Just seen the Boris Becker news. Ridiculous that someone gets such a long prison sentence for a financial crime. He ought to be doing community service for the next 5 years in my opinion.
As a tennis fan I'm sad to see a legend of the game jailed. Won Wimbledon at 17 and successfully defended a year later. Absolutely incredible achievement. Then in recent times coaching Djokovic to multiple slams and an excellent tv pundit.
I don't think I agree with your general point though. Financial crimes can be brutal, stripping the victims of their self-respect, ruining the person not just their finances. Every bit as bad as a physical attack in some cases, sometimes worse.
Do people think he should? Is the crime looking at porn on a mobile phone or doing it in parliament? I can see why Angela Rayner could feel offended but I struggle to see who the hapless Neil Parish has upset unless he shared the film with someone inappropriate
It is not, to my mind, a resigning matter. I think it appropriate he should face a party consequence, and possibly even some as an MP, since watching porn whilst you are supposed to be at work brings both into disrepute (maintaining high standards is not merely an issue of if you have upset someone) and would result in a warning or some disciplinary for others, but resigning over it would be very disproportionate.
I think my place might think about whether it was gross misconduct if done on the floor plate in front of others, as opposed to hidden away.
If I found an employee was in their own office, looking at porn when they were supposed to be working, it would be a disciplinary issue:
"Oi. I pay you to work, not to look at porn. Don't do it again or there'll be serious consequences."
On the other hand, if it was in a meeting, and other employees were exposed it, it would be a much more serious offence. I don't know whether it would merit immediate dismissal, but it certainly would be a lot more than just a talking to.
Back in 1995/6, our senior system tester working on a Saturday was caught looking at Internet porn whilst system testing a telephone exchange in short timescales - in between tests whilst the exchange was processing.
Director had previously announced a big posturing pose that anyone caught misusing the Internet at work would be sacked.
So he ended up sacking his best and most experienced system tester, slowed the tests down as he had lost 15 years of experience, and the chap was working at a competitor for £1200 a week 7 days later.
Overly dogmatic are a bad thing,
If he'd been doing cocaine at work, would that be OK because he's a good worker? If he came to work drinks wearing an SS uniform, etc...
It's not overly dogmatic to expect basic standards of decency from people while they're at work.
It depends on your view of "basic standards of decency" in the context, doesn't it? And how sanctions should be graduated.
In this case it was a Saturday, and no one else was there, and it delayed a new release (normal routine 1 release per 8-10 months) of the main product of a £100m business by some weeks. Detected via log files.
My judgement in that case looking back (and for an occurrence now) would be a final written warning.
As for SS uniform at work drinks - that also depends imo. Perhaps it would be themed around The Producers or Allo Allo. Personally I don't have much of a problem with satirising Nazis; laughing at them is an important part of taking them sufficiently serious imo - ditto similar groups on the far left. A "Producers" for Putin would be interesting, with that huge long table. Or perhaps for Iran.
Doing cocaine is perhaps in a different category, as it is criminal under the law of the land - up to 7 years for possession. Viewing pornography is not criminal. Also drugs have an impact on work.
My point was there's simply some stuff you don't do at work. The fact that you're trying to find possible excuses for someone turning up in SS garb says everything you need to know about the kind of contortions you'll go to in order to claim that watching porn in the workplace isn't a sackable offence.
No it doesn't. Forgive my bluntness, but that statement is nonsense on stilts. You have to define your statement of what you can do or can't do at work. I think you are being rather too simplistic.
Anyway, who the hell are you to state what my purposes or motivations are?
Whether porn in the workplace is a instantly sackable offence is a matter for the workplace's policy, not 'automatically true', since it is not regulated by law (unless you have a law that does so?). If I was to make a technical case (which I'm not), I'd simply point out that Redtube or Playboy are .. er .. workplaces, where the presence of porn is presumably not a sackable offence, so the universalist claim instantly fails.
Rather, I suggest you are trying to make everything black and white and that everyone agrees with your assumptions, when reality has shades of grey. I'm exploring the shades of grey. My example was one where the Engineering Director went off at the deep end, landed himself in a hole, and damaged his own business unnecessarily as he had removed all flexibility.
There are grey areas as basic as how are you defining "porn"? What is it? Are you going to use a technical definition, or go with @NickPalmer 's 'offence to colleagues' idea.
We then have the grey areas about what is offence, and does it apply equally to say different sexualities. Plenty of activists will claim that the offensiveness is down to demeaning men / women / other categories and that eg Miss World or Beach Volleyball or Fitness Posing or Beach Ogling by either sex / whichever self-identified gender is as offensive as more explicit material because the values are the same.
Then we have the grey areas around policies such as 'personal internet use at lunchtime allowed'.
Some things are clear, but there are vast grey areas around them. Where do you draw your lines?
Should Neil Parish be expelled if he was watching a Wet Teeshirt competition? Beach Volleyball? Miss Universe? And if one colleague was offended, and another was not? What if the colleague is a known activist? How do you judge these things?
Some fine whataboutery there, it wasn't the offices of the Playboy Mansion, he was caught looking at porn in the house of commons.
I think most people understand that if they were sat at their desks watching porn, or they whipped out their phone in a boring meeting and started watching porn during it they'd very rapidly find themselves asked to find a new job.
I do not think this is a particularly controversial statement, and all the whataboutery is a bit pathetic, frankly.
The porn tape MP looks crushed. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel sorry for him. Labour should not get involved. It looks like kicking a man when he's down.
.....and poor old Boris. Someone should have stepped in to pay off his debt. I feel even more sorry for him. He's a good guy.
I feel sorry for him, but it’s a totally cretinous thing to do.
The fact he was doing it (one one occasion) while chairing a select committee is even more cretinous.
Do people think he should? Is the crime looking at porn on a mobile phone or doing it in parliament? I can see why Angela Rayner could feel offended but I struggle to see who the hapless Neil Parish has upset unless he shared the film with someone inappropriate
It is not, to my mind, a resigning matter. I think it appropriate he should face a party consequence, and possibly even some as an MP, since watching porn whilst you are supposed to be at work brings both into disrepute (maintaining high standards is not merely an issue of if you have upset someone) and would result in a warning or some disciplinary for others, but resigning over it would be very disproportionate.
I think my place might think about whether it was gross misconduct if done on the floor plate in front of others, as opposed to hidden away.
If I found an employee was in their own office, looking at porn when they were supposed to be working, it would be a disciplinary issue:
"Oi. I pay you to work, not to look at porn. Don't do it again or there'll be serious consequences."
On the other hand, if it was in a meeting, and other employees were exposed it, it would be a much more serious offence. I don't know whether it would merit immediate dismissal, but it certainly would be a lot more than just a talking to.
The allegations include when he was chairing a select committee. This does not seem to be an isolated event.
It was never likely to be the only occasion he'd done it, but if they can prove he has been serially doing it that does up the appropriate punishment and suggest a deeper problem.
I disagree.
If he has done it on multiple occasions we should rally round someone with mental health issues and support him as he fights his addiction
Do people think he should? Is the crime looking at porn on a mobile phone or doing it in parliament? I can see why Angela Rayner could feel offended but I struggle to see who the hapless Neil Parish has upset unless he shared the film with someone inappropriate
It is not, to my mind, a resigning matter. I think it appropriate he should face a party consequence, and possibly even some as an MP, since watching porn whilst you are supposed to be at work brings both into disrepute (maintaining high standards is not merely an issue of if you have upset someone) and would result in a warning or some disciplinary for others, but resigning over it would be very disproportionate.
I think my place might think about whether it was gross misconduct if done on the floor plate in front of others, as opposed to hidden away.
If I found an employee was in their own office, looking at porn when they were supposed to be working, it would be a disciplinary issue:
"Oi. I pay you to work, not to look at porn. Don't do it again or there'll be serious consequences."
On the other hand, if it was in a meeting, and other employees were exposed it, it would be a much more serious offence. I don't know whether it would merit immediate dismissal, but it certainly would be a lot more than just a talking to.
The allegations include when he was chairing a select committee. This does not seem to be an isolated event.
It was never likely to be the only occasion he'd done it, but if they can prove he has been serially doing it that does up the appropriate punishment and suggest a deeper problem.
I disagree.
If he has done it on multiple occasions we should rally round someone with mental health issues and support him as he fights his addiction
Sure, and let him stand down from the House to attend to his issues.
Do people think he should? Is the crime looking at porn on a mobile phone or doing it in parliament? I can see why Angela Rayner could feel offended but I struggle to see who the hapless Neil Parish has upset unless he shared the film with someone inappropriate
It is not, to my mind, a resigning matter. I think it appropriate he should face a party consequence, and possibly even some as an MP, since watching porn whilst you are supposed to be at work brings both into disrepute (maintaining high standards is not merely an issue of if you have upset someone) and would result in a warning or some disciplinary for others, but resigning over it would be very disproportionate.
I think my place might think about whether it was gross misconduct if done on the floor plate in front of others, as opposed to hidden away.
If I found an employee was in their own office, looking at porn when they were supposed to be working, it would be a disciplinary issue:
"Oi. I pay you to work, not to look at porn. Don't do it again or there'll be serious consequences."
On the other hand, if it was in a meeting, and other employees were exposed it, it would be a much more serious offence. I don't know whether it would merit immediate dismissal, but it certainly would be a lot more than just a talking to.
The allegations include when he was chairing a select committee. This does not seem to be an isolated event.
It was never likely to be the only occasion he'd done it, but if they can prove he has been serially doing it that does up the appropriate punishment and suggest a deeper problem.
I disagree.
If he has done it on multiple occasions we should rally round someone with mental health issues and support him as he fights his addiction
Sure, and let him stand down from the House to attend to his issues.
The interesting point is that MPs (seemingly) don't want to be treated as employees of the public, e.g. when they are fiddlign expenses, doing second jobs, watching porn in work, and making serious allegations about Ms Rayner.
So - if they screw up, that's their fault entirely, no support, nothing. Their contract should be torn up instanter.
A contractor coming into a bank, say, wouldn;t expect support from the bank. So MPs shouldn't expect support. (THis is obviously different for employees of the Houses of Pmt,. such as clerks.)
Edit: not quite sure what I think - but considering the implications of your point.
Lmao ! Neil Parish MP said he opened up the porn by accident ! And how would an enquiry prove this either way .
Really it was a stupid thing to do and his denial reminds of those Little Britain sketches.
It isn't very hard to check his device and previous browsing history / activity on that device. If he did do as alleged, it seems unlikely he doesn't regularly browse such material and that could easily be checked. If the only dodgy material he has viewed is a singular occasion, i think benefit of the doubt. However, it has been reported others have seen him do this.
Jack Dromey favourited a gay porn twitter account, which he said occurred because he was searching twitter for some information, that account came up and in a panic he tapped favourite. His excuse was accepted.
Daily Mail: Police told to investigate Labour’s lies #tomorrowspaperstoday
Labour way ahead in the polls? Rishi off the radar, Johnson in trouble?
I know! Let's bring up the same story again
I'm not sure the Tory leadership has thought this one through. Surely the last thing they want to do is keep allegations of covid breaches in the news?
Lmao ! Neil Parish MP said he opened up the porn by accident ! And how would an enquiry prove this either way .
Really it was a stupid thing to do and his denial reminds of those Little Britain sketches.
It isn't very hard to check his device and previous browsing history / activity on that device. If he did do as alleged, it seems unlikely he doesn't regularly browse such material and that could easily be checked. If the only dodgy material he has viewed is a singular occasion, i think benefit of the doubt. However, it has been reported others have seen him do this.
Jack Dromey favourited a gay porn twitter account, which he said occurred because he was searching twitter for some information, that account came up and in a panic he tapped favourite. His excuse was accepted.
But two issues are being conflated here. I have no issue with frequent watching of porn. Frequent watching of porn in public is an entirely different thing
Daily Mail: Police told to investigate Labour’s lies #tomorrowspaperstoday
Labour way ahead in the polls? Rishi off the radar, Johnson in trouble?
I know! Let's bring up the same story again
I'm not sure the Tory leadership has thought this one through. Surely the last thing they want to do is keep allegations of covid breaches in the news?
I think they are desperate for Starmer to get a fpn to shoot his fox.
Daily Mail: Police told to investigate Labour’s lies #tomorrowspaperstoday
Labour way ahead in the polls? Rishi off the radar, Johnson in trouble?
I know! Let's bring up the same story again
I'm not sure the Tory leadership has thought this one through. Surely the last thing they want to do is keep allegations of covid breaches in the news?
No, they're just trying to smear and obfuscate and get the result "All politicians are as bad as each other". It;s a nasty and cynical approach. Partly because it gives the Tories in particular licence to carry on as before, just because one (for instance) Labour MP can be claimed to have made a minor breach of the rules if one is brain dead and also bends over and looks at it from between one's legs - which is a fair description of the DM target reader.
Lmao ! Neil Parish MP said he opened up the porn by accident ! And how would an enquiry prove this either way .
Really it was a stupid thing to do and his denial reminds of those Little Britain sketches.
It isn't very hard to check his device and previous browsing history / activity on that device. If he did do as alleged, it seems unlikely he doesn't regularly browse such material and that could easily be checked. If the only dodgy material he has viewed is a singular occasion, i think benefit of the doubt. However, it has been reported others have seen him do this.
Jack Dromey favourited a gay porn twitter account, which he said occurred because he was searching twitter for some information, that account came up and in a panic he tapped favourite. His excuse was accepted.
But two issues are being conflated here. I have no issue with frequent watching of porn. Frequent watching of porn in public is an entirely different thing
I should have clarified check during obvious office hours. They have to swipe into parliament right? Easy to match up those times with any potential requests to view adult material. If there is a consistent pattern of behaviour i think we can say the allegations are true.
If he watches tug tv when he clearly isn't in parliament thats a matter for him and his wife.
The porn tape MP looks crushed. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel sorry for him. Labour should not get involved. It looks like kicking a man when he's down.
.....and poor old Boris. Someone should have stepped in to pay off his debt. I feel even more sorry for him. He's a good guy.
“Someone should have stepped in to pay his off his debt”? “He’s a good guy”? Hah! He’s a crook!
Do people think he should? Is the crime looking at porn on a mobile phone or doing it in parliament? I can see why Angela Rayner could feel offended but I struggle to see who the hapless Neil Parish has upset unless he shared the film with someone inappropriate
It is not, to my mind, a resigning matter. I think it appropriate he should face a party consequence, and possibly even some as an MP, since watching porn whilst you are supposed to be at work brings both into disrepute (maintaining high standards is not merely an issue of if you have upset someone) and would result in a warning or some disciplinary for others, but resigning over it would be very disproportionate.
I think my place might think about whether it was gross misconduct if done on the floor plate in front of others, as opposed to hidden away.
If I found an employee was in their own office, looking at porn when they were supposed to be working, it would be a disciplinary issue:
"Oi. I pay you to work, not to look at porn. Don't do it again or there'll be serious consequences."
On the other hand, if it was in a meeting, and other employees were exposed it, it would be a much more serious offence. I don't know whether it would merit immediate dismissal, but it certainly would be a lot more than just a talking to.
The allegations include when he was chairing a select committee. This does not seem to be an isolated event.
It was never likely to be the only occasion he'd done it, but if they can prove he has been serially doing it that does up the appropriate punishment and suggest a deeper problem.
I disagree.
If he has done it on multiple occasions we should rally round someone with mental health issues and support him as he fights his addiction
Are you taking the piss?
The one rule for them meme is just getting a bit silly now. This parliament/government has lost their minds.
Daily Mail: Police told to investigate Labour’s lies #tomorrowspaperstoday
Labour way ahead in the polls? Rishi off the radar, Johnson in trouble?
I know! Let's bring up the same story again
I'm not sure the Tory leadership has thought this one through. Surely the last thing they want to do is keep allegations of covid breaches in the news?
If a senior Labour figure (especially Starmer) gets a fine (doesn’t matter about frequency or type, it’ll be spun successfully as “the same”) and doesn’t resign it neutralises it for them, particularly at the next election. Of course if they do resign it places Boris and Sunak in a hell of a spot.
Daily Mail: Police told to investigate Labour’s lies #tomorrowspaperstoday
Labour way ahead in the polls? Rishi off the radar, Johnson in trouble?
I know! Let's bring up the same story again
I'm not sure the Tory leadership has thought this one through. Surely the last thing they want to do is keep allegations of covid breaches in the news?
I think they are desperate for Starmer to get a fpn to shoot his fox.
Why would he get one? They aren't reopening the investigation as there is nothing to investigate. No rules were broken.
Daily Mail: Police told to investigate Labour’s lies #tomorrowspaperstoday
Labour way ahead in the polls? Rishi off the radar, Johnson in trouble?
I know! Let's bring up the same story again
I'm not sure the Tory leadership has thought this one through. Surely the last thing they want to do is keep allegations of covid breaches in the news?
I think they are desperate for Starmer to get a fpn to shoot his fox.
Why would he get one? They aren't reopening the investigation as there is nothing to investigate. No rules were broken.
We’ll see. You may be right, but you can see what they are trying to do. If I’m honest I suspect that they did bend the rules, a bit. As did millions of us. It pales into comparison with the no 10 stuff though.
Daily Mail: Police told to investigate Labour’s lies #tomorrowspaperstoday
Labour way ahead in the polls? Rishi off the radar, Johnson in trouble?
I know! Let's bring up the same story again
I'm not sure the Tory leadership has thought this one through. Surely the last thing they want to do is keep allegations of covid breaches in the news?
I think they are desperate for Starmer to get a fpn to shoot his fox.
Why would he get one? They aren't reopening the investigation as there is nothing to investigate. No rules were broken.
We’ll see. You may be right, but you can see what they are trying to do. If I’m honest I suspect that they did bend the rules, a bit. As did millions of us. It pales into comparison with the no 10 stuff though.
It’s of the order of some of some of the so called parties like the online quiz which the odd group did from meeting rooms. It’s clearly nothing like the “bring you own bottle” nonsense in the garden. Had Labour distinguished between them (it didn’t) then it might be able to argue a distinction. Should there be a fine, it won’t be able to.
The porn tape MP looks crushed. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel sorry for him. Labour should not get involved. It looks like kicking a man when he's down.
.....and poor old Boris. Someone should have stepped in to pay off his debt. I feel even more sorry for him. He's a good guy.
“Someone should have stepped in to pay his off his debt”? “He’s a good guy”? Hah! He’s a crook!
I did wonder why @roger was feeling so generous to Johnson, then the penny dropped that he had a different Boris in mind 😀
> Viewing pornography on the job, exacerbated by doing it a) in public place and b) in Mother of Parliaments, is serious workplace and professional infraction, esp. for one who my virtue of office must (or at least should) be held to higher standard = worthy of censure, if not expulsion; and also reason for him to "consider his position", by applying for Steward of the Manor of Northstead (Khan having just applied for Chiltern Hundreds).
> Above seems clear sign (esp. given apparently repeat occurrence) that the guy has a personal problem that requires and deserves medical diagnosis and therapy, perhaps in part caused by job-related stress; as for keeping his job, as a representative of the people, his electors have the greatest right & standing to pass judgement on his public conduct - along with himself.
Not sure precisely what a Middle Way would be. Could be that he was ready to retire anyway?
And somehow doubt he's likely to receive the knighthood that would likely have been his for genuine services rendered re: Zimbabwe, environmental protection and animal welfare? (Would appreciate NP's judgement re: last two items.)
Re feverish F-16 discussion on the previous thread.
It's not just the crews, there is a vast technical and logistical infrastructure that needs to be established to support F-16 ops. In addition to the aircraft they need spares, tools, manuals, weapons, etc.
Now Ukraine could get a lot of help from the US and Poland but they aren't (yet) willing to put personnel into Ukraine. It took 7 years to establish the Iraqi Air Force F-16 capability and corners could be cut because there's a war on but it's still a very long road to operating the aircraft.
If we wanted to enhance Ukraine's combat air capability (which nobody seems inclined to do) then the quickest route is de-NATOed Fulcrums from Poland, Slovakia, etc. Biden could make this happen tomorrow but chooses not to.
Also, it's just some scrandy on Twitter saying F-16s so why is everybody assuming it's true?
"I rise, Mr Speaker, to state my unbridled enthusiasm for the step-mothers of Britain, whose many contributions to art and culture via the world-wide web I have looooong enjoyed and admired."
"I rise, Mr Speaker, to state my unbridled enthusiasm for the step-mothers of Britain, whose many contributions to art and culture via the world-wide web I have looooong enjoyed and admired."
Do people think he should? Is the crime looking at porn on a mobile phone or doing it in parliament? I can see why Angela Rayner could feel offended but I struggle to see who the hapless Neil Parish has upset unless he shared the film with someone inappropriate
It is not, to my mind, a resigning matter. I think it appropriate he should face a party consequence, and possibly even some as an MP, since watching porn whilst you are supposed to be at work brings both into disrepute (maintaining high standards is not merely an issue of if you have upset someone) and would result in a warning or some disciplinary for others, but resigning over it would be very disproportionate.
I think my place might think about whether it was gross misconduct if done on the floor plate in front of others, as opposed to hidden away.
If I found an employee was in their own office, looking at porn when they were supposed to be working, it would be a disciplinary issue:
"Oi. I pay you to work, not to look at porn. Don't do it again or there'll be serious consequences."
On the other hand, if it was in a meeting, and other employees were exposed it, it would be a much more serious offence. I don't know whether it would merit immediate dismissal, but it certainly would be a lot more than just a talking to.
The allegations include when he was chairing a select committee. This does not seem to be an isolated event.
It was never likely to be the only occasion he'd done it, but if they can prove he has been serially doing it that does up the appropriate punishment and suggest a deeper problem.
I disagree.
If he has done it on multiple occasions we should rally round someone with mental health issues and support him as he fights his addiction
Sure, and let him stand down from the House to attend to his issues.
That would be his choice.
(More generally we have N issue in that the cry of “resignation” is applied to everything. This was wrong - the issue is more with “creating a hostile work environment” than anything else - but it strikes me as a suspension/final warning type of offence
"I rise, Mr Speaker, to state my unbridled enthusiasm for the step-mothers of Britain, whose many contributions to art and culture via the world-wide web I have looooong enjoyed and admired."
“The Rt Honorable Member will withdraw…”
It’s going to be hard. But he’s just going to have to stick it out.
Problem is, sleaze stories don’t always come alone, they often come together. Unless of course it comes up in the Daily Mail, in which case we can safely assume they’re faking it.
Comments
I don't think I agree with your general point though. Financial crimes can be brutal, stripping the victims of their self-respect, ruining the person not just their finances. Every bit as bad as a physical attack in some cases, sometimes worse.
I think most people understand that if they were sat at their desks watching porn, or they whipped out their phone in a boring meeting and started watching porn during it they'd very rapidly find themselves asked to find a new job.
I do not think this is a particularly controversial statement, and all the whataboutery is a bit pathetic, frankly.
Most people I know have ignored it because it was too much work
The fact he was doing it (one one occasion) while chairing a select committee is even more cretinous.
If he has done it on multiple occasions we should rally round someone with mental health issues and support him as he fights his addiction
So - if they screw up, that's their fault entirely, no support, nothing. Their contract should be torn up instanter.
A contractor coming into a bank, say, wouldn;t expect support from the bank. So MPs shouldn't expect support. (THis is obviously different for employees of the Houses of Pmt,. such as clerks.)
Edit: not quite sure what I think - but considering the implications of your point.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-014-0016-8
Jack Dromey favourited a gay porn twitter account, which he said occurred because he was searching twitter for some information, that account came up and in a panic he tapped favourite. His excuse was accepted.
I've lost track tbh.
Daily Mail: Police told to investigate Labour’s lies #tomorrowspaperstoday
Labour way ahead in the polls? Rishi off the radar, Johnson in trouble?
I know! Let's bring up the same story again
Frequent watching of porn in public is an entirely different thing
If he watches tug tv when he clearly isn't in parliament thats a matter for him and his wife.
The one rule for them meme is just getting a bit silly now. This parliament/government has lost their minds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(2010–present)#2019–present_Parliament
SF 22%
DUP 20%
Alliance 14%
SDLP 13%
UUP 10%
TUV 6%
https://twitter.com/dmcbfs/status/1520073611469590528?s=20&t=hRYMZefFxpyldajw7u2m1g
> Viewing pornography on the job, exacerbated by doing it a) in public place and b) in Mother of Parliaments, is serious workplace and professional infraction, esp. for one who my virtue of office must (or at least should) be held to higher standard = worthy of censure, if not expulsion; and also reason for him to "consider his position", by applying for Steward of the Manor of Northstead (Khan having just applied for Chiltern Hundreds).
> Above seems clear sign (esp. given apparently repeat occurrence) that the guy has a personal problem that requires and deserves medical diagnosis and therapy, perhaps in part caused by job-related stress; as for keeping his job, as a representative of the people, his electors have the greatest right & standing to pass judgement on his public conduct - along with himself.
Not sure precisely what a Middle Way would be. Could be that he was ready to retire anyway?
And somehow doubt he's likely to receive the knighthood that would likely have been his for genuine services rendered re: Zimbabwe, environmental protection and animal welfare? (Would appreciate NP's judgement re: last two items.)
The DUP could surprise us yet.
(Chief difference here is SF > SDLP shift)
It's not just the crews, there is a vast technical and logistical infrastructure that needs to be established to support F-16 ops. In addition to the aircraft they need spares, tools, manuals, weapons, etc.
Now Ukraine could get a lot of help from the US and Poland but they aren't (yet) willing to put personnel into Ukraine. It took 7 years to establish the Iraqi Air Force F-16 capability and corners could be cut because there's a war on but it's still a very long road to operating the aircraft.
If we wanted to enhance Ukraine's combat air capability (which nobody seems inclined to do) then the quickest route is de-NATOed Fulcrums from Poland, Slovakia, etc. Biden could make this happen tomorrow but chooses not to.
Also, it's just some scrandy on Twitter saying F-16s so why is everybody assuming it's true?
(More generally we have N issue in that the cry of “resignation” is applied to everything. This was wrong - the issue is more with “creating a hostile work environment” than anything else - but it strikes me as a suspension/final warning type of offence
Problem is, sleaze stories don’t always come alone, they often come together. Unless of course it comes up in the Daily Mail, in which case we can safely assume they’re faking it.
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
🟩🟩⬛🟨⬛
🟩🟩⬛⬛🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩