On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
Boris and the tame MPs strongly denied the BBC charge, but not slandering the Archbishop. Even there, Boris himself majored on the journalists that Starmer had named, rather than the wider BBC. On the third hand, some backbenchers did seem animated even on the Archbishop.
I expect reporters will be tapping up their sources even as we speak.
....whilst telling them to nearest inch where the Russian kit is.
The Germans meanwhile are carefully calibrating so they don't actually send anything to Ukraine.
I'm starting to wonder if the Germans are actually going to rearm, or is that more hot air as well?
So you really want them to? There is a reason why they haven't before now.
The Germans massively disarmed since the end of the cold war. The Americans, among others in NATO, having been pushing hard for them to re-arm. For years.
Given the past, that's a rather short-sighted policy.
Why? - the West Germans were extremely polite and nice. Because they have specifically built a country on not being *that* Germany.
And part of that newly polite Germany is not having a big army capable of sweeping across Europe.
While you clearly think the wrong side won the Cold War, back here in the real world West Germany were spending 3% of GDP on Defence.
You clearly don't get (or want to get) where I'm coming from. I am against any foreign (or domestic come to that) power getting in the way of the British Government's duty to serve the interests of the British people. That includes Russia, America, the EU, the NUM, the NFU, corporate entities, anticapitalists, Greens, the Masons, the Girl Guides - wherever such an attempt comes from.
Needless to say, being controlled by the US is by some measure more tolerable than it would have been being controlled by a Communist Regime in the form of Soviet Russia. But that doesn't mean I don't aspire to a greater degree of sovereignty. The US fought an armed insurrection to rid themselves of British control - as a British person, I am not sure why I should be any happier to accept American control over my country than they were to accept British control over theirs.
We don't have American control over this country that's just the propaganda of Corbynites and Putinists like yourself who think the wrong side won the Cold War.
America are our friends and allies, no more and no less. Yes we cooperate with our allies, that's voluntary as it furthers our own interests not because we are controlled.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
My instinctive reaction is that you just wrote some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. But just in case you do have a point lingering somewhere, what evidence do you put forward for that?
Personally, I might put the government's reactions towards Russia over the last few years down to their attacks on us, rather than us following American orders.
When the UK Government six months ago wanted to buy back Nazanin (with the Iranians' tank money), the US State Department refused to allow them to. It was our money, and our prisoner. The 'No' wasn't even because they believed it would be spent on weapons or some such, it was because they wanted their man out too, and the Iranians wouldn't add him to the deal. So they canned the idea, and Nazanin remained imprisoned.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
Cf Grenada. And Reagan's treatment of Thatcher over it.
And these days it's worse. Thatcher, whilst a staunch ally of the USA, maintained an independent stance on most things (even if she usually ended up agreeing) seemingly by sheer force of personality.
As I said, conspiracy-theory rubbish. The situation with Nazanin was much more complex than you let on.
So let me ask you a question (again): do you believe the official investigation into the MH17 shootdown?
There's a useful aphorism to the effect that anyone who is unable to explain something to a layman either doesn't understand it, or doesn't want the layman to understand it. If there is some mitigating factor in the tale of Nazanin and the state department, I am all ears. I am not sure how any complexity would alter the fundamentals of 'we wanted to do something, they said no, we obeyed without demur', but I am open to new info.
Again, I ask the question about MH17. Since you seem unwilling to answer it, I assume you disbelieve the official story (and investigation) into what happened, and are still slurping up Russia's viewpoint(s) on it? If not, what is your position?
As for Nazanin, I suggest you read on it - particularly historic information. It's odd that you are all conspiracy-theory over something simple like MH17, yet in something more complex and long-lasting like this, you're over-simplistic "It was the yanks that done it."
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
I get the impression some people think the PM and family live in a pop-up tent in the corner of the Cabinet Office.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
My instinctive reaction is that you just wrote some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. But just in case you do have a point lingering somewhere, what evidence do you put forward for that?
Personally, I might put the government's reactions towards Russia over the last few years down to their attacks on us, rather than us following American orders.
When the UK Government six months ago wanted to buy back Nazanin (with the Iranians' tank money), the US State Department refused to allow them to. It was our money, and our prisoner. The 'No' wasn't even because they believed it would be spent on weapons or some such, it was because they wanted their man out too, and the Iranians wouldn't add him to the deal. So they canned the idea, and Nazanin remained imprisoned.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
Cf Grenada. And Reagan's treatment of Thatcher over it.
And these days it's worse. Thatcher, whilst a staunch ally of the USA, maintained an independent stance on most things (even if she usually ended up agreeing) seemingly by sheer force of personality.
As I said, conspiracy-theory rubbish. The situation with Nazanin was much more complex than you let on.
So let me ask you a question (again): do you believe the official investigation into the MH17 shootdown?
There's a useful aphorism to the effect that anyone who is unable to explain something to a layman either doesn't understand it, or doesn't want the layman to understand it. If there is some mitigating factor in the tale of Nazanin and the state department, I am all ears. I am not sure how any complexity would alter the fundamentals of 'we wanted to do something, they said no, we obeyed without demur', but I am open to new info.
Again, I ask the question about MH17. Since you seem unwilling to answer it, I assume you disbelieve the official story (and investigation) into what happened, and are still slurping up Russia's viewpoint(s) on it? If not, what is your position?
As for Nazanin, I suggest you read on it - particularly historic information. It's odd that you are all conspiracy-theory over something simple like MH17, yet in something more complex and long-lasting like this, you're over-simplistic "It was the yanks that done it."
So you have no additional complexity to elucidate, that was just bollocks. Thanks for confirming.
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
My instinctive reaction is that you just wrote some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. But just in case you do have a point lingering somewhere, what evidence do you put forward for that?
Personally, I might put the government's reactions towards Russia over the last few years down to their attacks on us, rather than us following American orders.
When the UK Government six months ago wanted to buy back Nazanin (with the Iranians' tank money), the US State Department refused to allow them to. It was our money, and our prisoner. The 'No' wasn't even because they believed it would be spent on weapons or some such, it was because they wanted their man out too, and the Iranians wouldn't add him to the deal. So they canned the idea, and Nazanin remained imprisoned.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
They didn’t veto the deal as such.
The issue was it was a USD bank account that the money was frozen in and they wouldn’t disapply sanctions to allow the deal to happen.
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
My instinctive reaction is that you just wrote some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. But just in case you do have a point lingering somewhere, what evidence do you put forward for that?
Personally, I might put the government's reactions towards Russia over the last few years down to their attacks on us, rather than us following American orders.
When the UK Government six months ago wanted to buy back Nazanin (with the Iranians' tank money), the US State Department refused to allow them to. It was our money, and our prisoner. The 'No' wasn't even because they believed it would be spent on weapons or some such, it was because they wanted their man out too, and the Iranians wouldn't add him to the deal. So they canned the idea, and Nazanin remained imprisoned.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
They didn’t veto the deal as such.
The issue was it was a USD bank account that the money was frozen in and they wouldn’t disapply sanctions to allow the deal to happen.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 6m Every major news outlet reported the Prime Minister's comments criticising the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC. Did they all make it up. Or did whoever briefed them make it up. Or did Boris just lie again.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
Has Carrie apologised to anybody yet?
She seems to have become a bit of a shrinking violet lately, which is not, I understand, her usual demeanor.
She received an FPN and put out a statement accepting the fine and apologising. I don’t know if she’s said anything in person…?
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
My instinctive reaction is that you just wrote some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. But just in case you do have a point lingering somewhere, what evidence do you put forward for that?
Personally, I might put the government's reactions towards Russia over the last few years down to their attacks on us, rather than us following American orders.
When the UK Government six months ago wanted to buy back Nazanin (with the Iranians' tank money), the US State Department refused to allow them to. It was our money, and our prisoner. The 'No' wasn't even because they believed it would be spent on weapons or some such, it was because they wanted their man out too, and the Iranians wouldn't add him to the deal. So they canned the idea, and Nazanin remained imprisoned.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
They didn’t veto the deal as such.
The issue was it was a USD bank account that the money was frozen in and they wouldn’t disapply sanctions to allow the deal to happen.
A distinction without a difference.
No. The UK is sanctioning GBP Russian accounts where the money is frozen. Does that mean Russia is under British control and we are ultimately responsible for all Russia's actions.
Don't be pathetic. Stop being a Putin apologist in every instance.
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
My instinctive reaction is that you just wrote some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. But just in case you do have a point lingering somewhere, what evidence do you put forward for that?
Personally, I might put the government's reactions towards Russia over the last few years down to their attacks on us, rather than us following American orders.
When the UK Government six months ago wanted to buy back Nazanin (with the Iranians' tank money), the US State Department refused to allow them to. It was our money, and our prisoner. The 'No' wasn't even because they believed it would be spent on weapons or some such, it was because they wanted their man out too, and the Iranians wouldn't add him to the deal. So they canned the idea, and Nazanin remained imprisoned.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
Cf Grenada. And Reagan's treatment of Thatcher over it.
And these days it's worse. Thatcher, whilst a staunch ally of the USA, maintained an independent stance on most things (even if she usually ended up agreeing) seemingly by sheer force of personality.
As I said, conspiracy-theory rubbish. The situation with Nazanin was much more complex than you let on.
So let me ask you a question (again): do you believe the official investigation into the MH17 shootdown?
There's a useful aphorism to the effect that anyone who is unable to explain something to a layman either doesn't understand it, or doesn't want the layman to understand it. If there is some mitigating factor in the tale of Nazanin and the state department, I am all ears. I am not sure how any complexity would alter the fundamentals of 'we wanted to do something, they said no, we obeyed without demur', but I am open to new info.
Again, I ask the question about MH17. Since you seem unwilling to answer it, I assume you disbelieve the official story (and investigation) into what happened, and are still slurping up Russia's viewpoint(s) on it? If not, what is your position?
As for Nazanin, I suggest you read on it - particularly historic information. It's odd that you are all conspiracy-theory over something simple like MH17, yet in something more complex and long-lasting like this, you're over-simplistic "It was the yanks that done it."
So you have no additional complexity to elucidate, that was just bollocks. Thanks for confirming.
I have plenty to add, and could add it. I just don't want to waste my time arguing with someone who has previously regurgitated Russian lies over MH17, changing his story whenever their story changed.
It is why I ask you the question about whether you believe the official story about MH17: because if you disbelieve it (as you seem to do), then there's little point in arguing with you on anything, as both your reality and morality are both dangerously skewed.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
No.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
Not sure if this has been mention yet (have been out running and gardening - not simultaneously), but Oryx has ticked over to over 3,000 pieces of Russian equipment lost
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
No.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
Of course spouses are allowed through security in normal times. Had Denis Thatcher popped round with a cake for Maggie, nobody would've been bothered. The problem is that Carrie was not allowed during a COVID lockdown because of COVID restrictions.
Partygate is not a side issue because it goes to the core of why Johnson does everything he does politically, for pure personal advantage or amusement and no other reason. Of course, all politicians have an element of this, so what abouters have plenty to play with, the difference with Boris is the absolute consistency with which he does it all the time and has no boundaries in doing so. We have seen but a fraction of the danger of this approach.
So, look at his steadfast Ukraine support through this lens. Why did Boris take this position? High moral purpose? Like hell. Or was it the only he position he could take to defend from the fact that, having quietly dismantled the previous (themselves porous) boundaries, he has courted the oligarch ruble without limit. And not only that, his advantage lies in finding a way to quietly maintain that flow of rubles into Tory coffers to spend on re-election. And those looking to distance themselves from Putin or evade sanction will be happy to help. So, Boris's support for Ukraine has to be seen as pure Cakeism, a defence that "don't be ridiculous, nobody could have done more" whenever these questions come back to the fore.
If that sounds deeply cynical, what in Boris's behaviour, his jinking sorry, not sorry apologies, has ever disabused me of that. What is there to make me think my thinking on Boris's Ukraine position is unfair? Nothing, that's what.
Yes. It's terrible to have to be so cynical - I really dislike habitual 'man of the world' cynicism - but Johnson forces it. Your take on him is spot on. Any other is strictly for fools or partisans.
Our foreign policy on an issue of the magnitude of Ukraine isn't based on Boris's political needs, it is based on what America tells us to do. Even the fact that Boris has been more enthusiastic in his provision of weapons to Ukraine than the US at times is likely to have been on their say so. Floating ideas and measuring the response etc. Otherwise they'd have told him to get back in his box. Differences are presentational.
My instinctive reaction is that you just wrote some tinfoil-hatted nonsense. But just in case you do have a point lingering somewhere, what evidence do you put forward for that?
Personally, I might put the government's reactions towards Russia over the last few years down to their attacks on us, rather than us following American orders.
When the UK Government six months ago wanted to buy back Nazanin (with the Iranians' tank money), the US State Department refused to allow them to. It was our money, and our prisoner. The 'No' wasn't even because they believed it would be spent on weapons or some such, it was because they wanted their man out too, and the Iranians wouldn't add him to the deal. So they canned the idea, and Nazanin remained imprisoned.
That's just the most recent example. If they can veto something so comparatively trivial, what on earth makes you think that there is any meaningful independence in British foreign policy? Barring the Trumpite interregnum (when Trump himself was against the American establishment), can you find any recent foreign policy stances we've taken on anything that have been at odds with US positions? I can't. Is that because they're such good chaps they just happen to agree with us do you think?
They didn’t veto the deal as such.
The issue was it was a USD bank account that the money was frozen in and they wouldn’t disapply sanctions to allow the deal to happen.
A distinction without a difference.
Not at all.
The UK was allowed to transfer the money
The bank that executed the transfer would have breached OFAC sanctions and could have been liable for a big fine
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
No.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
Of course spouses are allowed through security in normal times. Had Denis Thatcher popped round with a cake for Maggie, nobody would've been bothered. The problem is that Carrie was not allowed during a COVID lockdown because of COVID restrictions.
That’s a different point though. It’s not the job of the security office at 10DS to enforce covid regulation. Carrie would have an access all areas pass or equivalent I would suspect.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
No.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
Of course spouses are allowed through security in normal times. Had Denis Thatcher popped round with a cake for Maggie, nobody would've been bothered. The problem is that Carrie was not allowed during a COVID lockdown because of COVID restrictions.
People can't just "pop round" to Downing Street without security! as you yourself already said it's very secure!
The difference is that spouses that live there have always been allowed to be there because ... They live there. Joe Bloggs can't "pop round" Downing Street but Dennis lived there then as she does now.
So no, I don't think the fact she lives there is immaterial. It may be other people's offices, that they need to go through security for but security allows her through as it is her home.
If the law says any differently, the law is an ass, and the person who wrote that bloody stupid law is responsible.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
No.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
Of course spouses are allowed through security in normal times. Had Denis Thatcher popped round with a cake for Maggie, nobody would've been bothered. The problem is that Carrie was not allowed during a COVID lockdown because of COVID restrictions.
That’s a different point though. It’s not the job of the security office at 10DS to enforce covid regulation. Carrie would have an access all areas pass or equivalent I would suspect.
I'm not disputing that Carrie had security clearance. This is all a massive red herring. She should not have been wandering around a government office because of COVID regs. She ignored or was ignorant of that. Boris ignored or was ignorant of that. Presumably Boris could've asked the security office at 10DS to help remind people of the COVID rules, but he appears to have thought that the rules didn't apply in his world.
What other current political controversy, perhaps involving less serious criminal cases which attract fired penalty notices, does this remind me of ? ...Questioned by Tim Loughton, the Conservative veteran committee member, House said senior officers were sometimes prevented from sacking colleagues for misconduct immediately because of lengthy criminal inquiries.
“One of the classic problems for us is an officer who has carried out an action which is misconduct but looks as if it may also be criminal which will then get referred to the CPS,” he said.
“Investigations can go on in parallel, sometimes it is easier if the criminal investigation goes first. There are times when probably out of frustration I think to myself ‘I’d rather sack this person now rather than wait 18 months for them to go to court, possibly get found not guilty and then we have to go through a misconduct process’..”
House said in less serious criminal cases, it would be better for public trust and the public purse if the Met’s misconduct procedures could take precedence. “We would get rid of them quickly and justice would be seen to be done,” he said...
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
No.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
Of course spouses are allowed through security in normal times. Had Denis Thatcher popped round with a cake for Maggie, nobody would've been bothered. The problem is that Carrie was not allowed during a COVID lockdown because of COVID restrictions.
That’s a different point though. It’s not the job of the security office at 10DS to enforce covid regulation. Carrie would have an access all areas pass or equivalent I would suspect.
If she has an access all areas pass, and especially if Dennis, Samantha, Cherie etc did too, then her presence anywhere in those areas is entirely acceptable. That's the entire point of the pass.
If Dennis, Samantha, Cherie etc would have been denied access but Carrie wasn't, then that'd be very odd.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
No.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
Of course spouses are allowed through security in normal times. Had Denis Thatcher popped round with a cake for Maggie, nobody would've been bothered. The problem is that Carrie was not allowed during a COVID lockdown because of COVID restrictions.
People can't just "pop round" to Downing Street without security! as you yourself already said it's very secure!
The difference is that spouses that live there have always been allowed to be there because ... They live there. Joe Bloggs can't "pop round" Downing Street but Dennis lived there then as she does now.
So no, I don't think the fact she lives there is immaterial. It may be other people's offices, that they need to go through security for but security allows her through as it is her home.
If the law says any differently, the law is an ass, and the person who wrote that bloody stupid law is responsible.
Security lets me into my office at work. I don't think of my office as my home.
Security, one day in early 2020, let me into 10 Downing Street. I didn't think of it as my home.
Just because someone has security clearance to go somewhere does not mean that it is their home.
Carrie's home is a flat at the top of 11 Downing Street. It is not the Cabinet meeting rooms in 10 Downing Street.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
What other current political controversy, perhaps involving less serious criminal cases which attract fired penalty notices, does this remind me of ? ...Questioned by Tim Loughton, the Conservative veteran committee member, House said senior officers were sometimes prevented from sacking colleagues for misconduct immediately because of lengthy criminal inquiries.
“One of the classic problems for us is an officer who has carried out an action which is misconduct but looks as if it may also be criminal which will then get referred to the CPS,” he said.
“Investigations can go on in parallel, sometimes it is easier if the criminal investigation goes first. There are times when probably out of frustration I think to myself ‘I’d rather sack this person now rather than wait 18 months for them to go to court, possibly get found not guilty and then we have to go through a misconduct process’..”
House said in less serious criminal cases, it would be better for public trust and the public purse if the Met’s misconduct procedures could take precedence. “We would get rid of them quickly and justice would be seen to be done,” he said...
So long as the jury isn’t informed why would that be an issue?
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
No.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
Of course spouses are allowed through security in normal times. Had Denis Thatcher popped round with a cake for Maggie, nobody would've been bothered. The problem is that Carrie was not allowed during a COVID lockdown because of COVID restrictions.
That’s a different point though. It’s not the job of the security office at 10DS to enforce covid regulation. Carrie would have an access all areas pass or equivalent I would suspect.
I'm not disputing that Carrie had security clearance. This is all a massive red herring. She should not have been wandering around a government office because of COVID regs. She ignored or was ignorant of that. Boris ignored or was ignorant of that. Presumably Boris could've asked the security office at 10DS to help remind people of the COVID rules, but he appears to have thought that the rules didn't apply in his world.
Or he thought that the people who live there are entitled to be where they live, and the people who work there are entitled to be where they work.
Anyone who didn't either live or work there would be denied access through security. She lives there, so it's all a farce.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
No.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
Of course spouses are allowed through security in normal times. Had Denis Thatcher popped round with a cake for Maggie, nobody would've been bothered. The problem is that Carrie was not allowed during a COVID lockdown because of COVID restrictions.
That’s a different point though. It’s not the job of the security office at 10DS to enforce covid regulation. Carrie would have an access all areas pass or equivalent I would suspect.
I'm not disputing that Carrie had security clearance. This is all a massive red herring. She should not have been wandering around a government office because of COVID regs. She ignored or was ignorant of that. Boris ignored or was ignorant of that. Presumably Boris could've asked the security office at 10DS to help remind people of the COVID rules, but he appears to have thought that the rules didn't apply in his world.
Or he thought that the people who live there are entitled to be where they live, and the people who work there are entitled to be where they work.
Anyone who didn't either live or work there would be denied access through security. She lives there, so it's all a farce.
Let's start with some easier questions... Is 10 the same number as 11?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
What other current political controversy, perhaps involving less serious criminal cases which attract fired penalty notices, does this remind me of ? ...Questioned by Tim Loughton, the Conservative veteran committee member, House said senior officers were sometimes prevented from sacking colleagues for misconduct immediately because of lengthy criminal inquiries.
“One of the classic problems for us is an officer who has carried out an action which is misconduct but looks as if it may also be criminal which will then get referred to the CPS,” he said.
“Investigations can go on in parallel, sometimes it is easier if the criminal investigation goes first. There are times when probably out of frustration I think to myself ‘I’d rather sack this person now rather than wait 18 months for them to go to court, possibly get found not guilty and then we have to go through a misconduct process’..”
House said in less serious criminal cases, it would be better for public trust and the public purse if the Met’s misconduct procedures could take precedence. “We would get rid of them quickly and justice would be seen to be done,” he said...
So long as the jury isn’t informed why would that be an issue?
The issue is that criminal proceedings are brought, which last for years, and are used as an excuse for delaying disciplinary action, and then often result in acquittal. Whether or not that is required by the legislation around unfair dismissal, I have no idea, but it's clearly what regularly happens, or the acting head of the Met wouldn't be telling us about it.
Partygate has a similar dynamic, except that fixed penalty notices have started to be issued, albeit excruciatingly slowly Could drag on for months, with Boris presumably hoping that the public lose interest.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
No.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
Of course spouses are allowed through security in normal times. Had Denis Thatcher popped round with a cake for Maggie, nobody would've been bothered. The problem is that Carrie was not allowed during a COVID lockdown because of COVID restrictions.
People can't just "pop round" to Downing Street without security! as you yourself already said it's very secure!
The difference is that spouses that live there have always been allowed to be there because ... They live there. Joe Bloggs can't "pop round" Downing Street but Dennis lived there then as she does now.
So no, I don't think the fact she lives there is immaterial. It may be other people's offices, that they need to go through security for but security allows her through as it is her home.
If the law says any differently, the law is an ass, and the person who wrote that bloody stupid law is responsible.
Security lets me into my office at work. I don't think of my office as my home.
Security, one day in early 2020, let me into 10 Downing Street. I didn't think of it as my home.
Just because someone has security clearance to go somewhere does not mean that it is their home.
Carrie's home is a flat at the top of 11 Downing Street. It is not the Cabinet meeting rooms in 10 Downing Street.
It's not your home, no. It is hers. It was Samantha's, Cherie's and Dennis's. 🤷♂️
And from memory I think someone has said before the steps leading to the flat is accessible past those rooms so she has to go past those rooms anyway to get to the flat so again this whole discussion is beyond absurd.
Having it illegal to be where you live is beyond ridiculous. Boris deserves to resign for passing that law, not for thinking he was above it, or because his wife was in the house she lives at.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
To be honest I am only reporting the point of order and no doubt in this climate lots of conspiracy plots are the norm
What other current political controversy, perhaps involving less serious criminal cases which attract fired penalty notices, does this remind me of ? ...Questioned by Tim Loughton, the Conservative veteran committee member, House said senior officers were sometimes prevented from sacking colleagues for misconduct immediately because of lengthy criminal inquiries.
“One of the classic problems for us is an officer who has carried out an action which is misconduct but looks as if it may also be criminal which will then get referred to the CPS,” he said.
“Investigations can go on in parallel, sometimes it is easier if the criminal investigation goes first. There are times when probably out of frustration I think to myself ‘I’d rather sack this person now rather than wait 18 months for them to go to court, possibly get found not guilty and then we have to go through a misconduct process’..”
House said in less serious criminal cases, it would be better for public trust and the public purse if the Met’s misconduct procedures could take precedence. “We would get rid of them quickly and justice would be seen to be done,” he said...
So long as the jury isn’t informed why would that be an issue?
The issue is that criminal proceedings are brought, which last for years, and are used as an excuse for delaying disciplinary action, and then often result in acquittal. Whether or not that is required by the legislation around unfair dismissal, I have no idea, but it's clearly what regularly happens, or the acting head of the Met wouldn't be telling us about it.
Partygate has a similar dynamic, except that fixed penalty notices have started to be issued, albeit excruciatingly slowly Could drag on for months, with Boris presumably hoping that the public lose interest.
I know. I was saying I don’t see an issue with disciplinary action first
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
This is the trouble, isn't it? It's difficult to be a good and effective PM if people know that every time you say something there's only a slim chance of it being the truth.
Though all the other numerous barriers to BJ being a good and effective PM should never be forgotten.
No, I can't say I go with Leon's "seeds of greatness" take on the man.
Plenty of seeds, yes, indeed uncommonly seedy, but not of the greatness variety.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
This is the trouble, isn't it? It's difficult to be a good and effective PM if people know that every time you say something there's only a slim chance of it being the truth.
Though all the other numerous barriers to BJ being a good and effective PM should never be forgotten.
No, I can't say I go with Leon's "seeds of greatness" take on the man.
Plenty of seeds, yes, indeed uncommonly seedy, but not of the greatness variety.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
No.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
Of course spouses are allowed through security in normal times. Had Denis Thatcher popped round with a cake for Maggie, nobody would've been bothered. The problem is that Carrie was not allowed during a COVID lockdown because of COVID restrictions.
People can't just "pop round" to Downing Street without security! as you yourself already said it's very secure!
The difference is that spouses that live there have always been allowed to be there because ... They live there. Joe Bloggs can't "pop round" Downing Street but Dennis lived there then as she does now.
So no, I don't think the fact she lives there is immaterial. It may be other people's offices, that they need to go through security for but security allows her through as it is her home.
If the law says any differently, the law is an ass, and the person who wrote that bloody stupid law is responsible.
Security lets me into my office at work. I don't think of my office as my home.
Security, one day in early 2020, let me into 10 Downing Street. I didn't think of it as my home.
Just because someone has security clearance to go somewhere does not mean that it is their home.
Carrie's home is a flat at the top of 11 Downing Street. It is not the Cabinet meeting rooms in 10 Downing Street.
And from memory I think someone has said before the steps leading to the flat is accessible past those rooms so she has to go past those rooms anyway to get to the flat so again this whole discussion is beyond absurd.
This seems to be the critical bit for this arcane discussion. Moreso given that for all your protestations the CPS, the police, Boris and Carrie have all accepted that an offence was committed. But not you. Fair enough.
And anyway, given that we are PB I'm sure someone has access to someone who knows the answer to this.
On the new thread which we cannot comment on in it, I would say the risk of voting for an inquiry is it extends the issue in the headlines. The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on.
As for the Green vote being available for Labour to squeeze, don't forget the Tories also have ReformUK to squeeze too
'The PM and Chancellor have been fined and apologised, we are now out of restrictions anyway, for Tory MPs move on'.
The only way they are going to move on with this attitude is to extinction
Where are the values of honesty and integrity - they need to get a backbone and realise ordinary voters hold these values in high esteem
The latest polls still have the Tories on 32 to 34%. Hardly extinction and indeed still significantly higher than they were polling in the final period of the Major and May governments and indeed than Labour were polling in the final years of the Brown government
Do you think the Big Man should go? Or is all well just a nine minute party what's all the fuss about.
Right now, the only decided issue on which the PM has been found to have done anything wrong, is indeed his birthday cake, which he knew nothing about until his wife and a junior member of staff produced at the start of a meeting.
The alleged misleading of Parliament, relies on this event being called a ‘party’, when he was asked about parties in general more than a year later, with no mention of this specific event in the public domain beforehand.
If there are more serious offences in reports to come, then fair enough, but right now it just appears to be a distraction from more important things going on in the world - political opponents and journalists getting ever more hyperbolic, doesn’t change the facts of the case.
How many times do we have to explain that the rules were not about parties, but non work gatherings? You have an unusual blind spot on this, your other posts are consistently logical and accurate whether agreed with or not.
Maybe the problem is that the idea of a non work gathering with people from work in a work setting is just totally ridiculous. So the cabinet meeting was a work setting until the Mrs brings a cake in at which everybody should apparently have fled?
The police are damned lucky this nonsense is not being challenged in the courts.
It had to be specifically essential for work.
Bullshit.
They had to be essentially there for work, the law never said a single damned thing about every single action while at essential work being essential.
How many nurses/doctors/teachers/care and other essential key workers went viral making Twitter/TikTok/Facebook etc dancing videos etc during the pandemic in their uniform at work. Were they all fined? Did they break the law?
Its total bollocks. Staying after work to party was against the law, having a slice of cake or singing happy birthday (or making a video for TikTok or whatever) during work was not.
Carrie was not there in a work capacity. She was there in a cake capacity. If any doctors/nurses/teachers making TikToks got their spouses to come over to hold the cameraphone, they would’ve broken the rules.
This really exposes the silliness of the regulation: person A can be acting perfectly legally, and then as soon as person B turns up (even if person A didn't know they were going to), person A is suddenly acting illegally.
As person B arrives, you ask them to leave or leave yourself. “Carrie, darling, it’s lovely to see you, but the rules say you shouldn’t be here. Let’s celebrate later with a special game of hide the sausage.” It’s not hard.
Apart from the fact that Carrie lives there.
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
Don’t you get tired of repeating the same discredited lines over and over? I get tired of rebutting them! The Cabinet Office don’t meet in Carrie’s living room. Do you really think the United Kingdom is run out of someone’s home? Carrie lives in a distinct, separate flat in No. 11.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
If there's such tight security how come Carrie was allowed through the security if she wasn't supposed to be there?
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
She was presumably allowed because the security's boss, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, said it was fine. Because Boris Johnson thinks the rules are for little people, not him and his family.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
As I've already said, I think in this instance the Police have got it wrong. Not for the first time.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
But you do accept that "But Carrie lives there!" is a lousy defence?
No.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
Of course spouses are allowed through security in normal times. Had Denis Thatcher popped round with a cake for Maggie, nobody would've been bothered. The problem is that Carrie was not allowed during a COVID lockdown because of COVID restrictions.
People can't just "pop round" to Downing Street without security! as you yourself already said it's very secure!
The difference is that spouses that live there have always been allowed to be there because ... They live there. Joe Bloggs can't "pop round" Downing Street but Dennis lived there then as she does now.
So no, I don't think the fact she lives there is immaterial. It may be other people's offices, that they need to go through security for but security allows her through as it is her home.
If the law says any differently, the law is an ass, and the person who wrote that bloody stupid law is responsible.
Security lets me into my office at work. I don't think of my office as my home.
Security, one day in early 2020, let me into 10 Downing Street. I didn't think of it as my home.
Just because someone has security clearance to go somewhere does not mean that it is their home.
Carrie's home is a flat at the top of 11 Downing Street. It is not the Cabinet meeting rooms in 10 Downing Street.
It's not your home, no. It is hers. It was Samantha's, Cherie's and Dennis's. 🤷♂️
And from memory I think someone has said before the steps leading to the flat is accessible past those rooms so she has to go past those rooms anyway to get to the flat so again this whole discussion is beyond absurd.
Having it illegal to be where you live is beyond ridiculous. Boris deserves to resign for passing that law, not for thinking he was above it, or because his wife was in the house she lives at.
I don't have the floor plans to Downing Street to hand -- for some strange reason, they're not freely available online! Cummings says there's a way in and out of the flat that bypasses all the offices.
In the unlikely event that the route between a flat in 11 Downing Street and the door to 11 Downing Street requires Carrie to go past a meeting room in 10 Downing Street -- and is that really the argument you're advancing? -- then she can go past that room. I have to pass my neighbour's door to leave my flat. This doesn't mean I'm allowed to wander in and our of my neighbour's flat, does it?
Not sure if this has been mention yet (have been out running and gardening - not simultaneously), but Oryx has ticked over to over 3,000 pieces of Russian equipment lost
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
Did you never play the game Chinese Whispers when you were a child?
Hacks have a tendency to exaggerate or take the most breathless reporting of what is said, because that makes good copy, even if what is actually said is more prosaic. Not all initial reporting said the same thing and Starmer quoted from the most extreme version of what was claimed to be said, which was immediately denied and was denied by other people too.
If it was actually said then it would have been said in front of potentially hundreds of his MPs some of whom may be wavering between sending in a letter or not - so to deny it if it was said would be beyond stupid, because those waverers behind him would have heard him just mislead the House with their own ears and that would surely push them over the edge to send in the letter they were wavering over.
So the only logical explanation is it wasn't said, not in the form denied, though something similar may have been said which isn't what was denied but led to the reports. Which is pretty much exactly what Sam Coates said earlier who dissected it and seemed to confirm that it wasn't said in the way quoted and he seemed to quote pretty authoritatively (I expect its been confirmed by many people who were present) what was actually said instead.
Not sure if this has been mention yet (have been out running and gardening - not simultaneously), but Oryx has ticked over to over 3,000 pieces of Russian equipment lost
They are owned by Ukrainian farmers. And Ukrainian farmer's mums.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1516783426262777866 The Security Service of Ukraine has found a secret warehouse in the Kharkiv Oblast. It was filled with ammunition and spare parts for Russian equipment worth about $200 million. Now all this will help the Ukrainians against the Russian invaders... ...The Russians planned to use this warehouse and repair plants in Kharkiv, but Ukrainian forces repulsed the invaders, and the warehouse came under the Ukrainian control
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
Did you never play the game Chinese Whispers when you were a child?
Hacks have a tendency to exaggerate or take the most breathless reporting of what is said, because that makes good copy, even if what is actually said is more prosaic. Not all initial reporting said the same thing and Starmer quoted from the most extreme version of what was claimed to be said, which was immediately denied and was denied by other people too.
If it was actually said then it would have been said in front of potentially hundreds of his MPs some of whom may be wavering between sending in a letter or not - so to deny it if it was said would be beyond stupid, because those waverers behind him would have heard him just mislead the House with their own ears and that would surely push them over the edge to send in the letter they were wavering over.
So the only logical explanation is it wasn't said, not in the form denied, though something similar may have been said which isn't what was denied but led to the reports. Which is pretty much exactly what Sam Coates said earlier who dissected it and seemed to confirm that it wasn't said in the way quoted and he seemed to quote pretty authoritatively (I expect its been confirmed by many people who were present) what was actually said instead.
No. Did you? It's a thing one reads about all the time in pop sci books about DNA copying and such, and the principle is easily understood, but did you actually actually play it? Is it a competitive thing, or just a ballsachingly pointless way of killing time?
It doesn't seem particularly relevant here anyway, lobby journalists have their own sources. They can't just all copy of each other anyway, what with having deadlines to meet.
Corbyn is an utter numpty and apparently entirely ignorant of history, too. (Guardian) ...I would want to see a world where we start to ultimately disband all military alliances. The issue has to be what’s the best way of bringing about peace in the future? Is it by more alliances? Is it by more military build up? Or is it by stopping the war in Ukraine and the other wars ... And ask yourself the question, do military alliances bring peace? Or do they actually encourage each other and build up to a greater danger? I don’t blame Nato for the fact that Russia has invaded Ukraine. What I say is look at the thing historically, and look at the process that could happen at the end of the Ukraine war...
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
Did you never play the game Chinese Whispers when you were a child?
Hacks have a tendency to exaggerate or take the most breathless reporting of what is said, because that makes good copy, even if what is actually said is more prosaic. Not all initial reporting said the same thing and Starmer quoted from the most extreme version of what was claimed to be said, which was immediately denied and was denied by other people too.
If it was actually said then it would have been said in front of potentially hundreds of his MPs some of whom may be wavering between sending in a letter or not - so to deny it if it was said would be beyond stupid, because those waverers behind him would have heard him just mislead the House with their own ears and that would surely push them over the edge to send in the letter they were wavering over.
So the only logical explanation is it wasn't said, not in the form denied, though something similar may have been said which isn't what was denied but led to the reports. Which is pretty much exactly what Sam Coates said earlier who dissected it and seemed to confirm that it wasn't said in the way quoted and he seemed to quote pretty authoritatively (I expect its been confirmed by many people who were present) what was actually said instead.
No. Did you? It's a thing one reads about all the time in pop sci books about DNA copying and such, and the principle is easily understood, but did you actually actually play it? Is it a competitive thing, or just a ballsachingly pointless way of killing time?
It doesn't seem particularly relevant here anyway, lobby journalists have their own sources. They can't just all copy of each other anyway, what with having deadlines to meet.
Yes. I'm quite surprised you didn't, I'd have thought it was a fairly universal game.
My daughter came home recently from Brownies and while I was walking her home she told me about this game they were playing in Brownies called Chinese Whispers and explained the game to me, which I patiently listened to until she finished and she was surprised to learn that I played it when I was a boy.
What surprised me more is that its still called Chinese Whispers, I'd have thought that name wouldn't be considered PC anymore.
Not sure if this has been mention yet (have been out running and gardening - not simultaneously), but Oryx has ticked over to over 3,000 pieces of Russian equipment lost
They are owned by Ukrainian farmers. And Ukrainian farmer's mums.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1516783426262777866 The Security Service of Ukraine has found a secret warehouse in the Kharkiv Oblast. It was filled with ammunition and spare parts for Russian equipment worth about $200 million. Now all this will help the Ukrainians against the Russian invaders... ...The Russians planned to use this warehouse and repair plants in Kharkiv, but Ukrainian forces repulsed the invaders, and the warehouse came under the Ukrainian control
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
Did you never play the game Chinese Whispers when you were a child?
Hacks have a tendency to exaggerate or take the most breathless reporting of what is said, because that makes good copy, even if what is actually said is more prosaic. Not all initial reporting said the same thing and Starmer quoted from the most extreme version of what was claimed to be said, which was immediately denied and was denied by other people too.
If it was actually said then it would have been said in front of potentially hundreds of his MPs some of whom may be wavering between sending in a letter or not - so to deny it if it was said would be beyond stupid, because those waverers behind him would have heard him just mislead the House with their own ears and that would surely push them over the edge to send in the letter they were wavering over.
So the only logical explanation is it wasn't said, not in the form denied, though something similar may have been said which isn't what was denied but led to the reports. Which is pretty much exactly what Sam Coates said earlier who dissected it and seemed to confirm that it wasn't said in the way quoted and he seemed to quote pretty authoritatively (I expect its been confirmed by many people who were present) what was actually said instead.
No. Did you? It's a thing one reads about all the time in pop sci books about DNA copying and such, and the principle is easily understood, but did you actually actually play it? Is it a competitive thing, or just a ballsachingly pointless way of killing time?
It doesn't seem particularly relevant here anyway, lobby journalists have their own sources. They can't just all copy of each other anyway, what with having deadlines to meet.
Yes. I'm quite surprised you didn't, I'd have thought it was a fairly universal game.
My daughter came home recently from Brownies and while I was walking her home she told me about this game they were playing in Brownies called Chinese Whispers and explained the game to me...
Must be a pirate family thing. I never played it, either.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
Did you never play the game Chinese Whispers when you were a child?
Hacks have a tendency to exaggerate or take the most breathless reporting of what is said, because that makes good copy, even if what is actually said is more prosaic. Not all initial reporting said the same thing and Starmer quoted from the most extreme version of what was claimed to be said, which was immediately denied and was denied by other people too.
If it was actually said then it would have been said in front of potentially hundreds of his MPs some of whom may be wavering between sending in a letter or not - so to deny it if it was said would be beyond stupid, because those waverers behind him would have heard him just mislead the House with their own ears and that would surely push them over the edge to send in the letter they were wavering over.
So the only logical explanation is it wasn't said, not in the form denied, though something similar may have been said which isn't what was denied but led to the reports. Which is pretty much exactly what Sam Coates said earlier who dissected it and seemed to confirm that it wasn't said in the way quoted and he seemed to quote pretty authoritatively (I expect its been confirmed by many people who were present) what was actually said instead.
No. Did you? It's a thing one reads about all the time in pop sci books about DNA copying and such, and the principle is easily understood, but did you actually actually play it? Is it a competitive thing, or just a ballsachingly pointless way of killing time?
It doesn't seem particularly relevant here anyway, lobby journalists have their own sources. They can't just all copy of each other anyway, what with having deadlines to meet.
Yes. I'm quite surprised you didn't, I'd have thought it was a fairly universal game.
My daughter came home recently from Brownies and while I was walking her home she told me about this game they were playing in Brownies called Chinese Whispers and explained the game to me, which I patiently listened to until she finished and she was surprised to learn that I played it when I was a boy.
What surprised me more is that its still called Chinese Whispers, I'd have thought that name wouldn't be considered PC anymore.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
Did you never play the game Chinese Whispers when you were a child?
Hacks have a tendency to exaggerate or take the most breathless reporting of what is said, because that makes good copy, even if what is actually said is more prosaic. Not all initial reporting said the same thing and Starmer quoted from the most extreme version of what was claimed to be said, which was immediately denied and was denied by other people too.
If it was actually said then it would have been said in front of potentially hundreds of his MPs some of whom may be wavering between sending in a letter or not - so to deny it if it was said would be beyond stupid, because those waverers behind him would have heard him just mislead the House with their own ears and that would surely push them over the edge to send in the letter they were wavering over.
So the only logical explanation is it wasn't said, not in the form denied, though something similar may have been said which isn't what was denied but led to the reports. Which is pretty much exactly what Sam Coates said earlier who dissected it and seemed to confirm that it wasn't said in the way quoted and he seemed to quote pretty authoritatively (I expect its been confirmed by many people who were present) what was actually said instead.
No. Did you? It's a thing one reads about all the time in pop sci books about DNA copying and such, and the principle is easily understood, but did you actually actually play it? Is it a competitive thing, or just a ballsachingly pointless way of killing time?
It doesn't seem particularly relevant here anyway, lobby journalists have their own sources. They can't just all copy of each other anyway, what with having deadlines to meet.
Yes. I'm quite surprised you didn't, I'd have thought it was a fairly universal game.
My daughter came home recently from Brownies and while I was walking her home she told me about this game they were playing in Brownies called Chinese Whispers and explained the game to me, which I patiently listened to until she finished and she was surprised to learn that I played it when I was a boy.
What surprised me more is that its still called Chinese Whispers, I'd have thought that name wouldn't be considered PC anymore.
We used to play a similar game called Cheese Whiskers.
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
Not sure if this has been mention yet (have been out running and gardening - not simultaneously), but Oryx has ticked over to over 3,000 pieces of Russian equipment lost
They are owned by Ukrainian farmers. And Ukrainian farmer's mums.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1516783426262777866 The Security Service of Ukraine has found a secret warehouse in the Kharkiv Oblast. It was filled with ammunition and spare parts for Russian equipment worth about $200 million. Now all this will help the Ukrainians against the Russian invaders... ...The Russians planned to use this warehouse and repair plants in Kharkiv, but Ukrainian forces repulsed the invaders, and the warehouse came under the Ukrainian control
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
Or as my father always used to tell me of one in the war - Send reinforcements we're going to France = > Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance...
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
Or as my father always used to tell me of one in the war - Send reinforcements we're going to France = > Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance...
They actually made a story board comic about it - re-used here
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
Or as my father always used to tell me of one in the war - Send reinforcements we're going to France = > Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance...
They actually made a story board comic about it - re-used here
Ha! Maybe my father saw it in 1980!!
Edit: works much better with Advance rather than France.....perhaps that's my mishearing/misremembering...
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
Or as my father always used to tell me of one in the war - Send reinforcements we're going to France = > Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance...
They actually made a story board comic about it - re-used here
Ha! Maybe my father saw it in 1980!!
Edit: works much better with Advance rather than France.....perhaps that's my mishearing/misremembering...
It was originally WWI, IIRC - one of those warning cartoons.
Reworked in WWII - which is where the image comes from I think. Then re-used in the ad.
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
Or as my father always used to tell me of one in the war - Send reinforcements we're going to France = > Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance...
They actually made a story board comic about it - re-used here
Ha! Maybe my father saw it in 1980!!
Edit: works much better with Advance rather than France.....perhaps that's my mishearing/misremembering...
Which is rather the point...
Archaic stuff, these days you'd just forward the Whatsapp
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the Conservative Benches, we strongly believe in the BBC and we believe it does a great job, especially on reporting from Ukraine. The suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister suggested somewhat different in last night’s meeting, which I attended, is absolutely inaccurate. The Leader of the Opposition should retract that, because he has misled the House.
As before, note the blue team is not attacking Starmer over Slandering the Archbishop but just over bashing the BBC, and particularly with regard to the Ukraine coverage.
Corbyn is an utter numpty and apparently entirely ignorant of history, too. (Guardian) ...I would want to see a world where we start to ultimately disband all military alliances. The issue has to be what’s the best way of bringing about peace in the future? Is it by more alliances? Is it by more military build up? Or is it by stopping the war in Ukraine and the other wars ... And ask yourself the question, do military alliances bring peace? Or do they actually encourage each other and build up to a greater danger? I don’t blame Nato for the fact that Russia has invaded Ukraine. What I say is look at the thing historically, and look at the process that could happen at the end of the Ukraine war...
Anyone who thinks the UK would be helping Ukraine with Corbyn in charge must be nuts. Boris isn't fit to be PM, but Corbyn would have been a disaster for Ukraine. No training, no weapons, and no encouragement to other nations to follow the UK lead.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
Did you never play the game Chinese Whispers when you were a child?
Hacks have a tendency to exaggerate or take the most breathless reporting of what is said, because that makes good copy, even if what is actually said is more prosaic. Not all initial reporting said the same thing and Starmer quoted from the most extreme version of what was claimed to be said, which was immediately denied and was denied by other people too.
If it was actually said then it would have been said in front of potentially hundreds of his MPs some of whom may be wavering between sending in a letter or not - so to deny it if it was said would be beyond stupid, because those waverers behind him would have heard him just mislead the House with their own ears and that would surely push them over the edge to send in the letter they were wavering over.
So the only logical explanation is it wasn't said, not in the form denied, though something similar may have been said which isn't what was denied but led to the reports. Which is pretty much exactly what Sam Coates said earlier who dissected it and seemed to confirm that it wasn't said in the way quoted and he seemed to quote pretty authoritatively (I expect its been confirmed by many people who were present) what was actually said instead.
No. Did you? It's a thing one reads about all the time in pop sci books about DNA copying and such, and the principle is easily understood, but did you actually actually play it? Is it a competitive thing, or just a ballsachingly pointless way of killing time?
It doesn't seem particularly relevant here anyway, lobby journalists have their own sources. They can't just all copy of each other anyway, what with having deadlines to meet.
Yes. I'm quite surprised you didn't, I'd have thought it was a fairly universal game.
My daughter came home recently from Brownies and while I was walking her home she told me about this game they were playing in Brownies called Chinese Whispers and explained the game to me, which I patiently listened to until she finished and she was surprised to learn that I played it when I was a boy.
What surprised me more is that its still called Chinese Whispers, I'd have thought that name wouldn't be considered PC anymore.
A famous (almost certainly made up) example from the WW1 trenches that my gramps used to relate.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
Did you never play the game Chinese Whispers when you were a child?
Hacks have a tendency to exaggerate or take the most breathless reporting of what is said, because that makes good copy, even if what is actually said is more prosaic. Not all initial reporting said the same thing and Starmer quoted from the most extreme version of what was claimed to be said, which was immediately denied and was denied by other people too.
If it was actually said then it would have been said in front of potentially hundreds of his MPs some of whom may be wavering between sending in a letter or not - so to deny it if it was said would be beyond stupid, because those waverers behind him would have heard him just mislead the House with their own ears and that would surely push them over the edge to send in the letter they were wavering over.
So the only logical explanation is it wasn't said, not in the form denied, though something similar may have been said which isn't what was denied but led to the reports. Which is pretty much exactly what Sam Coates said earlier who dissected it and seemed to confirm that it wasn't said in the way quoted and he seemed to quote pretty authoritatively (I expect its been confirmed by many people who were present) what was actually said instead.
No. Did you? It's a thing one reads about all the time in pop sci books about DNA copying and such, and the principle is easily understood, but did you actually actually play it? Is it a competitive thing, or just a ballsachingly pointless way of killing time?
It doesn't seem particularly relevant here anyway, lobby journalists have their own sources. They can't just all copy of each other anyway, what with having deadlines to meet.
Yes. I'm quite surprised you didn't, I'd have thought it was a fairly universal game.
My daughter came home recently from Brownies and while I was walking her home she told me about this game they were playing in Brownies called Chinese Whispers and explained the game to me, which I patiently listened to until she finished and she was surprised to learn that I played it when I was a boy.
What surprised me more is that its still called Chinese Whispers, I'd have thought that name wouldn't be considered PC anymore.
At my global megacorps we were warned against using Chinese whispers or any other phrase like it, eg Mexican standoff.
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
Or as my father always used to tell me of one in the war - Send reinforcements we're going to France = > Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance...
That’s a bit like the etymology of the “forlorn hope”, in its older sense as a small group of soldiers basically fighting to the death to hold up the enemy at a choke point (like the Mariupol defenders).
It was originally from the Dutch “verloren hoop” which means “lost troop” (I think literally “lost heap”).
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
I actually think with clear careful diction and good listening skills a message could move along 20 people, either soldiers or girl guides, and emerge unscathed.
Even an alternating MIX of girl guides and soldiers I still think would work fine if they all concentrated.
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
I actually think with clear careful diction and good listening skills a message could move along 20 people, either soldiers or girl guides, and emerge unscathed.
Even an alternating MIX of girl guides and soldiers I still think would work fine if they all concentrated.
Quite, it strikes me as a lame idea not guaranteed to perform as expected.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
Did you never play the game Chinese Whispers when you were a child?
Hacks have a tendency to exaggerate or take the most breathless reporting of what is said, because that makes good copy, even if what is actually said is more prosaic. Not all initial reporting said the same thing and Starmer quoted from the most extreme version of what was claimed to be said, which was immediately denied and was denied by other people too.
If it was actually said then it would have been said in front of potentially hundreds of his MPs some of whom may be wavering between sending in a letter or not - so to deny it if it was said would be beyond stupid, because those waverers behind him would have heard him just mislead the House with their own ears and that would surely push them over the edge to send in the letter they were wavering over.
So the only logical explanation is it wasn't said, not in the form denied, though something similar may have been said which isn't what was denied but led to the reports. Which is pretty much exactly what Sam Coates said earlier who dissected it and seemed to confirm that it wasn't said in the way quoted and he seemed to quote pretty authoritatively (I expect its been confirmed by many people who were present) what was actually said instead.
No. Did you? It's a thing one reads about all the time in pop sci books about DNA copying and such, and the principle is easily understood, but did you actually actually play it? Is it a competitive thing, or just a ballsachingly pointless way of killing time?
It doesn't seem particularly relevant here anyway, lobby journalists have their own sources. They can't just all copy of each other anyway, what with having deadlines to meet.
Yes. I'm quite surprised you didn't, I'd have thought it was a fairly universal game.
My daughter came home recently from Brownies and while I was walking her home she told me about this game they were playing in Brownies called Chinese Whispers and explained the game to me...
Must be a pirate family thing. I never played it, either.
I possibly recall my sister saying she played it in the Brownies but this could be a false memory.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
Did you never play the game Chinese Whispers when you were a child?
Hacks have a tendency to exaggerate or take the most breathless reporting of what is said, because that makes good copy, even if what is actually said is more prosaic. Not all initial reporting said the same thing and Starmer quoted from the most extreme version of what was claimed to be said, which was immediately denied and was denied by other people too.
If it was actually said then it would have been said in front of potentially hundreds of his MPs some of whom may be wavering between sending in a letter or not - so to deny it if it was said would be beyond stupid, because those waverers behind him would have heard him just mislead the House with their own ears and that would surely push them over the edge to send in the letter they were wavering over.
So the only logical explanation is it wasn't said, not in the form denied, though something similar may have been said which isn't what was denied but led to the reports. Which is pretty much exactly what Sam Coates said earlier who dissected it and seemed to confirm that it wasn't said in the way quoted and he seemed to quote pretty authoritatively (I expect its been confirmed by many people who were present) what was actually said instead.
No. Did you? It's a thing one reads about all the time in pop sci books about DNA copying and such, and the principle is easily understood, but did you actually actually play it? Is it a competitive thing, or just a ballsachingly pointless way of killing time?
It doesn't seem particularly relevant here anyway, lobby journalists have their own sources. They can't just all copy of each other anyway, what with having deadlines to meet.
Yes. I'm quite surprised you didn't, I'd have thought it was a fairly universal game.
My daughter came home recently from Brownies and while I was walking her home she told me about this game they were playing in Brownies called Chinese Whispers and explained the game to me...
Must be a pirate family thing. I never played it, either.
I possibly recall my sister saying she played it in the Brownies but this could be a false memory.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
Wouldn't it be a delicious irony if Starmer was forced to resign for misleading the House and Johnson survives for his unimpeachable probity.
I must admit, I had heard the same critique by Johnson on Welby. Last night's story was Johnson was in an ebullient and unrepentant mood demanding who do you want as Chancellor "Rishi or Reeves" and Johnson allegedly claimed Welby was critical of Rwanda but not of Putin.
If one is not with Johnson, one is a traitor is the message.
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
Or as my father always used to tell me of one in the war - Send reinforcements we're going to France = > Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance...
That’s a bit like the etymology of the “forlorn hope”, in its older sense as a small group of soldiers basically fighting to the death to hold up the enemy at a choke point (like the Mariupol defenders).
It was originally from the Dutch “verloren hoop” which means “lost troop” (I think literally “lost heap”).
And speaking of which there is sometimes disagreement over "trouper" vs "trooper" to describe someone who perseveres over something. I think both work but I always thought "trouper" was the original.
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
I actually think with clear careful diction and good listening skills a message could move along 20 people, either soldiers or girl guides, and emerge unscathed.
Even an alternating MIX of girl guides and soldiers I still think would work fine if they all concentrated.
Quite, it strikes me as a lame idea not guaranteed to perform as expected.
A problem I remember as definitely happening (in the world of work) is Misunderstood Boss.
Biggest Boss drops a casual one liner somewhere - "I'd like such and such".
Big Boss picks up and relates to Boss. With some elaboration that he has to guess at because he's scared to ask Biggest Boss to clarify.
Boss relates to Senior Manager. Ditto on the elaboration. Loath to go back to Big Boss so fills in the blanks himself. This is what he must have meant.
Senior Manager relates to Middle Manager. More intuited elaboration. Doesn't want to trouble Boss.
Middle Manager gets the Team cracking. Fields their queries as best he can. This is what's required - he thinks - and it has to be tomorrow (!) because it's for Biggest Boss.
Upshot - a whole load of time wasted and a bucketful of needless stress. Biggest Boss wasn't that bothered anyway and in any case this wasn't what he wanted.
(I predict people, and not just Malmesbury, will have seen some examples of this. Be amazed if they haven't.)
"Whether Trumpism is more powerful with Trump or without him is still an open question, but the MAGA movement shows no real sign of abating."
Many conservative thinkers would not go on the record because Trump has so poisoned the party and its ability to debate in good faith with each other the piece notes.
"As one put it, “I apologize for the background request, but Trump has absolutely ruined the discourse among conservative intellectuals, elites, think tankers, pundits, etc. We were all basically on the same side, then Trump won the nomination, and it seemed like everybody turned on everybody, depending on the shades or nuances of your views.” "
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
I actually think with clear careful diction and good listening skills a message could move along 20 people, either soldiers or girl guides, and emerge unscathed.
Even an alternating MIX of girl guides and soldiers I still think would work fine if they all concentrated.
Quite, it strikes me as a lame idea not guaranteed to perform as expected.
A problem I remember as definitely happening (in the world of work) is Misunderstood Boss.
Biggest Boss drops a casual one liner somewhere - "I'd like such and such".
Big Boss picks up and relates to Boss. With some elaboration that he has to guess at because he's scared to ask Biggest Boss to clarify.
Boss relates to Senior Manager. Ditto on the elaboration. Loath to go back to Big Boss so fills in the blanks himself. This is what he must have meant.
Senior Manager relates to Middle Manager. More intuited elaboration. Doesn't want to trouble Boss.
Middle Manager gets the Team cracking. Fields their queries as best he can. This is what's required - he thinks - and it has to be tomorrow (!) because it's for Biggest Boss.
Upshot - a whole load of time wasted and a bucketful of needless stress. Biggest Boss wasn't that bothered anyway and in any case this wasn't what he wanted.
(I predict people, and not just Malmesbury, will have seen some examples of this. Be amazed if they haven't.)
'Who will rid me of this turbulent priest comes to mind'!
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m This is utterly bizarre. Starmer directly accusing Boris of attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC last night. Boris incandescent, saying he never said it. One of them's going to be proven to be correct, and the other will be caught bang to rights lying.
My betting isn't always the best. But I can see from the formbook who's favourite.
1. Boris Johnson is a liar 2. Multiple hacks reporting what he said at the 22 which suggests multiple sources
If someone recorded his comments...
If there's no recording, the greased pig escapes again. If there is one, it becomes more difficult, but it's still doesn't equal a resignation.
Would be another direct premeditated lie to the commons though
Sam Coates on Sky seemed to think the PM was telling the truth.
Is that even possible? The fun reality is that even if he actually was telling the truth on this one nobody believes that he does...
The conservative mp's point of order requiring Starmer retract his comments does seem to back up Sam Coates
Does he. Starmer makes his point and suddenly we have "definitely didn't happen".
So either the Tory MPs who told hacks it happened were lying, or the Tory MPs now sent out to say it didn't are lying.
Again, as Johnson is a proven liar about to be hauled to the standards committee for lying the balance of probabilities is that he did say it.
As with the "you're mates with that nonce Saville" attack against Starmer, this will likely swirl around regardless of demonstrable fact.
The conservative mp made a point of order accusation against Starmer that the speaker acknowledged
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
They all need to be very careful! In this case someone is telling a lie - the Tory MPs who provided contemporaneous reports of the meeting to reporters, or the Tory MP who made the Point of Order that he doesn't recall that taking place.
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
Just a salient point - the conservative mp making the point of order made the point he was at the meeting and it wasn't said
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Here is the problem with his evidence. As I understand it the 22 is quite a lot of people. Its entirely possible that he was not at the entire meeting. Or did not hear the specific line due to someone else talking to him. Or remembers the specific wording differently. Or is plain wrong.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
Did you never play the game Chinese Whispers when you were a child?
Hacks have a tendency to exaggerate or take the most breathless reporting of what is said, because that makes good copy, even if what is actually said is more prosaic. Not all initial reporting said the same thing and Starmer quoted from the most extreme version of what was claimed to be said, which was immediately denied and was denied by other people too.
If it was actually said then it would have been said in front of potentially hundreds of his MPs some of whom may be wavering between sending in a letter or not - so to deny it if it was said would be beyond stupid, because those waverers behind him would have heard him just mislead the House with their own ears and that would surely push them over the edge to send in the letter they were wavering over.
So the only logical explanation is it wasn't said, not in the form denied, though something similar may have been said which isn't what was denied but led to the reports. Which is pretty much exactly what Sam Coates said earlier who dissected it and seemed to confirm that it wasn't said in the way quoted and he seemed to quote pretty authoritatively (I expect its been confirmed by many people who were present) what was actually said instead.
No. Did you? It's a thing one reads about all the time in pop sci books about DNA copying and such, and the principle is easily understood, but did you actually actually play it? Is it a competitive thing, or just a ballsachingly pointless way of killing time?
It doesn't seem particularly relevant here anyway, lobby journalists have their own sources. They can't just all copy of each other anyway, what with having deadlines to meet.
Yes. I'm quite surprised you didn't, I'd have thought it was a fairly universal game.
My daughter came home recently from Brownies and while I was walking her home she told me about this game they were playing in Brownies called Chinese Whispers and explained the game to me...
Must be a pirate family thing. I never played it, either.
I possibly recall my sister saying she played it in the Brownies but this could be a false memory.
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
I actually think with clear careful diction and good listening skills a message could move along 20 people, either soldiers or girl guides, and emerge unscathed.
Even an alternating MIX of girl guides and soldiers I still think would work fine if they all concentrated.
Quite, it strikes me as a lame idea not guaranteed to perform as expected.
A problem I remember as definitely happening (in the world of work) is Misunderstood Boss.
Biggest Boss drops a casual one liner somewhere - "I'd like such and such".
Big Boss picks up and relates to Boss. With some elaboration that he has to guess at because he's scared to ask Biggest Boss to clarify.
Boss relates to Senior Manager. Ditto on the elaboration. Loath to go back to Big Boss so fills in the blanks himself. This is what he must have meant.
Senior Manager relates to Middle Manager. More intuited elaboration. Doesn't want to trouble Boss.
Middle Manager gets the Team cracking. Fields their queries as best he can. This is what's required - he thinks - and it has to be tomorrow (!) because it's for Biggest Boss.
Upshot - a whole load of time wasted and a bucketful of needless stress. Biggest Boss wasn't that bothered anyway and in any case this wasn't what he wanted.
(I predict people, and not just Malmesbury, will have seen some examples of this. Be amazed if they haven't.)
In the beginning, there was a plan, And then came the assumptions, And the assumptions were without form, And the plan without substance,
And the darkness was upon the face of the workers, And they spoke among themselves saying, "It is a crock of shit and it stinks."
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pile of dung, and we cannot live with the smell."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, Such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength."
And the Directors spoke among themselves saying to one another, "It contains that which aids plants growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents saying unto them, "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor Of the company With very powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan And saw that it was good, And the Plan became Policy.
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
I actually think with clear careful diction and good listening skills a message could move along 20 people, either soldiers or girl guides, and emerge unscathed.
Even an alternating MIX of girl guides and soldiers I still think would work fine if they all concentrated.
Quite, it strikes me as a lame idea not guaranteed to perform as expected.
A problem I remember as definitely happening (in the world of work) is Misunderstood Boss.
Biggest Boss drops a casual one liner somewhere - "I'd like such and such".
Big Boss picks up and relates to Boss. With some elaboration that he has to guess at because he's scared to ask Biggest Boss to clarify.
Boss relates to Senior Manager. Ditto on the elaboration. Loath to go back to Big Boss so fills in the blanks himself. This is what he must have meant.
Senior Manager relates to Middle Manager. More intuited elaboration. Doesn't want to trouble Boss.
Middle Manager gets the Team cracking. Fields their queries as best he can. This is what's required - he thinks - and it has to be tomorrow (!) because it's for Biggest Boss.
Upshot - a whole load of time wasted and a bucketful of needless stress. Biggest Boss wasn't that bothered anyway and in any case this wasn't what he wanted.
(I predict people, and not just Malmesbury, will have seen some examples of this. Be amazed if they haven't.)
In the beginning, there was a plan, And then came the assumptions, And the assumptions were without form, And the plan without substance,
And the darkness was upon the face of the workers, And they spoke among themselves saying, "It is a crock of shit and it stinks."
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pile of dung, and we cannot live with the smell."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, Such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength."
And the Directors spoke among themselves saying to one another, "It contains that which aids plants growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents saying unto them, "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor Of the company With very powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan And saw that it was good, And the Plan became Policy.
And this, my friend, is how shit happens.
That's the one. If we could perfect the art of communication there's little we couldn't achieve.
OK but do you divide your Brownies into 2 teams and give them the same phrase, and the team that adheres most closely to it wins? Or is it non competitive, just for the interest of seeing how you get from Your mother makes smocks in Hull to Your mother sucks cocks in Hell?
I actually think with clear careful diction and good listening skills a message could move along 20 people, either soldiers or girl guides, and emerge unscathed.
Even an alternating MIX of girl guides and soldiers I still think would work fine if they all concentrated.
Quite, it strikes me as a lame idea not guaranteed to perform as expected.
A problem I remember as definitely happening (in the world of work) is Misunderstood Boss.
Biggest Boss drops a casual one liner somewhere - "I'd like such and such".
Big Boss picks up and relates to Boss. With some elaboration that he has to guess at because he's scared to ask Biggest Boss to clarify.
Boss relates to Senior Manager. Ditto on the elaboration. Loath to go back to Big Boss so fills in the blanks himself. This is what he must have meant.
Senior Manager relates to Middle Manager. More intuited elaboration. Doesn't want to trouble Boss.
Middle Manager gets the Team cracking. Fields their queries as best he can. This is what's required - he thinks - and it has to be tomorrow (!) because it's for Biggest Boss.
Upshot - a whole load of time wasted and a bucketful of needless stress. Biggest Boss wasn't that bothered anyway and in any case this wasn't what he wanted.
(I predict people, and not just Malmesbury, will have seen some examples of this. Be amazed if they haven't.)
In the beginning, there was a plan, And then came the assumptions, And the assumptions were without form, And the plan without substance,
And the darkness was upon the face of the workers, And they spoke among themselves saying, "It is a crock of shit and it stinks."
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pile of dung, and we cannot live with the smell."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, Such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength."
And the Directors spoke among themselves saying to one another, "It contains that which aids plants growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents saying unto them, "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor Of the company With very powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan And saw that it was good, And the Plan became Policy.
And this, my friend, is how shit happens.
That's the one. If we could perfect the art of communication there's little we couldn't achieve.
Comments
Person is in the house they live in during lockdown shocker. More on pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...
I expect reporters will be tapping up their sources even as we speak.
Of the 3 main party leaders, Ed Davey is the only practicing member of the Church of England.
America are our friends and allies, no more and no less. Yes we cooperate with our allies, that's voluntary as it furthers our own interests not because we are controlled.
I live in a building consisting of two semi-detached houses. My half is split into a downstairs flat and my upstairs flat. Under lockdown, I couldn’t just swan about the downstairs flat or the next-door semi because we’re all part of the same building. Likewise, Carrie wasn’t allowed free run of the working parts of No. 10, nor indeed was she allowed to visit the No. 10 flat inhabited by the Sunaks.
I’ve been to No. 10; went there not long before lockdown for a COVID-19 meeting. I didn’t get a tour, but it’s bloody obvious that it’s a work space, full of offices and meeting rooms (some very grand), all with tight security. There is no confusion between home and office.
As for Nazanin, I suggest you read on it - particularly historic information. It's odd that you are all conspiracy-theory over something simple like MH17, yet in something more complex and long-lasting like this, you're over-simplistic "It was the yanks that done it."
Or is was she allowed through security because she was supposed to be there, because she lives there?
Your own point contradicts your own argument. If the security is so tight, she wouldn't be allowed there unless she was allowed to be.
The issue was it was a USD bank account that the money was frozen in and they wouldn’t disapply sanctions to allow the deal to happen.
Do you or do you not accept that Carrie Johnson lives in a flat in 11 Downing Street that is distinct from the work space where the cake incident took place?
Although, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what you think given the police ruled that what happened is illegal and Boris and Carrie Johnson have both accepted that.
However I also think the person ultimately responsible is the one who passed such a ridiculous, draconian and illiberal law that the Police are abusing in this instance, a certain Mr Boris Johnson MP and that he should resign over it so as you say it is really a rather moot point.
I think Boris should resign, just for different reasons to you.
I have widely condemned Boris on here for his lack of honesty and integrity, but there is a narrative developing that all politicians including Starmer are going to have to be very certain they do speak the truth at all times
This is a good thing, but could also be a hostage to fortune for all politicians
Don't be pathetic. Stop being a Putin apologist in every instance.
It is why I ask you the question about whether you believe the official story about MH17: because if you disbelieve it (as you seem to do), then there's little point in arguing with you on anything, as both your reality and morality are both dangerously skewed.
I expect she is allowed through security as she lives there and I expect that has always been the case for everyone living there and not just her.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
The UK was allowed to transfer the money
The bank that executed the transfer would have breached OFAC sanctions and could have been liable for a big fine
Its fine for the Tories to say "that didn't happen". But some Tory MPs say it did happen. And Johnson and ministers lying to cover their backs is a premise backed by hard evidence in other cases. So this plays rather nicely for Starmer. "I NEVER SAID THAT" just keeps THAT in the public domain, as Starmer's denials of the Saville allegation did.
He asks world leaders to evacuate several hundred civilians and military personnel to a safe location in a third country
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1516764811954204683
The difference is that spouses that live there have always been allowed to be there because ... They live there. Joe Bloggs can't "pop round" Downing Street but Dennis lived there then as she does now.
So no, I don't think the fact she lives there is immaterial. It may be other people's offices, that they need to go through security for but security allows her through as it is her home.
If the law says any differently, the law is an ass, and the person who wrote that bloody stupid law is responsible.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/20/met-police-culture-problems-not-just-a-few-bad-apples-says-acting-head
What other current political controversy, perhaps involving less serious criminal cases which attract fired penalty notices, does this remind me of ?
...Questioned by Tim Loughton, the Conservative veteran committee member, House said senior officers were sometimes prevented from sacking colleagues for misconduct immediately because of lengthy criminal inquiries.
“One of the classic problems for us is an officer who has carried out an action which is misconduct but looks as if it may also be criminal which will then get referred to the CPS,” he said.
“Investigations can go on in parallel, sometimes it is easier if the criminal investigation goes first. There are times when probably out of frustration I think to myself ‘I’d rather sack this person now rather than wait 18 months for them to go to court, possibly get found not guilty and then we have to go through a misconduct process’..”
House said in less serious criminal cases, it would be better for public trust and the public purse if the Met’s misconduct procedures could take precedence. “We would get rid of them quickly and justice would be seen to be done,” he said...
If Dennis, Samantha, Cherie etc would have been denied access but Carrie wasn't, then that'd be very odd.
Security, one day in early 2020, let me into 10 Downing Street. I didn't think of it as my home.
Just because someone has security clearance to go somewhere does not mean that it is their home.
Carrie's home is a flat at the top of 11 Downing Street. It is not the Cabinet meeting rooms in 10 Downing Street.
I would just say I do not know the conservative mp or the facts, but he was very forceful in demanding Starmer retracts and no doubt it is recorded in Hansard
Anyone who didn't either live or work there would be denied access through security. She lives there, so it's all a farce.
"I was there and it didn't happen" is hearsay. When other MPs say "I was there and it did happen" and are reported as such, there is no way to tell whose account is more accurate.
If I was one of the hacks I would be happier taking the quote very shortly after it was made before this turned into a big political row than taking the word of someone a day later trying to create a different political row with their point.
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1516773947680899082
Whether or not that is required by the legislation around unfair dismissal, I have no idea, but it's clearly what regularly happens, or the acting head of the Met wouldn't be telling us about it.
Partygate has a similar dynamic, except that fixed penalty notices have started to be issued, albeit excruciatingly slowly Could drag on for months, with Boris presumably hoping that the public lose interest.
And from memory I think someone has said before the steps leading to the flat is accessible past those rooms so she has to go past those rooms anyway to get to the flat so again this whole discussion is beyond absurd.
Having it illegal to be where you live is beyond ridiculous. Boris deserves to resign for passing that law, not for thinking he was above it, or because his wife was in the house she lives at.
Plenty of seeds, yes, indeed uncommonly seedy, but not of the greatness variety.
Ballsy if so.
And anyway, given that we are PB I'm sure someone has access to someone who knows the answer to this.
https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/1516777459076812800
In the unlikely event that the route between a flat in 11 Downing Street and the door to 11 Downing Street requires Carrie to go past a meeting room in 10 Downing Street -- and is that really the argument you're advancing? -- then she can go past that room. I have to pass my neighbour's door to leave my flat. This doesn't mean I'm allowed to wander in and our of my neighbour's flat, does it?
Arguably backbencher of the year.
They are owned by Ukrainian farmers. And Ukrainian farmer's mums.
Hacks have a tendency to exaggerate or take the most breathless reporting of what is said, because that makes good copy, even if what is actually said is more prosaic. Not all initial reporting said the same thing and Starmer quoted from the most extreme version of what was claimed to be said, which was immediately denied and was denied by other people too.
If it was actually said then it would have been said in front of potentially hundreds of his MPs some of whom may be wavering between sending in a letter or not - so to deny it if it was said would be beyond stupid, because those waverers behind him would have heard him just mislead the House with their own ears and that would surely push them over the edge to send in the letter they were wavering over.
So the only logical explanation is it wasn't said, not in the form denied, though something similar may have been said which isn't what was denied but led to the reports. Which is pretty much exactly what Sam Coates said earlier who dissected it and seemed to confirm that it wasn't said in the way quoted and he seemed to quote pretty authoritatively (I expect its been confirmed by many people who were present) what was actually said instead.
The Security Service of Ukraine has found a secret warehouse in the Kharkiv Oblast. It was filled with ammunition and spare parts for Russian equipment worth about $200 million. Now all this will help the Ukrainians against the Russian invaders...
...The Russians planned to use this warehouse and repair plants in Kharkiv, but Ukrainian forces repulsed the invaders, and the warehouse came under the Ukrainian control
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
34m
I’ve never seen Boris Johnson look quite so lost at the despatch box
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1516775648299208717
It doesn't seem particularly relevant here anyway, lobby journalists have their own sources. They can't just all copy of each other anyway, what with having deadlines to meet.
(Guardian)
...I would want to see a world where we start to ultimately disband all military alliances. The issue has to be what’s the best way of bringing about peace in the future? Is it by more alliances? Is it by more military build up?
Or is it by stopping the war in Ukraine and the other wars ...
And ask yourself the question, do military alliances bring peace? Or do they actually encourage each other and build up to a greater danger? I don’t blame Nato for the fact that Russia has invaded Ukraine. What I say is look at the thing historically, and look at the process that could happen at the end of the Ukraine war...
My daughter came home recently from Brownies and while I was walking her home she told me about this game they were playing in Brownies called Chinese Whispers and explained the game to me, which I patiently listened to until she finished and she was surprised to learn that I played it when I was a boy.
What surprised me more is that its still called Chinese Whispers, I'd have thought that name wouldn't be considered PC anymore.
I never played it, either.
https://defence-blog.com/tank-engines-missiles-found-in-abandoned-storage-facility-near-kharkiv/
Edit: works much better with Advance rather than France.....perhaps that's my mishearing/misremembering...
Reworked in WWII - which is where the image comes from I think. Then re-used in the ad.
Archaic stuff, these days you'd just forward the Whatsapp
Sir David Evennett
(Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the Conservative Benches, we strongly believe in the BBC and we believe it does a great job, especially on reporting from Ukraine. The suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister suggested somewhat different in last night’s meeting, which I attended, is absolutely inaccurate. The Leader of the Opposition should retract that, because he has misled the House.
Mr Speaker
I was not there, so it would be impossible for me to comment on something I do not know. [Interruption.] Yes, but I think it is more for my judgment, and I do not know, but I will certainly look into the matter.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-04-20/debates/959D44F9-0B07-4928-B74E-85CBF7AB2C1C/PointsOfOrder
As before, note the blue team is not attacking Starmer over Slandering the Archbishop but just over bashing the BBC, and particularly with regard to the Ukraine coverage.
"Send reinforcements we're going to advance"
"Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance"
But I do recall "advance" not "France" - and that scans better so I think my gramps was right.
It was originally from the Dutch “verloren hoop” which means “lost troop” (I think literally “lost heap”).
Even an alternating MIX of girl guides and soldiers I still think would work fine if they all concentrated.
I must admit, I had heard the same critique by Johnson on Welby. Last night's story was Johnson was in an ebullient and unrepentant mood demanding who do you want as Chancellor "Rishi or Reeves" and Johnson allegedly claimed Welby was critical of Rwanda but not of Putin.
If one is not with Johnson, one is a traitor is the message.
Sounds like your family has more in common with Boris than you care to admit.
Biggest Boss drops a casual one liner somewhere - "I'd like such and such".
Big Boss picks up and relates to Boss. With some elaboration that he has to guess at because he's scared to ask Biggest Boss to clarify.
Boss relates to Senior Manager. Ditto on the elaboration. Loath to go back to Big Boss so fills in the blanks himself. This is what he must have meant.
Senior Manager relates to Middle Manager. More intuited elaboration. Doesn't want to trouble Boss.
Middle Manager gets the Team cracking. Fields their queries as best he can. This is what's required - he thinks - and it has to be tomorrow (!) because it's for Biggest Boss.
Upshot - a whole load of time wasted and a bucketful of needless stress. Biggest Boss wasn't that bothered anyway and in any case this wasn't what he wanted.
(I predict people, and not just Malmesbury, will have seen some examples of this. Be amazed if they haven't.)
"Whether Trumpism is more powerful with Trump or without him is still an open question, but the MAGA movement shows no real sign of abating."
Many conservative thinkers would not go on the record because Trump has so poisoned the party and its ability to debate in good faith with each other the piece notes.
"As one put it, “I apologize for the background request, but Trump has absolutely ruined the discourse among conservative intellectuals, elites, think tankers, pundits, etc. We were all basically on the same side, then Trump won the nomination, and it seemed like everybody turned on everybody, depending on the shades or nuances of your views.” "
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/20/opinion/trump-trumpism-republican-party.html
I did believe him, though, until I was about 12. Same as with Santa Claus.
And then came the assumptions,
And the assumptions were without form,
And the plan without substance,
And the darkness was upon the face of the workers,
And they spoke among themselves saying,
"It is a crock of shit and it stinks."
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said,
"It is a pile of dung, and we cannot live with the smell."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying,
"It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong,
Such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors saying,
"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength."
And the Directors spoke among themselves saying to one another,
"It contains that which aids plants growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents saying unto them,
"It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him,
"This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor
Of the company With very powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan
And saw that it was good,
And the Plan became Policy.
And this, my friend, is how shit happens.
ODDS OF 2/1 ON A JOHNSON 2022 EXIT LOOK VALUE
I have £20 at 4/1. Last man standing of my disastrous Borexit bets