Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".
I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.
When you say "member of the medical profession", I assume you mean "Labour activist"?
You accused me of trolling, which you did by way of completely altering my words in a quote, but as has so often been observed, those who are ready to dish out such opprobrium are often least able to defend themselves.
So the question is to be posed: are you sitting inside CCHQ? Do you work for Boris Johnson?
It's the only explanation for your sycophantic attempt to defend the indefensible.
Absolutely no fan of Boris and the conservatives as some may have noticed. However really don't think the lying thing is going to have any cut through with the general public. Most people that are not as politically tuned in as those here assume if a politician of any political persuasion is moving their lips they are lying.
Ed Davey seems to have forgotten the lib dems promise on tuition fees which was summarily ignored
It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.
You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?
If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?
Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?
Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.
What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!
I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.
If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.
If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.
Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.
That was not the way the regulations were written. The gathering should only have been for work purposes and when that was completed, it should have ended. That clearly was not the case here where work obviously stopped to allow the celebrations to happen.
Yes. But that's still a question of opinion - even if nearly everyone's opinion is the same! That's all I'm saying!
If toasts were being made, work had stopped.
I have to say I cannot see how that's an opinion rather than a fact.
Again, you're focusing on the specific gathering and my point is more general.
You mean, like the police did?
Yes, indeed. But by focusing on the specific gathering, you are missing my point, which is simply that by including the word "reasonably" in the regulation it makes the offence a question of opinion, unlike a strict liability offence like speeding or drunk driving - either you are over the limit or you aren't and opinion has nothing to do with it.
I really can't see how I can make this any clearer, so I'll stop now.
Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".
I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.
When you say "member of the medical profession", I assume you mean "Labour activist"?
Boris’s cloacal reign is turning the whole country into “Labour activists” or at least anti-Boris ones.
Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".
I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.
When you say "member of the medical profession", I assume you mean "Labour activist"?
You accused me of trolling, which you did by way of completely altering my words in a quote, but as has so often been observed, those who are ready to dish out such opprobrium are often least able to defend themselves.
So the question is to be posed: are you sitting inside CCHQ? Do you work for Boris Johnson?
It's the only explanation for your sycophantic attempt to defend the indefensible.
Re-read all my posts on the subject today going back to the last thread, read them and understand them. You clearly haven't.
The question is, are they (a) spineless cowards with no integrity or are they (b) decent and well-meaning public servants who will do the right thing regardless of cost?
Alas, I fear my money is on (a) for far too many of them...
Just been looking at the Graun feed. Mr Blackford evoking the replacement of Chamberlain by Churchill, and Mr Ross doing his very best to whine about destabilising the government at this time.
I really am surprised Mr Ross can move on land, never mind run along a footie field. It's not as if he hadn't burnt his Johnsonian boats already, so he had nothing to lose by maintaining some vertebrae,
Ross is distressingly useless. It's actually quite amazing how he's managed to isolate himself from both the Boris and the anti-Boris camps.
Quite. I'm a bit stunned.
How's his standing in the Scons, do you think? Both the MSPs and MPs, and the party as a whole?
I could see him moving on after May if things go badly. But I really have no idea whether the votes are holding up for the Conservatives where it counts. Transfers to the Tories in the council elections will be interesting. If Lib Dem and Labour tactical transfers dry up, then there could be trouble.
I think they will be in trouble in urban councils including Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh in particular where centrist voters will defect to the LDs and possibly squeezed out in other central belt SNP-Lab dominated wards where the are weak.
On the other hand I think they will be fine in rural councils such as Aberdeenshire, Dumfries and Galloway and Moray where there are fewer SNP and independent councillors standing than last time plus more Tory candidates and are still extremely likely/almost certain to gain seats in those places.
First preference defections from the Conservatives probably don't matter very much where the SNP are the main rivals, unless they are defecting and not even putting Conservative as a lower option. So for example round my way, rural Aberdeenshire, if a Con voter puts Lib Dem 1st, then Labour, then Tory, then it's pretty unimportant because Lib Dem and Labour will get eliminated and the votes will still pile up on blue.
If the natural Lib Dems and Labour voters stop putting Con 2nd or 3rd and god forbid if they put SNP ahead of Tory, then the Tories are in a world of pain.
It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.
You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?
If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?
Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?
Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.
What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!
I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.
If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.
If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.
Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.
That was not the way the regulations were written. The gathering should only have been for work purposes and when that was completed, it should have ended. That clearly was not the case here where work obviously stopped to allow the celebrations to happen.
Yes. But that's still a question of opinion - even if nearly everyone's opinion is the same! That's all I'm saying!
If toasts were being made, work had stopped.
I have to say I cannot see how that's an opinion rather than a fact.
Again, you're focusing on the specific gathering and my point is more general.
You mean, like the police did?
Yes, indeed. But by focusing on the specific gathering, you are missing my point, which is simply that by including the word "reasonably" in the regulation it makes the offence a question of opinion, unlike a strict liability offence like speeding or drunk driving - either you are over the limit or you aren't and opinion has nothing to do with it.
I really can't see how I can make this any clearer, so I'll stop now.
'But Ukraine' is going to be the new 'But Vaccines' isn't it?
Boris is an arse and should go, and would go, if the world was behaving "normally"
HOWEVER there IS an argument for saying This is not the time
Boris clearly has a good relationship with Zelenskyy, and Ukraine is an almost overwhelmingly important issue, right now, an issue which might take us to the brink of nuclear war
Is this really the best juncture to be having leadership contests to replace the PM?
It's not. It will be deeply frustrating to Boris-haters, who must feel they have got their man, but I sense the Tory party has neither the energy nor appetite to defenestrate Boris in the middle of this enormous crisis
I don't think they do have the appetite (and I don't think they would if the world was behaving normally either), but I just do not agree that a leadership contest affects anything on that issue. For one, he could stay as PM but resign as party leader, with a view to being replaced as PM by whoever wins the subsequent contest, so it would not affect the Ukrainian issue at all. Once a new PM is in place they could even let Boris take the lead on Ukrainian relations.
Steinmeier not looking happy having received news of 🇺🇦 blocking trip: Says he wanted to send "strong signal of 🇪🇺 solidarity" alongside presidents of Baltics & Poland. "I was ready but apparently (and I need to take note) this was not desired in Kyiv".
It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.
You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?
If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?
Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?
Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.
What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!
I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.
If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.
If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.
Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.
Did someone's spouse turn up with a cake every Friday too?
When there was someone's brthday, there was cake. Reference to "someone's spouse" shows you haven't quite grasped the point I was making (see: this comment).
But your cakes were presumably sans spouse. Whether in, on, or holding them.
Yes... that's my point...
And mine too. Spouse = not work. Cake = not in itself crucial, but importantly illuminating the nature of the event together with other things going on, such as spouses or folk from other depts/offices.
It does seem a little unfair.., 29 people having a proper work even… the PMs wife turns up by surprise and suddenly everyone is guilty of breaking the law.
What do you do? Walk out and look churlish/rude/non-team player/ruin your career or stay?
I think that Carrie is the only one who should be punished unless others knew in advance…
On the key issue of whether restaurant reviewers are qualified to comment or rather should be taken heed of when they comment on current affairs and politics it seems they have form. AA Gill, Jan Moir, Giles Coren, Rayner all started off as restaurant critics and then "graduated" to the Comment pages. I'm sure there are one or two more of the lesser type.
They believe that because they write well, talk about good bread and know their char siu bau from their har gau they can opine upon matters of the day. Baffling.
. . . meanwhile back at the race . . . some upcoming very special US congressional elections (via Politico.com):
California's 22nd (runoff June 7): This race is to replace former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who left Congress to run the Trump Media & Technology Group. Connie Conway, the former California Assembly Republican Leader, and Democrat Lourin Hubbard advanced to the runoff. But this district's boundaries changed radically in redistricting — neither Conway nor Hubbard will seek a full term — so this will be a short-term gig.
Minnesota's 1st (Aug. 9): There's a May 24 primary and Aug. 9 general election to replace the late-Rep. Jim Hagedorn (R-Minn.), who passed away from cancer on Feb. 17. There are 20 contenders. On the GOP side, most prominent are state Reps. Nels Pierson and Jeremy Munson, as well as Jennifer Carnahan, the (controversial) former state Republican chair and Hagedorn's wife. For the Democrats in this red-trending seat, there's ethics lawyer Richard Painter and Jeffrey Ettinger, the former CEO of Hormel.
Alaska at-large (Aug. 16): Voters will pick the successor to the late Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) through a June 11 primary followed by the Aug. 16 special election. That special will be the first test of the state's new ranked-choice voting system (the top four vote recipients advance out of the primary regardless of party — and then will be ranked in order of preference). If you thought 20 candidates was a lot then steel yourself; this race has a field of nearly 50 people. Sarah Palin has dominated much of the national focus, but there are a bunch of notables: Republican Nick Begich III, the Republican son of a famous political family; Independent Al Gross, who sought the Senate seat in 2020; Tara Sweeney, a former Trump administration official and (no joke!) Santa Claus of North Pole, Alaska.
Nebraska's 1st (June 28): They're moving quickly in Nebraska following Rep. Jeff Fortenberry's (R-Neb.) resignation stemming from felony convictions on March 31. The parties picked two state senators — Republican Mike Flood and Democrat Patty Pansing Brooks — as their nominees for the June 28 contest. This is pretty red turf so the Republicans will be favored to hold the seat.
Texas' 34th (June 14): This is probably the most interesting contest. Rep. Filemon Vela Jr. (D-Texas) resigned this seat, where Republicans made significant inroads with Hispanic voters in 2020, on March 31. The special contest will take place under the old GOP-friendly lines (the seat got bluer in redistricting), but the Republican candidate in November, Mayra Flores, also plans to run in the special. Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) will run for the seat in the fall, but not in the special. Republicans would love to score a flip here, cementing the progress they've made in south Texas. Democrat Daniel Sanchez, a former Cameron County commissioner, announced a bid for the seat in the special last week.
Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".
I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.
When you say "member of the medical profession", I assume you mean "Labour activist"?
You accused me of trolling, which you did by way of completely altering my words in a quote, but as has so often been observed, those who are ready to dish out such opprobrium are often least able to defend themselves.
So the question is to be posed: are you sitting inside CCHQ? Do you work for Boris Johnson?
It's the only explanation for your sycophantic attempt to defend the indefensible.
Re-read all my posts on the subject today going back to the last thread, read them and understand them. You clearly haven't.
And now I shall stop feeding the troll.
I don't have the time so, no, I won't. I've seen what I've read and it's enough to see you defending the indefensible.
I am not a troll and you must be one of the last remaining ones to think I am. It's the weakest argument of a very weak man. You can't engage or debate with someone who thinks outside your miniscule worldview so you resort to the only argument left to you, the same as a primary aged child, by effectively sticking your fingers into your ears and shouting nah nah nah nah.
It amuses rather than angers me because it's so feeble.
'But Ukraine' is going to be the new 'But Vaccines' isn't it?
Boris is an arse and should go, and would go, if the world was behaving "normally"
HOWEVER there IS an argument for saying This is not the time
Boris clearly has a good relationship with Zelenskyy, and Ukraine is an almost overwhelmingly important issue, right now, an issue which might take us to the brink of nuclear war
Is this really the best juncture to be having leadership contests to replace the PM?
It's not. It will be deeply frustrating to Boris-haters, who must feel they have got their man, but I sense the Tory party has neither the energy nor appetite to defenestrate Boris in the middle of this enormous crisis
I don't think they do have the appetite (and I don't think they would if the world was behaving normally either), but I just do not agree that a leadership contest affects anything on that issue. For one, he could stay as PM but resign as party leader, with a view to being replaced as PM by whoever wins the subsequent contest, so it would not affect the Ukrainian issue at all. Once a new PM is in place they could even let Boris take the lead on Ukrainian relations.
How long do we have to keep Boris in place as 'the only man remotely qualified to deal with the Ukraine crisis'? The war could go on for years.
Absolutely no fan of Boris and the conservatives as some may have noticed. However really don't think the lying thing is going to have any cut through with the general public. Most people that are not as politically tuned in as those here assume if a politician of any political persuasion is moving their lips they are lying.
Whether it cuts through is immaterial. Lots of things do not cut through but are still important.
People assume politicians lie all the time but in fact they are wrong and lying is quite rare (though they will obfuscate, spin and omit to a greater or lesser degree).
Lying should still matter. As should severe incompetence - and those are the two options available to Boris and Rishi.
That they will get away with it is neither here nor there.
Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".
I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.
When you say "member of the medical profession", I assume you mean "Labour activist"?
You accused me of trolling, which you did by way of completely altering my words in a quote, but as has so often been observed, those who are ready to dish out such opprobrium are often least able to defend themselves.
So the question is to be posed: are you sitting inside CCHQ? Do you work for Boris Johnson?
It's the only explanation for your sycophantic attempt to defend the indefensible.
He's not the only one but to be fair the PB Tories are-unusually-struggling to find a quorum!
The "defense" of Boris Johnson on PB today is absolutely hilarious. Wonderful parody.
Truly is.
I get criticised for speaking of the right wing coterie on here but it is, genuinely, gobsmacking today.
The worst part is how unaware they appear to be about how fantastically unrepresentative they are of the general populus.
It seems the conservative poll about 34/35% though this may well fall, but you dismiss the ability of the conservative party to change when circumstances dictate to retain power at your peril
Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".
I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.
When you say "member of the medical profession", I assume you mean "Labour activist"?
You accused me of trolling, which you did by way of completely altering my words in a quote, but as has so often been observed, those who are ready to dish out such opprobrium are often least able to defend themselves.
So the question is to be posed: are you sitting inside CCHQ? Do you work for Boris Johnson?
It's the only explanation for your sycophantic attempt to defend the indefensible.
Re-read all my posts on the subject today going back to the last thread, read them and understand them. You clearly haven't.
And now I shall stop feeding the troll.
You can't engage or debate with someone who thinks outside your miniscule worldview so you resort to the only argument left to you, the same as a primary aged child, by effectively sticking your fingers into your ears and shouting nah nah nah nah.
Do you count "self-awareness" among your strengths?
On the key issue of whether restaurant reviewers are qualified to comment or rather should be taken heed of when they comment on current affairs and politics it seems they have form. AA Gill, Jan Moir, Giles Coren, Rayner all started off as restaurant critics and then "graduated" to the Comment pages. I'm sure there are one or two more of the lesser type.
They believe that because they write well, talk about good bread and know their char siu bau from their har gau they can opine upon matters of the day. Baffling.
I can tolerate it if they actually write clever and insightful ARTICLES with fresh, well-informed political perspectives. And there are writers who start in one niche genre then successfully branch out into politics. Fair enough.
But social media celebs generally don't do this. They just tweet, or maybe rant. When has Gary Lineker ever done anything more than tweet the latest right-on political view of the day, from his million pound BBC job?
It is a minor irritant of modern life, but still an irritant
It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.
The police were given the power by law to decide on these matters. It’s not just a “view”. The Johnsons and Sunak can refuse to pay if they consider themselves innocent. So far, it appears that they are not going to do that, so they are accepting the decision.
Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".
I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.
When you say "member of the medical profession", I assume you mean "Labour activist"?
You accused me of trolling, which you did by way of completely altering my words in a quote, but as has so often been observed, those who are ready to dish out such opprobrium are often least able to defend themselves.
So the question is to be posed: are you sitting inside CCHQ? Do you work for Boris Johnson?
It's the only explanation for your sycophantic attempt to defend the indefensible.
He's not the only one but to be fair the PB Tories are-unusually-struggling to find a quorum!
I think most actual Tories and other centrist and right-leaning posters have been critical of Boris, actually, if you read across the last thread and this one. HY has been quiet, of course, but that's only to be expected.
The 🇬🇧 changed PM 👉🏻four times in the war in Afghanistan 👉🏻in the Iraq War 👉🏻in the Gulf War 👉🏻in the Korean War 👉🏻in the Second World War 👉🏻in the First World War 👉🏻in the Second Boer War 👉🏻in the Second Opium War 👉🏻in the Crimean War 👉🏻twice in the Peninsular War
Absolutely no fan of Boris and the conservatives as some may have noticed. However really don't think the lying thing is going to have any cut through with the general public. Most people that are not as politically tuned in as those here assume if a politician of any political persuasion is moving their lips they are lying.
Likewise - I'd prefer him gone because I think it would be better electorally for the party. Almost all the people on the street ever say about politicians is barely printable. I actually think their attitude is pretty sensible on the whole.
The 🇬🇧 changed PM 👉🏻four times in the war in Afghanistan 👉🏻in the Iraq War 👉🏻in the Gulf War 👉🏻in the Korean War 👉🏻in the Second World War 👉🏻in the First World War 👉🏻in the Second Boer War 👉🏻in the Second Opium War 👉🏻in the Crimean War 👉🏻twice in the Peninsular War
It really is remarkable how unsustainable the argument is re Ukraine, yet Tory MPs are banking everything on it and acting like it is absurd that anyone could ever contemplate such a thing.
Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS
Even more, why bother retweeting it?
Got allt of time for Jay Rayner. He doesn’t just write about London restaurants but knows there is a world outside of London.
He’s said some very nice things about some very nice places in the north east.
Rayner is an excellent restaurant critic; my favourite after Tim Hayward on the FT (who is almost a genius)
But his relentless bien pensant leftwing dribbling on Twitter is deeply irritating. Please not on PB as well
I can, likewise, generally do without Giles Coren's political opinions from the other side
It’s not unusual for people who have careers in the media. Chef Tom Kerridge seems to have gone down that route as well. Gary Lineker is probably the best example who has gone from being a total bellend laughed at for stories in popbitch, like the claim he was suing his sons former school for his poor exam results, to a right on supporter of the right causes. Adored by an army of fluffers on Twitter.
The 🇬🇧 changed PM 👉🏻four times in the war in Afghanistan 👉🏻in the Iraq War 👉🏻in the Gulf War 👉🏻in the Korean War 👉🏻in the Second World War 👉🏻in the First World War 👉🏻in the Second Boer War 👉🏻in the Second Opium War 👉🏻in the Crimean War 👉🏻twice in the Peninsular War
Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".
I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.
When you say "member of the medical profession", I assume you mean "Labour activist"?
You accused me of trolling, which you did by way of completely altering my words in a quote, but as has so often been observed, those who are ready to dish out such opprobrium are often least able to defend themselves.
So the question is to be posed: are you sitting inside CCHQ? Do you work for Boris Johnson?
It's the only explanation for your sycophantic attempt to defend the indefensible.
Re-read all my posts on the subject today going back to the last thread, read them and understand them. You clearly haven't.
And now I shall stop feeding the troll.
Nor has anyone else, because they are incoherent drivel
Heathener is not a troll
Constructive discourse over the internet is a bit harder than parading a string of tedious cliches of the ftfy/heavy lifting/don't feed the troll type.
The 🇬🇧 changed PM 👉🏻four times in the war in Afghanistan 👉🏻in the Iraq War 👉🏻in the Gulf War 👉🏻in the Korean War 👉🏻in the Second World War 👉🏻in the First World War 👉🏻in the Second Boer War 👉🏻in the Second Opium War 👉🏻in the Crimean War 👉🏻twice in the Peninsular War
PM has been clear about what happened on 19th June 2020 & offered a full apology. It was a brief gathering in the Cabinet Room, less than 10 minutes during a busy working day. PM is at his best when delivering on the priorities of the British people which he will continue to do.
It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.
You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?
If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?
Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?
Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.
What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!
I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.
If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.
If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.
Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.
Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS
Even more, why bother retweeting it?
Got allt of time for Jay Rayner. He doesn’t just write about London restaurants but knows there is a world outside of London.
He’s said some very nice things about some very nice places in the north east.
Rayner is an excellent restaurant critic; my favourite after Tim Hayward on the FT (who is almost a genius)
But his relentless bien pensant leftwing dribbling on Twitter is deeply irritating. Please not on PB as well
I can, likewise, generally do without Giles Coren's political opinions from the other side
If we add Daniel Hannan and Owen Jones to the list, I'd agree to that. Both embittered fools, from right and left.
Disagree. Hannan is, for a start, actually a politician, one of the most pivotal of our age given his role in Brexit. He is also very clever and speaks and writes well. Owen Jones is a political journalist and thinker, highly influential, he is likewise clever and also writes well and is good on TV - and he often brings an interesting perspective
Clearly I agree more with Hannan than Jones, but I want to hear both of them. They know what they are talking about.
Matthew Le Tissier, not so much. By all means let him tweet away, but please don't bring him on PB
Absolutely no fan of Boris and the conservatives as some may have noticed. However really don't think the lying thing is going to have any cut through with the general public. Most people that are not as politically tuned in as those here assume if a politician of any political persuasion is moving their lips they are lying.
Ed Davey seems to have forgotten the lib dems promise on tuition fees which was summarily ignored
I am personally coming to the opinion that democracy is failing in this and most countries. Not because of the view of one man one vote but because of the people it attracts to run for office. We see this demonstrated in the falling trust for politicians amongst the public and political institutions like the police and courts
1) The PM should go, having been caught by his own laws.
2) Those laws were clearly bonkers if they caught a small gathering to sing happy birthday during the working day by those who had to be there. We should never allow them to replicated.
The PM is, of course, as responsible for the latter as the former.
The 🇬🇧 changed PM 👉🏻four times in the war in Afghanistan 👉🏻in the Iraq War 👉🏻in the Gulf War 👉🏻in the Korean War 👉🏻in the Second World War 👉🏻in the First World War 👉🏻in the Second Boer War 👉🏻in the Second Opium War 👉🏻in the Crimean War 👉🏻twice in the Peninsular War
The 🇬🇧 changed PM 👉🏻four times in the war in Afghanistan 👉🏻in the Iraq War 👉🏻in the Gulf War 👉🏻in the Korean War 👉🏻in the Second World War 👉🏻in the First World War 👉🏻in the Second Boer War 👉🏻in the Second Opium War 👉🏻in the Crimean War 👉🏻twice in the Peninsular War
PM has been clear about what happened on 19th June 2020 & offered a full apology. It was a brief gathering in the Cabinet Room, less than 10 minutes during a busy working day. PM is at his best when delivering on the priorities of the British people which he will continue to do.
Why on earth should we care about the political opinion of some enormously fat guy who writes (rather well) about RESTAURANTS
Even more, why bother retweeting it?
Got allt of time for Jay Rayner. He doesn’t just write about London restaurants but knows there is a world outside of London.
He’s said some very nice things about some very nice places in the north east.
Rayner is an excellent restaurant critic; my favourite after Tim Hayward on the FT (who is almost a genius)
But his relentless bien pensant leftwing dribbling on Twitter is deeply irritating. Please not on PB as well
I can, likewise, generally do without Giles Coren's political opinions from the other side
Thumbs up for Tim. Worth the price of the FT sub for his writing, and a lovely human to boot.
I am glad to hear Hayward is a nice guy. Comes across that way in his writing
He manages to be super informative, witty, and elegant, and he can criticise without being a mean old git (which was A A Gill's failing: Gill was too much the sharp tongued bitch, at times)
It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.
You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?
If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?
Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?
Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.
What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!
I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.
If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.
If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.
Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.
Did spouses attend too?
I'll refer you to my other comments, I've already explained this as clearly as I can.
Meanwhile I've just been watching Sky News and became quite annoyed at the member of the medical profession they got onto speak. They claimed that the fine means that Johnson's visit to Kyiv was "clearly designed as a distraction and photo opportunity".
I'm not Ukrainian, but I imagine it would feel pretty insulting that some prats continually seek to minimise the good work the UK has been doing because of a domestic scandal. The issues are separate and should remain so.
When you say "member of the medical profession", I assume you mean "Labour activist"?
You accused me of trolling, which you did by way of completely altering my words in a quote, but as has so often been observed, those who are ready to dish out such opprobrium are often least able to defend themselves.
So the question is to be posed: are you sitting inside CCHQ? Do you work for Boris Johnson?
It's the only explanation for your sycophantic attempt to defend the indefensible.
He's not the only one but to be fair the PB Tories are-unusually-struggling to find a quorum!
I think most actual Tories and other centrist and right-leaning posters have been critical of Boris, actually, if you read across the last thread and this one. HY has been quiet, of course, but that's only to be expected.
As a Tory I'm really quite relaxed over whether Boris goes or stays. There's no imminent election and we'll sort ourselves out before then. Captain Plastic Fantastic is (and will be) going nowhere so I'm very placid.
Absolutely no fan of Boris and the conservatives as some may have noticed. However really don't think the lying thing is going to have any cut through with the general public. Most people that are not as politically tuned in as those here assume if a politician of any political persuasion is moving their lips they are lying.
Whether it cuts through is immaterial. Lots of things do not cut through but are still important.
People assume politicians lie all the time but in fact they are wrong and lying is quite rare (though they will obfuscate, spin and omit to a greater or lesser degree).
Lying should still matter. As should severe incompetence - and those are the two options available to Boris and Rishi.
That they will get away with it is neither here nor there.
(though they will obfuscate, spin and omit to a greater or lesser degree)
The Prime Minister’s wife, Carrie Johnson, has paid a fixed penalty notice relating to a gathering on the afternoon of June 19 2020, and “apologises unreservedly”, a spokesperson for Mrs Johnson has said.
PM has been clear about what happened on 19th June 2020 & offered a full apology. It was a brief gathering in the Cabinet Room, less than 10 minutes during a busy working day. PM is at his best when delivering on the priorities of the British people which he will continue to do.
The 🇬🇧 changed PM 👉🏻four times in the war in Afghanistan 👉🏻in the Iraq War 👉🏻in the Gulf War 👉🏻in the Korean War 👉🏻in the Second World War 👉🏻in the First World War 👉🏻in the Second Boer War 👉🏻in the Second Opium War 👉🏻in the Crimean War 👉🏻twice in the Peninsular War
It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.
The police were given the power by law to decide on these matters. It’s not just a “view”. The Johnsons and Sunak can refuse to pay if they consider themselves innocent. So far, it appears that they are not going to do that, so they are accepting the decision.
I would agree that if they simply pay then they have accepted it.
The 🇬🇧 changed PM 👉🏻four times in the war in Afghanistan 👉🏻in the Iraq War 👉🏻in the Gulf War 👉🏻in the Korean War 👉🏻in the Second World War 👉🏻in the First World War 👉🏻in the Second Boer War 👉🏻in the Second Opium War 👉🏻in the Crimean War 👉🏻twice in the Peninsular War
Five times during the Napoleonic wars: Addington, Pitt, Grenville, Portland, Perceval, Liverpool!
Although in the case of Pitt and Perceval there wasn't an awful lot of choice in the matter. They could hardly have continued being PM while dead, although even Pitt's corpse would probably be an improvement on what we have now.
Just catching up, to the unbelievable sight of some PBers still dancing on the head of a pin to try to argue that Boris is innocent, OK.
Credit to HYUFD who, unless I've missed it, has not once engaged in the ludicrous argument that Boris is innocent - merely that Boris should remain in post if it is politically expedient for the Tory Party for him to do so. If the most loyal Boris supporter can accept the Met's verdict..... well.
Incidentally, is there a huge panic in France that in a couple of week's time they could have a new President during a European war? I've missed it if there is.
Absolutely no fan of Boris and the conservatives as some may have noticed. However really don't think the lying thing is going to have any cut through with the general public. Most people that are not as politically tuned in as those here assume if a politician of any political persuasion is moving their lips they are lying.
Whether it cuts through is immaterial. Lots of things do not cut through but are still important.
People assume politicians lie all the time but in fact they are wrong and lying is quite rare (though they will obfuscate, spin and omit to a greater or lesser degree).
Lying should still matter. As should severe incompetence - and those are the two options available to Boris and Rishi.
That they will get away with it is neither here nor there.
(though they will obfuscate, spin and omit to a greater or lesser degree)
This is what people call lying
Yes, exactly. Exactly why I advised on the last thread that Boris's opponents don't focus on the lying - it risks clouding the issue and even if proven people are too likely to go "well, durr".
Focus on him breaking his own law. That's reason enough for him to go.
Just catching up, to the unbelievable sight of some PBers still dancing on the head of a pin to try to argue that Boris is innocent, OK.
Credit to HYUFD who, unless I've missed it, has not once engaged in the ludicrous argument that Boris is innocent - merely that Boris should remain in post if it is politically expedient for the Tory Party for him to do so. If the most loyal Boris supporter can accept the Met's verdict..... well.
Incidentally, is there a huge panic in France that in a couple of week's time they could have a new President during a European war? I've missed it if there is.
Abraham Lincoln thought he was going to be defeated in 1864, which would have left a lame duck presidency managing the dying months of the Civil War. Not exactly ideal.
In the end, a couple of timely victories by Union forces turned the tide in his favour.
It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.
You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?
If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?
Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?
Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.
What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!
I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.
If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.
If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.
Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.
Did spouses attend too?
I'll refer you to my other comments, I've already explained this as clearly as I can.
Just catching up, to the unbelievable sight of some PBers still dancing on the head of a pin to try to argue that Boris is innocent, OK.
Credit to HYUFD who, unless I've missed it, has not once engaged in the ludicrous argument that Boris is innocent - merely that Boris should remain in post if it is politically expedient for the Tory Party for him to do so. If the most loyal Boris supporter can accept the Met's verdict..... well.
Incidentally, is there a huge panic in France that in a couple of week's time they could have a new President during a European war? I've missed it if there is.
Abraham Lincoln thought he was going to be defeated in 1864, which would have left a lame duck presidency managing the dying months of the Civil War. Not exactly ideal.
In the end, a couple of timely victories by Union forces turned the tide in his favour.
Sadly, Boris is no Lincoln Happily, we aren't actually at war
It is mildly annoying how the media simply state that there has been wrongdoing as a fact now. The FPN is an offer to accept a fine. If it is not taken up the matter has to go to court and guilt or innocence is then determined. The view of the Met is simply that.
You're the lawyer, not me, but surely the reason FPNs are a thing is because they cover things that either happen, or didn't?
If you are caught on camera doing 75mph in a 60mph zone, there isn't a question of whether the offence took place. It did. Therefore, why waste the time of a court?
Similarly, if you are photographed attending an event that was not essential for work, it took place. And was illegal. Therefore, why go to court?
Arguably, if he gets an FPN which is presumably three figures rather than five, and AIUI does not carry a criminal record, he's getting off pretty lightly compared to others who organised parties.
What this whole episode, coupled with Cummings, does show is how extraordinarily slack and complacent the cabinet and government were about following their own procedures. No wonder Covid was such an issue among them!
I'm not sure the parallel works. Recotrded speed is a question of fact, whether a gathering was reasonably necessary for work a question of opinion.
If you will explain to me the circumstances under which it is 'reasonably necessary' to serve alcohol for work purposes, or indeed to mark somebody's birthday, I will concede your point.
If the gathering is reasonably necessary for work purposes, then serving cake and alcohol does not negate that.
Throughout lockdown when I was in the office (which was most of the time for some people) we still got our Friday afternoon drink supplied by the company. It didn't mean we weren't working.
Did spouses attend too?
I'll refer you to my other comments, I've already explained this as clearly as I can.
Yes, I think there's enough evidence from a range of polls to suggest a modest but still significant revival in Labour's fortunes in Scotland. That could be very important in a couple of year's time.
The Prime Minister’s wife, Carrie Johnson, has paid a fixed penalty notice relating to a gathering on the afternoon of June 19 2020, and “apologises unreservedly”, a spokesperson for Mrs Johnson has said.
'But Ukraine' is going to be the new 'But Vaccines' isn't it?
Boris is an arse and should go, and would go, if the world was behaving "normally"
HOWEVER there IS an argument for saying This is not the time
Boris clearly has a good relationship with Zelenskyy, and Ukraine is an almost overwhelmingly important issue, right now, an issue which might take us to the brink of nuclear war
Is this really the best juncture to be having leadership contests to replace the PM?
It's not. It will be deeply frustrating to Boris-haters, who must feel they have got their man, but I sense the Tory party has neither the energy nor appetite to defenestrate Boris in the middle of this enormous crisis
I don't think they do have the appetite (and I don't think they would if the world was behaving normally either), but I just do not agree that a leadership contest affects anything on that issue. For one, he could stay as PM but resign as party leader, with a view to being replaced as PM by whoever wins the subsequent contest, so it would not affect the Ukrainian issue at all. Once a new PM is in place they could even let Boris take the lead on Ukrainian relations.
How long do we have to keep Boris in place as 'the only man remotely qualified to deal with the Ukraine crisis'? The war could go on for years.
Reluctantly I think that he should have some role (special envoy?) to avoid any hint that our support for Ukraine is diminished by his resignation. He has big international recognition. All a bit theoretical at the moment.
Yes, I think there's enough evidence from a range of polls to suggest a modest but still significant revival in Labour's fortunes in Scotland. That could be very important in a couple of year's time.
Yes. it is possible that Labour have begun the long slow climb back to relevance in Scotland
But I emphasise POSSIBLE - because this depends on the SNP's eternal hegemony finally crumbling, and that has been predicted, unsuccessfully, many times, not least by me
However all things must pass, even the supremacy of Sturgeon and the SNP-in-power, even they cannot escape the fate of Nineveh and Tyre
The Prime Minister’s wife, Carrie Johnson, has paid a fixed penalty notice relating to a gathering on the afternoon of June 19 2020, and “apologises unreservedly”, a spokesperson for Mrs Johnson has said.
This must imply intention to run with the cake-ambush defence: she was single handedly responsible for breach (as suggested, poss facetiously, by someone here this pm). Doesn't get round the lying point mind.
Comments
So the question is to be posed: are you sitting inside CCHQ? Do you work for Boris Johnson?
It's the only explanation for your sycophantic attempt to defend the indefensible.
I think actually we may be in agreement here...
And now I shall stop feeding the troll.
So for example round my way, rural Aberdeenshire, if a Con voter puts Lib Dem 1st, then Labour, then Tory, then it's pretty unimportant because Lib Dem and Labour will get eliminated and the votes will still pile up on blue.
If the natural Lib Dems and Labour voters stop putting Con 2nd or 3rd and god forbid if they put SNP ahead of Tory, then the Tories are in a world of pain.
Well, we'll see.
He’s said some very nice things about some very nice places in the north east.
Starting at 17.05 but 17.06 is the killer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-04-12/more-than-30-new-partygate-fines-as-total-government-covid-breaches-exceeds-50
I get criticised for speaking of the right wing coterie on here but it is, genuinely, gobsmacking today.
The worst part is how unaware they appear to be about how fantastically unrepresentative they are of the general populus.
Says he wanted to send "strong signal of 🇪🇺 solidarity" alongside presidents of Baltics & Poland.
"I was ready but apparently (and I need to take note) this was not desired in Kyiv".
https://twitter.com/thorstenbenner/status/1513898676460359682
What do you do? Walk out and look churlish/rude/non-team player/ruin your career or stay?
I think that Carrie is the only one who should be punished unless others knew in advance…
They believe that because they write well, talk about good bread and know their char siu bau from their har gau they can opine upon matters of the day. Baffling.
California's 22nd (runoff June 7): This race is to replace former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who left Congress to run the Trump Media & Technology Group. Connie Conway, the former California Assembly Republican Leader, and Democrat Lourin Hubbard advanced to the runoff. But this district's boundaries changed radically in redistricting — neither Conway nor Hubbard will seek a full term — so this will be a short-term gig.
Minnesota's 1st (Aug. 9): There's a May 24 primary and Aug. 9 general election to replace the late-Rep. Jim Hagedorn (R-Minn.), who passed away from cancer on Feb. 17. There are 20 contenders. On the GOP side, most prominent are state Reps. Nels Pierson and Jeremy Munson, as well as Jennifer Carnahan, the (controversial) former state Republican chair and Hagedorn's wife. For the Democrats in this red-trending seat, there's ethics lawyer Richard Painter and Jeffrey Ettinger, the former CEO of Hormel.
Alaska at-large (Aug. 16): Voters will pick the successor to the late Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) through a June 11 primary followed by the Aug. 16 special election. That special will be the first test of the state's new ranked-choice voting system (the top four vote recipients advance out of the primary regardless of party — and then will be ranked in order of preference). If you thought 20 candidates was a lot then steel yourself; this race has a field of nearly 50 people. Sarah Palin has dominated much of the national focus, but there are a bunch of notables: Republican Nick Begich III, the Republican son of a famous political family; Independent Al Gross, who sought the Senate seat in 2020; Tara Sweeney, a former Trump administration official and (no joke!) Santa Claus of North Pole, Alaska.
Nebraska's 1st (June 28): They're moving quickly in Nebraska following Rep. Jeff Fortenberry's (R-Neb.) resignation stemming from felony convictions on March 31. The parties picked two state senators — Republican Mike Flood and Democrat Patty Pansing Brooks — as their nominees for the June 28 contest. This is pretty red turf so the Republicans will be favored to hold the seat.
Texas' 34th (June 14): This is probably the most interesting contest. Rep. Filemon Vela Jr. (D-Texas) resigned this seat, where Republicans made significant inroads with Hispanic voters in 2020, on March 31. The special contest will take place under the old GOP-friendly lines (the seat got bluer in redistricting), but the Republican candidate in November, Mayra Flores, also plans to run in the special. Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) will run for the seat in the fall, but not in the special. Republicans would love to score a flip here, cementing the progress they've made in south Texas. Democrat Daniel Sanchez, a former Cameron County commissioner, announced a bid for the seat in the special last week.
But his relentless bien pensant leftwing dribbling on Twitter is deeply irritating. Please not on PB as well
I can, likewise, generally do without Giles Coren's political opinions from the other side
I am not a troll and you must be one of the last remaining ones to think I am. It's the weakest argument of a very weak man. You can't engage or debate with someone who thinks outside your miniscule worldview so you resort to the only argument left to you, the same as a primary aged child, by effectively sticking your fingers into your ears and shouting nah nah nah nah.
It amuses rather than angers me because it's so feeble.
Have a nice evening.
People assume politicians lie all the time but in fact they are wrong and lying is quite rare (though they will obfuscate, spin and omit to a greater or lesser degree).
Lying should still matter. As should severe incompetence - and those are the two options available to Boris and Rishi.
That they will get away with it is neither here nor there.
But social media celebs generally don't do this. They just tweet, or maybe rant. When has Gary Lineker ever done anything more than tweet the latest right-on political view of the day, from his million pound BBC job?
It is a minor irritant of modern life, but still an irritant
👉🏻four times in the war in Afghanistan
👉🏻in the Iraq War
👉🏻in the Gulf War
👉🏻in the Korean War
👉🏻in the Second World War
👉🏻in the First World War
👉🏻in the Second Boer War
👉🏻in the Second Opium War
👉🏻in the Crimean War
👉🏻twice in the Peninsular War
https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1513915021239193614
In the middle of Real Madrid v Chelsea ?
Heathener is not a troll
Constructive discourse over the internet is a bit harder than parading a string of tedious cliches of the ftfy/heavy lifting/don't feed the troll type.
Falklands, I guess... before that?
PM has been clear about what happened on 19th June 2020 & offered a full apology. It was a brief gathering in the Cabinet Room, less than 10 minutes during a busy working day. PM is at his best when delivering on the priorities of the British people which he will continue to do.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1513915004164227079
Clearly I agree more with Hannan than Jones, but I want to hear both of them. They know what they are talking about.
Matthew Le Tissier, not so much. By all means let him tweet away, but please don't bring him on PB
1) The PM should go, having been caught by his own laws.
2) Those laws were clearly bonkers if they caught a small gathering to sing happy birthday during the working day by those who had to be there. We should never allow them to replicated.
The PM is, of course, as responsible for the latter as the former.
Edit - I have overlooked the obvious one. The Irish War of Independence 1918-22.
He manages to be super informative, witty, and elegant, and he can criticise without being a mean old git (which was A A Gill's failing: Gill was too much the sharp tongued bitch, at times)
So is Jones, but for different reasons.
This is what people call lying
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1513919815852957696
...erm, like selling Channel 4?
The 2 main traditional parties of Les Republicains and the Socialists now just shadows of their former strength
No ~ 49% (+2)
Yes ~ 43% (-4)
Don’t Know ~ 8% (+1)
Excluding Don’t Knows ( / vs 2014):
No ~ 53% (+3 / -2)
Yes ~ 47% (-3 / +2)
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1513919690967601153
It should be noted that a "Yes/No" question elicits more support for separation than "Remain/Leave".
The power of how we ask questions
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 47%
No 53%
Should Scotland Remain in or Leave the UK?
Remain 59%
Leave 41%
YouGov/These Islands March 31
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1513830451487649797
Oh, and Phatboi is leading not just the country but the whole "coalition"
Credit to HYUFD who, unless I've missed it, has not once engaged in the ludicrous argument that Boris is innocent - merely that Boris should remain in post if it is politically expedient for the Tory Party for him to do so. If the most loyal Boris supporter can accept the Met's verdict..... well.
Incidentally, is there a huge panic in France that in a couple of week's time they could have a new President during a European war? I've missed it if there is.
Focus on him breaking his own law. That's reason enough for him to go.
New Scottish Westminster poll, BMG 25 - 31 Mar (changes vs 27 - 30 Apr 21):
SNP ~ 42% (-6)
Lab ~ 26% (+6)
Con ~ 19% (-1)
LD ~ 6% (-1)
Grn ~ 4% (+1)
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1513919411417235465
In the end, a couple of timely victories by Union forces turned the tide in his favour.
It does not matter to me if it is Labour as they are for the union
Happily, we aren't actually at war
Got that chequebook out PDQ
But I emphasise POSSIBLE - because this depends on the SNP's eternal hegemony finally crumbling, and that has been predicted, unsuccessfully, many times, not least by me
However all things must pass, even the supremacy of Sturgeon and the SNP-in-power, even they cannot escape the fate of Nineveh and Tyre
Johnson knowingly lied? 75% Yes 12% No
Should Johnson resign? 57% Yes 30% No
Should Sunak resign? 57% Yes 29% No