I suspect Cock-up not conspiracy. But if he's guilty, out he should go. After all, think of all those Stokies who were hoodwinked into believing he was a local. And being Kippers, they'll be easily hoodwinked.
And Nicola Sturgeon is a Brummie.
He's not going to be elected while Brexit is on course.
The guidance seems clear. It has to be your CURRENT home address when you complete the form.
Politicians often get "confused" as to where they live.
Did not Jack Straw manage to get "confused" as to whether he was living in Blackburn, Lancs? When it came to paying his council tax, he wasn't there & so could claim a discount; when it came to claiming it back, he was.
Jack Straw's offence seems worse to me than Nuttall's.
Remind me, what happened to Jack Straw over this confusion over his home address?
That would be different legislation with different penalties. Under the Representation of the People Act you will be disqualified if you don't do things right, provided the complaint is made within the time limit.
I understand that, of course.
I am pointing out how it looks. It is not a big deal to almost everyone.
(I have no wish to defend Nuttall. I am sure if our positions were reversed, Nuttall would want the full force of the law to come down on YBarddCwsc).
If UKIP were as petty as to try and win on where the opposition were living 24hrs ago, I don't think I would vote for them. No normal person would have the lack of street cred to act the Traffic Warden
Indeed, sometimes politicians can get so "confused" that even when they remember their current address, they forget who is living with them.
Jack Straw "forgets" his current address, ah, no worries, he's very busy, can't be expected to remember.
Kitty Ussher "forgets" her current address, ah, no worries, she's very busy, can't be expected to remember.
Tessa Munt "forgets" who's living with her at her current address, ah, no worries, she's very busy, can't be expected to remember.
Paul Nuttall "forgets" his current address, right, you bastard, you're nicked mate, you'll pay for this. Lifetime disqualification for all political offices.
There's the tale of the two Browns:
' Spot the difference(s)
Case A: Alan Bown gave a political party £363,697
1) It was his money 2) He had a business trading in this country, making him eligible to donate money 3) He was not on the electoral register when he donated although he was the year before, and also the year afterwards.
Case B: Michael Brown gave a political party £2.4m 1) It was not his money, he had defrauded it 2) His business was not trading in the UK, so therefore he was ineligible to donate money 3) He was not on the electoral register; neither was he the year afterwards, nor the year before.
Do you see the difference(s)? Well the main difference is that the Electoral Commission has doggedly pursued the Alan Bown donation, and today won an appeal forcing the party to give up the money, despite a judge previously ruling that the political party that received it had acted in good faith.
In the Michael Brown case the Electoral Commission has always maintained the political party acted in good faith and need not repay money. Although following the criminal proceedings against Mr Brown they have re-opened an investigation, it has not had yet had any result and they have not managed to say when, if ever, it will.
Oh yes there is one other difference:
This year the Political Parties and Elections Act went through Parliament, and among other things it restructured the Electoral Commission and gave it new funding and powers.
The political party in Case A, UKIP, has no MPs and only three representatives in the House of Lords (where the government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).
The political party in Case B, the Liberal Democrats, has 63 MPs and 71 members of the House of Lords (where the Government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).
At least those are the difference that I can see. Perhaps you can you suggest others? '
But Parliament is deciding on the immigration rules?
Doesn't say that
Separately, more hardline Conservative MPs will be uneasy that the document suggests that the end to free movement of people may not come immediately after Brexit. “Implementing any new immigration arrangements for EU nationals and the support they receive will be complex,” the document says. “There may be a phased process of implementation to prepare for the new arrangements.”
Theresa May will have to put her plans for changing immigration rules before parliament, and the free movement of European people might not be curtailed instantly, the government’s Brexit white paper revealed.
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
Every cloud!
It's official confirmation that your supposed reason for voting to Leave ("changing neighbourhoods" apart) was a pile of bollocks.
" "changing neighbourhoods" apart" haha
Bloody Polish supermarkets displacing our local milliner and haberdashery emporia.
Oh right! So apart from immigration, which I bang on endlessly about almost all the time, todays DD speech or whatever it was is official confirmation that my supposed reason for voting to Leave was a pile of bollocks.
Fair do's you know best!
True Sam. You have always disliked immigration and I apologise for misrepresenting you by saying you were worried about sovereignty.
I was lumping you in with those posters who said that sovereignty was an issue for them.
But Parliament is deciding on the immigration rules?
Doesn't say that
Separately, more hardline Conservative MPs will be uneasy that the document suggests that the end to free movement of people may not come immediately after Brexit. “Implementing any new immigration arrangements for EU nationals and the support they receive will be complex,” the document says. “There may be a phased process of implementation to prepare for the new arrangements.”
That implies there will be new arrangements, and the earlier quote stated that May will put her plans before Parliament. Sure, it may not be instantaneous, but that doesn't change the fact Parliament will actually be deciding.
Theresa May will have to put her plans for changing immigration rules before parliament, and the free movement of European people might not be curtailed instantly, the government’s Brexit white paper revealed.
Theresa May will have to put her plans for changing immigration rules before parliament, and the free movement of European people might not be curtailed instantly, the government’s Brexit white paper revealed.
A question. MPs used to 'flip' their homes when they had a 2nd property in the constituency. And presumably (even if they don't do that so much), they still have to nominate their main home for tax purposes. So, at the last election, how many MPs choose one address as their main home and a different one for the nomination papers? If Nuttall goes down, how many more will follow?
I'm not sure this proves anything, but here is the list of candidates from Witney in 2015:
Cameron's address is his constituency address, yet he didn't vote in Witney in the referendum.
That wouldn't have been his "current home", would it?
I guess the address in the Witney nomination paper is then one with the nice kitchen that he showed off in the Lansdale interview. I guess he wanted to vote for himself in the GE, but hen went back to having 10 Downing Street as his main address to avoid having to pay full CT on the Witney house. I guess this happens with a lot of MPs.
Theresa May will have to put her plans for changing immigration rules before parliament, and the free movement of European people might not be curtailed instantly, the government’s Brexit white paper revealed.
Sometimes your stupidity is so staggering that we must all be sitting around wondering if anyone can really be that dumb.
Of course May will have to put her plans before Parliament. That is what this is all about. Our own elected representatives making decisions based on what they perceive is best for the country rather than surrendering that right and responsibility to a supranational organisation. At some point in the future the UK electorate might vote in a Parliament in favour of more immigration. Or one in favour of far less. But whatever it does it will be Parliament - answerable to the electorate - that decides.
Let's get Brexit done and dusted and then the Liberals might get their 'crawling back to Europe to kiss arse' plan dumped, and I can vote for them again.
I've only voted at one GE for the Kippers and I'm bored already (although they are more interesting than Farron's Fanatics).
Mr TSE, I reckon your heart's with the yellow peril.
Nonsense. I will always be a Tory.
I prefer to remain inside the tent, trying to remind the Tory party of its internationalist, free trade, one nation, economic liberalism.
Plus George will need my support when he becomes Tory leader/PM in the not to distance future.
Plus the Liberal Democrats and I aren't soulmates, especially under Tim Farron.
There doesn't seem to be any political party for economic liberals at the moment.
Conservative economic liberals like Osborne sent to the back benches
Liberal economic liberals outed by the electorate and social liberal Farron in charge.
I think I know what my thread on Sunday will be about.
Haven't done a proper clickbait provocative article in ages.
Mmmm, good plan, but what does it say about Cameron and Osborne that a collection of Keystone Kop bozos like Ukip wrung their necks like a brace of chicken?
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Sometimes your stupidity is so staggering that we must all be sitting around wondering if anyone can really be that dumb.
You seem very tetchy this evening, Richard. A preview of this perhaps...
more hardline Conservative MPs will be uneasy that the document suggests that the end to free movement of people may not come immediately after Brexit.
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
I suspect Cock-up not conspiracy. But if he's guilty, out he should go. After all, think of all those Stokies who were hoodwinked into believing he was a local. And being Kippers, they'll be easily hoodwinked.
And Nicola Sturgeon is a Brummie.
He's not going to be elected while Brexit is on course.
The guidance seems clear. It has to be your CURRENT home address when you complete the form.
Politicians often get "confused" as to where they live.
Did not Jack Straw manage to get "confused" as to whether he was living in Blackburn, Lancs? When it came to paying his council tax, he wasn't there & so could claim a discount; when it came to claiming it back, he was.
Jack Straw's offence seems worse to me than Nuttall's.
Remind me, what happened to Jack Straw over this confusion over his home address?
Not to mention the changing of addresses for expenses troughing and tax avoidance purposes.
For example Kitty Ussher who was once praised to the skies by OGH:
' the one I think could have a dramatic impact – Kitty Ussher.
Kitty, who went to Balliol College Oxford, came into the commons as MP for Burnley in 2005 and last year succeeded Ed Balls as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. She is going places. Most of all she is bright, highly articulate, and good on TV. She comes over as a member of the human race and is a season ticket holder at the club I have supported all my life – Burnley FC. '
Well Kitty Ussher did have a dramatic impact - Labour lost Burnley for the first time since 1931.
Indeed, sometimes politicians can get so "confused" that even when they remember their current address, they forget who is living with them.
Whiter-than-white LibDem MP, Tessa Munt had been claiming a single persons discount at her Wells home, but forgot she was living with the local GP & Andy Kershaw & Justine McGuinness, all of whom were living with her because they were registered to vote at her address.
I am seriously, how does this look:
Jack Straw "forgets" his current address, ah, no worries, he's very busy, can't be expected to remember.
Kitty Ussher "forgets" her current address, ah, no worries, she's very busy, can't be expected to remember.
Tessa Munt "forgets" who's living with her at her current address, ah, no worries, she's very busy, can't be expected to remember.
Paul Nuttall "forgets" his current address, right, you bastard, you're nicked mate, you'll pay for this. Lifetime disqualification for all political offices.
Let's get Brexit done and dusted and then the Liberals might get their 'crawling back to Europe to kiss arse' plan dumped, and I can vote for them again.
I've only voted at one GE for the Kippers and I'm bored already (although they are more interesting than Farron's Fanatics).
Mr TSE, I reckon your heart's with the yellow peril.
Nonsense. I will always be a Tory.
I prefer to remain inside the tent, trying to remind the Tory party of its internationalist, free trade, one nation, economic liberalism.
Plus George will need my support when he becomes Tory leader/PM in the not to distance future.
Plus the Liberal Democrats and I aren't soulmates, especially under Tim Farron.
There doesn't seem to be any political party for economic liberals at the moment.
Conservative economic liberals like Osborne sent to the back benches
Liberal economic liberals outed by the electorate and social liberal Farron in charge.
Labour have never been economic liberals.
UKIP seem to be protectionist.
Greens are all for state intervention.
You think George 'borrow and bribe' Osborne is an economic liberal ???
Triple lock pensions ? Subsidised house prices ? Seven hundred billion quid of borrowed money ? Endless Budgetary tax tinkering ? Arselicking China for 'investment' ?
Sometimes your stupidity is so staggering that we must all be sitting around wondering if anyone can really be that dumb.
You seem very tetchy this evening, Richard. A preview of this perhaps...
more hardline Conservative MPs will be uneasy that the document suggests that the end to free movement of people may not come immediately after Brexit.
Why should that bother me? I am one of those who wants complete freedom of movement for everyone (except those who are a danger to others). I want people to be able to come to the UK from anywhere in the world. I won't get it of course as it is a very minority view but I am certainly not sorry about keeping free movement of people.
Sometimes your stupidity is so staggering that we must all be sitting around wondering if anyone can really be that dumb.
Of course May will have to put her plans before Parliament. That is what this is all about. Our own elected representatives making decisions based on what they perceive is best for the country rather than surrendering that right and responsibility to a supranational organisation. At some point in the future the UK electorate might vote in a Parliament in favour of more immigration. Or one in favour of far less. But whatever it does it will be Parliament - answerable to the electorate - that decides.
"This House decrees that it would be best for the country if all the Nobel Laureates in the world moved to Stockton-on-Tees."
I think I know what my thread on Sunday will be about.
Haven't done a proper clickbait provocative article in ages.
Mmmm, good plan, but what does it say about Cameron and Osborne that a collection of Keystone Kop bozos like Ukip wrung their necks like a brace of chicken?
That Cameron and Osborne were a pair of mediocre toffs who fluked their way into the two most important jobs in the country.
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Hmmmmm you vs David Davies.
Tough call.
He is a politician. Who knows why he writes stuff. It certainly doesn't make him right. Learn some basic English and you might start to understand it all a bit better.
To help you along
The legal definition of Sovereignty is: "the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Hmmmmm you vs David Davies.
Tough call.
He is a politician. Who knows why he writes stuff. It certainly doesn't make him right. Learn some basic English and you might start to understand it all a bit better.
To help you along
The legal definition of Sovereignty is: "the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
That's a very interesting definition, for lots of reasons.
Sometimes your stupidity is so staggering that we must all be sitting around wondering if anyone can really be that dumb.
Of course May will have to put her plans before Parliament. That is what this is all about. Our own elected representatives making decisions based on what they perceive is best for the country rather than surrendering that right and responsibility to a supranational organisation. At some point in the future the UK electorate might vote in a Parliament in favour of more immigration. Or one in favour of far less. But whatever it does it will be Parliament - answerable to the electorate - that decides.
"This House decrees that it would be best for the country if all the Nobel Laureates in the world moved to Stockton-on-Tees."
Theresa May will have to put her plans for changing immigration rules before parliament, and the free movement of European people might not be curtailed instantly, the government’s Brexit white paper revealed.
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Hmmmmm you vs David Davies.
Tough call.
He is a politician. Who knows why he writes stuff. It certainly doesn't make him right. Learn some basic English and you might start to understand it all a bit better.
To help you along
The legal definition of Sovereignty is: "the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
That's a very interesting definition, for lots of reasons.
It's a purist's definition, which is clearly very much tempered in practice. Otherwise there could be no resolution of trade disputes and whatnot.
Sometimes your stupidity is so staggering that we must all be sitting around wondering if anyone can really be that dumb.
Of course May will have to put her plans before Parliament. That is what this is all about. Our own elected representatives making decisions based on what they perceive is best for the country rather than surrendering that right and responsibility to a supranational organisation. At some point in the future the UK electorate might vote in a Parliament in favour of more immigration. Or one in favour of far less. But whatever it does it will be Parliament - answerable to the electorate - that decides.
"This House decrees that it would be best for the country if all the Nobel Laureates in the world moved to Stockton-on-Tees."
And lo, they did not come.
More meaningless rubbish from you there WIlliam.
I was merely trying to convey in a humorous way that the affairs of the nation can never be fully controlled from Parliament without interference from outside sources. To believe it can is one step removed in nuttiness from believing that a cabal of Bilderbergers controls everything.
The rest of the world will leave its mark on us whether we like it or not.
1) It was his money 2) He had a business trading in this country, making him eligible to donate money 3) He was not on the electoral register when he donated although he was the year before, and also the year afterwards.
Case B: Michael Brown gave a political party £2.4m 1) It was not his money, he had defrauded it 2) His business was not trading in the UK, so therefore he was ineligible to donate money 3) He was not on the electoral register; neither was he the year afterwards, nor the year before.
Do you see the difference(s)? Well the main difference is that the Electoral Commission has doggedly pursued the Alan Bown donation, and today won an appeal forcing the party to give up the money, despite a judge previously ruling that the political party that received it had acted in good faith.
In the Michael Brown case the Electoral Commission has always maintained the political party acted in good faith and need not repay money. Although following the criminal proceedings against Mr Brown they have re-opened an investigation, it has not had yet had any result and they have not managed to say when, if ever, it will.
Oh yes there is one other difference:
This year the Political Parties and Elections Act went through Parliament, and among other things it restructured the Electoral Commission and gave it new funding and powers.
The political party in Case A, UKIP, has no MPs and only three representatives in the House of Lords (where the government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).
The political party in Case B, the Liberal Democrats, has 63 MPs and 71 members of the House of Lords (where the Government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).
At least those are the difference that I can see. Perhaps you can you suggest others? '
Did the LibDems ever return any of Michael Brown's donation ?
It seems there are further investigations into him:
' A MILLIONAIRE fraudster is facing a fresh money-laundering investigation after a court in Majorca reopened the case.
Spanish authorities want to find out if the disgraced Lib Dem donor Michael Brown used cash from the victims of his scams to fund his luxury lifestyle on the holiday island. '
I suspect Cock-up not conspiracy. But if he's guilty, out he should go. After all, think of all those Stokies who were hoodwinked into believing he was a local. And being Kippers, they'll be easily hoodwinked.
And Nicola Sturgeon is a Brummie.
He's not going to be elected while Brexit is on course.
The guidance seems clear. It has to be your CURRENT home address when you complete the form.
Politicians often get "confused" as to where they live.
Did not Jack Straw manage to get "confused" as to whether he was living in Blackburn, Lancs? When it came to paying his council tax, he wasn't there & so could claim a discount; when it came to claiming it back, he was.
Jack Straw's offence seems worse to me than Nuttall's.
Remind me, what happened to Jack Straw over this confusion over his home address?
That would be different legislation with different penalties. Under the Representation of the People Act you will be disqualified if you don't do things right, provided the complaint is made within the time limit.
I understand that, of course.
I am pointing out how it looks. It is not a big deal to almost everyone.
(I have no wish to defend Nuttall. I am sure if our positions were reversed, Nuttall would want the full force of the law to come down on YBarddCwsc).
If UKIP were as petty as to try and win on where the opposition were living 24hrs ago, I don't think I would vote for them. No normal person would have the lack of street cred to act the Traffic Warden
Street cred! Haven't heard that used seriously since The Face was a force in the land.
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Hmmmmm you vs David Davies.
Tough call.
He is a politician. Who knows why he writes stuff. It certainly doesn't make him right. Learn some basic English and you might start to understand it all a bit better.
To help you along
The legal definition of Sovereignty is: "the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
That's a very interesting definition, for lots of reasons.
In national terms it is the definition based upon the two Treaties of Westphalia which cemented the position of the nation state.
Now of course it is entirely possible to argue that such sovereignty is undesirable and that an alternative relationship would be better. But that would not then mean that Parliament - nor the ruling arrangements of other countries - were sovereign. One can argue about the desirability of a particular concept but it is daft to try to do so by pretending the concept is still valid when you have negated it.
Sometimes your stupidity is so staggering that we must all be sitting around wondering if anyone can really be that dumb.
Of course May will have to put her plans before Parliament. That is what this is all about. Our own elected representatives making decisions based on what they perceive is best for the country rather than surrendering that right and responsibility to a supranational organisation. At some point in the future the UK electorate might vote in a Parliament in favour of more immigration. Or one in favour of far less. But whatever it does it will be Parliament - answerable to the electorate - that decides.
"This House decrees that it would be best for the country if all the Nobel Laureates in the world moved to Stockton-on-Tees."
And lo, they did not come.
More meaningless rubbish from you there WIlliam.
I was merely trying to convey in a humorous way that the affairs of the nation can never be fully controlled from Parliament without interference from outside sources. To believe it can is one step removed in nuttiness from believing that a cabal of Bilderbergers controls everything.
The rest of the world will leave its mark on us whether we like it or not.
I suspect Cock-up not conspiracy. But if he's guilty, out he should go. After all, think of all those Stokies who were hoodwinked into believing he was a local. And being Kippers, they'll be easily hoodwinked.
And Nicola Sturgeon is a Brummie.
He's not going to be elected while Brexit is on course.
The guidance seems clear. It has to be your CURRENT home address when you complete the form.
Politicians often get "confused" as to where they live.
Did not Jack Straw manage to get "confused" as to whether he was living in Blackburn, Lancs? When it came to paying his council tax, he wasn't there & so could claim a discount; when it came to claiming it back, he was.
Jack Straw's offence seems worse to me than Nuttall's.
Remind me, what happened to Jack Straw over this confusion over his home address?
That would be different legislation with different penalties. Under the Representation of the People Act you will be disqualified if you don't do things right, provided the complaint is made within the time limit.
I understand that, of course.
I am pointing out how it looks. It is not a big deal to almost everyone.
(I have no wish to defend Nuttall. I am sure if our positions were reversed, Nuttall would want the full force of the law to come down on YBarddCwsc).
If UKIP were as petty as to try and win on where the opposition were living 24hrs ago, I don't think I would vote for them. No normal person would have the lack of street cred to act the Traffic Warden
Street cred! Haven't heard that used seriously since The Face was a force in the land.
Who used it seriously?!
I am still reeling from the bombshell that you would vote to stay in the UK if Farage campaigned for Scottish Independence!
Sometimes your stupidity is so staggering that we must all be sitting around wondering if anyone can really be that dumb.
Of course May will have to put her plans before Parliament. That is what this is all about. Our own elected representatives making decisions based on what they perceive is best for the country rather than surrendering that right and responsibility to a supranational organisation. At some point in the future the UK electorate might vote in a Parliament in favour of more immigration. Or one in favour of far less. But whatever it does it will be Parliament - answerable to the electorate - that decides.
"This House decrees that it would be best for the country if all the Nobel Laureates in the world moved to Stockton-on-Tees."
And lo, they did not come.
More meaningless rubbish from you there WIlliam.
I was merely trying to convey in a humorous way that the affairs of the nation can never be fully controlled from Parliament without interference from outside sources. To believe it can is one step removed in nuttiness from believing that a cabal of Bilderbergers controls everything.
The rest of the world will leave its mark on us whether we like it or not.
Like I said, it was meaningless.
Perhaps meaningless in the context of 17th century Europe which in your mind's eye represents the end point of all history.
Sometimes your stupidity is so staggering that we must all be sitting around wondering if anyone can really be that dumb.
Of course May will have to put her plans before Parliament. That is what this is all about. Our own elected representatives making decisions based on what they perceive is best for the country rather than surrendering that right and responsibility to a supranational organisation. At some point in the future the UK electorate might vote in a Parliament in favour of more immigration. Or one in favour of far less. But whatever it does it will be Parliament - answerable to the electorate - that decides.
"This House decrees that it would be best for the country if all the Nobel Laureates in the world moved to Stockton-on-Tees."
And lo, they did not come.
More meaningless rubbish from you there WIlliam.
I was merely trying to convey in a humorous way that the affairs of the nation can never be fully controlled from Parliament without interference from outside sources. To believe it can is one step removed in nuttiness from believing that a cabal of Bilderbergers controls everything.
The rest of the world will leave its mark on us whether we like it or not.
Like I said, it was meaningless.
"No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind."
If you'd like to hum movingly under your breath while reading that, do feel free.
Sometimes your stupidity is so staggering that we must all be sitting around wondering if anyone can really be that dumb.
Of course May will have to put her plans before Parliament. That is what this is all about. Our own elected representatives making decisions based on what they perceive is best for the country rather than surrendering that right and responsibility to a supranational organisation. At some point in the future the UK electorate might vote in a Parliament in favour of more immigration. Or one in favour of far less. But whatever it does it will be Parliament - answerable to the electorate - that decides.
"This House decrees that it would be best for the country if all the Nobel Laureates in the world moved to Stockton-on-Tees."
And lo, they did not come.
More meaningless rubbish from you there WIlliam.
I was merely trying to convey in a humorous way that the affairs of the nation can never be fully controlled from Parliament without interference from outside sources. To believe it can is one step removed in nuttiness from believing that a cabal of Bilderbergers controls everything.
The rest of the world will leave its mark on us whether we like it or not.
Like I said, it was meaningless.
Perhaps meaningless in the context of 17th century Europe which in your mind's eye represents the end point of all history.
Not at all. It marks the start. It is from there that the concept of the nation state - one of the great bulwarks against perpetual war and one of the mainstays of democracy - has developed.
The Treaties of Westphalia are important because for the first time they produced a system that allowed differing groups of people both to live alongside each other in relative peace and also to develop their own systems of representative democracy. That is why it is so dangerous that people like Blair actively sought to subvert the concept.
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Hmmmmm you vs David Davies.
Tough call.
He is a politician. Who knows why he writes stuff. It certainly doesn't make him right. Learn some basic English and you might start to understand it all a bit better.
To help you along
The legal definition of Sovereignty is: "the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
That's a very interesting definition, for lots of reasons.
In national terms it is the definition based upon the two Treaties of Westphalia which cemented the position of the nation state.
Now of course it is entirely possible to argue that such sovereignty is undesirable and that an alternative relationship would be better. But that would not then mean that Parliament - nor the ruling arrangements of other countries - were sovereign. One can argue about the desirability of a particular concept but it is daft to try to do so by pretending the concept is still valid when you have negated it.
Sometimes your stupidity is so staggering that we must all be sitting around wondering if anyone can really be that dumb.
Of course May will have to put her plans before Parliament. That is what this is all about. Our own elected representatives making decisions based on what they perceive is best for the country rather than surrendering that right and responsibility to a supranational organisation. At some point in the future the UK electorate might vote in a Parliament in favour of more immigration. Or one in favour of far less. But whatever it does it will be Parliament - answerable to the electorate - that decides.
"This House decrees that it would be best for the country if all the Nobel Laureates in the world moved to Stockton-on-Tees."
And lo, they did not come.
More meaningless rubbish from you there WIlliam.
I was merely trying to convey in a humorous way that the affairs of the nation can never be fully controlled from Parliament without interference from outside sources. To believe it can is one step removed in nuttiness from believing that a cabal of Bilderbergers controls everything.
The rest of the world will leave its mark on us whether we like it or not.
Like I said, it was meaningless.
Perhaps meaningless in the context of 17th century Europe which in your mind's eye represents the end point of all history.
Not at all. It marks the start. It is from there that the concept of the nation state - one of the great bulwarks against perpetual war and one of the mainstays of democracy - has developed.
The Treaties of Westphalia are important because for the first time they produced a system that allowed differing groups of people both to live alongside each other in relative peace and also to develop their own systems of representative democracy. That is why it is so dangerous that people like Blair actively sought to subvert the concept.
Well I was a sceptic but you've won me over with that argument. The world was so peaceful between 1648 and 1997 until that devil Blair came along and subverted everything...
NHS in Kent cancels all "non-urgent" NHS Operations for the rest of this financial year. It's out of cash
West Kent clinical commissioning group is trying to save £3.2m by delaying non-urgent operations until April
An NHS body has run so short of money that it has banned patients in its area from having non-urgent surgery for up to 102 days in an unprecedented move that doctors have condemned as unfair and damaging.
Proudly wears his Don't blame me I voted Labour badge.
How does this affect Nuttall nonsense affect bet settlement? I would have thought bookies pay out on the result of the count, anyone know different?
I suspect Ladbrokes, PP or Hills would want to pay out and move on, but betfair might be more tempted to wait.
That would certainly run true to form, although PP and Betfair are now effectively one and the same organisation. That said, Betfair are in a fiduciary position, trusted to safeguard the interests of two opposing parties.
Sometimes your stupidity is so staggering that we must all be sitting around wondering if anyone can really be that dumb.
Of course May will have to put her plans before Parliament. That is what this is all about. Our own elected representatives making decisions based on what they perceive is best for the country rather than surrendering that right and responsibility to a supranational organisation. At some point in the future the UK electorate might vote in a Parliament in favour of more immigration. Or one in favour of far less. But whatever it does it will be Parliament - answerable to the electorate - that decides.
"This House decrees that it would be best for the country if all the Nobel Laureates in the world moved to Stockton-on-Tees."
And lo, they did not come.
More meaningless rubbish from you there WIlliam.
I was merely trying to convey in a humorous way that the affairs of the nation can never be fully controlled from Parliament without interference from outside sources. To believe it can is one step removed in nuttiness from believing that a cabal of Bilderbergers controls everything.
The rest of the world will leave its mark on us whether we like it or not.
Like I said, it was meaningless.
Perhaps meaningless in the context of 17th century Europe which in your mind's eye represents the end point of all history.
Not at all. It marks the start. It is from there that the concept of the nation state - one of the great bulwarks against perpetual war and one of the mainstays of democracy - has developed.
The Treaties of Westphalia are important because for the first time they produced a system that allowed differing groups of people both to live alongside each other in relative peace and also to develop their own systems of representative democracy. That is why it is so dangerous that people like Blair actively sought to subvert the concept.
Well I was a sceptic but you've won me over with that argument. The world was so peaceful between 1648 and 1997 until that devil Blair came along and subverted everything...
Compared to the thousand years before 1648 Europe has indeed been far more peaceful since. All you are showing tonight is how little you understand of the history of the continent you claim to be a citizen of.
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Hmmmmm you vs David Davies.
Tough call.
He is a politician. Who knows why he writes stuff. It certainly doesn't make him right. Learn some basic English and you might start to understand it all a bit better.
To help you along
The legal definition of Sovereignty is: "the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
That's a very interesting definition, for lots of reasons.
Sovereignty is a lot like pornography.
It is hard to describe, but I know it when I see it.
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Hmmmmm you vs David Davies.
Tough call.
He is a politician. Who knows why he writes stuff. It certainly doesn't make him right. Learn some basic English and you might start to understand it all a bit better.
To help you along
The legal definition of Sovereignty is: "the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
That's a very interesting definition, for lots of reasons.
In national terms it is the definition based upon the two Treaties of Westphalia which cemented the position of the nation state.
Now of course it is entirely possible to argue that such sovereignty is undesirable and that an alternative relationship would be better. But that would not then mean that Parliament - nor the ruling arrangements of other countries - were sovereign. One can argue about the desirability of a particular concept but it is daft to try to do so by pretending the concept is still valid when you have negated it.
What a fucking dolt you are.
Ah yet another ignoramus. I gather you need lessons in history as well as basic English comprehension.
Let's get Brexit done and dusted and then the Liberals might get their 'crawling back to Europe to kiss arse' plan dumped, and I can vote for them again.
I've only voted at one GE for the Kippers and I'm bored already (although they are more interesting than Farron's Fanatics).
Mr TSE, I reckon your heart's with the yellow peril.
Nonsense. I will always be a Tory.
I prefer to remain inside the tent, trying to remind the Tory party of its internationalist, free trade, one nation, economic liberalism.
Plus George will need my support when he becomes Tory leader/PM in the not to distance future.
Plus the Liberal Democrats and I aren't soulmates, especially under Tim Farron.
There doesn't seem to be any political party for economic liberals at the moment.
Conservative economic liberals like Osborne sent to the back benches
Liberal economic liberals outed by the electorate and social liberal Farron in charge.
Labour have never been economic liberals.
UKIP seem to be protectionist.
Greens are all for state intervention.
Ironically economic liberals seem to be doing better in France at the moment than the U.K., the US and Germany given the rise of Macron but Hamon is now snapping at his heels on a more left-wing agenda in the latest polls
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Hmmmmm you vs David Davies.
Tough call.
He is a politician. Who knows why he writes stuff. It certainly doesn't make him right. Learn some basic English and you might start to understand it all a bit better.
To help you along
The legal definition of Sovereignty is: "the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
That's a very interesting definition, for lots of reasons.
In national terms it is the definition based upon the two Treaties of Westphalia which cemented the position of the nation state.
Now of course it is entirely possible to argue that such sovereignty is undesirable and that an alternative relationship would be better. But that would not then mean that Parliament - nor the ruling arrangements of other countries - were sovereign. One can argue about the desirability of a particular concept but it is daft to try to do so by pretending the concept is still valid when you have negated it.
What a fucking dolt you are.
Ah yet another ignoramus. I gather you need lessons in history as well as basic English comprehension.
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Hmmmmm you vs David Davies.
Tough call.
Do you mean David Davis?
Ha yes I changed it but wasn't sure off the top of my head.
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Hmmmmm you vs David Davies.
Tough call.
Do you mean David Davis?
Even when it is someone I often disagree with, my heart goes out to posters when they make a spelling mistake while trying to be a smarty pants.
The PB equivalent of striding confidently from the gents... with toilet paper stuck on your shoe
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Hmmmmm you vs David Davies.
Tough call.
Do you mean David Davis?
Even when it is someone I often disagree with, my heart goes out to posters when they make a spelling mistake while trying to be a smarty pants.
The PB equivalent of striding confidently from the gents... with toilet paper stuck on your shoe
Still laughing at some on here (@Tyndall talking to you) who told us that Brexiter-in-Chief DD "got it wrong" about our sovereignty.
As Brexiters go PB Leavers are ants on the backside of proper Tory Party Euroloons.
This will keep me amused for a long long long time.
He (if it was he who wrote it) did get it wrong. Clearly you are another one who is too fecking dumb to understand the basic meaning of words. Its no wonder with that lack of intelligence that you are a Europhile.
Hmmmmm you vs David Davies.
Tough call.
Do you mean David Davis?
Even when it is someone I often disagree with, my heart goes out to posters when they make a spelling mistake while trying to be a smarty pants.
The PB equivalent of striding confidently from the gents... with toilet paper stuck on your shoe
Wrong David Davi(e)s.
Not strictly a spelling mistake.
Oh you were confused by the two men with similar names?! You thought David Davies was the Brexit Sec? I see, easy mistake to make
I suspect Cock-up not conspiracy. But if he's guilty, out he should go. After all, think of all those Stokies who were hoodwinked into believing he was a local. And being Kippers, they'll be easily hoodwinked.
And Nicola Sturgeon is a Brummie.
He's not going to be elected while Brexit is on course.
The guidance seems clear. It has to be your CURRENT home address when you complete the form.
Politicians often get "confused" as to where they live.
Did not Jack Straw manage to get "confused" as to whether he was living in Blackburn, Lancs? When it came to paying his council tax, he wasn't there & so could claim a discount; when it came to claiming it back, he was.
Jack Straw's offence seems worse to me than Nuttall's.
Remind me, what happened to Jack Straw over this confusion over his home address?
That would be different legislation with different penalties. Under the Representation of the People Act you will be disqualified if you don't do things right, provided the complaint is made within the time limit.
I understand that, of course.
I am pointing out how it looks. It is not a big deal to almost everyone.
(I have no wish to defend Nuttall. I am sure if our positions were reversed, Nuttall would want the full force of the law to come down on YBarddCwsc).
If UKIP were as petty as to try and win on where the opposition were living 24hrs ago, I don't think I would vote for them. No normal person would have the lack of street cred to act the Traffic Warden
Street cred! Haven't heard that used seriously since The Face was a force in the land.
Who used it seriously?!
I am still reeling from the bombshell that you would vote to stay in the UK if Farage campaigned for Scottish Independence!
'a successful campaign for an independent Scotland being dependent on the support of someone like Farage'
I suspect Cock-up not conspiracy. But if he's guilty, out he should go. After all, think of all those Stokies who were hoodwinked into believing he was a local. And being Kippers, they'll be easily hoodwinked.
And Nicola Sturgeon is a Brummie.
He's not going to be elected while Brexit is on course.
The guidance seems clear. It has to be your CURRENT home address when you complete the form.
Politicians often get "confused" as to where they live.
Did not Jack Straw manage to get "confused" as to whether he was living in Blackburn, Lancs? When it came to paying his council tax, he wasn't there & so could claim a discount; when it came to claiming it back, he was.
Jack Straw's offence seems worse to me than Nuttall's.
Remind me, what happened to Jack Straw over this confusion over his home address?
That would be different legislation with different penalties. Under the Representation of the People Act you will be disqualified if you don't do things right, provided the complaint is made within the time limit.
I understand that, of course.
I am pointing out how it looks. It is not a big deal to almost everyone.
(I have no wish to defend Nuttall. I am sure if our positions were reversed, Nuttall would want the full force of the law to come down on YBarddCwsc).
If UKIP were as petty as to try and win on where the opposition were living 24hrs ago, I don't think I would vote for them. No normal person would have the lack of street cred to act the Traffic Warden
Street cred! Haven't heard that used seriously since The Face was a force in the land.
Who used it seriously?!
I am still reeling from the bombshell that you would vote to stay in the UK if Farage campaigned for Scottish Independence!
'a successful campaign for an independent Scotland being dependent on the support of someone like Farage'
I suspect Cock-up not conspiracy. But if he's guilty, out he should go. After all, think of all those Stokies who were hoodwinked into believing he was a local. And being Kippers, they'll be easily hoodwinked.
And Nicola Sturgeon is a Brummie.
He's not going to be elected while Brexit is on course.
The guidance seems clear. It has to be your CURRENT home address when you complete the form.
Politicians often get "confused" as to where they live.
Did not Jack Straw manage to get "confused" as to whether he was living in Blackburn, Lancs? When it came to paying his council tax, he wasn't there & so could claim a discount; when it came to claiming it back, he was.
Jack Straw's offence seems worse to me than Nuttall's.
Remind me, what happened to Jack Straw over this confusion over his home address?
That would be different legislation with different penalties. Under the Representation of the People Act you will be disqualified if you don't do things right, provided the complaint is made within the time limit.
I understand that, of course.
I am pointing out how it looks. It is not a big deal to almost everyone.
(I have no wish to defend Nuttall. I am sure if our positions were reversed, Nuttall would want the full force of the law to come down on YBarddCwsc).
If UKIP were as petty as to try and win on where the opposition were living 24hrs ago, I don't think I would vote for them. No normal person would have the lack of street cred to act the Traffic Warden
Street cred! Haven't heard that used seriously since The Face was a force in the land.
Who used it seriously?!
I am still reeling from the bombshell that you would vote to stay in the UK if Farage campaigned for Scottish Independence!
'a successful campaign for an independent Scotland being dependent on the support of someone like Farage'
Reading comprehension D-.
I don't think you really want to leave us!
If the 'us' didn't include Farage and the people who vote for him, yeah, I might spend longer than 2 seconds before putting my cross in the Yes box.
I suspect Cock-up not conspiracy. But if he's guilty, out he should go. After all, think of all those Stokies who were hoodwinked into believing he was a local. And being Kippers, they'll be easily hoodwinked.
And Nicola Sturgeon is a Brummie.
He's not going to be elected while Brexit is on course.
The guidance seems clear. It has to be your CURRENT home address when you complete the form.
Politicians often get "confused" as to where they live.
Did not Jack Straw manage to get "confused" as to whether he was living in Blackburn, Lancs? When it came to paying his council tax, he wasn't there & so could claim a discount; when it came to claiming it back, he was.
Jack Straw's offence seems worse to me than Nuttall's.
Remind me, what happened to Jack Straw over this confusion over his home address?
That would be different legislation with different penalties. Under the Representation of the People Act you will be disqualified if you don't do things right, provided the complaint is made within the time limit.
I understand that, of course.
I am pointing out how it looks. It is not a big deal to almost everyone.
(I have no wish to defend Nuttall. I am sure if our positions were reversed, Nuttall would want the full force of the law to come down on YBarddCwsc).
If UKIP were as petty as to try and win on where the opposition were living 24hrs ago, I don't think I would vote for them. No normal person would have the lack of street cred to act the Traffic Warden
Street cred! Haven't heard that used seriously since The Face was a force in the land.
Who used it seriously?!
I am still reeling from the bombshell that you would vote to stay in the UK if Farage campaigned for Scottish Independence!
'a successful campaign for an independent Scotland being dependent on the support of someone like Farage'
Reading comprehension D-.
I don't think you really want to leave us!
If the 'us' didn't include Farage and the people who vote for him, yeah, I might spend longer than 2 seconds before putting my cross in the Yes box.
10 secs maybe.
It takes all sorts divvie, every country has got them. You have to "tolerate"
NHS in Kent cancels all "non-urgent" NHS Operations for the rest of this financial year. It's out of cash
West Kent clinical commissioning group is trying to save £3.2m by delaying non-urgent operations until April
An NHS body has run so short of money that it has banned patients in its area from having non-urgent surgery for up to 102 days in an unprecedented move that doctors have condemned as unfair and damaging.
Proudly wears his Don't blame me I voted Labour badge.
I wouldn't be using Kent as a criticism of Conservative NHS policy when Labour presided over this:
' In 2007, the local NHS trust and Maidstone Hospital were involved in a scandal when 90 patients at the hospital may have died as a direct result of contracting the superbug c-diff in an outbreak that began in 2006. A subsequent investigation found these infections to be the result of dirty and overcrowded conditions at the hospital.
The report also revealed that the outbreak contributed to a further 240 deaths, although the report does not note if this would have changed the outcome for these patients. More than 1,150 people were ultimately infected. '
Perhaps the 'dirty and overcrowded conditions at the hospital' were the fault of the pre 1997 government or the post 2010 government.
The BBC report gave some gruesome details:
' These included the shortage of nurses, which in turn led to poor care for patients.
For instance, nurses did not have time to wash their hands properly, and left patients to lie in their own excrement because they had not been able to assist them to a commode.
The report found that shortages were so dire that nurses told patients to "go in their beds".
Patients with C.difficile were also moved between wards, increasing the risk of infection.
In some instances this was due to concerns about meeting the government's targets for waiting times for treatment in A&E wards, the report said. '
I suspect Cock-up not conspiracy. But if he's guilty, out he should go. After all, think of all those Stokies who were hoodwinked into believing he was a local. And being Kippers, they'll be easily hoodwinked.
And Nicola Sturgeon is a Brummie.
He's not going to be elected while Brexit is on course.
The guidance seems clear. It has to be your CURRENT home address when you complete the form.
Politicians often get "confused" as to where they live.
Did not Jack Straw manage to get "confused" as to whether he was living in Blackburn, Lancs? When it came to paying his council tax, he wasn't there & so could claim a discount; when it came to claiming it back, he was.
Jack Straw's offence seems worse to me than Nuttall's.
Remind me, what happened to Jack Straw over this confusion over his home address?
That would be different legislation with different penalties. Under the Representation of the People Act you will be disqualified if you don't do things right, provided the complaint is made within the time limit.
I understand that, of course.
I am pointing out how it looks. It is not a big deal to almost everyone.
(I have no wish to defend Nuttall. I am sure if our positions were reversed, Nuttall would want the full force of the law to come down on YBarddCwsc).
If UKIP were as petty as to try and win on where the opposition were living 24hrs ago, I don't think I would vote for them. No normal person would have the lack of street cred to act the Traffic Warden
Street cred! Haven't heard that used seriously since The Face was a force in the land.
Who used it seriously?!
I am still reeling from the bombshell that you would vote to stay in the UK if Farage campaigned for Scottish Independence!
'a successful campaign for an independent Scotland being dependent on the support of someone like Farage'
Reading comprehension D-.
I don't think you really want to leave us!
If the 'us' didn't include Farage and the people who vote for him, yeah, I might spend longer than 2 seconds before putting my cross in the Yes box.
10 secs maybe.
It takes all sorts divvie, every country has got them. You have to "tolerate"
I suspect Cock-up not conspiracy. But if he's guilty, out he should go. After all, think of all those Stokies who were hoodwinked into believing he was a local. And being Kippers, they'll be easily hoodwinked.
He's not going to be elected while Brexit is on course.
The guidance seems clear. It has to be your CURRENT home address when you complete the form.
Politicians often get "confused" as to where they live.
Did not Jack Straw manage to get "confused" as to whether he was living in Blackburn, Lancs? When it came to paying his council tax, he wasn't there & so could claim a discount; when it came to claiming it back, he was.
Jack Straw's offence seems worse to me than Nuttall's.
Remind me, what happened to Jack Straw over this confusion over his home address?
That would be different legislation with different penalties. Under the Representation of the People Act you will be disqualified if you don't do things right, provided the complaint is made within the time limit.
I understand that, of course.
I am pointing out how it looks. It is not a big deal to almost everyone.
(I have no wish to defend Nuttall. I am sure if our positions were reversed, Nuttall would want the full force of the law to come down on YBarddCwsc).
Street cred! Haven't heard that used seriously since The Face was a force in the land.
Who used it seriously?!
I am still reeling from the bombshell that you would vote to stay in the UK if Farage campaigned for Scottish Independence!
'a successful campaign for an independent Scotland being dependent on the support of someone like Farage'
Reading comprehension D-.
I don't think you really want to leave us!
If the 'us' didn't include Farage and the people who vote for him, yeah, I might spend longer than 2 seconds before putting my cross in the Yes box.
10 secs maybe.
It takes all sorts divvie, every country has got them. You have to "tolerate"
I just don't think your hearts really in it
It's heart's, lavvy paper boy.
Malcy Gs the only one who really means it left #fakeindy
Comments
' Spot the difference(s)
Case A: Alan Bown gave a political party £363,697
1) It was his money
2) He had a business trading in this country, making him eligible to donate money
3) He was not on the electoral register when he donated although he was the year before, and also the year afterwards.
Case B: Michael Brown gave a political party £2.4m
1) It was not his money, he had defrauded it
2) His business was not trading in the UK, so therefore he was ineligible to donate money
3) He was not on the electoral register; neither was he the year afterwards, nor the year before.
Do you see the difference(s)?
Well the main difference is that the Electoral Commission has doggedly pursued the Alan Bown donation, and today won an appeal forcing the party to give up the money, despite a judge previously ruling that the political party that received it had acted in good faith.
In the Michael Brown case the Electoral Commission has always maintained the political party acted in good faith and need not repay money. Although following the criminal proceedings against Mr Brown they have re-opened an investigation, it has not had yet had any result and they have not managed to say when, if ever, it will.
Oh yes there is one other difference:
This year the Political Parties and Elections Act went through Parliament, and among other things it restructured the Electoral Commission and gave it new funding and powers.
The political party in Case A, UKIP, has no MPs and only three representatives in the House of Lords (where the government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).
The political party in Case B, the Liberal Democrats, has 63 MPs and 71 members of the House of Lords (where the Government has no majority and is particularly vulnerable to amendments).
At least those are the difference that I can see. Perhaps you can you suggest others? '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2009/10/spot_the_differences.html
Separately, more hardline Conservative MPs will be uneasy that the document suggests that the end to free movement of people may not come immediately after Brexit. “Implementing any new immigration arrangements for EU nationals and the support they receive will be complex,” the document says. “There may be a phased process of implementation to prepare for the new arrangements.”
Of course May will have to put her plans before Parliament. That is what this is all about. Our own elected representatives making decisions based on what they perceive is best for the country rather than surrendering that right and responsibility to a supranational organisation. At some point in the future the UK electorate might vote in a Parliament in favour of more immigration. Or one in favour of far less. But whatever it does it will be Parliament - answerable to the electorate - that decides.
There doesn't seem to be any political party for economic liberals at the moment.
Conservative economic liberals like Osborne sent to the back benches
Liberal economic liberals outed by the electorate and social liberal Farron in charge.
Labour have never been economic liberals.
UKIP seem to be protectionist.
Greens are all for state intervention.
more hardline Conservative MPs will be uneasy that the document suggests that the end to free movement of people may not come immediately after Brexit.
Tough call.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6780806/MPs-expenses-Kitty-Ussher-spent-16000-on-new-kitchen-after-bad-taste-Artex-claims.html
Make Britain Great Again.
Triple lock pensions ?
Subsidised house prices ?
Seven hundred billion quid of borrowed money ?
Endless Budgetary tax tinkering ?
Arselicking China for 'investment' ?
Osborne is the second hand shop Gordon Brown.
And lo, they did not come.
To help you along
The legal definition of Sovereignty is: "the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies"
The rest of the world will leave its mark on us whether we like it or not.
It seems there are further investigations into him:
' A MILLIONAIRE fraudster is facing a fresh money-laundering investigation after a court in Majorca reopened the case.
Spanish authorities want to find out if the disgraced Lib Dem donor Michael Brown used cash from the victims of his scams to fund his luxury lifestyle on the holiday island. '
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14456472.Millionaire_fraudster_and_Lib_Dem_donor_faces_fresh_money_laundering_probe/
Haven't heard that used seriously since The Face was a force in the land.
Now of course it is entirely possible to argue that such sovereignty is undesirable and that an alternative relationship would be better. But that would not then mean that Parliament - nor the ruling arrangements of other countries - were sovereign. One can argue about the desirability of a particular concept but it is daft to try to do so by pretending the concept is still valid when you have negated it.
I am still reeling from the bombshell that you would vote to stay in the UK if Farage campaigned for Scottish Independence!
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind."
If you'd like to hum movingly under your breath while reading that, do feel free.
"It’s blindingly obvious that Paul Nuttall is a scouser so why try to hide it?"
Well quite. Not exactly a complex international fraud, is it? The good people of Stoke Central can use this information, they haven't been misled.
The Treaties of Westphalia are important because for the first time they produced a system that allowed differing groups of people both to live alongside each other in relative peace and also to develop their own systems of representative democracy. That is why it is so dangerous that people like Blair actively sought to subvert the concept.
West Kent clinical commissioning group is trying to save £3.2m by delaying non-urgent operations until April
An NHS body has run so short of money that it has banned patients in its area from having non-urgent surgery for up to 102 days in an unprecedented move that doctors have condemned as unfair and damaging.
Proudly wears his Don't blame me I voted Labour badge.
It is hard to describe, but I know it when I see it.
The PB equivalent of striding confidently from the gents... with toilet paper stuck on your shoe
Not strictly a spelling mistake.
NEW THREAD
Reading comprehension D-.
10 secs maybe.
I just don't think your hearts really in it
' In 2007, the local NHS trust and Maidstone Hospital were involved in a scandal when 90 patients at the hospital may have died as a direct result of contracting the superbug c-diff in an outbreak that began in 2006. A subsequent investigation found these infections to be the result of dirty and overcrowded conditions at the hospital.
The report also revealed that the outbreak contributed to a further 240 deaths, although the report does not note if this would have changed the outcome for these patients. More than 1,150 people were ultimately infected. '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maidstone_Hospital#Superbug_Outbreak
Perhaps the 'dirty and overcrowded conditions at the hospital' were the fault of the pre 1997 government or the post 2010 government.
The BBC report gave some gruesome details:
' These included the shortage of nurses, which in turn led to poor care for patients.
For instance, nurses did not have time to wash their hands properly, and left patients to lie in their own excrement because they had not been able to assist them to a commode.
The report found that shortages were so dire that nurses told patients to "go in their beds".
Patients with C.difficile were also moved between wards, increasing the risk of infection.
In some instances this was due to concerns about meeting the government's targets for waiting times for treatment in A&E wards, the report said. '
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7037657.stm