Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Well done Gavin Williamson – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,218
edited April 2023 in General
Well done Gavin Williamson – politicalbetting.com

One of the big political stories of the week has been the series of YouTube interviews commissioned by the campaign group Led led Donkeys into the reaction of a senior Conservatives to a suggestion that they might like to work for a Korean Consulting firm as part of its European advisory board

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,401
    Coo. How big was the n in the sample?!
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    In the Kingdom of Asses, the carthorse is King?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

    you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

    actually enforced.

    It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    I am reminded of the similar fishing expedition in the House of Lords. IIRC one DUP Lord said something on the lines of "What you are proposing is either illegal or should be. Go and never come back."

    The rest drooled at the the thought of that sweet, sweet money...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    I am reminded of the similar fishing expedition in the House of Lords. IIRC one DUP Lord said something on the lines of "What you are proposing is either illegal or should be. Go and never come back."

    The rest drooled at the the thought of that sweet, sweet money...

    Stephen Byers "cab for hire at £5,000 a day"
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,168

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    Fpt

    Of course a government of slave owners would be quite keen on the right to keep and bear arms, what with having to protect/control their living chattels.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    Pulpstar said:

    I am reminded of the similar fishing expedition in the House of Lords. IIRC one DUP Lord said something on the lines of "What you are proposing is either illegal or should be. Go and never come back."

    The rest drooled at the the thought of that sweet, sweet money...

    Stephen Byers "cab for hire at £5,000 a day"
    You can't buy politicians.

    Bur you can rent them.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,010

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,036
    Pulpstar said:

    I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

    you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

    actually enforced.

    It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

    MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352
    Gavin Williamson is not very articulate is he?

    Slightly interesting that "the public" (according to journalists) doesn't like MPs having second jobs (which of course they have immediately they become a minister), but same said public seems OK with hospital consultants having second jobs.

    When will journalists do their jobs properly and start to scrutinise all walks of life that receive public money, including the medical profession?

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    Fpt

    Of course a government of slave owners would be quite keen on the right to keep and bear arms, what with having to protect/control their living chattels.
    The supporting views behind the 2A varied. A major one was not having a standing army - which was held to be immoral. The myth of the Minuteman was borne out of this hatred of a standing army, which in turn was seen as the feature of tyranny.

    A lot of the opposition to slavery was around the idea of slave catching patrols and having a standing paramilitary force checking papers etc.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,870

    Gavin Williamson is not very articulate is he?

    Slightly interesting that "the public" (according to journalists) doesn't like MPs having second jobs (which of course they have immediately they become a minister), but same said public seems OK with hospital consultants having second jobs.

    When will journalists do their jobs properly and start to scrutinise all walks of life that receive public money, including the medical profession?

    I tried to hire a French academic once to do some consulting - just a couple of thousand euros worth. He said sorry, but we're not allowed. Apparently they are almost completely banned from outside work - with some exceptions such as collecting book royalties.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It was bullshit from the start. The Minutemen were not much use against a professional army.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,888
    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,010
    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Oh yeah.

    But lots of Americans like their guns, and they've managed to elect politicians who have selected judges who are willing to read the literal meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and nothing else.

    Which I regret. But I don't see a point to denying it or wishing it away.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,168
    edited March 2023
    A few folk left raging doubtless.



    Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?


  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352
    carnforth said:

    Gavin Williamson is not very articulate is he?

    Slightly interesting that "the public" (according to journalists) doesn't like MPs having second jobs (which of course they have immediately they become a minister), but same said public seems OK with hospital consultants having second jobs.

    When will journalists do their jobs properly and start to scrutinise all walks of life that receive public money, including the medical profession?

    I tried to hire a French academic once to do some consulting - just a couple of thousand euros worth. He said sorry, but we're not allowed. Apparently they are almost completely banned from outside work - with some exceptions such as collecting book royalties.
    I think it is fair to say that many, if not most private companies have contractual requirements not to have additional jobs without consultation, on the basis that it would divert attention away from what the person has been hired to do.

    With respect to MPs, the reality is that it IS a part time job. If it were not, it would be impossible to be the MP for Bullshit under Marsh and also be Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, LoTO etc.

    Doctors are different. they do actually have a full time position which they are paid pretty well for considering it is the safest job in the known universe, but additionally they may earn considerable extra sums through private practice. How do they manage this? Do they have Hermione Granger's Time Turner? No, they somehow manage to fit all of this into the same number of hours that anyone else has!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    A few folk left raging doubtless.



    Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

    Reward for helping Humza get his job?

    Robison introduced the GRR bill…..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    Fpt

    Of course a government of slave owners would be quite keen on the right to keep and bear arms, what with having to protect/control their living chattels.
    The supporting views behind the 2A varied. A major one was not having a standing army - which was held to be immoral. The myth of the Minuteman was borne out of this hatred of a standing army, which in turn was seen as the feature of tyranny.

    A lot of the opposition to slavery was around the idea of slave catching patrols and having a standing paramilitary force checking papers etc.
    I had no idea "Minuteman" (I've looked it up now) referred to an early US militia. I've always associated the word with the ICBM.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,478
    On topic, Gavin may have done well, but Kwarteng certainly didn't. His 'job interview' with "Hanseong Consulting" is vomit-inducing, and shows just how arrogant and entitled he is, as he does the big 'I am' while offering to work for them for a mere £10k per day.

    But what I found most astonishing was that Kwarteng or one of his aides didn't do due diligence in advance and work out this was likely to be a fake company. Not that bright, is he? Same applies to Hancock of course, but we knew that anyway.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352
    Pulpstar said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    Fpt

    Of course a government of slave owners would be quite keen on the right to keep and bear arms, what with having to protect/control their living chattels.
    The supporting views behind the 2A varied. A major one was not having a standing army - which was held to be immoral. The myth of the Minuteman was borne out of this hatred of a standing army, which in turn was seen as the feature of tyranny.

    A lot of the opposition to slavery was around the idea of slave catching patrols and having a standing paramilitary force checking papers etc.
    I had no idea "Minuteman" (I've looked it up now) referred to an early US militia. I've always associated the word with the ICBM.
    They all had to be extremely small. A little like Rishi Sunak.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,281
    (FPT)

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    The honesty I was talking about was in relation to his own capacity to do anything other than sweet FA.
    Of course government can do constructive stuff, and it's just pathetic for Republicans to claim otherwise.
  • EmeraldEmerald Posts: 55

    On topic, Gavin may have done well, but Kwarteng certainly didn't. His 'job interview' with "Hanseong Consulting" is vomit-inducing, and shows just how arrogant and entitled he is, as he does the big 'I am' while offering to work for them for a mere £10k per day.

    But what I found most astonishing was that Kwarteng or one of his aides didn't do due diligence in advance and work out this was likely to be a fake company. Not that bright, is he? Same applies to Hancock of course, but we knew that anyway.

    these govt minsters are a horrible mixture of arrogance and greed and pure incompetence.
  • El_SidEl_Sid Posts: 145

    Gavin Williamson is not very articulate is he?

    People have been saying this but he's in a stressful situation, and he's aware of the importance of "measure twice, cut once" - far better to think a bit before speaking than have your wallet connected to your mouth without going via the brain.

    And of course as a former Chief Whip, he is no stranger to the dark arts, so is perhaps a bit more streetwise than some more naive MPs.

    When will journalists do their jobs properly and start to scrutinise all walks of life that receive public money, including the medical profession?

    Journalists - you mean the people for whom freelancing between multiple employers is the norm, and who always try to have a book contract on the side?

    Personally I've no problem with a *bit* of work on the side, just limit it to no more than say 25% of MP's salary. A lot of the "good" side hustles are badly paid, a lot of the "problematic" ones are well paid, so a financial limit works and is easily enforced. I think it's a shame that you no longer have MPs being allowed to be Special Constables for instance, a bit of contact with the real world is no bad thing.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,679

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
    The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    It's funny how the literalists are only literal when it suits their existing preconceptions.

    Personally, I'd love a justice who was genuinely consistent.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,443
    Doctors hate punters. In evidence to the DCMS select committee:-

    The BMA's submission included the eyecatching statement: "Doctors are concerned that the regulation of gambling is inadequate and does not prevent people becoming gamblers or effectively manage those who have developed problems."

    Note the BMA is not just saying that regulation should just help prevent people from developing issues with their gambling, which nobody could disagree with, but that in fact regulation is "inadequate" for not preventing people from gambling full stop. It has evidently decided that gambling should be treated in the same way as tobacco.

    https://www.racingpost.com/news/opinion/comment/tough-task-for-mps-as-christians-and-doctors-unite-in-calls-to-stamp-out-gambling-aWfN77n2olxr/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662
    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    Actually, from the late 1800s until the 1970s, SCOTUS was pretty clear that the right was limited by the initial part of the sentence. It was only under Rehnquist and Scalia that the interpretation changed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,281
    Pulpstar said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    Fpt

    Of course a government of slave owners would be quite keen on the right to keep and bear arms, what with having to protect/control their living chattels.
    The supporting views behind the 2A varied. A major one was not having a standing army - which was held to be immoral. The myth of the Minuteman was borne out of this hatred of a standing army, which in turn was seen as the feature of tyranny.

    A lot of the opposition to slavery was around the idea of slave catching patrols and having a standing paramilitary force checking papers etc.
    I had no idea "Minuteman" (I've looked it up now) referred to an early US militia. I've always associated the word with the ICBM.
    Similarly the Copperhead:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M712_Copperhead

    Also, during the Civil War, a citizen in the North who opposed the war and advocated restoration of the Union through negotiated settlement with the South.
    And of course a venomous snake.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662

    Pulpstar said:

    I am reminded of the similar fishing expedition in the House of Lords. IIRC one DUP Lord said something on the lines of "What you are proposing is either illegal or should be. Go and never come back."

    The rest drooled at the the thought of that sweet, sweet money...

    Stephen Byers "cab for hire at £5,000 a day"
    You can't buy politicians.

    Bur you can rent them.
    An honest politician is one who, once bought, stays bought.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223

    Doctors hate punters. In evidence to the DCMS select committee:-

    The BMA's submission included the eyecatching statement: "Doctors are concerned that the regulation of gambling is inadequate and does not prevent people becoming gamblers or effectively manage those who have developed problems."

    Note the BMA is not just saying that regulation should just help prevent people from developing issues with their gambling, which nobody could disagree with, but that in fact regulation is "inadequate" for not preventing people from gambling full stop. It has evidently decided that gambling should be treated in the same way as tobacco.

    https://www.racingpost.com/news/opinion/comment/tough-task-for-mps-as-christians-and-doctors-unite-in-calls-to-stamp-out-gambling-aWfN77n2olxr/

    And I agree with them. As much as I am interested in betting, I think gambling adverts should be banned in the same way as tobacco adverts are banned.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662
    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Oh yeah.

    But lots of Americans like their guns, and they've managed to elect politicians who have selected judges who are willing to read the literal meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and nothing else.

    Which I regret. But I don't see a point to denying it or wishing it away.
    The right to bear arms is clearly not unlimited otherwise you would be allowed nuclear weapons.

    The only question is where the line is drawn.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662

    carnforth said:

    Gavin Williamson is not very articulate is he?

    Slightly interesting that "the public" (according to journalists) doesn't like MPs having second jobs (which of course they have immediately they become a minister), but same said public seems OK with hospital consultants having second jobs.

    When will journalists do their jobs properly and start to scrutinise all walks of life that receive public money, including the medical profession?

    I tried to hire a French academic once to do some consulting - just a couple of thousand euros worth. He said sorry, but we're not allowed. Apparently they are almost completely banned from outside work - with some exceptions such as collecting book royalties.
    I think it is fair to say that many, if not most private companies have contractual requirements not to have additional jobs without consultation, on the basis that it would divert attention away from what the person has been hired to do.

    With respect to MPs, the reality is that it IS a part time job. If it were not, it would be impossible to be the MP for Bullshit under Marsh and also be Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, LoTO etc.

    Doctors are different. they do actually have a full time position which they are paid pretty well for considering it is the safest job in the known universe, but additionally they may earn considerable extra sums through private practice. How do they manage this? Do they have Hermione Granger's Time Turner? No, they somehow manage to fit all of this into the same number of hours that anyone else has!
    Do you have any evidence that they do not possess Time Turners?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,281

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
    The extent of gun ownership in the early US is widely (and predictably hotly) debated, as is the primary purpose of state militias. Certainly as far as the latter was concerned, owning a musket was more of an obligation for militia members, rather than a right - arguably the amendment was intended to protect states' rights to maintain armed militias (though of course that's not easy separable form the individual right to bear arms).

    What's fairly indisputable is that the early US had no problems at all with state laws restricting or regulating gun ownership.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    edited March 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    It's funny how the literalists are only literal when it suits their existing preconceptions.

    Personally, I'd love a justice who was genuinely consistent.
    Irregular verb time.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I am reminded of the similar fishing expedition in the House of Lords. IIRC one DUP Lord said something on the lines of "What you are proposing is either illegal or should be. Go and never come back."

    The rest drooled at the the thought of that sweet, sweet money...

    Stephen Byers "cab for hire at £5,000 a day"
    You can't buy politicians.

    Bur you can rent them.
    An honest politician is one who, once bought, stays bought.
    No, an honest politician is one who, when rented, doesn't immediately try and get a better price from the other side.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662
    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
    The extent of gun ownership in the early US is widely (and predictably hotly) debated, as is the primary purpose of state militias. Certainly as far as the latter was concerned, owning a musket was more of an obligation for militia members, rather than a right - arguably the amendment was intended to protect states' rights to maintain armed militias (though of course that's not easy separable form the individual right to bear arms).

    What's fairly indisputable is that the early US had no problems at all with state laws restricting or regulating gun ownership.
    Exactly: which is why the Supreme Court overturning a New York law that was a century old is so concerning.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,281
    Just the facts...
    Trump, attacking Bragg, keeps saying murder or violent crime in Manhattan is at a record high. This is not even close to true. NYPD data is public. Look at the bottom section, 2022 versus 1990.
    https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1640710819523485696

    In general, an inconvenient reality for Republicans is that while the 2020 murder spike has not been fully reversed we're now clearly on track for *less* lethal violence than we had when Trump was in office.
    https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1640717915283689472
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,010
    edited March 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    Actually, from the late 1800s until the 1970s, SCOTUS was pretty clear that the right was limited by the initial part of the sentence. It was only under Rehnquist and Scalia that the interpretation changed.
    Oh, sure. I'm only talking about the current composition of SCOTUS because that's the one that matters at the moment.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,147

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It was bullshit from the start. The Minutemen were not much use against a professional army.
    They did well at Lexington and Concord, and the battle of Bunker Hill, which effectively forced the British forces out of New England.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,168

    A few folk left raging doubtless.



    Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

    Reward for helping Humza get his job?

    Robison introduced the GRR bill…..
    I knew I could depend on you for the GRR angle.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,147
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
    The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.
    There is a view that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons that any individual can use to protect their rights, while heavy weapons are otential instruments of tyranny as they can only be operated by State officials. Hence no nukes.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

    you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

    actually enforced.

    It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

    MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.
    They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,281
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
    The extent of gun ownership in the early US is widely (and predictably hotly) debated, as is the primary purpose of state militias. Certainly as far as the latter was concerned, owning a musket was more of an obligation for militia members, rather than a right - arguably the amendment was intended to protect states' rights to maintain armed militias (though of course that's not easy separable form the individual right to bear arms).

    What's fairly indisputable is that the early US had no problems at all with state laws restricting or regulating gun ownership.
    Exactly: which is why the Supreme Court overturning a New York law that was a century old is so concerning.

    The current SC is pretty well out of control on this stuff.
    Just making it up as they go along, and pretending it's 'history'.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    A few folk left raging doubtless.



    Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

    Reward for helping Humza get his job?

    Robison introduced the GRR bill…..
    I knew I could depend on you for the GRR angle.
    She is a duffer among duffers as well, one of Sturgeon's besties surprise surprise.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352
    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

    you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

    actually enforced.

    It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

    MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.
    They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.
    You are retired if I remember correctly? Or was it just long term unemployed?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Malmesbury's depiction of American militia circa 1775, and its relationship to the 2nd Amendment, is a parody of actual situation. For starters, American views he describes, reflect FUTURE ideas and attitudes, up to the present, way more than how contemporaries saw things.

    PLUS otion that militia was total crapola is rather undermined by detailed histories of Battle of Lexington, Concord and Bunker (Breed's) Hill.

    Massachusetts militia was well-organized and disciplined. Note that many of it's leaders, officers and rank & file were (alreadyFor example, once the word of the initial clash, the response was HIGHLY organized, subjecting hapless British troops to gauntlet of hot lead all the way back from Concord to Boston.

    In perhaps the most notable instance, the survivors of the Lexington militia company that got walloped in the initial battle of on their town green, managed to reform itself and was waiting for the Lobsterbacks when they came marching back down the road.

    So while the idea that any group of armed yokels, is a match for trained soldiers, is ridiculous, so is the belief that all militias - especially the Minutemen of revolutionary New England - were worthless in war, is just faliacious.

    So when James Madison drafted the Second Amendment in 1789, just 14 years after "the shot heard round the world" he knew the difference between a "well-regulated" militia and, say, a mob of Proud Boys.


  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,067
    malcolmg said:

    A few folk left raging doubtless.



    Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

    Reward for helping Humza get his job?

    Robison introduced the GRR bill…..
    I knew I could depend on you for the GRR angle.
    She is a duffer among duffers as well, one of Sturgeon's besties surprise surprise.
    If Yousaf wanted to try to unite the SNP, he would have appointed Forbes as his deputy.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352
    edited March 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    Gavin Williamson is not very articulate is he?

    Slightly interesting that "the public" (according to journalists) doesn't like MPs having second jobs (which of course they have immediately they become a minister), but same said public seems OK with hospital consultants having second jobs.

    When will journalists do their jobs properly and start to scrutinise all walks of life that receive public money, including the medical profession?

    I tried to hire a French academic once to do some consulting - just a couple of thousand euros worth. He said sorry, but we're not allowed. Apparently they are almost completely banned from outside work - with some exceptions such as collecting book royalties.
    I think it is fair to say that many, if not most private companies have contractual requirements not to have additional jobs without consultation, on the basis that it would divert attention away from what the person has been hired to do.

    With respect to MPs, the reality is that it IS a part time job. If it were not, it would be impossible to be the MP for Bullshit under Marsh and also be Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, LoTO etc.

    Doctors are different. they do actually have a full time position which they are paid pretty well for considering it is the safest job in the known universe, but additionally they may earn considerable extra sums through private practice. How do they manage this? Do they have Hermione Granger's Time Turner? No, they somehow manage to fit all of this into the same number of hours that anyone else has!
    Do you have any evidence that they do not possess Time Turners?
    As far as I am aware, I am the only person in possession of one. I'll just go back and check.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,281
    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
    The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.
    There is a view that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons that any individual can use to protect their rights, while heavy weapons are otential instruments of tyranny as they can only be operated by State officials. Hence no nukes.
    There's a view, but it has no real basis in constitutional law.

    The overriding principle behind the constitution is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    Tens of thousands getting shot every year doesn't much accord with that; constitutionally encouraging that circumstance is absurd.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
    The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.
    There is a view that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons that any individual can use to protect their rights, while heavy weapons are otential instruments of tyranny as they can only be operated by State officials. Hence no nukes.
    Hmmmm

    image
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

    you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

    actually enforced.

    It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

    MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.
    They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.
    You are retired if I remember correctly? Or was it just long term unemployed?
    Your little penis syndrome showing again. I am still working , have done for over 50 years arsewipe. I also make big bucks ( clue more than MP's albeit minus the expenses) as well and collect state pension. You really shoudl not assume people are like yourself.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    On Topic - Does the word "Abscam" ring any bells for any PBers?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam

    Note that one of the US politicos most notoriously stung by this famous sting, just passed away earlier this month:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jenrette

    FYI (also BTW) there were a number of similar stings inspired by Abscam, including Gamscam in WA State, which targeted state house speaker and other local legislators.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    malcolmg said:

    A few folk left raging doubtless.



    Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

    Reward for helping Humza get his job?

    Robison introduced the GRR bill…..
    I knew I could depend on you for the GRR angle.
    She is a duffer among duffers as well, one of Sturgeon's besties surprise surprise.
    If Yousaf wanted to try to unite the SNP, he would have appointed Forbes as his deputy.
    No way that arse would appoint her, he is a vindictive nasty git and will give her a crap job hoping she will fail, likely health that he has already wrecked.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,281
    DeSantis heading to Israel ahead of likely 2024 bid
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/28/ron-desantis-israel-trip-00089153
    ...“At a time of unnecessarily strained relations between Jerusalem and Washington, Florida serves as a bridge between the American and Israeli people,” DeSantis said in a statement.

    Wut ?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    edited March 2023
    As I said the other week: anyone can be scammed.

    The famous, politicians, and even the everyday plebs such as myself should keep that in mind.

    As Elizabeth Holmes, like so many before and after her, showed.

    Edit: I'd *love* to see 'Led by Donkeys' scammed. Say, if they were offered money (donations) to do a campaign against Starmer, Abbott or Rayner.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

    you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

    actually enforced.

    It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

    MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.
    They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.
    You are retired if I remember correctly? Or was it just long term unemployed?
    Your little penis syndrome showing again. I am still working , have done for over 50 years arsewipe. I also make big bucks ( clue more than MP's albeit minus the expenses) as well and collect state pension. You really shoudl not assume people are like yourself.
    lol. Yea right. I am sure your supervisory role returning the trolleys at Tescos pays better than I thought, but probably not that much. Still it gets you away from the wife I guess.

    By the way, Baldrick, you may want to re-engage with the anger management course and stop shagging turnips so often . Over usage of viagra is a bad thing at your advancing age.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,888
    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

    you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

    actually enforced.

    It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

    MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.
    They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.
    There's a decent case for treating MPs as trustees of the UK as a whole, and pay them only expenses. Or at best compensate for some of the time lost as if they were on jury service. They should sit part time. Proper salaries should be for their full time (non nepotistic) staff who should be treated as part of the civil service.

    There would be no shortage of people willing to stand for election to do it.

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Re: Massachusetts militia circa 1775, managed to leave out point, that many were veterans of the French and Indian Wars (aka Seven Years War) on behalf of the British (and themselves).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,952
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    Fpt

    Of course a government of slave owners would be quite keen on the right to keep and bear arms, what with having to protect/control their living chattels.
    The supporting views behind the 2A varied. A major one was not having a standing army - which was held to be immoral. The myth of the Minuteman was borne out of this hatred of a standing army, which in turn was seen as the feature of tyranny.

    A lot of the opposition to slavery was around the idea of slave catching patrols and having a standing paramilitary force checking papers etc.
    I had no idea "Minuteman" (I've looked it up now) referred to an early US militia. I've always associated the word with the ICBM.
    Similarly the Copperhead:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M712_Copperhead

    Also, during the Civil War, a citizen in the North who opposed the war and advocated restoration of the Union through negotiated settlement with the South.
    And of course a venomous snake.
    Copperhead Road is one of the best country songs of all time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSbuawoNpvQ&ab_channel=SteveEarle-Topic
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,010
    algarkirk said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

    you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

    actually enforced.

    It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

    MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.
    They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.
    There's a decent case for treating MPs as trustees of the UK as a whole, and pay them only expenses. Or at best compensate for some of the time lost as if they were on jury service. They should sit part time. Proper salaries should be for their full time (non nepotistic) staff who should be treated as part of the civil service.

    There would be no shortage of people willing to stand for election to do it.

    The problem with that is that you'd only get MPs who can afford to do it for free.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    tlg86 said:

    Doctors hate punters. In evidence to the DCMS select committee:-

    The BMA's submission included the eyecatching statement: "Doctors are concerned that the regulation of gambling is inadequate and does not prevent people becoming gamblers or effectively manage those who have developed problems."

    Note the BMA is not just saying that regulation should just help prevent people from developing issues with their gambling, which nobody could disagree with, but that in fact regulation is "inadequate" for not preventing people from gambling full stop. It has evidently decided that gambling should be treated in the same way as tobacco.

    https://www.racingpost.com/news/opinion/comment/tough-task-for-mps-as-christians-and-doctors-unite-in-calls-to-stamp-out-gambling-aWfN77n2olxr/

    And I agree with them. As much as I am interested in betting, I think gambling adverts should be banned in the same way as tobacco adverts are banned.
    Another reason Gordon Brown was a terrible PM.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903
    Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just
    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

    you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

    actually enforced.

    It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

    MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.
    They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.
    There's a decent case for treating MPs as trustees of the UK as a whole, and pay them only expenses. Or at best compensate for some of the time lost as if they were on jury service. They should sit part time. Proper salaries should be for their full time (non nepotistic) staff who should be treated as part of the civil service.

    There would be no shortage of people willing to stand for election to do it.

    The problem with that is that you'd only get MPs who can afford to do it for free.
    Or those who will then sell influence at a rate of knots to make money.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352

    Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

    Boris Johnson tried to get on top of his brief, but Lord Pannick said he was not that sort of chap. (it is a great name for a lawyer)
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis heading to Israel ahead of likely 2024 bid
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/28/ron-desantis-israel-trip-00089153
    ...“At a time of unnecessarily strained relations between Jerusalem and Washington, Florida serves as a bridge between the American and Israeli people,” DeSantis said in a statement.

    Wut ?

    Florida DOES have a rather sizable, and politically significant, Jewish population.

    PLUS fact that defending/touting Israel is a BIG DEAL for millions of evangelical Christians from sea to shining sea . . . and from South Beach to the Redneck Riviera . . .
  • EmeraldEmerald Posts: 55
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    A few folk left raging doubtless.



    Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

    Reward for helping Humza get his job?

    Robison introduced the GRR bill…..
    I knew I could depend on you for the GRR angle.
    She is a duffer among duffers as well, one of Sturgeon's besties surprise surprise.
    If Yousaf wanted to try to unite the SNP, he would have appointed Forbes as his deputy.
    No way that arse would appoint her, he is a vindictive nasty git and will give her a crap job hoping she will fail, likely health that he has already wrecked.
    do you know him personally?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,401

    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
    The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.
    There is a view that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons that any individual can use to protect their rights, while heavy weapons are otential instruments of tyranny as they can only be operated by State officials. Hence no nukes.
    Hmmmm

    image
    Isn't it helpful that suitcases have wheels these days?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177

    Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

    Good God man! A statement like that and we will find out what the nominal yield of a @ydoethur is.....

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis heading to Israel ahead of likely 2024 bid
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/28/ron-desantis-israel-trip-00089153
    ...“At a time of unnecessarily strained relations between Jerusalem and Washington, Florida serves as a bridge between the American and Israeli people,” DeSantis said in a statement.

    Wut ?

    Florida DOES have a rather sizable, and politically significant, Jewish population.

    PLUS fact that defending/touting Israel is a BIG DEAL for millions of evangelical Christians from sea to shining sea . . . and from South Beach to the Redneck Riviera . . .
    Someone should try selling my idea for peace in the Middle East to the Republicans. Could make big money for Big Engineering contractors....
  • EmeraldEmerald Posts: 55

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis heading to Israel ahead of likely 2024 bid
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/28/ron-desantis-israel-trip-00089153
    ...“At a time of unnecessarily strained relations between Jerusalem and Washington, Florida serves as a bridge between the American and Israeli people,” DeSantis said in a statement.

    Wut ?

    Florida DOES have a rather sizable, and politically significant, Jewish population.

    PLUS fact that defending/touting Israel is a BIG DEAL for millions of evangelical Christians from sea to shining sea . . . and from South Beach to the Redneck Riviera . . .
    Yes southern florida is very jewish. See places like Boca Raton and Palm Beach. A lot of wealthy influential Jews in South Florida. By contrast North Florida is more like the traditional American South.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,067

    Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

    Boris Johnson tried to get on top of his brief, but Lord Pannick said he was not that sort of chap. (it is a great name for a lawyer)
    There used to be a Glasgow law firm called Maclay, Murray and Spens, nicknamed Delay, Worry and Expense. There was a story doing the rounds at one time, that they refused to enter partnership with another well known Glasgow lawyer, Tom Risk, as being called Delay, Worry, Expense and Risk was a step too far.
  • EmeraldEmerald Posts: 55

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis heading to Israel ahead of likely 2024 bid
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/28/ron-desantis-israel-trip-00089153
    ...“At a time of unnecessarily strained relations between Jerusalem and Washington, Florida serves as a bridge between the American and Israeli people,” DeSantis said in a statement.

    Wut ?

    Florida DOES have a rather sizable, and politically significant, Jewish population.

    PLUS fact that defending/touting Israel is a BIG DEAL for millions of evangelical Christians from sea to shining sea . . . and from South Beach to the Redneck Riviera . . .
    However there is also a sizeable portion of the MAGA crowd that dont like Jews much so this could work both ways for him.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,662
    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
    The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.
    There is a view that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons that any individual can use to protect their rights, while heavy weapons are otential instruments of tyranny as they can only be operated by State officials. Hence no nukes.
    It doesn't say "small arms" or "rifles and pistols". If the founders had meant to limit it to those weapons, then surely they would have said so.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,352

    Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

    Boris Johnson tried to get on top of his brief, but Lord Pannick said he was not that sort of chap. (it is a great name for a lawyer)
    There used to be a Glasgow law firm called Maclay, Murray and Spens, nicknamed Delay, Worry and Expense. There was a story doing the rounds at one time, that they refused to enter partnership with another well known Glasgow lawyer, Tom Risk, as being called Delay, Worry, Expense and Risk was a step too far.
    Wasn't there also (genuinely) one in the midlands called Doolittle and Dally?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,952

    Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

    Boris Johnson tried to get on top of his brief, but Lord Pannick said he was not that sort of chap. (it is a great name for a lawyer)
    There used to be a Glasgow law firm called Maclay, Murray and Spens, nicknamed Delay, Worry and Expense. There was a story doing the rounds at one time, that they refused to enter partnership with another well known Glasgow lawyer, Tom Risk, as being called Delay, Worry, Expense and Risk was a step too far.
    Wasn't there also (genuinely) one in the midlands called Doolittle and Dally?
    There was Wright Hassell....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    edited March 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
    The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.
    There is a view that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons that any individual can use to protect their rights, while heavy weapons are otential instruments of tyranny as they can only be operated by State officials. Hence no nukes.
    Hmmmm

    image
    Isn't it helpful that suitcases have wheels these days?
    Hand luggage only, it seems

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    edited March 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
    The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.
    There is a view that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons that any individual can use to protect their rights, while heavy weapons are otential instruments of tyranny as they can only be operated by State officials. Hence no nukes.
    It doesn't say "small arms" or "rifles and pistols". If the founders had meant to limit it to those weapons, then surely they would have said so.
    Cassius Marcellus Clay used a cannon for office defence.....
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    Emerald said:

    Nigelb said:

    DeSantis heading to Israel ahead of likely 2024 bid
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/28/ron-desantis-israel-trip-00089153
    ...“At a time of unnecessarily strained relations between Jerusalem and Washington, Florida serves as a bridge between the American and Israeli people,” DeSantis said in a statement.

    Wut ?

    Florida DOES have a rather sizable, and politically significant, Jewish population.

    PLUS fact that defending/touting Israel is a BIG DEAL for millions of evangelical Christians from sea to shining sea . . . and from South Beach to the Redneck Riviera . . .
    However there is also a sizeable portion of the MAGA crowd that dont like Jews much so this could work both ways for him.
    Loud perhaps, and notorious, but NOT sizable.

    There is still a fair measure of low-level anti-Jewish feeling, but MUCH less today than when I was a kid.

    AND during the same period, the rise of the Christian Coalition, and subsequent electoral mobilization and politicization of the evangelical and other conservative Christians in USA, has been matched by increasing support for Israel. Again, far more pronounced AND strident than at the time of the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars.
  • I saw Lavrentiy Beria Sir Simon Russell Beale today

    Turns out he lives about the same distance from me as Julian Pettifer does

    Two BAFTA winners in two days, within two hundred yards of me
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

    you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

    actually enforced.

    It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

    MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.
    They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.
    You are retired if I remember correctly? Or was it just long term unemployed?
    Your little penis syndrome showing again. I am still working , have done for over 50 years arsewipe. I also make big bucks ( clue more than MP's albeit minus the expenses) as well and collect state pension. You really shoudl not assume people are like yourself.
    lol. Yea right. I am sure your supervisory role returning the trolleys at Tescos pays better than I thought, but probably not that much. Still it gets you away from the wife I guess.

    By the way, Baldrick, you may want to re-engage with the anger management course and stop shagging turnips so often . Over usage of viagra is a bad thing at your advancing age.
    Change the record loser. Jealousy gets you nowhere. I bet I pay way more tax than a clown like you earns.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,780

    Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

    Good God man! A statement like that and we will find out what the nominal yield of a @ydoethur is.....

    image
    Oddly, I was about to reply and say that matches with his extraordinary popularity in his constituency (which is 200 yards from my front door). They genuinely love him. Even if I cannot for the life of me understand why...

    He did come across as a stammering idiot in that video, I thought, but at least he was smart enough to shut down the conversation when he realised it was a sting (presumably).

    How embarrassing for Handycock - to be less alert than Gavin Williamson.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    edited March 2023

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Driver said:

    kamski said:

    Driver said:

    Nigelb said:

    Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

    REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

    BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

    Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

    In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
    Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
    The original (ha ha) intent was -

    "A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

    "being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
    This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
    It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

    Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

    If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

    Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

    Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

    Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......
    The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.
    There is a view that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons that any individual can use to protect their rights, while heavy weapons are otential instruments of tyranny as they can only be operated by State officials. Hence no nukes.
    It doesn't say "small arms" or "rifles and pistols". If the founders had meant to limit it to those weapons, then surely they would have said so.
    Cassius Marcellus Clay used a cannon for office defence.....
    EDIT - He needed it!

    Cassius Clay the First of Kentucky was both Bluegrass gentry (cousin of Henry Clay) AND an anti-slavery Republican. Which meant that he was fighting a duel a month or thereabouts. He proved too combative even for the Union Army, so Abe Lincoln sent him to St Petersburg as US minister to the Czar.

    He was enjoying lunch at a fine restaurant, when a group of Boyar Bullingtonians decided to test the American's mettle - by challenging him to a duel, via the standard (for them) slap (or suchlike).

    Instead of adhering to local twit protocol, however, Clay immediate leapt from his chair, pulled out a huge Bowie knife . . . and proceeded to carve about freely.

    The boyars boogied. As for the rest of the Russians, they greatly admired Clay's style, both for his personal qualities AND for turning the tables on the toxic toffs.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    Emerald said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    A few folk left raging doubtless.



    Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

    Reward for helping Humza get his job?

    Robison introduced the GRR bill…..
    I knew I could depend on you for the GRR angle.
    She is a duffer among duffers as well, one of Sturgeon's besties surprise surprise.
    If Yousaf wanted to try to unite the SNP, he would have appointed Forbes as his deputy.
    No way that arse would appoint her, he is a vindictive nasty git and will give her a crap job hoping she will fail, likely health that he has already wrecked.
    do you know him personally?
    I have seen the results of his efforts over the years and a 10 year old could have done no worse.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    algarkirk said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

    you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

    actually enforced.

    It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

    MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.
    They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.
    There's a decent case for treating MPs as trustees of the UK as a whole, and pay them only expenses. Or at best compensate for some of the time lost as if they were on jury service. They should sit part time. Proper salaries should be for their full time (non nepotistic) staff who should be treated as part of the civil service.

    There would be no shortage of people willing to stand for election to do it.

    Agree, they are far from hard done by and should be no way they have time for a second job.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    I am reminded of the similar fishing expedition in the House of Lords. IIRC one DUP Lord said something on the lines of "What you are proposing is either illegal or should be. Go and never come back."

    The rest drooled at the the thought of that sweet, sweet money...

    Should have offered the money in a briefcase, then they might have gotten His Majesty interested to boot.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,780
    edited March 2023
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

    you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

    actually enforced.

    It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

    MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.
    They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.
    You are retired if I remember correctly? Or was it just long term unemployed?
    Your little penis syndrome showing again. I am still working , have done for over 50 years arsewipe. I also make big bucks ( clue more than MP's albeit minus the expenses) as well and collect state pension. You really shoudl not assume people are like yourself.
    lol. Yea right. I am sure your supervisory role returning the trolleys at Tescos pays better than I thought, but probably not that much. Still it gets you away from the wife I guess.

    By the way, Baldrick, you may want to re-engage with the anger management course and stop shagging turnips so often . Over usage of viagra is a bad thing at your advancing age.
    Change the record loser. Jealousy gets you nowhere. I bet I pay way more tax than a clown like you earns.
    afternoon Malc

    So, now Yousaf is FM, are we all set to see you voting Tory?

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4310509#Comment_4310509
  • Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

    Boris Johnson tried to get on top of his brief, but Lord Pannick said he was not that sort of chap. (it is a great name for a lawyer)
    There used to be a Glasgow law firm called Maclay, Murray and Spens, nicknamed Delay, Worry and Expense. There was a story doing the rounds at one time, that they refused to enter partnership with another well known Glasgow lawyer, Tom Risk, as being called Delay, Worry, Expense and Risk was a step too far.
    Wasn't there also (genuinely) one in the midlands called Doolittle and Dally?
    There was Wright Hassell....
    No was, still is a Wright Hassell.

    My favourite (disbarred) solicitor, step forward Anal Sheikh.

    https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/court-enema-vexatious-litigant-anal-sheikh
  • EmeraldEmerald Posts: 55
    malcolmg said:

    Emerald said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    A few folk left raging doubtless.



    Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

    Reward for helping Humza get his job?

    Robison introduced the GRR bill…..
    I knew I could depend on you for the GRR angle.
    She is a duffer among duffers as well, one of Sturgeon's besties surprise surprise.
    If Yousaf wanted to try to unite the SNP, he would have appointed Forbes as his deputy.
    No way that arse would appoint her, he is a vindictive nasty git and will give her a crap job hoping she will fail, likely health that he has already wrecked.
    do you know him personally?
    I have seen the results of his efforts over the years and a 10 year old could have done no worse.
    Interesting. We now have a man of south asian descent as scottish first minster, a man of indian descent as PM and a man of south asian descent as mayor of london.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,780

    Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

    Boris Johnson tried to get on top of his brief, but Lord Pannick said he was not that sort of chap. (it is a great name for a lawyer)
    There used to be a Glasgow law firm called Maclay, Murray and Spens, nicknamed Delay, Worry and Expense. There was a story doing the rounds at one time, that they refused to enter partnership with another well known Glasgow lawyer, Tom Risk, as being called Delay, Worry, Expense and Risk was a step too far.
    Wasn't there also (genuinely) one in the midlands called Doolittle and Dally?
    There was Wright Hassell....
    No was, still is a Wright Hassell.

    My favourite (disbarred) solicitor, step forward Anal Sheikh.

    https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/court-enema-vexatious-litigant-anal-sheikh
    Did they bugger things up?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,136
    FPT:
    Sandpit said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Carnyx said:

    The really fun thing about this Rwanda strategy is that all the disused military bases the government will need for interning the boat people are going to be in Tory constituencies. This will see Tory MPs, hugely supportive of the policy, fighting tooth and nail to prevent it being rolled out on their turf.

    Nah. Put them in prison hulks.

    On the Clyde.

    They'll soon be asking for free passage home.
    Tory MPs? Not like you.
    It's easy to be rather glib. But if those coming over in boats weren't facing Rwanda, but instead were facing "hulks" (moored up tired old cruise ships/ferries) - no freedom of movement within the UK, no opportunity to make money to remit home, no contact with family, in single-sex restricted accomodation - how many would still think it worth the risk? They would have housing, health and food needs met. But not much else.
    Do you understand asylum at all? When people apply for asylum they get deposited in houses that nobody wants to live in. Given subsistence-level non-cash vouchers they can exchange for food and clothes. Not allowed to work. No money to travel. They literally exist, in a lengthy limbo whilst awaiting a decision. With at best hostility and at worst attacks from the locals.

    There is a perception that asylum seekers live large on our dollah. In the real world it simply isn't true.
    I have huge sympathy for geniuine asylum seekers. I have an equal measure of contempt for those economic migrant chancer queue-bargers who have broken the system. If we were dealing purely with asylum seekers, there'd be a whole lot more money per individual to assist them with.

    Those chancers who have broken the system, who get here and then go into a black economy, "shielded" by those in their community - who often exploit them in the process.

    The number of what one might term "true asylum seekers" are probably relatively static. Labour with a more "streamlined" way into the UK will see the number of applicants soar. They have form on this. Ask them about the few thousand who were going to come over from Eastern Europe - the few thousand that turned into millions.

    So, either Labour is quickly going to realise it has to be as "brutally 1930s" as the Tories. Or they will get turfed out of power at the first opportunity.
    So an aspirational Tory who presumably champions the "get on your bike" approach to life dislikes intensely those (from other countries) who aspire to a better life in this country.

    Gotit.
    They want to come here and work. We need people to come here and work. But as we dislike these foreign types we want to slam the door shut so that we can decline faster.
    He finds people who want to come here for a better life "contemptible".

    I suppose it really is very pleasant in Devon/Cornwall who on earth would want that charming vista obscured by cyclists on their way to work.
    Thanks to Simon Cowell we now have a generation who don't want to work jobs that involve graft - they want fame / fortune on a plate. So its proving very difficult to encourage young and single (mobile) people to move to places where we have labour shortages in hospitality, in agriculture, in manufacturing.

    People simply don't want to uproot themselves to do these jobs. So we need to bring people in who do, or see a contraction in hospitality and agriculture and manufacturing. People may not want Cornwall to be sullied by the other, but they will also be upset if there are fewer restaurants, cafes, hotels for them to enjoy.
    The majority of those jobs are actually being done by locals, as they always have.

    The mythology that all the menial jobs are done by foreigners is nearly never true.
    Who said all? Basic question - are there enough locals to fill all the roles? We both know that the answer to that question is no. So people need to migrate in whether internally within the CTA or externally. Or simply cut provision of these things to the level that locals can provide.

    Part of the problem faced by nice areas like Cornwall is the influx of the rich tourist. They buy up houses they don't live in, shoving up prices and reducing availability. Which makes it increasingly difficult for said locals to live there, especially doing lower paid jobs.
    An increase in immigration needs to be accompanied by an increase in housebuilding, which has failed to keep up with population changes for a couple of decades.
    Sure! The problem of course is where do you build the houses? So many of these twee villages would no longer be twee if they slapped a Barrett estate on the edge of it. So you solve the housing issue but damage the thing which pulls people in.

    Or - radical idea - restrict who can own property there. Slap a CPO on any property which isn't occupied on a permanent basis. Use it or lose it. That way you don't need to destroy these places through over-development, you just remove the rich parasites which have made housing unaffordable and impossible for locals.
    Or, even more radical idea, don't get Barratt to build the houses. Get people to build their own houses. That way at least one person can presumably bear to look at it. That's what most European countries do, e.g. France and Germany, where 60% is self-build, compared with 10% in the UK (half of which is in NI) or 80% in Austria.
    IIRC, the issue with self-build in the UK is finance-related. Banks mostly won’t lend money against an unbuilt property, so they are mostly done at the very top end of the market, where the self-builders have access to other sources of finance. There needs to be a way to change that, to unlock the self-build market.
    I'm sure that's true, but I also think another issue is that the individual plots of land aren't available in places where people want to live (except Milton Keynes and Northern Ireland). Councils prefer to sell large blocks of land to one developer, rather than single lots to hundreds of people.

    However, can somebody who knows what they're talking about please correct me?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,780
    Emerald said:

    malcolmg said:

    Emerald said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    A few folk left raging doubtless.



    Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

    Reward for helping Humza get his job?

    Robison introduced the GRR bill…..
    I knew I could depend on you for the GRR angle.
    She is a duffer among duffers as well, one of Sturgeon's besties surprise surprise.
    If Yousaf wanted to try to unite the SNP, he would have appointed Forbes as his deputy.
    No way that arse would appoint her, he is a vindictive nasty git and will give her a crap job hoping she will fail, likely health that he has already wrecked.
    do you know him personally?
    I have seen the results of his efforts over the years and a 10 year old could have done no worse.
    Interesting. We now have a man of south asian descent as scottish first minster, a man of indian descent as PM and a man of south asian descent as mayor of london.
    It's nice we have this diversity.

    If only they and Drakeford weren't united in being totally inept and leading parties that are clapped out and in need of a reset.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,481
    Emerald said:

    malcolmg said:

    Emerald said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    A few folk left raging doubtless.



    Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

    Reward for helping Humza get his job?

    Robison introduced the GRR bill…..
    I knew I could depend on you for the GRR angle.
    She is a duffer among duffers as well, one of Sturgeon's besties surprise surprise.
    If Yousaf wanted to try to unite the SNP, he would have appointed Forbes as his deputy.
    No way that arse would appoint her, he is a vindictive nasty git and will give her a crap job hoping she will fail, likely health that he has already wrecked.
    do you know him personally?
    I have seen the results of his efforts over the years and a 10 year old could have done no worse.
    Interesting. We now have a man of south asian descent as scottish first minster, a man of indian descent as PM and a man of south asian descent as mayor of london.
    Taoiseach too.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    edited March 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

    Boris Johnson tried to get on top of his brief, but Lord Pannick said he was not that sort of chap. (it is a great name for a lawyer)
    There used to be a Glasgow law firm called Maclay, Murray and Spens, nicknamed Delay, Worry and Expense. There was a story doing the rounds at one time, that they refused to enter partnership with another well known Glasgow lawyer, Tom Risk, as being called Delay, Worry, Expense and Risk was a step too far.
    Wasn't there also (genuinely) one in the midlands called Doolittle and Dally?
    There was Wright Hassell....
    No was, still is a Wright Hassell.

    My favourite (disbarred) solicitor, step forward Anal Sheikh.

    https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/court-enema-vexatious-litigant-anal-sheikh
    Did they bugger things up?
    Yes. Read that link.

    Here’s a taster.

    Among her numerous applications, in 2017 Sheikh sought the impeachment of Lord Phillips, Lord Justice Briggs, Lord Justice Henderson and Sir Terence Etherton for conspiracy to commit identity theft.

    Sheikh accused Lord Philips of apparently giving a number of conspirators (including Burges Salmon, The Law Society and The Bank of Ireland) access to empty courtrooms where Lord Justice Briggs “impersonated a judge and staged enactments of trials.

    He put on his judicial robes and wig, used the empty courtrooms and bribed court [sic] to stand around to pretend that a hearing was taking place, which it was not.”

    Sheikh described Briggs' involvement in this "fraudulent instrument" as "the greatest risk ever known in the history of the civilised world".

    She said "that is not a statement of hyperbole".
This discussion has been closed.