LOL AN AIRFORCE DRONE OPTIMISED FOR POINTS WENT ROGUE AND KILLED OPERATOR!: a thousand retweets “In a simulation” - 100 retweets “In a paper ‘what if” scenario brainstormed around a desk*” - 10 retweets https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1664571000917315586
Two big options in my mind: 1) this is like POTUS' protecting executive privilege no matter who is in the WH to protect their own skin and expand the powers of the office, so Sunak / govt is trying to make Whatsapp messages a no go area (probably because too much work gets talked about in a candid way on there, and it isn't FOI able) or 2) Sunak knows he messaged Johnson specific things regarding Covid and he doesn't want that getting out (such as "Eat Out To Help Out might have killed 1,000 grannies, but at least I can go to the Spectator garden party and say I didn't have to raise taxes, lol)
Either way, it doesn't help Sunak and the gov
Guito Harri recently revealed that questions had been asked by Boris's team about Sunak spending a lot of money and getting poor value. If there's stuff of that nature relating to Covid contracts, it really could be incendiary.
Why? Who is going to be shocked that what we spent during covid was poor value? Of course it was poor value, there was a global shortage of supply and extortionate sellers profiteering.
Poor value and corrupt is what most of the public have already baked in, so nothing incendiary there.
Brian Lara’s record’s going to fall today isn’t it?
Duckett will need a disproportionate amount of strike and will have to move up a couple of gears to achieve that particular milestone today. Possible though, he'll need to go at 7.8 an over if he gets half the balls.
England won’t declare until Bairstow has had a bat.
The only way I can explain the Schofield obsession is that Britons collectively feel totally scammed by “ideal husband” Philip Schofield AND television at large.
The so-called grooming allegations seem almost incidental. The story seems to be fed by a visceral mistrust of years of bullshit from the media-politico-industrial complex.
Brian Lara’s record’s going to fall today isn’t it?
Duckett will need a disproportionate amount of strike and will have to move up a couple of gears to achieve that particular milestone today. Possible though, he'll need to go at 7.8 an over if he gets half the balls.
England won’t declare until Bairstow has had a bat.
So this could go on all day.
In reality he'll probably hole out slogging when he's around 250ish.
The only way I can explain the Schofield obsession is that Britons collectively feel totally scammed by “ideal husband” Philip Schofield AND television at large.
The so-called grooming allegations seem almost incidental. The story seems to be fed by a visceral mistrust of years of bullshit from the media-politico-industrial complex.
Five Live, the UK's main sports radio station, was doing a massive phone in about right after the incredible story of Luton's rise to the Premiership. World's gone mad.
No he isn't, indeed after Blair and Cameron he is probably the 3rd most competent UK PM this century
Is this a dark joke?
I would agree with @HYUFD , but look at the competition:
Brown - indecisive May - stubborn Johnson - corrupt Truss - useless
Brown was actually a quite strange combo of indecision and stubborness which means he never apologises for anything. We've just had another dose of him up here with his shiny new version of patriotism not nationalism, nary a word of regret over the bullshit of the Vow.
No he isn't, indeed after Blair and Cameron he is probably the 3rd most competent UK PM this century
Is this a dark joke?
I would agree with @HYUFD , but look at the competition:
Brown - indecisive May - stubborn Johnson - corrupt Truss - useless
Brown was actually a quite strange combo of indecision and stubborness which means he never apologises for anything. We've just had another dose of him up here with his shiny new version of patriotism not nationalism, nary a word of regret over the bullshit of the Vow.
LOL AN AIRFORCE DRONE OPTIMISED FOR POINTS WENT ROGUE AND KILLED OPERATOR!: a thousand retweets “In a simulation” - 100 retweets “In a paper ‘what if” scenario brainstormed around a desk*” - 10 retweets https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1664571000917315586
No he isn't, indeed after Blair and Cameron he is probably the 3rd most competent UK PM this century
Is this a dark joke?
I would agree with @HYUFD , but look at the competition:
Brown - indecisive May - stubborn Johnson - corrupt Truss - useless
Brown was actually a quite strange combo of indecision and stubborness which means he never apologises for anything. We've just had another dose of him up here with his shiny new version of patriotism not nationalism, nary a word of regret over the bullshit of the Vow.
Section 21(4)(b) does not, and cannot, take away the right of the government (or anyone else being asked to produce evidence for an inquiry) to take the matter to court. That is particularly so where, as here, the fundamental question is whether the chair is acting ultra vires. The chair does not have the power to decide the limits of her own jurisdiction or powers.
I suspect that Cyclefree may have taken a different view about this if she was one of the named individuals and the chair was attempting to force her to hand over WhatsApp messages about private family matters on the off chance that they may, at some undefined point in the future, become relevant to the inquiry.
My tentative view is that the inquiry chair has drawn her order far too widely. As it stands, it clearly requires the production of irrelevant material. Section 21 of the Act does not give her that power. If her order was more tightly drawn, specifying, for example, that she wanted communications that were about the government's response to Covid-19 (as specified in the original Rule 9 request), there would be no problem. But she is demanding everything without any consideration as to whether or not it is relevant, on the basis that it might be relevant, either now or in the future. Such a request requires, on pain of criminal sanctions, production of communications that are plainly not relevant and could never be relevant to the inquiry. I doubt that such a request would be allowed in a civil case as the courts don't like litigants going on fishing expeditions. The legislation clearly says that the chair cannot require individuals to produce anything they would not be ordered to produce in a civil case. However, that is only a tentative view based on limited information.
I will be interested to see what the courts decide on this one.
No he isn't, indeed after Blair and Cameron he is probably the 3rd most competent UK PM this century
Is this a dark joke?
I would agree with @HYUFD , but look at the competition:
Brown - indecisive May - stubborn Johnson - corrupt Truss - useless
Brown was actually a quite strange combo of indecision and stubborness which means he never apologises for anything. We've just had another dose of him up here with his shiny new version of patriotism not nationalism, nary a word of regret over the bullshit of the Vow.
No he isn't, indeed after Blair and Cameron he is probably the 3rd most competent UK PM this century
Is this a dark joke?
I would agree with @HYUFD , but look at the competition:
Brown - indecisive May - stubborn Johnson - corrupt Truss - useless
Brown was actually a quite strange combo of indecision and stubborness which means he never apologises for anything. We've just had another dose of him up here with his shiny new version of patriotism not nationalism, nary a word of regret over the bullshit of the Vow.
Section 21(4)(b) does not, and cannot, take away the right of the government (or anyone else being asked to produce evidence for an inquiry) to take the matter to court. That is particularly so where, as here, the fundamental question is whether the chair is acting ultra vires. The chair does not have the power to decide the limits of her own jurisdiction or powers.
I suspect that Cyclefree may have taken a different view about this if she was one of the named individuals and the chair was attempting to force her to hand over WhatsApp messages about private family matters on the off chance that they may, at some undefined point in the future, become relevant to the inquiry.
My tentative view is that the inquiry chair has drawn her order far too widely. As it stands, it clearly requires the production of irrelevant material. Section 21 of the Act does not give her that power. If her order was more tightly drawn, specifying, for example, that she wanted communications that were about the government's response to Covid-19 (as specified in the original Rule 9 request), there would be no problem. But she is demanding everything without any consideration as to whether or not it is relevant, on the basis that it might be relevant, either now or in the future. Such a request requires, on pain of criminal sanctions, production of communications that are plainly not relevant and could never be relevant to the inquiry. I doubt that such a request would be allowed in a civil case as the courts don't like litigants going on fishing expeditions. The legislation clearly says that the chair cannot require individuals to produce anything they would not be ordered to produce in a civil case. However, that is only a tentative view based on limited information.
I will be interested to see what the courts decide on this one.
Which civil case has a scope comparable to that granted to this inquiry ?
No he isn't, indeed after Blair and Cameron he is probably the 3rd most competent UK PM this century
Is this a dark joke?
I would agree with @HYUFD , but look at the competition:
Brown - indecisive May - stubborn Johnson - corrupt Truss - useless
This is my semi-regular reminder that I liked Brown and thought he made a good PM (Chancellor, on the other hand...). Given his actions during the GFC, referring to him as "indecisive" should at least be qualified.
“The government yesterday decided to take legal action. It was not my decision to do so. While I understand the government’s position, I am not willing to let my material become a test case for others when I am perfectly content for the inquiry to see it.
I am therefore providing the material directly to your Inquiry today in unredacted form.”
When is it enquiry and when is it inquiry?
He and his advisor, Henry Cook, are interested powers in the government's application and we are paying for his lawyers. So, once again, his statement is not entirely accurate.
I believe Boris has changed his legal counsel - it was having the Cabinet Office fund his legal team that gave them access to the info they recently shopped him to the police and Privileges Committee with. I think the change happened after that.
Is BoJo now paying for "his" legal counsel, instead of letting the taxpayers pick up the tab?
The only way I can explain the Schofield obsession is that Britons collectively feel totally scammed by “ideal husband” Philip Schofield AND television at large.
The so-called grooming allegations seem almost incidental. The story seems to be fed by a visceral mistrust of years of bullshit from the media-politico-industrial complex.
And why should any presenter or public figure open up their personal lives for public gaze and mindless gossip because tabloid journalists think they should? No, this story is just homophobia, pure and simple
Going by the live YouGov poll no 10 have badly misjudged this .
The public clearly siding with Baroness Hallett .
As for Johnson , pretty clear what he’s up to .
He’s hoping to influence the Privileges Committee by looking very gallant in offering up his messages and also there’s some incriminating messages which will embarrass Sunak .
Either way Sunak looks like he’s scored a massive own goal. This looks like a cover-up and gives Starmer plenty of ammunition .
The only way I can explain the Schofield obsession is that Britons collectively feel totally scammed by “ideal husband” Philip Schofield AND television at large.
The so-called grooming allegations seem almost incidental. The story seems to be fed by a visceral mistrust of years of bullshit from the media-politico-industrial complex.
It's much simpler than that. Nobody loves talking about the media more than... the media.
So this is the kind of story that will always spark a media feeding frenzy.
Regular people are just along for the ride but how much of the general public actually care beyond a voyeuristic fascinating similar to watching the aftermath of a car crash on the motorway I'm not sure (but probably not very much) ?
The only way I can explain the Schofield obsession is that Britons collectively feel totally scammed by “ideal husband” Philip Schofield AND television at large.
The so-called grooming allegations seem almost incidental. The story seems to be fed by a visceral mistrust of years of bullshit from the media-politico-industrial complex.
And why should any presenter or public figure open up their personal lives for public gaze and mindless gossip because tabloid journalists think they should? No, this story is just homophobia, pure and simple
I don't agree. He has not been sacked from ITV because he has had an affair with a man. He has been sacked because he has lost the trust of the programmes producers and crew by lying about it.
Edit - if you recall, he wasn't sacked when he came out.
Why is it that almost all the people on PB talking about Schofield are those who say it's ridiculous to be talking about Schofield ?
If there is a smidgeon of genuine public interest in the story it surrounds the question of how such a poor presenter thrived for decades at the BBC.
As for his protege, I've just seen an extract from one of his shows. It is inconceivable he could have got the job on merit.
So, if you actually think the Beeb is worth supporting, it's worth asking what is going on behind the scenes there, and not just in connection with Schofield. If not, the topic is of zero interest and best left to be handled by the worst newspapers and magazines.
The argument is not about relaying information into the public domain. It's about whether the enquiry judge is allowed to review the material to determine what is relevant to the enquiry. I don't think this is "executive aggrandisement". It's a cover up. There is material the government doesn't want the judge to see because it knows or suspects this material is relevant to the enquiry and compromises them.
It is both. The government is seeking to take from the inquiry judge powers which have been granted by law to the latter. Not the executive.
Thanks. I agree. My point was the government's motivation for rejecting the judge's order is to cover up. But the effect is executive aggrandisement, which is part of a general trend with this government.
“The government yesterday decided to take legal action. It was not my decision to do so. While I understand the government’s position, I am not willing to let my material become a test case for others when I am perfectly content for the inquiry to see it.
I am therefore providing the material directly to your Inquiry today in unredacted form.”
When is it enquiry and when is it inquiry?
He and his advisor, Henry Cook, are interested powers in the government's application and we are paying for his lawyers. So, once again, his statement is not entirely accurate.
I believe Boris has changed his legal counsel - it was having the Cabinet Office fund his legal team that gave them access to the info they recently shopped him to the police and Privileges Committee with. I think the change happened after that.
Is BoJo now paying for "his" legal counsel, instead of letting the taxpayers pick up the tab?
Somehow doubt it!
Given that the taxpayer funded ones dobbed him in to the fuzz, yes!
“The government yesterday decided to take legal action. It was not my decision to do so. While I understand the government’s position, I am not willing to let my material become a test case for others when I am perfectly content for the inquiry to see it.
I am therefore providing the material directly to your Inquiry today in unredacted form.”
When is it enquiry and when is it inquiry?
He and his advisor, Henry Cook, are interested powers in the government's application and we are paying for his lawyers. So, once again, his statement is not entirely accurate.
I believe Boris has changed his legal counsel - it was having the Cabinet Office fund his legal team that gave them access to the info they recently shopped him to the police and Privileges Committee with. I think the change happened after that.
Is BoJo now paying for "his" legal counsel, instead of letting the taxpayers pick up the tab?
Somehow doubt it!
And of course the beauty of WhatsApp is that it is very secure and no one will know whether he has released it all or deleted the bits that are a bit embarrassing
I don’t know why Eamonn Holmes thinks it appropriate to join the pile on. Especially with a face that is so absurdly botoxed.
One feels suddenly that all of day-time television is one big grift; the presenters are essentially talentless egos.
Eamonn Holmes is hoping that by getting some publicity he can escape Gbebbies and possibly get work on a better channel (or get some viewers and retain his GBeebies money).
The argument is not about relaying information into the public domain. It's about whether the enquiry judge is allowed to review the material to determine what is relevant to the enquiry. I don't think this is "executive aggrandisement". It's a cover up. There is material the government doesn't want the judge to see because it knows or suspects this material is relevant to the enquiry and compromises them.
It is both. The government is seeking to take from the inquiry judge powers which have been granted by law to the latter. Not the executive.
Thanks. I agree. My point was the government's motivation for rejecting the judge's order is to cover up. But the effect is executive aggrandisement, which is part of a general trend with this government.
Historians will write about the attempts at executive aggrandisement following the 2016 vote.
It’s one of the exquisite ironies of Brexit that the arch-Brexiter, having promised more control for voters, focused so intently on hoarding control unto himself.
Sunak is useless, utterly shit, to continue in this vein.
Section 21(4)(b) does not, and cannot, take away the right of the government (or anyone else being asked to produce evidence for an inquiry) to take the matter to court. That is particularly so where, as here, the fundamental question is whether the chair is acting ultra vires. The chair does not have the power to decide the limits of her own jurisdiction or powers.
I suspect that Cyclefree may have taken a different view about this if she was one of the named individuals and the chair was attempting to force her to hand over WhatsApp messages about private family matters on the off chance that they may, at some undefined point in the future, become relevant to the inquiry.
My tentative view is that the inquiry chair has drawn her order far too widely. As it stands, it clearly requires the production of irrelevant material. Section 21 of the Act does not give her that power. If her order was more tightly drawn, specifying, for example, that she wanted communications that were about the government's response to Covid-19 (as specified in the original Rule 9 request), there would be no problem. But she is demanding everything without any consideration as to whether or not it is relevant, on the basis that it might be relevant, either now or in the future. Such a request requires, on pain of criminal sanctions, production of communications that are plainly not relevant and could never be relevant to the inquiry. I doubt that such a request would be allowed in a civil case as the courts don't like litigants going on fishing expeditions. The legislation clearly says that the chair cannot require individuals to produce anything they would not be ordered to produce in a civil case. However, that is only a tentative view based on limited information.
I will be interested to see what the courts decide on this one.
It seems clear the judge thinks the Cabinet Office lied to her about them not holding the notebooks and WhatsApp messages. Possibly if she had more trust in the CO she would allow them some discretion in what they pass over.
Why is it that almost all the people on PB talking about Schofield are those who say it's ridiculous to be talking about Schofield ?
If there is a smidgeon of genuine public interest in the story it surrounds the question of how such a poor presenter thrived for decades at the BBC.
As for his protege, I've just seen an extract from one of his shows. It is inconceivable he could have got the job on merit.
So, if you actually think the Beeb is worth supporting, it's worth asking what is going on behind the scenes there, and not just in connection with Schofield. If not, the topic is of zero interest and best left to be handled by the worst newspapers and magazines.
No he isn't, indeed after Blair and Cameron he is probably the 3rd most competent UK PM this century
Is this a dark joke?
I would agree with @HYUFD , but look at the competition:
Brown - indecisive May - stubborn Johnson - corrupt Truss - useless
This is my semi-regular reminder that I liked Brown and thought he made a good PM (Chancellor, on the other hand...). Given his actions during the GFC, referring to him as "indecisive" should at least be qualified.
I thought he was a poor PM, but he was brilliant during the GFC and possibly one of the few world Statesmen who could have carried it off. Given the potential consequences of political failure at that time, he deserves a lot of credit for that alone and I find it frustration that the widespread knee-jerk knocking of him fails to acknowledge that much at least.
He makes a peculiar mirror-image to Blair, who was on the whole a good PM but will never live down being on the wrong side with Iraq (and unnecessarily so, imo, because he could have sided with the EU rather than Washington but was too subservient to the Bush administration to do so.)
Anyway, an intersting if flawed couple they certainly make.
Why is it that almost all the people on PB talking about Schofield are those who say it's ridiculous to be talking about Schofield ?
If there is a smidgeon of genuine public interest in the story it surrounds the question of how such a poor presenter thrived for decades at the BBC.
As for his protege, I've just seen an extract from one of his shows. It is inconceivable he could have got the job on merit.
So, if you actually think the Beeb is worth supporting, it's worth asking what is going on behind the scenes there, and not just in connection with Schofield. If not, the topic is of zero interest and best left to be handled by the worst newspapers and magazines.
I don’t know why Eamonn Holmes thinks it appropriate to join the pile on. Especially with a face that is so absurdly botoxed.
One feels suddenly that all of day-time television is one big grift; the presenters are essentially talentless egos.
I've said before about Eamonn Holmes. Never liked him ever since Fathers4Justice invaded the set of the national lottery years ago and his initial reaction was to hide behind his much younger co-host.
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
I sense a change, because the Tories are evidently about to be voted out.
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
“The government yesterday decided to take legal action. It was not my decision to do so. While I understand the government’s position, I am not willing to let my material become a test case for others when I am perfectly content for the inquiry to see it.
I am therefore providing the material directly to your Inquiry today in unredacted form.”
When is it enquiry and when is it inquiry?
He and his advisor, Henry Cook, are interested powers in the government's application and we are paying for his lawyers. So, once again, his statement is not entirely accurate.
I believe Boris has changed his legal counsel - it was having the Cabinet Office fund his legal team that gave them access to the info they recently shopped him to the police and Privileges Committee with. I think the change happened after that.
Is BoJo now paying for "his" legal counsel, instead of letting the taxpayers pick up the tab?
Somehow doubt it!
And of course the beauty of WhatsApp is that it is very secure and no one will know whether he has released it all or deleted the bits that are a bit embarrassing
Deleting messages carries risk. If some other party has the conversation, and that is handed over, then it is an open and shut case of deliberately misleading the enquiry.
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
I sense a change, because the Tories are evidently about to be voted out.
It is there, isn't it? A brightness in the eyes. Optimism about Britain. We are free and sovereign. BREXIT feels GOOD
Excellent question. I don't think it's the "keep things open, save the economy, who cares if a few oldies die" thing. That's pretty common knowledge and Rishi has presented it as a virtue.
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
Perhaps its the fabled "Blitz spirit" starting to emerge in these times of adversity...
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
I sense a change, because the Tories are evidently about to be voted out.
It is there, isn't it? A brightness in the eyes. Optimism about Britain. We are free and sovereign. BREXIT feels GOOD
I feel good about the future of Britain under a Labour Government yes.
Why is it that almost all the people on PB talking about Schofield are those who say it's ridiculous to be talking about Schofield ?
If there is a smidgeon of genuine public interest in the story it surrounds the question of how such a poor presenter thrived for decades at the BBC.
As for his protege, I've just seen an extract from one of his shows. It is inconceivable he could have got the job on merit.
So, if you actually think the Beeb is worth supporting, it's worth asking what is going on behind the scenes there, and not just in connection with Schofield. If not, the topic is of zero interest and best left to be handled by the worst newspapers and magazines.
Ben Duckett and Ollie Pope are doing their best to have this match finish today.
Ireland are pretty awful.
They are not a bad one day side but have been starved of first class cricket for the last three years and played very few tests since elevated.
Lesser nations, and I’d include Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Afghanistan too need more exposure to the longer game. Ireland played their firsts tests in a few years this year and performed modestly but it is a step up to play England.
Why are they playing us now?
Ireland's struggles in Test cricket aren't particularly different to other new Test-playing nations. People said the same about Bangladesh, but they don't say it now, because they were able to play matches and improve.
they have a problem now as their test players are now counted as overseas players in county cricket, so potentially deprives young Irish players of a development route.
I wonder if that's contrary to the 1948 British Nationality Act?
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
I sense a change, because the Tories are evidently about to be voted out.
It is there, isn't it? A brightness in the eyes. Optimism about Britain. We are free and sovereign. BREXIT feels GOOD
Because Brexit allows you to sink a bottle of (probably European) wine at lunchtime?
Excellent question. I don't think it's the "keep things open, save the economy, who cares if a few oldies die" thing. That's pretty common knowledge and Rishi has presented it as a virtue.
Well the government will surely lose their litigation so we're bound to find out sooner or later...
Why is it that almost all the people on PB talking about Schofield are those who say it's ridiculous to be talking about Schofield ?
If there is a smidgeon of genuine public interest in the story it surrounds the question of how such a poor presenter thrived for decades at the BBC.
As for his protege, I've just seen an extract from one of his shows. It is inconceivable he could have got the job on merit.
So, if you actually think the Beeb is worth supporting, it's worth asking what is going on behind the scenes there, and not just in connection with Schofield. If not, the topic is of zero interest and best left to be handled by the worst newspapers and magazines.
Why is it that almost all the people on PB talking about Schofield are those who say it's ridiculous to be talking about Schofield ?
If there is a smidgeon of genuine public interest in the story it surrounds the question of how such a poor presenter thrived for decades at the BBC.
As for his protege, I've just seen an extract from one of his shows. It is inconceivable he could have got the job on merit.
So, if you actually think the Beeb is worth supporting, it's worth asking what is going on behind the scenes there, and not just in connection with Schofield. If not, the topic is of zero interest and best left to be handled by the worst newspapers and magazines.
It's Gary the Gopher I feel sorry for.
Careful, there’s a super injunction on him.
Is Gary Gordon's embittered brother who didn't make it to the big time? Now in some dingy bar saying "we all know who had a hand in Gordon's success, don't we?"
Who selected the sample set and the exact questions that survey result is based on as it's sounds like a Conservative Home echo chamber..
This is a rather important qualifier to that "poll". ...AND feel they are not represented on... Which renders it essentially meaningless ;assuming it even exists).
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
Perhaps its the fabled "Blitz spirit" starting to emerge in these times of adversity...
To reach full Blitz spirit we need food rationing, conscription and occasional air raids, then we can truly enjoy Brexit.
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
I sense a change, because the Tories are evidently about to be voted out.
It is there, isn't it? A brightness in the eyes. Optimism about Britain. We are free and sovereign. BREXIT feels GOOD
I gave this a Like because someone flagged it so I did it to counter balance.
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
I sense a change, because the Tories are evidently about to be voted out.
It is there, isn't it? A brightness in the eyes. Optimism about Britain. We are free and sovereign. BREXIT feels GOOD
I've got a US road trip coming up for the Gazette, and I want to explore Virginia, Maryland maybe Kentucky, especially Civil War sites. Anyone got any recommendations? What are the most resonant battlefields? Gettysburg? Atietam?
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
I sense a change, because the Tories are evidently about to be voted out.
It is there, isn't it? A brightness in the eyes. Optimism about Britain. We are free and sovereign. BREXIT feels GOOD
I feel good about the future of Britain under a Labour Government yes.
Excellent question. I don't think it's the "keep things open, save the economy, who cares if a few oldies die" thing. That's pretty common knowledge and Rishi has presented it as a virtue.
Clearly what they are trying to hide is highly relevant to the.enquiry,
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
I sense a change, because the Tories are evidently about to be voted out.
It is there, isn't it? A brightness in the eyes. Optimism about Britain. We are free and sovereign. BREXIT feels GOOD
I feel good about the future of Britain under a Labour Government yes.
You're more optimistic than me.
It's so shit now things only being a little better makes me feel optimistic
I've got a US road trip coming up for the Gazette, and I want to explore Virginia, Maryland maybe Kentucky, especially Civil War sites. Anyone got any recommendations? What are the most resonant battlefields? Gettysburg? Atietam?
Gettysburg well worth a visit, although not in any of the States you mention
Am I alone in noticing a lightness of spirit in the nation, since Brexit? A kind of blitheness, even a sublimity of humour: we are free, and it is good, and the sun is shining
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
I sense a change, because the Tories are evidently about to be voted out.
It is there, isn't it? A brightness in the eyes. Optimism about Britain. We are free and sovereign. BREXIT feels GOOD
Says someone who has spent most of this dreary year enjoying buckshee 5* opulence in sunnier climes.
I've got a US road trip coming up for the Gazette, and I want to explore Virginia, Maryland maybe Kentucky, especially Civil War sites. Anyone got any recommendations? What are the most resonant battlefields? Gettysburg? Atietam?
You could go to the made-up one on Trump's golf course.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/01/us-military-drone-ai-killed-operator-simulated-test
No idea who is fibbing ...
Yes, appalling.
A brief inquiry conducted by DRS is available.
Philip Schofield?
Not half enough Phillip Schofield chat imo.
Poor value and corrupt is what most of the public have already baked in, so nothing incendiary there.
Brown - indecisive
May - stubborn
Johnson - corrupt
Truss - useless
So this could go on all day.
The so-called grooming allegations seem almost incidental. The story seems to be fed by a visceral mistrust of years of bullshit from the media-politico-industrial complex.
Alleged attacks resulted in explosions on fuel & energy facilities, damage of water fire suppression tank & admini building
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1664603266976747521
We've just had another dose of him up here with his shiny new version of patriotism not nationalism, nary a word of regret over the bullshit of the Vow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_2016
Meanwhile..
I suspect that Cyclefree may have taken a different view about this if she was one of the named individuals and the chair was attempting to force her to hand over WhatsApp messages about private family matters on the off chance that they may, at some undefined point in the future, become relevant to the inquiry.
My tentative view is that the inquiry chair has drawn her order far too widely. As it stands, it clearly requires the production of irrelevant material. Section 21 of the Act does not give her that power. If her order was more tightly drawn, specifying, for example, that she wanted communications that were about the government's response to Covid-19 (as specified in the original Rule 9 request), there would be no problem. But she is demanding everything without any consideration as to whether or not it is relevant, on the basis that it might be relevant, either now or in the future. Such a request requires, on pain of criminal sanctions, production of communications that are plainly not relevant and could never be relevant to the inquiry. I doubt that such a request would be allowed in a civil case as the courts don't like litigants going on fishing expeditions. The legislation clearly says that the chair cannot require individuals to produce anything they would not be ordered to produce in a civil case. However, that is only a tentative view based on limited information.
I will be interested to see what the courts decide on this one.
'Sorry captain, the bullshitometer just cannae take it'
Somehow doubt it!
The public clearly siding with Baroness Hallett .
As for Johnson , pretty clear what he’s up to .
He’s hoping to influence the Privileges Committee by looking very gallant in offering up his messages and also there’s some incriminating messages which will embarrass Sunak .
Either way Sunak looks like he’s scored a massive own goal. This looks like a cover-up and gives Starmer plenty of ammunition .
So this is the kind of story that will always spark a media feeding frenzy.
Regular people are just along for the ride but how much of the general public actually care beyond a voyeuristic fascinating similar to watching the aftermath of a car crash on the motorway I'm not sure (but probably not very much) ?
Edit - if you recall, he wasn't sacked when he came out.
As for his protege, I've just seen an extract from one of his shows. It is inconceivable he could have got the job on merit.
So, if you actually think the Beeb is worth supporting, it's worth asking what is going on behind the scenes there, and not just in connection with Schofield. If not, the topic is of zero interest and best left to be handled by the worst newspapers and magazines.
One feels suddenly that all of day-time television is one big grift; the presenters are essentially talentless egos.
What does he have to hide in these messages?
It’s one of the exquisite ironies of Brexit that the arch-Brexiter, having promised more control for voters, focused so intently on hoarding control unto himself.
Sunak is useless, utterly shit, to continue in this vein.
@GoodwinMJ
I recently polled British voters and asked them what issues they care the most about AND feel they are not represented on. The most popular?
1. Slashing immigration
2. Opposing Woke Political Correctness
3. Promoting not attacking Britain’s distinctive identity, history, & culture
https://mattgoodwin.substack.com/p/does-britain-need-a-new-party"
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1664540480082788355
He makes a peculiar mirror-image to Blair, who was on the whole a good PM but will never live down being on the wrong side with Iraq (and unnecessarily so, imo, because he could have sided with the EU rather than Washington but was too subservient to the Bush administration to do so.)
Anyway, an intersting if flawed couple they certainly make.
Mr Knight In Shining Armour (NOT) LOL! 😂
I bet this post doesn’t stay up for long.
Even the most curmudgeonly Remoaners are begging to turn to the light. Shyly smiling, even as they try not to. Shrugging awkwardly, but not unhappily. Saying, Yeah, OK, maybe Brexit was the right thing BUT DON'T MAKE ME SAY SORRY
It's OK. We won't force you. You can thank us down the line
I am going to have to double my popcorn order. 🍿
...AND feel they are not represented on...
Which renders it essentially meaningless ;assuming it even exists).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_River_of_Blood_(monument)