Suggest you have a look at a map, Kaliningrad! A small Russian satellite state right in the middle of EU states. Then take a look at the other stadiums, Putin is not just putting a middle finger up, he's sticking his fist up....
The sofascore app has a nice little interactive predictor.
I reckon we have to come top of the group to dodge Germany in the QF, though instead we get Brazil.
I am really looking forward to it, I have SF tickets in St Petersburg for me and Fox jr.
St Petersburg is just lovely, do make time to see the Russian Museum (I'd prioritize it over the Hermitage if you'd be short on time), full of amazing Russian artists that are totally unknown in the West. And if you can afford it, the Grand Hotel Europe is a magical place to stay.
“In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“
“He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
“In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“
“He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
Particularly when you read that:
"His demands do not present major problems for Mrs Merkel personally: she is known to want to give Mr Macron’s proposals a degree of German support."
“In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“
“He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
“In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“
“He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
Particularly when you read that:
"His demands do not present major problems for Mrs Merkel personally: she is known to want to give Mr Macron’s proposals a degree of German support."
I wonder if German politics will realign around the CSU, FDP, and some of the AFD providing a conservative, eurosceptic alternative.
“In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“
“He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
I wonder if that’ll cover corporation tax?
*innocent face*
Easy to laugh but the Irish border is tied up with what Barnier calls the 'European model' and 'convergence'.
“In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“
“He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
Particularly when you read that:
"His demands do not present major problems for Mrs Merkel personally: she is known to want to give Mr Macron’s proposals a degree of German support."
I wonder if German politics will realign around the CSU, FDP, and some of the AFD providing a conservative, eurosceptic alternative.
No. The AfD are the only serious Eurosceptic party in the game and will probably remain so for some considerable time because of the German political culture. (Also, with AfD providing the only right-of-centre Euroscepticism, that whole view is tainted by some of the AfD's other policies).
The Moggmeister is pure sexytime goodness. If he wants to speak to Steve Bannon let him - going off how horrifically the Tories are doing at communicating these days you'd think a discussion with a leading propagandist would go down well.
You may not like Bannon. But you can't argue with his results.
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
Oh dear, the BBC are still whining on about Damian Green's 10 year old computer problems. There are one or two more important things going on in the world right now.
“In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“
“He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
I wonder if that’ll cover corporation tax?
*innocent face*
The EU support Eire now, because they both want to make a political point and it's both in their interests.
But, Eire will be made to tow the EU line on corporation tax as soon as it wants to do so.
Suggest you have a look at a map, Kaliningrad! A small Russian satellite state right in the middle of EU states. Then take a look at the other stadiums, Putin is not just putting a middle finger up, he's sticking his fist up....
The sofascore app has a nice little interactive predictor.
I reckon we have to come top of the group to dodge Germany in the QF, though instead we get Brazil.
I am really looking forward to it, I have SF tickets in St Petersburg for me and Fox jr.
St Petersburg is just lovely, do make time to see the Russian Museum (I'd prioritize it over the Hermitage if you'd be short on time), full of amazing Russian artists that are totally unknown in the West. And if you can afford it, the Grand Hotel Europe is a magical place to stay.
I have four days there and four in Moscow, though didn't get final tickets so will go to the fan park for that.
I plan to take in some revolutionary sites, but the Russian Museum sounds worth a look. I have booked flights and hotels a couple of months ago, when they were great value. I reckon the St Petersburg SF is Germany vs Spain, but many permutations.
I dont want to hear any more about Damien Green and his open stash. I don't care that he practices onanism or is a liar. He's a male Tory politician, isnt exactly a shock that he's a wanker...
“In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“
“He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
Particularly when you read that:
"His demands do not present major problems for Mrs Merkel personally: she is known to want to give Mr Macron’s proposals a degree of German support."
I wonder if German politics will realign around the CSU, FDP, and some of the AFD providing a conservative, eurosceptic alternative.
Under the original AfD leadership, perhaps, but not under the current one.
But, the fires have certainly been stoked in Germany.
A very pleasant thread with which to end the working week. 3 LD gains and a solid LD hold is the stuff of moderate contentment.
No need to get too excited - local contests, very low turnouts and a fortunate juxtaposition of favourable contests for the party in winnable areas in contrast to last week's much more modest performances in much less favourable seats.
Still, gains are gains and that's how the LD recovery will be - seat by seat, vote by vote, over a number of years.
Also worth noting the Conservative vote share was down in all four seats (though a better effort than UKIP).
And PB Tories rate this fool? But then again, his stock may have now gone up with the many right wing loons that live on this blog.
So dispense with the mealy-mouthed anonymity, and name (at a minimum) two right wing loons that live on this blog, and two PB Tories who rate JRM.
You've had over half an hour. No need to be coy.
"Blowhard" is a useful word, don't you find?
I am far from a PB Tory, but rate JRM. Sure he is a caricature, but he is an intelligent, articulate and charming speaker. His views are antediluvian, but he seems to be about the only one left in the Tory party who still believes in Brexit.
“In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“
“He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
Particularly when you read that:
"His demands do not present major problems for Mrs Merkel personally: she is known to want to give Mr Macron’s proposals a degree of German support."
I wonder if German politics will realign around the CSU, FDP, and some of the AFD providing a conservative, eurosceptic alternative.
Under the original AfD leadership, perhaps, but not under the current one.
But, the fires have certainly been stoked in Germany.
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
Suggest you have a look at a map, Kaliningrad! A small Russian satellite state right in the middle of EU states. Then take a look at the other stadiums, Putin is not just putting a middle finger up, he's sticking his fist up....
The sofascore app has a nice little interactive predictor.
I reckon we have to come top of the group to dodge Germany in the QF, though instead we get Brazil.
I am really looking forward to it, I have SF tickets in St Petersburg for me and Fox jr.
St Petersburg is just lovely, do make time to see the Russian Museum (I'd prioritize it over the Hermitage if you'd be short on time), full of amazing Russian artists that are totally unknown in the West. And if you can afford it, the Grand Hotel Europe is a magical place to stay.
I have four days there and four in Moscow, though didn't get final tickets so will go to the fan park for that.
I plan to take in some revolutionary sites, but the Russian Museum sounds worth a look. I have booked flights and hotels a couple of months ago, when they were great value. I reckon the St Petersburg SF is Germany vs Spain, but many permutations.
Not been to Moscow, but I understand the equiv to the Russian Museum there is the Tretyakov Gallery. Do both and you'll see pretty much every major piece of Russian art.
Contented European. Younger - Hmm, maybe in spirit. Left of Centre - Perhaps. High life satisfaction. That's true. I am even reasonably equanimous about the clusterfuck that is Brexit
I'm a 'Hesitant European' and people like me live tend to live in cities, towns and rural areas.
Me too. But I'm going to run it again to see where other sorts of people live, given that cities, towns and rural areas seems to cover most of the options.
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
I'd suggest incompetence but I daresay others might suggest alternative reasons
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.
I'm a 'Hesitant European' and people like me live tend to live in cities, towns and rural areas.
Me too. But I'm going to run it again to see where other sorts of people live, given that cities, towns and rural areas seems to cover most of the options.
Edit: OK all sorts live in cities and towns, it's just that the country is full of hesitaters and refuseniks.
But the bias is depressing. I am decidedly pro an EU with curtailed powers, which is *not* the same as being "hesitant" (as if I had dipped a toe in the bracing waters of lovely full-fat Eurofederalism but lacked the courage to jump all the way in). It gets worse: it says "Hesitant Europeans need persuading on the EU," which I bloody don't. And I thought Chatham House was meant to be neutral.
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.
Yet we've had no action taken against any plods, social workers, childrens home mangers, councillors, council officials etc
Nobody knew anything about anything of course.
Let us not underestimate how career-destroying it would have been (and to a great extent, still is) for any of those classes of people to stand up and say that gangs of Pakistani men were in the business of organised child rape. Five years ago I would have expected to be modded, or worse, for posting the preceding sentence on this site.
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.
There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.
Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.
JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”
What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?
They're releasing information that they're forbidden to release.
Is that a criminal offence, or merely a disciplinary one?
It might be a breach of the Data Protection Act, which would be sort of funny.
I am glad that Lord Carlile has weighed in on behalf of Green; this has hopefully discouraged all but the most moronic trolls (I see one downthread) from taking a yebbut he's a tory MP line.
And PB Tories rate this fool? But then again, his stock may have now gone up with the many right wing loons that live on this blog.
So dispense with the mealy-mouthed anonymity, and name (at a minimum) two right wing loons that live on this blog, and two PB Tories who rate JRM.
You've had over half an hour. No need to be coy.
"Blowhard" is a useful word, don't you find?
I am far from a PB Tory, but rate JRM. Sure he is a caricature, but he is an intelligent, articulate and charming speaker. His views are antediluvian, but he seems to be about the only one left in the Tory party who still believes in Brexit.
JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”
What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?
They're releasing information that they're forbidden to release.
Is that a criminal offence, or merely a disciplinary one?
It might be a breach of the Data Protection Act, which would be sort of funny.
I am glad that Lord Carlile has weighed in on behalf of Green; this has hopefully discouraged all but the most moronic trolls (I see one downthread) from taking a yebbut he's a tory MP line.
I see the DPA allows fines, but also public interest defences.
It would be an interesting trial. Arguably the information is already in the public domain as previously mentioned in parliamentary committee.
JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”
What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?
They're releasing information that they're forbidden to release.
Is that a criminal offence, or merely a disciplinary one?
I don't know. I'm just bloody angry with the BBC for doing this interview. They should have said 'no, you're not allowed to do this' and reported him to the police. Instead they've spread this around the world. It should be a criminal offence if isn't, though I've no idea how I'd define a law to make it one.
There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.
Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”
What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?
They're releasing information that they're forbidden to release.
Is that a criminal offence, or merely a disciplinary one?
I don't know. I'm just bloody angry with the BBC for doing this interview. They should have said 'no, you're not allowed to do this' and reported him to the police. Instead they've spread this around the world. It should be a criminal offence if isn't, though I've no idea how I'd define a law to make it one.
Bearing in mind that the Paradise Papers is all about stolen information, and as I recall the original parliamentary expenses scandal too, should all that disseminated those also be prosecuted?
There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.
Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
The only misconduct in public office going on here is on the part of the ex police officers involved in this nonsense. It is the moral equivalent of slander and defamation. There should be laws against it.
Completely OT. Sky Arts is by far and away the best channel on TV at the moment.
Just this evening they have had three brilliant documentaries, two ongoing series - 'The Seventies' followed by "The History of Rolling Stone Magazine" - and now a film on the history of Tower Records. All utterly enthralling.
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
JonnyJimmy “I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops”
What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?
They're releasing information that they're forbidden to release.
Is that a criminal offence, or merely a disciplinary one?
I don't know. I'm just bloody angry with the BBC for doing this interview. They should have said 'no, you're not allowed to do this' and reported him to the police. Instead they've spread this around the world. It should be a criminal offence if isn't, though I've no idea how I'd define a law to make it one.
Bearing in mind that the Paradise Papers is all about stolen information, and as I recall the original parliamentary expenses scandal too, should all that disseminated those also be prosecuted?
The public interest is a defence in law (and rightly so). Publishing the expenses story was certainly in the public interest. This isn't.
I suspect that the ex-coppers may well be guilty of a breach (or several breaches) of the DPA.
There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.
Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
So would drinking on the job. They have different rules, which is weird, but they do have to spend weird times doing their jobs. Do we need a no self-pleasuring law for all of parliament? Or a no personal use of work computer law there? Also, do any of our IT pros think they could make someone's computer look like they'd been looking at loads of porn to the satisfaction of a police IT 'expert' with a memory stick and a few minutes at a computer? I could do that if I knew it was what I wanted the cop to find. Or if I was the cop.
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.
Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
So would drinking on the job. They have different rules, which is weird, but they do have to spend weird times doing their jobs. Do we need a no self-pleasuring law for all of parliament? Or a no personal use of work computer law there? Also, do any of our IT pros think they could make someone's computer look like they'd been looking at loads of porn to the satisfaction of a police IT 'expert' with a memory stick and a few minutes at a computer? I could do that if I knew it was what I wanted the cop to find. Or if I was the cop.
I wonder how many plod computers would be found to have porn on them.
There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.
Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
Well, it would be if there were evidence enough of it to satisfy an employment tribunal. You may well want to think that he is obviously guilty in spite of any legalistic quibbles of that kind, but then it was obvious to everyone that Saddam had wmds and obvious to that awful Bercow woman that all the stories about Lord Mcalpine were true. Process matters.
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
Again, I can't understand how you would be struck by it? Something only gets onto the daily news if there's something new to report. There clearly was something new to report about Damian Green today (and btw, today was the first time in weeks that I can recall the BBC reporting on the Green case, again because nothing new had really happened before today since the original copper came forward to make the first allegation about it).
By contrast, there's been nothing new to report about the Bex Bailey case since the original story came out - the lady understandably doesn't want to give more interviews, the guilty parties (those who were responsible for both the assault itself and responsible for the cover-up) haven't been identified yet, no details of Labour's inquiry into it has got into the public domain (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even the likes of Guido Fawkes have obtained any leaked information about it, so it's not like there's new developments out there which the BBC are just deciding to bury). So I ask again, what exactly do you think there is for the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
Am I the only one to detect a contrast between the 'more branch closures as normal' actual bank job losses which happens in prole towns and the 'end of days' wailing of possible City bank job losses ?
Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.
I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.
Care to reveal your internet search history to us all, if you have nothing to hide?
Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.
Firstly, that's far too draconian. People couldn't even log onto pbc under that rule (!)
But more seriously, the only people who should be able to dismiss a politician from office are his or her electorate or the courts (in practice, his or her party too, though they could still stand as an independent or for another party in that case).
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
Again, I can't understand how you would be struck by it? Something only gets onto the daily news if there's something new to report. There clearly was something new to report about Damian Green today (and btw, today was the first time in weeks that I can recall the BBC reporting on the Green case, again because nothing new had really happened before today since the original copper came forward to make the first allegation about it).
By contrast, there's been nothing new to report about the Bex Bailey case since the original story came out - the lady understandably doesn't want to give more interviews, the guilty parties (those who were responsible for both the assault itself and responsible for the cover-up) haven't been identified yet, no details of Labour's inquiry into it has got into the public domain (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even the likes of Guido Fawkes have obtained any leaked information about it, so it's not like there's new developments out there which the BBC are just deciding to bury). So I ask again, what exactly do you think there is for the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
The allegation is incredibly serious (rape at a party event, followed by party-inspired cover-up).
Perhaps many of us are a little sceptical that an internal party inquiry is the right vehicle.
The Labour Party is investigating itself, and traditionally when an organisation investigates itself, it finds it did no wrong.
Given the gravity of the accusations, this needed an independent inquiry. What are the police not investigating? I expect accusations of rape to be looked into by the police.
Curiously, the hapless Mr Green (who may or may not have downloaded porn) is getting an independent inquiry. And the police (or ex-coppers) have been more than assiduous to add their pennyworth in what is not even a crime.
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
Again, I can't understand how you would be struck by it? Something only gets onto the daily news if there's something new to report. There clearly was something new to report about Damian Green today (and btw, today was the first time in weeks that I can recall the BBC reporting on the Green case, again because nothing new had really happened before today since the original copper came forward to make the first allegation about it).
By contrast, there's been nothing new to report about the Bex Bailey case since the original story came out - the lady understandably doesn't want to give more interviews, the guilty parties (those who were responsible for both the assault itself and responsible for the cover-up) haven't been identified yet, no details of Labour's inquiry into it has got into the public domain (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even the likes of Guido Fawkes have obtained any leaked information about it, so it's not like there's new developments out there which the BBC are just deciding to bury). So I ask again, what exactly do you think there is for the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
Because the Green story should be a non-story - indeed if there is a story there it should be about the action of the plods attempting to damage him. All the more so after what happened to Andrew Mitchell.
Whereas the Labour rape and cover up is about a serious allegation which is now being investigated or 'investigated' by the same organisation which is alleged to have done the cover up.
Anyone reckon we stand a chance in the RL World Cup tommorow? Great odds if so!
Was at the first game in Melbourne.We dominated for long periods of the 2nd Half at 10-4 down. And came agonisingly close to scoring at least 3 times. I reckon if we'd scored then we'd have won. The 14 point margin really flattered them (even the Aussies agreed).
If you can get on at 7-1 it would be worth a few quid (but expect to lose).
I still expect an Aussie win. This is a poor Aussie team though by their standards.
We match up well up front and in the 3/4s, but it is at half back, and i paticular their kicking game which has the edge.
There's nothing public interest about this, unless there's going to be a check of all MPs'/public servants' work computers to see if there's been any personal use at all. And we should have cameras in the toilet cubicles to make sure nobody pleasures themselves when they should be working.
Downloading porn to an office PC would be gross misconduct leading to instant dismissal at the company I work for and, I think, as has been discussed on here before, that would be true for the vast majority of organisations.
Well, it would be if there were evidence enough of it to satisfy an employment tribunal. You may well want to think that he is obviously guilty in spite of any legalistic quibbles of that kind, but then it was obvious to everyone that Saddam had wmds and obvious to that awful Bercow woman that all the stories about Lord Mcalpine were true. Process matters.
Agreed.
MP's shouldn't be watching porn on work computers. They should know better. But this is not a police matter. If I was accused of something and the police took my computer away, found I had done nothing wrong, but then published an article in the local newspaper/facebook page saying that they dont have any actual evidence but they think I was watching adult pornography ten years ago. then it would be ridiculous. It would be totally insane. Its a nothing at all to do with fighting crime, and a total joke. Its seriously defamatory. Damien Green should sue them.
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.
I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
No that is incorrect. Bailey was reported as saying it was a Senior Party official.
Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.
Firstly, that's far too draconian. People couldn't even log onto pbc under that rule (!)
But more seriously, the only people who should be able to dismiss a politician from office are his or her electorate or the courts (in practice, his or her party too, though they could still stand as an independent or for another party in that case).
I think you might have missed a bit of irony there ?
I think the BBC are behaving almost as badly as these two old, bent cops. They're still reporting, almost gleefully, their 'scoop' that there was loads of porn on the computer. Surely that's the important detail that the cops have maliciously released, that breaks any information laws in its release, that they're still being entirely complicit in spreading around, the headline is still "Porn on DPM's PC, thousands of pictures". They should be reporting that two old, bent cops are breaking the law, and that further diseminating the detail is illegal. Why is the state broadcaster facilitating crime?
And when are the two plods going to be charged with breaking various laws ?
All responsible at the BBC for becoming their mouthpiece should be charged as accessories to the crime.
Its quite a contrast to the lack of interest in the rape and Labour cover up story.
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.
I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
No that is incorrect. Bailey was reported as saying it was a Senior Party official.
Also, the alleged rape happened at a Labour Party event.
Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.
Care to reveal your internet search history to us all, if you have nothing to hide?
Difference between home and work, when people worked for me, one of the first rules they were told, is that so long as what happened in their bedroom, if it was legal and between consenting adults it was none of my business. However, if it was brought to my attention, such as say, on the front page of a Sunday newspaper, then I would be annoyed... If anything happened at work, it was instant dismissal....
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
Again, I can't understand how you would be struck by it? Something only gets onto the daily news if there's something new to report. There clearly was something new to report about Damian Green today (and btw, today was the first time in weeks that I can recall the BBC reporting on the Green case, again because nothing new had really happened before today since the original copper came forward to make the first allegation about it).
By contrastfor the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
The allegation is incredibly serious (rape at a party event, followed by party-inspired cover-up).
Perhaps many of us are a little sceptical that an internal party inquiry is the right vehicle.
The Labour Party is investigating itself, and traditionally when an organisation investigates itself, it finds it did no wrong.
Given the gravity of the accusations, this needed an independent inquiry. What are the police not investigating? I expect accusations of rape to be looked into by the police.
Curiously, the hapless Mr Green (who may or may not have downloaded porn) is getting an independent inquiry. And the police (or ex-coppers) have been more than assiduous to add their pennyworth in what is not even a crime.
I think the Bex Bailwy allegation is very serious, but it was reported two years later, and from what I have seen in her interviews, was reported to a single person, who advised wrongly to take it no further. I dont think that there was an allegation odf anyone else being part of a cover up.
Labour have suspended a few people for suspected sexual impropriety (? possibly related) and there are allegedly a couple of deaths as a result. Certainly the Welsh one was all over the news for days.
Members of both parties have been pilloried in the press, so it seems to me that the press interest in these allegations has been fairly evenly balanced.
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
Again, I can't understand how you would be struck by it? Something only gets onto the daily news if there's something new to report. There clearly was something new to report about Damian Green today (and btw, today was the first time in weeks that I can recall the BBC reporting on the Green case, again because nothing new had really happened before today since the original copper came forward to make the first allegation about it).
By contrast, there's been nothing new to report about the Bex Bailey case since the original story came out - the lady understandably doesn't want to give more interviews, the guilty parties (those who were responsible for both the assault itself and responsible for the cover-up) haven't been identified yet, no details of Labour's inquiry into it has got into the public domain (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even the likes of Guido Fawkes have obtained any leaked information about it, so it's not like there's new developments out there which the BBC are just deciding to bury). So I ask again, what exactly do you think there is for the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
Because the Green story should be a non-story - indeed if there is a story there it should be about the action of the plods attempting to damage him. All the more so after what happened to Andrew Mitchell.
Whereas the Labour rape and cover up is about a serious allegation which is now being investigated or 'investigated' by the same organisation which is alleged to have done the cover up.
I'm still not understanding what your point is. What new developments in the Bex Bailey story have there been since the story first broke? The news isn't a moral, campaigning crusade - it operates on having new information to report that they haven't already reported.
Every public servant's work Internet search history should be publicly available information. Anything not work related should require disciplinary action. Anything morally questionable should result in dismissal. Seems to be some people's idea of the precedent that should be set in the current bent copper case. Even if the public servant might have been set up by the bent coppers.
Firstly, that's far too draconian. People couldn't even log onto pbc under that rule (!)
But more seriously, the only people who should be able to dismiss a politician from office are his or her electorate or the courts (in practice, his or her party too, though they could still stand as an independent or for another party in that case).
I think you might have missed a bit of irony there ?
What lack of interest? That story was (rightly) the top story on BBC that day.
And what's happened since ?
I'm not sure I understand the question? Nothing else about the Bex Bailey story has (to my knowledge) come to light since she gave the original story - or at least, it hasn't come to light publicly. There hasn't been, as for example in the Damian Green case today, someone else going on the record making new allegations. So why would the news have been giving more coverage since then, when there was nothing new for them to report? Do you expect them to just be running the exact same story day after day, even with no new information or allegations on the story to report?
I'm struck by the difference between the lack of coverage in an allegation that a political party covered up a rape (ie a serious crime) compared to the continual coverage of an allegation that someone had porn on a computer (ie not a crime).
The Bex Bailey allegation was that an individual party worker advised her to take the report no further, as I recall it was not an allegation of a systemic cover up.
I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
The BBC report gives the description 'senior Labour official' not 'individual party worker'.
Although to be fair to Labour their spokesman said this - "We would strongly recommend that the police investigate the allegations of criminal actions that Bex Bailey has made."
I wonder if plod will do so with the level of commitment they have had regarding Green's computer.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/01/merkel-faces-demand-eu-integration-price-end-government-crisis/
Out in the nick of time?
End of days.
https://www.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/sites/default/files/IMCE/News/NBC_News/NBC_Election_Report_November_2017_(2).pdf
Not a great advert for running an election. 50 votes in it but no re-run.
“In particular, he said he would demand German support for Emmanuel Macron’s proposals for a Brussels-based finance minister and single budget for the Eurozone“
“He also called for common EU tax and welfare policies. “
"His demands do not present major problems for Mrs Merkel personally: she is known to want to give Mr Macron’s proposals a degree of German support."
*innocent face*
*puts away brown paper bag*
"Blowhard" is a useful word, don't you find?
You may not like Bannon. But you can't argue with his results.
But, Eire will be made to tow the EU line on corporation tax as soon as it wants to do so.
I plan to take in some revolutionary sites, but the Russian Museum sounds worth a look. I have booked flights and hotels a couple of months ago, when they were great value. I reckon the St Petersburg SF is Germany vs Spain, but many permutations.
But, the fires have certainly been stoked in Germany.
https://tribes.chathamhouse.org
I didn't come out as a Federalist, somehow.
A very pleasant thread with which to end the working week. 3 LD gains and a solid LD hold is the stuff of moderate contentment.
No need to get too excited - local contests, very low turnouts and a fortunate juxtaposition of favourable contests for the party in winnable areas in contrast to last week's much more modest performances in much less favourable seats.
Still, gains are gains and that's how the LD recovery will be - seat by seat, vote by vote, over a number of years.
Also worth noting the Conservative vote share was down in all four seats (though a better effort than UKIP).
Anti Europeans only 14% I see.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-42193781
Just the 10 on trial this time.
Nobody knew anything about anything of course.
And there's other action that could be taken over inaction - sackings for example.
What’s the bent bit about them, out of interest?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671
But the bias is depressing. I am decidedly pro an EU with curtailed powers, which is *not* the same as being "hesitant" (as if I had dipped a toe in the bracing waters of lovely full-fat Eurofederalism but lacked the courage to jump all the way in). It gets worse: it says "Hesitant Europeans need persuading on the EU," which I bloody don't. And I thought Chatham House was meant to be neutral.
I am glad that Lord Carlile has weighed in on behalf of Green; this has hopefully discouraged all but the most moronic trolls (I see one downthread) from taking a yebbut he's a tory MP line.
It would be an interesting trial. Arguably the information is already in the public domain as previously mentioned in parliamentary committee.
Just this evening they have had three brilliant documentaries, two ongoing series - 'The Seventies' followed by "The History of Rolling Stone Magazine" - and now a film on the history of Tower Records. All utterly enthralling.
Just fantastic television.
I suspect that the ex-coppers may well be guilty of a breach (or several breaches) of the DPA.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/01/what-michael-flynns-plea-deal-means-215995?lo=ap_d1
By contrast, there's been nothing new to report about the Bex Bailey case since the original story came out - the lady understandably doesn't want to give more interviews, the guilty parties (those who were responsible for both the assault itself and responsible for the cover-up) haven't been identified yet, no details of Labour's inquiry into it has got into the public domain (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think even the likes of Guido Fawkes have obtained any leaked information about it, so it's not like there's new developments out there which the BBC are just deciding to bury). So I ask again, what exactly do you think there is for the News to say about the Bex Bailey case that wasn't already said when the story first broke?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42197309
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42192641
I am happy to wait for the proper Cabinet Office report on Green, but he is Deputy PM, so the porno and sexual harrassment allegations are legitimate for the public interest defence.
But more seriously, the only people who should be able to dismiss a politician from office are his or her electorate or the courts (in practice, his or her party too, though they could still stand as an independent or for another party in that case).
Perhaps many of us are a little sceptical that an internal party inquiry is the right vehicle.
The Labour Party is investigating itself, and traditionally when an organisation investigates itself, it finds it did no wrong.
Given the gravity of the accusations, this needed an independent inquiry. What are the police not investigating? I expect accusations of rape to be looked into by the police.
Curiously, the hapless Mr Green (who may or may not have downloaded porn) is getting an independent inquiry. And the police (or ex-coppers) have been more than assiduous to add their pennyworth in what is not even a crime.
Whereas the Labour rape and cover up is about a serious allegation which is now being investigated or 'investigated' by the same organisation which is alleged to have done the cover up.
If you can get on at 7-1 it would be worth a few quid (but expect to lose).
I still expect an Aussie win. This is a poor Aussie team though by their standards.
We match up well up front and in the 3/4s, but it is at half back, and i paticular their kicking game which has the edge.
Reckon 3 or 4 to 1 would be accurate.
MP's shouldn't be watching porn on work computers. They should know better. But this is not a police matter. If I was accused of something and the police took my computer away, found I had done nothing wrong, but then published an article in the local newspaper/facebook page saying that they dont have any actual evidence but they think I was watching adult pornography ten years ago. then it would be ridiculous. It would be totally insane. Its a nothing at all to do with fighting crime, and a total joke. Its seriously defamatory. Damien Green should sue them.
Meantime, is the EU really planning to tear up the WTO ?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/brussels-punishment-clause-uk-trade-deal-regulatory-standards-brexit
Labour have suspended a few people for suspected sexual impropriety (? possibly related) and there are allegedly a couple of deaths as a result. Certainly the Welsh one was all over the news for days.
Members of both parties have been pilloried in the press, so it seems to me that the press interest in these allegations has been fairly evenly balanced.
Although to be fair to Labour their spokesman said this - "We would strongly recommend that the police investigate the allegations of criminal actions that Bex Bailey has made."
I wonder if plod will do so with the level of commitment they have had regarding Green's computer.