???

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    I’m going back to Colombo, The only reason I’m leaving this sublime place in Galle is because the fricking Sri Lankans are having a national holiday so everywhere in Galle is full

    But I have found this new gaff. Looks OK. 5 stars, £90 a night.

    Sri Lanka is insanely cheap, as I may have menshed

    https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g293962-d597086-Reviews-Cinnamon_Grand_Colombo-Colombo_Western_Province.html
    It is once you get there, you just have to pay for the expensive flight to get there and back first
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Savile also was invited to Chequers by Blair

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/scots-pop-guru-alan-mcgee-23546990
    He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
    Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).

    I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
    It did get to the top of the dept in question, so far as I can see. Whether it was ministerial level is not clear and I don't have time to rake around in that very sorry history. It's one thing to complain that SKS didn't prosecute Mr Saville for his crimes (though if there was no good case in the legal sense ...) and quite anohter to actually let him into the institution to make them in the first place - not, one presumes, knowingly. This may explain Tory nervousness.
    Yep, no one came out of this looking good.
  • tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Did she really spend NYE with him on 11 consecutive occasions? I mean, I watch Jools Holland every NYE, but them I'm a boring ****.
    There's some doubt about this, Savile said he spent 11 consecutive Christmases but those who knew Thatcher said it wasn't likely, a few, but not 11.
    I think when one is arguing about how many times Savile was invited round for New Year, the main argument may have been lost.

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,727
    kjh said:

    Bugger. I responded to you @BartholomewRoberts on the last thread a good hour after everyone else moved on.

    I wondered why it was so quiet here. I thought you had all decided to stop posting to wind me up.

    If it's any comfort, I read (and liked) said comment and also wondered why it was quiet, after cathcing up with some other comments, before I saw the new thread.

    Tredinnick got me wondering about the NHS (treatments provided by a) homeophathy hospital, but happily that ended in 2018 - ridiculous that it went on so long, but at least it did end.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,913
    Steve Baker calls Boris' 'levelling up' plans 'as socialist as I feared'

    https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1488874770770939908?s=20&t=6MBxJxIhktjd6Kbof5JKlA
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Savile also was invited to Chequers by Blair

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/scots-pop-guru-alan-mcgee-23546990
    It is fascinating. He must have had some Satanic charm. So many smart people taken in. He gave me the creeps when I was 12, so I wasn’t taken it, but Thatcher, Blair, all of them….

    WTF was it? It deserves a book. Or a Netflix documentary, or something
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,826
    tlg86 said:

    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    Savile also was invited to Chequers by Blair

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/scots-pop-guru-alan-mcgee-23546990
    He was given a pass to a sensitive NHS site with the decision made at a very high level of the Dept of Health. The Tories were running the country at the time. What I am not sure is whether the relevant Minister knew, but there is such a thing as responsibility fo r one'sa department (though that is conspicously lacking in Mr Johnson). And if the Tories are complaining about SKS and his running of the DPP, they might like to consider how compliciot they were in actually facilitating the crimes.
    Not sure that's quite the same. Ministers make decisions and I doubt that got to the top of the department (terrible as it was).

    I'd be curious to know what sort of cases get reviewed by the DPP. Savile was quite high profile, so I'm slightly surprised that it didn't make its way to the top of the CPS.
    It did get to the top of the dept in question, so far as I can see. Whether it was ministerial level is not clear and I don't have time to rake around in that very sorry history. It's one thing to complain that SKS didn't prosecute Mr Saville for his crimes (though if there was no good case in the legal sense ...) and quite anohter to actually let him into the institution to make them in the first place - not, one presumes, knowingly. This may explain Tory nervousness.
    Yep, no one came out of this looking good.
    Indeed. Otherwise the Tories would be baying for more Savilleana. Their current delicacy seems hard to understand otherwise.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Filing under things that ain't ever going to happen


    The Times
    @thetimes
    Up-pointing red triangle JUST IN: Boris Johnson has been warned that more Tory MPs will put in letters of no confidence unless he retracts his claim that Sir Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions

    Both of them. Obviously he wont retract as he's already double downed, and those who've not already put in a letter would be pushed over the edge in defence of Keir? Give me a break.
    Actually I believe it.

    In my call earlier, it'll be a race to the bottom, as it legitimises this.

    I don't expect Starmer to rise to it, but some leftie outrider will.

    Thatcher "responded by inviting the now-disgraced DJ to lunch at Chequers, spending 11 consecutive New Year’s Eves with him and overseeing his knighthood"



    https://twitter.com/andrewspoooner/status/1488823436113854465
    It has been a clever diversionary tactic for Johnson. We are all (except Leon, who is talking about himself) discussing Starmer/ Savile and not Partygate/ misleading Parliament.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    Leon said:

    Look, there’s my weird bar snack on the left. Cheers

    Stuff like this makes me appreciate the miracle of the internet. 200 years ago if I wanted to tell you all about the snack

    Such a saddo
This discussion has been closed.