It’s great that Germany is now fully committed to supporting Ukraine
I remember when lots of excuses were made for them here when they were sending second hand helmets to Poland and fuck all else to help Ukraine, because of some convoluted shit about Hitler
I remember when people on here were on their way to Kyiv. Things change.
And my words then seem more important to you than Germany’s shameful inertia
I collect hypocrisies, chickenhawks giving it large about others’ shameful inertia are definitely in that category.
I live but a mile away from Ely so surprised to see it all over the news today.
What I find odd is the issue of the police chase. Why would someone be chased by a police van? Some kind of sadistic game? If you have the polic following you, why wouldn't you stop. It's ridiculous to blame them for causing a crash. But then why deny it if you are the police?
Someone being chased by police, because cops think they're breaking the law (the chased, not the cops) MAY stop. But often they will not, because they are trying to evade apprehension and/or arrest.
With teenagers being perhaps even more likely to flee than adults.
Back in my own misspent youth, guys would drive around late at night thus attracting attention of local cops. Who in our very small town, were just as bored as a rule as the kids.
One favorite way of evading the long arm of the law, was to head up a local hill with the fuzz in pursuit, then duck into a handy driveway and kill the lights. Then watch Barney Fife whiz by obvious to what had happened. Cops never did seem to catch on.
As for police statement re: this tragic incident in Wales, seems to me that it is VERY carefully worded, thus NOT exactly a full denial.
Boris Johnson has been referred to police by the Cabinet Office over new claims he broke lockdown rules after his ministerial diary revealed visits by friends to Chequers during the pandemic.
The Cabinet Office has passed concerns to the Metropolitan Police and Thames Valley police after several visits to the prime minister’s grace and favour residence were highlighted during preparations for a public inquiry into the pandemic.
The privileges committee, which is investigating claims that Johnson misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties, has been informed. Johnson was made aware of the concerns last week and has since written to the Cabinet Office denying rulebreaking.
A spokesman for the former prime minister said: “Some abbreviated entries in Mr Johnson’s official diary were queried by the Cabinet Office during preparation for the Covid Inquiry. Following an examination of the entries, Mr Johnson’s lawyers wrote to the Cabinet Office and privileges committee explaining that the events were lawful and were not breaches of any Covid regulations.”
Johnson’s team called the referral a “clearly politically motivated attempt to manufacture something out of nothing”. They said that the Cabinet Office made no attempt to check the claims with Johnson before passing the matter to the police. Multiple sources told The Times that the alleged breaches involved Johnson’s family as well as his friends, though a source close to Johnson denied this.
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
Acting for Johnson but being paid out of public funds via the Cabinet Office.
The inference is that they had two clients and two competing duties of care.
Lovely to see all the people who said Johnson was a superb PM whilst he was ahead now saying he is a disgrace.
It was obvious before he was PM this would happen.
Until Patersongate Johnson was doing OK and dealt with covid better than Starmer would have with his constant demands for continuing lockdown and Johnson was the leading supporter for Ukraine
Indeed he led in the polls, but the culmination of patersongate to partygate trampled over his successes and turned not only the country but many conservatives against him
I would throw your accusation straight back at you as you were an avid and dedicated Corbyn supporter, who now has rejected your own loyalty to Corbyn and reversed completely to supporting Starmer
It was obvious Corbyn was unacceptable even when you proclaimed support for him
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
TV shows don't do nuance.
The reason my father watches medical dramas is so he can laugh at them for all their mistakes.
You should see what forensic pathologists and forensic scientists have to say.
I know a crime scene investigator, he says he hasn't seen a crime show where every episode didn't involve the characters engaging in some massive contamination of a crime scene.
I live but a mile away from Ely so surprised to see it all over the news today.
What I find odd is the issue of the police chase. Why would someone be chased by a police van? Some kind of sadistic game? If you have the polic following you, why wouldn't you stop. It's ridiculous to blame them for causing a crash. But then why deny it if you are the police?
Fake police van? Seems unlikely, but it’s one way to square the circle…
Following them, but not a chase? IIRC the two are separate things in police operations and vocabulary.
Lovely to see all the people who said Johnson was a superb PM whilst he was ahead now saying he is a disgrace.
It was obvious before he was PM this would happen.
Until Patersongate Johnson was doing OK and dealt with covid better than Starmer would have with his constant demands for continuing lockdown and Johnson was the leading supporter for Ukraine
Indeed he led in the polls, but the culmination of patersongate to partygate trampled over his successes and turned not only the country but many conservatives against him
I would throw your accusation straight back at you as you were an avid and dedicated Corbyn supporter, who now has rejected your own loyalty to Corbyn and reversed completely to supporting Starmer
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Remember that it's the Government / Cabinet office paying Bozo's lawyer bills because Bozo didn't want to.
So it seems (to me) the lawyers are doing the right thing by telling the person paying the bill what actually happened.
Boris Johnson is a life-long Drone who has made his living leeching off other people's money. Ditto Donald Trump.
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
Acting for Johnson but being paid out of public funds via the Cabinet Office.
The inference is that they had two clients and two competing duties of care.
Really? Can you have one lawyer, two guvnors given potential for conflict? I'd assume the engagement letter is with the Cabinet Office given they are writing the cheques.
Anyway, certainly they couldn't conceal information from the Cabinet Office in the interests of Johnson as that would be a clear conflict.
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
There is comedy to be had today: 1. The minister for excuses says the reason why 3 points isn't in breach of the ministerial code is because Rishi says so 2. Johnson successfully gets himself referred to the police again for ignoring his own Covid rules again and lying about it again 3. Dehenna Davison under scrutiny for her own apparent ministerial code breach
And thats all in the same afternoon. All the various opposition parties need to keep doing is reminding everyone of how corrupt this whole thing is. Just like in the 90s under Major, the individual "scandal" need not be anything much, just the perception of scandal does the damage.
It’s great that Germany is now fully committed to supporting Ukraine
I remember when lots of excuses were made for them here when they were sending second hand helmets to Poland and fuck all else to help Ukraine, because of some convoluted shit about Hitler
I remember when people on here were on their way to Kyiv. Things change.
And my words then seem more important to you than Germany’s shameful inertia
I collect hypocrisies, chickenhawks giving it large about others’ shameful inertia are definitely in that category.
I was using a leading German politician's words. You should tell him why it's important that I didn't go to Ukraine like I said I wanted to
Sorry, from PT for those asking me how the Big Brexit Apology will work. I've given this some thought and I'd suggest as follows:
By my calculations because of differential death rates the number of people who voted Leave and Remain in the 2016 referendum is identical at 15,674,232 apiece. Matched up by algorithm this generates 7,837,116 pairs, one Remainer and one Leaver, like Tinder except it’s done at random not on looks or compatibility. The results are mailed out (each Remainer told who ‘their’ Leaver is and vice versa) and contact details are included so a meet-up for each duo can be arranged. 4 weeks are allowed for this, otherwise there are punishments. Everyone complies (not fancying any of the punishments) and the stage is set for the business end of the exercise.
Let’s assume I’m matched with a Leaver from Dudley called Trevor. We exchange texts and decide that he’ll come to Hampstead because I don’t want to go to Dudley. I tell him Wednesday 10.30 sharp at the Coffee Cup.
Trevor arrives (thankfully not as hirsute as his picture) and joins me at my table. I put down my Guardian and give him my fullest. Straight off he does the necessary. “I’m truly sorry,” he says. That’s all that’s required. There’s no need to make a meal of it. The point of this is to heal not foster further ill-feeling. I receive his brief but heartfelt offering in similar generous spirit. “It’s ok, Trevor,” I say, “to be human is to err.” He looks relieved. It’s as if a huge weight has been lifted from him. I smile and ask what sort of bespoke decaf latte he wants.
The two of us then pass a pleasant half hour getting to know each other. No politics of course. It could be he likes Boris Johnson (being from Dudley) and we don’t want to risk something like that spoiling the vibe between us. The objective is to part on friendly terms even though our paths are unlikely to cross again. Which is what we do. Remainer Me and Leaver Trevor part on the best of terms. The apology has cleared the decks for this to happen. I feel better, he feels better. We can MOVE ON. And as it is for us so it is for the entire country, assuming the other 7,837,115 meets go equally well – which they surely will.
Alternatively, in a few years you will have a Brexiphany - a moment of piercing spiritual insight when you and all the other Remoaner idiots realise you were wrong and Brexit was right
You will come to us Brexiteers to be shrived, and we shall generously forgive you, insisting merely that your left buttock is modestly tattooed with the smiling face of Nigel Farage, symbolising your penance
Perhaps. But let's do the Big Brexit Apology first, given I've designed it and everything. We can road-test it on here. Match each PB remainer with 'their' PB leaver who will deliver the (brief but heartfelt) apology to them personally. I bags you. No rush but when you're ready.
You chose the wrong day to ask for an apology (not that you were ever going to get one)
The guardian has turned. Brexit = good
Sold as a way to reduce immigration but good because it's done the opposite?
Far from Brexit being a racist project it turns out that the only time that Vote Leave was telling the truth was when they told minority voters that voting Leave would mean more immigration from the Commonwealth. And they've even got Leon on board for more immigration. Fair play to them, genuinely.
It's a bizarre scenario isn't it. Brexit delivers greater diversity and more immigration. Has the bus changed its livery mid journey? Where's it going now? Are people allowed to get off? I ask because although there are liberal pro-immigration Leavers (esp on here) they are not a majority of those who voted for the project in 2016.
Vote Leave is hoping to secure the backing of British Asians by telling them that if Britain quits the EU, it will mean more immigration from elsewhere in the world.
Will Self said 'though not all leavers were racists all racists voted Leave'. Finger on the button by Will as usual
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
Acting for Johnson but being paid out of public funds via the Cabinet Office.
The inference is that they had two clients and two competing duties of care.
Really? Can you have one lawyer, two guvnors given potential for conflict? I'd assume the engagement letter is with the Cabinet Office given they are writing the cheques.
Anyway, certainly they couldn't conceal information from the Cabinet Office in the interests of Johnson as that would be a clear conflict.
Might have been a different outcome if Boris Johnson wasn't too tight to pay for his own representation.
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
Lovely to see all the people who said Johnson was a superb PM whilst he was ahead now saying he is a disgrace.
It was obvious before he was PM this would happen.
Until Patersongate Johnson was doing OK and dealt with covid better than Starmer would have with his constant demands for continuing lockdown and Johnson was the leading supporter for Ukraine
Indeed he led in the polls, but the culmination of patersongate to partygate trampled over his successes and turned not only the country but many conservatives against him
I would throw your accusation straight back at you as you were an avid and dedicated Corbyn supporter, who now has rejected your own loyalty to Corbyn and reversed completely to supporting Starmer
It was obvious Corbyn was unacceptable even when you proclaimed support for him
I think your difficulty there is that Johnson had an extensive and pretty widely known record before becoming PM. The huge and fundamental flaws that ultimately, and inevitably, brought him down were in plain sight and widely talked about long before Paterson.
That's where I think CHB has this about right. People who were Johnson cheerleaders up until Paterson (or Partygate or whatever), and were then shocked he turned out to be a wrong'un... well, they either weren't paying attention at all, or were willing to overlook it and enjoy the ride up until the ticking bomb blew up.
Lovely to see all the people who said Johnson was a superb PM whilst he was ahead now saying he is a disgrace.
It was obvious before he was PM this would happen.
I think the tories were idiots to make him PM. And idiots to get rid of him.
I accept, I’m probably the only person in Britain with this view…
The consideration is this: In 1995 John Yaki Da Redwood assembled a crack squad of misfits and tried to depose John Major. He lost. Is 2022 the equivalent of us finding out what it would have been like if he won?
Boris was mad, bad and dangerous to have sex with. But Truss was Redwood - truly deranged and surrounded by wazzocks. But this goes one better because RedTruss was deposed and the 2022 William Waldergrave became PM.
Redwood's campaign slogan was "Save Your Seat, Save Your Party, and Save Your Country". Exactly what the NatCs were foaming on about at their Hitler Youth Rally. So watch out, because Having gone for Redwood and ended up with Waldergrave, Boris is coming back...
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
Acting for Johnson but being paid out of public funds via the Cabinet Office.
The inference is that they had two clients and two competing duties of care.
Really? Can you have one lawyer, two guvnors given potential for conflict? I'd assume the engagement letter is with the Cabinet Office given they are writing the cheques.
Anyway, certainly they couldn't conceal information from the Cabinet Office in the interests of Johnson as that would be a clear conflict.
Might have been a different outcome if Boris Johnson wasn't too tight to pay for his own representation.
Indeed it would. And it would take a heart of stone etc.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Proper 'gotcha' questions aren't as complexly tied up with issues of meaning, language, biology, psychology, metaphysics and so on, so that all sentient people know the only real answers involve complexity, uncertainty, and a clear, patient analysis of what the question and questioner means, and what range of answers might fruitfully pursue the difficult discussion.
They should stick to questions of how minor parties in Montenegro feel about Brexit and what influence it will have on the election.
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
Acting for Johnson but being paid out of public funds via the Cabinet Office.
The inference is that they had two clients and two competing duties of care.
Really? Can you have one lawyer, two guvnors given potential for conflict? I'd assume the engagement letter is with the Cabinet Office given they are writing the cheques.
Anyway, certainly they couldn't conceal information from the Cabinet Office in the interests of Johnson as that would be a clear conflict.
It happens quite a lot in the private sector.
An employee gets sued and the employee uses their indemnity insurance to help the employee with legal representation.
Evidence turns out sub-optimally for the employee and their employer is like, sorry old bean, got to disclose this and we're withdrawing your legal representation.
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
TV shows don't do nuance.
The reason my father watches medical dramas is so he can laugh at them for all their mistakes.
You should see what forensic pathologists and forensic scientists have to say.
I know a crime scene investigator, he says he hasn't seen a crime show where every episode didn't involve the characters engaging in some massive contamination of a crime scene.
Like wearing gloves will keep the scene clean.
Your buddy would fall over laughing, viewing old episodes (the only kind) of "Highway Patrol" which was a big hit on US TV in 1950s.
Came under sustained criticism from law enforcement due to show's gross lack of credibility.
There was also fact that Broderick Crawford, star of "Highway Patrol" who was shown racing around the highways of southern California in highway patrol cars, was BANNED from driving in CA, because his drivers license was suspended due to arrests for driving under the influence.
Somewhat ironic, in that the thing that made the show a hit, was its perceived (by viewers) authenticity!
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
Acting for Johnson but being paid out of public funds via the Cabinet Office.
The inference is that they had two clients and two competing duties of care.
Really? Can you have one lawyer, two guvnors given potential for conflict? I'd assume the engagement letter is with the Cabinet Office given they are writing the cheques.
Anyway, certainly they couldn't conceal information from the Cabinet Office in the interests of Johnson as that would be a clear conflict.
It happens quite a lot in the private sector.
An employee gets sued and the employee uses their indemnity insurance to help the employee with legal representation.
Evidence turns out sub-optimally for the employee and their employer is like, sorry old bean, got to disclose this and we're withdrawing your legal representation.
In those circumstances, technically, does the lawyer really have two clients though? Or is the employer the client but the instruction is to do X, Y and Z in order to support the employee? You can be instructed to do various things that benefit person A, but ultimately your professional duty is to person B. What I slightly struggle with is the idea of having a professional duty to both A and B, in circumstances where there is a clear potential for their interests to diverge.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll put you in the yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable! camp then
Lovely to see all the people who said Johnson was a superb PM whilst he was ahead now saying he is a disgrace.
It was obvious before he was PM this would happen.
I think the tories were idiots to make him PM. And idiots to get rid of him.
I accept, I’m probably the only person in Britain with this view…
If the criteria is party prospects at the next election I agree they probably should have kept him. But if you go with that criteria why do you think they were idiots to make him PM? Because that's exactly why they did it. They picked him to win the next election and he duly delivered.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll put you in the yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable! camp then
Agreed. And that is the morally correct place to be
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
Acting for Johnson but being paid out of public funds via the Cabinet Office.
The inference is that they had two clients and two competing duties of care.
Really? Can you have one lawyer, two guvnors given potential for conflict? I'd assume the engagement letter is with the Cabinet Office given they are writing the cheques.
Anyway, certainly they couldn't conceal information from the Cabinet Office in the interests of Johnson as that would be a clear conflict.
It happens quite a lot in the private sector.
An employee gets sued and the employee uses their indemnity insurance to help the employee with legal representation.
Evidence turns out sub-optimally for the employee and their employer is like, sorry old bean, got to disclose this and we're withdrawing your legal representation.
Solicitor/client privilege is distinct from the duty to disclose relevant material in litigation, whether or not it helps your cause, in discovery. It also does not permit a lawyer affirmatively to promulgate that which his instructions say is false.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
Funnily enough I was about to add something about choosing between a heart attack and a brain tumour. Beat me to it.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
Acting for Johnson but being paid out of public funds via the Cabinet Office.
The inference is that they had two clients and two competing duties of care.
Really? Can you have one lawyer, two guvnors given potential for conflict? I'd assume the engagement letter is with the Cabinet Office given they are writing the cheques.
Anyway, certainly they couldn't conceal information from the Cabinet Office in the interests of Johnson as that would be a clear conflict.
It happens quite a lot in the private sector.
An employee gets sued and the employee uses their indemnity insurance to help the employee with legal representation.
Evidence turns out sub-optimally for the employee and their employer is like, sorry old bean, got to disclose this and we're withdrawing your legal representation.
In those circumstances, technically, does the lawyer really have two clients though? Or is the employer the client but the instruction is to do X, Y and Z in order to support the employee? You can be instructed to do various things that benefit person A, but ultimately your professional duty is to person B. What I slightly struggle with is the idea of having a professional duty to both A and B, in circumstances where there is a clear potential for their interests to diverge.
It's one of those complicated issues.
You check who the engagement letter is addressed to and work from there.
In my scenario the employee thinks the solicitors/barristers have the employees best interests at heart but doesn't work that way.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll put you in the yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable! camp then
Agreed. And that is the morally correct place to be
Well, no. You ought to be in both camps. Because they are both perfectly correct views.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
Er, AIDS really isn’t as bad as cancer. So, yeah
I meant AIDS in the 80s.
Was a death sentence until the Thatcher government got involved.
“The vast majority of economists, including me, thought Brexit would make the UK considerably less open to both trade and migration with the EU, but somewhat more so to the rest of the world. We were right. We also thought that the downsides of the former would outweigh the upside of the latter. We were wrong.
“In fact, the new post-Brexit migration system has achieved its key objectives. By ending free movement, it has reduced the flow of relatively lower skilled and lower paid workers to some sectors. But by liberalising migration flows from the rest of the world, it has substantially increased those coming to work in the NHS, the care sector, and high-skilled and high-paid roles in information and communications technology, finance and professional services.”
Well I never
Jonathan Portes showing he's an original thinker unencumbered by partisan politics. Great piece. To some extent this is a vindication of Dom Cummings also.
Portes is a great economist. I think his piece in the Guardian though is too ready to focus on one positive aspect of Brexit - the increased net migration and changed composition of inflows of people - without looking at the broader picture and especially the impact on trade and inwards investment, which remains clearly negative. Like him, I am happy to admit that Brexit has actually increased net immigration rather than reduced it. The problem I have with the new immigration regime isn't the increased numbers coming in, which I have no problem with, but the loss of reciprocity.
Exactly this. He is taking one factor in isolation, immigration, where immigration is seen to be good. He doesn't even consider migration in the round where our loss of freedom of movement means less economic activity, let some the other downsides of Brexit such as loss of investment, trade and productivity.
Also the increase in immigration wasn't enabled by Brexit. We could have exactly the same before but chose not to.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
Acting for Johnson but being paid out of public funds via the Cabinet Office.
The inference is that they had two clients and two competing duties of care.
Really? Can you have one lawyer, two guvnors given potential for conflict? I'd assume the engagement letter is with the Cabinet Office given they are writing the cheques.
Anyway, certainly they couldn't conceal information from the Cabinet Office in the interests of Johnson as that would be a clear conflict.
It happens quite a lot in the private sector.
An employee gets sued and the employee uses their indemnity insurance to help the employee with legal representation.
Evidence turns out sub-optimally for the employee and their employer is like, sorry old bean, got to disclose this and we're withdrawing your legal representation.
In those circumstances, technically, does the lawyer really have two clients though? Or is the employer the client but the instruction is to do X, Y and Z in order to support the employee? You can be instructed to do various things that benefit person A, but ultimately your professional duty is to person B. What I slightly struggle with is the idea of having a professional duty to both A and B, in circumstances where there is a clear potential for their interests to diverge.
It's one of those complicated issues.
You check who the engagement letter is addressed to and work from there.
In my scenario the employee thinks the solicitors/barristers have the employees best interests at heart but doesn't work that way.
I'm sorry but you should be disbarred for such an obviously flawed post. You check whom the engagement letter is addressed to etc.
@Leon. If you’re still in downtown Cairo check out Carol’s bar. One of the few places where the locals can drink alcohol and refreshing to see female Cairenes removing headscarves when they enter (and sad to see them replacing them before they leave)
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
Acting for Johnson but being paid out of public funds via the Cabinet Office.
The inference is that they had two clients and two competing duties of care.
Really? Can you have one lawyer, two guvnors given potential for conflict? I'd assume the engagement letter is with the Cabinet Office given they are writing the cheques.
Anyway, certainly they couldn't conceal information from the Cabinet Office in the interests of Johnson as that would be a clear conflict.
It happens quite a lot in the private sector.
An employee gets sued and the employee uses their indemnity insurance to help the employee with legal representation.
Evidence turns out sub-optimally for the employee and their employer is like, sorry old bean, got to disclose this and we're withdrawing your legal representation.
In those circumstances, technically, does the lawyer really have two clients though? Or is the employer the client but the instruction is to do X, Y and Z in order to support the employee? You can be instructed to do various things that benefit person A, but ultimately your professional duty is to person B. What I slightly struggle with is the idea of having a professional duty to both A and B, in circumstances where there is a clear potential for their interests to diverge.
It's one of those complicated issues.
You check who the engagement letter is addressed to and work from there.
In my scenario the employee thinks the solicitors/barristers have the employees best interests at heart but doesn't work that way.
I'm sorry but you should be disbarred for such an obviously flawed post. You check whom the engagement letter is addressed to etc.
Can I blame auto-correct and the fact I'm concurrently WhatsApping the other half?
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
Er, AIDS really isn’t as bad as cancer. So, yeah
I meant AIDS in the 80s.
Was a death sentence until the Thatcher government got involved.
Norman Fowler, a secular saint.
A fair old chunk of the credit goes to the people who actually developed the treatments.
The spread of AIDS was more limited by the behaviour of the various groups within society, than the campaigns, I think.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Agree with this. Boris is the most unsuitable person to have been PM in living memory. But would have been dwarfed by the sheer WTAF of Corbyn becoming PM.
But what does it matter. Corbyn wasn't PM, wasn't ever going to PM, despite the crank-foaming never got near becoming PM.
Boris on the other hand? There's an awful lot of very angry people out there who still rage about what Boris did to their lives during Covid. Their own mental hell. Marriages broken. Parents lost remotely. Whilst he said "what rules" and carried on being a "selfish libertine".
There are very few people who will refuse to vote Labour because Corbyn was once leader. An awful lot who already are refusing to vote Conservative because Boris was PM. Labour wanted to move on from Jezbollah so badly that he's been excommunicated. The Tories want Boris back so badly that he has his own fanclub (Tories for Democracy thingy) and now CrankCom (NatC conference).
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
One pragmatic reason to have put BoJo in the big chair.
It was increasingly obvious that, until he got the leadership, he was going to destabilise whoever was the leader. Again and again and again.
If you want to stop him, you need to keep him off the candidates list sometime back in the mid 90s.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
Er, AIDS really isn’t as bad as cancer. So, yeah
I meant AIDS in the 80s.
Was a death sentence until the Thatcher government got involved.
Norman Fowler, a secular saint.
A fair old pike if credit goes to the people who actually developed the treatments.
The spread of AIDS was more limited by the behaviour of the various groups within society, than the campaigns, I think.
Depended a bit [edit] on the group, perhaps. There was at least one journalist desperately trying to argue that it didn't affect heterosexuals. I also seem to remember the same journalist being ... but anyway HMG did help to disabuse folk of tnat notion.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
It's not hard to think of a person who's won a elections and is clearly Not Good.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
And a lot of people who lost a referendum think that Cummings is super evil, while not having much at all to say about the man who wrote Corbyn's Salisbury response
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
Er, AIDS really isn’t as bad as cancer. So, yeah
I meant AIDS in the 80s.
Was a death sentence until the Thatcher government got involved.
Norman Fowler, a secular saint.
A fair old pike if credit goes to the people who actually developed the treatments.
The spread of AIDS was more limited by the behaviour of the various groups within society, than the campaigns, I think.
Depended a bit [edit] on the group, perhaps. There was at least one journalist desperately trying to argue that it didn't affect heterosexuals. I also seem to remember the same journalist being ... but anyway HMG did help to disabuse folk of tnat notion.
Andrew Neil blocks people on Twitter over that.
He hates his AIDS denialism being brought up.
His conduct was reprehensible as those cretins Andrew Wakefield and Ian Hislop.
@Leon. If you’re still in downtown Cairo check out Carol’s bar. One of the few places where the locals can drink alcohol and refreshing to see female Cairenes removing headscarves when they enter (and sad to see them replacing them before they leave)
Sadly I’m drunk on a plane back to the Smoke. Well not that sadly but narmean
You’ll be happy to hear that headscarf wearing is way way down in Cairo. It’s a striking change. It’s Sisi crushing the Muslim brotherhood. The effect is obvious. The city feels significantly more relaxed, liberal and optimistic than it did 10-20 years ago
Egyptian kids are now sometimes hard to differentiate from, say, Greek kids
One other point about Ely that hasn't really been mentioned is that it is in Drakeford's constitueny. As I've said before you seen more of MP Kevin Brennan around here.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
Er, AIDS really isn’t as bad as cancer. So, yeah
I meant AIDS in the 80s.
Was a death sentence until the Thatcher government got involved.
Norman Fowler, a secular saint.
A fair old pike if credit goes to the people who actually developed the treatments.
The spread of AIDS was more limited by the behaviour of the various groups within society, than the campaigns, I think.
Depended a bit [edit] on the group, perhaps. There was at least one journalist desperately trying to argue that it didn't affect heterosexuals. I also seem to remember the same journalist being ... but anyway HMG did help to disabuse folk of tnat notion.
Andrew Neil blocks people on Twitter over that.
He hates his AIDS denialism being brought up.
His conduct was reprehensible as those cretins Andrew Wakefield and Ian Hislop.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Agree with this. Boris is the most unsuitable person to have been PM in living memory. But would have been dwarfed by the sheer WTAF of Corbyn becoming PM.
But what does it matter. Corbyn wasn't PM, wasn't ever going to PM, despite the crank-foaming never got near becoming PM.
Boris on the other hand? There's an awful lot of very angry people out there who still rage about what Boris did to their lives during Covid. Their own mental hell. Marriages broken. Parents lost remotely. Whilst he said "what rules" and carried on being a "selfish libertine".
There are very few people who will refuse to vote Labour because Corbyn was once leader. An awful lot who already are refusing to vote Conservative because Boris was PM. Labour wanted to move on from Jezbollah so badly that he's been excommunicated. The Tories want Boris back so badly that he has his own fanclub (Tories for Democracy thingy) and now CrankCom (NatC conference).
Some valid points here
However on lockdown never forget that Starmer and Labour wanted MORE lockdown - and would have had us trapped at home until about June 2022 (with all the extra debt)
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
There was a poster here for a while, DJ41 I think his ID was, who I would swear was Milne. More pro-Russia than our Saturday job chaps but was definitely an older old-Wykehamist.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
And a lot of people who lost a referendum think that Cummings is super evil, while not having much at all to say about the man who wrote Corbyn's Salisbury response
There you go again.
Both Seumas Milne and Dom Cummings are absolute shits of the highest order.
The taxpayers have paid out substantial money because of the latter's bullying.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
Er, AIDS really isn’t as bad as cancer. So, yeah
I meant AIDS in the 80s.
Was a death sentence until the Thatcher government got involved.
Norman Fowler, a secular saint.
A fair old pike if credit goes to the people who actually developed the treatments.
The spread of AIDS was more limited by the behaviour of the various groups within society, than the campaigns, I think.
Depended a bit [edit] on the group, perhaps. There was at least one journalist desperately trying to argue that it didn't affect heterosexuals. I also seem to remember the same journalist being ... but anyway HMG did help to disabuse folk of tnat notion.
Andrew Neil blocks people on Twitter over that.
He hates his AIDS denialism being brought up.
His conduct was reprehensible as those cretins Andrew Wakefield and Ian Hislop.
What did Ian Hislop do?
Enabled Wakefield, gave his bullshit prominence in Private Eye, even published a special.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
And a lot of people who lost a referendum think that Cummings is super evil, while not having much at all to say about the man who wrote Corbyn's Salisbury response
There you go again.
Both Seumas Milne and Dom Cummings are absolute shits of the highest order.
The taxpayers have paid out substantial money because of the latter's bullying.
Yes but Milne is a Marxist traitor. This stuff isn’t hard
Milne supports Islamists and cheered on 9/11. He got jihadists in to write for the guardian. He thinks Stalin is cool
Cummings might be an arrogant dick and even a bully but if you can’t see the crucial political difference between the two of them then there’s no hope for you
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
Er, AIDS really isn’t as bad as cancer. So, yeah
I meant AIDS in the 80s.
Was a death sentence until the Thatcher government got involved.
Norman Fowler, a secular saint.
A fair old pike if credit goes to the people who actually developed the treatments.
The spread of AIDS was more limited by the behaviour of the various groups within society, than the campaigns, I think.
Depended a bit [edit] on the group, perhaps. There was at least one journalist desperately trying to argue that it didn't affect heterosexuals. I also seem to remember the same journalist being ... but anyway HMG did help to disabuse folk of tnat notion.
Andrew Neil blocks people on Twitter over that.
He hates his AIDS denialism being brought up.
His conduct was reprehensible as those cretins Andrew Wakefield and Ian Hislop.
What did Ian Hislop do?
Enabled Wakefield, gave his bullshit prominence in Private Eye, even published a special.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
And a lot of people who lost a referendum think that Cummings is super evil, while not having much at all to say about the man who wrote Corbyn's Salisbury response
There you go again.
Both Seumas Milne and Dom Cummings are absolute shits of the highest order.
The taxpayers have paid out substantial money because of the latter's bullying.
Yes but Milne is a Marxist traitor. This stuff isn’t hard
Milne supports Islamists and cheered on 9/11. He got jihadists in to write for the guardian. He thinks Stalin is cool
Cummings might be an arrogant dick and even a bully but if you can’t see the crucial political difference between the two of them then there’s no hope for you
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
Er, AIDS really isn’t as bad as cancer. So, yeah
I meant AIDS in the 80s.
Was a death sentence until the Thatcher government got involved.
Norman Fowler, a secular saint.
A fair old pike if credit goes to the people who actually developed the treatments.
The spread of AIDS was more limited by the behaviour of the various groups within society, than the campaigns, I think.
Depended a bit [edit] on the group, perhaps. There was at least one journalist desperately trying to argue that it didn't affect heterosexuals. I also seem to remember the same journalist being ... but anyway HMG did help to disabuse folk of tnat notion.
Andrew Neil blocks people on Twitter over that.
He hates his AIDS denialism being brought up.
His conduct was reprehensible as those cretins Andrew Wakefield and Ian Hislop.
What did Ian Hislop do?
Enabled Wakefield, gave his bullshit prominence in Private Eye, even published a special.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
And a lot of people who lost a referendum think that Cummings is super evil, while not having much at all to say about the man who wrote Corbyn's Salisbury response
There you go again.
Both Seumas Milne and Dom Cummings are absolute shits of the highest order.
The taxpayers have paid out substantial money because of the latter's bullying.
Yes but Milne is a Marxist traitor. This stuff isn’t hard
Milne supports Islamists and cheered on 9/11. He got jihadists in to write for the guardian. He thinks Stalin is cool
Cummings might be an arrogant dick and even a bully but if you can’t see the crucial political difference between the two of them then there’s no hope for you
It seems to be a more interesting parallel than you gave it credit for
Question about Boris apparently hosting friends a Chequers. Is this a normal use of grace-and-favour properties? Are they free for the office holder to use for whatever they like or are there restrictions? I'm talking in general here, rather than specifically about Covid rules. Are there any tax implications about the private use of these properties?
The Times has been told by two government sources that Johnson gave the lawyers access to his diary, which includes details of all his meetings, to help assist his defence.
However, while conducting the “disclosure review” the lawyers were said to have become concerned about details of visitors to Chequers during periods of restrictions in 2020 and 2021. They decided that they were duty-bound to raise the potential breaches of the rules and escalated the matter to senior figures in the Cabinet Office.
The public notion that you can tell lawyers acting for you anything seems very different to the reality. Is this down to differences between the UK and US, or did TV script writers just make it up?
Were the lawyers acting for Johnson or the Government? Very, very different things.
Acting for Johnson but being paid out of public funds via the Cabinet Office.
The inference is that they had two clients and two competing duties of care.
Really? Can you have one lawyer, two guvnors given potential for conflict? I'd assume the engagement letter is with the Cabinet Office given they are writing the cheques.
Anyway, certainly they couldn't conceal information from the Cabinet Office in the interests of Johnson as that would be a clear conflict.
It happens quite a lot in the private sector.
An employee gets sued and the employee uses their indemnity insurance to help the employee with legal representation.
Evidence turns out sub-optimally for the employee and their employer is like, sorry old bean, got to disclose this and we're withdrawing your legal representation.
In those circumstances, technically, does the lawyer really have two clients though? Or is the employer the client but the instruction is to do X, Y and Z in order to support the employee? You can be instructed to do various things that benefit person A, but ultimately your professional duty is to person B. What I slightly struggle with is the idea of having a professional duty to both A and B, in circumstances where there is a clear potential for their interests to diverge.
It's one of those complicated issues.
You check who the engagement letter is addressed to and work from there.
In my scenario the employee thinks the solicitors/barristers have the employees best interests at heart but doesn't work that way.
I'm sorry but you should be disbarred for such an obviously flawed post. You check whom the engagement letter is addressed to etc.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
There was a poster here for a while, DJ41 I think his ID was, who I would swear was Milne. More pro-Russia than our Saturday job chaps but was definitely an older old-Wykehamist.
That's quite a perceptive call and could well be true. DJ41 was quite well informed and lucid but obviously a trot/SWP.
From The Times, I think this mean the report may well be delayed.
The privileges committee, which is investigating claims that Johnson misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties, has been informed.
So here’s a simple question.
We’re Bozo to resign (for the greater good, to avoid being a distraction) when the inevitable x0 days suspension is given, how likely is he to be given a winnable seat in Oxfordshire come the next election?
Question about Boris apparently hosting friends a Chequers. Is this a normal use of grace-and-favour properties? Are they free for the office holder to use for whatever they like or are there restrictions? I'm talking in general here, rather than specifically about Covid rules. Are there any tax implications about the private use of these properties?
No.
If you invite friends and family over you pay for the food etc.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
And a lot of people who lost a referendum think that Cummings is super evil, while not having much at all to say about the man who wrote Corbyn's Salisbury response
There you go again.
Both Seumas Milne and Dom Cummings are absolute shits of the highest order.
The taxpayers have paid out substantial money because of the latter's bullying.
Yes but Milne is a Marxist traitor. This stuff isn’t hard
Milne supports Islamists and cheered on 9/11. He got jihadists in to write for the guardian. He thinks Stalin is cool
Cummings might be an arrogant dick and even a bully but if you can’t see the crucial political difference between the two of them then there’s no hope for you
It seems to be a more interesting parallel than you gave it credit for
Cummings is more like a right wing Alistair Campbell. Aggressive, clever, articulate, arrogant, macho, has personality issues
Milne is a pretty unique sort of Englishman that only occurs on the left. The upper upper middle class Marxist. Kim Philby etc
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
I'll let you and Big G into a little secret.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
Er, AIDS really isn’t as bad as cancer. So, yeah
I meant AIDS in the 80s.
Was a death sentence until the Thatcher government got involved.
Norman Fowler, a secular saint.
A fair old pike if credit goes to the people who actually developed the treatments.
The spread of AIDS was more limited by the behaviour of the various groups within society, than the campaigns, I think.
Depended a bit [edit] on the group, perhaps. There was at least one journalist desperately trying to argue that it didn't affect heterosexuals. I also seem to remember the same journalist being ... but anyway HMG did help to disabuse folk of tnat notion.
Andrew Neil blocks people on Twitter over that.
He hates his AIDS denialism being brought up.
His conduct was reprehensible as those cretins Andrew Wakefield and Ian Hislop.
What did Ian Hislop do?
Enabled Wakefield, gave his bullshit prominence in Private Eye, even published a special.
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
The Gender Recognition Act of 2004 (and many countries have similar) provides a legal route for someone to change their gender without being compelled to have surgery. No country that has introduced this social reform has ever reversed it and no mainstream political party in the UK (inc the Conservatives) is proposing to repeal it here. So what I conclude is that these 'gotcha' questions about women and penises etc seek to provoke and confuse rather than enlighten.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
And a lot of people who lost a referendum think that Cummings is super evil, while not having much at all to say about the man who wrote Corbyn's Salisbury response
There you go again.
Both Seumas Milne and Dom Cummings are absolute shits of the highest order.
The taxpayers have paid out substantial money because of the latter's bullying.
Yes but Milne is a Marxist traitor. This stuff isn’t hard
Milne supports Islamists and cheered on 9/11. He got jihadists in to write for the guardian. He thinks Stalin is cool
Cummings might be an arrogant dick and even a bully but if you can’t see the crucial political difference between the two of them then there’s no hope for you
It seems to be a more interesting parallel than you gave it credit for
Btw I’ve been meaning to ask. Did you hear any Breton spoken on your recent hols?
I’m reading a book about old pagan Europe and it’s talking about Celtic languages and I’ve realised I’ve never heard Breton spoken in real life
I’ve heard every other extant Celtic tongue. Welsh, Irish, Gallic - but not Breton
Question about Boris apparently hosting friends a Chequers. Is this a normal use of grace-and-favour properties? Are they free for the office holder to use for whatever they like or are there restrictions? I'm talking in general here, rather than specifically about Covid rules. Are there any tax implications about the private use of these properties?
No.
If you invite friends and family over you pay for the food etc.
I do wonder if Bozo paid reported and paid for the hospitality - given the timing I suspect he hasn’t.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
And a lot of people who lost a referendum think that Cummings is super evil, while not having much at all to say about the man who wrote Corbyn's Salisbury response
There you go again.
Both Seumas Milne and Dom Cummings are absolute shits of the highest order.
The taxpayers have paid out substantial money because of the latter's bullying.
Yes but Milne is a Marxist traitor. This stuff isn’t hard
Milne supports Islamists and cheered on 9/11. He got jihadists in to write for the guardian. He thinks Stalin is cool
Cummings might be an arrogant dick and even a bully but if you can’t see the crucial political difference between the two of them then there’s no hope for you
There's a genuinely important question here.
How fash does the far right have to get before Marxism is preferable? Not objectively good, but the lesser of two evils.
Hitler obviously. ("If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.")
Franco? Probably, though it needs a pause for thought.
The fringier bits of US National Conservatism?
None of which stops Corbyn being a fool at best and probably a lot worse than that.
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
The Gender Recognition Act of 2004 (and many countries have similar) provides a legal route for someone to change their gender without being compelled to have surgery. No country that has introduced this social reform has ever reversed it and no mainstream political party in the UK (inc the Conservatives) is proposing to repeal it here. So what I conclude is that these 'gotcha' questions about women and penises etc seek to provoke and confuse rather than enlighten.
Interestingly, I've never heard anyone ask whether a man can have a uterus. It always seems to be the other way around.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
And a lot of people who lost a referendum think that Cummings is super evil, while not having much at all to say about the man who wrote Corbyn's Salisbury response
There you go again.
Both Seumas Milne and Dom Cummings are absolute shits of the highest order.
The taxpayers have paid out substantial money because of the latter's bullying.
Yes but Milne is a Marxist traitor. This stuff isn’t hard
Milne supports Islamists and cheered on 9/11. He got jihadists in to write for the guardian. He thinks Stalin is cool
Cummings might be an arrogant dick and even a bully but if you can’t see the crucial political difference between the two of them then there’s no hope for you
There's a genuinely important question here.
How fash does the far right have to get before Marxism is preferable? Not objectively good, but the lesser of two evils.
Hitler obviously. ("If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.")
Franco? Probably, though it needs a pause for thought.
The fringier bits of US National Conservatism?
None of which stops Corbyn being a fool at best and probably a lot worse than that.
You'll find people on here who will eagerly tell you they'd prefer Hitler to Stalin.
I am on my way to Heathrow. I just left a work do, with wine. I’ll arrive and go into the lounge, where there will be free drinks. Then the plane, where they’ll serve free drinks. All being well I arrive in Singapore tomorrow at 6pm just in time for the “gala event” at our conference with free drinks.
Do I:
A. Treat this as some 24 hour stag-like bender and just drink and eat my way through it, B. Abstain in the lounge and go straight to sleep on the plane?
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Agree with this. Boris is the most unsuitable person to have been PM in living memory. But would have been dwarfed by the sheer WTAF of Corbyn becoming PM.
But what does it matter. Corbyn wasn't PM, wasn't ever going to PM, despite the crank-foaming never got near becoming PM.
Boris on the other hand? There's an awful lot of very angry people out there who still rage about what Boris did to their lives during Covid. Their own mental hell. Marriages broken. Parents lost remotely. Whilst he said "what rules" and carried on being a "selfish libertine".
There are very few people who will refuse to vote Labour because Corbyn was once leader. An awful lot who already are refusing to vote Conservative because Boris was PM. Labour wanted to move on from Jezbollah so badly that he's been excommunicated. The Tories want Boris back so badly that he has his own fanclub (Tories for Democracy thingy) and now CrankCom (NatC conference).
Some valid points here
However on lockdown never forget that Starmer and Labour wanted MORE lockdown - and would have had us trapped at home until about June 2022 (with all the extra debt)
I keep hearing this "naah but Starmer wanted more lockdown" thing. Boris kept fucking up unlockdown - the idiocy over Christmas 2020 being a prime example.
The only person making the decision was Boris. The only person passing the legislation was Boris. Not Starmer. Lockdown drove me mildly mad and did much worse to other people. But the alternative was the script of the film Contagion. Lockdown isn't the problem - that fucker brazenly ignoring it, and stuffing billions into Tory pockets in exchange for no PPE which killed medics is the problem.
Question about Boris apparently hosting friends a Chequers. Is this a normal use of grace-and-favour properties? Are they free for the office holder to use for whatever they like or are there restrictions? I'm talking in general here, rather than specifically about Covid rules. Are there any tax implications about the private use of these properties?
No.
If you invite friends and family over you pay for the food etc.
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
The Gender Recognition Act of 2004 (and many countries have similar) provides a legal route for someone to change their gender without being compelled to have surgery. No country that has introduced this social reform has ever reversed it and no mainstream political party in the UK (inc the Conservatives) is proposing to repeal it here. So what I conclude is that these 'gotcha' questions about women and penises etc seek to provoke and confuse rather than enlighten.
My point was more political. The question will now always be asked - you can’t wish it away - and a clever politician needs a ready answer that doesn’t sound insane to 70% of voters
I’d go with “no, a woman can’t have a penis. That’s a trans woman”. But I thank allah I am not a politician in this case
From The Times, I think this mean the report may well be delayed.
The privileges committee, which is investigating claims that Johnson misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties, has been informed.
So here’s a simple question.
We’re Bozo to resign (for the greater good, to avoid being a distraction) when the inevitable x0 days suspension is given, how likely is he to be given a winnable seat in Oxfordshire come the next election?
Fairly unlikely, because I doubt that there's a seat in Oxfordshire that Boris could win. If here were parachuted somewhere agreeable and apparently securely blue, I expect an anti-sleaze candidate would emerge faster than you can say "Martin Bell in a White Suit".
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
Cherwell District Council has just become a minority Conservative administration after all manner of unseemly shenanigans on the part of the local Labour party, who refused to form a coalition with the LibDem/Green group unless the LibDems jettisoned the Greens.
I suspect this will turn out to be a self-inflicted wound on Labour's part, not least in the next GE where they need LibDem tactical votes in the Banbury constituency.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
And a lot of people who lost a referendum think that Cummings is super evil, while not having much at all to say about the man who wrote Corbyn's Salisbury response
There you go again.
Both Seumas Milne and Dom Cummings are absolute shits of the highest order.
The taxpayers have paid out substantial money because of the latter's bullying.
Yes but Milne is a Marxist traitor. This stuff isn’t hard
Milne supports Islamists and cheered on 9/11. He got jihadists in to write for the guardian. He thinks Stalin is cool
Cummings might be an arrogant dick and even a bully but if you can’t see the crucial political difference between the two of them then there’s no hope for you
There's a genuinely important question here.
How fash does the far right have to get before Marxism is preferable? Not objectively good, but the lesser of two evils.
Hitler obviously. ("If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.")
Franco? Probably, though it needs a pause for thought.
The fringier bits of US National Conservatism?
None of which stops Corbyn being a fool at best and probably a lot worse than that.
I’ll bite. Franco was preferable to the Stalinist communism which was, eventually, the only apparent alternative during the Spanish civil war. As Orwell discovered
Comments
With teenagers being perhaps even more likely to flee than adults.
Back in my own misspent youth, guys would drive around late at night thus attracting attention of local cops. Who in our very small town, were just as bored as a rule as the kids.
One favorite way of evading the long arm of the law, was to head up a local hill with the fuzz in pursuit, then duck into a handy driveway and kill the lights. Then watch Barney Fife whiz by obvious to what had happened. Cops never did seem to catch on.
As for police statement re: this tragic incident in Wales, seems to me that it is VERY carefully worded, thus NOT exactly a full denial.
The inference is that they had two clients and two competing duties of care.
Indeed he led in the polls, but the culmination of patersongate to partygate trampled over his successes and turned not only the country but many conservatives against him
I would throw your accusation straight back at you as you were an avid and dedicated Corbyn supporter, who now has rejected your own loyalty to Corbyn and reversed completely to supporting Starmer
It was obvious Corbyn was unacceptable even when you proclaimed support for him
Like wearing gloves will keep the scene clean.
Rancid peas in a polluted pod. Or visa versa.
Anyway, certainly they couldn't conceal information from the Cabinet Office in the interests of Johnson as that would be a clear conflict.
I accept, I’m probably the only person in Britain with this view…
1. The minister for excuses says the reason why 3 points isn't in breach of the ministerial code is because Rishi says so
2. Johnson successfully gets himself referred to the police again for ignoring his own Covid rules again and lying about it again
3. Dehenna Davison under scrutiny for her own apparent ministerial code breach
And thats all in the same afternoon. All the various opposition parties need to keep doing is reminding everyone of how corrupt this whole thing is. Just like in the 90s under Major, the individual "scandal" need not be anything much, just the perception of scandal does the damage.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
That's where I think CHB has this about right. People who were Johnson cheerleaders up until Paterson (or Partygate or whatever), and were then shocked he turned out to be a wrong'un... well, they either weren't paying attention at all, or were willing to overlook it and enjoy the ride up until the ticking bomb blew up.
Boris was mad, bad and dangerous to have sex with. But Truss was Redwood - truly deranged and surrounded by wazzocks. But this goes one better because RedTruss was deposed and the 2022 William Waldergrave became PM.
Redwood's campaign slogan was "Save Your Seat, Save Your Party, and Save Your Country". Exactly what the NatCs were foaming on about at their Hitler Youth Rally. So watch out, because Having gone for Redwood and ended up with Waldergrave, Boris is coming back...
"Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
"Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!"
"Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
"Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!"
"Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
They should stick to questions of how minor parties in Montenegro feel about Brexit and what influence it will have on the election.
An employee gets sued and the employee uses their indemnity insurance to help the employee with legal representation.
Evidence turns out sub-optimally for the employee and their employer is like, sorry old bean, got to disclose this and we're withdrawing your legal representation.
Came under sustained criticism from law enforcement due to show's gross lack of credibility.
There was also fact that Broderick Crawford, star of "Highway Patrol" who was shown racing around the highways of southern California in highway patrol cars, was BANNED from driving in CA, because his drivers license was suspended due to arrests for driving under the influence.
Somewhat ironic, in that the thing that made the show a hit, was its perceived (by viewers) authenticity!
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Turns out Boris Johnson's lawyers are Oakeshott & Oakeshott, well known for their discretion and not screwing people over.
https://youtu.be/mjvGjUovxPU
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were and are egregiously unfit to be Prime Minister.
Trying to say Boris Johnson isn't as bad as Jeremy Corbyn is a bit like saying AIDS isn't as bad as cancer.
You check who the engagement letter is addressed to and work from there.
In my scenario the employee thinks the solicitors/barristers have the employees best interests at heart but doesn't work that way.
Was a death sentence until the Thatcher government got involved.
Norman Fowler, a secular saint.
Also the increase in immigration wasn't enabled by Brexit. We could have exactly the same before but chose not to.
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
You check whom the engagement letter is addressed to etc.
The spread of AIDS was more limited by the behaviour of the various groups within society, than the campaigns, I think.
But what does it matter. Corbyn wasn't PM, wasn't ever going to PM, despite the crank-foaming never got near becoming PM.
Boris on the other hand? There's an awful lot of very angry people out there who still rage about what Boris did to their lives during Covid. Their own mental hell. Marriages broken. Parents lost remotely. Whilst he said "what rules" and carried on being a "selfish libertine".
There are very few people who will refuse to vote Labour because Corbyn was once leader. An awful lot who already are refusing to vote Conservative because Boris was PM. Labour wanted to move on from Jezbollah so badly that he's been excommunicated. The Tories want Boris back so badly that he has his own fanclub (Tories for Democracy thingy) and now CrankCom (NatC conference).
It was increasingly obvious that, until he got the leadership, he was going to destabilise whoever was the leader. Again and again and again.
If you want to stop him, you need to keep him off the candidates list sometime back in the mid 90s.
The privileges committee, which is investigating claims that Johnson misled parliament over lockdown-breaking parties, has been informed.
He hates his AIDS denialism being brought up.
His conduct was reprehensible as those cretins Andrew Wakefield and Ian Hislop.
You’ll be happy to hear that headscarf wearing is way way down in Cairo. It’s a striking change. It’s Sisi crushing the Muslim brotherhood. The effect is obvious. The city feels significantly more relaxed, liberal and optimistic than it did 10-20 years ago
Egyptian kids are now sometimes hard to differentiate from, say, Greek kids
However on lockdown never forget that Starmer and Labour wanted MORE lockdown - and would have had us trapped at home until about June 2022 (with all the extra debt)
Both Seumas Milne and Dom Cummings are absolute shits of the highest order.
The taxpayers have paid out substantial money because of the latter's bullying.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/13/special-adviser-sacked-by-dominic-cummings-to-receive-payoff
The majority of them probably need sweeping away at the next election.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2010/feb/05/private-eye-magazines
Milne supports Islamists and cheered on 9/11. He got jihadists in to write for the guardian. He thinks Stalin is cool
Cummings might be an arrogant dick and even a bully but if you can’t see the crucial political difference between the two of them then there’s no hope for you
I hope I'm still allowed to like Paul Merton though.
Are there any tax implications about the private use of these properties?
Perhaps this will help
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYJ5_wqlQPg
We’re Bozo to resign (for the greater good, to avoid being a distraction) when the inevitable x0 days suspension is given, how likely is he to be given a winnable seat in Oxfordshire come the next election?
If you invite friends and family over you pay for the food etc.
Milne is a pretty unique sort of Englishman that only occurs on the left. The upper upper middle class Marxist. Kim Philby etc
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/sep/26/health.lifeandhealth
Her free choice to make, of course. But if you really want to temper your love of Paul Merton, read that.
I’m reading a book about old pagan Europe and it’s talking about Celtic languages and I’ve realised I’ve never heard Breton spoken in real life
I’ve heard every other extant Celtic tongue. Welsh, Irish, Gallic - but not Breton
Wiki claims a lot of speakers but I wonder
How fash does the far right have to get before Marxism is preferable? Not objectively good, but the lesser of two evils.
Hitler obviously. ("If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.")
Franco? Probably, though it needs a pause for thought.
The fringier bits of US National Conservatism?
None of which stops Corbyn being a fool at best and probably a lot worse than that.
I am on my way to Heathrow. I just left a work do, with wine. I’ll arrive and go into the lounge, where there will be free drinks. Then the plane, where they’ll serve free drinks. All being well I arrive in Singapore tomorrow at 6pm just in time for the “gala event” at our conference with free drinks.
Do I:
A. Treat this as some 24 hour stag-like bender and just drink and eat my way through it,
B. Abstain in the lounge and go straight to sleep on the plane?
Decisions decisions
The only person making the decision was Boris. The only person passing the legislation was Boris. Not Starmer. Lockdown drove me mildly mad and did much worse to other people. But the alternative was the script of the film Contagion. Lockdown isn't the problem - that fucker brazenly ignoring it, and stuffing billions into Tory pockets in exchange for no PPE which killed medics is the problem.
What does Starmer have to do with it?
I’d go with “no, a woman can’t have a penis. That’s a trans woman”. But I thank allah I am not a politician in this case
Women don't have penises.
I suspect this will turn out to be a self-inflicted wound on Labour's part, not least in the next GE where they need LibDem tactical votes in the Banbury constituency.