We're in trouble tomorrow. There's no let up in the outputs. In fact if anything they are worse with a 'sting jet' showing up and possible tornadoes.
Damage and destruction across southern Britain will be extensive.
Stay indoors.
Please stop telling me to stay indoors when my wife has to go to work or she won't earn any money,
Is earning one day's wages more important than life itself?
Anyone going out tomorrow is taking a life and death risk.
It's that serious.
At the risk of sounding like one of our Nat friends what is it about the southern English and a draught?
Oh don't be silly. ScotRail suspended train services for an Amber warning yesterday, and they've just issued a Red warning for the Bristol Channel coasts.
I would urge everyone to abide by a Red Weather Warning.
More severe weather is expected on Friday, with an amber warning for wind in place for Wales and much of England. The Met Office is warning of significant disruption and danger to life from Storm Eunice, with gusts of up to 80mph. Around the coasts of west Wales and south-west England, gusts of up to 100mph are possible, the Met Office said. Such strong winds are very unusual for these parts of the UK. The amber warning is in place from 03:00 GMT until 21:00 on Friday and goes as far north as Manchester. With the possibility of such high wind speeds, BBC Weather presenter Simon King said the warning could be upgraded to red - the highest level - if the Met Office's confidence that these speeds will be reached increases.
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
I see what you mean. But if you'd personally instigated a law at the time making exactly that illegal, and lots of people had been prosecuted and fined for infringing your law in similar or more minor ways, don't you think that changes the position? I know we've rehearsed this debate many times, but it's still the view of most of the public.
From the reports that I’ve seen, there were two incidents that could reasonably be described as parties.
One was instigated by Mrs Johnson on the day Cummings resigned, and the other was a staff party when the PM was out of town.
It’s also a slightly weird position that the PM lives and works in the same building, so rules about inviting people into your home are not necessarily relevant, except to the dedicated private flat above the office.
I also think there’s confusion between law and guidance, and a number of the incidents refer to what may be breaches of guidance, with the context of most of the people there having had covid already and their all being at their regular place of work.
If there is evidence of the PM inviting people not working in the government complex, to a purely social gathering when this was prohibited by law, then that is of course more serious.
I am not sure that your perspective from Cloud Base is ideal.
At the time of the Downing St. events I was being stopped by police checking I had not strayed more than five miles from home walking my dogs. The rules were taken that seriously, and yet at Downing Street it appears, they were not.
The rules were different in Vale of Glamorgan, Wales.
They were set by Mark 'Don't go down the Supermarket Aisle' Drakeford.
I am not sure that level of COVID-paranoia ever happened in England.
The questions she is asking are the ones that are relevant.)
They did. I had to debate with Tesco whether "no more than 3 items of any product" meant that I could buy 4 bottles of ale on a 4 for multibuy. That wasn't in Wales.
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
I see what you mean. But if you'd personally instigated a law at the time making exactly that illegal, and lots of people had been prosecuted and fined for infringing your law in similar or more minor ways, don't you think that changes the position? I know we've rehearsed this debate many times, but it's still the view of most of the public.
From the reports that I’ve seen, there were two incidents that could reasonably be described as parties.
One was instigated by Mrs Johnson on the day Cummings resigned, and the other was a staff party when the PM was out of town.
It’s also a slightly weird position that the PM lives and works in the same building, so rules about inviting people into your home are not necessarily relevant, except to the dedicated private flat above the office.
I also think there’s confusion between law and guidance, and a number of the incidents refer to what may be breaches of guidance, with the context of most of the people there having had covid already and their all being at their regular place of work.
If there is evidence of the PM inviting people not working in the government complex, to a purely social gathering when this was prohibited by law, then that is of course more serious.
I am not sure that your perspective from Cloud Base is ideal.
At the time of the Downing St. events I was being stopped by police checking I had not strayed more than five miles from home walking my dogs. The rules were taken that seriously, and yet at Downing Street it appears, they were not.
None of that matters in the grand scheme of things. Johnson apologises, Johnson survives. What does matter is did Johnson "mislead" Parliament? If a Minister did mislead Parliament the Minister goes. There are precedents, no ifs no buts.
Why were they checking that? That was never a law.
There was a lot of do gooder action from a few police forces who felt that they were doing the public a favour during the pandemic in spite of it not being law.
e.g Cambridgeshire proudly tweeting that they were patrolling non-residential aisles in Tesco, an officer in South Yorkshire trying to make out it was illegal to sit in a garden and most famously Derbyshire arguing that takeaway coffees were picnics. Probably loads more that went unreported like what happened to @Mexicanpete
On the first para it always bears repeating the police are far from perfect in even knowing what is law, so they might well have believed it was one erroneously in those cases. Which is another reason for being depressed.
Meanwhile, a headline on the BBC's business news site indicates just how serious inflation has become:
"KitKat and Durex makers...warn of price rises."
Urgent financial restructuring now taking place in the PtP household.
KitKat pricing strategy baffles me. Go to a petrol station linked to a mini supermarket and you will often find a single KitKat near the till is 85p whereas on the shelf it is 4 for £1.
That's a classic sales strategy - plenty of people will just grab one at the till. The people who want the best price will look on the shelves at the multi packs.
My thinking is unusual but I would often be quite happy to buy 1 for perhaps 50p. I don't want to buy 4 as know they are not good for me and I don't have the self discipline, and also don't want to pay 85p when the unit price in the same shop is 25p, even though the price difference is largely irrelevant.
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
I see what you mean. But if you'd personally instigated a law at the time making exactly that illegal, and lots of people had been prosecuted and fined for infringing your law in similar or more minor ways, don't you think that changes the position? I know we've rehearsed this debate many times, but it's still the view of most of the public.
From the reports that I’ve seen, there were two incidents that could reasonably be described as parties.
One was instigated by Mrs Johnson on the day Cummings resigned, and the other was a staff party when the PM was out of town.
It’s also a slightly weird position that the PM lives and works in the same building, so rules about inviting people into your home are not necessarily relevant, except to the dedicated private flat above the office.
I also think there’s confusion between law and guidance, and a number of the incidents refer to what may be breaches of guidance, with the context of most of the people there having had covid already and their all being at their regular place of work.
If there is evidence of the PM inviting people not working in the government complex, to a purely social gathering when this was prohibited by law, then that is of course more serious.
I am not sure that your perspective from Cloud Base is ideal.
At the time of the Downing St. events I was being stopped by police checking I had not strayed more than five miles from home walking my dogs. The rules were taken that seriously, and yet at Downing Street it appears, they were not.
The rules were different in Vale of Glamorgan, Wales.
They were set by Mark 'Don't go down the Supermarket Aisle' Drakeford.
I am not sure that level of COVID-paranoia ever happened in England.
The questions she is asking are the ones that are relevant.)
They did. I had to debate with Tesco whether "no more than 3 items of any product" meant that I could buy 4 bottles of ale on a 4 for multibuy. That wasn't in Wales.
But, in Wales, supermarket aisles selling non-essential goods (like replacement mop heads) were blocked off.
The Welsh Government made a list of "non-essential goods" which meant those aisles had to be cordoned.
We've had this argument on here though. In terms of leaving the EU, Brexit is over. The new landscape is still forming, and that is where the big questions are. Should we try to be closer to the EU in trade, or carry on with what we are doing at the moment (which seems to be self harm to an extent)? Would a closer trading relationship without the political project mean that Brexit is over? I don't think so.
My problem was with the political project. Now that is resolved I am open to as close a trading relationship as the EU will allow. So far they are still in a huff though. Hopefully that will change over time.
The political project that we negotiated an opt out from?
"opt out". Yeah, right.
Were we members of the Euro? Were we members of Schengen? Were we involved in their army project? Did we have a Veto?
I am sympathetic to the general thrust you are making. The need for us to step off their integration project in our own time rather than theirs was my rationale for voting to leave. But it is simply wrong to suggest that we did not have an opt out or things we had opted out of.
We (the people) didn't have a reliable opt out - had we voted to remain there was no guarantee that a future europhile PM (or even the then-current one) wouldn't have surrendered them in exchange for something minimal (or even for nothing at all).
"a reliable opt-out". So we *did* have an opt out after all.
The choice of a future europhile PM to surrender our opt-outs would of course be the democratic will of the people. Voted into power.
So what you really mean is that your narrow view must prevail and the future democratic votes of people who disagree with you must be stopped at all costs.
Wither democracy...
When Blair surrendered half the rebate in exchange for nothing, was that "the democratic will of the people"?
As the Prime Minister at the head of a government with a large majority...
Again, what you are trying to justify is your will uber alles. And you have failed, as any future government is free to do as it sees fit. Including doing all the things you hate. Bless.
We're in trouble tomorrow. There's no let up in the outputs. In fact if anything they are worse with a 'sting jet' showing up and possible tornadoes.
Damage and destruction across southern Britain will be extensive.
Stay indoors.
Please stop telling me to stay indoors when my wife has to go to work or she won't earn any money,
Is earning one day's wages more important than life itself?
Anyone going out tomorrow is taking a life and death risk.
It's that serious.
At the risk of sounding like one of our Nat friends what is it about the southern English and a draught?
Oh don't be silly. ScotRail suspended train services for an Amber warning yesterday, and they've just issued a Red warning for the Bristol Channel coasts.
I would urge everyone to abide by a Red Weather Warning.
With mild reluctance, let me defend the southern English.
I don't actually think the southern English are any more scared of weather than the rest of us. But when there is exciting weather in southern England it is very easy for the news outlets to get to it to report in apocalyptic tones. "Heavy snow in the Cairngorms? That's all very well, but our cameras aren't in the Cairngorms. It gets no more than a passing mention. A picturesque dusting in the North Downs? Brilliant! Let's get out there straight away and frame a shot so it looks like all of Kent is impassable. We can make three, four, five minutes of story time out of this. And some of the people we know live in Kent, so we know they'll watch it. We're not really convinced any of our audience really knows where the Cairngorms are." Meanwhile, the actual people of Kent continue to do their best in the circumstances, just as the people of the Highlands do.
I remember driving to Sheffield a few years back in the snow. Near Tideswell, snow had drifted over the road, reducing the carriageway to one lane for a few metres. It delayed my journey by about 45 seconds. There was a camera crew there filming. Later, I actually saw the story on the news: it was amazing: the way they had framed the shot, and the way they told the story, made it look as if the road was entirely blocked and anyone trying to cross the Peaks was making a ludicrous decision and taking their life in their hands. But in real life the gritters had done their jobs on the main roads and traffic was moving almost entirely normally.
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
I see what you mean. But if you'd personally instigated a law at the time making exactly that illegal, and lots of people had been prosecuted and fined for infringing your law in similar or more minor ways, don't you think that changes the position? I know we've rehearsed this debate many times, but it's still the view of most of the public.
From the reports that I’ve seen, there were two incidents that could reasonably be described as parties.
One was instigated by Mrs Johnson on the day Cummings resigned, and the other was a staff party when the PM was out of town.
It’s also a slightly weird position that the PM lives and works in the same building, so rules about inviting people into your home are not necessarily relevant, except to the dedicated private flat above the office.
I also think there’s confusion between law and guidance, and a number of the incidents refer to what may be breaches of guidance, with the context of most of the people there having had covid already and their all being at their regular place of work.
If there is evidence of the PM inviting people not working in the government complex, to a purely social gathering when this was prohibited by law, then that is of course more serious.
I am not sure that your perspective from Cloud Base is ideal.
At the time of the Downing St. events I was being stopped by police checking I had not strayed more than five miles from home walking my dogs. The rules were taken that seriously, and yet at Downing Street it appears, they were not.
None of that matters in the grand scheme of things. Johnson apologises, Johnson survives. What does matter is did Johnson "mislead" Parliament? If a Minister did mislead Parliament the Minister goes. There are precedents, no ifs no buts.
Why were they checking that? That was never a law.
There was a lot of do gooder action from a few police forces who felt that they were doing the public a favour during the pandemic in spite of it not being law.
e.g Cambridgeshire proudly tweeting that they were patrolling non-residential aisles in Tesco, an officer in South Yorkshire trying to make out it was illegal to sit in a garden and most famously Derbyshire arguing that takeaway coffees were picnics. Probably loads more that went unreported like what happened to @Mexicanpete
On the first para it always bears repeating the police are far from perfect in even knowing what is law, so they might well have believed it was one erroneously in those cases. Which is another reason for being depressed.
"#UPDATE | Officers attended a property in #Swinton where 3 families were celebrating a child's birthday in a private garden. The homeowner has been issued with a fixed penalty notice."
Have just seen a clip from the Scottish version of Question Time. Commentator points out that for 29 years of her 43 years Scotland has had a government that we didn't elect.
What's the equivalent figure for London (or Manchester, Liverpool, etc)? Lots of the country lives in areas that would never vote Tory but gets stuck with them in power nationally...
LOL. What a convenient time to be born, in the first year of Mrs Thatcher's 18 years - the point of maximum outrage! I wonder if she actually is 43.
If she had been born 15 years earlier, it would have been 33 years out of 59.
The point is a bit vapid though, it is not unusual for a region, and is perhaps inevitable for one currently dominated by its own sectarian political party.
It is a terrible argument, is a government only legitimate when a certain subset (nation, region, county, constituency, street, or household) elects it? No, that's daft, anyone arguing for that is effectively asking for a veto over the result.
I have never voted for a winning candidate in a parliamentary election, but every election I have voted in has been legitimate.
Before I read more PB comments, I had perhaps better point out that this time my scepticism is mainly with the ability of TV programmes to screen out deceptive audience members - particularly for BBCQT.
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
I see what you mean. But if you'd personally instigated a law at the time making exactly that illegal, and lots of people had been prosecuted and fined for infringing your law in similar or more minor ways, don't you think that changes the position? I know we've rehearsed this debate many times, but it's still the view of most of the public.
From the reports that I’ve seen, there were two incidents that could reasonably be described as parties.
One was instigated by Mrs Johnson on the day Cummings resigned, and the other was a staff party when the PM was out of town.
It’s also a slightly weird position that the PM lives and works in the same building, so rules about inviting people into your home are not necessarily relevant, except to the dedicated private flat above the office.
I also think there’s confusion between law and guidance, and a number of the incidents refer to what may be breaches of guidance, with the context of most of the people there having had covid already and their all being at their regular place of work.
If there is evidence of the PM inviting people not working in the government complex, to a purely social gathering when this was prohibited by law, then that is of course more serious.
I am not sure that your perspective from Cloud Base is ideal.
At the time of the Downing St. events I was being stopped by police checking I had not strayed more than five miles from home walking my dogs. The rules were taken that seriously, and yet at Downing Street it appears, they were not.
None of that matters in the grand scheme of things. Johnson apologises, Johnson survives. What does matter is did Johnson "mislead" Parliament? If a Minister did mislead Parliament the Minister goes. There are precedents, no ifs no buts.
Why were they checking that? That was never a law.
There was a lot of do gooder action from a few police forces who felt that they were doing the public a favour during the pandemic in spite of it not being law.
e.g Cambridgeshire proudly tweeting that they were patrolling non-residential aisles in Tesco, an officer in South Yorkshire trying to make out it was illegal to sit in a garden and most famously Derbyshire arguing that takeaway coffees were picnics. Probably loads more that went unreported like what happened to @Mexicanpete
On the first para it always bears repeating the police are far from perfect in even knowing what is law, so they might well have believed it was one erroneously in those cases. Which is another reason for being depressed.
"#UPDATE | Officers attended a property in #Swinton where 3 families were celebrating a child's birthday in a private garden. The homeowner has been issued with a fixed penalty notice."
GMP are a law unto themselves.
But what's a non-residential isle in Tesco? One where no one lives?
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
I see what you mean. But if you'd personally instigated a law at the time making exactly that illegal, and lots of people had been prosecuted and fined for infringing your law in similar or more minor ways, don't you think that changes the position? I know we've rehearsed this debate many times, but it's still the view of most of the public.
From the reports that I’ve seen, there were two incidents that could reasonably be described as parties.
One was instigated by Mrs Johnson on the day Cummings resigned, and the other was a staff party when the PM was out of town.
It’s also a slightly weird position that the PM lives and works in the same building, so rules about inviting people into your home are not necessarily relevant, except to the dedicated private flat above the office.
I also think there’s confusion between law and guidance, and a number of the incidents refer to what may be breaches of guidance, with the context of most of the people there having had covid already and their all being at their regular place of work.
If there is evidence of the PM inviting people not working in the government complex, to a purely social gathering when this was prohibited by law, then that is of course more serious.
I am not sure that your perspective from Cloud Base is ideal.
At the time of the Downing St. events I was being stopped by police checking I had not strayed more than five miles from home walking my dogs. The rules were taken that seriously, and yet at Downing Street it appears, they were not.
None of that matters in the grand scheme of things. Johnson apologises, Johnson survives. What does matter is did Johnson "mislead" Parliament? If a Minister did mislead Parliament the Minister goes. There are precedents, no ifs no buts.
What matters in Parliament won't work with the general public that much. Lying to Parliament is only important to some people, Bozo partying while your parents / friend died alone is very different.
That’s what I’m getting at, sorry.
Words like “partying” in no way describe the actual incidents involving the PM, and the use of such emotive language is designed to mislead and upset people.
There’s no evidence of the PM “partying”, unless he is a fan of some really crappy parties. No-one was hiring caterers and DJs here.
That is outright denial of the facts. We know there were actual parties, the evidence has gone to the police who have confirmed they have it. Abba being played loudly and a large group singing along etc etc.
And the BYOB party. Trestle tables full of food and booze. Completely illegal with ministers demanding that people not meet with anyone literally the hour before.
And the Christmas party. Bottles of open plonk and party garlands.
And the birthday party. With cake and singing. Do you know how many kids - my own included - were forced to spend their birthday on their own doing nothing and seeing nobody?
The person who has "mislead and upset people" is the Prime Minister.
Why are you still defending this? I know you are both intelligent and moral yet you are dying in a sand dune ditch defending stupidity and immorality.
Okay, here goes.
1. Abba Party - any evidence that Mr Johnson was there, or had anything to do with it, rather than Mrs Johnson and some of her “friends”?
2. BYOB “Party” - this was IIRC the PM spending a few minutes congratulating the staff from No.10, in the workplace, outside, one evening. No-one who was not in No.10 for work was there.
3. Christmas “Party” - this was a video conference, which is why we have the screenshot.
4. Birthday “Party” - was nothing to do with Mr Johnson. His wife bought a cake to the home/office, and it was distributed to people who were in the building already.
5. References to kids’ birthday parties, rules in hospitals etc are very deliberately misleading.
As I’ve said before, I don’t particularly like the guy - but this whole ‘scandal’ is ludicrous, fuelled by people in politics and media who really hate the PM’s guts. Watching from afar, it’s most unedifying that so much political time is being taken up by these trivialities. For what it’s worth, I keep getting asked about it here, by people dumbfounded by the absurdity of it. Why isn’t everyone trying to forget the damn pandemic?
Have just seen a clip from the Scottish version of Question Time. Commentator points out that for 29 years of her 43 years Scotland has had a government that we didn't elect.
What's the equivalent figure for London (or Manchester, Liverpool, etc)? Lots of the country lives in areas that would never vote Tory but gets stuck with them in power nationally...
LOL. What a convenient time to be born, in the first year of Mrs Thatcher's 18 years - the point of maximum outrage! I wonder if she actually is 43.
If she had been born 15 years earlier, it would have been 33 years out of 59.
The point is a bit vapid though, it is not unusual for a region, and is perhaps inevitable for one currently dominated by its own sectarian political party.
It is a terrible argument, is a government only legitimate when a certain subset (nation, region, county, constituency, street, or household) elects it? No, that's daft, anyone arguing for that is effectively asking for a veto over the result.
I have never voted for a winning candidate in a parliamentary election, but every election I have voted in has been legitimate.
It's one reason although i support PR I try to temper criticisms of FPTP as inherently illegitimate as I dont think that persuades people of the relative merits of each, neither of which is perfect.
We're in trouble tomorrow. There's no let up in the outputs. In fact if anything they are worse with a 'sting jet' showing up and possible tornadoes.
Damage and destruction across southern Britain will be extensive.
Stay indoors.
Please stop telling me to stay indoors when my wife has to go to work or she won't earn any money,
Is earning one day's wages more important than life itself?
Anyone going out tomorrow is taking a life and death risk.
It's that serious.
At the risk of sounding like one of our Nat friends what is it about the southern English and a draught?
Oh don't be silly. ScotRail suspended train services for an Amber warning yesterday, and they've just issued a Red warning for the Bristol Channel coasts.
I would urge everyone to abide by a Red Weather Warning.
With mild reluctance, let me defend the southern English.
I don't actually think the southern English are any more scared of weather than the rest of us. But when there is exciting weather in southern England it is very easy for the news outlets to get to it to report in apocalyptic tones. "Heavy snow in the Cairngorms? That's all very well, but our cameras aren't in the Cairngorms. It gets no more than a passing mention. A picturesque dusting in the North Downs? Brilliant! Let's get out there straight away and frame a shot so it looks like all of Kent is impassable. We can make three, four, five minutes of story time out of this. And some of the people we know live in Kent, so we know they'll watch it. We're not really convinced any of our audience really knows where the Cairngorms are." Meanwhile, the actual people of Kent continue to do their best in the circumstances, just as the people of the Highlands do.
I remember driving to Sheffield a few years back in the snow. Near Tideswell, snow had drifted over the road, reducing the carriageway to one lane for a few metres. It delayed my journey by about 45 seconds. There was a camera crew there filming. Later, I actually saw the story on the news: it was amazing: the way they had framed the shot, and the way they told the story, made it look as if the road was entirely blocked and anyone trying to cross the Peaks was making a ludicrous decision and taking their life in their hands. But in real life the gritters had done their jobs on the main roads and traffic was moving almost entirely normally.
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist, Thank God! the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to."
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, reg 6 and 7 - key extracts:
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave [F1or be outside of] the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
[irrelevant items omitted]
(f)to... work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.
----
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—
(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,
(b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes,
[the multiple amended versions makes it pretty complicated, but this gives you a flavour of the way it was pitched. I have no idea whether a court would consider the whole of the No. 10 office complex to be the premises where the PM's wife lives... but it seems a stretch]
We're in trouble tomorrow. There's no let up in the outputs. In fact if anything they are worse with a 'sting jet' showing up and possible tornadoes.
Damage and destruction across southern Britain will be extensive.
Stay indoors.
Please stop telling me to stay indoors when my wife has to go to work or she won't earn any money,
Is earning one day's wages more important than life itself?
Anyone going out tomorrow is taking a life and death risk.
It's that serious.
At the risk of sounding like one of our Nat friends what is it about the southern English and a draught?
Oh don't be silly. ScotRail suspended train services for an Amber warning yesterday, and they've just issued a Red warning for the Bristol Channel coasts.
I would urge everyone to abide by a Red Weather Warning.
With mild reluctance, let me defend the southern English.
I don't actually think the southern English are any more scared of weather than the rest of us. But when there is exciting weather in southern England it is very easy for the news outlets to get to it to report in apocalyptic tones. "Heavy snow in the Cairngorms? That's all very well, but our cameras aren't in the Cairngorms. It gets no more than a passing mention. A picturesque dusting in the North Downs? Brilliant! Let's get out there straight away and frame a shot so it looks like all of Kent is impassable. We can make three, four, five minutes of story time out of this. And some of the people we know live in Kent, so we know they'll watch it. We're not really convinced any of our audience really knows where the Cairngorms are." Meanwhile, the actual people of Kent continue to do their best in the circumstances, just as the people of the Highlands do.
I remember driving to Sheffield a few years back in the snow. Near Tideswell, snow had drifted over the road, reducing the carriageway to one lane for a few metres. It delayed my journey by about 45 seconds. There was a camera crew there filming. Later, I actually saw the story on the news: it was amazing: the way they had framed the shot, and the way they told the story, made it look as if the road was entirely blocked and anyone trying to cross the Peaks was making a ludicrous decision and taking their life in their hands. But in real life the gritters had done their jobs on the main roads and traffic was moving almost entirely normally.
To be fair to them, by the time the news crew got there a problem may have been partially resolved.
I used to drive in the Peak a lot, and roads would be clear one hour, impassable the next, and cleared a couple of hours later. I've also seen roads become very dangerous very quickly.
We've had this argument on here though. In terms of leaving the EU, Brexit is over. The new landscape is still forming, and that is where the big questions are. Should we try to be closer to the EU in trade, or carry on with what we are doing at the moment (which seems to be self harm to an extent)? Would a closer trading relationship without the political project mean that Brexit is over? I don't think so.
My problem was with the political project. Now that is resolved I am open to as close a trading relationship as the EU will allow. So far they are still in a huff though. Hopefully that will change over time.
The political project that we negotiated an opt out from?
"opt out". Yeah, right.
Were we members of the Euro? Were we members of Schengen? Were we involved in their army project? Did we have a Veto?
I am sympathetic to the general thrust you are making. The need for us to step off their integration project in our own time rather than theirs was my rationale for voting to leave. But it is simply wrong to suggest that we did not have an opt out or things we had opted out of.
We (the people) didn't have a reliable opt out - had we voted to remain there was no guarantee that a future europhile PM (or even the then-current one) wouldn't have surrendered them in exchange for something minimal (or even for nothing at all).
"a reliable opt-out". So we *did* have an opt out after all.
The choice of a future europhile PM to surrender our opt-outs would of course be the democratic will of the people. Voted into power.
So what you really mean is that your narrow view must prevail and the future democratic votes of people who disagree with you must be stopped at all costs.
Wither democracy...
When Blair surrendered half the rebate in exchange for nothing, was that "the democratic will of the people"?
As the Prime Minister at the head of a government with a large majority...
Again, what you are trying to justify is your will uber alles. And you have failed, as any future government is free to do as it sees fit. Including doing all the things you hate. Bless.
OK, let's examine this idea that what an elected prime minister does at the head of a government with a large majority is "the democtratic will of the people". Let's say he had amended the Septennial Act or FTPA (or, in future, DACOP Act) to extend the life of a parliament to 10 years - or to 20 years. The democratic will of the people?
All I'm trying to justify is that to the people those opt-outs were meaningless. The fact that "any future government is free to do as it sees fit" is exactly the point that I am making.
And this is exactly why, having been denied votes on Maastricht, Lisbon and the Constitution, the people pressed the nuclear button when the government was finally forced into asking the question.
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
I see what you mean. But if you'd personally instigated a law at the time making exactly that illegal, and lots of people had been prosecuted and fined for infringing your law in similar or more minor ways, don't you think that changes the position? I know we've rehearsed this debate many times, but it's still the view of most of the public.
From the reports that I’ve seen, there were two incidents that could reasonably be described as parties.
One was instigated by Mrs Johnson on the day Cummings resigned, and the other was a staff party when the PM was out of town.
It’s also a slightly weird position that the PM lives and works in the same building, so rules about inviting people into your home are not necessarily relevant, except to the dedicated private flat above the office.
I also think there’s confusion between law and guidance, and a number of the incidents refer to what may be breaches of guidance, with the context of most of the people there having had covid already and their all being at their regular place of work.
If there is evidence of the PM inviting people not working in the government complex, to a purely social gathering when this was prohibited by law, then that is of course more serious.
I am not sure that your perspective from Cloud Base is ideal.
At the time of the Downing St. events I was being stopped by police checking I had not strayed more than five miles from home walking my dogs. The rules were taken that seriously, and yet at Downing Street it appears, they were not.
None of that matters in the grand scheme of things. Johnson apologises, Johnson survives. What does matter is did Johnson "mislead" Parliament? If a Minister did mislead Parliament the Minister goes. There are precedents, no ifs no buts.
What matters in Parliament won't work with the general public that much. Lying to Parliament is only important to some people, Bozo partying while your parents / friend died alone is very different.
That’s what I’m getting at, sorry.
Words like “partying” in no way describe the actual incidents involving the PM, and the use of such emotive language is designed to mislead and upset people.
There’s no evidence of the PM “partying”, unless he is a fan of some really crappy parties. No-one was hiring caterers and DJs here.
That is outright denial of the facts. We know there were actual parties, the evidence has gone to the police who have confirmed they have it. Abba being played loudly and a large group singing along etc etc.
And the BYOB party. Trestle tables full of food and booze. Completely illegal with ministers demanding that people not meet with anyone literally the hour before.
And the Christmas party. Bottles of open plonk and party garlands.
And the birthday party. With cake and singing. Do you know how many kids - my own included - were forced to spend their birthday on their own doing nothing and seeing nobody?
The person who has "mislead and upset people" is the Prime Minister.
Why are you still defending this? I know you are both intelligent and moral yet you are dying in a sand dune ditch defending stupidity and immorality.
Okay, here goes.
1. Abba Party - any evidence that Mr Johnson was there, or had anything to do with it, rather than Mrs Johnson and some of her “friends”?
2. BYOB “Party” - this was IIRC the PM spending a few minutes congratulating the staff from No.10, in the workplace, outside, one evening. No-one who was not in No.10 for work was there.
3. Christmas “Party” - this was a video conference, which is why we have the screenshot.
4. Birthday “Party” - was nothing to do with Mr Johnson. His wife bought a cake to the home/office, and it was distributed to people who were in the building already.
5. References to kids’ birthday parties, rules in hospitals etc are very deliberately misleading.
As I’ve said before, I don’t particularly like the guy - but this whole ‘scandal’ is ludicrous, fuelled by people in politics and media who really hate the PM’s guts. Watching from afar, it’s most unedifying that so much political time is being taken up by these trivialities. For what it’s worth, I keep getting asked about it here, by people dumbfounded by the absurdity of it. Why isn’t everyone trying to forget the damn pandemic?
And on that note, I have work to do!
Hope you have sent out someone to the bottle shop with a suitcase to get some wine in. Essential for work productivity nowadays.
Have just seen a clip from the Scottish version of Question Time. Commentator points out that for 29 years of her 43 years Scotland has had a government that we didn't elect.
What's the equivalent figure for London (or Manchester, Liverpool, etc)? Lots of the country lives in areas that would never vote Tory but gets stuck with them in power nationally...
LOL. What a convenient time to be born, in the first year of Mrs Thatcher's 18 years - the point of maximum outrage! I wonder if she actually is 43.
If she had been born 15 years earlier, it would have been 33 years out of 59.
The point is a bit vapid though, it is not unusual for a region, and is perhaps inevitable for one currently dominated by its own sectarian political party.
It is a terrible argument, is a government only legitimate when a certain subset (nation, region, county, constituency, street, or household) elects it? No, that's daft, anyone arguing for that is effectively asking for a veto over the result.
I have never voted for a winning candidate in a parliamentary election, but every election I have voted in has been legitimate.
It's one reason although i support PR I try to temper criticisms of FPTP as inherently illegitimate as I dont think that persuades people of the relative merits of each, neither of which is perfect.
Yes, and in any case all of us here know that no electoral system is perfect, it's a matter of preferring one set of advantages and disadvantages to another, and having the confidence of the public in the chosen system.
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
I see what you mean. But if you'd personally instigated a law at the time making exactly that illegal, and lots of people had been prosecuted and fined for infringing your law in similar or more minor ways, don't you think that changes the position? I know we've rehearsed this debate many times, but it's still the view of most of the public.
From the reports that I’ve seen, there were two incidents that could reasonably be described as parties.
One was instigated by Mrs Johnson on the day Cummings resigned, and the other was a staff party when the PM was out of town.
It’s also a slightly weird position that the PM lives and works in the same building, so rules about inviting people into your home are not necessarily relevant, except to the dedicated private flat above the office.
I also think there’s confusion between law and guidance, and a number of the incidents refer to what may be breaches of guidance, with the context of most of the people there having had covid already and their all being at their regular place of work.
If there is evidence of the PM inviting people not working in the government complex, to a purely social gathering when this was prohibited by law, then that is of course more serious.
I am not sure that your perspective from Cloud Base is ideal.
At the time of the Downing St. events I was being stopped by police checking I had not strayed more than five miles from home walking my dogs. The rules were taken that seriously, and yet at Downing Street it appears, they were not.
None of that matters in the grand scheme of things. Johnson apologises, Johnson survives. What does matter is did Johnson "mislead" Parliament? If a Minister did mislead Parliament the Minister goes. There are precedents, no ifs no buts.
What matters in Parliament won't work with the general public that much. Lying to Parliament is only important to some people, Bozo partying while your parents / friend died alone is very different.
That’s what I’m getting at, sorry.
Words like “partying” in no way describe the actual incidents involving the PM, and the use of such emotive language is designed to mislead and upset people.
There’s no evidence of the PM “partying”, unless he is a fan of some really crappy parties. No-one was hiring caterers and DJs here.
That is outright denial of the facts. We know there were actual parties, the evidence has gone to the police who have confirmed they have it. Abba being played loudly and a large group singing along etc etc.
And the BYOB party. Trestle tables full of food and booze. Completely illegal with ministers demanding that people not meet with anyone literally the hour before.
And the Christmas party. Bottles of open plonk and party garlands.
And the birthday party. With cake and singing. Do you know how many kids - my own included - were forced to spend their birthday on their own doing nothing and seeing nobody?
The person who has "mislead and upset people" is the Prime Minister.
Why are you still defending this? I know you are both intelligent and moral yet you are dying in a sand dune ditch defending stupidity and immorality.
Watching from afar, it’s most unedifying that so much political time is being taken up by these trivialities. For what it’s worth, I keep getting asked about it here, by people dumbfounded by the absurdity of it. Why isn’t everyone trying to forget the damn pandemic?
And on that note, I have work to do!
If he wanted to avoid being questioned and held to account for trivial breaches of rules he set perhaps he could have avoided making or breaching said rules. All the aggravation is his own fault. And his misleading about it is serious. And if he has been truthful hes claiming to be a fool.
My problem with your approach is that is possible to deal with more than one thing at a time. You seem to think everything should be dropped when the next thing comes up.
Also that its equivalent of someone claiming it's unfair people are yelling at them after they do something wrong, and claiming the wrong no longer matters as a result.
We've had this argument on here though. In terms of leaving the EU, Brexit is over. The new landscape is still forming, and that is where the big questions are. Should we try to be closer to the EU in trade, or carry on with what we are doing at the moment (which seems to be self harm to an extent)? Would a closer trading relationship without the political project mean that Brexit is over? I don't think so.
My problem was with the political project. Now that is resolved I am open to as close a trading relationship as the EU will allow. So far they are still in a huff though. Hopefully that will change over time.
The political project that we negotiated an opt out from?
"opt out". Yeah, right.
Were we members of the Euro? Were we members of Schengen? Were we involved in their army project? Did we have a Veto?
I am sympathetic to the general thrust you are making. The need for us to step off their integration project in our own time rather than theirs was my rationale for voting to leave. But it is simply wrong to suggest that we did not have an opt out or things we had opted out of.
We (the people) didn't have a reliable opt out - had we voted to remain there was no guarantee that a future europhile PM (or even the then-current one) wouldn't have surrendered them in exchange for something minimal (or even for nothing at all).
"a reliable opt-out". So we *did* have an opt out after all.
The choice of a future europhile PM to surrender our opt-outs would of course be the democratic will of the people. Voted into power.
So what you really mean is that your narrow view must prevail and the future democratic votes of people who disagree with you must be stopped at all costs.
Wither democracy...
When Blair surrendered half the rebate in exchange for nothing, was that "the democratic will of the people"?
As the Prime Minister at the head of a government with a large majority...
Again, what you are trying to justify is your will uber alles. And you have failed, as any future government is free to do as it sees fit. Including doing all the things you hate. Bless.
OK, let's examine this idea that what an elected prime minister does at the head of a government with a large majority is "the democtratic will of the people". Let's say he had amended the Septennial Act or FTPA (or, in future, DACOP Act) to extend the life of a parliament to 10 years - or to 20 years. The democratic will of the people?
All I'm trying to justify is that to the people those opt-outs were meaningless. The fact that "any future government is free to do as it sees fit" is exactly the point that I am making.
And this is exactly why, having been denied votes on Maastricht, Lisbon and the Constitution, the people pressed the nuclear button when the government was finally forced into asking the question.
So you're saying our entire system of government is meaningless?
Parliament is sovereign, able to make any laws and repeal any laws as it sees fit.
Meanwhile, Russia has been pinching American defence secrets.
A two-year campaign by state-sponsored Russian entities to siphon information from US defense contractors worked, it is claimed.
Uncle Sam's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) on Wednesday said Moscow's cyber-snoops have obtained "significant insight into US weapons platforms development and deployment timelines, vehicle specifications, and plans for communications infrastructure and information technology." https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/17/cisa_russian_attacks/
*very on topic post, tapped into iPhone in coffee shop.
I’m completely opposite view to you Mike. All Boris has done is filibustered. During the filibuster it’s allowed everyone to realise he can’t survive. That filibuster ends this week. My prediction is BORIS RESIGNS NEXT WEEK AFTER LOSING VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.
Why or how?
His questionnaire has to be read by investigators and prosecutors by Friday. He is going to put a confession in writing, hand it to the MET police and lose control of the situation. He really can’t remain silent about the truth any longer than this week, because that questionnaire could be leaked any moment after Friday, he really can’t avoid the truth coming out beyond this week that he did the wrong thing and lied about it.
I now appreciate there is nothing coordinated or calculating about the letters going in. It’s just random, 54 individuals reaching that place in their mind, they don’t even have to go public. That can happen any second.
I also now appreciate it only takes 54 letter quota to be reached to get rid of Boris. Because the vote of no confidence is a vote whether or not to keep him with a vote of confidence - and everyone on the fence will see that as far too risky and waste of time now.
Starmer at 8 or 9 does appear the value in the next PM market at the moment.
Will the wider country really want to keep talking about 2020 birthday cakes for much longer, even if the Lobby think it’s the most important thing going on in the world right now?
Sunak’s chance of being next PM I think disappears after the May election. His reputation is going to quickly go from being the nice guy handing out piles of money to get us through the pandemic, to being the nasty guy raising taxes while bills are rising.
That said, he’s still young (41) and will have other opportunities in the next couple of decades of leadership contests.
Will the wider country remember that they suffered whilst the crook partied? Yes. Will they talk about nothing else? No. Will they remember that the PM is an amoral liar who thinks the law only applies to the little people? Yes. Will their vote change accordingly? Likely.
I know you are a long way away and don't seem to share the majority opinion that a lying crook in Downing Street is a bad thing. So I understand your question even if I sadly shake my head when I read it.
I'm not sure Sandpit has ever acknowledged the concern over a brazenly dishonest PM ? It's always a fuss over cakes for him.
Yes, it’s the perfect example of everything that’s wrong with politics and media in the UK, obsessing about trivialities from years ago while ignoring the important stories going on in the country and wider world.
We saw it almost daily during the pandemic press conferences, with the most stupid, scientifically illiterate questions and media obsessions, it’s really not healthy for the country.
I agree with pretty much all of that @Sandpit but the fact that the PM lied to Parliament is not trivial.
Agreed. What exactly was he supposed to have said that was a direct lie?
He told the Commons that to the best of his knowledge there had been no parties and that he would be angry if there had been.
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
That's an interesting point, well made.
I think he's broken the law that he himself passed so he has to resign and I've said that for months, but I think you're right I don't think he's lied to Parliament.
From what's come out, I don't think he'd possibly think that what he actually attended could be termed a party. I for one am not as hedonistic as Boris reportedly is, but I would never in a million years have termed a slice of birthday cake in the office as a "party".
Its worth noting that Gray does not refer to them as parties either, she calls them gatherings and that is the element that is relevant to the law which is what should matter most.
So I don't think he should resign for lying to Parliament, since it doesn't seem like he did lie to Parliament. But it does seem he's broken his own laws, that he himself passed, with illegal gatherings if not illegal parties. In which case he should go. Not because of lying to Parliament, but because lawmakers should not break their own laws that they've passed upon the rest of us and told us on a daily basis we must follow.
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
I see what you mean. But if you'd personally instigated a law at the time making exactly that illegal, and lots of people had been prosecuted and fined for infringing your law in similar or more minor ways, don't you think that changes the position? I know we've rehearsed this debate many times, but it's still the view of most of the public.
From the reports that I’ve seen, there were two incidents that could reasonably be described as parties.
One was instigated by Mrs Johnson on the day Cummings resigned, and the other was a staff party when the PM was out of town.
It’s also a slightly weird position that the PM lives and works in the same building, so rules about inviting people into your home are not necessarily relevant, except to the dedicated private flat above the office.
I also think there’s confusion between law and guidance, and a number of the incidents refer to what may be breaches of guidance, with the context of most of the people there having had covid already and their all being at their regular place of work.
If there is evidence of the PM inviting people not working in the government complex, to a purely social gathering when this was prohibited by law, then that is of course more serious.
I am not sure that your perspective from Cloud Base is ideal.
At the time of the Downing St. events I was being stopped by police checking I had not strayed more than five miles from home walking my dogs. The rules were taken that seriously, and yet at Downing Street it appears, they were not.
None of that matters in the grand scheme of things. Johnson apologises, Johnson survives. What does matter is did Johnson "mislead" Parliament? If a Minister did mislead Parliament the Minister goes. There are precedents, no ifs no buts.
What matters in Parliament won't work with the general public that much. Lying to Parliament is only important to some people, Bozo partying while your parents / friend died alone is very different.
That’s what I’m getting at, sorry.
Words like “partying” in no way describe the actual incidents involving the PM, and the use of such emotive language is designed to mislead and upset people.
There’s no evidence of the PM “partying”, unless he is a fan of some really crappy parties. No-one was hiring caterers and DJs here.
That is outright denial of the facts. We know there were actual parties, the evidence has gone to the police who have confirmed they have it. Abba being played loudly and a large group singing along etc etc.
And the BYOB party. Trestle tables full of food and booze. Completely illegal with ministers demanding that people not meet with anyone literally the hour before.
And the Christmas party. Bottles of open plonk and party garlands.
And the birthday party. With cake and singing. Do you know how many kids - my own included - were forced to spend their birthday on their own doing nothing and seeing nobody?
The person who has "mislead and upset people" is the Prime Minister.
Why are you still defending this? I know you are both intelligent and moral yet you are dying in a sand dune ditch defending stupidity and immorality.
Okay, here goes.
1. Abba Party - any evidence that Mr Johnson was there, or had anything to do with it, rather than Mrs Johnson and some of her “friends”?
2. BYOB “Party” - this was IIRC the PM spending a few minutes congratulating the staff from No.10, in the workplace, outside, one evening. No-one who was not in No.10 for work was there.
3. Christmas “Party” - this was a video conference, which is why we have the screenshot.
4. Birthday “Party” - was nothing to do with Mr Johnson. His wife bought a cake to the home/office, and it was distributed to people who were in the building already.
5. References to kids’ birthday parties, rules in hospitals etc are very deliberately misleading.
As I’ve said before, I don’t particularly like the guy - but this whole ‘scandal’ is ludicrous, fuelled by people in politics and media who really hate the PM’s guts. Watching from afar, it’s most unedifying that so much political time is being taken up by these trivialities. For what it’s worth, I keep getting asked about it here, by people dumbfounded by the absurdity of it. Why isn’t everyone trying to forget the damn pandemic?
And on that note, I have work to do!
I appreciate you taking the time to post this response. Again, perhaps your distance from the UK means you don't get it, none of your justifications are a legal defence to illegal actions.
So the reason we can't (as you suggested) have the government move on to investigating the Post Office malfeasance is because the PM broke the law and the ministerial code. Repeatedly.
A poll has found the majority of Scots are in favour of making it easier for trans people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) - but split over the question of 'self-ID'
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
I see what you mean. But if you'd personally instigated a law at the time making exactly that illegal, and lots of people had been prosecuted and fined for infringing your law in similar or more minor ways, don't you think that changes the position? I know we've rehearsed this debate many times, but it's still the view of most of the public.
From the reports that I’ve seen, there were two incidents that could reasonably be described as parties.
One was instigated by Mrs Johnson on the day Cummings resigned, and the other was a staff party when the PM was out of town.
It’s also a slightly weird position that the PM lives and works in the same building, so rules about inviting people into your home are not necessarily relevant, except to the dedicated private flat above the office.
I also think there’s confusion between law and guidance, and a number of the incidents refer to what may be breaches of guidance, with the context of most of the people there having had covid already and their all being at their regular place of work.
If there is evidence of the PM inviting people not working in the government complex, to a purely social gathering when this was prohibited by law, then that is of course more serious.
I am not sure that your perspective from Cloud Base is ideal.
At the time of the Downing St. events I was being stopped by police checking I had not strayed more than five miles from home walking my dogs. The rules were taken that seriously, and yet at Downing Street it appears, they were not.
None of that matters in the grand scheme of things. Johnson apologises, Johnson survives. What does matter is did Johnson "mislead" Parliament? If a Minister did mislead Parliament the Minister goes. There are precedents, no ifs no buts.
What matters in Parliament won't work with the general public that much. Lying to Parliament is only important to some people, Bozo partying while your parents / friend died alone is very different.
That’s what I’m getting at, sorry.
Words like “partying” in no way describe the actual incidents involving the PM, and the use of such emotive language is designed to mislead and upset people.
There’s no evidence of the PM “partying”, unless he is a fan of some really crappy parties. No-one was hiring caterers and DJs here.
That is outright denial of the facts. We know there were actual parties, the evidence has gone to the police who have confirmed they have it. Abba being played loudly and a large group singing along etc etc.
And the BYOB party. Trestle tables full of food and booze. Completely illegal with ministers demanding that people not meet with anyone literally the hour before.
And the Christmas party. Bottles of open plonk and party garlands.
And the birthday party. With cake and singing. Do you know how many kids - my own included - were forced to spend their birthday on their own doing nothing and seeing nobody?
The person who has "mislead and upset people" is the Prime Minister.
Why are you still defending this? I know you are both intelligent and moral yet you are dying in a sand dune ditch defending stupidity and immorality.
Okay, here goes.
1. Abba Party - any evidence that Mr Johnson was there, or had anything to do with it, rather than Mrs Johnson and some of her “friends”?
2. BYOB “Party” - this was IIRC the PM spending a few minutes congratulating the staff from No.10, in the workplace, outside, one evening. No-one who was not in No.10 for work was there.
3. Christmas “Party” - this was a video conference, which is why we have the screenshot.
4. Birthday “Party” - was nothing to do with Mr Johnson. His wife bought a cake to the home/office, and it was distributed to people who were in the building already.
5. References to kids’ birthday parties, rules in hospitals etc are very deliberately misleading.
As I’ve said before, I don’t particularly like the guy - but this whole ‘scandal’ is ludicrous, fuelled by people in politics and media who really hate the PM’s guts. Watching from afar, it’s most unedifying that so much political time is being taken up by these trivialities. For what it’s worth, I keep getting asked about it here, by people dumbfounded by the absurdity of it. Why isn’t everyone trying to forget the damn pandemic?
And on that note, I have work to do!
The simple answer is the culture starts from the top. None of these events would have happened on the watch of any other PM in living memory. They happened on Johnson's watch because he thinks playing by the rules is for other people, and those that work for him think this is how they should behave also. They were all just applying the “working towards the Führer” principle.
*very on topic post, tapped into iPhone in coffee shop.
I’m completely opposite view to you Mike. All Boris has done is filibustered. During the filibuster it’s allowed everyone to realise he can’t survive. That filibuster ends this week. My prediction is BORIS RESIGNS NEXT WEEK AFTER LOSING VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.
Why or how?
His questionnaire has to be read by investigators and prosecutors by Friday. He is going to put a confession in writing, hand it to the MET police and lose control of the situation. He really can’t remain silent about the truth any longer than this week, because that questionnaire could be leaked any moment after Friday, he really can’t avoid the truth coming out beyond this week that he did the wrong thing and lied about it.
I now appreciate there is nothing coordinated or calculating about the letters going in. It’s just random, 54 individuals reaching that place in their mind, they don’t even have to go public. That can happen any second.
I also now appreciate it only takes 54 letter quota to be reached to get rid of Boris. Because the vote of no confidence is a vote whether or not to keep him with a vote of confidence - and everyone on the fence will see that as far too risky and waste of time now.
Your scenario is based upon "He is going to put a confession in writing"
New - Labour to fight only minimal campaign in top 30 Lib Dem target seats as part of "ruthless" targeting of scarce resources by @Keir_Starmer on Lab targets..Blue Wall danger for Tories as informal Lib-Labbery grows
Suggests Labour will not make more than a token campaign in any of the top 30 LD target seats apart from Sheffield Hallam and Cambridge, where Labour hold the seats not the Tories.
Also states Labour Shadow Cabinet Ministers have been getting to know Davey's team in case there is a hung parliament and they need a confidence and supply deal. Suggesting if there is a hung parliament the LDs would definitely back Labour this time unlike 2010 when they backed the Tories
After the way the Tories shafted their LD partners in 2014-5 I think there's more chance of them making a pact with Farage than the Tories.
How did the Conservatives shaft the LD while in government ?
I know this is a common meme in centre-left thoughts but the reality is the LibDems shafted themselves.
Firstly by totally breaking their word on issues such as student tuition fees and Middle Eastern warmongering.
Secondly by the behaviour of such people as Chris Huhne and David Laws.
Clearly the LDs believed that they had an agreement that the Conservatives would not (at least officially) campaign for No on the voting reform referendum. A belief which Cameron disabused them of in short order.
Otherwise, yes: the LDs mostly stabbed themselves in the front by voting for policies which they had explicitly pledged not to do in their campaign literature. No amount of real-politic about how the student loan scheme was really a graduate tax in disguise & that was down to LD influence on the government could change the fact that the LDs had voted in a thing that called itself a student loan scheme.
Even worse, Nick Clegg then said in more-or-less as many words that voters were fools for ever believing any LibDem policies because at best they were, and could only ever be, mere bargaining chips in coalition negotiations.
Clegg effectively destroyed the LibDem image of being the 'nice party'.
This is what underwater cameras in swimming pools did to water polo.
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
I see what you mean. But if you'd personally instigated a law at the time making exactly that illegal, and lots of people had been prosecuted and fined for infringing your law in similar or more minor ways, don't you think that changes the position? I know we've rehearsed this debate many times, but it's still the view of most of the public.
From the reports that I’ve seen, there were two incidents that could reasonably be described as parties.
One was instigated by Mrs Johnson on the day Cummings resigned, and the other was a staff party when the PM was out of town.
It’s also a slightly weird position that the PM lives and works in the same building, so rules about inviting people into your home are not necessarily relevant, except to the dedicated private flat above the office.
I also think there’s confusion between law and guidance, and a number of the incidents refer to what may be breaches of guidance, with the context of most of the people there having had covid already and their all being at their regular place of work.
If there is evidence of the PM inviting people not working in the government complex, to a purely social gathering when this was prohibited by law, then that is of course more serious.
I am not sure that your perspective from Cloud Base is ideal.
At the time of the Downing St. events I was being stopped by police checking I had not strayed more than five miles from home walking my dogs. The rules were taken that seriously, and yet at Downing Street it appears, they were not.
None of that matters in the grand scheme of things. Johnson apologises, Johnson survives. What does matter is did Johnson "mislead" Parliament? If a Minister did mislead Parliament the Minister goes. There are precedents, no ifs no buts.
What matters in Parliament won't work with the general public that much. Lying to Parliament is only important to some people, Bozo partying while your parents / friend died alone is very different.
That’s what I’m getting at, sorry.
Words like “partying” in no way describe the actual incidents involving the PM, and the use of such emotive language is designed to mislead and upset people.
There’s no evidence of the PM “partying”, unless he is a fan of some really crappy parties. No-one was hiring caterers and DJs here.
That is outright denial of the facts. We know there were actual parties, the evidence has gone to the police who have confirmed they have it. Abba being played loudly and a large group singing along etc etc.
And the BYOB party. Trestle tables full of food and booze. Completely illegal with ministers demanding that people not meet with anyone literally the hour before.
And the Christmas party. Bottles of open plonk and party garlands.
And the birthday party. With cake and singing. Do you know how many kids - my own included - were forced to spend their birthday on their own doing nothing and seeing nobody?
The person who has "mislead and upset people" is the Prime Minister.
Why are you still defending this? I know you are both intelligent and moral yet you are dying in a sand dune ditch defending stupidity and immorality.
Okay, here goes.
1. Abba Party - any evidence that Mr Johnson was there, or had anything to do with it, rather than Mrs Johnson and some of her “friends”?
2. BYOB “Party” - this was IIRC the PM spending a few minutes congratulating the staff from No.10, in the workplace, outside, one evening. No-one who was not in No.10 for work was there.
3. Christmas “Party” - this was a video conference, which is why we have the screenshot.
4. Birthday “Party” - was nothing to do with Mr Johnson. His wife bought a cake to the home/office, and it was distributed to people who were in the building already.
5. References to kids’ birthday parties, rules in hospitals etc are very deliberately misleading.
As I’ve said before, I don’t particularly like the guy - but this whole ‘scandal’ is ludicrous, fuelled by people in politics and media who really hate the PM’s guts. Watching from afar, it’s most unedifying that so much political time is being taken up by these trivialities. For what it’s worth, I keep getting asked about it here, by people dumbfounded by the absurdity of it. Why isn’t everyone trying to forget the damn pandemic?
And on that note, I have work to do!
1. Not yet. It will probably be leaked at an appropriate time. Do you think that any politician or official would have remained in their job if they had allowed a party to take place in their house and it had become known at the time?
2. Once the reasonable excuse of being away from their home where required from work had ceased they may have been breaking the rules by being there
3. I don't know how VCs worked for you during the stay-at-home orders, but there was only one person in each screenshot at the ones I attended
4. People apparently gathered in a room for it. Even if they hadn't, someone who wasn't required to be there for work would not have been permitted to turn up and distribute food around desks.
5. References to how similar gatherings in hospital car parks would have been treated are exactly the point. We all know that people who were working harder and taking greater public risks would have been treated as criminals if they had done the same things.
*very on topic post, tapped into iPhone in coffee shop.
I’m completely opposite view to you Mike. All Boris has done is filibustered. During the filibuster it’s allowed everyone to realise he can’t survive. That filibuster ends this week. My prediction is BORIS RESIGNS NEXT WEEK AFTER LOSING VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.
Why or how?
His questionnaire has to be read by investigators and prosecutors by Friday. He is going to put a confession in writing, hand it to the MET police and lose control of the situation. He really can’t remain silent about the truth any longer than this week, because that questionnaire could be leaked any moment after Friday, he really can’t avoid the truth coming out beyond this week that he did the wrong thing and lied about it.
I now appreciate there is nothing coordinated or calculating about the letters going in. It’s just random, 54 individuals reaching that place in their mind, they don’t even have to go public. That can happen any second.
I also now appreciate it only takes 54 letter quota to be reached to get rid of Boris. Because the vote of no confidence is a vote whether or not to keep him with a vote of confidence - and everyone on the fence will see that as far too risky and waste of time now.
Your scenario is based upon "He is going to put a confession in writing"
But what if he doesn't?
Why would he? Why would anyone for that matter?
If he says that everything he attended he did for work, or because it was his home, and that he did not consider anything to be illegal or a party then there's no confession of lying there.
This is why people are stupid to pin their hopes on "lying" because it requires more hurdles to be cleared.
In order for something to be a lie you need to demonstrate: 1: That what was said was not true. 2: That the person who said it knew it was untrue when they said it.
If I make a mistake that is not a lie. Ignorance is no defence when it comes to the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying. If he broke his own laws he should go, whether he knew it or not, ignorance is no defence. But to prove he lied is a much tougher (and unnecessary) threshold to clear.
We're in trouble tomorrow. There's no let up in the outputs. In fact if anything they are worse with a 'sting jet' showing up and possible tornadoes.
Damage and destruction across southern Britain will be extensive.
Stay indoors.
Please stop telling me to stay indoors when my wife has to go to work or she won't earn any money,
Is earning one day's wages more important than life itself?
Anyone going out tomorrow is taking a life and death risk.
It's that serious.
At the risk of sounding like one of our Nat friends what is it about the southern English and a draught?
Anyone going outdoors tomorrow is indeed taking a life or death risk. But how many will die in the storms tomorrow? My guess is rather fewer than 10. And how many tomorrow will go outside? 20 million? I may be proved wrong - but I'd say chances of death by simply venturing outside are rather less than one in 2 million. That's not to say it isn't looking jolly blowy tomorrow, and it might be prudent to postpone certain events (skydiving/tree surgery/aimlessly driving round and round for no reason whatsoever) to another day. But most of us will have to go outside at some point, even if only to retrieve the remains of the trampoline from the neighbours' garden.
I think staying indoors tomorrow morning anywhere the red warning applies to would be sensible. Looks a bit more blowy than your average storm.
*very on topic post, tapped into iPhone in coffee shop.
I’m completely opposite view to you Mike. All Boris has done is filibustered. During the filibuster it’s allowed everyone to realise he can’t survive. That filibuster ends this week. My prediction is BORIS RESIGNS NEXT WEEK AFTER LOSING VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.
Why or how?
His questionnaire has to be read by investigators and prosecutors by Friday. He is going to put a confession in writing, hand it to the MET police and lose control of the situation. He really can’t remain silent about the truth any longer than this week, because that questionnaire could be leaked any moment after Friday, he really can’t avoid the truth coming out beyond this week that he did the wrong thing and lied about it.
I now appreciate there is nothing coordinated or calculating about the letters going in. It’s just random, 54 individuals reaching that place in their mind, they don’t even have to go public. That can happen any second.
I also now appreciate it only takes 54 letter quota to be reached to get rid of Boris. Because the vote of no confidence is a vote whether or not to keep him with a vote of confidence - and everyone on the fence will see that as far too risky and waste of time now.
Your scenario is based upon "He is going to put a confession in writing"
But what if he doesn't?
Why would he? Why would anyone for that matter?
If he says that everything he attended he did for work, or because it was his home, and that he did not consider anything to be illegal or a party then there's no confession of lying there.
This is why people are stupid to pin their hopes on "lying" because it requires more hurdles to be cleared.
In order for something to be a lie you need to demonstrate: 1: That what was said was not true. 2: That the person who said it knew it was untrue when they said it.
If I make a mistake that is not a lie. Ignorance is no defence when it comes to the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying. If he broke his own laws he should go, whether he knew it or not, ignorance is no defence. But to prove he lied is a much tougher (and unnecessary) threshold to clear.
This is an enjoyable primer on lying - you can work through it spotting a number of Johnson techniques which are misleading but fall short of normal definitions of lies.
New - Labour to fight only minimal campaign in top 30 Lib Dem target seats as part of "ruthless" targeting of scarce resources by @Keir_Starmer on Lab targets..Blue Wall danger for Tories as informal Lib-Labbery grows
Suggests Labour will not make more than a token campaign in any of the top 30 LD target seats apart from Sheffield Hallam and Cambridge, where Labour hold the seats not the Tories.
Also states Labour Shadow Cabinet Ministers have been getting to know Davey's team in case there is a hung parliament and they need a confidence and supply deal. Suggesting if there is a hung parliament the LDs would definitely back Labour this time unlike 2010 when they backed the Tories
After the way the Tories shafted their LD partners in 2014-5 I think there's more chance of them making a pact with Farage than the Tories.
How did the Conservatives shaft the LD while in government ?
I know this is a common meme in centre-left thoughts but the reality is the LibDems shafted themselves.
Firstly by totally breaking their word on issues such as student tuition fees and Middle Eastern warmongering.
Secondly by the behaviour of such people as Chris Huhne and David Laws.
Clearly the LDs believed that they had an agreement that the Conservatives would not (at least officially) campaign for No on the voting reform referendum. A belief which Cameron disabused them of in short order.
Otherwise, yes: the LDs mostly stabbed themselves in the front by voting for policies which they had explicitly pledged not to do in their campaign literature. No amount of real-politic about how the student loan scheme was really a graduate tax in disguise & that was down to LD influence on the government could change the fact that the LDs had voted in a thing that called itself a student loan scheme.
Even worse, Nick Clegg then said in more-or-less as many words that voters were fools for ever believing any LibDem policies because at best they were, and could only ever be, mere bargaining chips in coalition negotiations.
Oh come on. Anyone who believes any parties manifesto will be even mostly implemented as written down is already hopelessly naive. Anyone who votes for a party who have never won a general election or even 100 seats before and then expects their policies to be delivered really is a fool. I don't understand how anyone can have come to such a conclusion.
That does not mean they did not handle tuition fees horribly wrong, but anyone voting for the LDS was voting for coalition and compromises.
Well, if you're right, everyone knew this anyway, and if I'm right the LibDem vote will have collapsed, which it did.
So much for history. Now for current events.
Boris has now broken at least two manifesto pledges. Will this matter at the next election? That might depend on Keir Starmer.
I dont think people actually care about the principle of breaking manifestos. It only matters if they dont accept the necessity/benefit of it. If Boris can sell something as necessary hed be ok.
LD voters should have known if there was coalition there would be compromise, but many immediately jumped ship before it was clear if compromise was worth it and more then disliked the specific compromises made.
I think you're right that it was more about the specific compromise, rather than compromises in general that caused people to jump. But with regards to tuition fees, I think the main issue was that LDs had pledged to abolish fees. Once in Coalition with the Conservatives, abolition of fees would have been a very remote prospect and I don't think anyone would have held the LDs responsible for not being in a position to abolish them. The fair minded compromise would have been to freeze fees. Instead, the LDs were complicit in tripling them. That turned the fees issue from compromise to betrayal. Essentially, the LDs bargained badly on this issue.
That’s what I thought. In his mind, the events that occurred were not “parties”. It could be argued that, most of us looking from the outside probably wouldn’t describe a glass of wine after work or a birthday cake as “parties” either.
Asking someone if he went to any parties, him saying no, then saying that you had a birthday cake for 10 minutes two years ago, you’re a lying liar who needs to resign, is in my mind taking the piss.
I see what you mean. But if you'd personally instigated a law at the time making exactly that illegal, and lots of people had been prosecuted and fined for infringing your law in similar or more minor ways, don't you think that changes the position? I know we've rehearsed this debate many times, but it's still the view of most of the public.
From the reports that I’ve seen, there were two incidents that could reasonably be described as parties.
One was instigated by Mrs Johnson on the day Cummings resigned, and the other was a staff party when the PM was out of town.
It’s also a slightly weird position that the PM lives and works in the same building, so rules about inviting people into your home are not necessarily relevant, except to the dedicated private flat above the office.
I also think there’s confusion between law and guidance, and a number of the incidents refer to what may be breaches of guidance, with the context of most of the people there having had covid already and their all being at their regular place of work.
If there is evidence of the PM inviting people not working in the government complex, to a purely social gathering when this was prohibited by law, then that is of course more serious.
I am not sure that your perspective from Cloud Base is ideal.
At the time of the Downing St. events I was being stopped by police checking I had not strayed more than five miles from home walking my dogs. The rules were taken that seriously, and yet at Downing Street it appears, they were not.
None of that matters in the grand scheme of things. Johnson apologises, Johnson survives. What does matter is did Johnson "mislead" Parliament? If a Minister did mislead Parliament the Minister goes. There are precedents, no ifs no buts.
What matters in Parliament won't work with the general public that much. Lying to Parliament is only important to some people, Bozo partying while your parents / friend died alone is very different.
That’s what I’m getting at, sorry.
Words like “partying” in no way describe the actual incidents involving the PM, and the use of such emotive language is designed to mislead and upset people.
There’s no evidence of the PM “partying”, unless he is a fan of some really crappy parties. No-one was hiring caterers and DJs here.
That is outright denial of the facts. We know there were actual parties, the evidence has gone to the police who have confirmed they have it. Abba being played loudly and a large group singing along etc etc.
And the BYOB party. Trestle tables full of food and booze. Completely illegal with ministers demanding that people not meet with anyone literally the hour before.
And the Christmas party. Bottles of open plonk and party garlands.
And the birthday party. With cake and singing. Do you know how many kids - my own included - were forced to spend their birthday on their own doing nothing and seeing nobody?
The person who has "mislead and upset people" is the Prime Minister.
Why are you still defending this? I know you are both intelligent and moral yet you are dying in a sand dune ditch defending stupidity and immorality.
Okay, here goes.
1. Abba Party - any evidence that Mr Johnson was there, or had anything to do with it, rather than Mrs Johnson and some of her “friends”?
2. BYOB “Party” - this was IIRC the PM spending a few minutes congratulating the staff from No.10, in the workplace, outside, one evening. No-one who was not in No.10 for work was there.
3. Christmas “Party” - this was a video conference, which is why we have the screenshot.
4. Birthday “Party” - was nothing to do with Mr Johnson. His wife bought a cake to the home/office, and it was distributed to people who were in the building already.
5. References to kids’ birthday parties, rules in hospitals etc are very deliberately misleading.
As I’ve said before, I don’t particularly like the guy - but this whole ‘scandal’ is ludicrous, fuelled by people in politics and media who really hate the PM’s guts. Watching from afar, it’s most unedifying that so much political time is being taken up by these trivialities. For what it’s worth, I keep getting asked about it here, by people dumbfounded by the absurdity of it. Why isn’t everyone trying to forget the damn pandemic?
And on that note, I have work to do!
I appreciate you taking the time to post this response. Again, perhaps your distance from the UK means you don't get it, none of your justifications are a legal defence to illegal actions.
So the reason we can't (as you suggested) have the government move on to investigating the Post Office malfeasance is because the PM broke the law and the ministerial code. Repeatedly.
Again - the LAW is the key thing. As @Cyclefree keeps pointing out. The perception that we have may well not match the LAW in these cases.
It shouldn't matter. Politically the nation has decided. He will be gone at some point, but its not as cut and dried as people are making out.
*very on topic post, tapped into iPhone in coffee shop.
I’m completely opposite view to you Mike. All Boris has done is filibustered. During the filibuster it’s allowed everyone to realise he can’t survive. That filibuster ends this week. My prediction is BORIS RESIGNS NEXT WEEK AFTER LOSING VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.
Why or how?
His questionnaire has to be read by investigators and prosecutors by Friday. He is going to put a confession in writing, hand it to the MET police and lose control of the situation. He really can’t remain silent about the truth any longer than this week, because that questionnaire could be leaked any moment after Friday, he really can’t avoid the truth coming out beyond this week that he did the wrong thing and lied about it.
I now appreciate there is nothing coordinated or calculating about the letters going in. It’s just random, 54 individuals reaching that place in their mind, they don’t even have to go public. That can happen any second.
I also now appreciate it only takes 54 letter quota to be reached to get rid of Boris. Because the vote of no confidence is a vote whether or not to keep him with a vote of confidence - and everyone on the fence will see that as far too risky and waste of time now.
Your scenario is based upon "He is going to put a confession in writing"
But what if he doesn't?
Why would he? Why would anyone for that matter?
If he says that everything he attended he did for work, or because it was his home, and that he did not consider anything to be illegal or a party then there's no confession of lying there.
This is why people are stupid to pin their hopes on "lying" because it requires more hurdles to be cleared.
In order for something to be a lie you need to demonstrate: 1: That what was said was not true. 2: That the person who said it knew it was untrue when they said it.
If I make a mistake that is not a lie. Ignorance is no defence when it comes to the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying. If he broke his own laws he should go, whether he knew it or not, ignorance is no defence. But to prove he lied is a much tougher (and unnecessary) threshold to clear.
This is an enjoyable primer on lying - you can work through it spotting a number of Johnson techniques which are misleading but fall short of normal definitions of lies.
Of course the test is knowingly or advertently misleading Parliament, which can reasonably be interpreted more widely than a textbook lie.
Well indeed but if he didn't knowingly think that anything he knew about was a party, which is quite plausible, then he hasn't lied, or knowingly misled Parliament. Even if some of it was illegal gatherings.
It shouldn't be enough that our PM is not a liar though, our PM should also follow their own laws he's enforced upon the rest of us. It seems easier to demonstrate that he's possibly broken his own laws, than it does that he knowingly lied.
Long overdue development, but hard to know what impact it will have. I reckon could easily tip a few close seats into the yellow/red column, but very unlikely to decide the election.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, reg 6 and 7 - key extracts:
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave [F1or be outside of] the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
[irrelevant items omitted]
(f)to... work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.
----
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—
(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,
(b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes,
[the multiple amended versions makes it pretty complicated, but this gives you a flavour of the way it was pitched. I have no idea whether a court would consider the whole of the No. 10 office complex to be the premises where the PM's wife lives... but it seems a stretch]
I don't think it's a stretch at all. No.10 is where she lives. Some parts of No.10 are offices.
Comments
More severe weather is expected on Friday, with an amber warning for wind in place for Wales and much of England.
The Met Office is warning of significant disruption and danger to life from Storm Eunice, with gusts of up to 80mph.
Around the coasts of west Wales and south-west England, gusts of up to 100mph are possible, the Met Office said. Such strong winds are very unusual for these parts of the UK.
The amber warning is in place from 03:00 GMT until 21:00 on Friday and goes as far north as Manchester.
With the possibility of such high wind speeds, BBC Weather presenter Simon King said the warning could be upgraded to red - the highest level - if the Met Office's confidence that these speeds will be reached increases.
The Welsh Government made a list of "non-essential goods" which meant those aisles had to be cordoned.
Did that happen in England or Scotland?
Again, what you are trying to justify is your will uber alles. And you have failed, as any future government is free to do as it sees fit. Including doing all the things you hate. Bless.
Johnson is clearly charismatic and strong (according to some both in political and muscular sense).
Starmer is clearly intelligent.
Those should be showing 60%+ if people were actually answering the questions as asked.
I don't actually think the southern English are any more scared of weather than the rest of us.
But when there is exciting weather in southern England it is very easy for the news outlets to get to it to report in apocalyptic tones.
"Heavy snow in the Cairngorms? That's all very well, but our cameras aren't in the Cairngorms. It gets no more than a passing mention. A picturesque dusting in the North Downs? Brilliant! Let's get out there straight away and frame a shot so it looks like all of Kent is impassable. We can make three, four, five minutes of story time out of this. And some of the people we know live in Kent, so we know they'll watch it. We're not really convinced any of our audience really knows where the Cairngorms are."
Meanwhile, the actual people of Kent continue to do their best in the circumstances, just as the people of the Highlands do.
I remember driving to Sheffield a few years back in the snow. Near Tideswell, snow had drifted over the road, reducing the carriageway to one lane for a few metres. It delayed my journey by about 45 seconds. There was a camera crew there filming. Later, I actually saw the story on the news: it was amazing: the way they had framed the shot, and the way they told the story, made it look as if the road was entirely blocked and anyone trying to cross the Peaks was making a ludicrous decision and taking their life in their hands. But in real life the gritters had done their jobs on the main roads and traffic was moving almost entirely normally.
https://twitter.com/gmpolice/status/1296892870369128448
"#UPDATE | Officers attended a property in #Swinton where 3 families were celebrating a child's birthday in a private garden. The homeowner has been issued with a fixed penalty notice."
But what's a non-residential isle in Tesco? One where no one lives?
1. Abba Party - any evidence that Mr Johnson was there, or had anything to do with it, rather than Mrs Johnson and some of her “friends”?
2. BYOB “Party” - this was IIRC the PM spending a few minutes congratulating the staff from No.10, in the workplace, outside, one evening. No-one who was not in No.10 for work was there.
3. Christmas “Party” - this was a video conference, which is why we have the screenshot.
4. Birthday “Party” - was nothing to do with Mr Johnson. His wife bought a cake to the home/office, and it was distributed to people who were in the building already.
5. References to kids’ birthday parties, rules in hospitals etc are very deliberately misleading.
As I’ve said before, I don’t particularly like the guy - but this whole ‘scandal’ is ludicrous, fuelled by people in politics and media who really hate the PM’s guts. Watching from afar, it’s most unedifying that so much political time is being taken up by these trivialities. For what it’s worth, I keep getting asked about it here, by people dumbfounded by the absurdity of it. Why isn’t everyone trying to forget the damn pandemic?
And on that note, I have work to do!
Thank God! the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there's no occasion to."
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, reg 6 and 7 - key extracts:
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave [F1or be outside of] the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
[irrelevant items omitted]
(f)to... work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises.
----
7. During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering in a public place of more than two people except—
(a)where all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household,
(b)where the gathering is essential for work purposes,
[the multiple amended versions makes it pretty complicated, but this gives you a flavour of the way it was pitched. I have no idea whether a court would consider the whole of the No. 10 office complex to be the premises where the PM's wife lives... but it seems a stretch]
Wordle2 59 4/6 #wordle2
⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨🟨
⬜🟩🟨🟨🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://www.wordle2.in
I used to drive in the Peak a lot, and roads would be clear one hour, impassable the next, and cleared a couple of hours later. I've also seen roads become very dangerous very quickly.
All I'm trying to justify is that to the people those opt-outs were meaningless. The fact that "any future government is free to do as it sees fit" is exactly the point that I am making.
And this is exactly why, having been denied votes on Maastricht, Lisbon and the Constitution, the people pressed the nuclear button when the government was finally forced into asking the question.
My problem with your approach is that is possible to deal with more than one thing at a time. You seem to think everything should be dropped when the next thing comes up.
Also that its equivalent of someone claiming it's unfair people are yelling at them after they do something wrong, and claiming the wrong no longer matters as a result.
Parliament is sovereign, able to make any laws and repeal any laws as it sees fit.
That's all there is to it.
A two-year campaign by state-sponsored Russian entities to siphon information from US defense contractors worked, it is claimed.
Uncle Sam's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) on Wednesday said Moscow's cyber-snoops have obtained "significant insight into US weapons platforms development and deployment timelines, vehicle specifications, and plans for communications infrastructure and information technology."
https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/17/cisa_russian_attacks/
*very on topic post, tapped into iPhone in coffee shop.
I’m completely opposite view to you Mike. All Boris has done is filibustered. During the filibuster it’s allowed everyone to realise he can’t survive. That filibuster ends this week. My prediction is BORIS RESIGNS NEXT WEEK AFTER LOSING VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.
Why or how?
His questionnaire has to be read by investigators and prosecutors by Friday. He is going to put a confession in writing, hand it to the MET police and lose control of the situation. He really can’t remain silent about the truth any longer than this week, because that questionnaire could be leaked any moment after Friday, he really can’t avoid the truth coming out beyond this week that he did the wrong thing and lied about it.
I now appreciate there is nothing coordinated or calculating about the letters going in. It’s just random, 54 individuals reaching that place in their mind, they don’t even have to go public. That can happen any second.
I also now appreciate it only takes 54 letter quota to be reached to get rid of Boris. Because the vote of no confidence is a vote whether or not to keep him with a vote of confidence - and everyone on the fence will see that as far too risky and waste of time now.
I think he's broken the law that he himself passed so he has to resign and I've said that for months, but I think you're right I don't think he's lied to Parliament.
From what's come out, I don't think he'd possibly think that what he actually attended could be termed a party. I for one am not as hedonistic as Boris reportedly is, but I would never in a million years have termed a slice of birthday cake in the office as a "party".
Its worth noting that Gray does not refer to them as parties either, she calls them gatherings and that is the element that is relevant to the law which is what should matter most.
So I don't think he should resign for lying to Parliament, since it doesn't seem like he did lie to Parliament. But it does seem he's broken his own laws, that he himself passed, with illegal gatherings if not illegal parties. In which case he should go. Not because of lying to Parliament, but because lawmakers should not break their own laws that they've passed upon the rest of us and told us on a daily basis we must follow.
So the reason we can't (as you suggested) have the government move on to investigating the Post Office malfeasance is because the PM broke the law and the ministerial code. Repeatedly.
https://twitter.com/HolyroodDaily/status/1494225143853367296
Well that’s simple. Concerns over self-ID are “not valid” unquote.
But what if he doesn't?
(Skeptics - go and play some water polo.)
2. Once the reasonable excuse of being away from their home where required from work had ceased they may have been breaking the rules by being there
3. I don't know how VCs worked for you during the stay-at-home orders, but there was only one person in each screenshot at the ones I attended
4. People apparently gathered in a room for it. Even if they hadn't, someone who wasn't required to be there for work would not have been permitted to turn up and distribute food around desks.
5. References to how similar gatherings in hospital car parks would have been treated are exactly the point. We all know that people who were working harder and taking greater public risks would have been treated as criminals if they had done the same things.
If he says that everything he attended he did for work, or because it was his home, and that he did not consider anything to be illegal or a party then there's no confession of lying there.
This is why people are stupid to pin their hopes on "lying" because it requires more hurdles to be cleared.
In order for something to be a lie you need to demonstrate:
1: That what was said was not true.
2: That the person who said it knew it was untrue when they said it.
If I make a mistake that is not a lie. Ignorance is no defence when it comes to the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying. If he broke his own laws he should go, whether he knew it or not, ignorance is no defence. But to prove he lied is a much tougher (and unnecessary) threshold to clear.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/
Of course the test is knowingly or advertently misleading Parliament, which can reasonably be interpreted more widely than a textbook lie.
It shouldn't matter. Politically the nation has decided. He will be gone at some point, but its not as cut and dried as people are making out.
It shouldn't be enough that our PM is not a liar though, our PM should also follow their own laws he's enforced upon the rest of us. It seems easier to demonstrate that he's possibly broken his own laws, than it does that he knowingly lied.
I reckon could easily tip a few close seats into the yellow/red column, but very unlikely to decide the election.