A PM's position to pursue litigation does make it incredibly difficult I suppose insofar as they could be called in event of court proceedings or I presume so? Bit tricky when still in office because the denial has been tried before and proven well economical with the actual " I did not have relations etc etc...."
Even Ashcroft seems to be digging an escape tunnel saying that maybe it was not Cameron but someone else... mistaken identity.... errr....
Perhaps a boar..ed of enquiry instead to see if someone will squeal?
Groan
The killer point in this is the reference to a unknown someone who knows someone who has the photograph.
When I edited the student rag at University I took the job seriously enough to do a journalism course. One lesson is that there is a river of repellent stories about *everyone* in public life - a tide of filth that is 99.99% rubbish.
If you want to see how stupid and repellent this stuff is, dig around and you will see there is a flourishing trade in lies about Corbyn now. No, not a few quid for a con man, or a hand shake with Hamas.... real, hard core, crazy evil stuff. All invented, strangely enough, shortly after he appeared on the top level of the public stage.
The trick is to smell out early on when a story id bogus. The photos that no-one you can actually speak to has seen is a classic of the genre.
If it turns out to be bogus, any promises by Ashcroft to guarantee legal costs will evaporate - such is the way of millionaires. There will be a get out clause somewhere that leaves everyone else holding the bag.
The evil Machiavellian in me is sensing that this is, in fact, a hatchet job on Ashcroft - not on Cameron. Fed false innuendo and outright lies which he credulously gobbled up, only to make a fool of himself. However, if this is perpetrated by a Cameron fan or inner circle, it is a very high risk strategy. Perhaps someone who has a beef with both Cameron and Ashcroft ...
There have been Tory MPs who have been plotting and scheming for years now, who hate and not just dislike Cameron. But surely Ashcroft wouldn't be so stupid as to believe such people.
Seen from abroad, we have an anti-Semitic leader of the opposition who supports terrorism and a prime minister who has had sexual relations with a dead pig. That's some double whammy.
I had a seminar on "British politics and the media" with a delegation of Chinese journalists today, and showed them both stories as an illustration of the "challenging British media environment". They were, indeed, mildly incredulous (chekcing with the interpreter if this was really what was being said), though naturally non-committal. You don't get stories like those often in China Daily.
Incidentally, I remember the time when I used to whinge here about Ashcroft throwing vast subsidies at the Tory efforts in arginal seats, and people told me off about criticising a titan of British business. Sometimes British politics has a certain circular flavour.
People - including politicians - are very naive about money. In their greed for it, they forget - or overlook - that the person disbursing the money wants something for it. They ought to be a bit more curious about what it is they want and whether the price they will be paying is really worth it.
(snip)
I tend to agree, but there are exceptions. Someone I know raised a large amount of money for charity, and wrote a lot of begging letters to celebrities and businessmen. One businessman pledged to match whatever he raised, and did so even when it went into six figures.
One of the criteria was that he got no publicity and his donation was kept as much as possible quiet (obviously the charity had to know). His name appears on here with some disdain occasionally.
People can sometimes give without wanting anything in return, especially if they believe in something, and even when it could gain them some much-needed good publicity.
I often find myself wondering who gives money without publicising it. I'd have thought if you were going to give large money you would want to keep it as quiet as possible for a few reasons. Firstly, no one likes a show off and it's probably satisfying to do something on the quiet. Secondly, if people know you're giving money you will get all sorts of people asking you for money, and unless you're someone like Bill Gates, it could become unmanageable.
There are two constants when it comes to money (and this goes back thousands of years): Greed and Stupidity.
It's the human condition and no law/regulation or anything else will be even remotely successful - or even have a chance at being midly successful - unless it understands this basic point.
There were more issues, fighting and killing between the tribes than there ever were between white and black and that's from what I saw first hand. I know that doesn't really play into the narrative but it is what it is.
Where I grew up (Belfast) it was common knowledge that the biggest threat to the nationalist community was from their own terrorists rather than the unionist ones, police or army.
Plus ca change...
Belfast is a lovely place but so much bad press. I was there a few times over the years of the troubles as they were always called. ( not military) and I have some great memories and bad. I do remember walking from the port to the centre and army kneeling in doorways with rifles poised. I really don't want to get into ins and outs of that but I felt a great sadness that this was a how the place was governed...shopping bags and rifles are not a good mix.
It was such a nice place and now remains so and should do for the future. I was last there around a year ago in Belfast working. I do very sincerely hope that the latest issues can be resolved quickly and peacefully because it would be a tragedy if it can't.
The locals don't deserve this they just don't. I recommend a visit to see what a really great place this is. It's fun for all ages.
I suggest you try not to hate even one person on here. Hate as an emotion does no-one any good, and we're just strangers on the Internet. You might meet a few of us occasionally, if that.
Be annoyed, agitated, amused, affected or appalled, but don't hate.
Unless you were exaggerating for comic effect.
Hate is an emotion I very occasionally feel, but never understand. So far as I can see, it only adversely effects the subject, not the object of it (unless it progresses to physical harm).
A couple of years ago, in a hurry, I cut someone off in Baltimore rush hour traffic. It was definitely my bad. But his reaction was to throw his Starbucks coffee over my windscreen while furiously yelling at me. Me, I was a little sheepish, but otherwise bemused and amused by his overreaction, turned on my wipers but otherwise continued my day unperturbed. In another world, he would have lost a few extra seconds of his day to traffic. But instead, by overreacting, he blew his blood pressure through the roof and was down one coffee.
To put today's shenanigans into context, today at work I had to read some emails which contained stuff (in the same area) but far more revolting - and not even remotely amusing - than anything alleged about the PM.
Such is the sad lot of the investigator..... Off to dinner now.
You're an investigator? How intriguing! Law enforcement, private, corporate/insurance?
The answer is for all of them to persuade ordinary people to contribute time and money and to live within their means, however modest they may be, just like the rest of us.
You mean put forward some inspiring ideas that get get 100,000 people to join up, paying £45 each?
We've taken your excellent advice!
And you will have to live with it. Matthew Parris made the point on Saturday that it shows that the Corbynites are perhaps more true Labour than the moderates. The moderates took people for granted and have suffered as a result. This should be a lesson to them.
The fascist left (I know you will find this prejudicial but bear with me) has taken over your party because the alternatives did not, for too long, put in the graft needed to persuade people to join and vote. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
The fact that I don't like the choice you and others have made (I may have mentioned this!) doesn't invalidate the suggestion.
Now you have to follow the next bit of my advice, wean yourself off union funding and agree that opt-in for trade union members is the way to go!
An idea of what a billionair looks like leading a party is Trump. As for money ... The unions can always get round party funding limits because they are already a campaigning body. But otherwise there are already in place funding limits which are not bad. Ashcroft was not given influence for his money (at least not enough for his liking - that was always the argument against Ashcroft) which is why he has been upset all these years. It is only now Cameron has proved him wrong that he has got his knife out.
I suggest you try not to hate even one person on here. Hate as an emotion does no-one any good, and we're just strangers on the Internet. You might meet a few of us occasionally, if that.
Be annoyed, agitated, amused, affected or appalled, but don't hate.
Unless you were exaggerating for comic effect.
Hate is an emotion I very occasionally feel, but never understand. So far as I can see, it only adversely effects the subject, not the object of it (unless it progresses to physical harm).
A couple of years ago, in a hurry, I cut someone off in Baltimore rush hour traffic. It was definitely my bad. But his reaction was to throw his Starbucks coffee over my windscreen while furiously yelling at me. Me, I was a little sheepish, but otherwise bemused and amused by his overreaction, turned on my wipers but otherwise continued my day unperturbed. In another world, he would have lost a few extra seconds of his day to traffic. But instead, by overreacting, he blew his blood pressure through the roof and was down one coffee.
I don't see momentary anger or dislike towards someone as hate. For me, hate is when you deeply and passionately loathe someone or something for a sustained period. As such, there's only one person in this world I truly, passionately hate.
I've never read Balzac but was it not him who said behind every great fortune is a great crime - not suggesting anything about certain rich individuals in the news.
Isn't Labour's £45 membership a bit steep? And rather odd that you could vote in the leadership election for just £3 when being a member is so expensive. Maybe it would be a good idea for the party to reduce the membership charge to say £30 and end the £3 sign ons for the next contest.
How Cameron finds the time to be PM, a husband, an MP, and yet still engage in these odd activities boggles the mind.
In all honesty would it make the slightest bit of difference between two candidates for a job if one was a dead-porker-willy-wobbler, and the other wasn't. I think not.
I can't see what Michael Ashcroft wants from this. He's reduced himself, and hasn't hurt Cameron at all. He should just say what he wants, and its his own fault if that message is clouded by the media-storm.
I believe Cam misbehaved before he was MP, PM and husband!
So did Dellingpole as far as I can see by his own alleged account.
I suggest you try not to hate even one person on here. Hate as an emotion does no-one any good, and we're just strangers on the Internet. You might meet a few of us occasionally, if that.
Be annoyed, agitated, amused, affected or appalled, but don't hate.
Unless you were exaggerating for comic effect.
Hate is an emotion I very occasionally feel, but never understand. So far as I can see, it only adversely effects the subject, not the object of it (unless it progresses to physical harm).
A couple of years ago, in a hurry, I cut someone off in Baltimore rush hour traffic. It was definitely my bad. But his reaction was to throw his Starbucks coffee over my windscreen while furiously yelling at me. Me, I was a little sheepish, but otherwise bemused and amused by his overreaction, turned on my wipers but otherwise continued my day unperturbed. In another world, he would have lost a few extra seconds of his day to traffic. But instead, by overreacting, he blew his blood pressure through the roof and was down one coffee.
I don't see momentary anger or dislike towards someone as hate. For me, hate is when you deeply and passionately loathe someone or something for a sustained period. As such, there's only one person in this world I truly, passionately hate.
Perhaps this is a case of differing definitions.
In that case, I don't have the stamina for hate. Although I did manage to hate someone for the best part of a year and still to this day would not shed a tear if someone else did him bodily harm.
I've never read Balzac but was it not him who said behind every great fortune is a great crime - not suggesting anything about certain rich individuals in the news.
Isn't Labour's £45 membership a bit steep? And rather odd that you could vote in the leadership election for just £3 when being a member is so expensive. Maybe it would be a good idea for the party to reduce the membership charge to say £30 and end the £3 sign ons for the next contest.
It's only a few quid a month though by direct debit.
There were more issues, fighting and killing between the tribes than there ever were between white and black and that's from what I saw first hand. I know that doesn't really play into the narrative but it is what it is.
Where I grew up (Belfast) it was common knowledge that the biggest threat to the nationalist community was from their own terrorists rather than the unionist ones, police or army.
Plus ca change...
Belfast is a lovely place but so much bad press. I was there a few times over the years of the troubles as they were always called. ( not military) and I have some great memories and bad. I do remember walking from the port to the centre and army kneeling in doorways with rifles poised. I really don't want to get into ins and outs of that but I felt a great sadness that this was a how the place was governed...shopping bags and rifles are not a good mix.
It was such a nice place and now remains so and should do for the future. I was last there around a year ago in Belfast working. I do very sincerely hope that the latest issues can be resolved quickly and peacefully because it would be a tragedy if it can't.
The locals don't deserve this they just don't. I recommend a visit to see what a really great place this is. It's fun for all ages.
None of the troubles of Ireland would happened without the locals. The people of Ireland have deprived themselves of all sorts of good things because they don't know when to shut up. No bombs were needed to get the SNP to a position where they could break Scotland away. I doubt there is anyone alive who could survive and not yield to an Irish good-will offensive.
I don't see momentary anger or dislike towards someone as hate. For me, hate is when you deeply and passionately loathe someone or something for a sustained period. As such, there's only one person in this world I truly, passionately hate.
Perhaps this is a case of differing definitions.
Wikipedia definition of hatred does talk of intensity of the emotion and the element of hostility, but not the duration: "Hatred is a deep and emotional extreme dislike. It can be directed against individuals, groups, entities, objects, behaviors, or ideas. Hatred is often associated with feelings of anger, disgust and a disposition towards hostility"
I suggest you try not to hate even one person on here. Hate as an emotion does no-one any good, and we're just strangers on the Internet. You might meet a few of us occasionally, if that.
Be annoyed, agitated, amused, affected or appalled, but don't hate.
Unless you were exaggerating for comic effect.
Hate is an emotion I very occasionally feel, but never understand. So far as I can see, it only adversely effects the subject, not the object of it (unless it progresses to physical harm).
A couple of years ago, in a hurry, I cut someone off in Baltimore rush hour traffic. It was definitely my bad. But his reaction was to throw his Starbucks coffee over my windscreen while furiously yelling at me. Me, I was a little sheepish, but otherwise bemused and amused by his overreaction, turned on my wipers but otherwise continued my day unperturbed. In another world, he would have lost a few extra seconds of his day to traffic. But instead, by overreacting, he blew his blood pressure through the roof and was down one coffee.
I don't see momentary anger or dislike towards someone as hate. For me, hate is when you deeply and passionately loathe someone or something for a sustained period. As such, there's only one person in this world I truly, passionately hate.
Perhaps this is a case of differing definitions.
In that case, I don't have the stamina for hate. Although I did manage to hate someone for the best part of a year and still to this day would not shed a tear if someone else did him bodily harm.
Someone at work said they couldn't imagine me hating anyone or getting angry. I responded with "Mike Dean".
Seen from abroad, we have an anti-Semitic leader of the opposition who supports terrorism and a prime minister who has had sexual relations with a dead pig. That's some double whammy.
I had a seminar on "British politics and the media" with a delegation of Chinese journalists today, and showed them both stories as an illustration of the "challenging British media environment". They were, indeed, mildly incredulous (chekcing with the interpreter if this was really what was being said), though naturally non-committal. You don't get stories like those often in China Daily.
Incidentally, I remember the time when I used to whinge here about Ashcroft throwing vast subsidies at the Tory efforts in arginal seats, and people told me off about criticising a titan of British business. Sometimes British politics has a certain circular flavour.
Correct but Ashcroft was doing his own thing with the marginals because he was a one man band wanting to rule the roost and he was even then in dispute about where to spend his funds You tell me, but I think his marginals effort was wasted.
I suggest you try not to hate even one person on here. Hate as an emotion does no-one any good, and we're just strangers on the Internet. You might meet a few of us occasionally, if that.
Be annoyed, agitated, amused, affected or appalled, but don't hate.
Unless you were exaggerating for comic effect.
Hate is an emotion I very occasionally feel, but never understand. So far as I can see, it only adversely effects the subject, not the object of it (unless it progresses to physical harm).
A couple of years ago, in a hurry, I cut someone off in Baltimore rush hour traffic. It was definitely my bad. But his reaction was to throw his Starbucks coffee over my windscreen while furiously yelling at me. Me, I was a little sheepish, but otherwise bemused and amused by his overreaction, turned on my wipers but otherwise continued my day unperturbed. In another world, he would have lost a few extra seconds of his day to traffic. But instead, by overreacting, he blew his blood pressure through the roof and was down one coffee.
I don't see momentary anger or dislike towards someone as hate. For me, hate is when you deeply and passionately loathe someone or something for a sustained period. As such, there's only one person in this world I truly, passionately hate.
Perhaps this is a case of differing definitions.
In that case, I don't have the stamina for hate. Although I did manage to hate someone for the best part of a year and still to this day would not shed a tear if someone else did him bodily harm.
Someone at work said they couldn't imagine me hating anyone or getting angry. I responded with "Mike Dean".
Had to Google that. Presume you're for the red and white?
I suggest you try not to hate even one person on here. Hate as an emotion does no-one any good, and we're just strangers on the Internet. You might meet a few of us occasionally, if that.
Be annoyed, agitated, amused, affected or appalled, but don't hate.
Unless you were exaggerating for comic effect.
Hate is an emotion I very occasionally feel, but never understand. So far as I can see, it only adversely effects the subject, not the object of it (unless it progresses to physical harm).
A couple of years ago, in a hurry, I cut someone off in Baltimore rush hour traffic. It was definitely my bad. But his reaction was to throw his Starbucks coffee over my windscreen while furiously yelling at me. Me, I was a little sheepish, but otherwise bemused and amused by his overreaction, turned on my wipers but otherwise continued my day unperturbed. In another world, he would have lost a few extra seconds of his day to traffic. But instead, by overreacting, he blew his blood pressure through the roof and was down one coffee.
I don't see momentary anger or dislike towards someone as hate. For me, hate is when you deeply and passionately loathe someone or something for a sustained period. As such, there's only one person in this world I truly, passionately hate.
Perhaps this is a case of differing definitions.
In that case, I don't have the stamina for hate. Although I did manage to hate someone for the best part of a year and still to this day would not shed a tear if someone else did him bodily harm.
Perhaps this is not the best place to put this, but if I was ever to meet the particular target of my hate in a street, I'm not sure that I would not do something stupid. The hate is that deep and visceral, yet the events occurred over twenty-five years ago.
Time has not healed the emotion. But perhaps my feeling is deeper than hate, and I'm not sure what word best describes it.
Then again, I'm a bit of a coward when it comes to physical violence. I did spot him twenty years ago whilst I was out in the relevant area with a girlfriend. I just ran, leaving a very puzzled girlfriend behind.
I suggest you try not to hate even one person on here. Hate as an emotion does no-one any good, and we're just strangers on the Internet. You might meet a few of us occasionally, if that.
Be annoyed, agitated, amused, affected or appalled, but don't hate.
Unless you were exaggerating for comic effect.
Hate is an emotion I very occasionally feel, but never understand. So far as I can see, it only adversely effects the subject, not the object of it (unless it progresses to physical harm).
A couple of years ago, in a hurry, I cut someone off in Baltimore rush hour traffic. It was definitely my bad. But his reaction was to throw his Starbucks coffee over my windscreen while furiously yelling at me. Me, I was a little sheepish, but otherwise bemused and amused by his overreaction, turned on my wipers but otherwise continued my day unperturbed. In another world, he would have lost a few extra seconds of his day to traffic. But instead, by overreacting, he blew his blood pressure through the roof and was down one coffee.
I don't see momentary anger or dislike towards someone as hate. For me, hate is when you deeply and passionately loathe someone or something for a sustained period. As such, there's only one person in this world I truly, passionately hate.
Perhaps this is a case of differing definitions.
In that case, I don't have the stamina for hate. Although I did manage to hate someone for the best part of a year and still to this day would not shed a tear if someone else did him bodily harm.
Someone at work said they couldn't imagine me hating anyone or getting angry. I responded with "Mike Dean".
Had to Google that. Presume you're for the red and white?
Yes. To be honest we get decisions go our way too so I don't think there's some conspiracy or anything. But we've had run-ins with Dean before and he is just so arrogant and wants to be the centre of attention. Truth is we don't have enough refs in the Premier League and familiarity breeds contempt. It would be far better if we only saw Dean once or twice a year.
And I completely wasted my youth. And my time at University (bar the last couple of years when I started going out with my wife). Its depressing. What a waste of life.
And I completely wasted my youth. And my time at University (bar the last couple of years when I started going out with my wife). Its depressing. What a waste of life.
It's very easy to assume that everyone else is having fun. Well they're not. My dad said this evening that he assumes that everyone has done drugs (but not him) and that it's no big deal. But I suspect not as many people have done drugs as you might think.
And I completely wasted my youth. And my time at University (bar the last couple of years when I started going out with my wife). Its depressing. What a waste of life.
Yep. I didn't even do weed at uni!
I often wonder, if I had a do over and was less responsible and more adventurous and fun-oriented at college, how would I have turned out. Would I be better off, or much worse? It's not clear either way.
And I completely wasted my youth. And my time at University (bar the last couple of years when I started going out with my wife). Its depressing. What a waste of life.
I've never read Balzac but was it not him who said behind every grea t fortune is a great crime - not suggesting anything about certain rich individuals in the news.
Isn't Labour's £45 membership a bit steep? And rather odd that you could vote in the leadership election for just £3 when being a member is so expensive. Maybe it would be a good idea for the party to reduce the membership charge to say £30 and end the £3 sign ons for the next contest.
Surely now they will quickly convert the £3ers to full members with some other vote then on fees. This gives corbynites 12 months to get rules changed to suit them and there must still be enough residual corbinite members to keep the troublesome moderates at bay. I still see the labour party being eaten away from within by corbynite, no matter how much the PLP are at odds with their leader.
The fascist left (I know you will find this prejudicial but bear with me) has taken over your party because the alternatives did not, for too long, put in the graft needed to persuade people to join and vote. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
The fact that I don't like the choice you and others have made (I may have mentioned this!) doesn't invalidate the suggestion.
Now you have to follow the next bit of my advice, wean yourself off union funding and agree that opt-in for trade union members is the way to go!
I think it's rather that once Blair had gone, the centrists lost interest in putting forward a long-term concept of where they wanted to go, and retreated into just trying to win elections with this bright idea or that. Eventually, even party loyalists like me got bored with that, especially as it didn't actually work. It wasn't that they weren't putting in the work to attract people to their vision, it's that there wasn't a coherent vision.
But I agree with you on spending limits!
On wariness of donors, I remember with mild affection the only person who ever bothered to bribe me, in a way (apart from the dubious Azerbaijani donor who I've mentioned before who I declined). When I stood in 1983 I argued for the Government or GLC to set up a Rightmove-like register for tenancies, on which all landlords would be required to register vacancies, so that tenants could choose the best bargains without dragging themselves around umpteen agents.
I lost, of course, but afterwards I was asked to lunch by an estate agent to discuss the idea. I accepted out of curiosity, and he said, "I'd like to pay the bill for this lunch. My motive is that if you are one day in a position to implement your idea, which I quite like, I'd like you to let me know, so I can put in a bid for the tender - I reckon I'd do a good job. I don't want you to influence the outcome, but I don't want to miss out on the chance to apply. Fair enough?"
I was tickled by his frankness, and gracefully accepted the lunch, worth I think about £10-15. I promised to let him know if it arose (though I'd have done that without the lunch). And here we are, 30 years later, and I still remember him.
I've never read Balzac but was it not him who said behind every great fortune is a great crime - not suggesting anything about certain rich individuals in the news.
Isn't Labour's £45 membership a bit steep? And rather odd that you could vote in the leadership election for just £3 when being a member is so expensive. Maybe it would be a good idea for the party to reduce the membership charge to say £30 and end the £3 sign ons for the next contest.
It's only a few quid a month though by direct debit.
And I completely wasted my youth. And my time at University (bar the last couple of years when I started going out with my wife). Its depressing. What a waste of life.
Yeah, I could have wasted my life better too.
Very few people die wishing they'd shagged, drank and partied less.
Another Ian Dale book just published - not making quite the same splash as the Ashcroft book - an excellent behind the scenes insight into the Better Together campaign by Joe Pike:
I've never read Balzac but was it not him who said behind every grea t fortune is a great crime - not suggesting anything about certain rich individuals in the news.
Isn't Labour's £45 membership a bit steep? And rather odd that you could vote in the leadership election for just £3 when being a member is so expensive. Maybe it would be a good idea for the party to reduce the membership charge to say £30 and end the £3 sign ons for the next contest.
Surely now they will quickly convert the £3ers to full members with some other vote then on fees. This gives corbynites 12 months to get rules changed to suit them and there must still be enough residual corbinite members to keep the troublesome moderates at bay. I still see the labour party being eaten away from within by corbynite, no matter how much the PLP are at odds with their leader.
As a fascist left corbynite (actually very mild social democrat) here's hoping...
Mr Palmer puts the fall of the labour moderates this way... ' I rather think that after Blair had gone ... etc ... '
Well I would have said that after Blair had gone you were left with Brown and his influence rather than any sort of 'oh let's just shrug our shoulders and get re-elected who cares what for' attitude .
Corbyn has now resigned I believe as chairman of Stop the War. But essentially that outlook is what is now aiming to run Labour. They have been gifted the opportunity and they have taken it. It really does not matter if Corbyn is a good average or useless leader. Labour are now what they are and it is not what they were before the election.
And I completely wasted my youth. And my time at University (bar the last couple of years when I started going out with my wife). Its depressing. What a waste of life.
It's very easy to assume that everyone else is having fun. Well they're not. My dad said this evening that he assumes that everyone has done drugs (but not him) and that it's no big deal. But I suspect not as many people have done drugs as you might think.
Well I didn't. And I didn't attend any wild orgies, or bonk women in bushes or whatever. My life seemed very normal but, with the benefit of hindsight, it was a complete lack of imagination.
When I was younger I was religious. I cured myself of that but I remain very moral in an almost puritanical way. Days like today make me wonder why.
And I completely wasted my youth. And my time at University (bar the last couple of years when I started going out with my wife). Its depressing. What a waste of life.
Yeah, I could have wasted my life better too.
Very few people die wishing they'd shagged, drank and partied less.
I always admired Bismarck. On his death bed he was asked if he had any regrets, about the wars and the opponents he had crushed. He answered that he wished he had drunk more champagne!
And I completely wasted my youth. And my time at University (bar the last couple of years when I started going out with my wife). Its depressing. What a waste of life.
Are you being serious? I often feel like that myself though. Not sure I'd have wanted to be in the Piers Gaveston society though.
I know wikipedia isn't everything but it's a very er... interesting entry.
'The Piers Gaveston Society is a men-only dining club founded in 1977 at the University of Oxford with membership limited to 12 undergraduates.[1] It is named in honour of Piers Gaveston, favourite and supposed lover of King Edward II of England.
The club's motto is "Fane [sic] non memini ne audisse unum alterum ita dilixisse"[5] which translates approximately to "Truly, none remember hearing of a man enjoying another so much"[4] or, "Certainly I do not remember that I have heard of any man who loved another like this."
Comments
Magical.
And then he smiles as he whacks you in the knackers with the toy.
Rather less magical, and there's suddenly no peace, less harmony, but still love. I think ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Condition_(book)#V_-_The_Vita_Activa_and_the_Modern_Age
It was such a nice place and now remains so and should do for the future. I was last there around a year ago in Belfast working. I do very sincerely hope that the latest issues can be resolved quickly and peacefully because it would be a tragedy if it can't.
The locals don't deserve this they just don't. I recommend a visit to see what a really great place this is. It's fun for all ages.
A couple of years ago, in a hurry, I cut someone off in Baltimore rush hour traffic. It was definitely my bad. But his reaction was to throw his Starbucks coffee over my windscreen while furiously yelling at me. Me, I was a little sheepish, but otherwise bemused and amused by his overreaction, turned on my wipers but otherwise continued my day unperturbed. In another world, he would have lost a few extra seconds of his day to traffic. But instead, by overreacting, he blew his blood pressure through the roof and was down one coffee.
Better cranberry juice than beer. I did have some wine last month and that will do for a while.
Perhaps this is a case of differing definitions.
Isn't Labour's £45 membership a bit steep? And rather odd that you could vote in the leadership election for just £3 when being a member is so expensive. Maybe it would be a good idea for the party to reduce the membership charge to say £30 and end the £3 sign ons for the next contest.
Is there a Chinese word for 'alleged'?
Time has not healed the emotion. But perhaps my feeling is deeper than hate, and I'm not sure what word best describes it.
Then again, I'm a bit of a coward when it comes to physical violence. I did spot him twenty years ago whilst I was out in the relevant area with a girlfriend. I just ran, leaving a very puzzled girlfriend behind.
And I completely wasted my youth. And my time at University (bar the last couple of years when I started going out with my wife). Its depressing. What a waste of life.
I often wonder, if I had a do over and was less responsible and more adventurous and fun-oriented at college, how would I have turned out. Would I be better off, or much worse? It's not clear either way.
But I agree with you on spending limits!
On wariness of donors, I remember with mild affection the only person who ever bothered to bribe me, in a way (apart from the dubious Azerbaijani donor who I've mentioned before who I declined). When I stood in 1983 I argued for the Government or GLC to set up a Rightmove-like register for tenancies, on which all landlords would be required to register vacancies, so that tenants could choose the best bargains without dragging themselves around umpteen agents.
I lost, of course, but afterwards I was asked to lunch by an estate agent to discuss the idea. I accepted out of curiosity, and he said, "I'd like to pay the bill for this lunch. My motive is that if you are one day in a position to implement your idea, which I quite like, I'd like you to let me know, so I can put in a bid for the tender - I reckon I'd do a good job. I don't want you to influence the outcome, but I don't want to miss out on the chance to apply. Fair enough?"
I was tickled by his frankness, and gracefully accepted the lunch, worth I think about £10-15. I promised to let him know if it arose (though I'd have done that without the lunch). And here we are, 30 years later, and I still remember him.
Slight difference
at least he didn't get a parliamentary entry pass for "said piglet" too have tea on the terrace?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Project-Fear-Unlikely-Alliance-Kingdom/dp/1849549311/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1442865112&sr=1-1
Well I would have said that after Blair had gone you were left with Brown and his influence rather than any sort of 'oh let's just shrug our shoulders and get re-elected who cares what for' attitude .
Corbyn has now resigned I believe as chairman of Stop the War. But essentially that outlook is what is now aiming to run Labour. They have been gifted the opportunity and they have taken it. It really does not matter if Corbyn is a good average or useless leader. Labour are now what they are and it is not what they were before the election.
When I was younger I was religious. I cured myself of that but I remain very moral in an almost puritanical way. Days like today make me wonder why.
I know wikipedia isn't everything but it's a very er... interesting entry.
'The Piers Gaveston Society is a men-only dining club founded in 1977 at the University of Oxford with membership limited to 12 undergraduates.[1] It is named in honour of Piers Gaveston, favourite and supposed lover of King Edward II of England.
The club's motto is "Fane [sic] non memini ne audisse unum alterum ita dilixisse"[5] which translates approximately to "Truly, none remember hearing of a man enjoying another so much"[4] or, "Certainly I do not remember that I have heard of any man who loved another like this."
Okay guys.