Mr. Rentool, back when Hitler was a vegetarian, things like kidney were still on the menu. Most people might tightly define the term now, but the definition can vary and certainly has historically.
Mr. Mark, people don't eat enormo-haddock. Enormo-haddock eat people.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
It is a sobering thought that Gavin Williamson is not close to being the most inept member of the current Cabinet. That’s how bad it is.
Oh he is close if you except Grayling and we really cannot use him as a bar for anything. Flood prevention perhaps.
Fox, Bradley and Mordaunt are all floating at the bottom, too.
They don't seem to provoke the immediate negative opinion that Williamson does though. I don't know that I've ever seen anyone defend him.
Williamson is also transparently angling for the leadership. Fox and Bradley, at least, have the self-knowledge not to bother - which I guess does put them below him in the pecking order of crapness.
OK, even if he thinks in his former role as a Whip, he has enough shit on enough MPs to get him to the membership - how does he think he is going to repeat that trick with the membership? It's hard to think of anyone the membership wouldn't prefer over him.
OK, maybe Grieve and Boles. But somehow, I don't see them making the final two.
I'm surprised that three junior members of staff at Patisserie Valerie are in the frame. If they managed to get away with £40m there's something dreadfully wrong with the financial controls or they've a rubbish set of controls. Even if people at the top are involved.
Though there is a delightful error in the first line of the report.....
In your dreams!
The SFO have not had a lot of success recently. Too soon to blame the director appointed last year - Lisa Osofsky - but if the current Barclays trial does not go well for them,well, expect the same questions to be asked as have been asked of the SFO for the last 30 years.
I was once interviewed by them as a potential prosecution witness despite having told them, repeatedly, that I had no relevant evidence. No matter. The then director rang up my boss and insisted that I was a key witness and must be flown back from the US to give a statement. So I did - and being interviewed after an overnight flight with about 3 hours sleep is no joke. The level of questioning was dire. I told them again what I did not know. They asked me at the end if there were any other matters I did not know about. This was, I am not joking, the actual question. I paused for a long moment and briefly toyed with the idea of telling them that I did not know how to play the violin and knew nothing about quantum physics. But I held back. They drew up a statement. I was scheduled to give evidence. Hours before, the prosecution barrister took one look at the statement and said there was no point as I had no relevant evidence to give.
Hallelujah!
It has not been my only encounter with them. I have not been impressed.
Mind you, the FCA has prosecuted only one case of insider dealing in 3 years and even that is going for a retrial.
We have never got the prosecution of fraud and serious financial crime right in this country, the maximum sentences are far too low and even when you commit extremely serious crimes you never get the maximum anyway. We just don’t take it seriously enough.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
Though there is a delightful error in the first line of the report.....
In your dreams!
The SFO have not had a lot of success recently. Too soon to blame the director appointed last year - Lisa Osofsky - but if the current Barclays trial does not go well for them,well, expect the same questions to be asked as have been asked of the SFO for the last 30 years.
I was once interviewed by them as a potential prosecution witness despite having told them, repeatedly, that I had no relevant evidence. No matter. The then director rang up my boss and insisted that I was a key witness and must be flown back from the US to give a statement. So I did - and being interviewed after an overnight flight with about 3 hours sleep is no joke. The level of questioning was dire. I told them again what I did not know. They asked me at the end if there were any other matters I did not know about. This was, I am not joking, the actual question. I paused for a long moment and briefly toyed with the idea of telling them that I did not know how to play the violin and knew nothing about quantum physics. But I held back. They drew up a statement. I was scheduled to give evidence. Hours before, the prosecution barrister took one look at the statement and said there was no point as I had no relevant evidence to give.
Hallelujah!
It has not been my only encounter with them. I have not been impressed.
Mind you, the FCA has prosecuted only one case of insider dealing in 3 years and even that is going for a retrial.
We have never got the prosecution of fraud and serious financial crime right in this country, the maximum sentences are far too low and even when you commit extremely serious crimes you never get the maximum anyway. We just don’t take it seriously enough.
Seems wrong that the police can do you for wasting police time, but there is no equivalent offence for wasting the public's time.... Maybe being a pillock in a public office?
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
Though there is a delightful error in the first line of the report.....
In your dreams!
The SFO have not had a lot of success recently. Too soon to blame the director appointed last year - Lisa Osofsky - but if the current Barclays trial does not go well for them,well, expect the same questions to be asked as have been asked of the SFO for the last 30 years.
I was once interviewed by them as a potential prosecution witness despite having told them, repeatedly, that I had no relevant evidence. No matter. The then director rang up my boss and insisted that I was a key witness and must be flown back from the US to give a statement. So I did - and being interviewed after an overnight flight with about 3 hours sleep is no joke. The level of questioning was dire. I told them again what I did not know. They asked me at the end if there were any other matters I did not know about. This was, I am not joking, the actual question. I paused for a long moment and briefly toyed with the idea of telling them that I did not know how to play the violin and knew nothing about quantum physics. But I held back. They drew up a statement. I was scheduled to give evidence. Hours before, the prosecution barrister took one look at the statement and said there was no point as I had no relevant evidence to give.
Hallelujah!
It has not been my only encounter with them. I have not been impressed.
Mind you, the FCA has prosecuted only one case of insider dealing in 3 years and even that is going for a retrial.
We have never got the prosecution of fraud and serious financial crime right in this country, the maximum sentences are far too low and even when you commit extremely serious crimes you never get the maximum anyway. We just don’t take it seriously enough.
Seems wrong that the police can do you for wasting police time, but there is no equivalent offence for wasting the public's time.... Maybe being a pillock in a public office?
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
Mr. Recidivist, it'd take a lot more than that, I think, for the petition to have an impact.
But would it? Up until now the average MP's calculation is 52% support leave, and a big chunk of the other 48% accept the result. Result - I have to back leaving.
But if there is a big chunk of opinion that now favours revocation, that has to make a difference.
Just to be clear, a few hundred thousand wouldn't be enough. And the numbers aren't rising quickly enough to suggest it will get beyond that. But once we are talking million plus we are talking about a few thousand per parliamentary seat. That starts to look important.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
LABOUR PULLS LEVEL The Tories have lost a seven-point poll lead — and are now level with Labour Jeremy Corbyn has helped Labour pick up three points as Theresa May struggles to convince the public of her Brexit plan, pollsters Opinium have found
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
We’ve known that the QE was going to the Pacific for ages. There was an interview with the commanding officer when she was in New York that said so. It was just oversold with stupid language by GW. Combined with his awful voice he has no hope of getting the top job
By 2021 when the QE sets sail for said region...we may well have a Labour govt under JC - by then this will be long long forgotten.......just saying
Will it be allowed to go to sea under Corbyn? Seems a bit aggressive. Maybe we could send out cups of tea and digestive biscuits instead.
But the timing shows how indescribably stupid Williamson is. Hammond's trip to China cancelled so he could arse about something that is absolutely years off? Total prat.
Could use it to travel the world rescuing illegal migrants and bringing them back to the UK? I can see Jezza signing off on that plan.
Watched episodes 2 and 3 of Europe, 10 years of turmoil, yesterday. Superb series, the BBC at its very best. One lost track of how many things Merkel has managed to misjudge in the last 10 years but of them all the asylum crisis from Syria was probably the worst. And the deal she struck with Turkey without the approval of Tusk or the Council really needs to be thought about when people obsess about how Leave allegedly lied about Turkey's impending accession.
My conclusion was that without her there is no way that Brexit would have happened. Between the rejection of Cameron's attempts at restricting free movement, to the raping of Greece to the deals with Turkey and the mass acceptance of immigrants without any checks on their status or suitability, she really did everything necessary and possible to make it happen.
The Express is saying Nigel Farage has 100000 members for his new party in one week.
Horseshit....unless by “members” they mean likes on Facebook.
Reading the article it says 35000 joined the first day followed by 10000 a day. The new Brexit party if true , would in members be similar to the Conservative party.
The Express is saying Nigel Farage has 100000 members for his new party in one week.
Horseshit....unless by “members” they mean likes on Facebook.
Reading the article it says 35000 joined the first day followed by 10000 a day. The new Brexit party if true , would in members be similar to the Conservative party.
There is no way they have 100k people pony up money to join. It has to be likes on Facebook, follow then on twitter and/or filling in some web form.
The Express is saying Nigel Farage has 100000 members for his new party in one week.
Horseshit....unless by “members” they mean likes on Facebook.
Reading the article it says 35000 joined the first day followed by 10000 a day. The new Brexit party if true , would in members be similar to the Conservative party.
The Express is saying Nigel Farage has 100000 members for his new party in one week.
Horseshit....unless by “members” they mean likes on Facebook.
Reading the article it says 35000 joined the first day followed by 10000 a day. The new Brexit party if true , would in members be similar to the Conservative party.
The Express is saying Nigel Farage has 100000 members for his new party in one week.
Horseshit....unless by “members” they mean likes on Facebook.
Reading the article it says 35000 joined the first day followed by 10000 a day. The new Brexit party if true , would in members be similar to the Conservative party.
There is no way they have 100k people pony up money to join. It has to be likes on Facebook, follow then on twitter and/or filling in some web form.
There's two forms here, one that says "Coming Soon. Register Your Interest" and the other that says "Donate to Us" with an external link to a Paypal site to donate a Sterling amount.
There's also a few social media links to "official" Twitter and Facebook pages.
There's no way to become a member and no way to join the party, anyone claiming numbers for either is being very misleading.
A good journalist might be asking, a couple of months down the line, for a list of foreign donors via the Paypal link. I wonder if Paypal can provide the necessary detail on foreign donations to satisfy the Electoral Commission.
Joining or supporting ISIS, to the extent of going out there to be with them, and illegally crossing frontiers to get there (which they all did, provably) should be a serious crime in and of itself.
BUT we should not serve this justice ourselves. These people should be tried, and then acquitted or convicted (and punished), in the sight of their victims, in the land in which they did their crimes. We shouldn't be passively waiting for them to come home, we should be pro-actively handing them over to the nearest acceptable judicial authorities, and if that is not Syria, then let it be Iraq, Kurdistan or Turkey,
Let the raped and slaved Yazidi women, and their genocidally slaughtered menfolk, have their justice. Because THEY were the victims of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Not us.
We would say the same of an alleged British murderer, rapist, drug-dealer or pedophile in America, Peru or Singapore. We would say: you did the crime there, you must suffer the judicial consequences there. I do not see why British ISIS members should get special treatment. --------- Belonging to ISIS is indeed now a crime, but it wasn't when she joined them at age 15, and it can't be applied retrospectively. If our allies in the SDF wish to try her for something, they are free to do so. But they, like us, have not shown evidence that she's committed any crimes.
I don't even rely on thinking she might be redeemed. Maybe she'll spend her whole life ranting to anyone who'll listen. I simply think that British people who don't appear to have committed any crimes amd merely have repulsive opinions should be punished by Britain. Because once we start treating people differently if they have wrong ideas, which of us is entirely safe?
There's two forms here, one that says "Coming Soon. Register Your Interest" and the other that says "Donate to Us" with an external link to a Paypal site to donate a Sterling amount.
There's also a few social media links to "official" Twitter and Facebook pages.
There's no way to become a member and no way to join the party, anyone claiming numbers for either is being very misleading.
A good journalist might be asking, a couple of months down the line, for a list of foreign donors via the Paypal link. I wonder if Paypal can provide the necessary detail on foreign donations to satisfy the Electoral Commission.
Too busy submitting copyright strikes against tech YouTubers for taking the piss out of their poorly researched how to pieces?
I saw the French frigate La Motte-Picquet in Leith harbour this morning. Interested to note that it was flying a Union flag in addition to the French tricolour. Is this simply a sign of respect for the host port?
Or has Her Majesty taken control of the French Navy/Are the French allowing us a timeshare on some of their ships because we can't afford enough of our own after paying for the carriers?
I saw the French frigate La Motte-Picquet in Leith harbour this morning. Interested to note that it was flying a Union flag in addition to the French tricolour. Is this simply a sign of respect for the host port?
Or has Her Majesty taken control of the French Navy/Are the French allowing us a timeshare on some of their ships because we can't afford enough of our own after paying for the carriers?
Theresa May is facing a fresh showdown with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs after a cabinet minister suggested she may ask parliament to approve her Brexit deal again without having legally removed the Irish backstop from the withdrawal text.
Theresa May is facing a fresh showdown with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs after a cabinet minister suggested she may ask parliament to approve her Brexit deal again without having legally removed the Irish backstop from the withdrawal text.
Theresa May is facing a fresh showdown with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs after a cabinet minister suggested she may ask parliament to approve her Brexit deal again without having legally removed the Irish backstop from the withdrawal text.
The reason the EU have insisted on the two-documents approach is that one of them is a legally binding Treaty and the other isn't.
Any changes on the backstop that the EU want to call legally binding need to be in the Treaty - and if they're not in the Treaty then it's not unreasonable for people to expect that they're not legally binding on the EU, or at least that the EU don't consider them to be legally binding on themselves.
Theresa May is facing a fresh showdown with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs after a cabinet minister suggested she may ask parliament to approve her Brexit deal again without having legally removed the Irish backstop from the withdrawal text.
The reason the EU have insisted on the two-documents approach is that one of them is a legally binding Treaty and the other isn't.
Any changes on the backstop that the EU want to call legally binding need to be in the Treaty - and if they're not in the Treaty then it's not unreasonable for people to expect that they're not legally binding on the EU, or at least that the EU don't consider them to be legally binding on themselves.
Fact is May cannot give the ERG and others what they want. They surely know that, and they know what they need to do to stop her offering them things they do not want or she cannot deliver, and really they can both stop this very stupid game where we keep hearing of fresh anger and fresh showdowns. It's just sad.
Theresa May is facing a fresh showdown with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs after a cabinet minister suggested she may ask parliament to approve her Brexit deal again without having legally removed the Irish backstop from the withdrawal text.
The reason the EU have insisted on the two-documents approach is that one of them is a legally binding Treaty and the other isn't.
Any changes on the backstop that the EU want to call legally binding need to be in the Treaty - and if they're not in the Treaty then it's not unreasonable for people to expect that they're not legally binding on the EU, or at least that the EU don't consider them to be legally binding on themselves.
Fact is May cannot give the ERG and others what they want. They surely know that, and they know what they need to do to stop her offering them things they do not want or she cannot deliver, and really they can both stop this very stupid game where we keep hearing of fresh anger and fresh showdowns. It's just sad.
No-one can ever give the ERG what they want, since what they want is to oppose whatever they are offered.
May's strategic error in not facing them down and aiming for a soft Brexit from the beginning is ever more clear.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
When do we start getting into price of tomatos vs oranges?
Who was that fucking nutter who used to post about what strawberries Waitrose had in stock as some sort of evidence that brexit was going well?
Not me, but that was not what it was about, and you are not stupid enough to think that it was so I don't know why you think it's funny to pretend to be that stupid. It was about scare stories and how one about strawberries had been used many times.
I saw the French frigate La Motte-Picquet in Leith harbour this morning. Interested to note that it was flying a Union flag in addition to the French tricolour. Is this simply a sign of respect for the host port?
Or has Her Majesty taken control of the French Navy/Are the French allowing us a timeshare on some of their ships because we can't afford enough of our own after paying for the carriers?
Edit: B - 970.25 hours
Was it a courtesy flag? Not flown from the stern.
Yes, not flown from the stern, but from high up on the radar mast.
I saw the French frigate La Motte-Picquet in Leith harbour this morning. Interested to note that it was flying a Union flag in addition to the French tricolour. Is this simply a sign of respect for the host port?
Or has Her Majesty taken control of the French Navy/Are the French allowing us a timeshare on some of their ships because we can't afford enough of our own after paying for the carriers?
Edit: B - 970.25 hours
Was it a courtesy flag? Not flown from the stern.
Yes, not flown from the stern, but from as high up on the radar mast.
Which is normal protocol for a ship in a foreign port.
I saw the French frigate La Motte-Picquet in Leith harbour this morning. Interested to note that it was flying a Union flag in addition to the French tricolour. Is this simply a sign of respect for the host port?
Or has Her Majesty taken control of the French Navy/Are the French allowing us a timeshare on some of their ships because we can't afford enough of our own after paying for the carriers?
Edit: B - 970.25 hours
Was it a courtesy flag? Not flown from the stern.
Yes, not flown from the stern, but from as high up on the radar mast.
Yes, a courtesy flag, although I think a foreign warship should fly the White Ensign as a courtesy, and a foreign merchantman the Red.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
I saw the French frigate La Motte-Picquet in Leith harbour this morning. Interested to note that it was flying a Union flag in addition to the French tricolour. Is this simply a sign of respect for the host port?
Or has Her Majesty taken control of the French Navy/Are the French allowing us a timeshare on some of their ships because we can't afford enough of our own after paying for the carriers?
Edit: B - 970.25 hours
Was it a courtesy flag? Not flown from the stern.
Yes, not flown from the stern, but from as high up on the radar mast.
Which is normal protocol for a ship in a foreign port.
I saw the French frigate La Motte-Picquet in Leith harbour this morning. Interested to note that it was flying a Union flag in addition to the French tricolour. Is this simply a sign of respect for the host port?
Or has Her Majesty taken control of the French Navy/Are the French allowing us a timeshare on some of their ships because we can't afford enough of our own after paying for the carriers?
Edit: B - 970.25 hours
Was it a courtesy flag? Not flown from the stern.
Yes, not flown from the stern, but from as high up on the radar mast.
Which is normal protocol for a ship in a foreign port.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
When do we start getting into price of tomatos vs oranges?
Who was that fucking nutter who used to post about what strawberries Waitrose had in stock as some sort of evidence that brexit was going well?
Tbf you shouldn't normally expect lots of strawberries in February
(A). It’s normal now. (B) Said nutter also goes on about the evils of holidaying abroad as if a week on the Lincolnshire Riviera is enough for any normal person.
Astute observation from David Henig. Horse trading between members will deliver more than demands from a third country. The negotiations are of an entirely different nature and the UK hasn't adapted to the new reality.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
When do we start getting into price of tomatos vs oranges?
Who was that fucking nutter who used to post about what strawberries Waitrose had in stock as some sort of evidence that brexit was going well?
Not me, but that was not what it was about, and you are not stupid enough to think that it was so I don't know why you think it's funny to pretend to be that stupid. It was about scare stories and how one about strawberries had been used many times.
The most remarkable thing about the no deal scenario is how many leavers seem to think that the fact that no wolf appeared when a remainer first made the cry is absolute proof that we will be wolf-free when we walk naked into the forest.
Astute observation from David Henig. Horse trading between members will deliver more than demands from a third country. The negotiations are of an entirely different nature and the UK hasn't adapted to the new reality.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
When do we start getting into price of tomatos vs oranges?
Who was that fucking nutter who used to post about what strawberries Waitrose had in stock as some sort of evidence that brexit was going well?
Not me, but that was not what it was about, and you are not stupid enough to think that it was so I don't know why you think it's funny to pretend to be that stupid. It was about scare stories and how one about strawberries had been used many times.
The most remarkable thing about the no deal scenario is how many leavers seem to think that the fact that no wolf appeared when a remainer first made the cry is absolute proof that we will be wolf-free when we walk naked into the forest.
While the funny thing with Remainers crying wolf is that every single time it is a case of "this time its different".
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
When do we start getting into price of tomatos vs oranges?
Who was that fucking nutter who used to post about what strawberries Waitrose had in stock as some sort of evidence that brexit was going well?
Not me, but that was not what it was about, and you are not stupid enough to think that it was so I don't know why you think it's funny to pretend to be that stupid. It was about scare stories and how one about strawberries had been used many times.
The most remarkable thing about the no deal scenario is how many leavers seem to think that the fact that no wolf appeared when a remainer first made the cry is absolute proof that we will be wolf-free when we walk naked into the forest.
While the funny thing with Remainers crying wolf is that every single time it is a case of "this time its different".
A comment that adds nothing intelligent to the debate.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
When do we start getting into price of tomatos vs oranges?
Who was that fucking nutter who used to post about what strawberries Waitrose had in stock as some sort of evidence that brexit was going well?
Not me, but that was not what it was about, and you are not stupid enough to think that it was so I don't know why you think it's funny to pretend to be that stupid. It was about scare stories and how one about strawberries had been used many times.
The most remarkable thing about the no deal scenario is how many leavers seem to think that the fact that no wolf appeared when a remainer first made the cry is absolute proof that we will be wolf-free when we walk naked into the forest.
Astute observation from David Henig. Horse trading between members will deliver more than demands from a third country. The negotiations are of an entirely different nature and the UK hasn't adapted to the new reality.
And our attempts to replace being inside with opt-outs with being outside with opt-ins isn't going so well.
The difference is that with horse-trading, everyone must get something they want and avoid most of the stuff they don't want. So there's a haggle accompanied by copious fudge and it all gets sorted out. As the third country, the UK must give something to every one of the 27 countries, because they all have votes, and there is little to no fudge. The UK has given no thought to what the EU27 want. In particular Graham Brady and his ilk haven't bothered to consider why Ireland might need the backstop. They don't see why they should. What Ireland needs is of no concern to them.
Astute observation from David Henig. Horse trading between members will deliver more than demands from a third country. The negotiations are of an entirely different nature and the UK hasn't adapted to the new reality.
And our attempts to replace being inside with opt-outs with being outside with opt-ins isn't going so well.
The difference is that with horse-trading, everyone needs to get something they want and avoid most of the stuff they don't want. So there's a haggle accompanied by copious fudge and it all gets sorted out. As the third country, the UK needs to give something to every one of the 27 countries, because they all have votes, and there is little to no fudge. The UK has given no right to what the EU27 want. In particular Graham Brady haven't bothered to consider why Ireland might need the backstop. They don't see why they should. What Ireland needs is of no concern to them.
Because for Tories a little more effort from the British Government the Anglo-Irish War could have been won, and there'd have been none of this Republic of Ireland nonsense.
This has to be the worst Sunday thread header in the history of thread headers, perhaps ever
My apologies. Both TSE and I are away this weekend in locations with no WiFi and almost no mobile connectivity. I've had to walk about 500 metres from where to post this.
It was definitely a tongue in cheek comment - I very much appreciate all the effort you and the editors put in to get multiple interesting headers each day!
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
When do we start getting into price of tomatos vs oranges?
Who was that fucking nutter who used to post about what strawberries Waitrose had in stock as some sort of evidence that brexit was going well?
Not me, but that was not what it was about, and you are not stupid enough to think that it was so I don't know why you think it's funny to pretend to be that stupid. It was about scare stories and how one about strawberries had been used many times.
The most remarkable thing about the no deal scenario is how many leavers seem to think that the fact that no wolf appeared when a remainer first made the cry is absolute proof that we will be wolf-free when we walk naked into the forest.
While the funny thing with Remainers crying wolf is that every single time it is a case of "this time its different".
A comment that adds nothing intelligent to the debate.
This has to be the worst Sunday thread header in the history of thread headers, perhaps ever
My apologies. Both TSE and I are away this weekend in locations with no WiFi and almost no mobile connectivity. I've had to walk about 500 metres from where to post this.
It was definitely a tongue in cheek comment - I very much appreciate all the effort you and the editors put in to get multiple interesting headers each day!
Theresa May is facing a fresh showdown with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs after a cabinet minister suggested she may ask parliament to approve her Brexit deal again without having legally removed the Irish backstop from the withdrawal text.
The reason the EU have insisted on the two-documents approach is that one of them is a legally binding Treaty and the other isn't.
Any changes on the backstop that the EU want to call legally binding need to be in the Treaty - and if they're not in the Treaty then it's not unreasonable for people to expect that they're not legally binding on the EU, or at least that the EU don't consider them to be legally binding on themselves.
It is not a case of the EU insisting on something which could be done otherwise, for the sake of some strategic calculus. The 'two-pronged' approach is derived directly from the legal realities.
The UK is still a member of the EU. To conclude its membership in an orderly fashion a withdrawal agreement needs to be signed before the clock winds down and the UK becomes a third country. Only then will it be legally possible to conclude any legally binding agreement on the future UK-EU relations, therefor the political declaration cannot possibly be legally binding, as it pertains to that future relations.
Astute observation from David Henig. Horse trading between members will deliver more than demands from a third country. The negotiations are of an entirely different nature and the UK hasn't adapted to the new reality.
And our attempts to replace being inside with opt-outs with being outside with opt-ins isn't going so well.
The difference is that with horse-trading, everyone must get something they want and avoid most of the stuff they don't want. So there's a haggle accompanied by copious fudge and it all gets sorted out. As the third country, the UK must give something to every one of the 27 countries, because they all have votes, and there is little to no fudge. The UK has given no thought to what the EU27 want. In particular Graham Brady and his ilk haven't bothered to consider why Ireland might need the backstop. They don't see why they should. What Ireland needs is of no concern to them.
I should add the UK will have to get used to the new take it or take it style of negotiation. The past two plus years of negotiations have been about just three topics: citizens accrued rights, severance payments and the Irish border, of which the last is still unresolved. The major negotiations are still to come: on markets, regulation, cross border movements, ongoing payments, third country relations, UK participation in EU programmes, citizens rights going forward, EUCJ legal oversight. Expect years and years of wrangling. And by the way No Deal, if it happens, will only aggravate that.
This has to be the worst Sunday thread header in the history of thread headers, perhaps ever
My apologies. Both TSE and I are away this weekend in locations with no WiFi and almost no mobile connectivity. I've had to walk about 500 metres from where to post this.
It was definitely a tongue in cheek comment - I very much appreciate all the effort you and the editors put in to get multiple interesting headers each day!
Yet the typo just sits there...
Give that OGH had to hike up the nearest hill to get enough signal to make it for us I'm not too fussed
Theresa May is facing a fresh showdown with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs after a cabinet minister suggested she may ask parliament to approve her Brexit deal again without having legally removed the Irish backstop from the withdrawal text.
The reason the EU have insisted on the two-documents approach is that one of them is a legally binding Treaty and the other isn't.
Any changes on the backstop that the EU want to call legally binding need to be in the Treaty - and if they're not in the Treaty then it's not unreasonable for people to expect that they're not legally binding on the EU, or at least that the EU don't consider them to be legally binding on themselves.
It is not a case of the EU insisting on something which could be done otherwise, for the sake of some strategic calculus. The 'two-pronged' approach is derived directly from the legal realities.
The UK is still a member of the EU. To conclude its membership in an orderly fashion a withdrawal agreement needs to be signed before the clock winds down and the UK becomes a third country. Only then will it be legally possible to conclude any legally binding agreement on the future UK-EU relations, therefor the political declaration cannot possibly be legally binding, as it pertains to that future relations.
And how well as that worked out? The months and months spent talking about a scenario both sides didn't want could have been avoided entirely.
--------- Belonging to ISIS is indeed now a crime, but it wasn't when she joined them at age 15, and it can't be applied retrospectively. If our allies in the SDF wish to try her for something, they are free to do so. But they, like us, have not shown evidence that she's committed any crimes.
I don't even rely on thinking she might be redeemed. Maybe she'll spend her whole life ranting to anyone who'll listen. I simply think that British people who don't appear to have committed any crimes amd merely have repulsive opinions should be punished by Britain. Because once we start treating people differently if they have wrong ideas, which of us is entirely safe?
There are 4 separate issues here:-
1. Has she committed any crimes while in Syria / Iraq or anywhere else she may have been in the last 4 years? We don’t know and it is far too soon to say that there is no evidence that she has not committed any crimes.
2. What is the proper forum for doing such an investigation and prosecuting such crimes? Syria and Iraq not Britain.
3. Has she committed any crimes against British law. Again, we don’t know and that needs a thorough investigation should she end up in Britain.
In theory it is also possible to prosecute her here for crimes committed abroad but in practice it will likely be be impossible to do so - to do an investigation and collect evidence to the required standard of proof for an English court. So those rushing to say that she must be brought back to Britain are, in effect, allowing her to escape justice in the country in which she has chosen to live. That is a repellently arrogant attitude, as if being a British citizen should override all other considerations.
4. If she ends up in Britain, is it in the child’s best interests to be brought up by a woman with her views and attitudes and history. In my view, no.
What I find tiresome and pretty sick-making is the constant “me-me-me” focus by her and her supporters with demands for Britain to get her out of the hole she has dug herself into, with little awareness of the sort of person they are talking about. The narcissistic sense of entitlement is pretty repulsive, frankly.
What I find tiresome and pretty sick-making is the constant “me-me-me” focus by her and her supporters with demands for Britain to get her out of the hole she has dug herself into, with little awareness of the sort of person they are talking about. The narcissistic sense of entitlement is pretty repulsive, frankly.
--------- Belonging to ISIS is indeed now a crime, but it wasn't when she joined them at age 15, and it can't be applied retrospectively. If our allies in the SDF wish to try her for something, they are free to do so. But they, like us, have not shown evidence that she's committed any crimes.
I don't even rely on thinking she might be redeemed. Maybe she'll spend her whole life ranting to anyone who'll listen. I simply think that British people who don't appear to have committed any crimes amd merely have repulsive opinions should be punished by Britain. Because once we start treating people differently if they have wrong ideas, which of us is entirely safe?
There are 4 separate issues here:-
1. Has she committed any crimes while in Syria / Iraq or anywhere else she may have been in the last 4 years? We don’t know and it is far too soon to say that there is no evidence that she has not committed any crimes.
2. What is the proper forum for doing such an investigation and prosecuting such crimes? Syria and Iraq not Britain.
3. Has she committed any crimes against British law. Again, we don’t know and that needs a thorough investigation should she end up in Britain.
In theory it is also possible to prosecute her here for crimes committed abroad but in practice it will likely be be impossible to do so - to do an investigation and collect evidence to the required standard of proof for an English court. So those rushing to say that she must be brought back to Britain are, in effect, allowing her to escape justice in the country in which she has chosen to live. That is a repellently arrogant attitude, as if being a British citizen should override all other considerations.
4. If she ends up in Britain, is it in the child’s best interests to be brought up by a woman with her views and attitudes and history. In my view, no.
What I find tiresome and pretty sick-making is the constant “me-me-me” focus by her and her supporters with demands for Britain to get her out of the hole she has dug herself into, with little awareness of the sort of person they are talking about. The narcissistic sense of entitlement is pretty repulsive, frankly.
How would (will?) we deal with a 19 year old man who, for whatever reason, ran away and joined ISIS when he was 15?
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
When do we start getting into price of tomatos vs oranges?
Who was that fucking nutter who used to post about what strawberries Waitrose had in stock as some sort of evidence that brexit was going well?
Not me, but that was not what it was about, and you are not stupid enough to think that it was so I don't know why you think it's funny to pretend to be that stupid. It was about scare stories and how one about strawberries had been used many times.
The most remarkable thing about the no deal scenario is how many leavers seem to think that the fact that no wolf appeared when a remainer first made the cry is absolute proof that we will be wolf-free when we walk naked into the forest.
While the funny thing with Remainers crying wolf is that every single time it is a case of "this time its different".
A comment that adds nothing intelligent to the debate.
Theresa May is facing a fresh showdown with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs after a cabinet minister suggested she may ask parliament to approve her Brexit deal again without having legally removed the Irish backstop from the withdrawal text.
The reason the EU have insisted on the two-documents approach is that one of them is a legally binding Treaty and the other isn't.
Any changes on the backstop that the EU want to call legally binding need to be in the Treaty - and if they're not in the Treaty then it's not unreasonable for people to expect that they're not legally binding on the EU, or at least that the EU don't consider them to be legally binding on themselves.
It is not a case of the EU insisting on something which could be done otherwise, for the sake of some strategic calculus. The 'two-pronged' approach is derived directly from the legal realities.
The UK is still a member of the EU. To conclude its membership in an orderly fashion a withdrawal agreement needs to be signed before the clock winds down and the UK becomes a third country. Only then will it be legally possible to conclude any legally binding agreement on the future UK-EU relations, therefor the political declaration cannot possibly be legally binding, as it pertains to that future relations.
But the Political Statement is, as it says, a political document. Its a sop, essentially, to the UK to give it something beyond the transition period in exchange for giving the EU what it wants in the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU will largely allow the UK to put what it wants in the Political Statement as long as it doesn't contradict the Withdrawal Agreement or bind the EU. It's not completely meaningless as it does imply a direction for the negotiations
We’ve known that the QE was going to the Pacific for ages. There was an interview with the commanding officer when she was in New York that said so. It was just oversold with stupid language by GW. Combined with his awful voice he has no hope of getting the top job
By 2021 when the QE sets sail for said region...we may well have a Labour govt under JC - by then this will be long long forgotten.......just saying
Will it be allowed to go to sea under Corbyn? Seems a bit aggressive. Maybe we could send out cups of tea and digestive biscuits instead.
But the timing shows how indescribably stupid Williamson is. Hammond's trip to China cancelled so he could arse about something that is absolutely years off? Total prat.
Could use it to travel the world rescuing illegal migrants and bringing them back to the UK? I can see Jezza signing off on that plan.
Watched episodes 2 and 3 of Europe, 10 years of turmoil, yesterday. Superb series, the BBC at its very best. One lost track of how many things Merkel has managed to misjudge in the last 10 years but of them all the asylum crisis from Syria was probably the worst. And the deal she struck with Turkey without the approval of Tusk or the Council really needs to be thought about when people obsess about how Leave allegedly lied about Turkey's impending accession.
My conclusion was that without her there is no way that Brexit would have happened. Between the rejection of Cameron's attempts at restricting free movement, to the raping of Greece to the deals with Turkey and the mass acceptance of immigrants without any checks on their status or suitability, she really did everything necessary and possible to make it happen.
Most recent poll in Spain shows Ciudadanos increasing it's vote along with Vox while Podemos and PP both drop. PSOE up slightly but overall right and centre right still in the lead overall.
When do we start getting into price of tomatos vs oranges?
Who was that fucking nutter who used to post about what strawberries Waitrose had in stock as some sort of evidence that brexit was going well?
Not me, but that was not what it was about, and you are not stupid enough to think that it was so I don't know why you think it's funny to pretend to be that stupid. It was about scare stories and how one about strawberries had been used many times.
The most remarkable thing about the no deal scenario is how many leavers seem to think that the fact that no wolf appeared when a remainer first made the cry is absolute proof that we will be wolf-free when we walk naked into the forest.
IIRC eventually the wolf (or wolves) DID come.
Never mind wolves, the relevant analogy is the man who has just jumped off the Empire State Building and is saying "LOL at the anti-jumping lobby, we have now fallen ONE HUNDRED STORIES and we are absolutely fine."
I don't even rely on thinking she might be redeemed. Maybe she'll spend her whole life ranting to anyone who'll listen. I simply think that British people who don't appear to have committed any crimes amd merely have repulsive opinions should be punished by Britain. Because once we start treating people differently if they have wrong ideas, which of us is entirely safe?
There are 4 separate issues here:-
1. Has she committed any crimes while in Syria / Iraq or anywhere else she may have been in the last 4 years? We don’t know and it is far too soon to say that there is no evidence that she has not committed any crimes.
2. What is the proper forum for doing such an investigation and prosecuting such crimes? Syria and Iraq not Britain.
3. Has she committed any crimes against British law. Again, we don’t know and that needs a thorough investigation should she end up in Britain.
In theory it is also possible to prosecute her here for crimes committed abroad but in practice it will likely be be impossible to do so - to do an investigation and collect evidence to the required standard of proof for an English court. So those rushing to say that she must be brought back to Britain are, in effect, allowing her to escape justice in the country in which she has chosen to live. That is a repellently arrogant attitude, as if being a British citizen should override all other considerations.
4. If she ends up in Britain, is it in the child’s best interests to be brought up by a woman with her views and attitudes and history. In my view, no.
What I find tiresome and pretty sick-making is the constant “me-me-me” focus by her and her supporters with demands for Britain to get her out of the hole she has dug herself into, with little awareness of the sort of person they are talking about. The narcissistic sense of entitlement is pretty repulsive, frankly.
How would (will?) we deal with a 19 year old man who, for whatever reason, ran away and joined ISIS when he was 15?
And now wants to come 'home'.
Why would / why should we waste money and put lives at risk to help such people?
I am rather in favour of the French approach which seems to be rather more hard-headed and is without the feeble sentimentality of some in Britain.
If they end up here we have to deal with them - but I would make no effort to help those who have joined terrorist organizations. There are better priorities. What is the number of threats in this country the police and security services are trying to deal with?
Comments
The rest of her Cabinet!
Mr. Mark, people don't eat enormo-haddock. Enormo-haddock eat people.
OK, maybe Grieve and Boles. But somehow, I don't see them making the final two.
I was once interviewed by them as a potential prosecution witness despite having told them, repeatedly, that I had no relevant evidence. No matter. The then director rang up my boss and insisted that I was a key witness and must be flown back from the US to give a statement. So I did - and being interviewed after an overnight flight with about 3 hours sleep is no joke. The level of questioning was dire. I told them again what I did not know. They asked me at the end if there were any other matters I did not know about. This was, I am not joking, the actual question. I paused for a long moment and briefly toyed with the idea of telling them that I did not know how to play the violin and knew nothing about quantum physics. But I held back. They drew up a statement. I was scheduled to give evidence. Hours before, the prosecution barrister took one look at the statement and said there was no point as I had no relevant evidence to give.
Hallelujah!
It has not been my only encounter with them. I have not been impressed.
Mind you, the FCA has prosecuted only one case of insider dealing in 3 years and even that is going for a retrial.
We have never got the prosecution of fraud and serious financial crime right in this country, the maximum sentences are far too low and even when you commit extremely serious crimes you never get the maximum anyway. We just don’t take it seriously enough.
It was raspberries. And where they came from. Mostly focused on Tesco.
Of course if you grow your own you can have both early fruiting and late fruiting ones.
BTW I am still sticking to my self-imposed February DeChox.
But if there is a big chunk of opinion that now favours revocation, that has to make a difference.
Just to be clear, a few hundred thousand wouldn't be enough. And the numbers aren't rising quickly enough to suggest it will get beyond that. But once we are talking million plus we are talking about a few thousand per parliamentary seat. That starts to look important.
Can seamus account for his whereabouts?
LABOUR PULLS LEVEL The Tories have lost a seven-point poll lead — and are now level with Labour
Jeremy Corbyn has helped Labour pick up three points as Theresa May struggles to convince the public of her Brexit plan, pollsters Opinium have found
https://thepinprick.com/2019/02/13/a-small-act-of-defiance-how-i-unleashed-a-ton-of-spam-on-nigel-farages-brexit-party/
PS was it not Pulpstar
I think Merkel has been a disaster.
The new Brexit party if true , would in members be similar to the Conservative party.
https://www.thebrexitparty.org/
There's two forms here, one that says "Coming Soon. Register Your Interest" and the other that says "Donate to Us" with an external link to a Paypal site to donate a Sterling amount.
There's also a few social media links to "official" Twitter and Facebook pages.
There's no way to become a member and no way to join the party, anyone claiming numbers for either is being very misleading.
A good journalist might be asking, a couple of months down the line, for a list of foreign donors via the Paypal link. I wonder if Paypal can provide the necessary detail on foreign donations to satisfy the Electoral Commission.
Joining or supporting ISIS, to the extent of going out there to be with them, and illegally crossing frontiers to get there (which they all did, provably) should be a serious crime in and of itself.
BUT we should not serve this justice ourselves. These people should be tried, and then acquitted or convicted (and punished), in the sight of their victims, in the land in which they did their crimes. We shouldn't be passively waiting for them to come home, we should be pro-actively handing them over to the nearest acceptable judicial authorities, and if that is not Syria, then let it be Iraq, Kurdistan or Turkey,
Let the raped and slaved Yazidi women, and their genocidally slaughtered menfolk, have their justice. Because THEY were the victims of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Not us.
We would say the same of an alleged British murderer, rapist, drug-dealer or pedophile in America, Peru or Singapore. We would say: you did the crime there, you must suffer the judicial consequences there. I do not see why British ISIS members should get special treatment.
---------
Belonging to ISIS is indeed now a crime, but it wasn't when she joined them at age 15, and it can't be applied retrospectively. If our allies in the SDF wish to try her for something, they are free to do so. But they, like us, have not shown evidence that she's committed any crimes.
See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/17/possibility-of-redemption-is-central-to-a-humane-society-shamima-begum
I don't even rely on thinking she might be redeemed. Maybe she'll spend her whole life ranting to anyone who'll listen. I simply think that British people who don't appear to have committed any crimes amd merely have repulsive opinions should be punished by Britain. Because once we start treating people differently if they have wrong ideas, which of us is entirely safe?
Or has Her Majesty taken control of the French Navy/Are the French allowing us a timeshare on some of their ships because we can't afford enough of our own after paying for the carriers?
Edit: B - 970.25 hours
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/17/brexit-may-risks-fresh-confrontation-erg-backstop
Any changes on the backstop that the EU want to call legally binding need to be in the Treaty - and if they're not in the Treaty then it's not unreasonable for people to expect that they're not legally binding on the EU, or at least that the EU don't consider them to be legally binding on themselves.
May's strategic error in not facing them down and aiming for a soft Brexit from the beginning is ever more clear.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_flag
And scroll down to the courtesy flag section
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1097059772434706433
My very first ever post on PB many moons ago was about Neuhaus chocolates.
https://news.sky.com/story/food-waste-bins-to-be-emptied-weekly-under-refuse-revamp-11639989
But how seriously can we take it?
Didn't Sir Eric Pickles once have a policy of bringing back weekly rubbish collections? And the councils politely told him to **** off?
The 'two-pronged' approach is derived directly from the legal realities.
The UK is still a member of the EU. To conclude its membership in an orderly fashion a withdrawal agreement needs to be signed before the clock winds down and the UK becomes a third country.
Only then will it be legally possible to conclude any legally binding agreement on the future UK-EU relations, therefor the political declaration cannot possibly be legally binding, as it pertains to that future relations.
1. Has she committed any crimes while in Syria / Iraq or anywhere else she may have been in the last 4 years? We don’t know and it is far too soon to say that there is no evidence that she has not committed any crimes.
2. What is the proper forum for doing such an investigation and prosecuting such crimes? Syria and Iraq not Britain.
3. Has she committed any crimes against British law. Again, we don’t know and that needs a thorough investigation should she end up in Britain.
In theory it is also possible to prosecute her here for crimes committed abroad but in practice it will likely be be impossible to do so - to do an investigation and collect evidence to the required standard of proof for an English court. So those rushing to say that she must be brought back to Britain are, in effect, allowing her to escape justice in the country in which she has chosen to live. That is a repellently arrogant attitude, as if being a British citizen should override all other considerations.
4. If she ends up in Britain, is it in the child’s best interests to be brought up by a woman with her views and attitudes and history. In my view, no.
What I find tiresome and pretty sick-making is the constant “me-me-me” focus by her and her supporters with demands for Britain to get her out of the hole she has dug herself into, with little awareness of the sort of person they are talking about. The narcissistic sense of entitlement is pretty repulsive, frankly.
And now wants to come 'home'.
https://twitter.com/MarkRamprakash/status/1097153084520845313
Yet we were told earlier it was Brexit innit
I am rather in favour of the French approach which seems to be rather more hard-headed and is without the feeble sentimentality of some in Britain.
If they end up here we have to deal with them - but I would make no effort to help those who have joined terrorist organizations. There are better priorities. What is the number of threats in this country the police and security services are trying to deal with?
And that's before we get to the ground floor/first floor.