Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
A fascinating mystery. Encompassing fishing, levelling up and the "Brexit bonus". Not in dispute, something is causing it. Whitby will be devastated. A town doesn't survive on Goths alone.
It is a horrible story, tho blaming it on Brexit is a bit of a reach
No one is blaming Brexit AFAICS. However. Dredging the Tees for a Freeport (something which could have been done at any time) but loudly proclaimed as a Brexit dividend, is up there with the list of suspects. Law of unintended consequences if so. There can be no "levelling up" without disbenefits elsewhere. However much folk try to pretend otherwise. Having said that. Storm Arwen was devastating on the NE coast. The number of trees down was astonishing. Who knows what was churned up?
A fascinating mystery. Encompassing fishing, levelling up and the "Brexit bonus". Not in dispute, something is causing it. Whitby will be devastated. A town doesn't survive on Goths alone.
It is a horrible story, tho blaming it on Brexit is a bit of a reach
No one is blaming Brexit AFAICS. However. Dredging the Tees for a Freeport (something which could have been done at any time) but loudly proclaimed as a Brexit dividend, is up there with the list of suspects. Law of unintended consequences if so. There can be no "levelling up" without disbenefits elsewhere. However much folk try to pretend otherwise.
Levelling up is not the issue if it is the dredging - development is. Economics is not a zero sum game.
You'd be surprised. 3 or 4 years ago I did the Atlantic Rally for Cruisers - 200 yachts sailing Canaries - caribbean. Most are just cruising, about 25 are in the "racing" division. It's completely amateur, no serious yacht taking part, 50p prize money, dog with the waggiest tail stuff. Nonetheless one owner begged his crew, just before reaching St Lucia, to go along with his claim they hadn't motored at all when they had. They had had 2 weeks to decide how much they disliked him and told him to piss off. St Lucia is not a large island, and there was a dozen drunk yachties telling this story in every bar on the island to anyone who would listen
Bit of a long shot, but anyway. We have an SA chap, Dave, painting a spare room, nice lad. His forte is small boat building (ie wood) but he says he hasn't been able to find any hook ups or opportunities here (Glasgow) which I was slightly surprised about. I know you get up to this part of the world now and again, any insights or suggestions?
Edit: he's a very meticulous and reliable decorator, qualities which I'd imagine would be transferrable.
Sadly not, I know the guys who rebuilt https://www.eda-frandsen.co.uk/ on Knoydart in the 90s but she is Falmouth based these days. Falmouth is very much the centre of the trad wooden boat building world, the guy to contact is Luke Powell at https://workingsail.co.uk/
Thanks, will pass that on at least.
You could try the Scottish Coastal Rowing Association at https://scottishcoastalrowing.org/ I just checked, and there are now over 70 clubs around the country with 1-3 boats each. Most clubs have people who make and mend the boats themselves, but some may well need help.
At some point, someone is going to pop up with either the original hi-res image, or other photos of the same event, and we will see which is correct. I have a feeling that neither of the two images seen side-by-side is original, but that they both have a common ancestor.
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
Dissolution would be 17th December 2024 (which is a Sunday, so in reality it would be whichever day in the week ending Friday 15th leads to a GE on a Thursday).
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Forget photos: I am curious as to these police questionnaires and exactly how the police propose to comply with the provisions of PACE.
I am not an expert on PACE but presumably the content of the questionaires will not be admissible? It does seem bizarre, especially if there are only 50 people to speak to.
I have never heard of questionnaires being used in this way. It is not how you interview anyone under caution.
Anyone receiving one would be well advised to consult a lawyer before even thinking about replying. The most you'd ever say in reply is "I was in the offices for the purpose of work and everything I did while there was for the purposes of my work."
And I certainly would not use this method even in an internal investigation, if I could have an interview with the persons concerned, which the police can do.
It is quite bizarre.
Unless of course one wanted to conduct an investigation in such a way that the evidence would be inadmissible...
Yes - but it's so obvious if so. All it will do is put the Met under further criticism. Perhaps I am missing something.
Why would you choose to interview 50 people, almost all of whom live in London, by email rather than by appointment at the nick?
That's my point. You always interview in person. Always. You have a file of the relevant documents for each person when doing so.
This way is, quite apart from any other consideration, incredibly inefficient. And pointless. Because any sensible person will simply write what they need to to get themselves off the hook and the answers would not be admissible anyway if a FPN was challenged. It just seems amazingly inept.
Perhaps the reports are wrong. Or perhaps the Met really is as useless as I think. Who knows.
The Met are more useless than you think. Even if you assume the Met are more useless than a chocolate teapot.
If you have a chocolate teapot, you don't have a useful police force. But you have chocolate.
If you have the Met, you don't have a useful police force. And you don't have chocolate.
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
EDIT: Sorry, this is the existing rules under FTPA.
May 2024. FTPA says that the election is May in the 5th year after an election, unless a snap election is called pre-May (in which case it is May 4 years after). As the election was December 2019 the next one is schedule for May 2024 unless Parliament intervenes.
1) There is going to be no point before there has to be a GE when the economics will look good
2) No leader ever calls an election before he has to unless the polls are right
3) FTPA means either the commons has a super majority for it, or both houses pass primary legislation top bypass the FTPA, or repeal the act. The first may not occur and the second two can be delayed by the HoL
4) Boris plans to spin out his leadership turmoil maximally. The more he succeeds, the less likely the polls are to be right for the Tories.
5) While Labour still can 'win' a GE (126 seats needed), the Tories can very easily lose one (lose 45 or so seats). As things stand the centre left alliance will be the winners.
On balance before Paterson and Partygate I thought 2023 a decent chance. Now less so.
FTPA won't be an issue next year, the legislation to repel it is already in progress.
3rd reading in the Lords coming up in a few weeks.
"In defence of class There's security in knowing your place in life BY JUSTIN WEBB Justin Webb presents Radio 4's Today programme and was previously the BBC's North America Editor"
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
The photo with the bottle is definitely not photoshopped, can you provide any evidence to show that it is?
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
May 2024. FTPA says that the election is May in the 5th year after an election, unless a snap election is called pre-May (in which case it is May 4 years after). As the election was December 2019 the next one is schedule for May 2024 unless Parliament intervenes.
1) There is going to be no point before there has to be a GE when the economics will look good
2) No leader ever calls an election before he has to unless the polls are right
3) FTPA means either the commons has a super majority for it, or both houses pass primary legislation top bypass the FTPA, or repeal the act. The first may not occur and the second two can be delayed by the HoL
4) Boris plans to spin out his leadership turmoil maximally. The more he succeeds, the less likely the polls are to be right for the Tories.
5) While Labour still can 'win' a GE (126 seats needed), the Tories can very easily lose one (lose 45 or so seats). As things stand the centre left alliance will be the winners.
On balance before Paterson and Partygate I thought 2023 a decent chance. Now less so.
FTPA won't be an issue next year, the legislation to repel it is already in progress.
3rd reading in the Lords coming up in a few weeks.
24th Feb. There was one amendment by the Lords at Report stage, but I'd expect the Commons to throw it out immediately as it negates much of the point of the Bill and, having read Hansard of the debate yesterday, I wouldn't expect the Lords to insist at ping-pong. I currently expect DACOP to get Royal Assent some time next month.
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
There is some evidence - the odd size and tilting of the bottle, the absence of glasses - however these are trivial and explicable. I agree the doctored image is surely the one with the bottle and tinsel removed (and done badly), and with MIRROR EXCLUSIVE apparently plastered over it - tho it never ran in the Mirror (it seems)
The question this is, who did the doctoring? Cui bono?
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
There is some evidence - the odd size and tilting of the bottle, the absence of glasses - however these are trivial and explicable. I agree the doctored image is surely the one with the bottle and tinsel removed (and done badly), and with MIRROR EXCLUSIVE apparently plastered over it - tho it never ran in the Mirror (it seems)
The question this is, who did the doctoring? Cui bono?
There's a glass right in front of whoever is sitting down, and from the bubbles at the top it looks like it came from the bottle on the left.
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
There is some evidence - the odd size and tilting of the bottle, the absence of glasses - however these are trivial and explicable. I agree the doctored image is surely the one with the bottle and tinsel removed (and done badly), and with MIRROR EXCLUSIVE apparently plastered over it - tho it never ran in the Mirror (it seems)
The question this is, who did the doctoring? Cui bono?
There's a glass right in front of whoever is sitting down, and from the bubbles at the top it looks like it came from the bottle on the left.
Looks like water to me BUT the res is so low it is impossible to say. Nonetheless this has passed a boring afternoon in Colombo and soon I can start drinking AND EATING FREE CRAB
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either someone added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either some added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Yes, I can see that. But you seem to think that the person doing the editing was actually good at what they are doing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
An idea so good it was floated as an idea by Jeremy Corbyn and Chris Williamson, but criticised by, among others, the Women's Equality Party, Everyday Sexism and the End Violence Against Women campaigns.
But perhaps it's one of those ideas that despite being dismissed as ridiciulous just refuses to go away and will finds politics has changed.
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
Dissolution would be 17th December 2024 (which is a Sunday, so in reality it would be whichever day in the week ending Friday 15th leads to a GE on a Thursday).
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
Thanks.
A government that has an election campaign that straddles Christmas would really be raising a middle finger at the electorate.
But if they're still not winning in the polls, what else can they do?
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either some added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Yes, I can see that. But you seem to think that the person doing the editing was actually good at what they are doing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
I think they are terrible at it, but the fact that the so much of the architrave is visible in the picture without the bottle, demonstrates that what was removed was much smaller than the champagne bottle. It is even clearer in the link you provided.
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
An idea so good it was floated as an idea by Jeremy Corbyn and Chris Williamson, but criticised by, among others, the Women's Equality Party, Everyday Sexism and the End Violence Against Women campaigns.
But perhaps it's one of those ideas that despite being dismissed as ridiciulous just refuses to go away and will finds politics has changed.
Forget photos: I am curious as to these police questionnaires and exactly how the police propose to comply with the provisions of PACE.
I am not an expert on PACE but presumably the content of the questionaires will not be admissible? It does seem bizarre, especially if there are only 50 people to speak to.
I have never heard of questionnaires being used in this way. It is not how you interview anyone under caution.
Anyone receiving one would be well advised to consult a lawyer before even thinking about replying. The most you'd ever say in reply is "I was in the offices for the purpose of work and everything I did while there was for the purposes of my work."
And I certainly would not use this method even in an internal investigation, if I could have an interview with the persons concerned, which the police can do.
It is quite bizarre.
Unless of course one wanted to conduct an investigation in such a way that the evidence would be inadmissible...
Yes - but it's so obvious if so. All it will do is put the Met under further criticism. Perhaps I am missing something.
Why would you choose to interview 50 people, almost all of whom live in London, by email rather than by appointment at the nick?
That's my point. You always interview in person. Always. You have a file of the relevant documents for each person when doing so.
This way is, quite apart from any other consideration, incredibly inefficient. And pointless. Because any sensible person will simply write what they need to to get themselves off the hook and the answers would not be admissible anyway if a FPN was challenged. It just seems amazingly inept.
Perhaps the reports are wrong. Or perhaps the Met really is as useless as I think. Who knows.
The Met are more useless than you think. Even if you assume the Met are more useless than a chocolate teapot.
If you have a chocolate teapot, you don't have a useful police force. But you have chocolate.
If you have the Met, you don't have a useful police force. And you don't have chocolate.
And they will have drunk all the tea.
Chocolate teapot is potentially quite useful. Could brew tea and then eat the teapot.
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
An idea so good it was floated as an idea by Jeremy Corbyn and Chris Williamson, but criticised by, among others, the Women's Equality Party, Everyday Sexism and the End Violence Against Women campaigns.
But perhaps it's one of those ideas that despite being dismissed as ridiciulous just refuses to go away and will finds politics has changed.
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
Dissolution would be 17th December 2024 (which is a Sunday, so in reality it would be whichever day in the week ending Friday 15th leads to a GE on a Thursday).
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
Thanks.
A government that has an election campaign that straddles Christmas would really be raising a middle finger at the electorate.
But if they're still not winning in the polls, what else can they do?
I think realistically the latest would be Thursday 12th December - or possibly the 19th - probably with the new parliament set to meet on Monday 6th or Tuesday 7th January which would allow time for negotiations in the event of a hung parliament. Other than that there wouldn't be much likely to happen over the period anyway so the extended gap shouldn't present much of a problem.
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either some added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Yes, I can see that. But you seem to think that the person doing the editing was actually good at what they are doing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
I think they are terrible at it, but the fact that the so much of the architrave is visible in the picture without the bottle, demonstrates that what was removed was much smaller than the champagne bottle. It is even clearer in the link you provided.
No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. It only demonstrates that the person who doctored it was terrible at it. There is no evidence that the other photo has been doctored. Artefacts from the incompetence of whoever produced the photo without the bottle do not count.
At some point, someone is going to pop up with either the original hi-res image, or other photos of the same event, and we will see which is correct. I have a feeling that neither of the two images seen side-by-side is original, but that they both have a common ancestor.
Will they find the common ancestor in a cave in Laos?
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either some added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Yes, I can see that. But you seem to think that the person doing the editing was actually good at what they are doing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
I think they are terrible at it, but the fact that the so much of the architrave is visible in the picture without the bottle, demonstrates that what was removed was much smaller than the champagne bottle. It is even clearer in the link you provided.
No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. It only demonstrates that the person who doctored it was terrible at it. There is no evidence that the other photo has been doctored. Artefacts from the incompetence of whoever produced the photo without the bottle do not count.
Of course, without independent knowledge of the room they have no way of knowing exactly what the meeting of the dado rail and the door frame looks like.
Similarly I think there's a ceiling light reflected in the bottle. If that in fact matches what is actually there, that's an argument for bottle = original.
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
John Major says it wouldn't be 'prudent, wise or fair' to 'prejudge' whether Boris Johnson broke lockdown laws - shortly after speech in which he said: 'The PM and officials broke lockdown laws'
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
An idea so good it was floated as an idea by Jeremy Corbyn and Chris Williamson, but criticised by, among others, the Women's Equality Party, Everyday Sexism and the End Violence Against Women campaigns.
But perhaps it's one of those ideas that despite being dismissed as ridiciulous just refuses to go away and will finds politics has changed.
It was probably more down to who was suggesting it at the time than the idea itself. It is used in some parts of the world already.
That may be so (the article notes that too), but I don't see how the first sentence can be correct - sure, plenty of political comments would react according to who suggested it, but why would those campaigns respond so differently?
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either some added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Yes, I can see that. But you seem to think that the person doing the editing was actually good at what they are doing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
I think they are terrible at it, but the fact that the so much of the architrave is visible in the picture without the bottle, demonstrates that what was removed was much smaller than the champagne bottle. It is even clearer in the link you provided.
No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. It only demonstrates that the person who doctored it was terrible at it. There is no evidence that the other photo has been doctored. Artefacts from the incompetence of whoever produced the photo without the bottle do not count.
Of course, without independent knowledge of the room they have no way of knowing exactly what the meeting of the dado rail and the door frame looks like.
Similarly I think there's a ceiling light reflected in the bottle. If that in fact matches what is actually there, that's an argument for bottle = original.
Yeah, that's a very good argument. Why would the same person who produced such a brilliant photoshop with the bottle included produce such a terrible one without it?
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either some added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Yes, I can see that. But you seem to think that the person doing the editing was actually good at what they are doing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
I think they are terrible at it, but the fact that the so much of the architrave is visible in the picture without the bottle, demonstrates that what was removed was much smaller than the champagne bottle. It is even clearer in the link you provided.
No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. It only demonstrates that the person who doctored it was terrible at it. There is no evidence that the other photo has been doctored. Artefacts from the incompetence of whoever produced the photo without the bottle do not count.
Why would some of the archtitrave rail be missing when another around 3 inches of it should also be missing?
Forget photos: I am curious as to these police questionnaires and exactly how the police propose to comply with the provisions of PACE.
I am not an expert on PACE but presumably the content of the questionaires will not be admissible? It does seem bizarre, especially if there are only 50 people to speak to.
I have never heard of questionnaires being used in this way. It is not how you interview anyone under caution.
Anyone receiving one would be well advised to consult a lawyer before even thinking about replying. The most you'd ever say in reply is "I was in the offices for the purpose of work and everything I did while there was for the purposes of my work."
And I certainly would not use this method even in an internal investigation, if I could have an interview with the persons concerned, which the police can do.
It is quite bizarre.
Unless of course one wanted to conduct an investigation in such a way that the evidence would be inadmissible...
Yes - but it's so obvious if so. All it will do is put the Met under further criticism. Perhaps I am missing something.
Why would you choose to interview 50 people, almost all of whom live in London, by email rather than by appointment at the nick?
That's my point. You always interview in person. Always. You have a file of the relevant documents for each person when doing so.
This way is, quite apart from any other consideration, incredibly inefficient. And pointless. Because any sensible person will simply write what they need to to get themselves off the hook and the answers would not be admissible anyway if a FPN was challenged. It just seems amazingly inept.
Perhaps the reports are wrong. Or perhaps the Met really is as useless as I think. Who knows.
The Met are more useless than you think. Even if you assume the Met are more useless than a chocolate teapot.
If you have a chocolate teapot, you don't have a useful police force. But you have chocolate.
If you have the Met, you don't have a useful police force. And you don't have chocolate.
And they will have drunk all the tea.
Chocolate teapot is potentially quite useful. Could brew tea and then eat the teapot.
Whenever I see extracts of Major's speeches condemning behaviour from the politicians who came after him, I always imagine that the next line - the first one I can't see - is "And I should know!"
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either some added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Yes, I can see that. But you seem to think that the person doing the editing was actually good at what they are doing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
I think they are terrible at it, but the fact that the so much of the architrave is visible in the picture without the bottle, demonstrates that what was removed was much smaller than the champagne bottle. It is even clearer in the link you provided.
No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. It only demonstrates that the person who doctored it was terrible at it. There is no evidence that the other photo has been doctored. Artefacts from the incompetence of whoever produced the photo without the bottle do not count.
Why would some of the archtitrave rail be missing when another around 3 inches of it should also be missing?
Because they did a terrible job of doctoring the photo, as is evidenced elsewhere in the photo.
It is inconceivable that someone who produced this doctored photo could also be responsible for placing the bottle in there given how the lighting matches.
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
First class metro carriages? What a fucked up place. Anyone who thinks that women only carriages are the way forward has obviously never been in a train with a group travelling to a Hens Night.
Forget photos: I am curious as to these police questionnaires and exactly how the police propose to comply with the provisions of PACE.
I am not an expert on PACE but presumably the content of the questionaires will not be admissible? It does seem bizarre, especially if there are only 50 people to speak to.
I have never heard of questionnaires being used in this way. It is not how you interview anyone under caution.
Anyone receiving one would be well advised to consult a lawyer before even thinking about replying. The most you'd ever say in reply is "I was in the offices for the purpose of work and everything I did while there was for the purposes of my work."
And I certainly would not use this method even in an internal investigation, if I could have an interview with the persons concerned, which the police can do.
It is quite bizarre.
Unless of course one wanted to conduct an investigation in such a way that the evidence would be inadmissible...
Yes - but it's so obvious if so. All it will do is put the Met under further criticism. Perhaps I am missing something.
Why would you choose to interview 50 people, almost all of whom live in London, by email rather than by appointment at the nick?
That's my point. You always interview in person. Always. You have a file of the relevant documents for each person when doing so.
This way is, quite apart from any other consideration, incredibly inefficient. And pointless. Because any sensible person will simply write what they need to to get themselves off the hook and the answers would not be admissible anyway if a FPN was challenged. It just seems amazingly inept.
Perhaps the reports are wrong. Or perhaps the Met really is as useless as I think. Who knows.
The Met are more useless than you think. Even if you assume the Met are more useless than a chocolate teapot.
If you have a chocolate teapot, you don't have a useful police force. But you have chocolate.
If you have the Met, you don't have a useful police force. And you don't have chocolate.
And they will have drunk all the tea.
Chocolate teapot is potentially quite useful. Could brew tea and then eat the teapot.
On photoshopgate: isn't the point that Johnson has been happy to deny anything that he either believes to be untrue, or that he believes is not provable? (I realise those may not be concepts he can distinguish). If the photo was fake and there wasn't a bottle, it would already have been decried as a fake and the account of the event denied. Given that Zahawi is on the record saying there was no alcohol, if the recollection of everyone present is that there was indeed no alcohol, I'm sure he'd be eager to say that he stands by his account and he doesn't see that a fake photo changes it.
Throughout most of Johnson's Parliamentary non-apology sessions, he denied plenty of accusations, and mainly resorted to saying that he couldn't comment before the report was out when accused of things that may have been true. That seems the best context for interpreting what's happened here.
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
Dissolution would be 17th December 2024 (which is a Sunday, so in reality it would be whichever day in the week ending Friday 15th leads to a GE on a Thursday).
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
Thanks.
A government that has an election campaign that straddles Christmas would really be raising a middle finger at the electorate.
But if they're still not winning in the polls, what else can they do?
Um 17th December is a Tuesday and you are going to lose 4 working days for Christmas so knock a week off there.
That gives me a date of Thursday 30th January.
The middle of winter probably with snow on the ground.
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
Dissolution would be 17th December 2024 (which is a Sunday, so in reality it would be whichever day in the week ending Friday 15th leads to a GE on a Thursday).
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
Thanks.
A government that has an election campaign that straddles Christmas would really be raising a middle finger at the electorate.
But if they're still not winning in the polls, what else can they do?
Um 17th December is a Tuesday
So 1 week from there to Christmas so it would be Thursday 23rd January.
The middle of winter probably with snow on the ground.
You're right, I must have been looking at the wrong year, or perhaps Windows was lying to me...
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
Dissolution would be 17th December 2024 (which is a Sunday, so in reality it would be whichever day in the week ending Friday 15th leads to a GE on a Thursday).
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
Thanks.
A government that has an election campaign that straddles Christmas would really be raising a middle finger at the electorate.
But if they're still not winning in the polls, what else can they do?
Um 17th December is a Tuesday
So 1 week from there to Christmas so it would be Thursday 23rd January.
The middle of winter probably with snow on the ground.
You're right, I must have been looking at the wrong year, or perhaps Windows was lying to me...
Don't stress - it took me multiple attempts to get it right because everytime I looked away Windows reset the calendar for me...
Any prizes for guessing what happens next… . Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
On photoshopgate: isn't the point that Johnson has been happy to deny anything that he either believes to be untrue, or that he believes is not provable? (I realise those may not be concepts he can distinguish). If the photo was fake and there wasn't a bottle, it would already have been decried as a fake and the account of the event denied. Given that Zahawi is on the record saying there was no alcohol, if the recollection of everyone present is that there was indeed no alcohol, I'm sure he'd be eager to say that he stands by his account and he doesn't see that a fake photo changes it.
Throughout most of Johnson's Parliamentary non-apology sessions, he denied plenty of accusations, and mainly resorted to saying that he couldn't comment before the report was out when accused of things that may have been true. That seems the best context for interpreting what's happened here.
What is most baffling about the interview-by-email plan, is it gives the suspects the chance to coordinate their stories. Sit 50 people down separately and they won't know whether to swear there was no alcohol/a lone bottle of prosecco/5 cases of Buckies because they don't know who else has said what
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either some added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Yes, I can see that. But you seem to think that the person doing the editing was actually good at what they are doing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
I think they are terrible at it, but the fact that the so much of the architrave is visible in the picture without the bottle, demonstrates that what was removed was much smaller than the champagne bottle. It is even clearer in the link you provided.
No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. It only demonstrates that the person who doctored it was terrible at it. There is no evidence that the other photo has been doctored. Artefacts from the incompetence of whoever produced the photo without the bottle do not count.
Why would some of the archtitrave rail be missing when another around 3 inches of it should also be missing?
Because they did a terrible job of doctoring the photo, as is evidenced elsewhere in the photo.
It is inconceivable that someone who produced this doctored photo could also be responsible for placing the bottle in there given how the lighting matches.
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
Dissolution would be 17th December 2024 (which is a Sunday, so in reality it would be whichever day in the week ending Friday 15th leads to a GE on a Thursday).
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
Thanks.
A government that has an election campaign that straddles Christmas would really be raising a middle finger at the electorate.
But if they're still not winning in the polls, what else can they do?
Um 17th December is a Tuesday
So 1 week from there to Christmas so it would be Thursday 23rd January.
The middle of winter probably with snow on the ground.
You're right, I must have been looking at the wrong year, or perhaps Windows was lying to me...
Additional: I see you've edited to say the 30th, but I think the 23rd is right. Dissolution on the 17th makes the 24th 5 days, the 31st 8 days (Christmas Day and Boxing Day not counting), the 7th Jan 11 days (NYD and 2nd Jan in Scotland not counting) so 28th Jan would be 26 days and you'd have to go back to the previous Thursday.
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
Dissolution would be 17th December 2024 (which is a Sunday, so in reality it would be whichever day in the week ending Friday 15th leads to a GE on a Thursday).
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
Thanks.
A government that has an election campaign that straddles Christmas would really be raising a middle finger at the electorate.
But if they're still not winning in the polls, what else can they do?
Um 17th December is a Tuesday
So 1 week from there to Christmas so it would be Thursday 23rd January.
The middle of winter probably with snow on the ground.
You're right, I must have been looking at the wrong year, or perhaps Windows was lying to me...
Don't stress - it took me multiple attempts to get it right because everytime I looked away Windows reset the calendar for me...
Yeah, for my most recent post I googled "december 2024 calendar"!)
That said, I thought it was worthwhile to demonstrate to a certain poster who I need not name that it is possible to admit to making a mistake!
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either some added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Yes, I can see that. But you seem to think that the person doing the editing was actually good at what they are doing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
I think they are terrible at it, but the fact that the so much of the architrave is visible in the picture without the bottle, demonstrates that what was removed was much smaller than the champagne bottle. It is even clearer in the link you provided.
No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. It only demonstrates that the person who doctored it was terrible at it. There is no evidence that the other photo has been doctored. Artefacts from the incompetence of whoever produced the photo without the bottle do not count.
Why would some of the archtitrave rail be missing when another around 3 inches of it should also be missing?
Because they did a terrible job of doctoring the photo, as is evidenced elsewhere in the photo.
It is inconceivable that someone who produced this doctored photo could also be responsible for placing the bottle in there given how the lighting matches.
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
There is some evidence - the odd size and tilting of the bottle, the absence of glasses - however these are trivial and explicable. I agree the doctored image is surely the one with the bottle and tinsel removed (and done badly), and with MIRROR EXCLUSIVE apparently plastered over it - tho it never ran in the Mirror (it seems)
The question this is, who did the doctoring? Cui bono?
There's a glass right in front of whoever is sitting down, and from the bubbles at the top it looks like it came from the bottle on the left.
Looks like water to me BUT the res is so low it is impossible to say. Nonetheless this has passed a boring afternoon in Colombo and soon I can start drinking AND EATING FREE CRAB
So, yay
Is there such a thing as a free crab?
So how is progress on the work you were hoping to clear and deadlines to meet? Going well? 🙂
You'd be surprised. 3 or 4 years ago I did the Atlantic Rally for Cruisers - 200 yachts sailing Canaries - caribbean. Most are just cruising, about 25 are in the "racing" division. It's completely amateur, no serious yacht taking part, 50p prize money, dog with the waggiest tail stuff. Nonetheless one owner begged his crew, just before reaching St Lucia, to go along with his claim they hadn't motored at all when they had. They had had 2 weeks to decide how much they disliked him and told him to piss off. St Lucia is not a large island, and there was a dozen drunk yachties telling this story in every bar on the island to anyone who would listen
Bit of a long shot, but anyway. We have an SA chap, Dave, painting a spare room, nice lad. His forte is small boat building (ie wood) but he says he hasn't been able to find any hook ups or opportunities here (Glasgow) which I was slightly surprised about. I know you get up to this part of the world now and again, any insights or suggestions?
Edit: he's a very meticulous and reliable decorator, qualities which I'd imagine would be transferrable.
Sadly not, I know the guys who rebuilt https://www.eda-frandsen.co.uk/ on Knoydart in the 90s but she is Falmouth based these days. Falmouth is very much the centre of the trad wooden boat building world, the guy to contact is Luke Powell at https://workingsail.co.uk/
Thanks, will pass that on at least.
You could try the Scottish Coastal Rowing Association at https://scottishcoastalrowing.org/ I just checked, and there are now over 70 clubs around the country with 1-3 boats each. Most clubs have people who make and mend the boats themselves, but some may well need help.
Scottish Maritime Museum in Irvine might have contacts too.
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
There is some evidence - the odd size and tilting of the bottle, the absence of glasses - however these are trivial and explicable. I agree the doctored image is surely the one with the bottle and tinsel removed (and done badly), and with MIRROR EXCLUSIVE apparently plastered over it - tho it never ran in the Mirror (it seems)
The question this is, who did the doctoring? Cui bono?
There's a glass right in front of whoever is sitting down, and from the bubbles at the top it looks like it came from the bottle on the left.
Looks like water to me BUT the res is so low it is impossible to say. Nonetheless this has passed a boring afternoon in Colombo and soon I can start drinking AND EATING FREE CRAB
So, yay
Is there such a thing as a free crab?
So how is progress on the work you were hoping to clear and deadlines to meet? Going well? 🙂
Crabs are born free, but thgey are everywhere in chains.
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either some added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Yes, I can see that. But you seem to think that the person doing the editing was actually good at what they are doing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
I think they are terrible at it, but the fact that the so much of the architrave is visible in the picture without the bottle, demonstrates that what was removed was much smaller than the champagne bottle. It is even clearer in the link you provided.
No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. It only demonstrates that the person who doctored it was terrible at it. There is no evidence that the other photo has been doctored. Artefacts from the incompetence of whoever produced the photo without the bottle do not count.
Why would some of the archtitrave rail be missing when another around 3 inches of it should also be missing?
but there's absolubtely no mention of any sort of photo doctoring going on. Instead ' @Ann06957684 Ann #BackBoris.' "source" is Chris @creynolds1975 - whose twitter feed with 30 followers is entirely anti-Labour ranting who has replied to Guido's twitter thread; this is entirely made up by no mark Boris fans on twitter.
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either some added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Yes, I can see that. But you seem to think that the person doing the editing was actually good at what they are doing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
I think they are terrible at it, but the fact that the so much of the architrave is visible in the picture without the bottle, demonstrates that what was removed was much smaller than the champagne bottle. It is even clearer in the link you provided.
No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. It only demonstrates that the person who doctored it was terrible at it. There is no evidence that the other photo has been doctored. Artefacts from the incompetence of whoever produced the photo without the bottle do not count.
Why would some of the archtitrave rail be missing when another around 3 inches of it should also be missing?
Clone tool so far, then too close to the doorframe(?) and switched to cloning from elsewhere. Also, if the original had a smaller, innocent bottle (or whatever) in that position then why photoshop that out. The bottleless photo has clearly been manipulated in some way.
The bottle photo - could be a good fake, but a few things: - bottle wrong tilt: no, it matches the doorframe behind, just perspective (or lens) making the things in different places appear to tilt different ways - if I was faking it, I wouldn't have the clear cellophane in front of the bottle. That's a massive pain in the arse to deal with. There would be easier places to slip a fake bottle in, I think.
My expertise? Not much really, but I did used to do spot the ball type pics for a couple of publications in my student days, so I'm fairly adept at removing all trace of things from photos. I could do a better job on the bottle removal than the one we've seen. Not so much adding things in, which is hard - you need to get the perspective and lighting right to make it convincing. Can be done, of course.
An original of the bottle photo would also be fairly easily analysed, unless a faker was very good. In most cases the JPEG (if JPEG) compression around an added feature will not quite add up. Can be done convincingly, but it's often the tell.
Edit: And also, if I was BJ or anyone pictured and it was faked I'd have come right out and said that as soon as I saw it. The tinsel one has been around for weeks.
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
Dissolution would be 17th December 2024 (which is a Sunday, so in reality it would be whichever day in the week ending Friday 15th leads to a GE on a Thursday).
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
Thanks.
A government that has an election campaign that straddles Christmas would really be raising a middle finger at the electorate.
But if they're still not winning in the polls, what else can they do?
Um 17th December is a Tuesday and you are going to lose 4 working days for Christmas so knock a week off there.
That gives me a date of Thursday 30th January.
The middle of winter probably with snow on the ground.
Campaigning in December 2019 was awful, it was freezing cold, on election day mostly spent in the dark and wet and with soggy literature. It was the worst election I campaigned in weather wise even if the result was a good one from my perspective. An election in January would be just as bad, if not worse.
We should stick to Spring elections unless absolutely no alternative
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
Look at the the architrave in the photo without the bottle, it extends past where the bottle would be covering it. It does not look like it has been added back in, so either some added it back in professionally or what was removed from the photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle.
Yes, I can see that. But you seem to think that the person doing the editing was actually good at what they are doing. The evidence suggests otherwise.
I think they are terrible at it, but the fact that the so much of the architrave is visible in the picture without the bottle, demonstrates that what was removed was much smaller than the champagne bottle. It is even clearer in the link you provided.
No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. It only demonstrates that the person who doctored it was terrible at it. There is no evidence that the other photo has been doctored. Artefacts from the incompetence of whoever produced the photo without the bottle do not count.
Why would some of the archtitrave rail be missing when another around 3 inches of it should also be missing?
Because they did a terrible job of doctoring the photo, as is evidenced elsewhere in the photo.
It is inconceivable that someone who produced this doctored photo could also be responsible for placing the bottle in there given how the lighting matches.
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
Dissolution would be 17th December 2024 (which is a Sunday, so in reality it would be whichever day in the week ending Friday 15th leads to a GE on a Thursday).
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
Thanks.
A government that has an election campaign that straddles Christmas would really be raising a middle finger at the electorate.
But if they're still not winning in the polls, what else can they do?
Um 17th December is a Tuesday
So 1 week from there to Christmas so it would be Thursday 23rd January.
The middle of winter probably with snow on the ground.
You're right, I must have been looking at the wrong year, or perhaps Windows was lying to me...
Additional: I see you've edited to say the 30th, but I think the 23rd is right. Dissolution on the 17th makes the 24th 5 days, the 31st 8 days (Christmas Day and Boxing Day not counting), the 7th Jan 11 days (NYD and 2nd Jan in Scotland not counting) so 28th Jan would be 26 days and you'd have to go back to the previous Thursday.
Yep - it's hard to actually work out when the election date would be if things were pushed to the limit but it would result in a very short election as no one would care about it at all until January 1st came round.
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
There is some evidence - the odd size and tilting of the bottle, the absence of glasses - however these are trivial and explicable. I agree the doctored image is surely the one with the bottle and tinsel removed (and done badly), and with MIRROR EXCLUSIVE apparently plastered over it - tho it never ran in the Mirror (it seems)
The question this is, who did the doctoring? Cui bono?
There's a glass right in front of whoever is sitting down, and from the bubbles at the top it looks like it came from the bottle on the left.
Looks like water to me BUT the res is so low it is impossible to say. Nonetheless this has passed a boring afternoon in Colombo and soon I can start drinking AND EATING FREE CRAB
So, yay
Is there such a thing as a free crab?
So how is progress on the work you were hoping to clear and deadlines to meet? Going well? 🙂
Eating free crab = primary research for Leon's work.
A fascinating mystery. Encompassing fishing, levelling up and the "Brexit bonus". Not in dispute, something is causing it. Whitby will be devastated. A town doesn't survive on Goths alone.
It is a horrible story, tho blaming it on Brexit is a bit of a reach
No one is blaming Brexit AFAICS. However. Dredging the Tees for a Freeport (something which could have been done at any time) but loudly proclaimed as a Brexit dividend, is up there with the list of suspects. Law of unintended consequences if so. There can be no "levelling up" without disbenefits elsewhere. However much folk try to pretend otherwise.
Levelling up is not the issue if it is the dredging - development is. Economics is not a zero sum game.
Regional press has been reporting that it was natural algal blooms, after investogation by the DEFRA.
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
There is some evidence - the odd size and tilting of the bottle, the absence of glasses - however these are trivial and explicable. I agree the doctored image is surely the one with the bottle and tinsel removed (and done badly), and with MIRROR EXCLUSIVE apparently plastered over it - tho it never ran in the Mirror (it seems)
The question this is, who did the doctoring? Cui bono?
There's a glass right in front of whoever is sitting down, and from the bubbles at the top it looks like it came from the bottle on the left.
Looks like water to me BUT the res is so low it is impossible to say. Nonetheless this has passed a boring afternoon in Colombo and soon I can start drinking AND EATING FREE CRAB
So, yay
Is there such a thing as a free crab?
So how is progress on the work you were hoping to clear and deadlines to meet? Going well? 🙂
When Johnson was a jolly young journalist he was in principle prepared to help someone have someone else beaten up for no good reason
As PM he without question has at his disposal people with a licence to kill for the secret service
The people in charge of the people with a licence to kill for the secret service are, for all we know, every bit as principled and high-minded as Dame Cressida Dick
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
Dissolution would be 17th December 2024 (which is a Sunday, so in reality it would be whichever day in the week ending Friday 15th leads to a GE on a Thursday).
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
Thanks.
A government that has an election campaign that straddles Christmas would really be raising a middle finger at the electorate.
But if they're still not winning in the polls, what else can they do?
Um 17th December is a Tuesday and you are going to lose 4 working days for Christmas so knock a week off there.
That gives me a date of Thursday 30th January.
The middle of winter probably with snow on the ground.
Campaigning in December 2019 was awful, it was freezing cold, on election day mostly spent in the dark and wet and with soggy literature. It was the worst election I campaigned in weather wise even if the result was a good one from my perspective. An election in January would be just as bad, if not worse.
We should stick to Spring elections unless absolutely no alternative
Surely no-one would want to go in January by choice.
It’s the month when everyone has a huge hangover, the credit card bill just dropped, there’s too much month left at the end of the money, half the country have replaced drinking with looking at the weighing scale daily, it’s dark on the way to work at 8:30am, and back to dark again at 5pm for the journey home, not to mention the cold and the wet…
Unless the Tories have a clear poll lead next year, there is zero chance of a 2023 general election. Brown of course did not hold an early general election because he trailed Cameron's Tories in the polls after Osborne's IHT cut proposal. Major also delayed holding general elections as long as possible for the full 5 years in 1992 and 1997 as he trailed Labour in polls.
Thatcher and Blair only held early general elections as they were ahead in the polls, same with May in 2017 and Boris in 2019. I therefore do not expect the next general election to be until Spring 2024.
The only way there would be a general election next year is if the Tories got a clear poll lead again under Boris or a new leader
The other benefit of a Spring '24 election is the possibility to deploy a feelgood tax cut.
But the key thing is that if the Conservatives are on track to lose (and that's a smaller if than it seemed a few months back), they are duty-bound to hang on as long as they can. Anything can happen at backgammon and all that.
What's the latest possible date under the new rules?
Dissolution would be 17th December 2024 (which is a Sunday, so in reality it would be whichever day in the week ending Friday 15th leads to a GE on a Thursday).
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
Thanks.
A government that has an election campaign that straddles Christmas would really be raising a middle finger at the electorate.
But if they're still not winning in the polls, what else can they do?
Um 17th December is a Tuesday
So 1 week from there to Christmas so it would be Thursday 23rd January.
The middle of winter probably with snow on the ground.
You're right, I must have been looking at the wrong year, or perhaps Windows was lying to me...
Additional: I see you've edited to say the 30th, but I think the 23rd is right. Dissolution on the 17th makes the 24th 5 days, the 31st 8 days (Christmas Day and Boxing Day not counting), the 7th Jan 11 days (NYD and 2nd Jan in Scotland not counting) so 28th Jan would be 26 days and you'd have to go back to the previous Thursday.
Yep - it's hard to actually work out when the election date would be if things were pushed to the limit but it would result in a very short election as no one would care about it at all until January 1st came round.
Yeah. Realistically I can't see it being pushed right to the very limit, and October 2024 would look more likely. Even if Boris is as obsessed with length of tenure as some claim, theres nobody to pass between Peel (who he would pass in September 2024) and Lloyd George (who he'd have to go deep into 2025 to pass).
Ian Blackford, aka the fat crofter, is a bit of an arse but I was concerned that Kate Forbes was so willing to jump on such a bandwagon with significantly less than the requisite number of wheels. Firstly, she is said to be bright and secondly finance ministers should simply be a bit more measured in their judgements. Not her best episode.
Desperation will do that. Pensions will hole independence under the waterline.
Useful and fair summary from New Statesman as to where Boris currently stands. It's not over until its over...
"Boris Johnson has - almost - made it to recess without a challenge to his leadership. Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers, won't count the letters of no confidence again until the House returns on 21 February so, as long as he reaches the end of the day without a sudden stream of letters from Conservative MPs, the Prime Minister will have a week’s reprieve from fire-fighting to save his premiership.
"It has taken a lot of effort from Johnson and his supporters behind the scenes to reach this point. The "shadow whipping operation" conducted by Johnson loyalists sounded out MPs, fed their concerns back to the Prime Minister, and persuaded many worried backbenchers not to give in to the agenda of a media "baying for blood" and to give Johnson time to prove himself. The Prime Minister has done a lot of the heavy lifting himself behind the scenes, ringing MPs and holding one-to-one meetings with waverers, allowing them to lay into him and tell him what they really think.
"He has also been visiting the constituencies of wavering MPs and giving them the old razzle-dazzle: knocking on doors, speaking to voters and persuading concerned MPs that, despite it all, there are few politicians who can charm voters like he can. "I admit I was very impressed," admits one MP who received a visit from the PM recently. "He’s a class act, he’s still got something when he interacts with voters. I don’t see those leadership qualities from anyone else in cabinet at the moment." With worries and doubts over who might replace Johnson, Conservative MPs want to stick with the devil they know, at least for now.
"So Johnson has reached a place of relative stability, even if MPs remain angry and the government's agenda and energy is sapped up by Partygate. Yet there is a new, entirely foreseeable, development that could change things. It has been reported this morning that police investigating Downing Street’s lockdown parties are to question more than 50 people believed to have been in attendance, including No 10 advisers, Carrie Johnson and the Prime Minister himself. The police press release makes it clear that, although being questioned doesn't "necessarily" mean the person in question will be fined, this is "normally" what happens.
"The barrister Adam Wagner, who has been tracking Covid-19 legislation, has suggested that Johnson "could be in line for £10,000 in fixed term penalty notices" accrued over six parties. The Prime Minister could yet find that his strategy of buying himself more time has only pushed a confidence vote into a more dangerous period, where he has been found to have broken the law and Conservative MPs decide they can't justify giving him one more chance."
I've been analysing this very, very carefully and trying not to prejudge it. For a while I was really torn between the two, but the thing that convinces me is 1. The conference phone thing on the desk is wrong on the bottle-less image. Just above the rightmost blue light, something has gone wrong. Looks like they've tried to photoshop a slight reflection of shirt-guy: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLOlR7kX0AAtWTd?format=jpg&name=small
2. The tinsel in the previously released photo looks too good to be shopped. But crucially, the shirt-guy's chin and neck look normal in the old- and bottle-ful photos, but his neck goes straight down in the bottle-less photo. It would be good to find another photo of that guy in another context, but I can't believe his neck is so bulgy on his left hand side without it showing on his right hand side.
3. The "architrave" should be getting bigger as it gets near the camera, but instead if blur and shrinks. Looks like a clone-stamp tool plus a bit of blurring to make the clone stamp less obvious. I've done the same when I've photoshopped.
Ian Blackford, aka the fat crofter, is a bit of an arse but I was concerned that Kate Forbes was so willing to jump on such a bandwagon with significantly less than the requisite number of wheels. Firstly, she is said to be bright and secondly finance ministers should simply be a bit more measured in their judgements. Not her best episode.
Desperation will do that. Pensions will hole independence under the waterline.
Been some speculation that Kate F may not be in politics for the long-term. She's a Wee Free which gives her problems with Sturgeon's hard line on gender, and I believe she can add and subtract which may not help with persuading herself of the economic case for Indy. And she's expecting her first child.
When Johnson was a jolly young journalist he was in principle prepared to help someone have someone else beaten up for no good reason
As PM he without question has at his disposal people with a licence to kill for the secret service
The people in charge of the people with a licence to kill for the secret service are, for all we know, every bit as principled and high-minded as Dame Cressida Dick
Nobody seems worried about any of that
While Bozo is a thug (amongst other things) I think the people he needed to order about would have higher standards.
Just to add, if the Mirror actually did publish the doctored image, then they are in deep shit
But, I don't think they did
The fact that doctored photos are being used in a weird way in an attempt to bring down the PM is not good.
I don't think that's a fact.
Well someone has definitely doctored the photo
Yeah, to muddy the waters. It seems obvious that the one without the bottle or tinsel is the one that has been altered. Quite how that is bringing down the PM is beyond me.
I dont think we can be 100% sure that both photos are not doctored.
If you look at the architrave behind the bottle, in the one where the bottle is missing the architrave extends much further than where the bottle would cover it up.
There's no evidence that the photo with the bottle is fake. There's plenty of evidence the other one is.
How do you explain the architrave being in view when if you had removed the bottle there would be no architrave to see.
I think something else smaller has been removed and the bottle then added.
Someone made a half-arsed attempt to conceal the removal of the bottle? It's obvious the tinsel and bottle have been removed from the original photo.
No doubt about that, but if you had the skills to add the achitrave back in you would added it in completely, not partially
Well quite, but the fact is they didn't have the skills, as is obvious from the clear manipulation of the original image.
But either what was removed from the original photo was much smaller than the champagne bottle, or someone partially and professionally added the architrave back in, when it would have been just as easy to add it fully back in. I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
Partially and professionally? I dispute the second part. Whoever removed the bottle and tinsel clearly did a crap job at it, it is blindingly obvious in the doctored photo.
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
There is some evidence - the odd size and tilting of the bottle, the absence of glasses - however these are trivial and explicable. I agree the doctored image is surely the one with the bottle and tinsel removed (and done badly), and with MIRROR EXCLUSIVE apparently plastered over it - tho it never ran in the Mirror (it seems)
The question this is, who did the doctoring? Cui bono?
There's a glass right in front of whoever is sitting down, and from the bubbles at the top it looks like it came from the bottle on the left.
Looks like water to me BUT the res is so low it is impossible to say. Nonetheless this has passed a boring afternoon in Colombo and soon I can start drinking AND EATING FREE CRAB
So, yay
Is there such a thing as a free crab?
So how is progress on the work you were hoping to clear and deadlines to meet? Going well? 🙂
Eating free crab = primary research for Leon's work.
It's free until you catch it.
Talking of Free, I was explaining to a 4 year old called Elsa last night that she was named after a lioness.
When Johnson was a jolly young journalist he was in principle prepared to help someone have someone else beaten up for no good reason
As PM he without question has at his disposal people with a licence to kill for the secret service
The people in charge of the people with a licence to kill for the secret service are, for all we know, every bit as principled and high-minded as Dame Cressida Dick
Nobody seems worried about any of that
While Bozo is a thug (amongst other things) I think the people he needed to order about would have higher standards.
West Ham's Michail Antonio has questioned the reaction to the Kurt Zouma cat-kicking incident, saying: "Is it worse than players convicted of racism?".
I've been analysing this very, very carefully and trying not to prejudge it. For a while I was really torn between the two, but the thing that convinces me is 1. The conference phone thing on the desk is wrong on the bottle-less image. Just above the rightmost blue light, something has gone wrong. Looks like they've tried to photoshop a slight reflection of shirt-guy: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLOlR7kX0AAtWTd?format=jpg&name=small
2. The tinsel in the previously released photo looks too good to be shopped. But crucially, the shirt-guy's chin and neck look normal in the old- and bottle-ful photos, but his neck goes straight down in the bottle-less photo. It would be good to find another photo of that guy in another context, but I can't believe his neck is so bulgy on his left hand side without it showing on his right hand side.
3. The "architrave" should be getting bigger as it gets near the camera, but instead if blur and shrinks. Looks like a clone-stamp tool plus a bit of blurring to make the clone stamp less obvious. I've done the same when I've photoshopped.
I've been analysing this very, very carefully and trying not to prejudge it. For a while I was really torn between the two, but the thing that convinces me is 1. The conference phone thing on the desk is wrong on the bottle-less image. Just above the rightmost blue light, something has gone wrong. Looks like they've tried to photoshop a slight reflection of shirt-guy: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLOlR7kX0AAtWTd?format=jpg&name=small
2. The tinsel in the previously released photo looks too good to be shopped. But crucially, the shirt-guy's chin and neck look normal in the old- and bottle-ful photos, but his neck goes straight down in the bottle-less photo. It would be good to find another photo of that guy in another context, but I can't believe his neck is so bulgy on his left hand side without it showing on his right hand side.
3. The "architrave" should be getting bigger as it gets near the camera, but instead if blur and shrinks. Looks like a clone-stamp tool plus a bit of blurring to make the clone stamp less obvious. I've done the same when I've photoshopped.
On photoshopgate: isn't the point that Johnson has been happy to deny anything that he either believes to be untrue, or that he believes is not provable? (I realise those may not be concepts he can distinguish). If the photo was fake and there wasn't a bottle, it would already have been decried as a fake and the account of the event denied. Given that Zahawi is on the record saying there was no alcohol, if the recollection of everyone present is that there was indeed no alcohol, I'm sure he'd be eager to say that he stands by his account and he doesn't see that a fake photo changes it.
Throughout most of Johnson's Parliamentary non-apology sessions, he denied plenty of accusations, and mainly resorted to saying that he couldn't comment before the report was out when accused of things that may have been true. That seems the best context for interpreting what's happened here.
What is most baffling about the interview-by-email plan, is it gives the suspects the chance to coordinate their stories. Sit 50 people down separately and they won't know whether to swear there was no alcohol/a lone bottle of prosecco/5 cases of Buckies because they don't know who else has said what
Quite.
And if sensibly advised they won't answer any of those questions but simply say that they were in the office all day for work-related matters.
Maybe that's the plan. The Met get 50 replies saying just this. Then after scratching their heads for a bit while they try to work out how to use the kettle they announce that there is insufficient evidence and therefore no further action will be taken.
Meanwhile Cressida Dick has announced that she has "absolutely no intention" of leaving her post. Just like Boris in fact.
And Jacob Rees-Noddy is asking Sun readers for advice on what he should do about Brexit.
West Ham's Michail Antonio has questioned the reaction to the Kurt Zouma cat-kicking incident, saying: "Is it worse than players convicted of racism?".
Question to which the answer is yes.
Another graduate of the Chris Kirkland School of Diplomacy.
West Ham's Michail Antonio has questioned the reaction to the Kurt Zouma cat-kicking incident, saying: "Is it worse than players convicted of racism?".
Question to which the answer is yes.
I agree, cats (animals) have no voice.
He's an utter shithead.
I love cats, even though they are arseholes, but I love them.
I've been analysing this very, very carefully and trying not to prejudge it. For a while I was really torn between the two, but the thing that convinces me is 1. The conference phone thing on the desk is wrong on the bottle-less image. Just above the rightmost blue light, something has gone wrong. Looks like they've tried to photoshop a slight reflection of shirt-guy: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLOlR7kX0AAtWTd?format=jpg&name=small
2. The tinsel in the previously released photo looks too good to be shopped. But crucially, the shirt-guy's chin and neck look normal in the old- and bottle-ful photos, but his neck goes straight down in the bottle-less photo. It would be good to find another photo of that guy in another context, but I can't believe his neck is so bulgy on his left hand side without it showing on his right hand side.
3. The "architrave" should be getting bigger as it gets near the camera, but instead if blur and shrinks. Looks like a clone-stamp tool plus a bit of blurring to make the clone stamp less obvious. I've done the same when I've photoshopped.
So the thing which started this entire saga was fake?
No. the fake image surfaced today.
@Farooq is saying (unless I've misunderstood) that the picture with the bottle (which surfaced yesterday) is real and the picture without the bottle (which has been around for weeks) is fake.
Comments
Law of unintended consequences if so. There can be no "levelling up" without disbenefits elsewhere. However much folk try to pretend otherwise.
Having said that. Storm Arwen was devastating on the NE coast. The number of trees down was astonishing. Who knows what was churned up?
FTPA specifies parliament dissolves 17 working days before the election but the Electoral Commission says 25, and it seems to have been 25 in 2019. So my best guess based on what I see at the moment is Thursday 11th January 2025.
I have no doubt that both photos are photoshopped
If you have a chocolate teapot, you don't have a useful police force. But you have chocolate.
If you have the Met, you don't have a useful police force. And you don't have chocolate.
And they will have drunk all the tea.
May 2024. FTPA says that the election is May in the 5th year after an election, unless a snap election is called pre-May (in which case it is May 4 years after). As the election was December 2019 the next one is schedule for May 2024 unless Parliament intervenes.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/14/section/1/enacted
There's security in knowing your place in life
BY JUSTIN WEBB
Justin Webb presents Radio 4's Today programme and was previously the BBC's North America Editor"
https://unherd.com/2022/02/in-defence-of-class/
https://twitter.com/Quinby__/status/1491717630918541319
There's no evidence that the other photo has been doctored.
The question this is, who did the doctoring? Cui bono?
.
Scotland considers women-only train carriages to boost safety
Many women feel too scared to travel on public transport because of men's behaviour, the SNP transport minister Jenny Gilruth said
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/09/scotland-considers-women-only-train-carriages-boost-safety/
So, yay
https://twitter.com/Ann06957684/status/1491545566928584711/photo/1
This is a much better version of the doctored photo - https://twitter.com/Quinby__/status/1491717630918541319
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/battery-powered-trains-are-picking-up-speed/
But perhaps it's one of those ideas that despite being dismissed as ridiciulous just refuses to go away and will finds politics has changed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41028234
A government that has an election campaign that straddles Christmas would really be raising a middle finger at the electorate.
But if they're still not winning in the polls, what else can they do?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-29126161
Or you just have some chocolate.
https://thechocolateworkshop.co.uk/product/teapot-gift-box/
https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1491740795145183235?s=20&t=EkBdrZ-7WXlzoTvtQTNOdA
Similarly I think there's a ceiling light reflected in the bottle. If that in fact matches what is actually there, that's an argument for bottle = original.
Anyone who identifies as aggressive or annoying should go in that carriage, and the rest of us can mix freely.
John Major says it wouldn't be 'prudent, wise or fair' to 'prejudge' whether Boris Johnson broke lockdown laws - shortly after speech in which he said: 'The PM and officials broke lockdown laws'
https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1491739913938739202?s=20&t=EkBdrZ-7WXlzoTvtQTNOdA
I will add "Replace the Met with a chocolate teapot" to my manifesto as unDictator of the UK.
While he’s giving away bread and circuses can Boris:
- legalise drugs
- announce a British mission to Mars
- increase motorway speed limits to 100mph
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1491742599715110916?s=20&t=EkBdrZ-7WXlzoTvtQTNOdA
It is inconceivable that someone who produced this doctored photo could also be responsible for placing the bottle in there given how the lighting matches.
Anyone who thinks that women only carriages are the way forward has obviously never been in a train with a group travelling to a Hens Night.
Throughout most of Johnson's Parliamentary non-apology sessions, he denied plenty of accusations, and mainly resorted to saying that he couldn't comment before the report was out when accused of things that may have been true. That seems the best context for interpreting what's happened here.
That gives me a date of Thursday 30th January.
The middle of winter probably with snow on the ground.
That said, I thought it was worthwhile to demonstrate to a certain poster who I need not name that it is possible to admit to making a mistake!
So how is progress on the work you were hoping to clear and deadlines to meet? Going well? 🙂
but there's absolubtely no mention of any sort of photo doctoring going on. Instead ' @Ann06957684 Ann #BackBoris.' "source" is
Chris
@creynolds1975 - whose twitter feed with 30 followers is entirely anti-Labour ranting who has replied to Guido's twitter thread; this is entirely made up by no mark Boris fans on twitter.
Edit: In addition
The facebook photo ID link doesn't work, it's not on Guido's Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=486530956351
FACT CHECK: FALSE
The bottle photo - could be a good fake, but a few things:
- bottle wrong tilt: no, it matches the doorframe behind, just perspective (or lens) making the things in different places appear to tilt different ways
- if I was faking it, I wouldn't have the clear cellophane in front of the bottle. That's a massive pain in the arse to deal with. There would be easier places to slip a fake bottle in, I think.
My expertise? Not much really, but I did used to do spot the ball type pics for a couple of publications in my student days, so I'm fairly adept at removing all trace of things from photos. I could do a better job on the bottle removal than the one we've seen. Not so much adding things in, which is hard - you need to get the perspective and lighting right to make it convincing. Can be done, of course.
An original of the bottle photo would also be fairly easily analysed, unless a faker was very good. In most cases the JPEG (if JPEG) compression around an added feature will not quite add up. Can be done convincingly, but it's often the tell.
Edit: And also, if I was BJ or anyone pictured and it was faked I'd have come right out and said that as soon as I saw it. The tinsel one has been around for weeks.
We should stick to Spring elections unless absolutely no alternative
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/people/yorkshire-mass-crab-and-lobster-deaths-mystery-solved-as-investigation-finds-toxic-algae-has-been-killing-marine-life-3554348
Though a bit of furious Guardianista knee-jerking is hardly a surprise.
When Johnson was a jolly young journalist he was in principle prepared to help someone have someone else beaten up for no good reason
As PM he without question has at his disposal people with a licence to kill for the secret service
The people in charge of the people with a licence to kill for the secret service are, for all we know, every bit as principled and high-minded as Dame Cressida Dick
Nobody seems worried about any of that
It’s the month when everyone has a huge hangover, the credit card bill just dropped, there’s too much month left at the end of the money, half the country have replaced drinking with looking at the weighing scale daily, it’s dark on the way to work at 8:30am, and back to dark again at 5pm for the journey home, not to mention the cold and the wet…
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1491749963432353804?s=20&t=EkBdrZ-7WXlzoTvtQTNOdA
When does Wales announce modification / scrapping of COVID regs?
"Boris Johnson has - almost - made it to recess without a challenge to his leadership. Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers, won't count the letters of no confidence again until the House returns on 21 February so, as long as he reaches the end of the day without a sudden stream of letters from Conservative MPs, the Prime Minister will have a week’s reprieve from fire-fighting to save his premiership.
"It has taken a lot of effort from Johnson and his supporters behind the scenes to reach this point. The "shadow whipping operation" conducted by Johnson loyalists sounded out MPs, fed their concerns back to the Prime Minister, and persuaded many worried backbenchers not to give in to the agenda of a media "baying for blood" and to give Johnson time to prove himself. The Prime Minister has done a lot of the heavy lifting himself behind the scenes, ringing MPs and holding one-to-one meetings with waverers, allowing them to lay into him and tell him what they really think.
"He has also been visiting the constituencies of wavering MPs and giving them the old razzle-dazzle: knocking on doors, speaking to voters and persuading concerned MPs that, despite it all, there are few politicians who can charm voters like he can. "I admit I was very impressed," admits one MP who received a visit from the PM recently. "He’s a class act, he’s still got something when he interacts with voters. I don’t see those leadership qualities from anyone else in cabinet at the moment." With worries and doubts over who might replace Johnson, Conservative MPs want to stick with the devil they know, at least for now.
"So Johnson has reached a place of relative stability, even if MPs remain angry and the government's agenda and energy is sapped up by Partygate. Yet there is a new, entirely foreseeable, development that could change things. It has been reported this morning that police investigating Downing Street’s lockdown parties are to question more than 50 people believed to have been in attendance, including No 10 advisers, Carrie Johnson and the Prime Minister himself. The police press release makes it clear that, although being questioned doesn't "necessarily" mean the person in question will be fined, this is "normally" what happens.
"The barrister Adam Wagner, who has been tracking Covid-19 legislation, has suggested that Johnson "could be in line for £10,000 in fixed term penalty notices" accrued over six parties. The Prime Minister could yet find that his strategy of buying himself more time has only pushed a confidence vote into a more dangerous period, where he has been found to have broken the law and Conservative MPs decide they can't justify giving him one more chance."
Prince of Wales tests positive for Covid
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60334842
I've been analysing this very, very carefully and trying not to prejudge it. For a while I was really torn between the two, but the thing that convinces me is
1. The conference phone thing on the desk is wrong on the bottle-less image. Just above the rightmost blue light, something has gone wrong. Looks like they've tried to photoshop a slight reflection of shirt-guy:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLOlR7kX0AAtWTd?format=jpg&name=small
Compare that with the bottle-ful image:
https://assets-jpcust.jwpsrv.com/thumbnails/oretphvz-720.jpg
And compare both with a previously release photo from the same party:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLMRdQmXMAArqdy?format=jpg&name=medium
2. The tinsel in the previously released photo looks too good to be shopped. But crucially, the shirt-guy's chin and neck look normal in the old- and bottle-ful photos, but his neck goes straight down in the bottle-less photo.
It would be good to find another photo of that guy in another context, but I can't believe his neck is so bulgy on his left hand side without it showing on his right hand side.
3. The "architrave" should be getting bigger as it gets near the camera, but instead if blur and shrinks. Looks like a clone-stamp tool plus a bit of blurring to make the clone stamp less obvious. I've done the same when I've photoshopped.
4. http://imageedited.com/ says the bottle-less photo is "probably" photoshopped.
Any ideas why?
Talking of Free, I was explaining to a 4 year old called Elsa last night that she was named after a lioness.
West Ham's Michail Antonio has questioned the reaction to the Kurt Zouma cat-kicking incident, saying: "Is it worse than players convicted of racism?".
Question to which the answer is yes.
And if sensibly advised they won't answer any of those questions but simply say that they were in the office all day for work-related matters.
Maybe that's the plan. The Met get 50 replies saying just this. Then after scratching their heads for a bit while they try to work out how to use the kettle they announce that there is insufficient evidence and therefore no further action will be taken.
Meanwhile Cressida Dick has announced that she has "absolutely no intention" of leaving her post. Just like Boris in fact.
And Jacob Rees-Noddy is asking Sun readers for advice on what he should do about Brexit.
The state of Britain today.
He's an utter shithead.
I love cats, even though they are arseholes, but I love them.
Or are there two bottle-less pictures?