Off topic it strikes me as very fortunate for justice and Lord McAlpine's family that he didn't die before the terrible accusations against him were made. I suspect it would have proved far more difficult to clear his name if he had already been dead.
Off topic it strikes me as very fortunate for justice and Lord McAlpine's family that he didn't die before the terrible accusations against him were made. I suspect it would have proved far more difficult to clear his name if he had already been dead.
Very good point. I thought exactly the same. How good it was that the this was all sorted well before his demise.
Mr. Tyndall, that's my view on UKIP standing or not in specific constituencies. There's no point cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I've heard of jam dropper.
When you hear something surprising/unexpected that makes you drop the jar of jam you're holding.
Anyone know the difference between jam and marmalade?
Ahem.
urbandictionary.com has the best definition of "marmalade-dropper":
A news story so bizarre it makes you drop the marmalade on your iPad tablet at breakfast when you are reading the newspaper or news.
As to the definition of marmalade, McDivvie is right to point us to it's etymological progress from the Portuguese "marmelo" meaning "quince" deriving from the Greek "meli" = honey and "melon" = apple.
But as any continental traveller will know, European breakfast tables are provided with "orange jam" which is most definitely not what the English would call "marmalade".
Whilst both are based on citrus fruits, and orange jam often has citrus rind in it, marmalade is much less sweet and, in its best form such as Frank Cooper's Oxford English Marmalade, is dark and bitter.
Frank Cooper's Oxford Marmalade was originally made in premises at 83-84 High Street Oxford. Like our best Prime Ministers, the best marmalade is an Oxonian product.
RT - well, *he* thought libertarianism made him tempted by the LibDems! He was very anti-ID card when I was the MP, though he'd just about forgiven me. On the whole the trade union link was winning the battle for his soul.
That's the really nice thing about Broxtowe politics - people WANT TO DISCUSS POLITICS. I'm canvassed in so many by-elections in other places where people just say "yeah" or "nah". I had a chap last week who wanted to know my views on territorial claims in the Antarctic, someone today who was interested in the status of the fracking debate. It's a bit like having a constituency full of pb.com'ers.
brother accuses critics of a witch hunt "worthy of the ku klux klan" #c4news 6.05
Sounds a fair summation. The LibDems really lost the plot on this one.
No case to answer, yet an apology demanded. Farron seemingly challenging the domestic tribunal's verdict, and suggesting the rules should be changed to fit the "crime." An orchestrated attempt to send Rennard "to Coventry."
Have these clowns not heard of "natural justice", and the obligation to act "in good faith"?
RT - well, *he* thought libertarianism made him tempted by the LibDems! He was very anti-ID card when I was the MP, though he'd just about forgiven me. On the whole the trade union link was winning the battle for his soul.
That's the really nice thing about Broxtowe politics - people WANT TO DISCUSS POLITICS. I'm canvassed in so many by-elections in other places where people just say "yeah" or "nah". I had a chap last week who wanted to know my views on territorial claims in the Antarctic, someone today who was interested in the status of the fracking debate. It's a bit like having a constituency full of pb.com'ers.
I suppose you spend much time canvassing Labour rotten boroughs. I'm unsurprised that you encounter more inquisitive and informed voters in a Tory seat like Broxtowe.
brother accuses critics of a witch hunt "worthy of the ku klux klan" #c4news 6.05
Sounds a fair summation. The LibDems really lost the plot on this one.
No case to answer, yet an apology demanded. Farron seemingly challenging the domestic tribunal's verdict, and suggesting the rules should be changed to fit the "crime." An orchestrated attempt to send Rennard "to Coventry."
Have these clowns not heard of "natural justice", and the obligation to act "in good faith"?
Sir Roderick
It sounds as though the Lib Dems have lost their touch.
Mr. Tyndall, that's my view on UKIP standing or not in specific constituencies. There's no point cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I've heard of jam dropper.
When you hear something surprising/unexpected that makes you drop the jar of jam you're holding.
Anyone know the difference between jam and marmalade?
Ahem.
urbandictionary.com has the best definition of "marmalade-dropper":
A news story so bizarre it makes you drop the marmalade on your iPad tablet at breakfast when you are reading the newspaper or news.
As to the definition of marmalade, McDivvie is right to point us to it's etymological progress from the Portuguese "marmelo" meaning "quince" deriving from the Greek "meli" = honey and "melon" = apple.
But as any continental traveller will know, European breakfast tables are provided with "orange jam" which is most definitely not what the English would call "marmalade".
Whilst both are based on citrus fruits, and orange jam often has citrus rind in it, marmalade is much less sweet and, in its best form such as Frank Cooper's Oxford English Marmalade, is dark and bitter.
Frank Cooper's Oxford Marmalade was originally made in premises at 83-84 High Street Oxford. Like our best Prime Ministers, the best marmalade is an Oxonian product.
I still remember the original Robertson's Marmalade jar with it's enamelled Gollywog badge; later replaced by a paper one during the war. The thick cut was sublime. Unlike the rubbish sold under the same label today.
Mr. Tyndall, that's my view on UKIP standing or not in specific constituencies. There's no point cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I've heard of jam dropper.
When you hear something surprising/unexpected that makes you drop the jar of jam you're holding.
Anyone know the difference between jam and marmalade?
Ahem.
urbandictionary.com has the best definition of "marmalade-dropper":
A news story so bizarre it makes you drop the marmalade on your iPad tablet at breakfast when you are reading the newspaper or news.
As to the definition of marmalade, McDivvie is right to point us to it's etymological progress from the Portuguese "marmelo" meaning "quince" deriving from the Greek "meli" = honey and "melon" = apple.
But as any continental traveller will know, European breakfast tables are provided with "orange jam" which is most definitely not what the English would call "marmalade".
Whilst both are based on citrus fruits, and orange jam often has citrus rind in it, marmalade is much less sweet and, in its best form such as Frank Cooper's Oxford English Marmalade, is dark and bitter.
Frank Cooper's Oxford Marmalade was originally made in premises at 83-84 High Street Oxford. Like our best Prime Ministers, the best marmalade is an Oxonian product.
The "orange jam" that you refer to is usually apricot jam. In Italy its use is widespread and revolting.
I tipped them at 14/1, best price on them is now 7/2
Liverpool v Aston Villa (1730) I'm sure I won't be able to convince many of you with this but 12/1 about Aston Villa in the draw no bet market is surely worth a play here. Villa are awful at home - that much we know - but on the road they can do some damage with their pace on the counter attack and while Liverpool will win if at their best, if they're not at it we might be in for an upset. Villa can take confidence from the way they fought back against Arsenal on Monday night having looked likely to take a real hiding, and Christian Benteke's return to scoring form is hugely significant for them if it triggers the sort of run of which we know he's capable. Villa have also won two and drawn one of their last four trips to Anfield and they've in fact won five times in this fixture since the inauguration of the Premier League. I wouldn't rely too much on history when it comes to predicting future events but that's a nice record to back up the fact that Villa are, unquestionably, at their best on the road. Liverpool have developed a really good home record this season and for it they deserve credit, but with the Merseyside derby not far around the corner this could be a good opportunity for Villa to catch them off-guard.
Off topic it strikes me as very fortunate for justice and Lord McAlpine's family that he didn't die before the terrible accusations against him were made. I suspect it would have proved far more difficult to clear his name if he had already been dead.
Mr. Tyndall, that's my view on UKIP standing or not in specific constituencies. There's no point cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I've heard of jam dropper.
When you hear something surprising/unexpected that makes you drop the jar of jam you're holding.
Anyone know the difference between jam and marmalade?
Ahem.
urbandictionary.com has the best definition of "marmalade-dropper":
A news story so bizarre it makes you drop the marmalade on your iPad tablet at breakfast when you are reading the newspaper or news.
As to the definition of marmalade, McDivvie is right to point us to it's etymological progress from the Portuguese "marmelo" meaning "quince" deriving from the Greek "meli" = honey and "melon" = apple.
But as any continental traveller will know, European breakfast tables are provided with "orange jam" which is most definitely not what the English would call "marmalade".
Whilst both are based on citrus fruits, and orange jam often has citrus rind in it, marmalade is much less sweet and, in its best form such as Frank Cooper's Oxford English Marmalade, is dark and bitter.
Frank Cooper's Oxford Marmalade was originally made in premises at 83-84 High Street Oxford. Like our best Prime Ministers, the best marmalade is an Oxonian product.
The "orange jam" that you refer to is usually apricot jam. In Italy its use is widespread and revolting.
It generally comes in a small aluminium container with a peel back lid printed with a picture of the apricot. Often accompanied by a stale croissant.
To be avoided.
The little glass jars that upmarket hotels and airlines provide do sometimes contain the real deal and are to be welcomed.
If they come with an enamelled golliwog badge then they should be immediately pocketed, later resold at auction and all profits donated to UKIP.
Off topic it strikes me as very fortunate for justice and Lord McAlpine's family that he didn't die before the terrible accusations against him were made. I suspect it would have proved far more difficult to clear his name if he had already been dead.
Oh, Lord McAlpine is dead?! Good. Fecking paedo! Sue us all for libel now, y'dead [moderated]!
I dont do twitter, is this a parody? It's really not funny if it is.
Almost makes you sympathetic to the Labour MP who tried to change the law so that you could libel the dead.
No, it's real, she's a Socialist (meaning not a Labour Party apologist), anti-fascist, trade unionist (NUJ/UCU), journalist, lecturer. All views expressed are my cat's opinion.
south Manchester
She's trying to teach Tory trolls that you can't libel the dead.
RT - well, *he* thought libertarianism made him tempted by the LibDems! He was very anti-ID card when I was the MP, though he'd just about forgiven me. On the whole the trade union link was winning the battle for his soul.
That's the really nice thing about Broxtowe politics - people WANT TO DISCUSS POLITICS. I'm canvassed in so many by-elections in other places where people just say "yeah" or "nah". I had a chap last week who wanted to know my views on territorial claims in the Antarctic, someone today who was interested in the status of the fracking debate. It's a bit like having a constituency full of pb.com'ers.
I suppose you spend much time canvassing Labour rotten boroughs. I'm unsurprised that you encounter more inquisitive and informed voters in a Tory seat like Broxtowe.
Ignorant. Generally there is no canvassing in LAB and CON heartlands because there is no need.
Almost all the intensive on the ground work takes place in the marginals for obvious reasons.
Off topic it strikes me as very fortunate for justice and Lord McAlpine's family that he didn't die before the terrible accusations against him were made. I suspect it would have proved far more difficult to clear his name if he had already been dead.
RT - well, *he* thought libertarianism made him tempted by the LibDems! He was very anti-ID card when I was the MP, though he'd just about forgiven me. On the whole the trade union link was winning the battle for his soul.
That's the really nice thing about Broxtowe politics - people WANT TO DISCUSS POLITICS. I'm canvassed in so many by-elections in other places where people just say "yeah" or "nah". I had a chap last week who wanted to know my views on territorial claims in the Antarctic, someone today who was interested in the status of the fracking debate. It's a bit like having a constituency full of pb.com'ers.
I suppose you spend much time canvassing Labour rotten boroughs. I'm unsurprised that you encounter more inquisitive and informed voters in a Tory seat like Broxtowe.
Ignorant. Generally there is no canvassing in LAB and CON heartlands because there is no need.
Almost all the intensive on the ground work takes place in the marginals for obvious reasons.
After Bradford West Labour has become more anxious about its rotten boroughs.
If Scotland votes for independence, will its government confiscate the estates of English landowners? The SNP is talking about a tenants’ “right to buy” – three such innocuous little words! – even if the landowners don’t want to sell. As my colleague Charles Moore pointed out in The Spectator, “one great independence leader who played this issue politically was Robert Mugabe”.
Cue shrieks from cybernats, the digital wing of the SNP, masters of coordinated outrage.
Coordinated? Like the identical news reports on different newspapers issued by Better Together?
As for the reaction - it's more boredom and resignation that we get this nonsense all over again, like Scotland on Sunday digitally airbrushing a swastika onto a photo of some unfortunate Scots with a Saltire flag. The SNP is a very strange fascist party - bang in the middle of the political midstream and with a fair proportion of incomers from England. For heaven's sake, if anyone was a fascist around here it was the Unionist MP who got banged up in prison during WW2. I don't know why I amk bothering to write this, anyway, except that I'm sitting waiting for the chicken stew to cook ...
The right to buy would not be not anti-English, anyway, unless this DT writer is falling into the assumption that all land in Scotland is owned by the southerners. And I don't recall the DT being against right to buy when it was applied to Labout council property.
Do you not think the behaviour warranted an apology?
To apologise, you have to have done something wrong. Webster is clear that there was insufficient evidence on Rennard's intent for a charge under the rules to be brought against him. Should someone be forced to apologise for what we must assume to be unintentional distress caused to certain complainants?
Mr. Tyndall, that's my view on UKIP standing or not in specific constituencies. There's no point cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I've heard of jam dropper.
When you hear something surprising/unexpected that makes you drop the jar of jam you're holding.
Anyone know the difference between jam and marmalade?
Ahem.
urbandictionary.com has the best definition of "marmalade-dropper":
A news story so bizarre it makes you drop the marmalade on your iPad tablet at breakfast when you are reading the newspaper or news.
As to the definition of marmalade, McDivvie is right to point us to it's etymological progress from the Portuguese "marmelo" meaning "quince" deriving from the Greek "meli" = honey and "melon" = apple.
But as any continental traveller will know, European breakfast tables are provided with "orange jam" which is most definitely not what the English would call "marmalade".
Whilst both are based on citrus fruits, and orange jam often has citrus rind in it, marmalade is much less sweet and, in its best form such as Frank Cooper's Oxford English Marmalade, is dark and bitter.
Frank Cooper's Oxford Marmalade was originally made in premises at 83-84 High Street Oxford. Like our best Prime Ministers, the best marmalade is an Oxonian product.
I still remember the original Robertson's Marmalade jar with it's enamelled Gollywog badge; later replaced by a paper one during the war. The thick cut was sublime. Unlike the rubbish sold under the same label today.
Mike
I was brought up on Robertson's Lemon and Lime Marmalade which was targetted specially at children being sweeter than their normal range and containing only very thin strips of rind. It was virtually a jelly. It's added attraction was that it came in a specially moulded glass jar.
Later, when a student, I was often invited to stay with a friend's grandfather, who was of the pre WWI generation. A formal breakfast was always served with the table set up in advance of the guests assembling. He didn't like marmalade himself so it was not pre-placed on the breakfast table.
If a new guest was present, the conversation would always start with the host asking: "Are you a marmalade?". If the guest was brave enough to answer what by the 1970s had become a question of ambiguous meaning, a decanted jar of marmalade was summoned with great ceremony from the kitchen.
I feel your leader, Mr. Farage, is most definitely a "marmalade". Perhaps he should persuade Robertson to relaunch their pre-WWII marmalade with an enamelled badge of a Bulgarian. It could even be made with apricots!
Thought he may take legal action against the Lib Dems, Clegg has quite the headache now.
I dont think having Rennard taking legal action against him is a bad thing in itself. You want to be on the opposite side of this issue to him. But obviously bad news if it keeps it in the press for longer. They need a quick, clean end to this.
Allies of Chris Rennard say he'll take Lib Dems to court if not fully reinstated. A matter to ask Danny Alexander on Sunday Politics #bbcsp
On the Daily Politics on Thursday we discovered that Webster report on Rennard was NOT a party inquiry. Just a legal opinion for Lib Dems. afneil #bbcsp
So he should. He has a good case.
My understanding is the Webster opinion was to ascertain if it was feasible even to open disciplinary proceedings, ostensibly a wise precaution. His verdict was negative, although God only knows why Webster felt it necessary to then play judge and jury, and call for an apology, both surely beyond his remit, and nonsensical on the face of it...
If Scotland votes for independence, will its government confiscate the estates of English landowners? The SNP is talking about a tenants’ “right to buy” – three such innocuous little words! – even if the landowners don’t want to sell. As my colleague Charles Moore pointed out in The Spectator, “one great independence leader who played this issue politically was Robert Mugabe”.
Cue shrieks from cybernats, the digital wing of the SNP, masters of coordinated outrage.
Coordinated? Like the identical news reports on different newspapers issued by Better Together?
As for the reaction - it's more boredom and resignation that we get this nonsense all over again, like Scotland on Sunday digitally airbrushing a swastika onto a photo of some unfortunate Scots with a Saltire flag. The SNP is a very strange fascist party - bang in the middle of the political midstream and with a fair proportion of incomers from England. For heaven's sake, if anyone was a fascist around here it was the Unionist MP who got banged up in prison during WW2. I don't know why I amk bothering to write this, anyway, except that I'm sitting waiting for the chicken stew to cook ...
The right to buy would not be not anti-English, anyway, unless this DT writer is falling into the assumption that all land in Scotland is owned by the southerners. And I don't recall the DT being against right to buy when it was applied to Labout council property.
Carnyx, I'm sure some of your best friends are English.
Should someone be forced to apologise for what we must assume to be unintentional distress caused to certain complainants?
People should apologise for bad behaviour. The Lib Dems should be free to take a dim view of someone who doesnt (though I think this misses the point - he should lose the whip for the original behaviour anyway and not just for failing to apologise). We dont have to assume the distress was unintentional, we dont live our lives to the same burden of proof as criminal courts (and, rather bizarrely it seems to me, the Lib Dem rulebook).
Do you not think the behaviour warranted an apology?
To apologise, you have to have done something wrong. Webster is clear that there was insufficient evidence on Rennard's intent for a charge under the rules to be brought against him. Should someone be forced to apologise for what we must assume to be unintentional distress caused to certain complainants?
It sounds reasonable in this sort of situation to say that no unpleasantness was intended but he's sorry that distress had inadvertently been caused, or something like that. But it's the sort of thing where it's a bit difficult for third parties to know about for sure, and his friends clearly feel he's been cleared and that should be an end to it.
Allies of Chris Rennard say he'll take Lib Dems to court if not fully reinstated. A matter to ask Danny Alexander on Sunday Politics #bbcsp
On the Daily Politics on Thursday we discovered that Webster report on Rennard was NOT a party inquiry. Just a legal opinion for Lib Dems. afneil #bbcsp
So he should. He has a good case.
My understanding is the Webster opinion was to ascertain if it was feasible even to open disciplinary proceedings, ostensibly a wise precaution. His verdict was negative, although God only knows why Webster felt it necessary to then play judge and jury, and call for an apology, both surely beyond his remit, and nonsensical on the face of it...
Not something I know much about, but wouldn't he be taking a risk going to court?
He certainly hasnt been cleared. The party leadership have just been told that they cant kick him out of the party like some of them clearly want to. If he had still be Chief Exec then the gist of the opinion I've heard would probably have been enough to sack him.
He certainly hasnt been cleared. The party leadership have just been told that they cant kick him out of the party like some of them clearly want to. If he had still be Chief Exec then the gist of the opinion I've heard would probably have been enough to sack him.
There are different tests for dismissing somebody from employment, and misconduct under the party rulebook. Webster was concerned with the latter not the former. If the CPS were to announce that a person's conduct had caused distress to truthful complainants, but there was insufficient evidence to establish that the person intended to commit sexual assault, and accordingly would not be prosecuted, I would say the person had been cleared. Would you? Or are the LibDems to adopt a system of guilt by mere accusation?
Not something I know much about, but wouldn't he be taking a risk going to court?
There's always a litigant's risk. But if you have a strong case...
I took a bunch of muppets to court in not dissimilar circumstances (nothing to do with sex, I might add.)
They capitulated on the morning of the trial, and were left with a 5 figure legal bill. This was a spark that started a chain reaction, which several years later resulted in two of my opponents being made bankrupt and losing their house.
So it's always best to play a straight bat when purporting to sit in judgement on someone's rights and reputation...
He certainly hasnt been cleared. The party leadership have just been told that they cant kick him out of the party like some of them clearly want to. If he had still be Chief Exec then the gist of the opinion I've heard would probably have been enough to sack him.
There are different tests for dismissing somebody from employment, and misconduct under the party rulebook. Webster was concerned with the latter not the former. If the CPS were to announce that a person's conduct had caused distress to truthful complainants, but there was insufficient evidence to establish that the person intended to commit sexual assault, and accordingly would not be prosecuted, I would say the person had been cleared. Would you? Or are the LibDems to adopt a system of guilt by mere accusation?
There are different tests for dismissing somebody from employment, and misconduct under the party rulebook.
Obviously, but by finding that the complainants are credible the opinion would have given the Lib Dems confidence that they could have beaten an unfair dismissal claim. This is not guilt by accusation, intent to cause distress (wherever you stand on that point) doesnt come into the question of whether this was behaviour deserving of having the whip withdrawn or not.
@DavidL I completely agree with your post. The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
There must be millions of Tory europhiles who look in bafflement to the way the Europe-obsessed wing dominates debate. Whatever happened to the disciples of Currie and Major?
Whatever the Lib Dem rule book says about party membership, membership of a political party and a parliamentary party are separate things. No party could possibly operate under a test of "beyond reasonable doubt" before withdrawing the whip from someone and there is no reason the Lib Dems should feel obliged to.
Obviously, but by finding that the complainants are credible the opinion would have given the Lib Dems confidence that they could have beaten an unfair dismissal claim. This is not guilt by accusation, intent to cause distress (wherever you stand on that point) doesnt come into the question of whether this was behaviour deserving of having the whip withdrawn or not.
But even supposing Rennard's conduct was such that dismissal from party employment would have been lawful, that, as I understand it, would not have affected his rights under the party rulebook to due process in relation to a misconduct charge. You have after all accepted that different procedures apply. Due process has been followed. Webster has found that there is no case to answer for misconduct, and it would thus appear that he is entitled to the rights accruing to any other LibDem peer under the rules.
Obviously, but by finding that the complainants are credible the opinion would have given the Lib Dems confidence that they could have beaten an unfair dismissal claim. This is not guilt by accusation, intent to cause distress (wherever you stand on that point) doesnt come into the question of whether this was behaviour deserving of having the whip withdrawn or not.
But even supposing Rennard's conduct was such that dismissal from party employment would have been lawful, that, as I understand it, would not have affected his rights under the party rulebook to due process in relation to a misconduct charge. You have after all accepted that different procedures apply. Due process has been followed. Webster has found that there is no case to answer for misconduct, and it would thus appear that he is entitled to the rights accruing to any other LibDem peer under the rules.
As I noted later membership of as parliamentary party is different to membership of a political party. Rennard has no right to the whip and if the Lib Dems wanted to apply a balance of probabilities test and come up with a different result they are perfectly entitled to. OJ Simpson may have been found not guilty in a criminal trial but he was found responsible in a civil case.
As I noted later membership of as parliamentary party is different to membership of a political party. Rennard has no right to the whip and if the Lib Dems wanted to apply a balance of probabilities test and come up with a different result they are perfectly entitled to. OJ Simpson may have been found not guilty in a criminal trial but he was found responsible in a civil case.
Alistair Webster QC stated that the allegations didn't meet the civil or criminal standard of proof.
Mr. Tyndall, that's my view on UKIP standing or not in specific constituencies. There's no point cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I've heard of jam dropper.
When you hear something surprising/unexpected that makes you drop the jar of jam you're holding.
Anyone know the difference between jam and marmalade?
Ahem.
A news story so bizarre it makes you drop the marmalade on your iPad tablet at breakfast when you are reading the newspaper or news.
As to the definition of marmalade, McDivvie is right to point us to it's etymological progress from the Portuguese "marmelo" meaning "quince" deriving from the Greek "meli" = honey and "melon" = apple.
But as any continental traveller will know, European breakfast tables are provided with "orange jam" which is most definitely not what the English would call "marmalade".
Whilst both are based on citrus fruits, and orange jam often has citrus rind in it, marmalade is much less sweet and, in its best form such as Frank Cooper's Oxford English Marmalade, is dark and bitter.
Frank Cooper's Oxford Marmalade was originally made in premises at 83-84 High Street Oxford. Like our best Prime Ministers, the best marmalade is an Oxonian product.
I still remember the original Robertson's Marmalade jar with it's enamelled Gollywog badge; later replaced by a paper one during the war. The thick cut was sublime. Unlike the rubbish sold under the same label today.
Mike
I was brought up on Robertson's Lemon and Lime Marmalade which was targetted specially at children being sweeter than their normal range and containing only very thin strips of rind. It was virtually a jelly. It's added attraction was that it came in a specially moulded glass jar.
Later, when a student, I was often invited to stay with a friend's grandfather, who was of the pre WWI generation. A formal breakfast was always served with the table set up in advance of the guests assembling. He didn't like marmalade himself so it was not pre-placed on the breakfast table.
If a new guest was present, the conversation would always start with the host asking: "Are you a marmalade?". If the guest was brave enough to answer what by the 1970s had become a question of ambiguous meaning, a decanted jar of marmalade was summoned with great ceremony from the kitchen.
I feel your leader, Mr. Farage, is most definitely a "marmalade". Perhaps he should persuade Robertson to relaunch their pre-WWII marmalade with an enamelled badge of a Bulgarian. It could even be made with apricots!
They dont mention that he was elected as a Tory. I liked the UKIP line about it.
"The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and in naked breach of a coronation oath) will be beset by natural disasters such as storms, disease, pestilence and war."
Well, we have now had the storms.
Can we open a book on the nature of the disease, pestilence and war to follow?
Europe is one of the very few issues which bonds the sensible centre-right with colleagues from the left. The idea that an In/Out poll would result in an Out with the CBI and TUC on the same side is the stuff of pure fantasy.
As I noted later membership of as parliamentary party is different to membership of a political party. Rennard has no right to the whip and if the Lib Dems wanted to apply a balance of probabilities test and come up with a different result they are perfectly entitled to. OJ Simpson may have been found not guilty in a criminal trial but he was found responsible in a civil case.
Alistair Webster QC stated that the allegations didn't meet the civil or criminal standard of proof.
Wasn't it counsel's opinion rather than a judgement?
The Tory rebels are solipsistic, small-minded, hard of thinking, fantasist tossers.
They want Cam to be the strong man but fail to comprehend that he didn't win the election. He almost won it.
Now, of course, there is a good discussion to be had about whether Cam will turn out to be an iron fist once (if) he escapes the velvet glove but to expect him to be all they want him to be, espousing a hard Tory policy menu is idiotic. As idiotic as the LDs being disappointed in Nick Clegg for being the junior party in a coalition government.
As for the LDs in general they really need to have a look at the make-up of their MPs (no idea about membership). They have got away for too long with being white and male and at some point it is legitimate to ask: what the fvck is going on there?
The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
That's because it's not about Europe, it's about defeating Cameron.
The EU is really a proxy for those who dislike the way the UK has changed over the past 50 years. Left wingers don't like the economic changes. Right wingers don't like the social and cultural changes. Patriots don't like the shift in power from national to supranational institutions.
As I noted later membership of as parliamentary party is different to membership of a political party. Rennard has no right to the whip and if the Lib Dems wanted to apply a balance of probabilities test and come up with a different result they are perfectly entitled to. OJ Simpson may have been found not guilty in a criminal trial but he was found responsible in a civil case.
Alistair Webster QC stated that the allegations didn't meet the civil or criminal standard of proof.
Have you got a link? The only definitive statement I have seen published is that "there is a less than 50% chance that a charge against Lord Rennard could be proved to the requisite standard [ie beyong a reasonable doubt]". Farron's statement clearly implies that it was the criminal standard that saved him.
In any case as well as being free to use a different standard of proof to the main party the parliamentary party should be free to have different charges as well. I think "behaviour that would have gotten you sacked if you were a senior executive" is a fairly reasonable basis for removing someone from a parliamentary party (while it may not be a reasonable basis to kick someone out of a party altogether) and if the Lib Dems want to apply that here then they should. If that's too arbitrary for you then you should remember that this is politics.
Obviously, but by finding that the complainants are credible the opinion would have given the Lib Dems confidence that they could have beaten an unfair dismissal claim. This is not guilt by accusation, intent to cause distress (wherever you stand on that point) doesnt come into the question of whether this was behaviour deserving of having the whip withdrawn or not.
But even supposing Rennard's conduct was such that dismissal from party employment would have been lawful, that, as I understand it, would not have affected his rights under the party rulebook to due process in relation to a misconduct charge. You have after all accepted that different procedures apply. Due process has been followed. Webster has found that there is no case to answer for misconduct, and it would thus appear that he is entitled to the rights accruing to any other LibDem peer under the rules.
As I noted later membership of as parliamentary party is different to membership of a political party. Rennard has no right to the whip and if the Lib Dems wanted to apply a balance of probabilities test and come up with a different result they are perfectly entitled to. OJ Simpson may have been found not guilty in a criminal trial but he was found responsible in a civil case.
From my reading of the Lib Dem Constitution , you are incorrect . The Parliamentary parties in the Houses of Commons and Lords must not have any regulations which are not consistent with the overall Constitution of the Party .
They dont mention that he was elected as a Tory. I liked the UKIP line about it.
"The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and in naked breach of a coronation oath) will be beset by natural disasters such as storms, disease, pestilence and war."
Well, we have now had the storms.
Can we open a book on the nature of the disease, pestilence and war to follow?
From Genesis 9 KJV
8 ¶ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
In other words: This UKIPper does not know their Bible very well. Possibly it is a different version in the Koran.
There is no doubt about it - the position is crystal clear and has been for a very long time.
Only solution is to throw these people out of the Party. It cannot be acceptable to continue as a Conservative MP if everything you do is designed to lose the party the GE.
Have you got a link? The only definitive statement I have seen published is that "there is a less than 50% chance that a charge against Lord Rennard could be proved to the requisite standard [ie beyong a reasonable doubt]". Farron's statement clearly implies that it was the criminal standard that saved him.
I am going on what Alex Carlile QC said in this interview with the BBC (from 2 minutes 55 seconds in). I would take this uncontradicted statement as authoritative.
In reply to your edit, Rennard must be entitled to be dealt with under the rules as they stand, not as some might like them to be. Even the LibDems must believe that retrospective justice is a bad thing.
They dont mention that he was elected as a Tory. I liked the UKIP line about it.
"The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and in naked breach of a coronation oath) will be beset by natural disasters such as storms, disease, pestilence and war."
Well, we have now had the storms.
Can we open a book on the nature of the disease, pestilence and war to follow?
From Genesis 9 KJV
8 ¶ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
In other words: This UKIPper does not know their Bible very well.
Looks like Dave may have recourse by means of an injunction restraining a breach of a perpetual covenant?
Both Matthew Parris and John Rentoul are going a bit mental whenever UKIP is mentioned. And whenever they mention it, a rabid froth pours from their proverbial pens. Both need to get a grip on themselves and calm down, or they'll never live to see the 2015 GE.
Rewind a few decades, and replace homosexual couples with black or mixed race couples in that sentence and you'll see how silly that position of yours is.
No, it's a perfectly logical position. Insisting on non-discrimination in the provision of services is considerably harder to justify on intellectual grounds.
As you correctly pointed out, the law on this issue is intellectually incoherent. It was unlawful for the Bulls to deny a double bed to an unmarried gay couple; but it is lawful for Hamilton Hall in Bournemouth to deny a double bed to a heterosexual couple.
Those sensible Tories will no doubt be feeling relieved that this gentleman is no longer a member of their party while enjoying the irony of the fact that his defection to UKIP has proved to be a political PR gift to the Conservatives.
Wonder how the sensible Kippers on here feel about a UKIP councillor blaming the recent devastating floods in the South of England on David Cameron legalising "gay" marriage. pic.twitter.com/Oi1YPVbIb9
I wonder how sensible Tories feel about having selected him as a candidate for the Council in the first place?
Have you got a link? The only definitive statement I have seen published is that "there is a less than 50% chance that a charge against Lord Rennard could be proved to the requisite standard [ie beyong a reasonable doubt]". Farron's statement clearly implies that it was the criminal standard that saved him.
I am going on what Alex Carlile QC said in this interview with the BBC (from 2 minutes 55 seconds in). I would take this uncontradicted statement as authoritative.
I most definitely would not do so!
I also edited my post - even if it doesnt meet the civil standard for the charge of bringing the party into disrepute (and I dont for a second take Carlile's assertion as gospel on this) I still think it's reasonable to withdraw the whip from him.
Wasn't it counsel's opinion rather than a judgement?
It was counsel's opinion that it was not appropriate to invoke the party's disciplinary procedures as the case could not possibly succeed.
Sir Rpderick
Silks, in my experience, never state in any opinions that something "could not possibly succeed".
"It could be argued persuasively..." is more likely.
After all, if they suggested the law provided certainty, that might prevent their learned colleagues in chambers from being instructed by their client's opponents.
They dont mention that he was elected as a Tory. I liked the UKIP line about it.
"The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and in naked breach of a coronation oath) will be beset by natural disasters such as storms, disease, pestilence and war."
Well, we have now had the storms.
Can we open a book on the nature of the disease, pestilence and war to follow?
From Genesis 9 KJV
8 ¶ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
In other words: This UKIPper does not know their Bible very well. Possibly it is a different version in the Koran.
I prefer "Tear down their altars and destroy their temples" which you'll see on a nice mural in Sandy Row.
Obviously, but by finding that the complainants are credible the opinion would have given the Lib Dems confidence that they could have beaten an unfair dismissal claim. This is not guilt by accusation, intent to cause distress (wherever you stand on that point) doesnt come into the question of whether this was behaviour deserving of having the whip withdrawn or not.
But even supposing Rennard's conduct was such that dismissal from party employment would have been lawful, that, as I understand it, would not have affected his rights under the party rulebook to due process in relation to a misconduct charge. You have after all accepted that different procedures apply. Due process has been followed. Webster has found that there is no case to answer for misconduct, and it would thus appear that he is entitled to the rights accruing to any other LibDem peer under the rules.
As I noted later membership of as parliamentary party is different to membership of a political party. Rennard has no right to the whip and if the Lib Dems wanted to apply a balance of probabilities test and come up with a different result they are perfectly entitled to. OJ Simpson may have been found not guilty in a criminal trial but he was found responsible in a civil case.
From my reading of the Lib Dem Constitution , you are incorrect . The Parliamentary parties in the Houses of Commons and Lords must not have any regulations which are not consistent with the overall Constitution of the Party .
There must surely be cases of Lib Dems losing the whip and yet retaining membership of the party. I cant think of any so I am relying on you
They dont mention that he was elected as a Tory. I liked the UKIP line about it.
"The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and in naked breach of a coronation oath) will be beset by natural disasters such as storms, disease, pestilence and war."
Well, we have now had the storms.
Can we open a book on the nature of the disease, pestilence and war to follow?
From Genesis 9 KJV
8 ¶ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
In other words: This UKIPper does not know their Bible very well.
Looks like Dave may have recourse by means of an injunction restraining a breach of a perpetual covenant?
Are really saying that Alex Carlile, a barrister considerably more eminent than Mr Webster, set out to mislead, and deliberately, given the nature of the prompting, in flagrant breach of his own professional code of conduct? And if Rennard's legal team were misrepresenting in public what Webster had concluded, don't you think that the party (who are the only people who have seen the full report) would have issued a clarification by now?
Both Matthew Parris and John Rentoul are going a bit mental whenever UKIP is mentioned. And whenever they mention it, a rabid froth pours from their proverbial pens. Both need to get a grip on themselves and calm down, or they'll never live to see the 2015 GE.
Parris knows that most Tory voters are UKIP at heart.
Obviously, but by finding that the complainants are credible the opinion would have given the Lib Dems confidence that they could have beaten an unfair dismissal claim. This is not guilt by accusation, intent to cause distress (wherever you stand on that point) doesnt come into the question of whether this was behaviour deserving of having the whip withdrawn or not.
But even supposing Rennard's conduct was such that dismissal from party employment would have been lawful, that, as I understand it, would not have affected his rights under the party rulebook to due process in relation to a misconduct charge. You have after all accepted that different procedures apply. Due process has been followed. Webster has found that there is no case to answer for misconduct, and it would thus appear that he is entitled to the rights accruing to any other LibDem peer under the rules.
As I noted later membership of as parliamentary party is different to membership of a political party. Rennard has no right to the whip and if the Lib Dems wanted to apply a balance of probabilities test and come up with a different result they are perfectly entitled to. OJ Simpson may have been found not guilty in a criminal trial but he was found responsible in a civil case.
From my reading of the Lib Dem Constitution , you are incorrect . The Parliamentary parties in the Houses of Commons and Lords must not have any regulations which are not consistent with the overall Constitution of the Party .
There must surely be cases of Lib Dems losing the whip and yet retaining membership of the party. I cant think of any so I am relying on you
Baroness/Jenny Tonge counts as someone without the Lib Dem whip but still a member of the Lib Dems as a member doesn't she?
As you correctly pointed out, the law on this issue is intellectually incoherent. It was unlawful for the Bulls to deny a double bed to an unmarried gay couple; but it is lawful for Hamilton Hall in Bournemouth to deny a double bed to a heterosexual couple.
It may well be the case, if the courts apply the ratio of Bull v Hall to its full extent, that even after the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2014 enters into force, it will remain unlawful to refuse an unmarried homosexual couple a double room, but lawful to refuse an unmarried heterosexual couple a double room.
Are really saying that Alex Carlile, a barrister considerably more eminent than Mr Webster, set out to mislead, and deliberately, given the nature of the prompting, in flagrant breach of his own professional code of conduct? And if Rennard's legal team were misrepresenting in public what Webster had concluded, don't you think that the party (who are the only people who have seen the full report) would have issued a clarification by now?
I have also replied to your edit below.
I havent read the opinion and I didnt listen to the interview. I find Farron's statement (which was surely seen in advance by Webster given that it was released with his) bizarre if Webster had indeed found that. If that is the case then the Lib Dems have done a much better hatchet job against Rennard than I originally gave them credit for (as I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been left with this impression when the story first came out).
Comments
Rachel @racybaldhero 3h
Oh, Lord McAlpine is dead?! Good. Fecking paedo! Sue us all for libel now, y'dead [moderated]!
A news story so bizarre it makes you drop the marmalade on your iPad tablet at breakfast when you are reading the newspaper or news.
As to the definition of marmalade, McDivvie is right to point us to it's etymological progress from the Portuguese "marmelo" meaning "quince" deriving from the Greek "meli" = honey and "melon" = apple.
But as any continental traveller will know, European breakfast tables are provided with "orange jam" which is most definitely not what the English would call "marmalade".
Whilst both are based on citrus fruits, and orange jam often has citrus rind in it, marmalade is much less sweet and, in its best form such as Frank Cooper's Oxford English Marmalade, is dark and bitter.
Frank Cooper's Oxford Marmalade was originally made in premises at 83-84 High Street Oxford. Like our best Prime Ministers, the best marmalade is an Oxonian product.
That's the really nice thing about Broxtowe politics - people WANT TO DISCUSS POLITICS. I'm canvassed in so many by-elections in other places where people just say "yeah" or "nah". I had a chap last week who wanted to know my views on territorial claims in the Antarctic, someone today who was interested in the status of the fracking debate. It's a bit like having a constituency full of pb.com'ers.
No case to answer, yet an apology demanded.
Farron seemingly challenging the domestic tribunal's verdict, and suggesting the rules should be changed to fit the "crime."
An orchestrated attempt to send Rennard "to Coventry."
Have these clowns not heard of "natural justice", and the obligation to act "in good faith"?
It sounds as though the Lib Dems have lost their touch.
I'm sure I won't be able to convince many of you with this but 12/1 about Aston Villa in the draw no bet market is surely worth a play here. Villa are awful at home - that much we know - but on the road they can do some damage with their pace on the counter attack and while Liverpool will win if at their best, if they're not at it we might be in for an upset. Villa can take confidence from the way they fought back against Arsenal on Monday night having looked likely to take a real hiding, and Christian Benteke's return to scoring form is hugely significant for them if it triggers the sort of run of which we know he's capable. Villa have also won two and drawn one of their last four trips to Anfield and they've in fact won five times in this fixture since the inauguration of the Premier League. I wouldn't rely too much on history when it comes to predicting future events but that's a nice record to back up the fact that Villa are, unquestionably, at their best on the road. Liverpool have developed a really good home record this season and for it they deserve credit, but with the Merseyside derby not far around the corner this could be a good opportunity for Villa to catch them off-guard.
Verdict: Liverpool 1 Aston Villa 2 (BC)
Almost makes you sympathetic to the Labour MP who tried to change the law so that you could libel the dead.
To be avoided.
The little glass jars that upmarket hotels and airlines provide do sometimes contain the real deal and are to be welcomed.
If they come with an enamelled golliwog badge then they should be immediately pocketed, later resold at auction and all profits donated to UKIP.
south Manchester
She's trying to teach Tory trolls that you can't libel the dead.
Almost all the intensive on the ground work takes place in the marginals for obvious reasons.
Told you.
That's like 20 winning bets this year so far.
Makes Rodgers team selection look rather naive in dropping Lucas for another attacker.
On the Daily Politics on Thursday we discovered that Webster report on Rennard was NOT a party inquiry. Just a legal opinion for Lib Dems. afneil
Rennard says he will not apologise because of risk of further legal action. #bbcsp
As for the reaction - it's more boredom and resignation that we get this nonsense all over again, like Scotland on Sunday digitally airbrushing a swastika onto a photo of some unfortunate Scots with a Saltire flag. The SNP is a very strange fascist party - bang in the middle of the political midstream and with a fair proportion of incomers from England. For heaven's sake, if anyone was a fascist around here it was the Unionist MP who got banged up in prison during WW2. I don't know why I amk bothering to write this, anyway, except that I'm sitting waiting for the chicken stew to cook ...
The right to buy would not be not anti-English, anyway, unless this DT writer is falling into the assumption that all land in Scotland is owned by the southerners. And I don't recall the DT being against right to buy when it was applied to Labout council property.
I was brought up on Robertson's Lemon and Lime Marmalade which was targetted specially at children being sweeter than their normal range and containing only very thin strips of rind. It was virtually a jelly. It's added attraction was that it came in a specially moulded glass jar.
Later, when a student, I was often invited to stay with a friend's grandfather, who was of the pre WWI generation. A formal breakfast was always served with the table set up in advance of the guests assembling. He didn't like marmalade himself so it was not pre-placed on the breakfast table.
If a new guest was present, the conversation would always start with the host asking: "Are you a marmalade?". If the guest was brave enough to answer what by the 1970s had become a question of ambiguous meaning, a decanted jar of marmalade was summoned with great ceremony from the kitchen.
I feel your leader, Mr. Farage, is most definitely a "marmalade". Perhaps he should persuade Robertson to relaunch their pre-WWII marmalade with an enamelled badge of a Bulgarian. It could even be made with apricots!
Thought he may take legal action against the Lib Dems, Clegg has quite the headache now.
My understanding is the Webster opinion was to ascertain if it was feasible even to open disciplinary proceedings, ostensibly a wise precaution. His verdict was negative, although God only knows why Webster felt it necessary to then play judge and jury, and call for an apology, both surely beyond his remit, and nonsensical on the face of it...
Didn't Rennard retire from his position as Chief Executive of the Lib Dems for "health reasons"?
I took a bunch of muppets to court in not dissimilar circumstances (nothing to do with sex, I might add.)
They capitulated on the morning of the trial, and were left with a 5 figure legal bill. This was a spark that started a chain reaction, which several years later resulted in two of my opponents being made bankrupt and losing their house.
So it's always best to play a straight bat when purporting to sit in judgement on someone's rights and reputation...
'To apologise, you have to have done something wrong.'
Ten women made official complaints and they all misunderstood his behavior.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25793358
Paging Antifrank & On Topic (sorta)
Matthew Parris in the Times has picked your theme on the UKIP fifth columnists in the Tory party.
John Rentoul blogs upon it
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/01/18/the-tory-fifth-column/
Is he working on an ark?
Well, we have now had the storms.
Can we open a book on the nature of the disease, pestilence and war to follow?
They want Cam to be the strong man but fail to comprehend that he didn't win the election. He almost won it.
Now, of course, there is a good discussion to be had about whether Cam will turn out to be an iron fist once (if) he escapes the velvet glove but to expect him to be all they want him to be, espousing a hard Tory policy menu is idiotic. As idiotic as the LDs being disappointed in Nick Clegg for being the junior party in a coalition government.
As for the LDs in general they really need to have a look at the make-up of their MPs (no idea about membership). They have got away for too long with being white and male and at some point it is legitimate to ask: what the fvck is going on there?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541774/UKIP-councillor-says-God-sent-storms-battered-Britain-David-Cameron-allowed-gay-marriage-legalised.html
In any case as well as being free to use a different standard of proof to the main party the parliamentary party should be free to have different charges as well. I think "behaviour that would have gotten you sacked if you were a senior executive" is a fairly reasonable basis for removing someone from a parliamentary party (while it may not be a reasonable basis to kick someone out of a party altogether) and if the Lib Dems want to apply that here then they should. If that's too arbitrary for you then you should remember that this is politics.
I'll be Tweeting several interesting numbers incuding the party seen most favourably by voters
8 ¶ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
10 and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
In other words: This UKIPper does not know their Bible very well. Possibly it is a different version in the Koran.
UKIP most popular party in ComRes poll for @IndyOnSunday & @TheSundayMirror: 27% "favourable" 26% Lab 25% Con 14% LD http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/01/18/ukip-the-most-popular-party-in-britain/ …
In reply to your edit, Rennard must be entitled to be dealt with under the rules as they stand, not as some might like them to be. Even the LibDems must believe that retrospective justice is a bad thing.
LIAMT, your opinion?
Voting intention:
Con 30% +1
Lab 35% -1
LibDem 8% ±0
UKIP 19% +1
Other 8% -1
UKIP 27%
Labour 26% -2 since June 2013
Con 25% +2
LibDem 14%
Favourable: leaders
David Cameron 27% +4
Nigel Farage 22%
Ed Miliband 18% -2
Nick Clegg 13%
No marmalade has been dropped.
I also edited my post - even if it doesnt meet the civil standard for the charge of bringing the party into disrepute (and I dont for a second take Carlile's assertion as gospel on this) I still think it's reasonable to withdraw the whip from him.
Silks, in my experience, never state in any opinions that something "could not possibly succeed".
"It could be argued persuasively..." is more likely.
After all, if they suggested the law provided certainty, that might prevent their learned colleagues in chambers from being instructed by their client's opponents.
My marmalade remains intact.
And don't forget, The Bridge is on tonight, 9-11pm.
Con 245
Lab 356
Lib Dem 21
UKIP 0
Although I think UKIP will get some seats on 19%.
I have also replied to your edit below.
Except that it does sound rather too Blairite for Miliband Junior. The wheel turns full circle.
And the word is - they won't ratify.
Not sure if this process is subject to the principles of natural justice. By implication it is.