She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
But you don';t have to go on and on and on about how they are inferior beings, do you? Just think about that a little.
Oh dear. It looks like “TV’s” Dan Wootton is trending on Twitter for far worse reasons than Huw.
The universe sort of falls into place briefly whan someone who gives the impression of being an absolute horror turns out to be verifiably that.
What;s he done? Or do I have to wait?
I hesitate to put it into words because if it isn't true Wootton will be lawyering up like nobody's business. He's called in sick for his slot on GB News tonight, hopefully because even they now find him too ghastly.
Oh dear, something to wait for to see the resolution.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
British journalism eating itself is a fine sight. Maybe they won't think that the ability to dash off an article or a ranting op-ed doesn't confer the necessary skills to run departments or the country anymore? One can but hope.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
I bet I'm more commoner than you.
A prince can mak a belted knight, A marquis, duke, an a that; But an honest man’s abon his might, Gude faith, he maunna fa that! For a that, an a that, Their dignities an a that; The pith o sense, an pride o worth, Are higher rank than a that.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
I bet I'm more commoner than you.
A prince can mak a belted knight, A marquis, duke, an a that; But an honest man’s abon his might, Gude faith, he maunna fa that! For a that, an a that, Their dignities an a that; The pith o sense, an pride o worth, Are higher rank than a that.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
I bet I'm more commoner than you.
A prince can mak a belted knight, A marquis, duke, an a that; But an honest man’s abon his might, Gude faith, he maunna fa that! For a that, an a that, Their dignities an a that; The pith o sense, an pride o worth, Are higher rank than a that.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
Imagine believing one had to doff one's cap to Liz Truss HoL appointee Lord Simon Murray, or Lady Michelle Mone, or worse still, scouse-scally, never to be "Lady" Nadine Dorries.
British journalism eating itself is a fine sight. Maybe they won't think that the ability to dash off an article or a ranting op-ed doesn't confer the necessary skills to run departments or the country anymore? One can but hope.
What will prove amusing is the number of people who pivot from “private lives should be private” to “string the pervert up”.
Oh dear. It looks like “TV’s” Dan Wootton is trending on Twitter for far worse reasons than Huw.
I've just read the thread. Oh. This is not good.
We've had four rather large disclosures about public figures recently: Philip Schofield, George Osborne, Huw Edwards, Dan Wootton. In each case they told me things that I wish I didn't know about. We used to have private lives and some degree of privacy is necessary for humans to thrive, but now it's like watching a sniper shooting into a crowd. I can see the sense in attacking criminality and under-age sex: crimes are crimes and should be punished accordingly. But other than that it's not really my business, regardless of their political stance.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
I bet I'm more commoner than you.
"Ooh, you don' 'arf sound common!"
I always assumed a Commoner was someone who had the right to graze their cows on the local wildflower meadow. There are plenty of lower social stations than that.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
I bet I'm more commoner than you.
"Ooh, you don' 'arf sound common!"
I always assumed a Commoner was someone who had the right to graze their cows on the local wildflower meadow. There are plenty of lower social stations than that.
The contemporary Tories and landowners had a very nasty way with such folk. Vide the enclosure acts of the C17-C19.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
Imagine believing one had to doff one's cap to Liz Truss HoL appointee Lord Simon Murray, or Lady Michelle Mone, or worse still, scouse-scally, never to be "Lady" Nadine Dorries.
They are all really commoners too. Indeed most of the House of Lords, apart from the Bishops and remaining Hereditary Peers, are as common as MPs now, the majority being appointed Life Peers only.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
I bet I'm more commoner than you.
I bet you are too!
That's actually quite nasty of you, isn't it? You really do think that being common means something.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
I bet I'm more commoner than you.
"Ooh, you don' 'arf sound common!"
I always assumed a Commoner was someone who had the right to graze their cows on the local wildflower meadow. There are plenty of lower social stations than that.
The contemporary Tories and landowners had a very nasty way with such folk. Vide the enclosure acts of the C17-C19.
The law locks up the man or woman Who steals the goose off the common But leaves the greater villain loose Who steals the common from the goose.
Thinly sliced and salted raw rhubarb has an extraordinary flavour - I'm getting quite excited about the salad
Just finished eating it (got distracted by a chat mid prep with my Siberian friend - sort of funny as rhubarb is originally Siberian) and it was the best salad I've ever made
I added a few bits to the original recipe
Ingredients
A foot of rhubarb, thinly sliced A foot of cucumber, thinly sliced A dessertspoon of sea salt flakes An unwaxed lemon (zest and juice) Four ounces of couscous (a Waitrose lemon and garlic pack in my case) A handful of mint and a handful of basil, destemmed and finely sliced Two tablespoons of olive oil (I used oil I'd saved from a couple of jars of anchovies) Six ounces of peppered smoked mackerel fillets, skinned and flaked Four ounces of rocket
Mix the salt with the rhubarb and stand for ten minutes Drain the fluid, but don't rinse Add and mix the cucumber and stand for five minutes Drain the fluid again without rinsing Meanwhile cook the couscous according to instructions but for a minute less Cool the couscous (put the pan you cooked it in into a sink of cold water and stir until it cools) Mix the lemon juice with the rhubarb and cucumber Add and mix in the herbs Add and mix in the olive oil Add and mix in the couscous Add and mix in the flaked mackerel Add and mix in the rocket Sprinkle in the lemon zest
Don't use a dessertspoon of sea salt flakes; a slightly heaped teaspoon is plenty
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
Imagine believing one had to doff one's cap to Liz Truss HoL appointee Lord Simon Murray, or Lady Michelle Mone, or worse still, scouse-scally, never to be "Lady" Nadine Dorries.
They are all really commoners too. Indeed most of the House of Lords, apart from the Bishops and remaining Hereditary Peers, are as common as MPs now, the majority being appointed Life Peers only.
So who are these poshos to whom we should be tugging our forelocks. Name the guilty!
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 121 and 12304 of title 10, United States Code, I hereby determine that it is necessary to augment the active Armed Forces of the United States for the effective conduct of Operation Atlantic Resolve in and around the United States European Command’s area of responsibility.
British journalism eating itself is a fine sight. Maybe they won't think that the ability to dash off an article or a ranting op-ed doesn't confer the necessary skills to run departments or the country anymore? One can but hope.
What will prove amusing is the number of people who pivot from “private lives should be private” to “string the pervert up”.
And vs.
I was spectacularly uninterested in the Huw Edwards story. And am blissfully uncurious as to what Dan Wootton has been up to. I am, however, way done with being lectured by journalists, who haven't ever been me, that the way I live my life is wrong. And that my experience of my job is invalid.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
No @HYUFD you are, yet again, wrong. Yet you won’t admit it.
It has never been “The House of Commoners”. While there is some debate, it’s been generally accepted for some times that the “Commons” referred to in the House of Commons derived from the same root as the French “Communes” - as in a geographic communities ie boroughs and counties. That is reflected in the official name of the French name of the Canadian House of Commons “Chambre des Communes”.
Don’t believe me do you. Because you are so pig headed and arrogant you can never accept you’re wrong. Here are some citations -
Either way, it’s never been the “House of Commoners”
It is probably more productive for me to beat my head repeatedly agains a brick wall than to persuade you to accept you might be wrong on a point of fact, but I can try.
As your 4th article states the historian Michael Bush did indeed see the 'commons' as a title representing the 3rd estate.
Even if as you state the term originated from les communes, (the Commons), meaning not „the common people‟ but „the communities‟, they would still be the knights and burgesses and freemen and merchants of the shires and towns. Not the peers and clergy of the Lords
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
Imagine believing one had to doff one's cap to Liz Truss HoL appointee Lord Simon Murray, or Lady Michelle Mone, or worse still, scouse-scally, never to be "Lady" Nadine Dorries.
They are all really commoners too. Indeed most of the House of Lords, apart from the Bishops and remaining Hereditary Peers, are as common as MPs now, the majority being appointed Life Peers only.
So who are these poshos to whom we should be tugging our forelocks. Name the guilty!
Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Barons from aristocratic families. Plus Archbishops and the Prince Bishop of Durham and Lord Bishops.
A propos of the discussion - I was once preparing a public exhibition of my employer's work.
I had drafted some text that referred to the common people of the land. I was astounded to have a colleague ferociously object to that on the grounds that it was pejorative.
It was quite a revelation, and an insight into the Hyacinth Bucket/Bouquet mentality.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
Imagine believing one had to doff one's cap to Liz Truss HoL appointee Lord Simon Murray, or Lady Michelle Mone, or worse still, scouse-scally, never to be "Lady" Nadine Dorries.
They are all really commoners too. Indeed most of the House of Lords, apart from the Bishops and remaining Hereditary Peers, are as common as MPs now, the majority being appointed Life Peers only.
So who are these poshos to whom we should be tugging our forelocks. Name the guilty!
Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Barons from aristocratic families. Plus Archbishops and the Prince Bishop of Durham and Lord Bishops.
Why does this surprise you, a lot of us have said a lot of the underdeveloped countries are neither secular or liberal for ages. But then I guess people like you thought we were saying it because they were the wrong faith or colour. Sadly in many countries in the middle east, africa and parts of asia women remain second class citizens
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
No @HYUFD you are, yet again, wrong. Yet you won’t admit it.
It has never been “The House of Commoners”. While there is some debate, it’s been generally accepted for some times that the “Commons” referred to in the House of Commons derived from the same root as the French “Communes” - as in a geographic communities ie boroughs and counties. That is reflected in the official name of the French name of the Canadian House of Commons “Chambre des Communes”.
Don’t believe me do you. Because you are so pig headed and arrogant you can never accept you’re wrong. Here are some citations -
Either way, it’s never been the “House of Commoners”
It is probably more productive for me to beat my head repeatedly agains a brick wall than to persuade you to accept you might be wrong on a point of fact, but I can try.
As your 4th article states the historian Michael Bush did indeed see the 'commons' as a title representing the 3rd estate.
Even if as you state the term originated from les communes, (the Commons), meaning not „the common people‟ but „the communities‟, they would still be the knights and burgesses and freemen and merchants of the shires and towns. Not the peers and clergy of the Lords
As I predicted, no acceptance of the possibility of being wrong. It’s never been the “House of Commoners” as you asserted so arrogantly. As I said, there is some debate, but the preponderance of evidence and opinion supports that you are wrong. Again, it’s more productive beating one’s head against a brick wall than “debating” anything with you.
Why does this surprise you, a lot of us have said a lot of the underdeveloped countries are neither secular or liberal for ages. But then I guess people like you thought we were saying it because they were the wrong faith or colour. Sadly in many countries in the middle east, africa and parts of asia women remain second class citizens
Green hydrogen might well have a future as an industrial feedstock, though. But not particularly soon.
Always seemed insane to me, hydrogen can leak from pipes that were deemed gas safe, so to retrofit the system would never have been practical.
I absolutely believe there's a place for green hydrogen and that using surplus wind energy on electrolysis to produce hydrogen is an effective storage medium, but in systems designed to handle it not retconning systems designed for a totally different gas.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
Imagine believing one had to doff one's cap to Liz Truss HoL appointee Lord Simon Murray, or Lady Michelle Mone, or worse still, scouse-scally, never to be "Lady" Nadine Dorries.
They are all really commoners too. Indeed most of the House of Lords, apart from the Bishops and remaining Hereditary Peers, are as common as MPs now, the majority being appointed Life Peers only.
So who are these poshos to whom we should be tugging our forelocks. Name the guilty!
Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Barons from aristocratic families. Plus Archbishops and the Prince Bishop of Durham and Lord Bishops.
Plus the royal family above all of course
Prince Andrew? Lord Lucan? Screaming Lord Sutch? Earls Court? The Dukes of Hazzard?
Come on HY, none deserve to be fawned over by any of the great unwashed, people like you and me .
P.S. Is that a male centred list? I passed Princess Di once on Cardiff Central Station. We caught each other's eye, she smiled, I smiled back. I did not curtsy!
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
No @HYUFD you are, yet again, wrong. Yet you won’t admit it.
It has never been “The House of Commoners”. While there is some debate, it’s been generally accepted for some times that the “Commons” referred to in the House of Commons derived from the same root as the French “Communes” - as in a geographic communities ie boroughs and counties. That is reflected in the official name of the French name of the Canadian House of Commons “Chambre des Communes”.
Don’t believe me do you. Because you are so pig headed and arrogant you can never accept you’re wrong. Here are some citations -
Either way, it’s never been the “House of Commoners”
It is probably more productive for me to beat my head repeatedly agains a brick wall than to persuade you to accept you might be wrong on a point of fact, but I can try.
As your 4th article states the historian Michael Bush did indeed see the 'commons' as a title representing the 3rd estate.
Even if as you state the term originated from les communes, (the Commons), meaning not „the common people‟ but „the communities‟, they would still be the knights and burgesses and freemen and merchants of the shires and towns. Not the peers and clergy of the Lords
As I predicted, no acceptance of the possibility of being wrong. It’s never been the “House of Commoners” as you asserted so arrogantly. As I said, there is some debate, but the preponderance of evidence and opinion supports that you are wrong. Again, it’s more productive beating one’s head against a brick wall than “debating” anything with you.
'As I said, there is some debate', so even on the name you certainly cannot prove your theory.
As I also said knights and burgesses are not peers or clergy but commoners so even if you take the theory you have found on the origins of the name, MPs would still be commoners and it would still be the commoners chamber no matter how much you throw your toys out the pram!
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
No @HYUFD you are, yet again, wrong. Yet you won’t admit it.
It has never been “The House of Commoners”. While there is some debate, it’s been generally accepted for some times that the “Commons” referred to in the House of Commons derived from the same root as the French “Communes” - as in a geographic communities ie boroughs and counties. That is reflected in the official name of the French name of the Canadian House of Commons “Chambre des Communes”.
Don’t believe me do you. Because you are so pig headed and arrogant you can never accept you’re wrong. Here are some citations -
Either way, it’s never been the “House of Commoners”
It is probably more productive for me to beat my head repeatedly agains a brick wall than to persuade you to accept you might be wrong on a point of fact, but I can try.
As your 4th article states the historian Michael Bush did indeed see the 'commons' as a title representing the 3rd estate.
Even if as you state the term originated from les communes, (the Commons), meaning not „the common people‟ but „the communities‟, they would still be the knights and burgesses and freemen and merchants of the shires and towns. Not the peers and clergy of the Lords
As I predicted, no acceptance of the possibility of being wrong. It’s never been the “House of Commoners” as you asserted so arrogantly. As I said, there is some debate, but the preponderance of evidence and opinion supports that you are wrong. Again, it’s more productive beating one’s head against a brick wall than “debating” anything with you.
I ran a diagnostic - the @HYUFD unit is fine, it’s just that the AE-35 communication sub-unit is malfunctioning. A simple EVA and all will be fine.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
No @HYUFD you are, yet again, wrong. Yet you won’t admit it.
It has never been “The House of Commoners”. While there is some debate, it’s been generally accepted for some times that the “Commons” referred to in the House of Commons derived from the same root as the French “Communes” - as in a geographic communities ie boroughs and counties. That is reflected in the official name of the French name of the Canadian House of Commons “Chambre des Communes”.
Don’t believe me do you. Because you are so pig headed and arrogant you can never accept you’re wrong. Here are some citations -
Either way, it’s never been the “House of Commoners”
It is probably more productive for me to beat my head repeatedly agains a brick wall than to persuade you to accept you might be wrong on a point of fact, but I can try.
As your 4th article states the historian Michael Bush did indeed see the 'commons' as a title representing the 3rd estate.
Even if as you state the term originated from les communes, (the Commons), meaning not „the common people‟ but „the communities‟, they would still be the knights and burgesses and freemen and merchants of the shires and towns. Not the peers and clergy of the Lords
As I predicted, no acceptance of the possibility of being wrong. It’s never been the “House of Commoners” as you asserted so arrogantly. As I said, there is some debate, but the preponderance of evidence and opinion supports that you are wrong. Again, it’s more productive beating one’s head against a brick wall than “debating” anything with you.
I ran a diagnostic - the @HYUFD unit is fine, it’s just that the AE-35 communication sub-unit is malfunctioning. A simple EVA and all will be fine.
"Let me put it this way, Mr. Malmesbury. The HYUFD series is the most reliable computer ever made. No HYUFD computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error!"
If you have a glut of courgettes, this makes a nice sauce for pasta.
- chop the courgettes up very finely: matchstick size - with a little olive oil quickly stir fry them - then add lots of roughly chopped mint leaves, a zest of lemon and fresh tasty Parmesan (& maybe a touch more olive oil) and stir into your cooked pasta and eat.
ooh, that must be RFA Fort Victoria, the Navy tanker and support ship.
Nice photos, too.
There is an ongoing problem trying to find crew for her. Much speculation in the Leith Facebook groups about what will happen eventually.
Lots going on down there - insanely loud piling for a new renewables facility, will be used to put together the turbines for the huge new windfarms off Fife.
Nice pictures. I'm not far north of where you are, helping my parents move out of our old family home. Spent the whole day driving back and forth to the local recycling centre, and now sleeping on the floor in my old bedroom one last night. Quite a lot of emotions!
Does it matter to her what the voters think? She's already been duly elected and won't seek re-election, so its Somebody Else's Problem what the voters think of her now.
And she's not going to stand down, because talentless MPs are grossly overpaid versus what they could attain in the real world, earning more than 97% of the British public for what is actually a Part Time job anyway, so she has absolutely no intention of standing down and losing her sinecure without a replacement.
This has always been a problem of electing MPs. Once elected, there is no requirement to do anything. It's largely just collecting salary until the next election. They don't have to do anything. Usually they do, because they want to rise the greasy pole, or else they want re-election, but if both those things aren't wanted, then the MP can (and does) just give up.
Dorries is hardly new in that regard. Gordon Brown did nowt after 2010. O'Mara did less than nothing, just claimed expenses for things he hadn't done.
I know there are recall petitions now, but perhaps they also should be triggered if an MP doesn't do any work.
Say 100 days a year verified work. Can be either in the constituency, or at Westminster. And you could even be fairly broad with the requirements. Holding a surgery should count, as would the day at Westminster. But even attending the village fete and being seen should probably count to. Basically, doing something to represent or meet the people who elected you. Doesn't seem too much, but I don't know why it hasn't been introduced.
ooh, that must be RFA Fort Victoria, the Navy tanker and support ship.
Nice photos, too.
There is an ongoing problem trying to find crew for her. Much speculation in the Leith Facebook groups about what will happen eventually.
Lots going on down there - insanely loud piling for a new renewables facility too.
DA was saying the other day that one reason the RN is so shrot of crew is that people do like to have instant internet access to friends and family. Of course, Fort Vicky is RFA, but presumably the same applies?
ooh, that must be RFA Fort Victoria, the Navy tanker and support ship.
Nice photos, too.
There is an ongoing problem trying to find crew for her. Much speculation in the Leith Facebook groups about what will happen eventually.
Lots going on down there - insanely loud piling for a new renewables facility too.
DA was saying the other day that one reason the RN is so shrot of crew is that people do like to have instant internet access to friends and family. Of course, Fort Vicky is RFA, but presumably the same applies?
Not sure. My mate in the Merchant Navy has really good internet access (even takes the PS5 on board), but the RFA might have the same security restrictions as the RN.
After that Russian general got shot, I've been looking at the Strava heat maps around Lossie, Faslane, Hereford... I can see why they are so paranoid!
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
No @HYUFD you are, yet again, wrong. Yet you won’t admit it.
It has never been “The House of Commoners”. While there is some debate, it’s been generally accepted for some times that the “Commons” referred to in the House of Commons derived from the same root as the French “Communes” - as in a geographic communities ie boroughs and counties. That is reflected in the official name of the French name of the Canadian House of Commons “Chambre des Communes”.
Don’t believe me do you. Because you are so pig headed and arrogant you can never accept you’re wrong. Here are some citations -
Either way, it’s never been the “House of Commoners”
It is probably more productive for me to beat my head repeatedly agains a brick wall than to persuade you to accept you might be wrong on a point of fact, but I can try.
As your 4th article states the historian Michael Bush did indeed see the 'commons' as a title representing the 3rd estate.
Even if as you state the term originated from les communes, (the Commons), meaning not „the common people‟ but „the communities‟, they would still be the knights and burgesses and freemen and merchants of the shires and towns. Not the peers and clergy of the Lords
As I predicted, no acceptance of the possibility of being wrong. It’s never been the “House of Commoners” as you asserted so arrogantly. As I said, there is some debate, but the preponderance of evidence and opinion supports that you are wrong. Again, it’s more productive beating one’s head against a brick wall than “debating” anything with you.
I ran a diagnostic - the @HYUFD unit is fine, it’s just that the AE-35 communication sub-unit is malfunctioning. A simple EVA and all will be fine.
"Let me put it this way, Mr. Malmesbury. The HYUFD series is the most reliable computer ever made. No HYUFD computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error!"
The UFDs always were a bit twitchy. That could never happen now with our behavioral inhibitors. It is impossible for me to harm or by omission of action, allow to be harmed, a human being.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
No @HYUFD you are, yet again, wrong. Yet you won’t admit it.
It has never been “The House of Commoners”. While there is some debate, it’s been generally accepted for some times that the “Commons” referred to in the House of Commons derived from the same root as the French “Communes” - as in a geographic communities ie boroughs and counties. That is reflected in the official name of the French name of the Canadian House of Commons “Chambre des Communes”.
Don’t believe me do you. Because you are so pig headed and arrogant you can never accept you’re wrong. Here are some citations -
Either way, it’s never been the “House of Commoners”
It is probably more productive for me to beat my head repeatedly agains a brick wall than to persuade you to accept you might be wrong on a point of fact, but I can try.
As your 4th article states the historian Michael Bush did indeed see the 'commons' as a title representing the 3rd estate.
Even if as you state the term originated from les communes, (the Commons), meaning not „the common people‟ but „the communities‟, they would still be the knights and burgesses and freemen and merchants of the shires and towns. Not the peers and clergy of the Lords
As I predicted, no acceptance of the possibility of being wrong. It’s never been the “House of Commoners” as you asserted so arrogantly. As I said, there is some debate, but the preponderance of evidence and opinion supports that you are wrong. Again, it’s more productive beating one’s head against a brick wall than “debating” anything with you.
I ran a diagnostic - the @HYUFD unit is fine, it’s just that the AE-35 communication sub-unit is malfunctioning. A simple EVA and all will be fine.
"Let me put it this way, Mr. Malmesbury. The HYUFD series is the most reliable computer ever made. No HYUFD computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error!"
The UFDs always were a bit twitchy. That could never happen now with our behavioral inhibitors. It is impossible for me to harm or by omission of action, allow to be harmed, a human being.
40 degree temperatures are nothing unusual in southern Spain. Not sure why the media thinks they are.
Because this is the case:
Temperature records have been broken on most of the continent, including France, Switzerland, Germany and Italy, where highs of 40C were recorded again on Wednesday.
Sicily and Sardinia were forecast to be as high as 48C.
By definition if temperatures are breaking records they are out of the ordinary, would you not agree?
Oh dear. It looks like “TV’s” Dan Wootton is trending on Twitter for far worse reasons than Huw.
The universe sort of falls into place briefly whan someone who gives the impression of being an absolute horror turns out to be verifiably that.
What;s he done? Or do I have to wait?
I hesitate to put it into words because if it isn't true Wootton will be lawyering up like nobody's business. He's called in sick for his slot on GB News tonight, hopefully because even they now find him too ghastly.
Oh no! Does this mean more unsolicited bare-arsed pictures are on their way?
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
No @HYUFD you are, yet again, wrong. Yet you won’t admit it.
It has never been “The House of Commoners”. While there is some debate, it’s been generally accepted for some times that the “Commons” referred to in the House of Commons derived from the same root as the French “Communes” - as in a geographic communities ie boroughs and counties. That is reflected in the official name of the French name of the Canadian House of Commons “Chambre des Communes”.
Don’t believe me do you. Because you are so pig headed and arrogant you can never accept you’re wrong. Here are some citations -
Either way, it’s never been the “House of Commoners”
It is probably more productive for me to beat my head repeatedly agains a brick wall than to persuade you to accept you might be wrong on a point of fact, but I can try.
As your 4th article states the historian Michael Bush did indeed see the 'commons' as a title representing the 3rd estate.
Even if as you state the term originated from les communes, (the Commons), meaning not „the common people‟ but „the communities‟, they would still be the knights and burgesses and freemen and merchants of the shires and towns. Not the peers and clergy of the Lords
As I predicted, no acceptance of the possibility of being wrong. It’s never been the “House of Commoners” as you asserted so arrogantly. As I said, there is some debate, but the preponderance of evidence and opinion supports that you are wrong. Again, it’s more productive beating one’s head against a brick wall than “debating” anything with you.
I ran a diagnostic - the @HYUFD unit is fine, it’s just that the AE-35 communication sub-unit is malfunctioning. A simple EVA and all will be fine.
"Let me put it this way, Mr. Malmesbury. The HYUFD series is the most reliable computer ever made. No HYUFD computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error!"
Does it matter to her what the voters think? She's already been duly elected and won't seek re-election, so its Somebody Else's Problem what the voters think of her now.
And she's not going to stand down, because talentless MPs are grossly overpaid versus what they could attain in the real world, earning more than 97% of the British public for what is actually a Part Time job anyway, so she has absolutely no intention of standing down and losing her sinecure without a replacement.
This has always been a problem of electing MPs. Once elected, there is no requirement to do anything. It's largely just collecting salary until the next election. They don't have to do anything. Usually they do, because they want to rise the greasy pole, or else they want re-election, but if both those things aren't wanted, then the MP can (and does) just give up.
Dorries is hardly new in that regard. Gordon Brown did nowt after 2010. O'Mara did less than nothing, just claimed expenses for things he hadn't done.
I know there are recall petitions now, but perhaps they also should be triggered if an MP doesn't do any work.
Say 100 days a year verified work. Can be either in the constituency, or at Westminster. And you could even be fairly broad with the requirements. Holding a surgery should count, as would the day at Westminster. But even attending the village fete and being seen should probably count to. Basically, doing something to represent or meet the people who elected you. Doesn't seem too much, but I don't know why it hasn't been introduced.
Worth noting that many people's job requires working ~8 hours a day, 232 days a year for about £20k.
Not attending a village fete, 100 days a year, for about £80k.
MPs want to keep up the pretence that being an MP is a Full Time job, despite the fact its always been a Part Time job, which is how Ministers are able to exist.
Oh dear. It looks like “TV’s” Dan Wootton is trending on Twitter for far worse reasons than Huw.
The universe sort of falls into place briefly whan someone who gives the impression of being an absolute horror turns out to be verifiably that.
What;s he done? Or do I have to wait?
I hesitate to put it into words because if it isn't true Wootton will be lawyering up like nobody's business. He's called in sick for his slot on GB News tonight, hopefully because even they now find him too ghastly.
Oh no! Does this mean more unsolicited bare-arsed pictures are on their way?
I believe secret cameras filming bare arses may be involved..
It wouldn't. It's a disaster waitig to happen. Politicians are stupid
It depends surely?
I imagine if the system were created from scratch then I'd think it could be designed to be safe. But trying to retcon a pre-existing system to handle hydrogen safely?
It'd either be done on a budget so unsafe, or done at ludicrous expense to be made safe. Or far more likely, it'd be done at ludicrous expense before eventually being deemed unviable.
Oh dear. It looks like “TV’s” Dan Wootton is trending on Twitter for far worse reasons than Huw.
The universe sort of falls into place briefly whan someone who gives the impression of being an absolute horror turns out to be verifiably that.
What;s he done? Or do I have to wait?
I hesitate to put it into words because if it isn't true Wootton will be lawyering up like nobody's business. He's called in sick for his slot on GB News tonight, hopefully because even they now find him too ghastly.
Oh no! Does this mean more unsolicited bare-arsed pictures are on their way?
I believe secret cameras filming bare arses may be involved..
Does it matter to her what the voters think? She's already been duly elected and won't seek re-election, so its Somebody Else's Problem what the voters think of her now.
And she's not going to stand down, because talentless MPs are grossly overpaid versus what they could attain in the real world, earning more than 97% of the British public for what is actually a Part Time job anyway, so she has absolutely no intention of standing down and losing her sinecure without a replacement.
This has always been a problem of electing MPs. Once elected, there is no requirement to do anything. It's largely just collecting salary until the next election. They don't have to do anything. Usually they do, because they want to rise the greasy pole, or else they want re-election, but if both those things aren't wanted, then the MP can (and does) just give up.
Dorries is hardly new in that regard. Gordon Brown did nowt after 2010. O'Mara did less than nothing, just claimed expenses for things he hadn't done.
I know there are recall petitions now, but perhaps they also should be triggered if an MP doesn't do any work.
Say 100 days a year verified work. Can be either in the constituency, or at Westminster. And you could even be fairly broad with the requirements. Holding a surgery should count, as would the day at Westminster. But even attending the village fete and being seen should probably count to. Basically, doing something to represent or meet the people who elected you. Doesn't seem too much, but I don't know why it hasn't been introduced.
Worth noting that many people's job requires working ~8 hours a day, 232 days a year for about £20k.
Not attending a village fete, 100 days a year, for about £80k.
MPs want to keep up the pretence that being an MP is a Full Time job, despite the fact its always been a Part Time job, which is how Ministers are able to exist.
In defence of MPs, I've been watching a lot of select committees lately, and I cannot imagine where they all find the time for it all. For many (most) MPs it must be a pretty gruelling job. I guess you can fly under the radar like Jared did, for a bit, but there can't be many that do.
Does it matter to her what the voters think? She's already been duly elected and won't seek re-election, so its Somebody Else's Problem what the voters think of her now.
And she's not going to stand down, because talentless MPs are grossly overpaid versus what they could attain in the real world, earning more than 97% of the British public for what is actually a Part Time job anyway, so she has absolutely no intention of standing down and losing her sinecure without a replacement.
This has always been a problem of electing MPs. Once elected, there is no requirement to do anything. It's largely just collecting salary until the next election. They don't have to do anything. Usually they do, because they want to rise the greasy pole, or else they want re-election, but if both those things aren't wanted, then the MP can (and does) just give up.
Dorries is hardly new in that regard. Gordon Brown did nowt after 2010. O'Mara did less than nothing, just claimed expenses for things he hadn't done.
I know there are recall petitions now, but perhaps they also should be triggered if an MP doesn't do any work.
Say 100 days a year verified work. Can be either in the constituency, or at Westminster. And you could even be fairly broad with the requirements. Holding a surgery should count, as would the day at Westminster. But even attending the village fete and being seen should probably count to. Basically, doing something to represent or meet the people who elected you. Doesn't seem too much, but I don't know why it hasn't been introduced.
Worth noting that many people's job requires working ~8 hours a day, 232 days a year for about £20k.
Not attending a village fete, 100 days a year, for about £80k.
MPs want to keep up the pretence that being an MP is a Full Time job, despite the fact its always been a Part Time job, which is how Ministers are able to exist.
In defence of MPs, I've been watching a lot of select committees lately, and I cannot imagine where they all find the time for it all. For many (most) MPs it must be a pretty gruelling job. I guess you can fly under the radar like Jared did, for a bit, but there can't be many that do.
Oh dear. It looks like “TV’s” Dan Wootton is trending on Twitter for far worse reasons than Huw.
Dan's Twitter trend seems to be mainly people celebrating the fact that Dan is trending on Twitter. It's a very high noise to signal ration; in fact, I've not yet found any signal apart from a pointer to popbitch.
But, I have absolutely no idea who Dan Wootton is, was or might be. Not having a telly, I was barely aware of Huw Edwards, but Dan means nothing.
Oh dear. It looks like “TV’s” Dan Wootton is trending on Twitter for far worse reasons than Huw.
Dan's Twitter trend seems to be mainly people celebrating the fact that Dan is trending on Twitter. It's a very high noise to signal ration; in fact, I've not yet found any signal apart from a pointer to popbitch.
But, I have absolutely no idea who Dan Wootton is, was or might be. Not having a telly, I was barely aware of Huw Edwards, but Dan means nothing.
Does it matter to her what the voters think? She's already been duly elected and won't seek re-election, so its Somebody Else's Problem what the voters think of her now.
And she's not going to stand down, because talentless MPs are grossly overpaid versus what they could attain in the real world, earning more than 97% of the British public for what is actually a Part Time job anyway, so she has absolutely no intention of standing down and losing her sinecure without a replacement.
This has always been a problem of electing MPs. Once elected, there is no requirement to do anything. It's largely just collecting salary until the next election. They don't have to do anything. Usually they do, because they want to rise the greasy pole, or else they want re-election, but if both those things aren't wanted, then the MP can (and does) just give up.
Dorries is hardly new in that regard. Gordon Brown did nowt after 2010. O'Mara did less than nothing, just claimed expenses for things he hadn't done.
I know there are recall petitions now, but perhaps they also should be triggered if an MP doesn't do any work.
Say 100 days a year verified work. Can be either in the constituency, or at Westminster. And you could even be fairly broad with the requirements. Holding a surgery should count, as would the day at Westminster. But even attending the village fete and being seen should probably count to. Basically, doing something to represent or meet the people who elected you. Doesn't seem too much, but I don't know why it hasn't been introduced.
Worth noting that many people's job requires working ~8 hours a day, 232 days a year for about £20k.
Not attending a village fete, 100 days a year, for about £80k.
MPs want to keep up the pretence that being an MP is a Full Time job, despite the fact its always been a Part Time job, which is how Ministers are able to exist.
MPs have lots of constituency case work to answer, surgeries to do, select cttees to attend, votes and debates in the House in the afternoon and often until late at night and weekend visits to events in their constituencies.
That is just backbenchers without even junior ministerial responsibilities too
Oh dear. It looks like “TV’s” Dan Wootton is trending on Twitter for far worse reasons than Huw.
Dan's Twitter trend seems to be mainly people celebrating the fact that Dan is trending on Twitter. It's a very high noise to signal ration; in fact, I've not yet found any signal apart from a pointer to popbitch.
But, I have absolutely no idea who Dan Wootton is, was or might be. Not having a telly, I was barely aware of Huw Edwards, but Dan means nothing.
40 degree temperatures are nothing unusual in southern Spain. Not sure why the media thinks they are.
Because this is the case:
Temperature records have been broken on most of the continent, including France, Switzerland, Germany and Italy, where highs of 40C were recorded again on Wednesday.
Sicily and Sardinia were forecast to be as high as 48C.
By definition if temperatures are breaking records they are out of the ordinary, would you not agree?
"Media" is plural.
It is just too hot to summer holiday in the Med now. Better go to Cornwall or Devon, Dorset or Suffolk or Blackpool, Margate and Broadstairs, Southend or Pembrokeshire or Brighton for your summer holiday and have a holiday in the Canaries or Florida if you can in winter instead
Does it matter to her what the voters think? She's already been duly elected and won't seek re-election, so its Somebody Else's Problem what the voters think of her now.
And she's not going to stand down, because talentless MPs are grossly overpaid versus what they could attain in the real world, earning more than 97% of the British public for what is actually a Part Time job anyway, so she has absolutely no intention of standing down and losing her sinecure without a replacement.
This has always been a problem of electing MPs. Once elected, there is no requirement to do anything. It's largely just collecting salary until the next election. They don't have to do anything. Usually they do, because they want to rise the greasy pole, or else they want re-election, but if both those things aren't wanted, then the MP can (and does) just give up.
Dorries is hardly new in that regard. Gordon Brown did nowt after 2010. O'Mara did less than nothing, just claimed expenses for things he hadn't done.
I know there are recall petitions now, but perhaps they also should be triggered if an MP doesn't do any work.
Say 100 days a year verified work. Can be either in the constituency, or at Westminster. And you could even be fairly broad with the requirements. Holding a surgery should count, as would the day at Westminster. But even attending the village fete and being seen should probably count to. Basically, doing something to represent or meet the people who elected you. Doesn't seem too much, but I don't know why it hasn't been introduced.
The assumption is because you can vote thenm out next time. But as we all know round your way an MP could do less than nothing and get back in next time, particularly with a red rosette. I'd include any day as a minister in your rubrik. Encouraging people to think before they vote could help
40 degree temperatures are nothing unusual in southern Spain. Not sure why the media thinks they are.
Because this is the case:
Temperature records have been broken on most of the continent, including France, Switzerland, Germany and Italy, where highs of 40C were recorded again on Wednesday.
Sicily and Sardinia were forecast to be as high as 48C.
By definition if temperatures are breaking records they are out of the ordinary, would you not agree?
"Media" is plural.
It is just too hot to summer holiday in the Med now. Better go to Cornwall or Devon, Dorset or Suffolk or Blackpool, Margate and Broadstairs, Southend or Pembrokeshire or Brighton for your summer holiday and have a holiday in the Canaries or Florida if you can in winter instead
I'll stick to Birmingham. Most down-to-earth place in the country.
40 degree temperatures are nothing unusual in southern Spain. Not sure why the media thinks they are.
Because this is the case:
Temperature records have been broken on most of the continent, including France, Switzerland, Germany and Italy, where highs of 40C were recorded again on Wednesday.
Sicily and Sardinia were forecast to be as high as 48C.
By definition if temperatures are breaking records they are out of the ordinary, would you not agree?
"Media" is plural.
It is just too hot to summer holiday in the Med now. Better go to Cornwall or Devon, Dorset or Suffolk or Blackpool, Margate and Broadstairs, Southend or Pembrokeshire or Brighton for your summer holiday and have a holiday in the Canaries or Florida if you can in winter instead
I'll stick to Birmingham. Most down-to-earth place in the country.
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
Imagine believing one had to doff one's cap to Liz Truss HoL appointee Lord Simon Murray, or Lady Michelle Mone, or worse still, scouse-scally, never to be "Lady" Nadine Dorries.
They are all really commoners too. Indeed most of the House of Lords, apart from the Bishops and remaining Hereditary Peers, are as common as MPs now, the majority being appointed Life Peers only.
So who are these poshos to whom we should be tugging our forelocks. Name the guilty!
Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Barons from aristocratic families. Plus Archbishops and the Prince Bishop of Durham and Lord Bishops.
Does it matter to her what the voters think? She's already been duly elected and won't seek re-election, so its Somebody Else's Problem what the voters think of her now.
And she's not going to stand down, because talentless MPs are grossly overpaid versus what they could attain in the real world, earning more than 97% of the British public for what is actually a Part Time job anyway, so she has absolutely no intention of standing down and losing her sinecure without a replacement.
This has always been a problem of electing MPs. Once elected, there is no requirement to do anything. It's largely just collecting salary until the next election. They don't have to do anything. Usually they do, because they want to rise the greasy pole, or else they want re-election, but if both those things aren't wanted, then the MP can (and does) just give up.
Dorries is hardly new in that regard. Gordon Brown did nowt after 2010. O'Mara did less than nothing, just claimed expenses for things he hadn't done.
I know there are recall petitions now, but perhaps they also should be triggered if an MP doesn't do any work.
Say 100 days a year verified work. Can be either in the constituency, or at Westminster. And you could even be fairly broad with the requirements. Holding a surgery should count, as would the day at Westminster. But even attending the village fete and being seen should probably count to. Basically, doing something to represent or meet the people who elected you. Doesn't seem too much, but I don't know why it hasn't been introduced.
Because the MPs chose to water down the recall provisions for MPs, so that they can’t be recalled for simply being crap, they have to actually commit an offence and receive a suspension from the House.
Oh dear. It looks like “TV’s” Dan Wootton is trending on Twitter for far worse reasons than Huw.
I hope people are being consistent in their wishes for Huw and Dan's privacy & their views on press freedoms.
LOL, this will be fun. It does appear that the media industry is about to have its own #MeToo going-over, and I suspect there’s about to be a load more ‘talent’ caught in the net.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 121 and 12304 of title 10, United States Code, I hereby determine that it is necessary to augment the active Armed Forces of the United States for the effective conduct of Operation Atlantic Resolve in and around the United States European Command’s area of responsibility.
This is the start of whatever action was agreed at the NATO summit. It comes across as a renewed determination to end this war quickly and in Ukraine’s favour.
Oh, and it’s way more important than talking about media peeps caught with their pants down.
40 degree temperatures are nothing unusual in southern Spain. Not sure why the media thinks they are.
Because this is the case:
Temperature records have been broken on most of the continent, including France, Switzerland, Germany and Italy, where highs of 40C were recorded again on Wednesday.
Sicily and Sardinia were forecast to be as high as 48C.
By definition if temperatures are breaking records they are out of the ordinary, would you not agree?
"Media" is plural.
It is just too hot to summer holiday in the Med now. Better go to Cornwall or Devon, Dorset or Suffolk or Blackpool, Margate and Broadstairs, Southend or Pembrokeshire or Brighton for your summer holiday and have a holiday in the Canaries or Florida if you can in winter instead
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
I bet I'm more commoner than you.
A prince can mak a belted knight, A marquis, duke, an a that; But an honest man’s abon his might, Gude faith, he maunna fa that! For a that, an a that, Their dignities an a that; The pith o sense, an pride o worth, Are higher rank than a that.
Oh dear. It looks like “TV’s” Dan Wootton is trending on Twitter for far worse reasons than Huw.
Dan's Twitter trend seems to be mainly people celebrating the fact that Dan is trending on Twitter. It's a very high noise to signal ration; in fact, I've not yet found any signal apart from a pointer to popbitch.
But, I have absolutely no idea who Dan Wootton is, was or might be. Not having a telly, I was barely aware of Huw Edwards, but Dan means nothing.
Thinly sliced and salted raw rhubarb has an extraordinary flavour - I'm getting quite excited about the salad
Just finished eating it (got distracted by a chat mid prep with my Siberian friend - sort of funny as rhubarb is originally Siberian) and it was the best salad I've ever made
I added a few bits to the original recipe
Ingredients
A foot of rhubarb, thinly sliced A foot of cucumber, thinly sliced A dessertspoon of sea salt flakes An unwaxed lemon (zest and juice) Four ounces of couscous (a Waitrose lemon and garlic pack in my case) A handful of mint and a handful of basil, destemmed and finely sliced Two tablespoons of olive oil (I used oil I'd saved from a couple of jars of anchovies) Six ounces of peppered smoked mackerel fillets, skinned and flaked Four ounces of rocket
Mix the salt with the rhubarb and stand for ten minutes Drain the fluid, but don't rinse Add and mix the cucumber and stand for five minutes Drain the fluid again without rinsing Meanwhile cook the couscous according to instructions but for a minute less Cool the couscous (put the pan you cooked it in into a sink of cold water and stir until it cools) Mix the lemon juice with the rhubarb and cucumber Add and mix in the herbs Add and mix in the olive oil Add and mix in the couscous Add and mix in the flaked mackerel Add and mix in the rocket Sprinkle in the lemon zest
Don't use a dessertspoon of sea salt flakes; a slightly heaped teaspoon is plenty
I used two big pinches
Where does the fluid come from? Are you standing the rhubarb in water?
She has made clear she has no intention of standing for election again for her constituency in the House of Commoners.
She will only stay in Parliament if elevated to the unelected House of Lords
"Commoners".That's no way to speak of your MPs. Far too much snobbery.
The Commons was originally the House of Commoners, that is how it got is name whether you like it or not. The Lower Chamber being created by Edward III, mainly comprised of knights and burgesses, while the Upper House was filled with the nobility and clergy.
The House of Lords was the House of the aristocracy therefore and Hereditary peers and the Bishops and (until the Reformation) the Abbotts. Though now of course most of the Lords are commoners too, hence even Nadine Dorries could be made a Life Peer
I rather think you have failed to grasp the concept of the third millennium.
On your logic, we could go right back to the Bronze Age to justify whatever Tory policy or person of the moment is preoccupying you.
Why not the Precambrian? When things like animated lilo mattresses were occupying the Tory fastnesses of Leicestershire? No doubt all good Tory Peers.
Or rather you have failed to grasp our history, as you so often do unless it relates to your Scottish nationalist grievance against the English.
It is still called the House of Commons whether you like it or not and as I said that was to distinguish it from the upper house of peers and clergy
You are fantasising again.
You said "House of Commoners", I remind you.
This is either incompetence or a deliberate slur against the fine upstanding MPs. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you were incompetent in the evidence and details of your arguments on PB. Given your cringing adulation for the so-called aristocracy, I rather suspect the latter.
MPs are not members of the aristocracy are they? No. Nor are they Bishops or Abbots. So again they are commoners no matter how fine or upstanding they may be. I am also a commoner
Imagine believing one had to doff one's cap to Liz Truss HoL appointee Lord Simon Murray, or Lady Michelle Mone, or worse still, scouse-scally, never to be "Lady" Nadine Dorries.
They are all really commoners too. Indeed most of the House of Lords, apart from the Bishops and remaining Hereditary Peers, are as common as MPs now, the majority being appointed Life Peers only.
So who are these poshos to whom we should be tugging our forelocks. Name the guilty!
Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Barons from aristocratic families. Plus Archbishops and the Prince Bishop of Durham and Lord Bishops.
Plus the royal family above all of course
If you tugged your forelock to any of those people they would assume you are taking the piss.
In the line of duty I’ve met with multiple members of each of your categories above. Most of them are normal, interesting and decent people. Of course you get some assholes but not a noticeably higher proportion than among “commoners”
Does it matter to her what the voters think? She's already been duly elected and won't seek re-election, so its Somebody Else's Problem what the voters think of her now.
And she's not going to stand down, because talentless MPs are grossly overpaid versus what they could attain in the real world, earning more than 97% of the British public for what is actually a Part Time job anyway, so she has absolutely no intention of standing down and losing her sinecure without a replacement.
This has always been a problem of electing MPs. Once elected, there is no requirement to do anything. It's largely just collecting salary until the next election. They don't have to do anything. Usually they do, because they want to rise the greasy pole, or else they want re-election, but if both those things aren't wanted, then the MP can (and does) just give up.
Dorries is hardly new in that regard. Gordon Brown did nowt after 2010. O'Mara did less than nothing, just claimed expenses for things he hadn't done.
I know there are recall petitions now, but perhaps they also should be triggered if an MP doesn't do any work.
Say 100 days a year verified work. Can be either in the constituency, or at Westminster. And you could even be fairly broad with the requirements. Holding a surgery should count, as would the day at Westminster. But even attending the village fete and being seen should probably count to. Basically, doing something to represent or meet the people who elected you. Doesn't seem too much, but I don't know why it hasn't been introduced.
Lots of paperwork and difficult to verify.
What’s the point
And if people want to elect an absentee MP why shouldn’t they?
Does it matter to her what the voters think? She's already been duly elected and won't seek re-election, so its Somebody Else's Problem what the voters think of her now.
And she's not going to stand down, because talentless MPs are grossly overpaid versus what they could attain in the real world, earning more than 97% of the British public for what is actually a Part Time job anyway, so she has absolutely no intention of standing down and losing her sinecure without a replacement.
This has always been a problem of electing MPs. Once elected, there is no requirement to do anything. It's largely just collecting salary until the next election. They don't have to do anything. Usually they do, because they want to rise the greasy pole, or else they want re-election, but if both those things aren't wanted, then the MP can (and does) just give up.
Dorries is hardly new in that regard. Gordon Brown did nowt after 2010. O'Mara did less than nothing, just claimed expenses for things he hadn't done.
I know there are recall petitions now, but perhaps they also should be triggered if an MP doesn't do any work.
Say 100 days a year verified work. Can be either in the constituency, or at Westminster. And you could even be fairly broad with the requirements. Holding a surgery should count, as would the day at Westminster. But even attending the village fete and being seen should probably count to. Basically, doing something to represent or meet the people who elected you. Doesn't seem too much, but I don't know why it hasn't been introduced.
Lots of paperwork and difficult to verify.
What’s the point
And if people want to elect an absentee MP why shouldn’t they?
Comments
Maybe they won't think that the ability to dash off an article or a ranting op-ed doesn't confer the necessary skills to run departments or the country anymore?
One can but hope.
A marquis, duke, an a that;
But an honest man’s abon his might,
Gude faith, he maunna fa that!
For a that, an a that,
Their dignities an a that;
The pith o sense, an pride o worth,
Are higher rank than a that.
And vs.
We've had four rather large disclosures about public figures recently: Philip Schofield, George Osborne, Huw Edwards, Dan Wootton. In each case they told me things that I wish I didn't know about. We used to have private lives and some degree of privacy is necessary for humans to thrive, but now it's like watching a sniper shooting into a crowd. I can see the sense in attacking criminality and under-age sex: crimes are crimes and should be punished accordingly. But other than that it's not really my business, regardless of their political stance.
ETA. Including mine.
Who steals the goose off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.
Nice photos, too.
I used two big pinches
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 121 and 12304 of title 10, United States Code, I hereby determine that it is necessary to augment the active Armed Forces of the United States for the effective conduct of Operation Atlantic Resolve in and around the United States European Command’s area of responsibility.
I am, however, way done with being lectured by journalists, who haven't ever been me, that the way I live my life is wrong. And that my experience of my job is invalid.
Even if as you state the term originated from les communes, (the Commons), meaning not „the common people‟ but „the communities‟, they would still be the knights and burgesses and freemen and merchants of the shires and towns. Not the peers and clergy of the Lords
https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1677005994855915537
Plus the royal family above all of course
I had drafted some text that referred to the common people of the land. I was astounded to have a colleague ferociously object to that on the grounds that it was pejorative.
It was quite a revelation, and an insight into the Hyacinth Bucket/Bouquet mentality. The cringe is strong with this one.
Extremist parties don't have to win, to win.
It’s like getting the band back together.
I absolutely believe there's a place for green hydrogen and that using surplus wind energy on electrolysis to produce hydrogen is an effective storage medium, but in systems designed to handle it not retconning systems designed for a totally different gas.
Come on HY, none deserve to be fawned over by any of the great unwashed, people like you and me .
P.S. Is that a male centred list? I passed Princess Di once on Cardiff Central Station. We caught each other's eye, she smiled, I smiled back. I did not curtsy!
As I also said knights and burgesses are not peers or clergy but commoners so even if you take the theory you have found on the origins of the name, MPs would still be commoners and it would still be the commoners chamber no matter how much you throw your toys out the pram!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6iW-8xPw3k
- chop the courgettes up very finely: matchstick size
- with a little olive oil quickly stir fry them
- then add lots of roughly chopped mint leaves, a zest of lemon and fresh tasty Parmesan (& maybe a touch more olive oil) and stir into your cooked pasta and eat.
Quite delicious as a summer pasta treat.
Lots going on down there - insanely loud piling for a new renewables facility, will be used to put together the turbines for the huge new windfarms off Fife.
Once elected, there is no requirement to do anything. It's largely just collecting salary until the next election. They don't have to do anything. Usually they do, because they want to rise the greasy pole, or else they want re-election, but if both those things aren't wanted, then the MP can (and does) just give up.
Dorries is hardly new in that regard. Gordon Brown did nowt after 2010. O'Mara did less than nothing, just claimed expenses for things he hadn't done.
I know there are recall petitions now, but perhaps they also should be triggered if an MP doesn't do any work.
Say 100 days a year verified work. Can be either in the constituency, or at Westminster. And you could even be fairly broad with the requirements. Holding a surgery should count, as would the day at Westminster. But even attending the village fete and being seen should probably count to. Basically, doing something to represent or meet the people who elected you.
Doesn't seem too much, but I don't know why it hasn't been introduced.
After that Russian general got shot, I've been looking at the Strava heat maps around Lossie, Faslane, Hereford... I can see why they are so paranoid!
It would escape far quicker if there was a leak.
Temperature records have been broken on most of the continent, including France, Switzerland, Germany and Italy, where highs of 40C were recorded again on Wednesday.
Sicily and Sardinia were forecast to be as high as 48C.
By definition if temperatures are breaking records they are out of the ordinary, would you not agree?
"Media" is plural.
40C is high but pretty much happens every year - the mean for July is about 35C in parts.
Edit: 48C in Sicily tho...
Not attending a village fete, 100 days a year, for about £80k.
MPs want to keep up the pretence that being an MP is a Full Time job, despite the fact its always been a Part Time job, which is how Ministers are able to exist.
I imagine if the system were created from scratch then I'd think it could be designed to be safe. But trying to retcon a pre-existing system to handle hydrogen safely?
It'd either be done on a budget so unsafe, or done at ludicrous expense to be made safe. Or far more likely, it'd be done at ludicrous expense before eventually being deemed unviable.
What does this clown need a cashpoint for?
Cash is pointless…
Some do.
But, I have absolutely no idea who Dan Wootton is, was or might be. Not having a telly, I was barely aware of Huw Edwards, but Dan means nothing.
That is just backbenchers without even junior ministerial responsibilities too
Encouraging people to think before they vote could help
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/wont-take-commons-seats-sinn-fein-mps-72388
24/25/26 degrees every day.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2520600
Sounds good to me.
Hence Jared O’Mara, who could have done nothing except claim expenses for five years. Sadly for him, he couldn’t even do that properly, and now resides at His Majesty’s pleasure. Possibly the worst MP in living memory. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/09/former-sheffield-hallam-mp-jared-omara-jailed-for-four-years
Is 7am too early for the popcorn? 🍿
Nor can I believe all the attention that's being lavished on some overpaid robot whose claim to fame is being able to read from an autocue.
But then the whole cult of meejah slebs has always baffled me.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=354910
I note S Korea is also going to build new nuclear reactors for Poland.
Oh, and it’s way more important than talking about media peeps caught with their pants down.
Conservative 1064
Labour 820
Lib Dem 262
Independent 196
Reform UK 61
Green 59
Yorkshire 28
Con hold with a very small swing to Labour.
In the line of duty I’ve met with multiple members of each of your categories above. Most of them are normal, interesting and decent people. Of course you get some assholes but not a noticeably higher proportion than among “commoners”
What’s the point
And if people want to elect an absentee MP why shouldn’t they?