PP's offer seems like a test of the efficient market hypothesis. If 31-40 should be favourite but has been priced at 11/1, then either someone else will have taken all the 11s or ithe market knows something we do not and it can't be a value price.
I see the George Osborne row continues to rumble on. I felt T. May made a big tactical error in sacking someone of his talents but his current behaviour is beginning to suggest her judgement on this may not have been so far wrong. I defy anyone to justify his remarks without accepting the charge of hypocrite!
I see the George Osborne row continues to rumble on. I felt T. May made a big tactical error in sacking someone of his talents but his current behaviour is beginning to suggest her judgement on this may not have been so far wrong. I defy anyone to justify his remarks without accepting the charge of hypocrite!
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
It is one of the great ironies of Brexit that the United Kingdom’s messy divorce from Europe, sold as an effort to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty, has instead delivered its opposite. Last Monday, the House of Commons voted in the early stages of the European Union Withdrawal Bill to give the government sweeping powers to make laws without parliamentary scrutiny. These powers are named after Henry VIII, England’s most authoritarian monarch, but they in fact bear a greater resemblance to Hitler’s Enabling Act of 1933, which allowed the Fuhrer to bypass the Reichstag and govern by proclamation.
Allusions to Nazi Germany are generally overwrought, but this is no exaggeration: Prime Minister Theresa May does not have an absolute majority in the British Parliament, just as Hitler didn’t in the Reichstag in 1933, which is why she has been forced to resort to his strategy. If the withdrawal bill is passed as it stands, May will be able to make laws by decree and reverse and adapt primary legislation without consulting Parliament. It is the greatest attack on the British constitution in at least a century. Parliamentary sovereignty—the very thing that Brexiteers said they were voting for in leaving the E.U.—may be about to be vastly reduced by a cabal of right-wing Conservatives who say they are obeying the people’s will. Such power grabs, of course, are always done in the name of the people. The full title of the 1933 Enabling Act was “The law to remedy the distress of the people and the state.”
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is one of the great ironies of Brexit that the United Kingdom’s messy divorce from Europe, sold as an effort to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty, has instead delivered its opposite. Last Monday, the House of Commons voted in the early stages of the European Union Withdrawal Bill to give the government sweeping powers to make laws without parliamentary scrutiny. These powers are named after Henry VIII, England’s most authoritarian monarch, but they in fact bear a greater resemblance to Hitler’s Enabling Act of 1933, which allowed the Fuhrer to bypass the Reichstag and govern by proclamation.
Allusions to Nazi Germany are generally overwrought, but this is no exaggeration: Prime Minister Theresa May does not have an absolute majority in the British Parliament, just as Hitler didn’t in the Reichstag in 1933, which is why she has been forced to resort to his strategy. If the withdrawal bill is passed as it stands, May will be able to make laws by decree and reverse and adapt primary legislation without consulting Parliament. It is the greatest attack on the British constitution in at least a century. Parliamentary sovereignty—the very thing that Brexiteers said they were voting for in leaving the E.U.—may be about to be vastly reduced by a cabal of right-wing Conservatives who say they are obeying the people’s will. Such power grabs, of course, are always done in the name of the people. The full title of the 1933 Enabling Act was “The law to remedy the distress of the people and the state.”
A ridiculous comparison, however. She did not line the benches with soldiers, nor does this despite the hysteria enable her to make new laws by decree, nor has she removed from Parliament the power to sack her and indeed the ability to sit at all, nor has she abolished elections.
I agree that in the wrong hands these powers could be used that way in theory. However in practice the powers Hitler arrogated derived from the Weimar Constitution, Article 48, which allowed the President to rule by decree - as Hindenburg had done in effect for the previous three years. What Hitler did was transfer that power to himself. A moot point because ultimately Hindenburg died in 1934 and Hitler took the merged offices of President and Chancellor, renaming himself the Fuhrer in the process.
Unless you or the author of this piece are seriously suggesting May will abolish the monarchy and arrogate the Royal Prerogative to herself this comparison merely looks silly.
I am deeply unhappy about the power grab on select committees, which is totally wrong and needs to be reversed asap. I certainly won't vote for any party that doesn't promise to do that. But please, let's keep a sense of perspective. Comparisons with Dollfuss may be alarmingly straightforward, comparisons with Hitler are not.
It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!
Conference will be popcorn season though.
The Conservative conference looks set to be a sequel to The Wicker Man.
I can't really see Trump being consistent in anything so presumably his tweet output will depend on how excited he is getting. On one view the latest events in Korea should accelerate his production but he got so much grief for the fire and brimstone comments that even he might be more cautious.
What I think that this boils down to is that we have an eccentric in the Whitehouse whose behaviour is neither rational nor predictable. It makes this market look pretty unattractive to me. Good try though.
The perils of not being an integrated member of a trade bloc. US company Boeing obtains an anti-dumping charge against Canadian company Bombardier for precisely the same early model discounting that Boeing itself uses. The problem for Bombardier is the US Department of Commerce decides, not a supranational body. The US body doesn't care what the Canadians think or might do. This case also affects the UK as the wings for this plane are made in Northern Ireland.
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!
Conference will be popcorn season though.
The Conservative conference looks set to be a sequel to The Wicker Man.
I do hope you're not Theresa May as Britt Ekland...
And having caused everyone to vomit, I am off to work. Have a good day.
One thing that is slightly concerning this morning is that it does appear that SK is starting to learn from the Trump playbook where provocations by NK are not met with soothing words or a search for political solutions but blunt threats. Up till now SK seemed a bit of a brake on Trump's belligerence and an important one since the US really could not start a war from their soil without their permission. Today that looks less the case.
The next stage on the ramping up may well be more US kit into SK beyond the 28K men there already. Advanced kit will tick off China but a great deal more will be required (as per the Gulf war) before a non nuclear response becomes a realistic possibility. It is not that NK could not be beaten, it is more that their weapons within range of Seoul would need to be taken out quickly before the damage to the City became intolerable.
Kim Jung Un is getting himself into a corner where he is no longer being rewarded for his threats or aggression. I wonder if he is smart enough or strong enough domestically to find a plan B.
It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
"due process"? You're having a laugh. Due sodding process should have occurred decades ago when the alleged abuse was happening. Having it now is all well and good, but it doesn't account for the lives spoilt then and since.
In fact, time makes it harder to get any justice, as well as allowing more abuse to occur. It also means people who were abused got no help or closure.
And if you're asking me whether I believe these accusations about Smyllum, then yes, on the whole I do. There's too many voices speaking up about it, too much precedence proved in similar homes and institutions, and the hundreds of children buried in unmarked graves is a rather large pointer to the fact that things in the home were not exactly healthy. I might well be wrong in all this, and it will be interesting to see what the inquiry produces.
But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
What message will Theresa May take with her to Italy next week? Inside Number 10, the view is not to spill a single fagiolo, a bean, before the words come out of her mouth.
That's not just because they want the story to be told on her own terms in her own words, when she is ready to tell it.
But also, perhaps, because I'm told that she is yet to have signed off the full contents with those members of the cabinet who might object to some of it.
I'm told Theresa May has not yet put a proposal to the foreign secretary that would involve continued payments to the EU during a transition period for a couple of years after the UK leaves the EU, or to other Brexiteers.
"She has yet to try it on for size with these people", I was told. And sources suggest it will be hard for Mr Johnson to stomach in particular. "I can't see him turning and agreeing that's palatable," one source said.
One thing that is slightly concerning this morning is that it does appear that SK is starting to learn from the Trump playbook where provocations by NK are not met with soothing words or a search for political solutions but blunt threats. Up till now SK seemed a bit of a brake on Trump's belligerence and an important one since the US really could not start a war from their soil without their permission. Today that looks less the case.
The next stage on the ramping up may well be more US kit into SK beyond the 28K men there already. Advanced kit will tick off China but a great deal more will be required (as per the Gulf war) before a non nuclear response becomes a realistic possibility. It is not that NK could not be beaten, it is more that their weapons within range of Seoul would need to be taken out quickly before the damage to the City became intolerable.
Kim Jung Un is getting himself into a corner where he is no longer being rewarded for his threats or aggression. I wonder if he is smart enough or strong enough domestically to find a plan B.
I fear that SK (and the US) may be getting intelligence that we (the public) are not seeing.
George has proved all his critics right in the last few months.
More revealing for me is that he surely plans no future in politics...
He is still very active in politics.
And at the top of his game. The vitriol from the Brexiteers is revealing
It is not just Brexiteers attacking him, Cat Smith, as Corbynista as they come, was pretty scathing about some of his most recent comments in the Commons yesterday too
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
If Nadine wants him banned from Conference, he is clearly doing a good job. Nadine is bonkers even in her more lucid moments, as for banning, isn't that rather Stalinist?
It is not just Brexiteers attacking him, Cat Smith, as Corbynista as they come, was pretty scathing about some of his most recent comments in the Commons yesterday too
More confirmation he is still seen as a political threat
I think May is a poor PM and politician, but George's comments are based purely on his own injured pride. He's acting like a three-year-old ... "I'll get you for that, you bitch. How dare you sack me!"
It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
"due process"? You're having a laugh. Due sodding process should have occurred decades ago when the alleged abuse was happening. Having it now is all well and good, but it doesn't account for the lives spoilt then and since.
In fact, time makes it harder to get any justice, as well as allowing more abuse to occur. It also means people who were abused got no help or closure.
And if you're asking me whether I believe these accusations about Smyllum, then yes, on the whole I do. There's too many voices speaking up about it, too much precedence proved in similar homes and institutions, and the hundreds of children buried in unmarked graves is a rather large pointer to the fact that things in the home were not exactly healthy. I might well be wrong in all this, and it will be interesting to see what the inquiry produces.
But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
As we are also finding out in the 1970s there were also instances of abuse in boarding schools, by MPs, even by presenters at the BBC, the Catholic Church was not an isolated case in having a minority who abused their position. So yes clearly inexcusable if true but in the 1970s there waa clearly a lot of wrongdoing going on and of course also whether this incident relates to unmarked graves is another matter
It is not just Brexiteers attacking him, Cat Smith, as Corbynista as they come, was pretty scathing about some of his most recent comments in the Commons yesterday too
More confirmation he is still seen as a political threat
Her comments that his remarks were not helpful in preventing attacks and abuse on women were hardly party political particularly. Osborne is now equally loathed by the bulk of the Tory and Labour parties, the only politician of recent times who could perhaps match him on that is Peter Mandelson but Mandelson never had the Heath like grudge Osborne now seems to be having
What message will Theresa May take with her to Italy next week? Inside Number 10, the view is not to spill a single fagiolo, a bean, before the words come out of her mouth.
That's not just because they want the story to be told on her own terms in her own words, when she is ready to tell it.
But also, perhaps, because I'm told that she is yet to have signed off the full contents with those members of the cabinet who might object to some of it.
I'm told Theresa May has not yet put a proposal to the foreign secretary that would involve continued payments to the EU during a transition period for a couple of years after the UK leaves the EU, or to other Brexiteers.
"She has yet to try it on for size with these people", I was told. And sources suggest it will be hard for Mr Johnson to stomach in particular. "I can't see him turning and agreeing that's palatable," one source said.
"Speak loudly and slowly so that foreigners can understand"
David Allen Green Has a good article on here on 3 speeches this week. If you put the title of an FT article into google, it is readable through the firewall btw:
George has proved all his critics right in the last few months.
More revealing for me is that he surely plans no future in politics...
He is still very active in politics.
And at the top of his game. The vitriol from the Brexiteers is revealing
It is not just Brexiteers attacking him, Cat Smith, as Corbynista as they come, was pretty scathing about some of his most recent comments in the Commons yesterday too
It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
"due process"? You're having a laugh. Due sodding process should have occurred decades ago when the alleged abuse was happening. Having it now is all well and good, but it doesn't account for the lives spoilt then and since.
In fact, time makes it harder to get any justice, as well as allowing more abuse to occur. It also means people who were abused got no help or closure.
And if you're asking me whether I believe these accusations about Smyllum, then yes, on the whole I do. There's too many voices speaking up about it, too much precedence proved in similar homes and institutions, and the hundreds of children buried in unmarked graves is a rather large pointer to the fact that things in the home were not exactly healthy. I might well be wrong in all this, and it will be interesting to see what the inquiry produces.
But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
As we are also finding out in the 1970s there were also instances of abuse in boarding schools, by MPs, even by presenters at the BBC, the Catholic Church was not an isolated case in having a minority who abused their position. So yes clearly inexcusable if true but in the 1970s there waa clearly a lot of wrongdoing going on and of course also whether this incident relates to unmarked graves is another matter
That makes it all fine then, does it? Do such considerations extend to the current day? .
George has proved all his critics right in the last few months.
More revealing for me is that he surely plans no future in politics...
I think that Osborne's view could be summed up as 'Theresa May isn't a very good Prime Minister for the Conservatives or the UK' Would anyone argue with that?
It is one of the great ironies of Brexit that the United Kingdom’s messy divorce from Europe, sold as an effort to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty, has instead delivered its opposite. Last Monday, the House of Commons voted in the early stages of the European Union Withdrawal Bill to give the government sweeping powers to make laws without parliamentary scrutiny. These powers are named after Henry VIII, England’s most authoritarian monarch, but they in fact bear a greater resemblance to Hitler’s Enabling Act of 1933, which allowed the Fuhrer to bypass the Reichstag and govern by proclamation.
Allusions to Nazi Germany are generally overwrought, but this is no exaggeration: Prime Minister Theresa May does not have an absolute majority in the British Parliament, just as Hitler didn’t in the Reichstag in 1933, which is why she has been forced to resort to his strategy. If the withdrawal bill is passed as it stands, May will be able to make laws by decree and reverse and adapt primary legislation without consulting Parliament. It is the greatest attack on the British constitution in at least a century. Parliamentary sovereignty—the very thing that Brexiteers said they were voting for in leaving the E.U.—may be about to be vastly reduced by a cabal of right-wing Conservatives who say they are obeying the people’s will. Such power grabs, of course, are always done in the name of the people. The full title of the 1933 Enabling Act was “The law to remedy the distress of the people and the state.”
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!
Conference will be popcorn season though.
Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
Political correctness gone mad, a man can't make a joke in private without people getting offended.
As an aside, I know for a fact Mrs May and her team, when they thought they were the masters of the universe, were much more disobliging about George Osborne (and David Cameron), but George kept his own counsel.
Any anger George Osborne has towards Mrs May is due to her undoing all the decade long hard work of George Osborne and David Cameron in detoxifying the Tory party and taking them from opposition to government, and being the only leader to win a majority in 25 years, and Mrs May's government being bad for the country.
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!
Conference will be popcorn season though.
Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.
I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
Hush your mouth.
The fact that there were abuses, seemingly systematic, in the Catholic church has absolutely no bearing on the behaviour, inclination, or proclivities, nor does it betoken any inherent behaviour of any other member of that religion.
It's comforting in a way that those who think otherwise are temporarily perhaps no longer with us here on PB.
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!
Conference will be popcorn season though.
Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.
I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!
Conference will be popcorn season though.
Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.
I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
You're kidding, right? George Osborne is constantly laughing.
It is not just Brexiteers attacking him, Cat Smith, as Corbynista as they come, was pretty scathing about some of his most recent comments in the Commons yesterday too
More confirmation he is still seen as a political threat
Her comments that his remarks were not helpful in preventing attacks and abuse on women were hardly party political particularly. Osborne is now equally loathed by the bulk of the Tory and Labour parties, the only politician of recent times who could perhaps match him on that is Peter Mandelson but Mandelson never had the Heath like grudge Osborne now seems to be having
And, like Mandelson, a brilliant politician. And now, it seems, newspaper editor.
"More confirmation he is still seen as a political threat."
He should be sent to his room without his supper, and no watching the cartoons for a week.
Just like Cameron - urbane on the outside, but when he doesn't get his own way, he throws a temper tantrum.
Under the circumstances George O seems to me to be acting with extraordinary restraint. It's rare for someone stabbed in the back to be able to get up dust themselves down and watch the stabber self immolate (I'm using hyperbole Felix so don't call the police!).
This PB anti-Osborne group has direct parallels with the deluded Brexiters (could they be related?).
There has or will be a separation but this groups expects the separated party somehow should retain all the obligations and subservience and respect for the other side.
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!
Conference will be popcorn season though.
Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.
I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
Ted Heath also achieved his main policy - Britain joining the EEC.
I'm not sure what George Osborne would say his political aims were but it doesn't look likely they've been achieved. The slogans he proclaimed "sharing the proceeds of growth", "balance the books", "march of the makers", "we're all in this together" proved to be very empty.
He's the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened and the Chancellor who predicted a recession which didn't happen.
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!
Conference will be popcorn season though.
Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.
I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
Ted Heath also achieved his main policy - Britain joining the EEC.
I'm not sure what George Osborne would say his political aims were but it doesn't look likely they've been achieved. The slogans he proclaimed "sharing the proceeds of growth", "balance the books", "march of the makers", "we're all in this together" proved to be very empty.
He's the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened and the Chancellor who predicted a recession which didn't happen.
Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.
So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.
Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!
Conference will be popcorn season though.
Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.
I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
You're kidding, right? George Osborne is constantly laughing.
To be fair, he did crack some jokes about President Sarkozy's diminutive stature.
Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.
So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.
Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.
It's the sort of comment I would expect from John McDonnell, but not the other two.
1. could be wires, some sort of det cord, with electrical connectors? out the back of the bag; 2. something like this device, if a timer, then needs a lot of training; 3. perhaps a partial with detonator only initiating hence no bigger bang; 4. new MO if a device, but people are attuned to the famous "unattended bag" scenario; so 5. might be more challenging for #2; or 6. perhaps wholly innocent builders' materials
Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.
So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.
Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.
It's the sort of comment I would expect from John McDonnell, but not the other two.
I have absolutely no doubt that if it were made by David Davis you would be loyalty defending him.
Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.
So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.
Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.
It's the sort of comment I would expect from John McDonnell, but not the other two.
Back in 2005 David Davis privately said he wanted to use his SAS training on all those MPs who defected from him to David Cameron.
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Nadine wants him banned from conference
Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!
Conference will be popcorn season though.
Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.
I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
Ted Heath also achieved his main policy - Britain joining the EEC.
I'm not sure what George Osborne would say his political aims were but it doesn't look likely they've been achieved. The slogans he proclaimed "sharing the proceeds of growth", "balance the books", "march of the makers", "we're all in this together" proved to be very empty.
He's the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened and the Chancellor who predicted a recession which didn't happen.
Yet? Saved by sterling devaluation.
Osborne predicted a recession within 'weeks and months' of a Leave vote.
He was wrong.
Now there will be recessions in the future and as its eight years since the last recession ended we are due one on the economic cycle.
It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
"due process"? You're having a laugh. Due sodding process should have occurred decades ago when the alleged abuse was happening. Having it now is all well and good, but it doesn't account for the lives spoilt then and since.
In fact, time makes it harder to get any justice, as well as allowing more abuse to occur. It also means people who were abused got no help or closure.
And if you're asking me whether I believe these accusations about Smyllum, then yes, on the whole I do. There's too many voices speaking up about it, too much precedence proved in similar homes and institutions, and the hundreds of children buried in unmarked graves is a rather large pointer to the fact that things in the home were not exactly healthy. I might well be wrong in all this, and it will be interesting to see what the inquiry produces.
But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
As we are also finding out in the 1970s there were also instances of abuse in boarding schools, by MPs, even by presenters at the BBC, the Catholic Church was not an isolated case in having a minority who abused their position. So yes clearly inexcusable if true but in the 1970s there waa clearly a lot of wrongdoing going on and of course also whether this incident relates to unmarked graves is another matter
That makes it all fine then, does it? Do such considerations extend to the current day? .
It closed over 30 years ago having been going since the mid 19th century and probably all the nuns there are now dead
George has proved all his critics right in the last few months.
More revealing for me is that he surely plans no future in politics...
He is still very active in politics.
And at the top of his game. The vitriol from the Brexiteers is revealing
It is not just Brexiteers attacking him, Cat Smith, as Corbynista as they come, was pretty scathing about some of his most recent comments in the Commons yesterday too
Yes, all the loonies hate him.
Osborne was memorably booed at the 2012 Olympics, he has never been popular and not just with loonies.
Though I give him credit for the IHT cut which was an excellent move
It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
Hush your mouth.
The fact that there were abuses, seemingly systematic, in the Catholic church has absolutely no bearing on the behaviour, inclination, or proclivities, nor does it betoken any inherent behaviour of any other member of that religion.
(Snip)
I never said it did, and I hope you extend that to other religions.
But you cannot ignore the facts (and they are facts) that there was a rotten illness in parts of the Catholic church. Moving priests accused of abuse (and in many cases later found guilty) to other parishes where they could continue abusing was, and is, sickening, as is the fact that it took until 2010 for the Vatican to say that accusations of abuse by priests should be reported to police.
And no, the Catholic church was not alone in suffering from this cancer; it just seems it was more widespread and egregious.
As I continue saying about many areas of public life: bad things will happen, by accident or malice. What matters is addressing them when they do happen, and trying to reduce the chances of them happening again. That's where the churches failed so terribly.
It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
Hush your mouth.
The fact that there were abuses, seemingly systematic, in the Catholic church has absolutely no bearing on the behaviour, inclination, or proclivities, nor does it betoken any inherent behaviour of any other member of that religion.
(Snip)
I never said it did, and I hope you extend that to other religions.
But you cannot ignore the facts (and they are facts) that there was a rotten illness in parts of the Catholic church. Moving priests accused of abuse (and in many cases later found guilty) to other parishes where they could continue abusing was, and is, sickening, as is the fact that it took until 2010 for the Vatican to say that accusations of abuse by priests should be reported to police.
And no, the Catholic church was not alone in suffering from this cancer; it just seems it was more widespread and egregious.
As I continue saying about many areas of public life: bad things will happen, by accident or malice. What matters is addressing them when they do happen, and trying to reduce the chances of them happening again. That's where the churches failed so terribly.
Evidently it's far too early in the morning for my scything wit to be apparent on this here internet thing.
It closed over 30 years ago having been going since the mid 19th century and probably all the nuns there are now dead
People are still living with the consequences, and the fact abuse had been going on for decades makes it worse, not better.
I understand that Catholicism, like all religions, can prove to be a powerful force for good in the lives of millions of people. However that does not excuse it when it commits evil and ruins lives.
Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.
So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.
Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.
IMO George Osborne's record in office is more than enough to condemn him - some of us haven't changed their views over the last 15 months.
If Osborne was still in a Conservative government some of his critics would be cheering him whilst some of his new fans would be condemning him.
And Osborne himself would be singing a different tune if May had retained him as Chancellor.
When it comes down to it 'my side right, your side wrong' is a dominant factor in politics.
Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.
So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.
Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.
IMO George Osborne's record in office is more than enough to condemn him - some of us haven't changed their views over the last 15 months.
If Osborne was still in a Conservative government some of his critics would be cheering him whilst some of his new fans would be condemning him.
And Osborne himself would be singing a different tune if May had retained him as Chancellor.
When it comes down to it 'my side right, your side wrong' is a dominant factor in politics.
Was it too much or too little spending that you criticise him for? Or something else?
It closed over 30 years ago having been going since the mid 19th century and probably all the nuns there are now dead
People are still living with the consequences, and the fact abuse had been going on for decades makes it worse, not better.
I understand that Catholicism, like all religions, can prove to be a powerful force for good in the lives of millions of people. However that does not excuse it when it commits evil and ruins lives.
I am not excusing anything but nothing has been proved as yet, like the BBC presenter allegations, the allegations against former MPs, including very senior ones, allegations against boarding school staff etc dating from that time unless the accused are still alive these are all only things which can be dealt with by full inquiries such as the one now underway in Scotland
It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
Hush your mouth.
The fact that there were abuses, seemingly systematic, in the Catholic church has absolutely no bearing on the behaviour, inclination, or proclivities, nor does it betoken any inherent behaviour of any other member of that religion.
(Snip)
I never said it did, and I hope you extend that to other religions.
But you cannot ignore the facts (and they are facts) that there was a rotten illness in parts of the Catholic church. Moving priests accused of abuse (and in many cases later found guilty) to other parishes where they could continue abusing was, and is, sickening, as is the fact that it took until 2010 for the Vatican to say that accusations of abuse by priests should be reported to police.
And no, the Catholic church was not alone in suffering from this cancer; it just seems it was more widespread and egregious.
As I continue saying about many areas of public life: bad things will happen, by accident or malice. What matters is addressing them when they do happen, and trying to reduce the chances of them happening again. That's where the churches failed so terribly.
To be fair to Pope Francis he has gone further than most of his predecessors in apologising for past wrongs on this and returning the Catholic Church to its proper purpose
Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.
So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.
Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.
IMO George Osborne's record in office is more than enough to condemn him - some of us haven't changed their views over the last 15 months.
If Osborne was still in a Conservative government some of his critics would be cheering him whilst some of his new fans would be condemning him.
And Osborne himself would be singing a different tune if May had retained him as Chancellor.
When it comes down to it 'my side right, your side wrong' is a dominant factor in politics.
I can understand where you're coming from, though I disagree with a lot of the detail. The fake horror at a few off-the-cuff remarks needs to be called out though.
I understand that Leavers crave their daily Two Minute Hate. There's no reason to indulge them on it.
What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.
Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.
So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.
Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.
IMO George Osborne's record in office is more than enough to condemn him - some of us haven't changed their views over the last 15 months.
If Osborne was still in a Conservative government some of his critics would be cheering him whilst some of his new fans would be condemning him.
And Osborne himself would be singing a different tune if May had retained him as Chancellor.
When it comes down to it 'my side right, your side wrong' is a dominant factor in politics.
I can understand where you're coming from, though I disagree with a lot of the detail. The fake horror at a few off-the-cuff remarks needs to be called out though.
I understand that Leavers crave their daily Two Minute Hate. There's no reason to indulge them on it.
Think of the abuse he'll get when he is proved to be right in a few years time!
What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.
Or it is a move calculated to sell more newspapers, currently his day job.
To be fair to Pope Francis he has gone further than most of his predecessors in apologising for past wrongs on this and returning the Catholic Church to its proper purpose
I agree, and have said so on here in the past. Pope Francis has been making lots of the right noises on this topic, and some good actions. I hope it continues and he has the strength to progress all cases, for some accusations (e.g. Cardinal Pell) reach very near to the top.
It's nice to have a pope I actually like and have a modicum of respect for.
That seems a rather positive note on which to go out for a run!
Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.
So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.
Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.
IMO George Osborne's record in office is more than enough to condemn him - some of us haven't changed their views over the last 15 months.
If Osborne was still in a Conservative government some of his critics would be cheering him whilst some of his new fans would be condemning him.
And Osborne himself would be singing a different tune if May had retained him as Chancellor.
When it comes down to it 'my side right, your side wrong' is a dominant factor in politics.
I can understand where you're coming from, though I disagree with a lot of the detail. The fake horror at a few off-the-cuff remarks needs to be called out though.
I understand that Leavers crave their daily Two Minute Hate. There's no reason to indulge them on it.
Do Leavers have an irrational hatred of Osborne, or do you have an irrational hatred of Leavers?
I'm probably what you'd call a loopy Leaver, but I don't hate Osborne. I merely think he was a mediocre Chancellor, lied and abused the power of government in his failed attempt to keep Britain in the EU, and has revealed a seriously nasty side since taking over the Evening Standard.
What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.
Or it is a move calculated to sell more newspapers, currently his day job.
Well I said on here a few days ago that they're paying people to shove it into people's hands on Waterloo Bridge so it wouldn't be a surprise if Osborne's getting desperate.
What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.
Or it is a move calculated to sell more newspapers, currently his day job.
What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.
Or it is a move calculated to sell more newspapers, currently his day job.
I thought the Standard was free ?
It had better be or I'm guilty of newspaper theft on Charing Cross Road.
What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.
Or it is a move calculated to sell more newspapers, currently his day job.
It is a free sheet, though rumours abound that advertising revenues have shot up since George Osborne CH, became Editor.
To be fair to Pope Francis he has gone further than most of his predecessors in apologising for past wrongs on this and returning the Catholic Church to its proper purpose
I agree, and have said so on here in the past. Pope Francis has been making lots of the right noises on this topic, and some good actions. I hope it continues and he has the strength to progress all cases, for some accusations (e.g. Cardinal Pell) reach very near to the top.
It's nice to have a pope I actually like and have a modicum of respect for.
That seems a rather positive note on which to go out for a run!
What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.
Or it is a move calculated to sell more newspapers, currently his day job.
I thought the Standard was free ?
It had better be or I'm guilty of newspaper theft on Charing Cross Road.
my apologies (all of you: ok thanks you pedantic b******s)
I mean increase circulation => more advertising at better advertising rates.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade
But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.
Over to you TSE
https://www.ft.com/content/fa4de166-9938-11e7-b83c-9588e51488a0
Or for those who need google;
Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.
I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
Allusions to Nazi Germany are generally overwrought, but this is no exaggeration: Prime Minister Theresa May does not have an absolute majority in the British Parliament, just as Hitler didn’t in the Reichstag in 1933, which is why she has been forced to resort to his strategy. If the withdrawal bill is passed as it stands, May will be able to make laws by decree and reverse and adapt primary legislation without consulting Parliament. It is the greatest attack on the British constitution in at least a century. Parliamentary sovereignty—the very thing that Brexiteers said they were voting for in leaving the E.U.—may be about to be vastly reduced by a cabal of right-wing Conservatives who say they are obeying the people’s will. Such power grabs, of course, are always done in the name of the people. The full title of the 1933 Enabling Act was “The law to remedy the distress of the people and the state.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/theresa-may-takes-her-darkest-most-desperate-turn-yet
11/1 looks very fair on the face of it.
I agree that in the wrong hands these powers could be used that way in theory. However in practice the powers Hitler arrogated derived from the Weimar Constitution, Article 48, which allowed the President to rule by decree - as Hindenburg had done in effect for the previous three years. What Hitler did was transfer that power to himself. A moot point because ultimately Hindenburg died in 1934 and Hitler took the merged offices of President and Chancellor, renaming himself the Fuhrer in the process.
Unless you or the author of this piece are seriously suggesting May will abolish the monarchy and arrogate the Royal Prerogative to herself this comparison merely looks silly.
I am deeply unhappy about the power grab on select committees, which is totally wrong and needs to be reversed asap. I certainly won't vote for any party that doesn't promise to do that. But please, let's keep a sense of perspective. Comparisons with Dollfuss may be alarmingly straightforward, comparisons with Hitler are not.
While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
Conference will be popcorn season though.
What I think that this boils down to is that we have an eccentric in the Whitehouse whose behaviour is neither rational nor predictable. It makes this market look pretty unattractive to me. Good try though.
Not a market for me, I think. Too difficult to try and predict.
https://leehamnews.com/2017/09/14/bombardier-concedes-likely-loss-trade-complaint-looks-next-phase
And having caused everyone to vomit, I am off to work. Have a good day.
The main conclusion to be drawn is that both Osborne and Phillips are very unpleasant people.
More revealing for me is that he surely plans no future in politics...
The next stage on the ramping up may well be more US kit into SK beyond the 28K men there already. Advanced kit will tick off China but a great deal more will be required (as per the Gulf war) before a non nuclear response becomes a realistic possibility. It is not that NK could not be beaten, it is more that their weapons within range of Seoul would need to be taken out quickly before the damage to the City became intolerable.
Kim Jung Un is getting himself into a corner where he is no longer being rewarded for his threats or aggression. I wonder if he is smart enough or strong enough domestically to find a plan B.
In fact, time makes it harder to get any justice, as well as allowing more abuse to occur. It also means people who were abused got no help or closure.
And if you're asking me whether I believe these accusations about Smyllum, then yes, on the whole I do. There's too many voices speaking up about it, too much precedence proved in similar homes and institutions, and the hundreds of children buried in unmarked graves is a rather large pointer to the fact that things in the home were not exactly healthy. I might well be wrong in all this, and it will be interesting to see what the inquiry produces.
But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
And at the top of his game. The vitriol from the Brexiteers is revealing
That's not just because they want the story to be told on her own terms in her own words, when she is ready to tell it.
But also, perhaps, because I'm told that she is yet to have signed off the full contents with those members of the cabinet who might object to some of it.
I'm told Theresa May has not yet put a proposal to the foreign secretary that would involve continued payments to the EU during a transition period for a couple of years after the UK leaves the EU, or to other Brexiteers.
"She has yet to try it on for size with these people", I was told. And sources suggest it will be hard for Mr Johnson to stomach in particular. "I can't see him turning and agreeing that's palatable," one source said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41274743
Hopkins
Farage
Now Fat Eck joins the lineup.
Of course he has some loss of earnings to make up...
I think May is a poor PM and politician, but George's comments are based purely on his own injured pride. He's acting like a three-year-old ... "I'll get you for that, you bitch. How dare you sack me!"
Sulking is never a good look.
"Speak loudly and slowly so that foreigners can understand"
David Allen Green Has a good article on here on 3 speeches this week. If you put the title of an FT article into google, it is readable through the firewall btw:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/908325617749446658
"More confirmation he is still seen as a political threat."
He should be sent to his room without his supper, and no watching the cartoons for a week.
Just like Cameron - urbane on the outside, but when he doesn't get his own way, he throws a temper tantrum.
.
Would anyone argue with that?
As an aside, I know for a fact Mrs May and her team, when they thought they were the masters of the universe, were much more disobliging about George Osborne (and David Cameron), but George kept his own counsel.
Any anger George Osborne has towards Mrs May is due to her undoing all the decade long hard work of George Osborne and David Cameron in detoxifying the Tory party and taking them from opposition to government, and being the only leader to win a majority in 25 years, and Mrs May's government being bad for the country.
I'd want to analyse his tweet output since the inauguration, rather than just the last 30 days.
I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
The fact that there were abuses, seemingly systematic, in the Catholic church has absolutely no bearing on the behaviour, inclination, or proclivities, nor does it betoken any inherent behaviour of any other member of that religion.
It's comforting in a way that those who think otherwise are temporarily perhaps no longer with us here on PB.
Retweets and deleted tweets count, you can see the long term trend of the frequency of Trump's tweeting behaviour by clicking here
https://twittercounter.com/realDonaldTrump
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41278545
There has or will be a separation but this groups expects the separated party somehow should retain all the obligations and subservience and respect for the other side.
Bonkers.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/15/explosion-on-tube-train-at-parsons-green-sparks-panic-on-district-line-6929973/amp/
I'm not sure what George Osborne would say his political aims were but it doesn't look likely they've been achieved. The slogans he proclaimed "sharing the proceeds of growth", "balance the books", "march of the makers", "we're all in this together" proved to be very empty.
He's the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened and the Chancellor who predicted a recession which didn't happen.
So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.
Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.
1. could be wires, some sort of det cord, with electrical connectors? out the back of the bag;
2. something like this device, if a timer, then needs a lot of training;
3. perhaps a partial with detonator only initiating hence no bigger bang;
4. new MO if a device, but people are attuned to the famous "unattended bag" scenario; so
5. might be more challenging for #2; or
6. perhaps wholly innocent builders' materials
He was wrong.
Now there will be recessions in the future and as its eight years since the last recession ended we are due one on the economic cycle.
Though I give him credit for the IHT cut which was an excellent move
But you cannot ignore the facts (and they are facts) that there was a rotten illness in parts of the Catholic church. Moving priests accused of abuse (and in many cases later found guilty) to other parishes where they could continue abusing was, and is, sickening, as is the fact that it took until 2010 for the Vatican to say that accusations of abuse by priests should be reported to police.
And no, the Catholic church was not alone in suffering from this cancer; it just seems it was more widespread and egregious.
As I continue saying about many areas of public life: bad things will happen, by accident or malice. What matters is addressing them when they do happen, and trying to reduce the chances of them happening again. That's where the churches failed so terribly.
I understand that Catholicism, like all religions, can prove to be a powerful force for good in the lives of millions of people. However that does not excuse it when it commits evil and ruins lives.
If Osborne was still in a Conservative government some of his critics would be cheering him whilst some of his new fans would be condemning him.
And Osborne himself would be singing a different tune if May had retained him as Chancellor.
When it comes down to it 'my side right, your side wrong' is a dominant factor in politics.
I understand that Leavers crave their daily Two Minute Hate. There's no reason to indulge them on it.
It's nice to have a pope I actually like and have a modicum of respect for.
That seems a rather positive note on which to go out for a run!
I'm probably what you'd call a loopy Leaver, but I don't hate Osborne. I merely think he was a mediocre Chancellor, lied and abused the power of government in his failed attempt to keep Britain in the EU, and has revealed a seriously nasty side since taking over the Evening Standard.
The paper is certainly getting more publicity.
It had better be or I'm guilty of newspaper theft on Charing Cross Road.
I mean increase circulation => more advertising at better advertising rates.
sheesh!
http://www.abitleftandabitlost.com/political-punts.html