Teachers stabbed by pupil thought they was going to die
What's the problem with this tweet? I don't see it.
Should be 'they were' not 'they was.'
Well, they was Welsh...
Really Scott. That implies they did die.
You mean they IS Welsh.
I read that as "Ridley Scott". Was the stabbing filmed with beautiful cinematography and lighting but with a script so bad it made even brutal violence boring?
Also PB Tories: Sir Keir should not have paid back the gifts.
Funny. Old. World.
He is hopeless and has just made it worse as the media are now asking why not the lot and Cabinet Ministers also had concert tickets and Starmer has seriously compromised them
You seem to console yourself with the PB Tories meme, but I doubt you can call Burley, Rigby, Peston and others as such
I expect many Labour voters are seriously disappointed in Starmer and one third regret their vote for him
Indeed Sunak's government is more popular than his
Funny. Old. World
In the face of such biting invective from Big G, the bloke on the internet, Sir Keir will simply have to console himself with a bigger majority than any ever achieved by Clem Attlee, Harold Wilson - or any Conservative in history.
A big majority did not save Johnson nor will it save Starmer
Johnson survived scandal after scandal until eventually his MPs had simply had enough. It seems vanishingly unlikely that'll happen to Starmer.
People are getting rather overexcited about fairly small beer.
I don't regard slurping up over 100k of freebies from someone with an access agenda and also choosing not to prosecute an alleged fraudster because she was a Labour peer small beer.
There are two reasons it's small beer as scandals go - firstly it's a bad look scandal, he's not broken any rules. Unless more comes out there's therefore not a breaking point you can hang a resignation on. Sure it's hit Starmer's ratings but not moved the polls much - if you didn't like Labour before it's confirmed that view, if you're sympathetic to Labour it might make you think less of Starmer but it's not a deal breaker. Secondly none of the opposition parties have clean hands on donations and freebies, and in the Tories' case have far bigger problems if are seen as such.
It most certainly is NOT small beer. This was always what apologists for Johnson said, and that wasn't small beer either, it was blatant dishonesty combined with incompetence.
The difference between Starmer and The Clown is that many voters hoped Starmer was a boring straight man who was going to be honest and uncorruptible. He has proved he is nowhere close to that expectation.
And it took an endless string of scandals - and pretty robust proof he'd lied about several to finish Boris off.
If the same keeps happening to Starmer then yes, his MPs will get fed up and want to change leader. But that hasn't happened yet, and so at the moment this is merely damaging to his brand rather than one that could bring down a leader.
As it stands, Labour have been caught out because what was fairly standard practice in Westminster looks very bad from the outside when it's put up there in lights. That's damaging but hardly fatal. Especially when it's fairly easy to deflect by pointing out the other lot are at it just as badly, if not worse.
Recent political history is littered with scandals we breathlessly pored over at the time and thought were hugely consequential, only for them to fade into the background. Blair won two elections after the Ecclestone affair destroyed his "pretty straight kind of guy" pitch. Those of us who loathed Cameron thought he might be finished by his proximity to the main protagonists in the phonehacking scandal. Osborne had his palling around with Deripaska and so on.
This feels more like one of those to date, much as it excites those who viewed Labour and Starmer negatively to start with as it confirms their priors.
No, the difference is that this is relentless, and it started almost from the election, and it has no obvious end. Drip, drip, drip
In that, it is nothing like Ecclestone
The thing is, there were other problems facing Blair in 1997/8, aside from the Ecclestone mess. They were more minor, but could have been troublesome.
But Blair had several advantages over Starmer: he was personally popular; he had won on a mandate of positivity; and he had a great team around him to spin the message.
Starmer has none of these, as many people pointed out before the election. He won because of the Conservative's woes, not because there was a great fervour for Labour's policies.
IMV that spells big problems for him.
So, what’s your betting strategy? There are long odds on Starmer going in 2024/5 available. You could lay Labour majority or most seats at the next general: that’s a long way away, but you can trade on that bet to take profit.
I don't bet (I know, I know...). The thing is, if he was facing a competent Tory party then he'd be in much deeper trouble. But he is not, at least yet - and perhaps not at all, if the new leader isn't very good. As long as the Conservatives remain in chaos, he can do okay.
But we need better than okay.
Ah, you don’t bet. That rather puts some of your predictions in perspective.
Middlesex’s future at Lord’s is in doubt with the club failing to secure a long-term extension of a tenancy agreement with the MCC that expires this year. After months of talks with the ground’s owners, Middlesex are close to agreeing a 12-month contract that will ensure most of their matches are played at the home of cricket next summer, but the club’s long-term future is uncertain.
Middlesex have been troubled by a number of governance and financial problems in recent years, with senior figures at the MCC believed to have expressed concerns about the way the county are run. There is also understood to be tension between some of the senior figures at the clubs.
I hope Middlesex dies. I had paid for my membership for the 2020 season and they just keep the money. No offer of a name on a donor wall if they kept it, like Yorkshire. No future discounts. They just said “tough”. I hope they die and I’ll join the MCC’s new tenant club.
Also PB Tories: Sir Keir should not have paid back the gifts.
Funny. Old. World.
He is hopeless and has just made it worse as the media are now asking why not the lot and Cabinet Ministers also had concert tickets and Starmer has seriously compromised them
You seem to console yourself with the PB Tories meme, but I doubt you can call Burley, Rigby, Peston and others as such
I expect many Labour voters are seriously disappointed in Starmer and one third regret their vote for him
Indeed Sunak's government is more popular than his
Funny. Old. World
In the face of such biting invective from Big G, the bloke on the internet, Sir Keir will simply have to console himself with a bigger majority than any ever achieved by Clem Attlee, Harold Wilson - or any Conservative in history.
A big majority did not save Johnson nor will it save Starmer
Johnson survived scandal after scandal until eventually his MPs had simply had enough. It seems vanishingly unlikely that'll happen to Starmer.
People are getting rather overexcited about fairly small beer.
I don't regard slurping up over 100k of freebies from someone with an access agenda and also choosing not to prosecute an alleged fraudster because she was a Labour peer small beer.
There are two reasons it's small beer as scandals go - firstly it's a bad look scandal, he's not broken any rules. Unless more comes out there's therefore not a breaking point you can hang a resignation on. Sure it's hit Starmer's ratings but not moved the polls much - if you didn't like Labour before it's confirmed that view, if you're sympathetic to Labour it might make you think less of Starmer but it's not a deal breaker. Secondly none of the opposition parties have clean hands on donations and freebies, and in the Tories' case have far bigger problems if are seen as such.
It most certainly is NOT small beer. This was always what apologists for Johnson said, and that wasn't small beer either, it was blatant dishonesty combined with incompetence.
The difference between Starmer and The Clown is that many voters hoped Starmer was a boring straight man who was going to be honest and uncorruptible. He has proved he is nowhere close to that expectation.
And it took an endless string of scandals - and pretty robust proof he'd lied about several to finish Boris off.
If the same keeps happening to Starmer then yes, his MPs will get fed up and want to change leader. But that hasn't happened yet, and so at the moment this is merely damaging to his brand rather than one that could bring down a leader.
As it stands, Labour have been caught out because what was fairly standard practice in Westminster looks very bad from the outside when it's put up there in lights. That's damaging but hardly fatal. Especially when it's fairly easy to deflect by pointing out the other lot are at it just as badly, if not worse.
Recent political history is littered with scandals we breathlessly pored over at the time and thought were hugely consequential, only for them to fade into the background. Blair won two elections after the Ecclestone affair destroyed his "pretty straight kind of guy" pitch. Those of us who loathed Cameron thought he might be finished by his proximity to the main protagonists in the phonehacking scandal. Osborne had his palling around with Deripaska and so on.
This feels more like one of those to date, much as it excites those who viewed Labour and Starmer negatively to start with as it confirms their priors.
No, the difference is that this is relentless, and it started almost from the election, and it has no obvious end. Drip, drip, drip
In that, it is nothing like Ecclestone
The thing is, there were other problems facing Blair in 1997/8, aside from the Ecclestone mess. They were more minor, but could have been troublesome.
But Blair had several advantages over Starmer: he was personally popular; he had won on a mandate of positivity; and he had a great team around him to spin the message.
Starmer has none of these, as many people pointed out before the election. He won because of the Conservative's woes, not because there was a great fervour for Labour's policies.
IMV that spells big problems for him.
Starmer is no Blair, but does have a habit of proving people wrong because of that slightly plodding unlikability that leads people to underestimate his less showy strengths.
Other factors mattering more are also partly the point - ultimately if the country can plausibly talked about as in better shape in 2028/9 than in 2024 then broadly speaking people will forgive Labour its current woes and write them off as growing pains of getting back into government. If it isn't and Labour stumble through the next 4/5 years then they will be the first evidence they were not up to it and wrong'uns.
Your perception of which is likelier will generally depend on your underlying views about Labour.
Teachers stabbed by pupil thought they was going to die
What's the problem with this tweet? I don't see it.
"Teachers" and "they" are plural. "Was" is singular. If a teacher was using the pronoun "they", which I suppose is possible these days, it would be "teacher". Its illiterate. From the BBC. O tempora o mores.
I was looking for something deeper than that, lol. Usually I notice grammatical mistakes.
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
It is more and more obvious that he lacks a deeply political animal in his office (Campbell to Blair or Osborne to Cameron) and lacks those instincts himself.
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
It is more and more obvious that he lacks a deeply political animal in his office (Campbell to Blair or Osborne to Cameron) and lacks those instincts himself.
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
It is more and more obvious that he lacks a deeply political animal in his office (Campbell to Blair or Osborne to Cameron) and lacks those instincts himself.
It is increasingly funny just how inept they are.
Wait until the unintended, unpredictable, consequences of the Budget kick in. They always happen.
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money and so has Rachel, Ange (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
At the same time, you also get your Malcom Tucker to phone round the journos saying what gifts you had big man, i saw you at Taylor Swift, you wife looks different these days.And i presume you want us to attend your summer party, awards ceremony etc, but no politicians at a sumer politics party is a bit shit isn't it.
The Labour peer at the centre of the donations row bailed out a baroness after she was found to have wrongly claimed £125,000 in the parliamentary expenses scandal.
Lord Alli, a multimillionaire former banker and fashion entrepreneur, gave a £62,000 loan to Baroness Uddin more than a decade ago to help her repay the expenses after the Lords authorities ordered her to refund the taxpayer.
Sir Keir Starmer would later announce that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which he ran at the time, would not pursue fraud charges against her.
The Labour sleaze snake is now swallowing its own tail.
That's.... mind blowing
So the Generous Labour Lord, who underwrites the Labour PM's wife's designer panties, is also saving corrupt Labour MPs from the consequences of their own thievery
That "panties" ... oh dear.
You really are a certain type, aren’t you. I've met you so many times.
Heteresexual men with no doubts about that sexuality? Yes, you probably have. Not in the mirror, tho
"panties" ...
I once did a password crack run on our local users back in the early 2000s. Variations on the word 'panties' was the most common password.
I'm sure times have changed.
Pretty sure.
Almost sure.
...
Can't believe he just typed it out.
Am I missing something 1: is there something wrong with the word "panties"? Is it now considered archaic, childish or rude? Genuine question.
The Labour peer at the centre of the donations row bailed out a baroness after she was found to have wrongly claimed £125,000 in the parliamentary expenses scandal.
Lord Alli, a multimillionaire former banker and fashion entrepreneur, gave a £62,000 loan to Baroness Uddin more than a decade ago to help her repay the expenses after the Lords authorities ordered her to refund the taxpayer.
Sir Keir Starmer would later announce that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which he ran at the time, would not pursue fraud charges against her.
The Labour sleaze snake is now swallowing its own tail.
That's.... mind blowing
So the Generous Labour Lord, who underwrites the Labour PM's wife's designer panties, is also saving corrupt Labour MPs from the consequences of their own thievery
That "panties" ... oh dear.
You really are a certain type, aren’t you. I've met you so many times.
Heteresexual men with no doubts about that sexuality? Yes, you probably have. Not in the mirror, tho
"panties" ...
I once did a password crack run on our local users back in the early 2000s. Variations on the word 'panties' was the most common password.
I'm sure times have changed.
Pretty sure.
Almost sure.
...
Can't believe he just typed it out.
Am I missing something 1: is there something wrong with the word "panties"? Is it now considered archaic, childish or rude? Genuine question.
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
That’s one route. Boot it into the long grass of a commission
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
The Labour peer at the centre of the donations row bailed out a baroness after she was found to have wrongly claimed £125,000 in the parliamentary expenses scandal.
Lord Alli, a multimillionaire former banker and fashion entrepreneur, gave a £62,000 loan to Baroness Uddin more than a decade ago to help her repay the expenses after the Lords authorities ordered her to refund the taxpayer.
Sir Keir Starmer would later announce that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which he ran at the time, would not pursue fraud charges against her.
The Labour sleaze snake is now swallowing its own tail.
That's.... mind blowing
So the Generous Labour Lord, who underwrites the Labour PM's wife's designer panties, is also saving corrupt Labour MPs from the consequences of their own thievery
That "panties" ... oh dear.
You really are a certain type, aren’t you. I've met you so many times.
Heteresexual men with no doubts about that sexuality? Yes, you probably have. Not in the mirror, tho
"panties" ...
I once did a password crack run on our local users back in the early 2000s. Variations on the word 'panties' was the most common password.
I'm sure times have changed.
Pretty sure.
Almost sure.
...
Can't believe he just typed it out.
Am I missing something 1: is there something wrong with the word "panties"? Is it now considered archaic, childish or rude? Genuine question.
Squirrel Covers.
Are they the next Dodgy Donation who Starmer will have to give back?
The Labour peer at the centre of the donations row bailed out a baroness after she was found to have wrongly claimed £125,000 in the parliamentary expenses scandal.
Lord Alli, a multimillionaire former banker and fashion entrepreneur, gave a £62,000 loan to Baroness Uddin more than a decade ago to help her repay the expenses after the Lords authorities ordered her to refund the taxpayer.
Sir Keir Starmer would later announce that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which he ran at the time, would not pursue fraud charges against her.
The Labour sleaze snake is now swallowing its own tail.
That's.... mind blowing
So the Generous Labour Lord, who underwrites the Labour PM's wife's designer panties, is also saving corrupt Labour MPs from the consequences of their own thievery
That "panties" ... oh dear.
You really are a certain type, aren’t you. I've met you so many times.
Heteresexual men with no doubts about that sexuality? Yes, you probably have. Not in the mirror, tho
"panties" ...
I once did a password crack run on our local users back in the early 2000s. Variations on the word 'panties' was the most common password.
I'm sure times have changed.
Pretty sure.
Almost sure.
...
Can't believe he just typed it out.
Am I missing something 1: is there something wrong with the word "panties"? Is it now considered archaic, childish or rude? Genuine question.
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
That’s one route. Boot it into the long grass of a commission
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
I wouldn't have gone the but look at them....it doesn't play well, see expenses scandal, it often wasn't the amount of expenses, it was the contempt at putting dirty movies and moat cleaning in as an expense (they didn't even get paid out).
And particularly if the pitch is we aren't like the last lot, not wr aren't quite as bad.
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
That’s one route. Boot it into the long grass of a commission
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
I wouldn't have gone the but look at them....it doesn't play well, see expenses scandal, it often wasn't the amount of expenses, it was the contempt at putting dirty movies and moat cleaning in as an expense (they didn't even get paid out).
And particularly if the pitch is we aren't like the last lot, not wr aren't quite as bad.
The other route is what I expect Labour to do. Self-entitled and assuming they are pure as driven snow cause they’re not the Tories. Streeting can pull that line off. Starmer? Apparently not.
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
That’s one route. Boot it into the long grass of a commission
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
I simply do not understand why Starmer thought it best to offer to repay just £6,000 of his freebies, especially at this time when the middle east is very much the story
Apparently Sky are after Rayner tonight over her trip to a disco
Starmer and Labour need someone to understand now they are in government the media see them as the gotchas, and watching Sky is remarkable how they have moved their gotcha to Labour
Middlesex’s future at Lord’s is in doubt with the club failing to secure a long-term extension of a tenancy agreement with the MCC that expires this year. After months of talks with the ground’s owners, Middlesex are close to agreeing a 12-month contract that will ensure most of their matches are played at the home of cricket next summer, but the club’s long-term future is uncertain.
Middlesex have been troubled by a number of governance and financial problems in recent years, with senior figures at the MCC believed to have expressed concerns about the way the county are run. There is also understood to be tension between some of the senior figures at the clubs.
"the way the county are run" — what happened to subs?
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
That’s one route. Boot it into the long grass of a commission
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
I wouldn't have gone the but look at them....it doesn't play well, see expenses scandal, it often wasn't the amount of expenses, it was the contempt at putting dirty movies and moat cleaning in as an expense (they didn't even get paid out).
And particularly if the pitch is we aren't like the last lot, not wr aren't quite as bad.
The other route is what I expect Labour to do. Self-entitled and assuming they are pure as driven snow cause they’re not the Tories. Streeting can pull that line off. Starmer? Apparently not.
The other trick they should have followed from Cameron handling of expenses, he basically said doesn't matter if within the rules or not, today I have setup an internal star chamber, they will order people to pay back things deemed to be inappropriate. And then they whipped through the shadow cabinet fast and got them out the way.
Starmer could have easily done this and said then when Lord no-name reports we will go with that guidance. And of course nobody really pays the money back, its just cycled around from central party / new donations.
That would also put focus on other political parties to take some action and have their own freebies highlighted. And you of course drop in some breadcrumbs about how certain MPs on say the Media and Sport select committee always seem to be in the private box of gambling companies.
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
That’s one route. Boot it into the long grass of a commission
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
I wouldn't have gone the but look at them....it doesn't play well, see expenses scandal, it often wasn't the amount of expenses, it was the contempt at putting dirty movies and moat cleaning in as an expense (they didn't even get paid out).
And particularly if the pitch is we aren't like the last lot, not wr aren't quite as bad.
The other route is what I expect Labour to do. Self-entitled and assuming they are pure as driven snow cause they’re not the Tories. Streeting can pull that line off. Starmer? Apparently not.
Blair would have handled it, well let’s say somewhat differently.
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
That’s one route. Boot it into the long grass of a commission
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
I wouldn't have gone the but look at them....it doesn't play well, see expenses scandal, it often wasn't the amount of expenses, it was the contempt at putting dirty movies and moat cleaning in as an expense (they didn't even get paid out).
And particularly if the pitch is we aren't like the last lot, not wr aren't quite as bad.
The other route is what I expect Labour to do. Self-entitled and assuming they are pure as driven snow cause they’re not the Tories. Streeting can pull that line off. Starmer? Apparently not.
Blair would have handled it, well let’s say somewhat differently.
Think of the poor journalists ear drums though, they would have just had Bad Al scream at them for hours about how he knows they took a freebie to a kinky sex show with their mistress...so don't be thinking about getting on their high horse over some freebie suits.
Middlesex’s future at Lord’s is in doubt with the club failing to secure a long-term extension of a tenancy agreement with the MCC that expires this year. After months of talks with the ground’s owners, Middlesex are close to agreeing a 12-month contract that will ensure most of their matches are played at the home of cricket next summer, but the club’s long-term future is uncertain.
Middlesex have been troubled by a number of governance and financial problems in recent years, with senior figures at the MCC believed to have expressed concerns about the way the county are run. There is also understood to be tension between some of the senior figures at the clubs.
"the way the county are run" — what happened to subs?
They went the same way as lift attendants. They no longer exist
The Labour peer at the centre of the donations row bailed out a baroness after she was found to have wrongly claimed £125,000 in the parliamentary expenses scandal.
Lord Alli, a multimillionaire former banker and fashion entrepreneur, gave a £62,000 loan to Baroness Uddin more than a decade ago to help her repay the expenses after the Lords authorities ordered her to refund the taxpayer.
Sir Keir Starmer would later announce that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which he ran at the time, would not pursue fraud charges against her.
The Labour sleaze snake is now swallowing its own tail.
That's.... mind blowing
So the Generous Labour Lord, who underwrites the Labour PM's wife's designer panties, is also saving corrupt Labour MPs from the consequences of their own thievery
That "panties" ... oh dear.
You really are a certain type, aren’t you. I've met you so many times.
Heteresexual men with no doubts about that sexuality? Yes, you probably have. Not in the mirror, tho
"panties" ...
I once did a password crack run on our local users back in the early 2000s. Variations on the word 'panties' was the most common password.
I'm sure times have changed.
Pretty sure.
Almost sure.
...
Can't believe he just typed it out.
Am I missing something 1: is there something wrong with the word "panties"? Is it now considered archaic, childish or rude? Genuine question.
The Labour peer at the centre of the donations row bailed out a baroness after she was found to have wrongly claimed £125,000 in the parliamentary expenses scandal.
Lord Alli, a multimillionaire former banker and fashion entrepreneur, gave a £62,000 loan to Baroness Uddin more than a decade ago to help her repay the expenses after the Lords authorities ordered her to refund the taxpayer.
Sir Keir Starmer would later announce that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which he ran at the time, would not pursue fraud charges against her.
The Labour sleaze snake is now swallowing its own tail.
That's.... mind blowing
So the Generous Labour Lord, who underwrites the Labour PM's wife's designer panties, is also saving corrupt Labour MPs from the consequences of their own thievery
That "panties" ... oh dear.
You really are a certain type, aren’t you. I've met you so many times.
Heteresexual men with no doubts about that sexuality? Yes, you probably have. Not in the mirror, tho
"panties" ...
I once did a password crack run on our local users back in the early 2000s. Variations on the word 'panties' was the most common password.
I'm sure times have changed.
Pretty sure.
Almost sure.
...
Can't believe he just typed it out.
Am I missing something 1: is there something wrong with the word "panties"? Is it now considered archaic, childish or rude? Genuine question.
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
That’s one route. Boot it into the long grass of a commission
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
I wouldn't have gone the but look at them....it doesn't play well, see expenses scandal, it often wasn't the amount of expenses, it was the contempt at putting dirty movies and moat cleaning in as an expense (they didn't even get paid out).
And particularly if the pitch is we aren't like the last lot, not wr aren't quite as bad.
The other route is what I expect Labour to do. Self-entitled and assuming they are pure as driven snow cause they’re not the Tories. Streeting can pull that line off. Starmer? Apparently not.
Blair would have handled it, well let’s say somewhat differently.
Think of the poor journalists ear drums though, they would have just had Bad Al scream at them for hours about how he knows they took a freebie to a kinky sex show with their mistress...so don't be thinking about getting on their high horse over some freebie suits.
Yes, I don’t think anyone’s saying that the way Labour have (not) spun this is anything other than naive. You are right about that and put it well (and very humorously).
What was getting my goat (and that of others) was the confected, puritanical pearl-clutching on here from the usual subjects. Barring a late declaration for Vic’s frocks (which Sir Keir rectified before any media interest), Labour operated within the rules. More to the point, other parties do exactly the same.
So yes, laugh at the naivety - it is quite funny, granted. But the performative pearl-clutchers should get a life.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 1h Walz: "There is a reason Mike Pence wasn't on that stage with me ... he chose the constitution over Donald Trump ... Senator Vance made it clear he will always make a different choice."
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
That’s one route. Boot it into the long grass of a commission
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
I simply do not understand why Starmer thought it best to offer to repay just £6,000 of his freebies, especially at this time when the middle east is very much the story
Apparently Sky are after Rayner tonight over her trip to a disco
Starmer and Labour need someone to understand now they are in government the media see them as the gotchas, and watching Sky is remarkable how they have moved their gotcha to Labour
Remarkable how Labour have walked into those gotchas.
"But..but..but - you can't do that to US!!! We aren't the Tories!!"
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
It is more and more obvious that he lacks a deeply political animal in his office (Campbell to Blair or Osborne to Cameron) and lacks those instincts himself.
I'm now picturing Ed, fist clenched in rage, half-eaten bacon buttie in the background. "I Could've Been A Contender!".
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 1h Walz: "There is a reason Mike Pence wasn't on that stage with me ... he chose the constitution over Donald Trump ... Senator Vance made it clear he will always make a different choice."
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 1h Walz: "There is a reason Mike Pence wasn't on that stage with me ... he chose the constitution over Donald Trump ... Senator Vance made it clear he will always make a different choice."
To be fair to Vance he was very fluent and articulate last night and narrowly won the debate.
Trump may well also have picked his successor as GOP nominee, he is not just a Trump diehard and indeed is probably the first VP nominee to be clearly more intelligent than the presidential nominee since Bush picked Cheney
Middlesex’s future at Lord’s is in doubt with the club failing to secure a long-term extension of a tenancy agreement with the MCC that expires this year. After months of talks with the ground’s owners, Middlesex are close to agreeing a 12-month contract that will ensure most of their matches are played at the home of cricket next summer, but the club’s long-term future is uncertain.
Middlesex have been troubled by a number of governance and financial problems in recent years, with senior figures at the MCC believed to have expressed concerns about the way the county are run. There is also understood to be tension between some of the senior figures at the clubs.
The County top brass held a 'meet the plebs' Q&A session in the Middlesex Room one tea interval in 2019 during which I questioned the need for such intrusive security at the gates as thoroughgoing bag search and humiliating body pat-down. The CE basically told me to eff off, with which I was more than happy to comply.
As luck would have it, next season there was no effing cricket and no effing compensation for the poor effing members, so my departure was one of the very few financially advantageous events of 2020.
Certainly London underground drivers have voted to strike as their wage rise to £70,000 is apparently not enough
They’re striking coz they might have to do - shudder - two days in the office a week
SACK THEM ALL. FUCK THEM
It's more understandable when you realise their office is in Wales.
Commute takes forever...
They are based in Newport not Snowdonia!
ONS also have an office in Hampshire.
So there's an Office for National Statistics office in Hampshire, and an Office for National Statistics office in Newport. That's the Office's offices. I'm sure that's cleared that up. 😃😃😃😃
Middlesex’s future at Lord’s is in doubt with the club failing to secure a long-term extension of a tenancy agreement with the MCC that expires this year. After months of talks with the ground’s owners, Middlesex are close to agreeing a 12-month contract that will ensure most of their matches are played at the home of cricket next summer, but the club’s long-term future is uncertain.
Middlesex have been troubled by a number of governance and financial problems in recent years, with senior figures at the MCC believed to have expressed concerns about the way the county are run. There is also understood to be tension between some of the senior figures at the clubs.
The County top brass held a 'meet the plebs' Q&A session in the Middlesex Room one tea interval in 2019 during which I questioned the need for such intrusive security at the gates as thoroughgoing bag search and humiliating body pat-down. The CE basically told me to eff off, with which I was more than happy to comply.
As luck would have it, next season there was no effing cricket and no effing compensation for the poor effing members, so my departure was one of the very few financially advantageous events of 2020.
Yup. My lack of compensation for 2020 now means I despise the club. I won’t be alone. I do hope the MCC brings in another tenant or takes over.
Indeed. He's a metropolitan elite lefty: bows the knee, mouths the words, but stops short of anything that looks like redistribution of wealth or moving the burden of taxation to the rich from the poor. He will defend the central tenets of elite politics - suppressing the working class by importing more and more people, not taxing the rich in case they leave, not increasing inheritance tax thus enabling the wealthy to perpetuate their wealth - and add authoritarian measures of his own - the smoking ban, the abandonment of the free speech act, more regulation, more offices of this and that.
We're so far past the 70s we've forgotten what a true lefty looks like and does.
Indeed. He's a metropolitan elite lefty: bows the knee, mouths the words, but stops short of anything that looks like redistribution of wealth or moving the burden of taxation to the rich from the poor. He will defend the central tenets of elite politics - suppressing the working class by importing more and more people, not taxing the rich in case they leave, not increasing inheritance tax thus enabling the wealthy to perpetuate their wealth - and add authoritarian measures of his own - the smoking ban, the abandonment of the free speech act, more regulation, more offices of this and that.
We're so far past the 70s we've forgotten what a true lefty looks like and does.
Corbyn for all his faults was a true leftie, Rayner is too, Starmer isn't. Indeed even Brown and Ed Miiband are more leftie than he is.
So far, Starmer is more interested in targeting unwoke, Brexit voting pensioners (even those on low incomes struggling to stay warm this winter) than he is the rich and high earners. Especially as pensioners still voted Tory in July while many high earners voted Labour, especially in big cities and suburbs
Am I the only person not to get freebies to Taylor Swift?
I wouldn't want a freebie to see Taylor Swift (and I wouldn't bother with Oasis as they went off the boil after 96) but if anyone wants to pay for me to see Springsteen next summer, DM's are open! 😂
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
That’s one route. Boot it into the long grass of a commission
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
I wouldn't have gone the but look at them....it doesn't play well, see expenses scandal, it often wasn't the amount of expenses, it was the contempt at putting dirty movies and moat cleaning in as an expense (they didn't even get paid out).
And particularly if the pitch is we aren't like the last lot, not wr aren't quite as bad.
Moat cleaning wasn’t even submitted as an expense claim!
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
That’s one route. Boot it into the long grass of a commission
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
I wouldn't have gone the but look at them....it doesn't play well, see expenses scandal, it often wasn't the amount of expenses, it was the contempt at putting dirty movies and moat cleaning in as an expense (they didn't even get paid out).
And particularly if the pitch is we aren't like the last lot, not wr aren't quite as bad.
The other route is what I expect Labour to do. Self-entitled and assuming they are pure as driven snow cause they’re not the Tories. Streeting can pull that line off. Starmer? Apparently not.
Blair would have handled it, well let’s say somewhat differently.
Think of the poor journalists ear drums though, they would have just had Bad Al scream at them for hours about how he knows they took a freebie to a kinky sex show with their mistress...so don't be thinking about getting on their high horse over some freebie suits.
Yes, I don’t think anyone’s saying that the way Labour have (not) spun this is anything other than naive. You are right about that and put it well (and very humorously).
What was getting my goat (and that of others) was the confected, puritanical pearl-clutching on here from the usual subjects. Barring a late declaration for Vic’s frocks (which Sir Keir rectified before any media interest), Labour operated within the rules. More to the point, other parties do exactly the same.
So yes, laugh at the naivety - it is quite funny, granted. But the performative pearl-clutchers should get a life.
You completely miss the point
It doesn’t matter if it was in the rules or not. If it is within the rules, then the rules should be changed.
This kind of influence peddling is unacceptable. And Starmer (and others) were wrong to take the gifts
Why repay £6k? All that happens now is that every other penny will continue to be under massive scrutiny. Until it all gets repaid.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
The play for this scandal was obvious....come out straight away, say yes i took these, rules allowed them, but referred myself for investigation (3 months time he is found guilty of nothing more than poor on the paperwork)...but we are a new government, doing things a new way, and determined we are above reproach....so i have paid back all the money (you get the party to do it) and i will be setting up an independent commission on reforming rules over gifts.
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
That’s one route. Boot it into the long grass of a commission
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
I wouldn't have gone the but look at them....it doesn't play well, see expenses scandal, it often wasn't the amount of expenses, it was the contempt at putting dirty movies and moat cleaning in as an expense (they didn't even get paid out).
And particularly if the pitch is we aren't like the last lot, not wr aren't quite as bad.
Moat cleaning wasn’t even submitted as an expense claim!
Wasn't it. I thought like the duck house, the MP just sent in a big wad of receipts and said I would like to claim for what I am allowed to claim. And they weren't paid out. Basically the MPs were rather entitled and lazy, but not on the take.
The worst misreporting was the MP (I think a Labour MP) who if I remember correctly had already been in parliament 2 terms, and never claimed for property upgrades. They then finally wanted to upgrade the kitchen, they went and got it all designed and then wrote to the claims office and said ok, I know I am allowed to claim for this sort of work, here is the plan I was given, but actually what is within rules and what isn't. Then after you give me this information, I will decide revisions I should make and then will pay for those remaining things that won't be covered.
The Telegraph still went for him. He even replied to their tactic at the time which was to write and say we got you, story tomorrow, any comment. He produced all the paperwork and they still ran the story.
Comments
✅ PSG
✅ Villarreal
✅ Aston Villa
Other factors mattering more are also partly the point - ultimately if the country can plausibly talked about as in better shape in 2028/9 than in 2024 then broadly speaking people will forgive Labour its current woes and write them off as growing pains of getting back into government. If it isn't and Labour stumble through the next 4/5 years then they will be the first evidence they were not up to it and wrong'uns.
Your perception of which is likelier will generally depend on your underlying views about Labour.
Did Boris repay the cash? Did Blair?
Who is advising these guys?
https://x.com/aseitzwald/status/1841515041092174061
Then you get 2-3 days of media coverage and it becomes a boring process story about how Lord or Lady no-name will spend a year considering all this and report back.
At the same time, you also get your Malcom Tucker to phone round the journos saying what gifts you had big man, i saw you at Taylor Swift, you wife looks different these days.And i presume you want us to attend your summer party, awards ceremony etc, but no politicians at a sumer politics party is a bit shit isn't it.
But it does show how the Electoral map is not set in stone.
The other route? We took the same donations as all politicians get. Ours were fancy geps and a suit and apparently Angie’s Eyebeethoh rave. The Tories took millions and awarded billions to their mates. It’s not equivalent.
But oh no. We get flap and dither and then here’s a small cheque because yes we agree we done wrong. FFS…
And particularly if the pitch is we aren't like the last lot, not wr aren't quite as bad.
Apparently Sky are after Rayner tonight over her trip to a disco
Starmer and Labour need someone to understand now they are in government the media see them as the gotchas, and watching Sky is remarkable how they have moved their gotcha to Labour
Second such poll recently.
Nebraska Senate Polling:
Osborn (I): 47%
Fischer (R): 42%
Bullfinch / Oct 1, 2024 / n=400
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1841574298487509360
Starmer could have easily done this and said then when Lord no-name reports we will go with that guidance. And of course nobody really pays the money back, its just cycled around from central party / new donations.
That would also put focus on other political parties to take some action and have their own freebies highlighted. And you of course drop in some breadcrumbs about how certain MPs on say the Media and Sport select committee always seem to be in the private box of gambling companies.
"Do you personally hope that the US elects a woman President in your lifetime?"
All:
Yes: 53%
No: 21%
Yes Among:
Dems: 87%
Independents: 47%
GOP: 21%
YouGov / Oct 1, 2024 / n=1638
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1841568466421035112
Republicans are either very old, or pretty damn misogynist.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/02/civil-servants-threaten-strike-back-office-push/
What was getting my goat (and that of others) was the confected, puritanical pearl-clutching on here from the usual subjects. Barring a late declaration for Vic’s frocks (which Sir Keir rectified before any media interest), Labour operated within the rules. More to the point, other parties do exactly the same.
So yes, laugh at the naivety - it is quite funny, granted. But the performative pearl-clutchers should get a life.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-election
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/sep/16/amazon-in-person-office-policy
https://www.cityam.com/dont-be-a-twat-goldman-orders-staff-to-work-in-the-office-five-days-a-week/
The Labour MP and the son of Starmer’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, accepted two tickets worth £1,600 to see Taylor Swift at Wembley stadium.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/02/official-register-mps-financial-interests-must-read
Am I the only person not to get freebies to Taylor Swift?
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
·
1h
Walz: "There is a reason Mike Pence wasn't on that stage with me ... he chose the constitution over Donald Trump ... Senator Vance made it clear he will always make a different choice."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1841574656567881748
===
And this kids is why Vance was picked by Trump.
"But..but..but - you can't do that to US!!! We aren't the Tories!!"
Bless him.
SACK THEM ALL. FUCK THEM
Commute takes forever...
"Amazon to increase number of advertisements on Prime Video"
https://www.ft.com/content/f8112991-820c-4e09-bcf4-23b5e0f190a5
Trump may well also have picked his successor as GOP nominee, he is not just a Trump diehard and indeed is probably the first VP nominee to be clearly more intelligent than the presidential nominee since Bush picked Cheney
"It’s very frustrating, and there’s no point pretending it’s anything other than embarrassing and disappointing"
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1841592311957873023
🟦 CON 27% (+6)
🟥 LAB 26% (-6)
Via
@YouGov
, 30 Sep (+/- vs 22 July)
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1841508920323457249
As luck would have it, next season there was no effing cricket and no effing compensation for the poor effing members, so my departure was one of the very few financially advantageous events of 2020.
So there's an Office for National Statistics office in Hampshire, and an Office for National Statistics office in Newport. That's the Office's offices. I'm sure that's cleared that up. 😃😃😃😃
NEW POLL ~ Popularity of party leaders:
🟪 Nigel Farage: 39%
🟦 Rishi Sunak: 28%
🟥 Keir Starmer: 26%
⬜️ Jeremy Corbyn: 25%
🟧 Ed Davey: 19%
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1841151478104289284?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
We're so far past the 70s we've forgotten what a true lefty looks like and does.
So far, Starmer is more interested in targeting unwoke, Brexit voting pensioners (even those on low incomes struggling to stay warm this winter) than he is the rich and high earners. Especially as pensioners still voted Tory in July while many high earners voted Labour, especially in big cities and suburbs
https://338canada.com/bc/
It doesn’t matter if it was in the rules or not. If it is within the rules, then the rules should be changed.
This kind of influence peddling is unacceptable. And Starmer (and others) were wrong to take the gifts
The worst misreporting was the MP (I think a Labour MP) who if I remember correctly had already been in parliament 2 terms, and never claimed for property upgrades. They then finally wanted to upgrade the kitchen, they went and got it all designed and then wrote to the claims office and said ok, I know I am allowed to claim for this sort of work, here is the plan I was given, but actually what is within rules and what isn't. Then after you give me this information, I will decide revisions I should make and then will pay for those remaining things that won't be covered.
The Telegraph still went for him. He even replied to their tactic at the time which was to write and say we got you, story tomorrow, any comment. He produced all the paperwork and they still ran the story.