The chancellor also needs to heavily rebuke companies engaged on greedflation and announce a series of measures including breaking them up if they don't start passing savings onto consumers. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, if petrol forecourts had honest pricing that a proper functioning market would have rather than one dominated by 2 or 3 big players the pump price would be ~11p per litre lower than today for unleaded and diesel.
We've allowed industry consolidation to go too far and consumers are being ripped off. The chancellor must address this in today's budget either with punitive taxes on those companies or the threat of break up.
If my wife was awake she would be able to tell me the current price at Hawes (community ran not for profit petrol station that does hsave the rural tax discount but that really only reflects the extra delivery costs).
Think its £1.45 a litre of diesel though so that shows the profits being made...
I paid £1.53 at Costco yesterday which is generally close to a true price.
My wife corrected me she paid £1.53 yesterday.
So there is a difference of 11-14p where a town has little competition with no independent station.
It seems to vary so much by locality. Our local garages charge £165.9 for diesel. 10 miles south, it is 10p cheaper. 10 miles north it is even dearer..
Fairlie, I paid 152.9 in Sainsbury's the other day local Morrisons was still at 162.9 though. Maybe jsut waiting on new delivery before they reduce , seems mix at those prices which is unusual
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
I sort of agree with that, but you have to ask WHY this issue is seen as so important by so many voters. I'd argue that it's because the government, Tory MPs and the right-wing press have persuaded the public that it's important.
In reality, the 'small boats' issue doesn't impinge on the 'lived experience' of 99% of voters. Once something more important comes along, it could well disappear. Even Gary Lineker shoved 'small boats' out of the news for a few days.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/14/senate-defense-department-ukraine-fighters-00087051 ...Among their questions, the lawmakers asked how high Ukrainian officials are ranking fighter jets when making requests for weapons and how the F-16s might be sourced if approved — either newly produced or from current inventories. They also sought the military’s assessment of what impact F-16s would have on the conflict and how quickly Ukrainian pilots could be trained on the jets.
The group hailed reports that two Ukrainian pilots came to the U.S. for a fighter skills assessment at Tucson’s Morris Air National Guard Base, in Kelly’s home state, which they called a “critical step in gauging” their readiness to fly F-16s.
Also signing onto the letter were Democrats Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Jacky Rosen of Nevada as well as Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and Ted Budd of North Carolina...
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
This government's innate ability since 2010 to blame everyone but themselves for any problem with the country is remarkable and Oscar-worthy. Their tactical brilliance in that respect with the Lib Dems during the coalition was scintillating.
The tactical brilliance of the LibDems to prevent any discussion of a Referendum on the EU during the Coalition ultimately delivered Brexit.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
I sort of agree with that, but you have to ask WHY this issue is seen as so important by so many voters. I'd argue that it's because the government, Tory MPs and the right-wing press have persuaded the public that it's important.
In reality, the 'small boats' issue doesn't impinge on the 'lived experience' of 99% of voters. Once something more important comes along, it could well disappear. Even Gary Lineker shoved 'small boats' out of the news for a few days.
Polls demonstrate that the boats thing simply isn't important to voters. Its VERY important to a small minority, and they just happen to be the remaining target voters the Tories are pursuing.
Everyone else? No, its education, the NHS, jobs, the economy. And the increasing disrepute that politics has been brought to.
The illegal illegal migration bill is written in crayon, a Tory campaign slogan written into an unapplicable law. It won't and can't achieve any of its supposed aims because its true aim is to stick it to Labour.
But even this is flawed reasoning, because the majority of reasoning voters simply don't rate this as *the* issue, and get deeply pissed off when shouty / stupid Tories tell them that actually they do rate it actually.
This reply to a Matthew Goodwin tweet shows why people should never comment on things they don't understand. The person replying makes a totally nonsensical point about what would happen if the poll were conducted in different parts of the country.
There is a bit of a paradox here, why would Goodwin have a twitter account in the first place if people weren't allowed to comment on things they don't understand?
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
I think if the money is right plenty of countries will bite our hands off tbh.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not allowing the deportation of people due to be deported being provided with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.*
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
O/T I watched the last 2 episodes of the engaging Netflix documentary on MH370 last night. Well worth the watch as it's a reminder of just how weird the whole affair was.
It got me thinking about the newish but rapidly growing concept of "Anglo Saxons" and how it is fast becoming a new reference point in the world of conspiracy theories.
The official account of what happened to the plane is the long solo suicide flight into the South Indian Ocean, supported by some Inmarsat pings. One of the alternative theories was espoused by a Le Monde journalist and loudly reinforced by one of the victims' family members, also French. It essentially says that US forces shot down the plane in the South China Sea to prevent some highly valuable military-technical kit getting to Beijing, then staged an elaborate cover up. There are enough gaps in the official account and pieces of anecdotal evidence to give this theory at least some credibility, though it still requires a few very large leaps of imagination.
But the interesting thing is the coverup narrative. The theory purports that the US did the shoot down, then worked with the Australians (who had an airforce base on the officially confirmed flight path that apparently never spotted the plane, and then led the search for wreckage in the ocean) and les Anglais. It was an AUKUS cover-up. The bereaved father notes that an American adventurer who went searching for the wreckage in Mozambique magically discovered some with "all the Anglo Saxon media" present.
Recently the Russians have repeatedly accused "Anglo Saxons" of staging or coordinating attacks such as the Nordstream explosion and the Kerch Bridge bomb. Leading of course to humorous cartoon Bayeux Tapestry spoofs.
I think Anglo Saxon is now entrenched and here to stay. It has been part of French discourse on cultural imperialism for years. but seem to have been picked up as a hook by Russia and from there is finding its way into the troll farms and conspiracy world.
It shares some features with the illuminati / global elite / Soros / Israel/Jews ideas in the sense it suggests both a powerful cabal keeping secrets from the rest of the world, and also a nation at the centre (the UK / the "English") that pretends to be weak or small but actually acts as puppet master to the hegemon (the US), acting alongside a couple of willing Henchmen (Canada & Australia). It has deepish roots. An evolution of the Perfide Albion idea and Iran's great Satan / crafty fox theory. I think Brexit gives it a boost in Europe too because it has made us more "other". We are more visibly different, somewhat more mysterious and therefore more worthy of suspicion than before. The AUKUS deal helps this too.
If they've not already deployed it I expect some more Chinese noise about Anglo Saxons soon too, and loads of it on international Twitter.
The base will love it. RDS knows exactly what he's doing.
That part of 'the base' might well stick with Trump. So far the mini me hasn't yet managed to differentiate himself much. And every move in a Trumpite direction makes him look less like the grownup alternative.
Having said that, having Florida in the bag gives him a chance. It would be amusing if it comes down to solidly Democratic California to choose which arse cheek gets the nomination.
I assume his pitch is that he is like Trump in every important way except he's got a better chance of winning.
Not sure though how he makes that case when most of them believe Trump won last time and only lost due to fraud.
Former Vice President and candidate for the GOP nomination next year Mike Pence meanwhile has attacked 'apologists for Putin' within the GOP.
Drawing clear blue water between himself and Trump and DeSantis on the issue.
In the speech Pence also criticised the Biden administration for being too slow to provide aid to Ukraine
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
You keep saying that but it’s not true. My door knocking (I’ve reluctantly agreed to help you it as a new Co-Op member our Labour allies) takes place in Ashford, literally 10-15 miles from where the migrants come ashore. Kent County Council bears the brunt of caring for them. You guys are in for an absolute shellacking on the FRONT LINE of the migrant crisis. You have no idea of the anger towards the Tory party here in Kent. If you’re not persuading people with day to day experience of the issue then you’ve not got a hope.
And if President Trump or Desantis pulled back they'd do what exactly? 1-2 of them would directly criticise and maybe 5 would say they were disappointed.
Exactly. For the sake of Ukraine, Europe and the world we need the Democrats to win next year's Presidential election.
Which is bitterly disappointing, that the party of Reagan would have debased itself so much with those two individuals and those who appease them.
RDS is trying to play up to the base. In reality, neither he nor Trump would pull back on Ukraine (and certainly not Trump who - believe it or not - tends to generally take the advice from his military).
The chancellor also needs to heavily rebuke companies engaged on greedflation and announce a series of measures including breaking them up if they don't start passing savings onto consumers. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, if petrol forecourts had honest pricing that a proper functioning market would have rather than one dominated by 2 or 3 big players the pump price would be ~11p per litre lower than today for unleaded and diesel.
We've allowed industry consolidation to go too far and consumers are being ripped off. The chancellor must address this in today's budget either with punitive taxes on those companies or the threat of break up.
If my wife was awake she would be able to tell me the current price at Hawes (community ran not for profit petrol station that does hsave the rural tax discount but that really only reflects the extra delivery costs).
Think its £1.45 a litre of diesel though so that shows the profits being made...
I paid £1.53 at Costco yesterday which is generally close to a true price.
My wife corrected me she paid £1.53 yesterday.
So there is a difference of 11-14p where a town has little competition with no independent station.
It seems to vary so much by locality. Our local garages charge £165.9 for diesel. 10 miles south, it is 10p cheaper. 10 miles north it is even dearer..
Fairlie, I paid 152.9 in Sainsbury's the other day local Morrisons was still at 162.9 though. Maybe jsut waiting on new delivery before they reduce , seems mix at those prices which is unusual
Before I left for the IOW. The cheapest diesel fuel locally was shoreham Tesco at 164.9. Its been that price for some weeks. I think petrol is about 149.9
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
You keep saying that but it’s not true. My door knocking (I’ve reluctantly agreed to help you it as a new Co-Op member our Labour allies) takes place in Ashford, literally 10-15 miles from where the migrants come ashore. Kent County Council bears the brunt of caring for them. You guys are in for an absolute shellacking on the FRONT LINE of the migrant crisis. You have no idea of the anger towards the Tory party here in Kent. If you’re not persuading people with day to day experience of the issue then you’ve not got a hope.
The Illegal Migration Bill only passed its second reading on Monday and Labour voted against it
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Wow. Who's this Jonathan Gullis guy, who asserted that Gary Lineker called northerners 'racist bigots' and 'Nazis'? The British Right seems to be in a state of sheer, unadulterated panic.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
I think if the money is right plenty of countries will bite our hands off tbh.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not providing people due to be deported with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
Can you read what I said? If other countries would bite our hands off why are other countries not queuing up to make us an offer. Rwanda is a terrible “arrangement” for us. It’s an unenforceable handshake deal. They can pull out when they like and will do when it becomes politically expedient. The Conservatives have not agreed anything. It’s not a treaty, it’s a headline. The Rwandans have no incentive to keep to it. Rwanda won’t take anyone because they played the Tories for fools. It’s nothing to do with the courts but they’ll get blamed.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
I just go back to my journalism training all those years ago. Who what when where why how. Is it possible that his wife was lying? Yes. Is it possible that the journalist misquoted her, or made it up? Yes. But when you then look at what has happened afterwards those possibilities just fall away.
No defence or denial has been made. Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends". Over a long period of time. It is established fact whether you are satisfied with how we got here or not.
Once again I wonder what the point is you are making? That we shouldn't smear a man in this way? But the man himself doesn't claim its a smear, or at least offers zero rebuttal or defence or denial of the supposed smear.
Lordy. So there's the book, and newspaper claims.
You know what? If someone made a false claim about me in a book, I probably wouldn't sue, even if I was 100% sure it was untrue. Why? Because if they're lying enough to make the claim, they could lie in court. And it would be massively costly, perhaps even if I won. I might not even make a denial, as that might just give the claim the oxygen of publicity. It would depend on the type of claim and impact it had.
"Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends"."
Again, where is this evidence, aside from it being reported in a newspaper as existing?
It may have happened. It may not have happened. If it happened, it may have had a different slant on it to the one you give. There are many possibilities. But you *know*. Because you had 'journalism training'. (Which actually explains a lot, none of it good... )
I also refer you to Lord McAlpine, where serious allegations where whispered behind hid back for decades, and which were proved to be false.
The evidence comes from the alleged victim’s own testimony. If a defendant in a defamation claim raises truth as a defence the burden of proof shifts to them, on the balance of probabilities, to show that the accusation was justified. Crudely that means that the defendant has to show that it was more than 50% likely that such an assault happened. The defence could call the alleged victim who is on record as follows -
‘“ In the book, The Gambler, author Tom Bower describes Stanley's marriage to Boris Johnson's mum Charlotte as violent and unhappy.
She told the author: "He broke my nose. He made me feel like I deserved it."
So the defendant would call the ex-wife and possibly the other witnesses as to the veracity of the statement. They may rely on medical records. They would also make much of the fact that Johnson did not comment on the allegations when made.
All in all, and I fully accept that my media litigation practice consists of having done it at law school and spent six months of my training contract assisting such cases, I think there’s enough evidence in the public domain alone for a successful defence to a defamation claim to be made out. I also think that there would, on today’s rules in England, be enough evidence to charge him with assault and battery, possibly ABH, with or without the ex-wife’s help.
Edit: pointless arguing about this: you have made your mind up based on a book that wanted sales.
Wow. Who's this Jonathan Gullis guy, who asserted that Gary Lineker called northerners 'racist bigots' and 'Nazis'? The British Right seems to be in a state of sheer, unadulterated panic.
Imagine, if you will, Lee Anderson without the political nous.
The chancellor also needs to heavily rebuke companies engaged on greedflation and announce a series of measures including breaking them up if they don't start passing savings onto consumers. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, if petrol forecourts had honest pricing that a proper functioning market would have rather than one dominated by 2 or 3 big players the pump price would be ~11p per litre lower than today for unleaded and diesel.
We've allowed industry consolidation to go too far and consumers are being ripped off. The chancellor must address this in today's budget either with punitive taxes on those companies or the threat of break up.
If my wife was awake she would be able to tell me the current price at Hawes (community ran not for profit petrol station that does hsave the rural tax discount but that really only reflects the extra delivery costs).
Think its £1.45 a litre of diesel though so that shows the profits being made...
I paid £1.53 at Costco yesterday which is generally close to a true price.
My wife corrected me she paid £1.53 yesterday.
So there is a difference of 11-14p where a town has little competition with no independent station.
It seems to vary so much by locality. Our local garages charge £165.9 for diesel. 10 miles south, it is 10p cheaper. 10 miles north it is even dearer..
Fairlie, I paid 152.9 in Sainsbury's the other day local Morrisons was still at 162.9 though. Maybe jsut waiting on new delivery before they reduce , seems mix at those prices which is unusual
Before I left for the IOW. The cheapest diesel fuel locally was shoreham Tesco at 164.9. Its been that price for some weeks. I think petrol is about 149.9
The big scandal of course is thst diesel drivers are being seriously ripped off.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
You keep saying that but it’s not true. My door knocking (I’ve reluctantly agreed to help you it as a new Co-Op member our Labour allies) takes place in Ashford, literally 10-15 miles from where the migrants come ashore. Kent County Council bears the brunt of caring for them. You guys are in for an absolute shellacking on the FRONT LINE of the migrant crisis. You have no idea of the anger towards the Tory party here in Kent. If you’re not persuading people with day to day experience of the issue then you’ve not got a hope.
The Illegal Migration Bill only passed its second reading on Monday
The anger towards the Tories has little to do with migration. It comes up a lot but there’s no sign of “lefty lawyers” being blamed. Based on my newby doorstep reading you’re losing on the frontline of the migrant crisis for nothing to do with immigration. The anger about so many issues is palpable.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
I just go back to my journalism training all those years ago. Who what when where why how. Is it possible that his wife was lying? Yes. Is it possible that the journalist misquoted her, or made it up? Yes. But when you then look at what has happened afterwards those possibilities just fall away.
No defence or denial has been made. Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends". Over a long period of time. It is established fact whether you are satisfied with how we got here or not.
Once again I wonder what the point is you are making? That we shouldn't smear a man in this way? But the man himself doesn't claim its a smear, or at least offers zero rebuttal or defence or denial of the supposed smear.
Lordy. So there's the book, and newspaper claims.
You know what? If someone made a false claim about me in a book, I probably wouldn't sue, even if I was 100% sure it was untrue. Why? Because if they're lying enough to make the claim, they could lie in court. And it would be massively costly, perhaps even if I won. I might not even make a denial, as that might just give the claim the oxygen of publicity. It would depend on the type of claim and impact it had.
"Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends"."
Again, where is this evidence, aside from it being reported in a newspaper as existing?
It may have happened. It may not have happened. If it happened, it may have had a different slant on it to the one you give. There are many possibilities. But you *know*. Because you had 'journalism training'. (Which actually explains a lot, none of it good... )
I also refer you to Lord McAlpine, where serious allegations where whispered behind hid back for decades, and which were proved to be false.
The evidence comes from the alleged victim’s own testimony. If a defendant in a defamation claim raises truth as a defence the burden of proof shifts to them, on the balance of probabilities, to show that the accusation was justified. Crudely that means that the defendant has to show that it was more than 50% likely that such an assault happened. The defence could call the alleged victim who is on record as follows -
‘“ In the book, The Gambler, author Tom Bower describes Stanley's marriage to Boris Johnson's mum Charlotte as violent and unhappy.
She told the author: "He broke my nose. He made me feel like I deserved it."
So the defendant would call the ex-wife and possibly the other witnesses as to the veracity of the statement. They may rely on medical records. They would also make much of the fact that Johnson did not comment on the allegations when made.
All in all, and I fully accept that my media litigation practice consists of having done it at law school and spent six months of my training contract assisting such cases, I think there’s enough evidence in the public domain alone for a successful defence to a defamation claim to be made out. I also think that there would, on today’s rules in England, be enough evidence to charge him with assault and battery, possibly ABH, with or without the ex-wife’s help.
Edit: pointless arguing about this: you have made your mind up based on a book that wanted sales.
You don’t believe the evidence of the victim? That’s extremely low. I’ve base my understanding on the evidence of a domestic violence victim. Something that you appear to say doesn’t count. Tories really are the pits.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
I think if the money is right plenty of countries will bite our hands off tbh.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not providing people due to be deported with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
Can you read what I said? If other countries would bite our hands off why are other countries not queuing up to make us an offer. Rwanda is a terrible “arrangement” for us. It’s an unenforceable handshake deal. They can pull out when they like and will do when it becomes politically expedient. The Conservatives have not agreed anything. It’s not a treaty, it’s a headline. The Rwandans have no incentive to keep to it. Rwanda won’t take anyone because they played the Tories for fools. It’s nothing to do with the courts but they’ll get blamed.
At the moment Rwanda hasn't taken anyone due to UK court rulings. Agreements with France and I think Albania will be sucking up negotiating time. Once we've got deals with those countries, and a plane actually leaves for Rwanda I think other deals with third countries can then think about happening.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
You keep saying that but it’s not true. My door knocking (I’ve reluctantly agreed to help you it as a new Co-Op member our Labour allies) takes place in Ashford, literally 10-15 miles from where the migrants come ashore. Kent County Council bears the brunt of caring for them. You guys are in for an absolute shellacking on the FRONT LINE of the migrant crisis. You have no idea of the anger towards the Tory party here in Kent. If you’re not persuading people with day to day experience of the issue then you’ve not got a hope.
The Illegal Migration Bill only passed its second reading on Monday
The anger towards the Tories has little to do with migration. It comes up a lot but there’s no sign of “lefty lawyers” being blamed. Based on my newby doorstep reading you’re losing on the frontline of the migrant crisis for nothing to do with immigration. The anger about so many issues is palpable.
I recall in 1997 there was a lot of positive noise about people on the doorstep being friendly to Tory canvassers. They had already made their minds up so there was no need to argue with conservatives. But I also expect that views are very spotty across the country.
Mr. Seal, without commenting on the specific allegation, 'the evidence of the victim' presupposes one side is telling the truth, and that an allegation is proof of guilt (as, otherwise, the victimhood or not of the accuser is a matter of dispute).
On the knighthood, it's unacceptable and ridiculous. Or a typical Boris Johnson decision, in other words.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
What marginal tax rate does someone on £98k now face if offered a payrise, if they have pre-school age children?
I don't know. Severe, I suspect.
I will wait to see the precise announcements later.
Incidentally, I also don't like the UC taper (also too high) and think young people are taxed too highly for student loans.
It's all about incentivising work and aspiration.
The main objective of the current system is to keep the headline tax rates as low as possible. This means we get all of this additional complexity - child benefit clawback, personal allowance tapering, means-testing childcare, inventing new taxes (such as the graduate tax and the NHS tax), pension allowance tapering - in an attempt to raise more money without having to increase the numerical rate of income tax.
It's why Kwarteng proposed cutting the highest rate of tax from 45% to 40%, instead of dealing with the personal allowance taper. It's incredibly infantile.
But, whilst most of us on here could agree with getting rid of all the ridiculous tapers, in return for increasing the rates of tax - so that broadly speaking the same amount of tax was raised from the same people - doing so would be politically very courageous.
We will know that British politics has grown up when a government does it anyway, and manages to win the public debate on it being a sensible simplification rather than, "a massive tax grab from the middle class!" (Daily Mail), or, "a huge tax cut giveaway to the rich!" (Guardian).
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Because, given the attitude we've seen on here, people will ill-intent would not believe the denial, and it would just give the claims oxygen. In addition, the claims - and denials - just hurt the family.
I don't know what happened, or if anything did, but it's hilarious seeing so much certainty over it by people who should know better.
Would you have sued an ex-wife (*) (and mother of your kids) over something like this? Or would you and the kids just prefer for it to pass?
And if President Trump or Desantis pulled back they'd do what exactly? 1-2 of them would directly criticise and maybe 5 would say they were disappointed.
Exactly. For the sake of Ukraine, Europe and the world we need the Democrats to win next year's Presidential election.
Which is bitterly disappointing, that the party of Reagan would have debased itself so much with those two individuals and those who appease them.
RDS is trying to play up to the base. In reality, neither he nor Trump would pull back on Ukraine (and certainly not Trump who - believe it or not - tends to generally take the advice from his military).
Note that Senators Budd and Tuberville, who have just come out in favour of supplying F16s to Ukraine, are full on MAGA, and joined in attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
You keep saying that but it’s not true. My door knocking (I’ve reluctantly agreed to help you it as a new Co-Op member our Labour allies) takes place in Ashford, literally 10-15 miles from where the migrants come ashore. Kent County Council bears the brunt of caring for them. You guys are in for an absolute shellacking on the FRONT LINE of the migrant crisis. You have no idea of the anger towards the Tory party here in Kent. If you’re not persuading people with day to day experience of the issue then you’ve not got a hope.
The Illegal Migration Bill only passed its second reading on Monday
The anger towards the Tories has little to do with migration. It comes up a lot but there’s no sign of “lefty lawyers” being blamed. Based on my newby doorstep reading you’re losing on the frontline of the migrant crisis for nothing to do with immigration. The anger about so many issues is palpable.
I recall in 1997 there was a lot of positive noise about people on the doorstep being friendly to Tory canvassers. They had already made their minds up so there was no need to argue with conservatives. But I also expect that views are very spotty across the country.
I don't think Tories realise how vehement the anger towards them amongst ordinary people is. If they're hoping that small boats anger will get them over the line then they should be doing much much better in rock solid Tory Kent at the moment than they actually are.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
But we can't attack the rich and privileged Tory! It's unfair! And so often when people go after truth - Zahawi's taxes as an example - the privileged hide behind their riches and threaten litigation.
I anticipate that the next government will dig deeply into the corruption cesspool which was the PPE procurement scandal. No more hiding.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
I just go back to my journalism training all those years ago. Who what when where why how. Is it possible that his wife was lying? Yes. Is it possible that the journalist misquoted her, or made it up? Yes. But when you then look at what has happened afterwards those possibilities just fall away.
No defence or denial has been made. Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends". Over a long period of time. It is established fact whether you are satisfied with how we got here or not.
Once again I wonder what the point is you are making? That we shouldn't smear a man in this way? But the man himself doesn't claim its a smear, or at least offers zero rebuttal or defence or denial of the supposed smear.
Lordy. So there's the book, and newspaper claims.
You know what? If someone made a false claim about me in a book, I probably wouldn't sue, even if I was 100% sure it was untrue. Why? Because if they're lying enough to make the claim, they could lie in court. And it would be massively costly, perhaps even if I won. I might not even make a denial, as that might just give the claim the oxygen of publicity. It would depend on the type of claim and impact it had.
"Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends"."
Again, where is this evidence, aside from it being reported in a newspaper as existing?
It may have happened. It may not have happened. If it happened, it may have had a different slant on it to the one you give. There are many possibilities. But you *know*. Because you had 'journalism training'. (Which actually explains a lot, none of it good... )
I also refer you to Lord McAlpine, where serious allegations where whispered behind hid back for decades, and which were proved to be false.
The evidence comes from the alleged victim’s own testimony. If a defendant in a defamation claim raises truth as a defence the burden of proof shifts to them, on the balance of probabilities, to show that the accusation was justified. Crudely that means that the defendant has to show that it was more than 50% likely that such an assault happened. The defence could call the alleged victim who is on record as follows -
‘“ In the book, The Gambler, author Tom Bower describes Stanley's marriage to Boris Johnson's mum Charlotte as violent and unhappy.
She told the author: "He broke my nose. He made me feel like I deserved it."
So the defendant would call the ex-wife and possibly the other witnesses as to the veracity of the statement. They may rely on medical records. They would also make much of the fact that Johnson did not comment on the allegations when made.
All in all, and I fully accept that my media litigation practice consists of having done it at law school and spent six months of my training contract assisting such cases, I think there’s enough evidence in the public domain alone for a successful defence to a defamation claim to be made out. I also think that there would, on today’s rules in England, be enough evidence to charge him with assault and battery, possibly ABH, with or without the ex-wife’s help.
Edit: pointless arguing about this: you have made your mind up based on a book that wanted sales.
You don’t believe the evidence of the victim? That’s extremely low. I’ve base my understanding on the evidence of a domestic violence victim. Something that you appear to say doesn’t count. Tories really are the pits.
What "evidence of the victim"? It's a claim made in a book; a book that would have wanted sales.
Next you'll be saying that Cameron really did do something with a pig.
The new build F-16 pipeline has 148 aircraft in it for Bahrain, Slovakia, Bulgaria, the breakaway province of China and Jordan. If the Türkiye FMS gets through Congress (this is a part of the Danegeld for getting Sweden into NATO) then the queue becomes 188 long. New F-16s aren't an option for Ukraine unless the US wants to fuck over one of the above - which isn't completely out of the question.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
I think if the money is right plenty of countries will bite our hands off tbh.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not providing people due to be deported with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
Can you read what I said? If other countries would bite our hands off why are other countries not queuing up to make us an offer. Rwanda is a terrible “arrangement” for us. It’s an unenforceable handshake deal. They can pull out when they like and will do when it becomes politically expedient. The Conservatives have not agreed anything. It’s not a treaty, it’s a headline. The Rwandans have no incentive to keep to it. Rwanda won’t take anyone because they played the Tories for fools. It’s nothing to do with the courts but they’ll get blamed.
At the moment Rwanda hasn't taken anyone due to UK court rulings. Agreements with France and I think Albania will be sucking up negotiating time. Once we've got deals with those countries, and a plane actually leaves for Rwanda I think other deals with third countries can then think about happening.
Rwanda say they can take c. 200 people. That's it. And the more that Tories talk up the Rwanda solution as being the dumping ground for thousands of people, the sillier it gets.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
But we can't attack the rich and privileged Tory! It's unfair!
(Snip).
Fairness should be irrelevant of someone's wealth, status or political allegiance.
The new build F-16 pipeline has 148 aircraft in it for Bahrain, Slovakia, Bulgaria, the breakaway province of China and Jordan. If the Türkiye FMS gets through Congress (this is a part of the Danegeld for getting Sweden into NATO) then the queue becomes 188 long. New F-16s aren't an option for Ukraine unless the US wants to fuck over one of the above - which isn't completely out of the question.
That's not really the point, though is it ? It's rather about NATO allies willingness to supply any fighter jets - which is very much contingent on US agreement.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Because, given the attitude we've seen on here, people will ill-intent would not believe the denial, and it would just give the claims oxygen. In addition, the claims - and denials - just hurt the family.
I don't know what happened, or if anything did, but it's hilarious seeing so much certainty over it by people who should know better.
Would you have sued an ex-wife (*) (and mother of your kids) over something like this? Or would you and the kids just prefer for it to pass?
(*) If you had one?
Does that seriously sound in character for Stanley Johnson to you? I am really not sure why you have chosen to bend over backwards to defend him. There are better causes out there!
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
I just go back to my journalism training all those years ago. Who what when where why how. Is it possible that his wife was lying? Yes. Is it possible that the journalist misquoted her, or made it up? Yes. But when you then look at what has happened afterwards those possibilities just fall away.
No defence or denial has been made. Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends". Over a long period of time. It is established fact whether you are satisfied with how we got here or not.
Once again I wonder what the point is you are making? That we shouldn't smear a man in this way? But the man himself doesn't claim its a smear, or at least offers zero rebuttal or defence or denial of the supposed smear.
Lordy. So there's the book, and newspaper claims.
You know what? If someone made a false claim about me in a book, I probably wouldn't sue, even if I was 100% sure it was untrue. Why? Because if they're lying enough to make the claim, they could lie in court. And it would be massively costly, perhaps even if I won. I might not even make a denial, as that might just give the claim the oxygen of publicity. It would depend on the type of claim and impact it had.
"Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends"."
Again, where is this evidence, aside from it being reported in a newspaper as existing?
It may have happened. It may not have happened. If it happened, it may have had a different slant on it to the one you give. There are many possibilities. But you *know*. Because you had 'journalism training'. (Which actually explains a lot, none of it good... )
I also refer you to Lord McAlpine, where serious allegations where whispered behind hid back for decades, and which were proved to be false.
The evidence comes from the alleged victim’s own testimony. If a defendant in a defamation claim raises truth as a defence the burden of proof shifts to them, on the balance of probabilities, to show that the accusation was justified. Crudely that means that the defendant has to show that it was more than 50% likely that such an assault happened. The defence could call the alleged victim who is on record as follows -
‘“ In the book, The Gambler, author Tom Bower describes Stanley's marriage to Boris Johnson's mum Charlotte as violent and unhappy.
She told the author: "He broke my nose. He made me feel like I deserved it."
So the defendant would call the ex-wife and possibly the other witnesses as to the veracity of the statement. They may rely on medical records. They would also make much of the fact that Johnson did not comment on the allegations when made.
All in all, and I fully accept that my media litigation practice consists of having done it at law school and spent six months of my training contract assisting such cases, I think there’s enough evidence in the public domain alone for a successful defence to a defamation claim to be made out. I also think that there would, on today’s rules in England, be enough evidence to charge him with assault and battery, possibly ABH, with or without the ex-wife’s help.
Edit: pointless arguing about this: you have made your mind up based on a book that wanted sales.
You don’t believe the evidence of the victim? That’s extremely low. I’ve base my understanding on the evidence of a domestic violence victim. Something that you appear to say doesn’t count. Tories really are the pits.
What "evidence of the victim"? It's a claim made in a book; a book that would have wanted sales.
Next you'll be saying that Cameron really did do something with a pig.
And I am not a Tory (tm).
It is a regularly repeated, and clear allegation - which to date has not been denied (unlike the Cameron story). Clearly that is in no way legally conclusive, but it is evidence of a sort.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Because, given the attitude we've seen on here, people will ill-intent would not believe the denial, and it would just give the claims oxygen. In addition, the claims - and denials - just hurt the family.
I don't know what happened, or if anything did, but it's hilarious seeing so much certainty over it by people who should know better.
Would you have sued an ex-wife (*) (and mother of your kids) over something like this? Or would you and the kids just prefer for it to pass?
(*) If you had one?
He would sue *people* and *media outlets* for defamation. Not his ex-wife. The defendants would cite her as their evidence, that would be her role.
But again again again - this is established truth. Nobody denies that he broke his wife's nose and put her in hospital. Nobody. Instead we have plenty of voices confirming he put her in hospital, but "only once".
So why on earth are you fighting on this particular hill to defend a man who isn't defending himself over something that he objectively did? Because of who he is and what he represents? Or do you have another more lofty motivation which you oddly only deploy in defence of certain key Tory figures?
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
You keep saying that but it’s not true. My door knocking (I’ve reluctantly agreed to help you it as a new Co-Op member our Labour allies) takes place in Ashford, literally 10-15 miles from where the migrants come ashore. Kent County Council bears the brunt of caring for them. You guys are in for an absolute shellacking on the FRONT LINE of the migrant crisis. You have no idea of the anger towards the Tory party here in Kent. If you’re not persuading people with day to day experience of the issue then you’ve not got a hope.
The Illegal Migration Bill only passed its second reading on Monday
The anger towards the Tories has little to do with migration. It comes up a lot but there’s no sign of “lefty lawyers” being blamed. Based on my newby doorstep reading you’re losing on the frontline of the migrant crisis for nothing to do with immigration. The anger about so many issues is palpable.
I recall in 1997 there was a lot of positive noise about people on the doorstep being friendly to Tory canvassers. They had already made their minds up so there was no need to argue with conservatives. But I also expect that views are very spotty across the country.
I don't think Tories realise how vehement the anger towards them amongst ordinary people is. If they're hoping that small boats anger will get them over the line then they should be doing much much better in rock solid Tory Kent at the moment than they actually are.
I wonder if the efficiency of modern canvassing is part of the issue here. It's mostly on the phone, and it's mostly of known/possible supporters. Makes sense when the aim is to get out the vote, but it can lead to a bad case of bubble think. Especially for issues as polarising as how to stop the boats.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Because, given the attitude we've seen on here, people will ill-intent would not believe the denial, and it would just give the claims oxygen. In addition, the claims - and denials - just hurt the family.
I don't know what happened, or if anything did, but it's hilarious seeing so much certainty over it by people who should know better.
Would you have sued an ex-wife (*) (and mother of your kids) over something like this? Or would you and the kids just prefer for it to pass?
(*) If you had one?
He would sue *people* and *media outlets* for defamation. Not his ex-wife. The defendants would cite her as their evidence, that would be her role.
But again again again - this is established truth. Nobody denies that he broke his wife's nose and put her in hospital. Nobody. Instead we have plenty of voices confirming he put her in hospital, but "only once".
(Snip)
Please move on.
"But again again again - this is established truth. "
I can tell you did journalistic training, as you've got a weird definition of 'truth'. The only truth is that claim was made in a book
Why are you so convinced he's guilty, based on little evidence? Your previous post indicates an answer: he's a Tory.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
You keep saying that but it’s not true. My door knocking (I’ve reluctantly agreed to help you it as a new Co-Op member our Labour allies) takes place in Ashford, literally 10-15 miles from where the migrants come ashore. Kent County Council bears the brunt of caring for them. You guys are in for an absolute shellacking on the FRONT LINE of the migrant crisis. You have no idea of the anger towards the Tory party here in Kent. If you’re not persuading people with day to day experience of the issue then you’ve not got a hope.
The Illegal Migration Bill only passed its second reading on Monday
The anger towards the Tories has little to do with migration. It comes up a lot but there’s no sign of “lefty lawyers” being blamed. Based on my newby doorstep reading you’re losing on the frontline of the migrant crisis for nothing to do with immigration. The anger about so many issues is palpable.
I recall in 1997 there was a lot of positive noise about people on the doorstep being friendly to Tory canvassers. They had already made their minds up so there was no need to argue with conservatives. But I also expect that views are very spotty across the country.
I don't think Tories realise how vehement the anger towards them amongst ordinary people is. If they're hoping that small boats anger will get them over the line then they should be doing much much better in rock solid Tory Kent at the moment than they actually are.
Kent isn't 'rock solid' Tory like most of the Home counties. East Kent in particular is full of marginal seats like Thanet, Dover, Dartford, Rochester, Gravesend, Sittingbourne and Sheppy etc that Blair won.
Thatcher even lost her first parliamentary elections in Dartford in 1950 and 1951 before moving to Finchley which she won in 1959. If Labour are to form the next government they should be winning seats in Kent and not just student heavy Canterbury
The new build F-16 pipeline has 148 aircraft in it for Bahrain, Slovakia, Bulgaria, the breakaway province of China and Jordan. If the Türkiye FMS gets through Congress (this is a part of the Danegeld for getting Sweden into NATO) then the queue becomes 188 long. New F-16s aren't an option for Ukraine unless the US wants to fuck over one of the above - which isn't completely out of the question.
That's not really the point, though is it ? It's rather about NATO allies willingness to supply any fighter jets - which is very much contingent on US agreement.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
But we can't attack the rich and privileged Tory! It's unfair!
(Snip).
Fairness should be irrelevant of someone's wealth, status or political allegiance.
But I guess you don't believe that,
Please. Fairness has *never* been irrelevant of someone's wealth, status or political allegiance. It should be, but isn't. So instead of journalists being able to pursue evidence of what is happening with the tax affairs of rich politicians, said politicians seeks to not only litigate but also smear the investigation as a political attack.
You're now portraying the wife-beater as the victim. Really? Please stop. The are far more relevant things to debate than this old story. SJ beating his wife is not news. Fiona Bruce seemingly being forced to defend him by her bosses is the story. It ties in rather neatly with the breaking story overnight of leaked BBC bosses instructions to hacks to do what Downing Street tell them. Complete then with the evidence of said instructions being followed through.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
I think if the money is right plenty of countries will bite our hands off tbh.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not providing people due to be deported with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
Can you read what I said? If other countries would bite our hands off why are other countries not queuing up to make us an offer. Rwanda is a terrible “arrangement” for us. It’s an unenforceable handshake deal. They can pull out when they like and will do when it becomes politically expedient. The Conservatives have not agreed anything. It’s not a treaty, it’s a headline. The Rwandans have no incentive to keep to it. Rwanda won’t take anyone because they played the Tories for fools. It’s nothing to do with the courts but they’ll get blamed.
At the moment Rwanda hasn't taken anyone due to UK court rulings. Agreements with France and I think Albania will be sucking up negotiating time. Once we've got deals with those countries, and a plane actually leaves for Rwanda I think other deals with third countries can then think about happening.
Rwanda say they can take c. 200 people. That's it. And the more that Tories talk up the Rwanda solution as being the dumping ground for thousands of people, the sillier it gets.
Good morning
You do reference Rwanda scheme as limited to 200 but that does not seem to be accurate
Apparently it is 1,000 initially and to be expanded as per this BBC report
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Because, given the attitude we've seen on here, people will ill-intent would not believe the denial, and it would just give the claims oxygen. In addition, the claims - and denials - just hurt the family.
I don't know what happened, or if anything did, but it's hilarious seeing so much certainty over it by people who should know better.
Would you have sued an ex-wife (*) (and mother of your kids) over something like this? Or would you and the kids just prefer for it to pass?
(*) If you had one?
Does that seriously sound in character for Stanley Johnson to you? I am really not sure why you have chosen to bend over backwards to defend him. There are better causes out there!
Let me put it another way: why are people bending over backwards to believe it? RP gives the answer: it's because of who he is.
I look forward to you creating a list of people worthy of defence.
As for 'in character' (and I don't know the answer to this): does Stanley Johnson sue people? Does he have a track record in the courts>
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
I don't think any of the critics of the policy have said it is an electoral niche issue?
The criticisms I've heard (and made) tend to be ineffective, illegal, underresourced and dehumanising, with different posters picking and mixing from that list.
I think it is a vote winner for the Tories despite agreeing with all the criticisms.
Exactly. I don't like it even if it works, but I think its popular enough.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
You keep saying that but it’s not true. My door knocking (I’ve reluctantly agreed to help you it as a new Co-Op member our Labour allies) takes place in Ashford, literally 10-15 miles from where the migrants come ashore. Kent County Council bears the brunt of caring for them. You guys are in for an absolute shellacking on the FRONT LINE of the migrant crisis. You have no idea of the anger towards the Tory party here in Kent. If you’re not persuading people with day to day experience of the issue then you’ve not got a hope.
The Illegal Migration Bill only passed its second reading on Monday
The anger towards the Tories has little to do with migration. It comes up a lot but there’s no sign of “lefty lawyers” being blamed. Based on my newby doorstep reading you’re losing on the frontline of the migrant crisis for nothing to do with immigration. The anger about so many issues is palpable.
I recall in 1997 there was a lot of positive noise about people on the doorstep being friendly to Tory canvassers. They had already made their minds up so there was no need to argue with conservatives. But I also expect that views are very spotty across the country.
I don't think Tories realise how vehement the anger towards them amongst ordinary people is. If they're hoping that small boats anger will get them over the line then they should be doing much much better in rock solid Tory Kent at the moment than they actually are.
Kent isn't 'rock solid' Tory like most of the Home counties. East Kent in particular is full of marginal seats like Thanet, Dover, Dartford, Rochester, Gravesend, Sittingbourne and Sheppy etc that Blair won.
Thatcher even lost her first parliamentary election in Dartford before moving to Finchley. If Labour are to form the next government they should be winning seats in Kent and not just student heavy Canterbury
It's been drifting Green in council elections, alongside neighbouring East Sussex. That may be a reaction to the ongoing water pollution stories. There are also interesting pockets of Lib Dem support including in the rural area of the North Downs South of Canterbury where my vineyard is based. The Covid outflow may be having an impact.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
I think if the money is right plenty of countries will bite our hands off tbh.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not providing people due to be deported with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
Can you read what I said? If other countries would bite our hands off why are other countries not queuing up to make us an offer. Rwanda is a terrible “arrangement” for us. It’s an unenforceable handshake deal. They can pull out when they like and will do when it becomes politically expedient. The Conservatives have not agreed anything. It’s not a treaty, it’s a headline. The Rwandans have no incentive to keep to it. Rwanda won’t take anyone because they played the Tories for fools. It’s nothing to do with the courts but they’ll get blamed.
At the moment Rwanda hasn't taken anyone due to UK court rulings. Agreements with France and I think Albania will be sucking up negotiating time. Once we've got deals with those countries, and a plane actually leaves for Rwanda I think other deals with third countries can then think about happening.
Rwanda say they can take c. 200 people. That's it. And the more that Tories talk up the Rwanda solution as being the dumping ground for thousands of people, the sillier it gets.
Good morning
You do reference Rwanda scheme as limited to 200 but that does not seem to be accurate
Apparently it is 1,000 initially and to be expanded as per this BBC report
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
You keep saying that but it’s not true. My door knocking (I’ve reluctantly agreed to help you it as a new Co-Op member our Labour allies) takes place in Ashford, literally 10-15 miles from where the migrants come ashore. Kent County Council bears the brunt of caring for them. You guys are in for an absolute shellacking on the FRONT LINE of the migrant crisis. You have no idea of the anger towards the Tory party here in Kent. If you’re not persuading people with day to day experience of the issue then you’ve not got a hope.
The Illegal Migration Bill only passed its second reading on Monday
The anger towards the Tories has little to do with migration. It comes up a lot but there’s no sign of “lefty lawyers” being blamed. Based on my newby doorstep reading you’re losing on the frontline of the migrant crisis for nothing to do with immigration. The anger about so many issues is palpable.
I recall in 1997 there was a lot of positive noise about people on the doorstep being friendly to Tory canvassers. They had already made their minds up so there was no need to argue with conservatives. But I also expect that views are very spotty across the country.
I don't think Tories realise how vehement the anger towards them amongst ordinary people is. If they're hoping that small boats anger will get them over the line then they should be doing much much better in rock solid Tory Kent at the moment than they actually are.
Kent isn't 'rock solid' Tory like most of the Home counties. East Kent in particular is full of marginal seats like Thanet, Dover, Dartford, Rochester, Gravesend, Sittingbourne and Sheppy etc that Blair won.
Thatcher even lost her first parliamentary election in Dartford before moving to Finchley. If Labour are to form the next government they should be winning seats in Kent and not just student heavy Canterbury
It's been drifting Green in council elections, alongside neighbouring East Sussex. That may be a reaction to the ongoing water pollution stories. There are also interesting pockets of Lib Dem support including in the rural area of the North Downs South of Canterbury where my vineyard is based. The Covid outflow may be having an impact.
Tunbridge Wells is a LD target seat and they control the council, they don't have much significant presence elsewhere.
The Greens might win the odd council seat but Labour remain the main challengers to the Conservatives in the county
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
But we can't attack the rich and privileged Tory! It's unfair!
(Snip).
Fairness should be irrelevant of someone's wealth, status or political allegiance.
But I guess you don't believe that,
Please. Fairness has *never* been irrelevant of someone's wealth, status or political allegiance. It should be, but isn't. So instead of journalists being able to pursue evidence of what is happening with the tax affairs of rich politicians, said politicians seeks to not only litigate but also smear the investigation as a political attack.
You're now portraying the wife-beater as the victim. Really? Please stop. The are far more relevant things to debate than this old story. SJ beating his wife is not news. Fiona Bruce seemingly being forced to defend him by her bosses is the story. It ties in rather neatly with the breaking story overnight of leaked BBC bosses instructions to hacks to do what Downing Street tell them. Complete then with the evidence of said instructions being followed through.
"Fairness has *never* been irrelevant of someone's wealth, status or political allegiance."
I know, and it should be irrelevant. Perhaps you should ponder that, given your comment.
I'm not portraying the (alleged) wife-beater as a victim. Please take your own advice and *stop*.
Oh, and here's a hint: (whispers softly): Tom Knox book's aren't real. There, I know you're amazed.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Because, given the attitude we've seen on here, people will ill-intent would not believe the denial, and it would just give the claims oxygen. In addition, the claims - and denials - just hurt the family.
I don't know what happened, or if anything did, but it's hilarious seeing so much certainty over it by people who should know better.
Would you have sued an ex-wife (*) (and mother of your kids) over something like this? Or would you and the kids just prefer for it to pass?
(*) If you had one?
He would sue *people* and *media outlets* for defamation. Not his ex-wife. The defendants would cite her as their evidence, that would be her role.
But again again again - this is established truth. Nobody denies that he broke his wife's nose and put her in hospital. Nobody. Instead we have plenty of voices confirming he put her in hospital, but "only once".
(Snip)
Please move on.
"But again again again - this is established truth. "
I can tell you did journalistic training, as you've got a weird definition of 'truth'. The only truth is that claim was made in a book
Why are you so convinced he's guilty, based on little evidence? Your previous post indicates an answer: he's a Tory.
So you consider my opinion as being "a Tory" being equitable to being a wife-beater? You're being silly now.
As for truth, we have on one side: Original claim Publication and reportage of original claim Corroborating evidence offered by friends in defence of why he did the thing in the original claim
And on the other side:
Is it possible that she made it up? Of course. Is it likely beyond the balance of probabilities? No. You do understand how things work in our society don't you? That even being convicted of something isn't the same as that something ever having actually happened?
Because I can show you evidence- videos, photographs, testimonies all showing x happening. And then produce other evidence showing how the supposedly self-evident fact is at best a distortion and at worst a deliberate lie put out as truth.
Corroboration, context, alternate perspectives are all key. And in this case the corroboration is there and the dissenting alternate perspectives are not.
It - beyond the balance of probability - happened.
I can do this all day if you want. In increasing bemusement as to why the non-Tory is so doggedly defending the Tory from the injustice of noted lefties like Fiona Bruce casually dismissing this as established fact that needs to be excused.
Actually, no, I won't do this all day long. Its entertaining, but only for so long.
And if President Trump or Desantis pulled back they'd do what exactly? 1-2 of them would directly criticise and maybe 5 would say they were disappointed.
Exactly. For the sake of Ukraine, Europe and the world we need the Democrats to win next year's Presidential election.
Which is bitterly disappointing, that the party of Reagan would have debased itself so much with those two individuals and those who appease them.
RDS is trying to play up to the base. In reality, neither he nor Trump would pull back on Ukraine (and certainly not Trump who - believe it or not - tends to generally take the advice from his military).
People should, no joke, assume politicians will act as they say they will. Loads of people assume they won't and get screwed. Too risky.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
I just go back to my journalism training all those years ago. Who what when where why how. Is it possible that his wife was lying? Yes. Is it possible that the journalist misquoted her, or made it up? Yes. But when you then look at what has happened afterwards those possibilities just fall away.
No defence or denial has been made. Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends". Over a long period of time. It is established fact whether you are satisfied with how we got here or not.
Once again I wonder what the point is you are making? That we shouldn't smear a man in this way? But the man himself doesn't claim its a smear, or at least offers zero rebuttal or defence or denial of the supposed smear.
Lordy. So there's the book, and newspaper claims.
You know what? If someone made a false claim about me in a book, I probably wouldn't sue, even if I was 100% sure it was untrue. Why? Because if they're lying enough to make the claim, they could lie in court. And it would be massively costly, perhaps even if I won. I might not even make a denial, as that might just give the claim the oxygen of publicity. It would depend on the type of claim and impact it had.
"Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends"."
Again, where is this evidence, aside from it being reported in a newspaper as existing?
It may have happened. It may not have happened. If it happened, it may have had a different slant on it to the one you give. There are many possibilities. But you *know*. Because you had 'journalism training'. (Which actually explains a lot, none of it good... )
I also refer you to Lord McAlpine, where serious allegations where whispered behind hid back for decades, and which were proved to be false.
The evidence comes from the alleged victim’s own testimony. If a defendant in a defamation claim raises truth as a defence the burden of proof shifts to them, on the balance of probabilities, to show that the accusation was justified. Crudely that means that the defendant has to show that it was more than 50% likely that such an assault happened. The defence could call the alleged victim who is on record as follows -
‘“ In the book, The Gambler, author Tom Bower describes Stanley's marriage to Boris Johnson's mum Charlotte as violent and unhappy.
She told the author: "He broke my nose. He made me feel like I deserved it."
So the defendant would call the ex-wife and possibly the other witnesses as to the veracity of the statement. They may rely on medical records. They would also make much of the fact that Johnson did not comment on the allegations when made.
All in all, and I fully accept that my media litigation practice consists of having done it at law school and spent six months of my training contract assisting such cases, I think there’s enough evidence in the public domain alone for a successful defence to a defamation claim to be made out. I also think that there would, on today’s rules in England, be enough evidence to charge him with assault and battery, possibly ABH, with or without the ex-wife’s help.
Edit: pointless arguing about this: you have made your mind up based on a book that wanted sales.
You don’t believe the evidence of the victim? That’s extremely low. I’ve base my understanding on the evidence of a domestic violence victim. Something that you appear to say doesn’t count. Tories really are the pits.
What "evidence of the victim"? It's a claim made in a book; a book that would have wanted sales.
Next you'll be saying that Cameron really did do something with a pig.
And I am not a Tory (tm).
The victim is directly quoted in the book and, if the Spectator is to be believed, Johnson himself admits one occurence. That is the evidence of the victim (and it seems the perpetrator*). If you're saying the author made the quotes up that is defamatory in and of itself. Charlotte Johnson Wahl, who was at one point hospitalised as a result of her treatment by Johnson, died of unrelated causes in 2021, but Tom Bower would have recorded his interview with her and/or made contemporaneous notes. That is evidence directly taken from the victim that shows, on the balance of probabilities, that Johnson committed the acts he is accused of. In that context the comparison with the Cameron allegations is facile and demeans domestic violence victims whose word if often the only evidence in such cases.
* see https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tom-bower-pulls-his-punches-with-his-life-of-boris-johnson/("There have long been rumours that Stanley Johnson hit his first wife Charlotte, and Bower has finally got Charlotte to confirm them — ‘He hit me many times, over many years’ — but it’s hardly an indictment of Boris. If anything, it makes you feel sorry for him. (Stanley has been reported subsequently as disputing the claims of violence, maintaining there was only ever one incident, which he says he regrets)"
There's enough evidence to convict. It has nothing to do with "book sales".
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
You keep saying that but it’s not true. My door knocking (I’ve reluctantly agreed to help you it as a new Co-Op member our Labour allies) takes place in Ashford, literally 10-15 miles from where the migrants come ashore. Kent County Council bears the brunt of caring for them. You guys are in for an absolute shellacking on the FRONT LINE of the migrant crisis. You have no idea of the anger towards the Tory party here in Kent. If you’re not persuading people with day to day experience of the issue then you’ve not got a hope.
The Illegal Migration Bill only passed its second reading on Monday
The anger towards the Tories has little to do with migration. It comes up a lot but there’s no sign of “lefty lawyers” being blamed. Based on my newby doorstep reading you’re losing on the frontline of the migrant crisis for nothing to do with immigration. The anger about so many issues is palpable.
I recall in 1997 there was a lot of positive noise about people on the doorstep being friendly to Tory canvassers. They had already made their minds up so there was no need to argue with conservatives. But I also expect that views are very spotty across the country.
I don't think Tories realise how vehement the anger towards them amongst ordinary people is. If they're hoping that small boats anger will get them over the line then they should be doing much much better in rock solid Tory Kent at the moment than they actually are.
Kent isn't 'rock solid' Tory like most of the Home counties. East Kent in particular is full of marginal seats like Thanet, Dover, Dartford, Rochester, Gravesend, Sittingbourne and Sheppy etc that Blair won.
Thatcher even lost her first parliamentary elections in Dartford in 1950 and 1951 before moving to Finchley which she won in 1959. If Labour are to form the next government they should be winning seats in Kent and not just student heavy Canterbury
But Kent (and to a lesser extent East Sussex) is the frontline of the migrant crisis. The idea that you suggest that, even with this policy, they might win in Kent speaks volumes.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But the lefty lawyers and mealy-mouthed offering by Labour will be seen as WHY the problem can't be solved - and by very many. There are swathes of voters for whom this issue IS important. (If you doubt me, try door-knocking. It is quite eye-opening, given the wide consensus on here that it is a niche issue.)
You keep saying that but it’s not true. My door knocking (I’ve reluctantly agreed to help you it as a new Co-Op member our Labour allies) takes place in Ashford, literally 10-15 miles from where the migrants come ashore. Kent County Council bears the brunt of caring for them. You guys are in for an absolute shellacking on the FRONT LINE of the migrant crisis. You have no idea of the anger towards the Tory party here in Kent. If you’re not persuading people with day to day experience of the issue then you’ve not got a hope.
The Illegal Migration Bill only passed its second reading on Monday
The anger towards the Tories has little to do with migration. It comes up a lot but there’s no sign of “lefty lawyers” being blamed. Based on my newby doorstep reading you’re losing on the frontline of the migrant crisis for nothing to do with immigration. The anger about so many issues is palpable.
I recall in 1997 there was a lot of positive noise about people on the doorstep being friendly to Tory canvassers. They had already made their minds up so there was no need to argue with conservatives. But I also expect that views are very spotty across the country.
I don't think Tories realise how vehement the anger towards them amongst ordinary people is. If they're hoping that small boats anger will get them over the line then they should be doing much much better in rock solid Tory Kent at the moment than they actually are.
Kent isn't 'rock solid' Tory like most of the Home counties. East Kent in particular is full of marginal seats like Thanet, Dover, Dartford, Rochester, Gravesend, Sittingbourne and Sheppy etc that Blair won.
Thatcher even lost her first parliamentary election in Dartford before moving to Finchley. If Labour are to form the next government they should be winning seats in Kent and not just student heavy Canterbury
It's been drifting Green in council elections, alongside neighbouring East Sussex. That may be a reaction to the ongoing water pollution stories. There are also interesting pockets of Lib Dem support including in the rural area of the North Downs South of Canterbury where my vineyard is based. The Covid outflow may be having an impact.
Tunbridge Wells is a LD target seat and they control the council, they don't have much significant presence elsewhere.
The Greens might win the odd council seat but Labour remain the main challengers to the Conservatives in the county
Yes for the county as a whole of course it's Con vs Lab but considering the general assumptions about Kent the remaining Lib Dem presence is not to be sniffed at, e.g. Canterbury South in the 2021 elections:
Canterbury South Party Candidate Votes % ±% Liberal Democrats Michael Sole 2,457 46 Increase9 Conservative Michael Northey 1,966 37 Decrease8 Labour Connie Nolan 961 18 Increase5 Majority 491 9 N/A Liberal Democrats gain from Conservative
In the 2021 county council elections the Greens went from 1 to 4 seats, to Labour's 7. The Tories dominate of course. Kent of course doesn't include Medway for local government purposes.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
I just go back to my journalism training all those years ago. Who what when where why how. Is it possible that his wife was lying? Yes. Is it possible that the journalist misquoted her, or made it up? Yes. But when you then look at what has happened afterwards those possibilities just fall away.
No defence or denial has been made. Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends". Over a long period of time. It is established fact whether you are satisfied with how we got here or not.
Once again I wonder what the point is you are making? That we shouldn't smear a man in this way? But the man himself doesn't claim its a smear, or at least offers zero rebuttal or defence or denial of the supposed smear.
Lordy. So there's the book, and newspaper claims.
You know what? If someone made a false claim about me in a book, I probably wouldn't sue, even if I was 100% sure it was untrue. Why? Because if they're lying enough to make the claim, they could lie in court. And it would be massively costly, perhaps even if I won. I might not even make a denial, as that might just give the claim the oxygen of publicity. It would depend on the type of claim and impact it had.
"Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends"."
Again, where is this evidence, aside from it being reported in a newspaper as existing?
It may have happened. It may not have happened. If it happened, it may have had a different slant on it to the one you give. There are many possibilities. But you *know*. Because you had 'journalism training'. (Which actually explains a lot, none of it good... )
I also refer you to Lord McAlpine, where serious allegations where whispered behind hid back for decades, and which were proved to be false.
The evidence comes from the alleged victim’s own testimony. If a defendant in a defamation claim raises truth as a defence the burden of proof shifts to them, on the balance of probabilities, to show that the accusation was justified. Crudely that means that the defendant has to show that it was more than 50% likely that such an assault happened. The defence could call the alleged victim who is on record as follows -
‘“ In the book, The Gambler, author Tom Bower describes Stanley's marriage to Boris Johnson's mum Charlotte as violent and unhappy.
She told the author: "He broke my nose. He made me feel like I deserved it."
So the defendant would call the ex-wife and possibly the other witnesses as to the veracity of the statement. They may rely on medical records. They would also make much of the fact that Johnson did not comment on the allegations when made.
All in all, and I fully accept that my media litigation practice consists of having done it at law school and spent six months of my training contract assisting such cases, I think there’s enough evidence in the public domain alone for a successful defence to a defamation claim to be made out. I also think that there would, on today’s rules in England, be enough evidence to charge him with assault and battery, possibly ABH, with or without the ex-wife’s help.
Edit: pointless arguing about this: you have made your mind up based on a book that wanted sales.
You don’t believe the evidence of the victim? That’s extremely low. I’ve base my understanding on the evidence of a domestic violence victim. Something that you appear to say doesn’t count. Tories really are the pits.
What "evidence of the victim"? It's a claim made in a book; a book that would have wanted sales.
Next you'll be saying that Cameron really did do something with a pig.
And I am not a Tory (tm).
The victim is directly quoted in the book and, if the Spectator is to be believed, Johnson himself admits one occurence. That is the evidence of the victim (and it seems the perpetrator*). If you're saying the author made the quotes up that is defamatory in and of itself. Charlotte Johnson Wahl, who was at one point hospitalised as a result of her treatment by Johnson, died of unrelated causes in 2021, but Tom Bower would have recorded his interview with her and/or made contemporaneous notes. That is evidence directly taken from the victim that shows, on the balance of probabilities, that Johnson committed the acts he is accused of. In that context the comparison with the Cameron allegations is facile and demeans domestic violence victims whose word if often the only evidence in such cases.
* see https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tom-bower-pulls-his-punches-with-his-life-of-boris-johnson/("There have long been rumours that Stanley Johnson hit his first wife Charlotte, and Bower has finally got Charlotte to confirm them — ‘He hit me many times, over many years’ — but it’s hardly an indictment of Boris. If anything, it makes you feel sorry for him. (Stanley has been reported subsequently as disputing the claims of violence, maintaining there was only ever one incident, which he says he regrets)"
There's enough evidence to convict. It has nothing to do with "book sales".
Its made me chuckle though, so its been worth something.
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
What marginal tax rate does someone on £98k now face if offered a payrise, if they have pre-school age children?
I don't know. Severe, I suspect.
I will wait to see the precise announcements later.
Incidentally, I also don't like the UC taper (also too high) and think young people are taxed too highly for student loans.
It's all about incentivising work and aspiration.
The main objective of the current system is to keep the headline tax rates as low as possible. This means we get all of this additional complexity - child benefit clawback, personal allowance tapering, means-testing childcare, inventing new taxes (such as the graduate tax and the NHS tax), pension allowance tapering - in an attempt to raise more money without having to increase the numerical rate of income tax.
It's why Kwarteng proposed cutting the highest rate of tax from 45% to 40%, instead of dealing with the personal allowance taper. It's incredibly infantile.
But, whilst most of us on here could agree with getting rid of all the ridiculous tapers, in return for increasing the rates of tax - so that broadly speaking the same amount of tax was raised from the same people - doing so would be politically very courageous.
We will know that British politics has grown up when a government does it anyway, and manages to win the public debate on it being a sensible simplification rather than, "a massive tax grab from the middle class!" (Daily Mail), or, "a huge tax cut giveaway to the rich!" (Guardian).
Well said.
If only things were only that bad. Look at the way people talk about the windfall tax and corporation tax on energy companies, most commentators and politicians seem to struggle to understand that it applies to profits, not revenue, and only UK profits, not profits in other countries were the companies have already paid tax. You could set the windfall levy at whatever level you like it ain't bringing in much more money, and has the potential to massively reduce tax revenues if the companies decide the UK is no longer worth investing in or using as HQ.
If there is one thing I would like to hammer into everyones head it's this: tax rates are far less important than the revenue raised. Focus on the latter, not on setting the rates to a "fair" or "punitive" level, depending upon your goal.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Because, given the attitude we've seen on here, people will ill-intent would not believe the denial, and it would just give the claims oxygen. In addition, the claims - and denials - just hurt the family.
I don't know what happened, or if anything did, but it's hilarious seeing so much certainty over it by people who should know better.
Would you have sued an ex-wife (*) (and mother of your kids) over something like this? Or would you and the kids just prefer for it to pass?
(*) If you had one?
He would sue *people* and *media outlets* for defamation. Not his ex-wife. The defendants would cite her as their evidence, that would be her role.
But again again again - this is established truth. Nobody denies that he broke his wife's nose and put her in hospital. Nobody. Instead we have plenty of voices confirming he put her in hospital, but "only once".
So why on earth are you fighting on this particular hill to defend a man who isn't defending himself over something that he objectively did? Because of who he is and what he represents? Or do you have another more lofty motivation which you oddly only deploy in defence of certain key Tory figures?
Please move on.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Doesn't defamation require evidence of income loss?
So -- to sue -- Stanley Johnson would have to show that the claim of a journalist that he had broken the nose of his ex-wife had led to a loss of income.
Pb.com is stuffed full of lawyers posting endlessly and with nothing better to do than write letters saying "my time is worth £500 an hour", so we can easily get confirmation of this
But, it is not obvious to me that Johnson would actually have a viable defamation case.
So, there is an alternative possible explanation of why he has not sued -- other than he is guilty (which he might be, for all I know).
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
I think if the money is right plenty of countries will bite our hands off tbh.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not providing people due to be deported with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
Can you read what I said? If other countries would bite our hands off why are other countries not queuing up to make us an offer. Rwanda is a terrible “arrangement” for us. It’s an unenforceable handshake deal. They can pull out when they like and will do when it becomes politically expedient. The Conservatives have not agreed anything. It’s not a treaty, it’s a headline. The Rwandans have no incentive to keep to it. Rwanda won’t take anyone because they played the Tories for fools. It’s nothing to do with the courts but they’ll get blamed.
At the moment Rwanda hasn't taken anyone due to UK court rulings. Agreements with France and I think Albania will be sucking up negotiating time. Once we've got deals with those countries, and a plane actually leaves for Rwanda I think other deals with third countries can then think about happening.
Rwanda say they can take c. 200 people. That's it. And the more that Tories talk up the Rwanda solution as being the dumping ground for thousands of people, the sillier it gets.
Good morning
You do reference Rwanda scheme as limited to 200 but that does not seem to be accurate
Apparently it is 1,000 initially and to be expanded as per this BBC report
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
I think if the money is right plenty of countries will bite our hands off tbh.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not providing people due to be deported with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
Can you read what I said? If other countries would bite our hands off why are other countries not queuing up to make us an offer. Rwanda is a terrible “arrangement” for us. It’s an unenforceable handshake deal. They can pull out when they like and will do when it becomes politically expedient. The Conservatives have not agreed anything. It’s not a treaty, it’s a headline. The Rwandans have no incentive to keep to it. Rwanda won’t take anyone because they played the Tories for fools. It’s nothing to do with the courts but they’ll get blamed.
At the moment Rwanda hasn't taken anyone due to UK court rulings. Agreements with France and I think Albania will be sucking up negotiating time. Once we've got deals with those countries, and a plane actually leaves for Rwanda I think other deals with third countries can then think about happening.
Rwanda say they can take c. 200 people. That's it. And the more that Tories talk up the Rwanda solution as being the dumping ground for thousands of people, the sillier it gets.
Good morning
You do reference Rwanda scheme as limited to 200 but that does not seem to be accurate
Apparently it is 1,000 initially and to be expanded as per this BBC report
Thus far the 200 is handwaving also. The courts have said that it is acceptable in principal but not in any actual case, each of which will be tested right through the byzantine system by expert lawyers, mostly at our expense. I am on their side.
Like all the boat policies this is designed to get the government to the next election with less than maximal damage, after which it is SKS's problem.
IMHO the mistake is to go after the 'Johnny Foreigner out' rather than start getting back the 'One Nation Tory' vote which in the longer run is part of the vote crucial to running a civilized country again.
The new build F-16 pipeline has 148 aircraft in it for Bahrain, Slovakia, Bulgaria, the breakaway province of China and Jordan. If the Türkiye FMS gets through Congress (this is a part of the Danegeld for getting Sweden into NATO) then the queue becomes 188 long. New F-16s aren't an option for Ukraine unless the US wants to fuck over one of the above - which isn't completely out of the question.
That's not really the point, though is it ? It's rather about NATO allies willingness to supply any fighter jets - which is very much contingent on US agreement.
Yes, everyone's hiding behind Superman's cape.
You mean NATO is very dependent on the USA? I am absolutely shocked by this revelation.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
I just go back to my journalism training all those years ago. Who what when where why how. Is it possible that his wife was lying? Yes. Is it possible that the journalist misquoted her, or made it up? Yes. But when you then look at what has happened afterwards those possibilities just fall away.
No defence or denial has been made. Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends". Over a long period of time. It is established fact whether you are satisfied with how we got here or not.
Once again I wonder what the point is you are making? That we shouldn't smear a man in this way? But the man himself doesn't claim its a smear, or at least offers zero rebuttal or defence or denial of the supposed smear.
Lordy. So there's the book, and newspaper claims.
You know what? If someone made a false claim about me in a book, I probably wouldn't sue, even if I was 100% sure it was untrue. Why? Because if they're lying enough to make the claim, they could lie in court. And it would be massively costly, perhaps even if I won. I might not even make a denial, as that might just give the claim the oxygen of publicity. It would depend on the type of claim and impact it had.
"Supporting evidence validating that it happened has been provided by "friends"."
Again, where is this evidence, aside from it being reported in a newspaper as existing?
It may have happened. It may not have happened. If it happened, it may have had a different slant on it to the one you give. There are many possibilities. But you *know*. Because you had 'journalism training'. (Which actually explains a lot, none of it good... )
I also refer you to Lord McAlpine, where serious allegations where whispered behind hid back for decades, and which were proved to be false.
The evidence comes from the alleged victim’s own testimony. If a defendant in a defamation claim raises truth as a defence the burden of proof shifts to them, on the balance of probabilities, to show that the accusation was justified. Crudely that means that the defendant has to show that it was more than 50% likely that such an assault happened. The defence could call the alleged victim who is on record as follows -
‘“ In the book, The Gambler, author Tom Bower describes Stanley's marriage to Boris Johnson's mum Charlotte as violent and unhappy.
She told the author: "He broke my nose. He made me feel like I deserved it."
So the defendant would call the ex-wife and possibly the other witnesses as to the veracity of the statement. They may rely on medical records. They would also make much of the fact that Johnson did not comment on the allegations when made.
All in all, and I fully accept that my media litigation practice consists of having done it at law school and spent six months of my training contract assisting such cases, I think there’s enough evidence in the public domain alone for a successful defence to a defamation claim to be made out. I also think that there would, on today’s rules in England, be enough evidence to charge him with assault and battery, possibly ABH, with or without the ex-wife’s help.
Edit: pointless arguing about this: you have made your mind up based on a book that wanted sales.
You don’t believe the evidence of the victim? That’s extremely low. I’ve base my understanding on the evidence of a domestic violence victim. Something that you appear to say doesn’t count. Tories really are the pits.
What "evidence of the victim"? It's a claim made in a book; a book that would have wanted sales.
Next you'll be saying that Cameron really did do something with a pig.
And I am not a Tory (tm).
The victim is directly quoted in the book and, if the Spectator is to be believed, Johnson himself admits one occurence. That is the evidence of the victim (and it seems the perpetrator*). If you're saying the author made the quotes up that is defamatory in and of itself. Charlotte Johnson Wahl, who was at one point hospitalised as a result of her treatment by Johnson, died of unrelated causes in 2021, but Tom Bower would have recorded his interview with her and/or made contemporaneous notes. That is evidence directly taken from the victim that shows, on the balance of probabilities, that Johnson committed the acts he is accused of. In that context the comparison with the Cameron allegations is facile and demeans domestic violence victims whose word if often the only evidence in such cases.
* see https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tom-bower-pulls-his-punches-with-his-life-of-boris-johnson/("There have long been rumours that Stanley Johnson hit his first wife Charlotte, and Bower has finally got Charlotte to confirm them — ‘He hit me many times, over many years’ — but it’s hardly an indictment of Boris. If anything, it makes you feel sorry for him. (Stanley has been reported subsequently as disputing the claims of violence, maintaining there was only ever one incident, which he says he regrets)"
There's enough evidence to convict. It has nothing to do with "book sales".
Firstly, the Spectator: there were long 'rumours' about Lord MCAlpine. He had to spend decades suffering from them. They were untrue.
"There's enough evidence to convict."
Given your and RP's posts on this, I doubt it.
Again, it may have happened; it may not. Or the truth may be somewhere else. What amuses me is the way people are so absolutely keen to believe it, with a fool's certainty.
And the reason they do is political bias. Lefty's really are the pits (see what I did there?)
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Because, given the attitude we've seen on here, people will ill-intent would not believe the denial, and it would just give the claims oxygen. In addition, the claims - and denials - just hurt the family.
I don't know what happened, or if anything did, but it's hilarious seeing so much certainty over it by people who should know better.
Would you have sued an ex-wife (*) (and mother of your kids) over something like this? Or would you and the kids just prefer for it to pass?
(*) If you had one?
He would sue *people* and *media outlets* for defamation. Not his ex-wife. The defendants would cite her as their evidence, that would be her role.
But again again again - this is established truth. Nobody denies that he broke his wife's nose and put her in hospital. Nobody. Instead we have plenty of voices confirming he put her in hospital, but "only once".
So why on earth are you fighting on this particular hill to defend a man who isn't defending himself over something that he objectively did? Because of who he is and what he represents? Or do you have another more lofty motivation which you oddly only deploy in defence of certain key Tory figures?
Please move on.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Doesn't defamation require evidence of income loss?
So -- to sue -- Stanley Johnson would have to show that the claim of a journalist that he had broken the nose of his ex-wife had led to a loss of income.
Pb.com is stuffed full of lawyers posting endlessly and with nothing better to do than write letters saying "my time is worth £500 an hour", so we can easily get confirmation of this
But, it is not obvious to me that Johnson would actually have a viable defamation case.
So, there is an alternative possible explanation of why he has not sued -- other than he is guilty (which he might be, for all I know).
Fee note to follow. (£500 an hour hardly enough to keep the children's ponies in feed). Proof of income loss not required for defamation case.
The big reasons for avoiding defamation cases:
cost waste of time you might lose media 'no smoke without fire' the sound of lawyers rubbing their hands together.
My absolute final point on this. If as JJ suggests this is a left-right issue, that implies that I would defend a variety of left wing figures who beat their wives because of their politics.
That is laughably wrong. But provides a reflection in the mirror of what JJ himself is doing defending right wing figures of the same.
That we can't all agree that wife-beating is a universal wrong is one of the problems we have in society.
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Because, given the attitude we've seen on here, people will ill-intent would not believe the denial, and it would just give the claims oxygen. In addition, the claims - and denials - just hurt the family.
I don't know what happened, or if anything did, but it's hilarious seeing so much certainty over it by people who should know better.
Would you have sued an ex-wife (*) (and mother of your kids) over something like this? Or would you and the kids just prefer for it to pass?
(*) If you had one?
He would sue *people* and *media outlets* for defamation. Not his ex-wife. The defendants would cite her as their evidence, that would be her role.
But again again again - this is established truth. Nobody denies that he broke his wife's nose and put her in hospital. Nobody. Instead we have plenty of voices confirming he put her in hospital, but "only once".
(Snip)
Please move on.
"But again again again - this is established truth. "
I can tell you did journalistic training, as you've got a weird definition of 'truth'. The only truth is that claim was made in a book
Why are you so convinced he's guilty, based on little evidence? Your previous post indicates an answer: he's a Tory.
So you consider my opinion as being "a Tory" being equitable to being a wife-beater? You're being silly now.
As for truth, we have on one side: Original claim Publication and reportage of original claim Corroborating evidence offered by friends in defence of why he did the thing in the original claim
And on the other side:
Is it possible that she made it up? Of course. Is it likely beyond the balance of probabilities? No. You do understand how things work in our society don't you? That even being convicted of something isn't the same as that something ever having actually happened?
Because I can show you evidence- videos, photographs, testimonies all showing x happening. And then produce other evidence showing how the supposedly self-evident fact is at best a distortion and at worst a deliberate lie put out as truth.
Corroboration, context, alternate perspectives are all key. And in this case the corroboration is there and the dissenting alternate perspectives are not.
It - beyond the balance of probability - happened.
I can do this all day if you want. In increasing bemusement as to why the non-Tory is so doggedly defending the Tory from the injustice of noted lefties like Fiona Bruce casually dismissing this as established fact that needs to be excused.
Actually, no, I won't do this all day long. Its entertaining, but only for so long.
"Corroboration is there"
Is it? There is *claimed* corroboration. But no-one's gone down in the record. And as someone with a journalistic background, you'd know that journalists, never, ever, gild the lily. Or even outright lie.
As I said: it's clear from your posts that this is a political for you: and if this was a Labour figure, you'd be busy trying to prove it never, ever happened. That's not what I'm doing: I'm just saying that you have a fool's certainty over this.
The new build F-16 pipeline has 148 aircraft in it for Bahrain, Slovakia, Bulgaria, the breakaway province of China and Jordan. If the Türkiye FMS gets through Congress (this is a part of the Danegeld for getting Sweden into NATO) then the queue becomes 188 long. New F-16s aren't an option for Ukraine unless the US wants to fuck over one of the above - which isn't completely out of the question.
That's not really the point, though is it ? It's rather about NATO allies willingness to supply any fighter jets - which is very much contingent on US agreement.
Yes, everyone's hiding behind Superman's cape.
You can characterise it like that. Though given recent statements from Poland and the Baltic states, it would be not entirely accurate. And in any event, the discussion is about the US (and particularly the GOP) commitment to the NATO opposition to Russia's invasion. How you describe that doesn't really matter.
My absolute final point on this. If as JJ suggests this is a left-right issue, that implies that I would defend a variety of left wing figures who beat their wives because of their politics.
That is laughably wrong. But provides a reflection in the mirror of what JJ himself is doing defending right wing figures of the same.
That we can't all agree that wife-beating is a universal wrong is one of the problems we have in society.
My absolute final point on this. If as JJ suggests this is a left-right issue, that implies that I would defend a variety of left wing figures who beat their wives because of their politics.
That is laughably wrong. But provides a reflection in the mirror of what JJ himself is doing defending right wing figures of the same.
That we can't all agree that wife-beating is a universal wrong is one of the problems we have in society.
Hang on, I've repeatedly said he *may* have done it. My argument with you over this is your crass certainty that he did it.
So yes, he may have done it. Or he may not have done it. *I don't know*.
My absolute final point on this. If as JJ suggests this is a left-right issue, that implies that I would defend a variety of left wing figures who beat their wives because of their politics.
That is laughably wrong. But provides a reflection in the mirror of what JJ himself is doing defending right wing figures of the same.
That we can't all agree that wife-beating is a universal wrong is one of the problems we have in society.
Wife beating is 100% unacceptable
I totally agree with that, before RP insinuates otherwise.
My absolute final point on this. If as JJ suggests this is a left-right issue, that implies that I would defend a variety of left wing figures who beat their wives because of their politics.
That is laughably wrong. But provides a reflection in the mirror of what JJ himself is doing defending right wing figures of the same.
That we can't all agree that wife-beating is a universal wrong is one of the problems we have in society.
Wife beating is 100% unacceptable
Amen. What on earth does political bias have to do with it? We're back to having basic standards of decency, not politics.
My absolute final point on this. If as JJ suggests this is a left-right issue, that implies that I would defend a variety of left wing figures who beat their wives because of their politics.
That is laughably wrong. But provides a reflection in the mirror of what JJ himself is doing defending right wing figures of the same.
That we can't all agree that wife-beating is a universal wrong is one of the problems we have in society.
Wife beating is 100% unacceptable
I totally agree with that, before RP insinuates otherwise.
And on this brief moment of agreement how about you drop this bone and we all move on? As I thought we had yesterday before you waved it again this morning.
All of this happened a long time ago involving someone who would be of zero interest had he not been outrageously nominated for a knighthood by his son.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
I think if the money is right plenty of countries will bite our hands off tbh.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not providing people due to be deported with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
Can you read what I said? If other countries would bite our hands off why are other countries not queuing up to make us an offer. Rwanda is a terrible “arrangement” for us. It’s an unenforceable handshake deal. They can pull out when they like and will do when it becomes politically expedient. The Conservatives have not agreed anything. It’s not a treaty, it’s a headline. The Rwandans have no incentive to keep to it. Rwanda won’t take anyone because they played the Tories for fools. It’s nothing to do with the courts but they’ll get blamed.
At the moment Rwanda hasn't taken anyone due to UK court rulings. Agreements with France and I think Albania will be sucking up negotiating time. Once we've got deals with those countries, and a plane actually leaves for Rwanda I think other deals with third countries can then think about happening.
Rwanda say they can take c. 200 people. That's it. And the more that Tories talk up the Rwanda solution as being the dumping ground for thousands of people, the sillier it gets.
Bollocks. Here's the article that silly headline and twatter misundstanding started from:
Having had to spend another period of time yesterday trying to explain to HY what defamation is, I see that Jonathan Gullis is trying for a new defence - stupidity. He definitely didn't libel Crispbag, he's just too stupid to comprehend what Crispbag actually said.
To be fair to the voters of Stoke on Trent, when they voted Gullis into parliament, it was for the betterment of their kids who had the comedic pleasure of having him as their teacher.
Have you got an answer to the question I asked yesterday, with regards to your comments about Stanley Johnson?
I don't recall seeing your question. As for my comments I refer you to truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences. Worth noting that Fiona Bruce herself didn't tell YAB not to make defamatory remarks, merely that they should be put into the correct context.
Gullis has no such defences should Sir Crispbag want to get a large donation to a charity of his choice.
That's all fair enough, but you seemed very certain about your claims. I was just asking for good sources for your claims (and not repeats of previous claims).
Can I refer you back to the first defence against defamation - truth. Considering who he is, how high profile he became and the age of this story, it is an honest opinion (another defence) that this story is simply actually true. Never denied, backed up by others, even repeated in passing by Bruce as established fact.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
You seem to be taking a rather legalistic approach to a simple question - perhaps, if I might make a guess, because you're on the wrong foot here?
I'm asking how you know the 'truth' of the allegations? As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the allegations were made by his ex-wife in a book. A newspaper (and not one that leftists usually call reliable) claimed anonymous friends had backed the claims up.
What we've seen since then is people referring to those as if it is the truth. They are *allegations*.
Again, I could be wrong. Are there other first-hand sources?
Look at it from the other angle. Johnson is the father of the ex-PM and up for a knighthood. This allegation has been made repeatedly, most recently on QT when FB treated the broken-nose wife-beating incident as a fact rather than an allegation.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Because, given the attitude we've seen on here, people will ill-intent would not believe the denial, and it would just give the claims oxygen. In addition, the claims - and denials - just hurt the family.
I don't know what happened, or if anything did, but it's hilarious seeing so much certainty over it by people who should know better.
Would you have sued an ex-wife (*) (and mother of your kids) over something like this? Or would you and the kids just prefer for it to pass?
(*) If you had one?
He would sue *people* and *media outlets* for defamation. Not his ex-wife. The defendants would cite her as their evidence, that would be her role.
But again again again - this is established truth. Nobody denies that he broke his wife's nose and put her in hospital. Nobody. Instead we have plenty of voices confirming he put her in hospital, but "only once".
So why on earth are you fighting on this particular hill to defend a man who isn't defending himself over something that he objectively did? Because of who he is and what he represents? Or do you have another more lofty motivation which you oddly only deploy in defence of certain key Tory figures?
Please move on.
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Doesn't defamation require evidence of income loss?
So -- to sue -- Stanley Johnson would have to show that the claim of a journalist that he had broken the nose of his ex-wife had led to a loss of income.
Pb.com is stuffed full of lawyers posting endlessly and with nothing better to do than write letters saying "my time is worth £500 an hour", so we can easily get confirmation of this
But, it is not obvious to me that Johnson would actually have a viable defamation case.
So, there is an alternative possible explanation of why he has not sued -- other than he is guilty (which he might be, for all I know).
Fee note to follow. (£500 an hour hardly enough to keep the children's ponies in feed). Proof of income loss not required for defamation case.
The big reasons for avoiding defamation cases:
cost waste of time you might lose media 'no smoke without fire' the sound of lawyers rubbing their hands together.
For a defamation claim to succeed it is necessary for a claimant to prove that they have suffered serious harm to their reputation. This does almost always imply a significant financial loss.
I expected to be billed
Lawyers have these exorbitant child care costs as well, that are currently exercising pb.com's affluent.
So £500 / hour is clearly not enough. Would £ 1000/ hour be acceptable?
My absolute final point on this. If as JJ suggests this is a left-right issue, that implies that I would defend a variety of left wing figures who beat their wives because of their politics.
That is laughably wrong. But provides a reflection in the mirror of what JJ himself is doing defending right wing figures of the same.
That we can't all agree that wife-beating is a universal wrong is one of the problems we have in society.
Wife beating is 100% unacceptable
Amen. What on earth does political bias have to do with it? We're back to having basic standards of decency, not politics.
Ahem, because you brought it into it: "But we can't attack the rich and privileged Tory! It's unfair!"
Which, as I've explained, is not why I'm making this argument. You won't find a single place where I've defended Stanley Johnson before this (have I ever mentioned him before?) and my views on Boris are well known. In fact, we'd be better off without any of that family in public prominence.
"basic standards of decency" apples in all directions, to all people.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
I think if the money is right plenty of countries will bite our hands off tbh.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not providing people due to be deported with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
Can you read what I said? If other countries would bite our hands off why are other countries not queuing up to make us an offer. Rwanda is a terrible “arrangement” for us. It’s an unenforceable handshake deal. They can pull out when they like and will do when it becomes politically expedient. The Conservatives have not agreed anything. It’s not a treaty, it’s a headline. The Rwandans have no incentive to keep to it. Rwanda won’t take anyone because they played the Tories for fools. It’s nothing to do with the courts but they’ll get blamed.
At the moment Rwanda hasn't taken anyone due to UK court rulings. Agreements with France and I think Albania will be sucking up negotiating time. Once we've got deals with those countries, and a plane actually leaves for Rwanda I think other deals with third countries can then think about happening.
Rwanda say they can take c. 200 people. That's it. And the more that Tories talk up the Rwanda solution as being the dumping ground for thousands of people, the sillier it gets.
Bollocks. Here's the article that silly headline and twatter misundstanding started from:
Questions: 1. What infrastructure work has Rwanda undertaken to accept any more than 200? 2. What does the UK do if Rwanda accept the 1,000 agreed? Our needs are way more than that
Not that we need worry about Rwanda. To deport them to Rwanda first we have to detain them. And we have absolutely nowhere to do so, and every time a new detention site is proposed the locals and their (usually anti-migration Tory MP) do their nut.
So whilst I agree with the word bollocks, it is for different reasons...
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
Once its ruled lawful you only need one country to send people to and the crossings will stop if people know they'll be sent there.
Nobody will cross the Channel in order to be sent to Rwanda. If they don't think they'll be sent there, then they will come, but if they know they will then they won't come, so capacity is instantly sufficient the moment that you have a scheme operational and certain to proceed.
Plain wrong. Wrong is too weak. We have a non-enforceable memorandum of understanding with Rwanda to send “some” (not all) migrants. Rwanda cannot, and had not agreed to, take all of them. Further as an MOU rather than a treaty they can say at anytime “that’s enough” and we have no comeback. That will happen as soon as they reach capacity, or earlier.
Secondly, you’re suggesting people who are already breaking the law will stop breaking it if the penalties are tougher. That is a canard that in so many cases has been proved wrong. Changing the classification of drugs, the death penalty, “short sharp shock”, equalities legislation, you name it. People will take chances they won’t be caught. Without enforcement this policy alone is a joke.
Rwanda can agree to take all of them, just because they've not yet doesn't mean they can't. The limitation is on our side, restricting departures as its tied up in the courts, not in them having reached "capacity" - they've agreed to take thousands, not hundreds, in the past.
Secondly people will stop breaking the law if the penalties are tougher, so long as they're tough enough. The number of people who smuggle drugs into Singapore is low because the penalties are enforced. People paying smugglers to take them into Britain are already paying their own penalty but they think its worth it - if that payment sees them going elsewhere, then they will cease to make that payment. And that's already proven where this policy is operational elsewhere, like Australia, the policy has worked.
Your problem is with the evidence not being what you want it to be. Objecting to the policy on the grounds of it being immoral in your eyes is entirely reasonable, objecting to it on the grounds that it can't work is just wrong. Plain wrong. Wrong is too weak, as you said.
My absolute final point on this. If as JJ suggests this is a left-right issue, that implies that I would defend a variety of left wing figures who beat their wives because of their politics.
That is laughably wrong. But provides a reflection in the mirror of what JJ himself is doing defending right wing figures of the same.
That we can't all agree that wife-beating is a universal wrong is one of the problems we have in society.
Wife beating is 100% unacceptable
Amen. What on earth does political bias have to do with it? We're back to having basic standards of decency, not politics.
Ahem, because you brought it into it: "But we can't attack the rich and privileged Tory! It's unfair!"
Which, as I've explained, is not why I'm making this argument. You won't find a single place where I've defended Stanley Johnson before this (have I ever mentioned him before?) and my views on Boris are well known. In fact, we'd be better off without any of that family in public prominence.
"basic standards of decency" apples in all directions, to all people.
What 'decency' needs to be afforded with the clarification that Stanley Johnson broke his wife's nose was a "one-off" ?
You seem to have chosen a weird hill to die on this morning, JJ.
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
I think if the money is right plenty of countries will bite our hands off tbh.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not providing people due to be deported with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
Can you read what I said? If other countries would bite our hands off why are other countries not queuing up to make us an offer. Rwanda is a terrible “arrangement” for us. It’s an unenforceable handshake deal. They can pull out when they like and will do when it becomes politically expedient. The Conservatives have not agreed anything. It’s not a treaty, it’s a headline. The Rwandans have no incentive to keep to it. Rwanda won’t take anyone because they played the Tories for fools. It’s nothing to do with the courts but they’ll get blamed.
At the moment Rwanda hasn't taken anyone due to UK court rulings. Agreements with France and I think Albania will be sucking up negotiating time. Once we've got deals with those countries, and a plane actually leaves for Rwanda I think other deals with third countries can then think about happening.
Rwanda say they can take c. 200 people. That's it. And the more that Tories talk up the Rwanda solution as being the dumping ground for thousands of people, the sillier it gets.
Bollocks. Here's the article that silly headline and twatter misundstanding started from:
Questions: 1. What infrastructure work has Rwanda undertaken to accept any more than 200? 2. What does the UK do if Rwanda accept the 1,000 agreed? Our needs are way more than that
Not that we need worry about Rwanda. To deport them to Rwanda first we have to detain them. And we have absolutely nowhere to do so, and every time a new detention site is proposed the locals and their (usually anti-migration Tory MP) do their nut.
So whilst I agree with the word bollocks, it is for different reasons...
1. Rwanda has accepted many thousands in the past, not hundreds, with other countries.
1a. What capacity did we have for tens of thousands, given then numbers were a tiny fraction of that a few years ago? Capacity can be built.
2. Our needs will fall if people making the journey know they will end in Rwanda, they won't make the journey anymore.
On topic! 😌 Betting Post 🐎 Cheltenham Day Two. There’s no pause or let up in festival racing 🥳
For horse racing fans, it was a great first day, lots of fascinating contests in front a raucous crowd, lots of emotional back stories to winners. It was largely win too for punters over bookies. The crowd got what they wanted.
Of my four tips, one win two seconds, though those seconds didn’t count for me as I do win bets. And what left me flat as a flat ironed pancake, was Maries Rock and Love Envoi both beaten in the Mares😭
Love Envoi nothing left to give in the final yards after doing all the work. Not fair! I was a proper moody mare myself.
Constitution Hill stole the show on Day 1. Sure you can say it’s the beastly gears at the end of race, rivals can’t match. It’s more than that for me, have you ever seen a horse more relaxed and focussed in the endless parade in front hordes of over excited humans and everything else going on before the race? They said Hilly works eats and sleeps. Being completely unflappable in personality type builds the foundation for the performance, do you see what I mean? A beautiful horse too, you just want to hug and give it lots of kisses. And was expertly piloted. As the consummate professional package, you just want to trust your money on it. Stodge called it right in Mondays header, it was like a graduation day. Keys to the door moment.
My Win tips for Day 2
Good Land for Ballymore Novices’ Hurdle (1.30) Geri Colombe to land novice chase handicap (2.10) Edwardstone is the best 2m chaser, is over a bruised foot, and nothing will go wrong here in Queen Mum (3.30) Elixir De Nutz (4:50)
If you want an e/w tip Red Risk has fought valiantly for first and second last two races and currently on double carpet.
And a chance to check form of my Grand National tip DeltaWork, in the Cross Country. If you are unfamiliar with todays big Steeplechase, it is just about 4 miles, 32 unique obstacles with great names, including banks, drops, water. Commentary you couldn’t make up and do it justice, but I’ll try. “So as we move away from the Jolly Rancher, it’s Mywifeknowseverything as we approach the Duck Pond… Slack Sally has gone down there at the Kissing Gate…as we make our way on to Mrs Miggins Flower Garden, Sotallytober from The Geespot”
FPT - I was excited about the 1-2 year childcare policy for about 5 minutes last night until I read the small print and I saw it was means-tested with a £100k income cap, unlike for childcare for 3-4 year olds.
So we're out.
Ouch - let’s hope there is something in the budget to fix the £100,000+ income issues because it already removes the incentive to earn that amount and there will be even more reasons to keep pay below that magic figure.
£100k+ is now almost viewed as offensive. It causes all sorts of issues with recruitment and retention. We're leaching a lot of staff to the Middle East and Australia.
Fiscal drag is now making many careers and professions pip over that post in their 40s and 50s, but always heavily mortgaged/indebted at the same time.
£100k isn't a dramatic salary these days. But it is unobtanium for so many people who work jobs much harder than the higher paid ones with no possibility of getting even to half that.
That isn't the fault of the people on £100k+ salaries, but it is the fault of the system they likely keep voting for. We have a huge class of worker who get paid salaries that get relatively smaller every year. Unless we do something about real wages - the disposable income we need them to have to drive the economy forward - then we will continue to have this as a live issue.
I can understand Labour playing the card that everyone earning over £100k is wealthy and not entitled to anything but heavy taxation, but I expect the Conservatives to defend aspiration and ambition - and encourage it.
Unfortunately, they are cowardly custards and Hunt/Sunak are actually so wealthy with assets in the millions that this won't affect them.
Surely the best way to look at this is that in an economy in which there is little money, those of us earning over £100k can not be a priority for help.
You might go further to say that those with broad shoulders might aspire to helping others.
And yet all you really end up doing is pushing people earning £100k into 4 day weeks. I've had three requests for it from my team over the last year. Only a complete mug would take the salary increase.
My heart bleeds.
Let's be clear - the issue is one that results in Doctors working shorter weeks and retiring way earlier than they otherwise might.
End result in 1 sector alone (healthcare / NHS) is longer waiting lists everywhere,
Yup. And that’s why many were suggesting a bespoke solution in sectors like that in lieu of boosting doctors pay.
Regardless of the facts being debated here, an outgoing PM should not be making his father a lord simply because he's his father.
What has Stanley Johnson ever done that needs any kind of public recognition? I vaguely remember him being on some kind of reality TV ('I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here'?) but that might be a pure figment of my imagination. I was aware of him in contexts that weren't wholly related to Boris, but I can't think what. Help!
Regardless of the facts being debated here, an outgoing PM should not be making his father a lord simply because he's his father.
What has Stanley Johnson ever done that needs any kind of public recognition? I vaguely remember him being on some kind of reality TV ('I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here'?) but that might be a pure figment of my imagination. I was aware of him in contexts that weren't wholly related to Boris, but I can't think what. Help!
He won the Newdigate Prize for Poetry. That must be it. Apart of course from being [edit] director at the Gorilla Organization. Soemthing about Greek holiday homes too.
The GOP is a cancer and they will eventually win the presidency and sell out Europe.
Ron DeSantis said that becoming “further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia” was not a vital US national interest, in a sign that he would scale back support if he became president.
DeSantis, 44, who is believed to be preparing a White House run, criticised President Biden for a “blank cheque” commitment to Ukraine.
I already said how disgusting what RDS said is and that we need to hope the Democrats win next year for the sake of Ukraine, Europe and the world.
But a European Army is the last thing we need. If America says no to aiding Ukraine and "Europe" says no in a European Army then we're/they're f***ed.
What we need, like with safety in other realms like aviation or technology, is greater redundancy. Less integration, not more.
A collection of willing and able nations like hypothetically Britain, Poland, Australia and France working together while unwilling nations like hypothetically America, Germany, Italy, Austria and Hungary don't is better than having two united points of critical failure that both let us down.
And this is what I was suggesting last week. If the government does resolve it people will live with it regardless if how it was achieved. I think the general public is fed up with small boat arrivals and even if the method is lambasted by bleeding heart do gooder liberals voters will, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote accordingly.
So you’re suggesting the shy Tory effect will win the next election?
The catch is that the Braverman plan very probably isn't going to work. Partly because of Lefty Lawyers, but mostly because
At present the UK has no arrangements in place that would enable the transfer of asylum-seekers to safe third countries in practice. As noted above, there are currently no bilateral agreements with EU countries enabling the return of irregular migrants or asylum-seekers who have passed through them on the way to the UK. Agreements with other listed third countries, such as Rwanda, have not been operationalised: the High Court ruled the Rwanda asylum policy to be lawful in December 2023, but the decision is currently under appeal.
Without those arrangements, how does the government propose to move people somewhere else?
Saying you will do stuff is much much easier than actually doing it.
But they are doing it, whether you agree with it or not the fact that the High Courts ruling is being appealed isn't their fault. The judicial system needs to be able to run its course, unless you think they should be circumventing the judicial system what more can realistically be done?
Once the legal hoops are out of the way, the system can become operational - and if you object to it, then that's perfectly valid and should be debated in the political sphere, but if its legal and goes operational then unless opponents win a General Election the system can work.
You’re missing the point there. When Rwanda and the handful of others is ruled lawful we don’t have enough countries to send people to, whatever the outcome of the claims
We can start making agreements with more third countries though (For oodles of cash !) but still Rwanda starting up would be a start.
Can you point me to evidence that we are negotiating such “arrangements”? I don’t think we are.
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
I think if the money is right plenty of countries will bite our hands off tbh.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not providing people due to be deported with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
Can you read what I said? If other countries would bite our hands off why are other countries not queuing up to make us an offer. Rwanda is a terrible “arrangement” for us. It’s an unenforceable handshake deal. They can pull out when they like and will do when it becomes politically expedient. The Conservatives have not agreed anything. It’s not a treaty, it’s a headline. The Rwandans have no incentive to keep to it. Rwanda won’t take anyone because they played the Tories for fools. It’s nothing to do with the courts but they’ll get blamed.
At the moment Rwanda hasn't taken anyone due to UK court rulings. Agreements with France and I think Albania will be sucking up negotiating time. Once we've got deals with those countries, and a plane actually leaves for Rwanda I think other deals with third countries can then think about happening.
Rwanda say they can take c. 200 people. That's it. And the more that Tories talk up the Rwanda solution as being the dumping ground for thousands of people, the sillier it gets.
Bollocks. Here's the article that silly headline and twatter misundstanding started from:
Questions: 1. What infrastructure work has Rwanda undertaken to accept any more than 200? 2. What does the UK do if Rwanda accept the 1,000 agreed? Our needs are way more than that
1. Paying more hotels is not "infrastrcuture work".
2. The theory is that once the flights start, the boats stop. Because who wants to pay £5000 to get from Calais to Kigali?
Now, whether the theory will work or not is a rather more open question.
Regardless of the facts being debated here, an outgoing PM should not be making his father a lord simply because he's his father.
What has Stanley Johnson ever done that needs any kind of public recognition? I vaguely remember him being on some kind of reality TV ('I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here'?) but that might be a pure figment of my imagination. I was aware of him in contexts that weren't wholly related to Boris, but I can't think what. Help!
The Boris argument appears to be that he deserves it for work done in the EU Commission. Which is hilarious.
Regardless of the facts being debated here, an outgoing PM should not be making his father a lord simply because he's his father.
What has Stanley Johnson ever done that needs any kind of public recognition? I vaguely remember him being on some kind of reality TV ('I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here'?) but that might be a pure figment of my imagination. I was aware of him in contexts that weren't wholly related to Boris, but I can't think what. Help!
It does seem incredible, I know, but organisations (RSPCA, RSPC, WWF) have been falling over themselves to give Stanley Johnson prizes. From wiki:
In 1983 he received the RSPCA Richard Martin Award for Outstanding Services to animal welfare. He was for many years an ambassador for the UNEP Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals based in Bonn, Germany.
In October 2015 Johnson was awarded the RSPB Medal by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for his role in the creation of one of the cornerstones of Europe's nature conservation policy – the Habitats Directive (1992).
In December 2015 he received the World Wide Fund for Nature Leader for a Living Planet Award.
I must admit I am of the opinion that there are too many of these awards -- the Best Circus Pony of the Year, the Tyson Medal Prize for Best Right Hook to a Marital Partner, etc -- but I'm still astonished that Stanley has amassed 3 prizes already.
Comments
local Morrisons was still at 162.9 though. Maybe jsut waiting on new delivery before they reduce , seems mix at those prices which is unusual
We sent Rwanda a load of cash and all we got in return was a non-enforceable “Memorandum of Understanding”. Do you think for a moment that they won’t pull out as soon as it becomes an electoral/financial/reputational liability to keep taking these people?
In reality, the 'small boats' issue doesn't impinge on the 'lived experience' of 99% of voters. Once something more important comes along, it could well disappear. Even Gary Lineker shoved 'small boats' out of the news for a few days.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/14/senate-defense-department-ukraine-fighters-00087051
...Among their questions, the lawmakers asked how high Ukrainian officials are ranking fighter jets when making requests for weapons and how the F-16s might be sourced if approved — either newly produced or from current inventories. They also sought the military’s assessment of what impact F-16s would have on the conflict and how quickly Ukrainian pilots could be trained on the jets.
The group hailed reports that two Ukrainian pilots came to the U.S. for a fighter skills assessment at Tucson’s Morris Air National Guard Base, in Kelly’s home state, which they called a “critical step in gauging” their readiness to fly F-16s.
Also signing onto the letter were Democrats Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Jacky Rosen of Nevada as well as Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and Ted Budd of North Carolina...
Yet who do the LibDems blame for Brexit?
Pillocks.
Everyone else? No, its education, the NHS, jobs, the economy. And the increasing disrepute that politics has been brought to.
The illegal illegal migration bill is written in crayon, a Tory campaign slogan written into an unapplicable law. It won't and can't achieve any of its supposed aims because its true aim is to stick it to Labour.
But even this is flawed reasoning, because the majority of reasoning voters simply don't rate this as *the* issue, and get deeply pissed off when shouty / stupid Tories tell them that actually they do rate it actually.
They all know the number of people they'll actually take will likely be negligible due to UK courts not allowing the deportation of people due to be deported being provided with a working sim card for 3 full days or some such.*
Don't get me wrong the whole thing is probably unworkable due mainly to UK "justice" inertia but Rwanda has a fantastic arrangement - which other countries don't want free money ?
* Edited to make sense.
It got me thinking about the newish but rapidly growing concept of "Anglo Saxons" and how it is fast becoming a new reference point in the world of conspiracy theories.
The official account of what happened to the plane is the long solo suicide flight into the South Indian Ocean, supported by some Inmarsat pings. One of the alternative theories was espoused by a Le Monde journalist and loudly reinforced by one of the victims' family members, also French. It essentially says that US forces shot down the plane in the South China Sea to prevent some highly valuable military-technical kit getting to Beijing, then staged an elaborate cover up. There are enough gaps in the official account and pieces of anecdotal evidence to give this theory at least some credibility, though it still requires a few very large leaps of imagination.
But the interesting thing is the coverup narrative. The theory purports that the US did the shoot down, then worked with the Australians (who had an airforce base on the officially confirmed flight path that apparently never spotted the plane, and then led the search for wreckage in the ocean) and les Anglais. It was an AUKUS cover-up. The bereaved father notes that an American adventurer who went searching for the wreckage in Mozambique magically discovered some with "all the Anglo Saxon media" present.
Recently the Russians have repeatedly accused "Anglo Saxons" of staging or coordinating attacks such as the Nordstream explosion and the Kerch Bridge bomb. Leading of course to humorous cartoon Bayeux Tapestry spoofs.
I think Anglo Saxon is now entrenched and here to stay. It has been part of French discourse on cultural imperialism for years. but seem to have been picked up as a hook by Russia and from there is finding its way into the troll farms and conspiracy world.
It shares some features with the illuminati / global elite / Soros / Israel/Jews ideas in the sense it suggests both a powerful cabal keeping secrets from the rest of the world, and also a nation at the centre (the UK / the "English") that pretends to be weak or small but actually acts as puppet master to the hegemon (the US), acting alongside a couple of willing Henchmen (Canada & Australia). It has deepish roots. An evolution of the Perfide Albion idea and Iran's great Satan / crafty fox theory. I think Brexit gives it a boost in Europe too because it has made us more "other". We are more visibly different, somewhat more mysterious and therefore more worthy of suspicion than before. The AUKUS deal helps this too.
If they've not already deployed it I expect some more Chinese noise about Anglo Saxons soon too, and loads of it on international Twitter.
Drawing clear blue water between himself and Trump and DeSantis on the issue.
In the speech Pence also criticised the Biden administration for being too slow to provide aid to Ukraine
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/24/mike-pence-ex-trump-vp-slams-gop-putin-apologists-in-ukraine-speech.html
Given that why would Stanley have never denied the accusation and/or taken legal action if it is not true? What possible explanation is there?
Or charm.
seriously ripped off.
You don’t believe the evidence of the victim? That’s extremely low. I’ve base my understanding on the evidence of a domestic violence victim. Something that you appear to say doesn’t count. Tories really are the pits.
Mr. Seal, without commenting on the specific allegation, 'the evidence of the victim' presupposes one side is telling the truth, and that an allegation is proof of guilt (as, otherwise, the victimhood or not of the accuser is a matter of dispute).
On the knighthood, it's unacceptable and ridiculous. Or a typical Boris Johnson decision, in other words.
I don't know what happened, or if anything did, but it's hilarious seeing so much certainty over it by people who should know better.
Would you have sued an ex-wife (*) (and mother of your kids) over something like this? Or would you and the kids just prefer for it to pass?
(*) If you had one?
I anticipate that the next government will dig deeply into the corruption cesspool which was the PPE procurement scandal. No more hiding.
Next you'll be saying that Cameron really did do something with a pig.
And I am not a Tory (tm).
But I guess you don't believe that,
It's rather about NATO allies willingness to supply any fighter jets - which is very much contingent on US agreement.
If not enough turn up the Private Members Bill won’t go anywhere . The government were supposed to legislate for this but haven’t bothered so far .
Clearly that is in no way legally conclusive, but it is evidence of a sort.
But again again again - this is established truth. Nobody denies that he broke his wife's nose and put her in hospital. Nobody. Instead we have plenty of voices confirming he put her in hospital, but "only once".
So why on earth are you fighting on this particular hill to defend a man who isn't defending himself over something that he objectively did? Because of who he is and what he represents? Or do you have another more lofty motivation which you oddly only deploy in defence of certain key Tory figures?
Please move on.
I can tell you did journalistic training, as you've got a weird definition of 'truth'. The only truth is that claim was made in a book
Why are you so convinced he's guilty, based on little evidence? Your previous post indicates an answer: he's a Tory.
Thatcher even lost her first parliamentary elections in Dartford in 1950 and 1951 before moving to Finchley which she won in 1959. If Labour are to form the next government they should be winning seats in Kent and not just student heavy Canterbury
You're now portraying the wife-beater as the victim. Really? Please stop. The are far more relevant things to debate than this old story. SJ beating his wife is not news. Fiona Bruce seemingly being forced to defend him by her bosses is the story. It ties in rather neatly with the breaking story overnight of leaked BBC bosses instructions to hacks to do what Downing Street tell them. Complete then with the evidence of said instructions being followed through.
You do reference Rwanda scheme as limited to 200 but that does not seem to be accurate
Apparently it is 1,000 initially and to be expanded as per this BBC report
BBC News - What is the UK's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866
I look forward to you creating a list of people worthy of defence.
As for 'in character' (and I don't know the answer to this): does Stanley Johnson sue people? Does he have a track record in the courts>
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9568/
The childcarer has to live, (s)he has to pay rent, Council Tax, transport costs, and so on.
So, of course, there is a premium for SE/London.
The Greens might win the odd council seat but Labour remain the main challengers to the Conservatives in the county
I know, and it should be irrelevant. Perhaps you should ponder that, given your comment.
I'm not portraying the (alleged) wife-beater as a victim. Please take your own advice and *stop*.
Oh, and here's a hint: (whispers softly): Tom Knox book's aren't real. There, I know you're amazed.
As for truth, we have on one side:
Original claim
Publication and reportage of original claim
Corroborating evidence offered by friends in defence of why he did the thing in the original claim
And on the other side:
Is it possible that she made it up? Of course. Is it likely beyond the balance of probabilities? No. You do understand how things work in our society don't you? That even being convicted of something isn't the same as that something ever having actually happened?
Because I can show you evidence- videos, photographs, testimonies all showing x happening. And then produce other evidence showing how the supposedly self-evident fact is at best a distortion and at worst a deliberate lie put out as truth.
Corroboration, context, alternate perspectives are all key. And in this case the corroboration is there and the dissenting alternate perspectives are not.
It - beyond the balance of probability - happened.
I can do this all day if you want. In increasing bemusement as to why the non-Tory is so doggedly defending the Tory from the injustice of noted lefties like Fiona Bruce casually dismissing this as established fact that needs to be excused.
Actually, no, I won't do this all day long. Its entertaining, but only for so long.
* see https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tom-bower-pulls-his-punches-with-his-life-of-boris-johnson/ ("There have long been rumours that Stanley Johnson hit his first wife Charlotte, and Bower has finally got Charlotte to confirm them — ‘He hit me many times, over many years’ — but it’s hardly an indictment of Boris. If anything, it makes you feel sorry for him. (Stanley has been reported subsequently as disputing the claims of violence, maintaining there was only ever one incident, which he says he regrets)"
There's enough evidence to convict. It has nothing to do with "book sales".
Canterbury South
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Liberal Democrats Michael Sole 2,457 46 Increase9
Conservative Michael Northey 1,966 37 Decrease8
Labour Connie Nolan 961 18 Increase5
Majority 491 9 N/A
Liberal Democrats gain from Conservative
In the 2021 county council elections the Greens went from 1 to 4 seats, to Labour's 7. The Tories dominate of course. Kent of course doesn't include Medway for local government purposes.
If there is one thing I would like to hammer into everyones head it's this: tax rates are far less important than the revenue raised. Focus on the latter, not on setting the rates to a "fair" or "punitive" level, depending upon your goal.
Doesn't defamation require evidence of income loss?
So -- to sue -- Stanley Johnson would have to show that the claim of a journalist that he had broken the nose of his ex-wife had led to a loss of income.
Pb.com is stuffed full of lawyers posting endlessly and with nothing better to do than write letters saying "my time is worth £500 an hour", so we can easily get confirmation of this
But, it is not obvious to me that Johnson would actually have a viable defamation case.
So, there is an alternative possible explanation of why he has not sued -- other than he is guilty (which he might be, for all I know).
Like all the boat policies this is designed to get the government to the next election with less than maximal damage, after which it is SKS's problem.
IMHO the mistake is to go after the 'Johnny Foreigner out' rather than start getting back the 'One Nation Tory' vote which in the longer run is part of the vote crucial to running a civilized country again.
"There's enough evidence to convict."
Given your and RP's posts on this, I doubt it.
Again, it may have happened; it may not. Or the truth may be somewhere else. What amuses me is the way people are so absolutely keen to believe it, with a fool's certainty.
And the reason they do is political bias. Lefty's really are the pits (see what I did there?)
The big reasons for avoiding defamation cases:
cost
waste of time
you might lose
media
'no smoke without fire'
the sound of lawyers rubbing their hands together.
That is laughably wrong. But provides a reflection in the mirror of what JJ himself is doing defending right wing figures of the same.
That we can't all agree that wife-beating is a universal wrong is one of the problems we have in society.
Is it? There is *claimed* corroboration. But no-one's gone down in the record. And as someone with a journalistic background, you'd know that journalists, never, ever, gild the lily. Or even outright lie.
As I said: it's clear from your posts that this is a political for you: and if this was a Labour figure, you'd be busy trying to prove it never, ever happened. That's not what I'm doing: I'm just saying that you have a fool's certainty over this.
It is one adult for every three children under two years olds.
So the payment received for the childcarer is 3 * £ 4.72 /hour = £ 14.16 /hour.
That is the real disgrace here -- the low wages of the childcarer.
Though given recent statements from Poland and the Baltic states, it would be not entirely accurate.
And in any event, the discussion is about the US (and particularly the GOP) commitment to the NATO opposition to Russia's invasion. How you describe that doesn't really matter.
So yes, he may have done it. Or he may not have done it. *I don't know*.
Neither do you.
All of this happened a long time ago involving someone who would be of zero interest had he not been outrageously nominated for a knighthood by his son.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/rwanda-asylum-deal-uk-asylum-seekers-yolande-makolo-b1014266.html
Read beyond the headline.
I expected to be billed
Lawyers have these exorbitant child care costs as well, that are currently exercising pb.com's affluent.
So £500 / hour is clearly not enough. Would £ 1000/ hour be acceptable?
"But we can't attack the rich and privileged Tory! It's unfair!"
Which, as I've explained, is not why I'm making this argument. You won't find a single place where I've defended Stanley Johnson before this (have I ever mentioned him before?) and my views on Boris are well known. In fact, we'd be better off without any of that family in public prominence.
"basic standards of decency" apples in all directions, to all people.
1. What infrastructure work has Rwanda undertaken to accept any more than 200?
2. What does the UK do if Rwanda accept the 1,000 agreed? Our needs are way more than that
Not that we need worry about Rwanda. To deport them to Rwanda first we have to detain them. And we have absolutely nowhere to do so, and every time a new detention site is proposed the locals and their (usually anti-migration Tory MP) do their nut.
So whilst I agree with the word bollocks, it is for different reasons...
Secondly people will stop breaking the law if the penalties are tougher, so long as they're tough enough. The number of people who smuggle drugs into Singapore is low because the penalties are enforced. People paying smugglers to take them into Britain are already paying their own penalty but they think its worth it - if that payment sees them going elsewhere, then they will cease to make that payment. And that's already proven where this policy is operational elsewhere, like Australia, the policy has worked.
Your problem is with the evidence not being what you want it to be. Objecting to the policy on the grounds of it being immoral in your eyes is entirely reasonable, objecting to it on the grounds that it can't work is just wrong. Plain wrong. Wrong is too weak, as you said.
You seem to have chosen a weird hill to die on this morning, JJ.
1a. What capacity did we have for tens of thousands, given then numbers were a tiny fraction of that a few years ago? Capacity can be built.
2. Our needs will fall if people making the journey know they will end in Rwanda, they won't make the journey anymore.
Cheltenham Day Two. There’s no pause or let up in festival racing 🥳
For horse racing fans, it was a great first day, lots of fascinating contests in front a raucous crowd, lots of emotional back stories to winners. It was largely win too for punters over bookies. The crowd got what they wanted.
Of my four tips, one win two seconds, though those seconds didn’t count for me as I do win bets. And what left me flat as a flat ironed pancake, was Maries Rock and Love Envoi both beaten in the Mares😭
Love Envoi nothing left to give in the final yards after doing all the work. Not fair! I was a proper moody mare myself.
Constitution Hill stole the show on Day 1. Sure you can say it’s the beastly gears at the end of race, rivals can’t match. It’s more than that for me, have you ever seen a horse more relaxed and focussed in the endless parade in front hordes of over excited humans and everything else going on before the race? They said Hilly works eats and sleeps. Being completely unflappable in personality type builds the foundation for the performance, do you see what I mean? A beautiful horse too, you just want to hug and give it lots of kisses. And was expertly piloted. As the consummate professional package, you just want to trust your money on it. Stodge called it right in Mondays header, it was like a graduation day. Keys to the door moment.
My Win tips for Day 2
Good Land for Ballymore Novices’ Hurdle (1.30)
Geri Colombe to land novice chase handicap (2.10)
Edwardstone is the best 2m chaser, is over a bruised foot, and nothing will go wrong here in Queen Mum (3.30)
Elixir De Nutz (4:50)
If you want an e/w tip Red Risk has fought valiantly for first and second last two races and currently on double carpet.
And a chance to check form of my Grand National tip DeltaWork, in the Cross Country. If you are unfamiliar with todays big Steeplechase, it is just about 4 miles, 32 unique obstacles with great names, including banks, drops, water. Commentary you couldn’t make up and do it justice, but I’ll try. “So as we move away from the Jolly Rancher, it’s Mywifeknowseverything as we approach the Duck Pond… Slack Sally has gone down there at the Kissing Gate…as we make our way on to Mrs Miggins Flower Garden, Sotallytober from The Geespot”
Good luck!
But a European Army is the last thing we need. If America says no to aiding Ukraine and "Europe" says no in a European Army then we're/they're f***ed.
What we need, like with safety in other realms like aviation or technology, is greater redundancy. Less integration, not more.
A collection of willing and able nations like hypothetically Britain, Poland, Australia and France working together while unwilling nations like hypothetically America, Germany, Italy, Austria and Hungary don't is better than having two united points of critical failure that both let us down.
2. The theory is that once the flights start, the boats stop. Because who wants to pay £5000 to get from Calais to Kigali?
Now, whether the theory will work or not is a rather more open question.
In 1983 he received the RSPCA Richard Martin Award for Outstanding Services to animal welfare. He was for many years an ambassador for the UNEP Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals based in Bonn, Germany.
In October 2015 Johnson was awarded the RSPB Medal by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for his role in the creation of one of the cornerstones of Europe's nature conservation policy – the Habitats Directive (1992).
In December 2015 he received the World Wide Fund for Nature Leader for a Living Planet Award.
I must admit I am of the opinion that there are too many of these awards -- the Best Circus Pony of the Year, the Tyson Medal Prize for Best Right Hook to a Marital Partner, etc -- but I'm still astonished that Stanley has amassed 3 prizes already.