I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.
I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.
Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.
It is the hypocrisy that has done for him and it could not have happened to a nicer person. He has always come across as a pompous little twerp and you could have guaranteed he would be happy jailing the peasants whilst absolving the clever elite he thought he was part of. An odious little creep getting his just desserts. Hopefully followed by Javid and Davidson , another pair of pompous twats.
My own views on drug legalisation have swung to and fro over the years.
Currently I'm against broad relegalisation: at least without very accurate and timely tests for drugs.
Would you want a surgeon operating on you who had smoked a couple of spliffs the night before? Okay, so that's an extreme example, so how about that guy driving the bus you ride on into work? Or that woman driving the car in the lane next to you? Or how about that teacher trying to teach your son the word 'onomatopoeia '?
If it is to be legalised, then there should be a whole host of professions and situations where there are regular or random drug tests, and consequences if you fail. Perhaps have those jobs pay more as a result: but there will be many roles where drug use is unconscionable.
And yes, alcohol is an equal problem. But that doesn't automatically make drug legalisation right. And we are seeing this sort of attitude come in for alcohol as well: boozy lunches are rather more frowned upon than they used to be.
Compare and contrast; rules about being a commercial pilot. At the moment there are no 'rules' about having a skinful the night before leading a surgical team. Many years ago I knew a dentist who was regularly to be found sinking a gin or two in the local Conservative club at midday. To be fair, his hands were a lot steadier after lunch then before.
During my adult life, I have seen rules on drinking at work become rather stricter. AIUI, it is an employer's responsibility to ensure that employees are not placed in harm from other employees. That means that is someone is drunk or high, they have to act.
This is made easier if you have a zero-tolerance policy.
Unfortunately as Elon Musk shows, all too often there's one rule for the plebs, and another for the superstars.
Personally, I don't like zero tolerance. It's entirely inflexible and inhuman.
I've seen two careers entirely destroyed because of it.
Vaguely related point, I'm surprised that Mordaunt has seemingly decided not to run.
Perhaps lacks the support of her colleagues?
She's still 65 on Betfair.
She doesn’t look it.
Too inexperienced to shoot straight for PM?
She had no traits that would distinguish her at this point. The field is already packed with middle-brow liars that are prepared to indulge irrational idolatry of xenophobia. S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt offers precisely zero beyond that.
I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.
Gove is a drug fuelled hypocrite who says one thing and does another, and is therefore also an untrustworthy cretin.
If only somebody had made that point in a thread header.
My own views on drug legalisation have swung to and fro over the years.
Currently I'm against broad relegalisation: at least without very accurate and timely tests for drugs.
Would you want a surgeon operating on you who had smoked a couple of spliffs the night before? Okay, so that's an extreme example, so how about that guy driving the bus you ride on into work? Or that woman driving the car in the lane next to you? Or how about that teacher trying to teach your son the word 'onomatopoeia '?
If it is to be legalised, then there should be a whole host of professions and situations where there are regular or random drug tests, and consequences if you fail. Perhaps have those jobs pay more as a result: but there will be many roles where drug use is unconscionable.
And yes, alcohol is an equal problem. But that doesn't automatically make drug legalisation right. And we are seeing this sort of attitude come in for alcohol as well: boozy lunches are rather more frowned upon than they used to be.
Of course there are some arguments in favour of the status quo on drugs prohibition but just as we criticise Gove for hypocrisy, supporters of the status quo need to accept the govts partial ownership of the tens of thousands of deaths caused by the war on drug, creating a half trillion pounds crime industry and the impact of stop and search on young black men as the price we pay for that comfort. Otherwise they are the bigger hypocrites.
Policies come with choices, intended and unintended, both have to be owned by the people who insist on them.
I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.
I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.
Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.
It is the hypocrisy that has done for him and it could not have happened to a nicer person. He has always come across as a pompous little twerp and you could have guaranteed he would be happy jailing the peasants whilst absolving the clever elite he thought he was part of. An odious little creep getting his just desserts. Hopefully followed by Javid and Davidson , another pair of pompous twats.
Nevertheless he has the relatively rare achievement of being a man more popular than his wife?
Mr. Palmer, was it widely believed, or was it obvious bullshit that entertained his political opponents? I suspect the latter.
David Cameron's willy and pig's head initiation ceremony? The denials were almost hysterical in nature, even on this very pb, and the story so harmless whether true or false, that I wondered if the row were designed to distract from some other, more dangerous, reportage in the book. Alas the sheer length of the tome was and remains a deterrent to reading it.
I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.
Gove is a drug fuelled hypocrite who says one thing and does another, and is therefore also an untrustworthy cretin.
If only somebody had made that point in a thread header.
Well you're reaching back a bit! And I'm not sure how widely known, acknowledged and openly confessed it was.
On the whole I think these things were known but not openly admitted or publicly discussed. Nor do I believe serial lying, or drug-taking applied.
Until 1921, taking drugs wasn't illegal and opium abuse was in fact very widespread. So again, I'm not convinced you're right on that although a very different context applied.
And those are definitely the ones everyone knew about.
I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.
Gove is a drug fuelled hypocrite who says one thing and does another, and is therefore also an untrustworthy cretin.
If only somebody had made that point in a thread header.
If Gove's leadership bid is killed by this admission, won't that be a huge incentive for the press to go hunting for similar stories about others still in the race?
I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.
I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.
Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.
It is the hypocrisy that has done for him and it could not have happened to a nicer person. He has always come across as a pompous little twerp and you could have guaranteed he would be happy jailing the peasants whilst absolving the clever elite he thought he was part of. An odious little creep getting his just desserts. Hopefully followed by Javid and Davidson , another pair of pompous twats.
Nevertheless he has the relatively rare achievement of being a man more popular than his wife?
In the circumstances that's like saying somebody has more integrity than Karie Murphy.
Official govt stats are black men are 9.5 times as likely to be stopped as white men, obviously that leads to a higher percentage of black drug users getting convicted than white drug users.
Compare a young working class black man and a young white middle class media type and enforcement is completely different. It is either extremely naive or deliberately blind to assume otherwise.
Mr. B2, no experience is better than bad experience. Ahem.
Mordaunt should go for it. Shake things up. Become favourite. Enable me to lay my bet.
It was possible to back her at 120 for next PM and lay at 70 for next leader this morning.
Further betting observation -
Not sure of the wisdom of all that laying of Leadsom at the supposedly false price of 10.
With Gove imploding up his own nostrils, Raab not connecting with anybody bar himself, Hunt being a quisling Remainer, the others not a cat's chance, and the inherent 'time risk' with charlatan Johnson - lay at 10?
My own views on drug legalisation have swung to and fro over the years.
Currently I'm against broad relegalisation: at least without very accurate and timely tests for drugs.
Would you want a surgeon operating on you who had smoked a couple of spliffs the night before? Okay, so that's an extreme example, so how about that guy driving the bus you ride on into work? Or that woman driving the car in the lane next to you? Or how about that teacher trying to teach your son the word 'onomatopoeia '?
If it is to be legalised, then there should be a whole host of professions and situations where there are regular or random drug tests, and consequences if you fail. Perhaps have those jobs pay more as a result: but there will be many roles where drug use is unconscionable.
And yes, alcohol is an equal problem. But that doesn't automatically make drug legalisation right. And we are seeing this sort of attitude come in for alcohol as well: boozy lunches are rather more frowned upon than they used to be.
Compare and contrast; rules about being a commercial pilot. At the moment there are no 'rules' about having a skinful the night before leading a surgical team. Many years ago I knew a dentist who was regularly to be found sinking a gin or two in the local Conservative club at midday. To be fair, his hands were a lot steadier after lunch then before.
During my adult life, I have seen rules on drinking at work become rather stricter. AIUI, it is an employer's responsibility to ensure that employees are not placed in harm from other employees. That means that is someone is drunk or high, they have to act.
This is made easier if you have a zero-tolerance policy.
Unfortunately as Elon Musk shows, all too often there's one rule for the plebs, and another for the superstars.
Personally, I don't like zero tolerance. It's entirely inflexible and inhuman.
I've seen two careers entirely destroyed because of it.
I'd expect zero-tolerance to be applauded in your particular industry.
If Gove's leadership bid is killed by this admission, won't that be a huge incentive for the press to go hunting for similar stories about others still in the race?
Polling like this is pointless, the question is entirely hypothetical.
Regardless, Gove isn't going to make the final two is he?
At this rate there won’t be a final 2 again - Boris will win by critical mass of MPs.
Then lose vs the public.
It's very possible that this (again) won't go to a members vote.
ConHome will explode. A lot of them have joined or held on purely to get the vote.
Nonetheless, I can't help wondering if the sudden urgency to finish the contest, after allowing Theresa May to drag out her resignation for several weeks, is to give cover for not consulting the party in the country in the event MPs vote for the wrong final pair.
Isn’t the more concerning part of the Mail story that Gove was writing anti-drugs articles at the same time?
It is acceptable to write anti drug use articles while partaking, as long as the author writes about their own drug use and justifies their own stance as part of the story. Quite a lot of alcoholics have written articles like this.
This is clearly not the case with Gove, as he has only recently admitted that he took Cocaine even though he was making decisions about the lives of class A drug takers and writing articles about it.
Yes and only admitted it when he knew it was going to be all over the papers that he was a total hypocrite over drug taking.
Mr. Above, I'd want to look at a significant amount of statistical data before drawing conclusions readily. Sometimes, things are as straightforward as they seem, but they're sometimes more complicated, and the statistical understanding of journalists and politicians is often questionable.
I recall from Lammy's report some time ago that black people tend to confess later in the process than white people, which is one reason for relatively longer sentences.
I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.
I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.
Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.
It is the hypocrisy that has done for him and it could not have happened to a nicer person. He has always come across as a pompous little twerp and you could have guaranteed he would be happy jailing the peasants whilst absolving the clever elite he thought he was part of. An odious little creep getting his just desserts. Hopefully followed by Javid and Davidson , another pair of pompous twats.
Nevertheless he has the relatively rare achievement of being a man more popular than his wife?
Polling like this is pointless, the question is entirely hypothetical.
Regardless, Gove isn't going to make the final two is he?
At this rate there won’t be a final 2 again - Boris will win by critical mass of MPs.
Then lose vs the public.
It's very possible that this (again) won't go to a members vote.
ConHome will explode. A lot of them have joined or held on purely to get the vote.
Nonetheless, I can't help wondering if the sudden urgency to finish the contest, after allowing Theresa May to drag out her resignation for several weeks, is to give cover for not consulting the party in the country in the event MPs vote for the wrong final pair.
The unexplored weakness in the Tory system is if the elected leader is publicly demonstrated to have been the parliamentary party’s second choice. Difficult to live down in parliament, especially with the first choice sitting behind you as a focus for any discontent.
Miliband got mutterings and a bit of grief in his early days because he was behind his brother in the MPs part of the electoral college, and that was for a relatively small margin and in a system that is a lot more opaque. (Edit/ and his brother then did him the favour of disappearing)
Well you're reaching back a bit! And I'm not sure how widely known, acknowledged and openly confessed it was.
On the whole I think these things were known but not openly admitted or publicly discussed. Nor do I believe serial lying, or drug-taking applied.
Until 1921, taking drugs wasn't illegal and opium abuse was in fact very widespread. So again, I'm not convinced you're right on that although a very different context applied.
And those are definitely the ones everyone knew about.
Well if it wasn't illiegal it wasn't much of an issue, was it?!
And openly acknowledged lying and philandering?
Look, I'm not that bothered if the next PM sniffed a bit of charlie from time to time. I am bothered if he makes the country even more of a laughing stock than it is at present. Boris has form. Masses of it. And it looks like he's going to be selected as PM but a peculiarly narrow, strange and self-selecting electorate.
I am sure all the other Tory candidates are whiter than white.
Whilst Gove is a hypocrite, do we know whose game we are playing here?
They are picking between a bunch of losers, lying charlatans and general no users, does it really matter. Whoever of this sad bunch of nasties gets in will be to the detriment of the population.
If Gove's leadership bid is killed by this admission, won't that be a huge incentive for the press to go hunting for similar stories about others still in the race?
The Gove story may well have been triggered by Rory Stewart's opium admission. So far as I can see, almost all the leading candidates have now admitted at least a nodding acquaintance with drugs. The difference in this case is rank hypocrisy in campaigning against drugs and changing the law to ban teachers for doing as Gove had done.
I really can't get excited by drug use 20 years ago. It is completely irrelevant. What is slightly more damaging is the hypocrisy charge when it is combined with his article and the general perception that there is one rule for the rest of us and one rule for the elite. It is not an attractive mindset. But we were all young once, I suppose.
Gove is a drug fuelled hypocrite who says one thing and does another, and is therefore also an untrustworthy cretin.
If only somebody had made that point in a thread header.
Mr. Above, I'd want to look at a significant amount of statistical data before drawing conclusions readily. Sometimes, things are as straightforward as they seem, but they're sometimes more complicated, and the statistical understanding of journalists and politicians is often questionable.
I recall from Lammy's report some time ago that black people tend to confess later in the process than white people, which is one reason for relatively longer sentences.
The data is there, if you don't want to draw the conclusions then sadly it seems you are choosing to be blind rather than naive.
Lammy's report is probably right about confessing later, the reason will be a (natural) distrust of the legal system which is the govt's fault not the individual black suspects fault.
I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.
I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.
Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.
It is the hypocrisy that has done for him and it could not have happened to a nicer person. He has always come across as a pompous little twerp and you could have guaranteed he would be happy jailing the peasants whilst absolving the clever elite he thought he was part of. An odious little creep getting his just desserts. Hopefully followed by Javid and Davidson , another pair of pompous twats.
I am sure all the other Tory candidates are whiter than white.
Whilst Gove is a hypocrite, do we know whose game we are playing here?
Given that Boris and Gove were likely at the same media parties where Gove admits he did a few lines then one imagines Boris' camp are behind this. I think they know a final two of him vs Gove will be a tough battle.
Timing is everything. If Gove were to stand down this afternoon, his supporters would be up for grabs by Leadsom, Mordaunt and others to get them over the first hurdle before nominations close tomorrow. On Tuesday morning, then yes, Hunt would probably be the largest beneficiary in front of Hancock. Purely on policy you'd expect Boris to pick up Gove supporters but I'd guess there are other factors in play between those two camps.
Mr. Above, either that or I don't have the necessary time to go looking. (And with the exciting electricity problems I don't want to spend that time just to say either "Yes, I agree with you" or "No, I do not agree with you").
I'm not dismissing your perspective, I'm saying that opinions should be formed only after looking at a lot of data as snapshots can appear to give clear indications only for them to become illusory once more contextual information is observed.
It does amaze me how he has avoided the cameras but maybe sitting back watching others implode is his strategy
One thing is certain politics is going to dial up the rhetoric, sound and fury for some considerable time
The days of Cameron and Clegg in the rose garden seem so distant
That strategy worked well for May, until she actually had to do the job. I fear the same will be true for Boris, you never know somehow he might manage to surprise everyone and actually be good at it. I'm not hopeful.
It does amaze me how he has avoided the cameras but maybe sitting back watching others implode is his strategy
One thing is certain politics is going to dial up the rhetoric, sound and fury for some considerable time
The days of Cameron and Clegg in the rose garden seem so distant
That strategy worked well for May, until she actually had to do the job. I fear the same will be true for Boris, you never know somehow he might manage to surprise everyone and actually be good at it. I'm not hopeful.
His time as FS suggests your doubts are well founded.
I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.
I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.
Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.
It is the hypocrisy that has done for him and it could not have happened to a nicer person. He has always come across as a pompous little twerp and you could have guaranteed he would be happy jailing the peasants whilst absolving the clever elite he thought he was part of. An odious little creep getting his just desserts. Hopefully followed by Javid and Davidson , another pair of pompous twats.
That is a bit colourful for the sabbath day Malc
Morning G, hope all is well with you and family. You will have picked up that he is not on my Christmas card list. Apologies for ruining your breakfast.
I do wonder if the answers are affected by people who have a relaxed attitude towards recreational drugs but think high flyers shouldn't get away with it if poorer people can't.
I'd be interested in seeing how alcohol lines up with those other drugs as well.
Edit: I don't have a problem with drug taking, my only criticism would be around hypocrisy from those who do it but are against decriminalisation as people like them often get away with it.
It is the hypocrisy that has done for him and it could not have happened to a nicer person. He has always come across as a pompous little twerp and you could have guaranteed he would be happy jailing the peasants whilst absolving the clever elite he thought he was part of. An odious little creep getting his just desserts. Hopefully followed by Javid and Davidson , another pair of pompous twats.
That is a bit colourful for the sabbath day Malc
Morning G, hope all is well with you and family. You will have picked up that he is not on my Christmas card list. Apologies for ruining your breakfast.
You would never ruin my weetabix and blueberries Malc and yes thank you, all is well for us but sadly not our country.
It does amaze me how he has avoided the cameras but maybe sitting back watching others implode is his strategy
One thing is certain politics is going to dial up the rhetoric, sound and fury for some considerable time
The days of Cameron and Clegg in the rose garden seem so distant
G, keeping himself out of the way means he cannot make a mess of it , as it happens the others are knifing each other and doing the job for him and so looks like good tactics.
Well you're reaching back a bit! And I'm not sure how widely known, acknowledged and openly confessed it was.
On the whole I think these things were known but not openly admitted or publicly discussed. Nor do I believe serial lying, or drug-taking applied.
Until 1921, taking drugs wasn't illegal and opium abuse was in fact very widespread. So again, I'm not convinced you're right on that although a very different context applied.
And those are definitely the ones everyone knew about.
"In London in 1916, Harrods were selling a kit described as "A Welcome Present for Friends at the Front" containing cocaine, morphine, syringes and needles."
And as for C19th Pope Leo XIII: "He didn't just take cocaine. He advertised it, appearing on a poster having awarded a Gold Medal to the manufacturer of the "tonic" he carried in a personal hipflask to fortify himself in those moments when prayer was insufficient."
I presume the Andrea Leadsom backer will give up if she fails to find another 3 MPs to back her in the next 33 hours.
It would be rather brave of him, or her, to fight it at the 1000s.
If it’s just one person, they’re going to be several grand in the hole if Mrs Leadsom can’t get the nominations.
Could it be less political punters just going on her being the runner up last time?
I suspect there will be another 10 supporters for Leadsom declaring on Monday afternoon. Enough to get her through the first two ballots and give her momentum. The Leadsom backer knows of this plan.
I am sure all the other Tory candidates are whiter than white.
Whilst Gove is a hypocrite, do we know whose game we are playing here?
The assumed source (I can't remember her name) used to work for Hunter S. Gove and now works for Raab...
The assistant, who for some reason was a prominent part of the story and is way too young to have been at coke parties two decades ago.
Looks like a fit-up of this lady by someone else, I wonder who else might have been hanging around with London journalists in the 1990s and want to discredit Michael Gove?
It does amaze me how he has avoided the cameras but maybe sitting back watching others implode is his strategy
One thing is certain politics is going to dial up the rhetoric, sound and fury for some considerable time
The days of Cameron and Clegg in the rose garden seem so distant
G, keeping himself out of the way means he cannot make a mess of it , as it happens the others are knifing each other and doing the job for him and so looks like good tactics.
It can only last a few days longer as he comes in direct contact with the tv debates
However, he will only have one opponent which makes it easier to focus on his own ambition
Maybe he is being clever and well advised. Mind you he still will not get my vote
Well you're reaching back a bit! And I'm not sure how widely known, acknowledged and openly confessed it was.
On the whole I think these things were known but not openly admitted or publicly discussed. Nor do I believe serial lying, or drug-taking applied.
Until 1921, taking drugs wasn't illegal and opium abuse was in fact very widespread. So again, I'm not convinced you're right on that although a very different context applied.
And those are definitely the ones everyone knew about.
"In London in 1916, Harrods were selling a kit described as "A Welcome Present for Friends at the Front" containing cocaine, morphine, syringes and needles."
And as for C19th Pope Leo XIII: "He didn't just take cocaine. He advertised it, appearing on a poster having awarded a Gold Medal to the manufacturer of the "tonic" he carried in a personal hipflask to fortify himself in those moments when prayer was insufficient."
LOL, not quite the same Harry, she stole about a weeks worth of Gove's expenses whist he was ensuring teachers were barred for life while doing the exact same thing himself. At least you can trust a thief , unlike a liar. I also note she is in jail for her crime whilst your hero is a cabinet minister. The SNP ensure any bad uns are jailed , unlike good old Tory justice.
Well you're reaching back a bit! And I'm not sure how widely known, acknowledged and openly confessed it was.
On the whole I think these things were known but not openly admitted or publicly discussed. Nor do I believe serial lying, or drug-taking applied.
Until 1921, taking drugs wasn't illegal and opium abuse was in fact very widespread. So again, I'm not convinced you're right on that although a very different context applied.
And those are definitely the ones everyone knew about.
"In London in 1916, Harrods were selling a kit described as "A Welcome Present for Friends at the Front" containing cocaine, morphine, syringes and needles."
And as for C19th Pope Leo XIII: "He didn't just take cocaine. He advertised it, appearing on a poster having awarded a Gold Medal to the manufacturer of the "tonic" he carried in a personal hipflask to fortify himself in those moments when prayer was insufficient."
I am sure all the other Tory candidates are whiter than white.
Whilst Gove is a hypocrite, do we know whose game we are playing here?
The assumed source (I can't remember her name) used to work for Hunter S. Gove and now works for Raab...
The assistant, who for some reason was a prominent part of the story and is way too young to have been at coke parties two decades ago.
Looks like a fit-up of this lady by someone else, I wonder who else might have been hanging around with London journalists in the 1990s and want to discredit Michael Gove?
Boris and almost any journalists from that time. Not television company PR men!
I am sure all the other Tory candidates are whiter than white.
Whilst Gove is a hypocrite, do we know whose game we are playing here?
The assumed source (I can't remember her name) used to work for Hunter S. Gove and now works for Raab...
The assistant, who for some reason was a prominent part of the story and is way too young to have been at coke parties two decades ago.
Looks like a fit-up of this lady by someone else, I wonder who else might have been hanging around with London journalists in the 1990s and want to discredit Michael Gove?
They should be on next honours list for sure. Have done more service to the country than most of the yahoos that get the baubles.
LOL, not quite the same Harry, she stole about a weeks worth of Gove's expenses whist he was ensuring teachers were barred for life while doing the exact same thing himself. At least you can trust a thief , unlike a liar. I also note she is in jail for her crime whilst your hero is a cabinet minister. The SNP ensure any bad uns are jailed , unlike good old Tory justice.
So the SNP ensure justice is meted out? Are they one and the same as the courts then?
Polling like this is pointless, the question is entirely hypothetical.
Regardless, Gove isn't going to make the final two is he?
At this rate there won’t be a final 2 again - Boris will win by critical mass of MPs.
Then lose vs the public.
It's very possible that this (again) won't go to a members vote.
I am sure all those members who in hindsight were furious they were not consulted last time would absolutely object if they were not consulted again. I mean it's not like the objection disappears if their Tory Farage is crowned.
Well you're reaching back a bit! And I'm not sure how widely known, acknowledged and openly confessed it was.
On the whole I think these things were known but not openly admitted or publicly discussed. Nor do I believe serial lying, or drug-taking applied.
Until 1921, taking drugs wasn't illegal and opium abuse was in fact very widespread. So again, I'm not convinced you're right on that although a very different context applied.
And those are definitely the ones everyone knew about.
"In London in 1916, Harrods were selling a kit described as "A Welcome Present for Friends at the Front" containing cocaine, morphine, syringes and needles."
And as for C19th Pope Leo XIII: "He didn't just take cocaine. He advertised it, appearing on a poster having awarded a Gold Medal to the manufacturer of the "tonic" he carried in a personal hipflask to fortify himself in those moments when prayer was insufficient."
I seem to recall, long years ago having to study, or at least be aware of, the history of 'control of drugs' legislation. The first such drug to be controlled was arsenic, back in 1851. There was no coherent effort at comprehensive drug control until the 1933 Pharmacy and Poisons Act, which, as a pharmacy student in the v. late 50's I had to be fully aware of, although not required to recite on a line-by-line basis.
Mr. NorthWales, I'm a bit surprised. Does back up Rory's assertion (from memory, do correct me if I'm wrong) that Boris is assuring people we won't leave without a deal.
Trying to save himself by grovelling on Marr is hardly likely to cut it.
Let’s see what he says.
Boris meanwhile is hiding under someone else’s girlfriend/wives duvet.
He can sit back knowing he has little competition. He is wise enough to know that opening his mouth could be a mistake, given the amount of practice he has had. Good tactics to let the others self immolate. He must be chuckling at Gove getting his comeuppance
Well you're reaching back a bit! And I'm not sure how widely known, acknowledged and openly confessed it was.
On the whole I think these things were known but not openly admitted or publicly discussed. Nor do I believe serial lying, or drug-taking applied.
Until 1921, taking drugs wasn't illegal and opium abuse was in fact very widespread. So again, I'm not convinced you're right on that although a very different context applied.
And those are definitely the ones everyone knew about.
"In London in 1916, Harrods were selling a kit described as "A Welcome Present for Friends at the Front" containing cocaine, morphine, syringes and needles."
And as for C19th Pope Leo XIII: "He didn't just take cocaine. He advertised it, appearing on a poster having awarded a Gold Medal to the manufacturer of the "tonic" he carried in a personal hipflask to fortify himself in those moments when prayer was insufficient."
There's been a really good recent podcast series about coca-cola, its invention and the removal of a certain active ingredient. It's called 'American Innovations', and I quite enjoy it: despite its rather unusual format.
Well you're reaching back a bit! And I'm not sure how widely known, acknowledged and openly confessed it was.
On the whole I think these things were known but not openly admitted or publicly discussed. Nor do I believe serial lying, or drug-taking applied.
Until 1921, taking drugs wasn't illegal and opium abuse was in fact very widespread. So again, I'm not convinced you're right on that although a very different context applied.
And those are definitely the ones everyone knew about.
"In London in 1916, Harrods were selling a kit described as "A Welcome Present for Friends at the Front" containing cocaine, morphine, syringes and needles."
And as for C19th Pope Leo XIII: "He didn't just take cocaine. He advertised it, appearing on a poster having awarded a Gold Medal to the manufacturer of the "tonic" he carried in a personal hipflask to fortify himself in those moments when prayer was insufficient."
Mr. NorthWales, I'm a bit surprised. Does back up Rory's assertion (from memory, do correct me if I'm wrong) that Boris is assuring people we won't leave without a deal.
Seems that while Boris is not in front of the cameras he is networking across the party and seems to be gaining support from not only brexiteers but the moderate mps. I have no idea what he is promising but it looks as if he will storm this
Someone at the top of Labour must be working for the LibDems:
”Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle are considering a frontbench reshuffle that could see the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, moved as a punishment for insisting that the party must back a second Brexit referendum, according to several senior figures in the party.”
The smart thing to do would be to move her, but then adopt that position anyway.
LOL, not quite the same Harry, she stole about a weeks worth of Gove's expenses whist he was ensuring teachers were barred for life while doing the exact same thing himself. At least you can trust a thief , unlike a liar. I also note she is in jail for her crime whilst your hero is a cabinet minister. The SNP ensure any bad uns are jailed , unlike good old Tory justice.
So the SNP ensure justice is meted out? Are they one and the same as the courts then?
Don't be a silly boy , they make sure their bad uns are exposed and where a crime has been committed, arrested and face the courts, they don't promote them. You must be thinking of somewhere else when you think of cover ups and old boys clubs looking after each other.
Mr. NorthWales, I'm a bit surprised. Does back up Rory's assertion (from memory, do correct me if I'm wrong) that Boris is assuring people we won't leave without a deal.
Assurances from Boris are, surely, like the proverbial pie crust!
Polling like this is pointless, the question is entirely hypothetical.
Regardless, Gove isn't going to make the final two is he?
At this rate there won’t be a final 2 again - Boris will win by critical mass of MPs.
Then lose vs the public.
It's very possible that this (again) won't go to a members vote.
I am sure all those members who in hindsight were furious they were not consulted last time would absolutely object if they were not consulted again. I mean it's not like the objection disappears if their Tory Farage is crowned.
I am beginning to wonder if most of the membership, excluding myself, are ready to give Boris a coronation
My own views on drug legalisation have swung to and fro over the years.
Currently I'm against broad relegalisation: at least without very accurate and timely tests for drugs.
Would you want a surgeon operating on you who had smoked a couple of spliffs the night before? Okay, so that's an extreme example, so how about that guy driving the bus you ride on into work? Or that woman driving the car in the lane next to you? Or how about that teacher trying to teach your son the word 'onomatopoeia '?
If it is to be legalised, then there should be a whole host of professions and situations where there are regular or random drug tests, and consequences if you fail. Perhaps have those jobs pay more as a result: but there will be many roles where drug use is unconscionable.
And yes, alcohol is an equal problem. But that doesn't automatically make drug legalisation right. And we are seeing this sort of attitude come in for alcohol as well: boozy lunches are rather more frowned upon than they used to be.
Compare and contrast; rules about being a commercial pilot. At the moment there are no 'rules' about having a skinful the night before leading a surgical team. Many years ago I knew a dentist who was regularly to be found sinking a gin or two in the local Conservative club at midday. To be fair, his hands were a lot steadier after lunch then before.
During my adult life, I have seen rules on drinking at work become rather stricter. AIUI, it is an employer's responsibility to ensure that employees are not placed in harm from other employees. That means that is someone is drunk or high, they have to act.
This is made easier if you have a zero-tolerance policy.
Unfortunately as Elon Musk shows, all too often there's one rule for the plebs, and another for the superstars.
Lol @ “rather”! I started work in the 1980s and went from every manager having a drinks cabinet, lunch in the pub and being drunk in the afternoon being normal, to a complete ban on workplace drinking and a lot of frowning at off premises lunchtime drinking within the space of just a few years.
It seems a remarkable change, like smoking in the office. Its makes watching American tv shows where characters still seem to drink large scorched in the office s lot pretty weird.
Well you're reaching back a bit! And I'm not sure how widely known, acknowledged and openly confessed it was.
On the whole I think these things were known but not openly admitted or publicly discussed. Nor do I believe serial lying, or drug-taking applied.
Until 1921, taking drugs wasn't illegal and opium abuse was in fact very widespread. So again, I'm not convinced you're right on that although a very different context applied.
And those are definitely the ones everyone knew about.
"In London in 1916, Harrods were selling a kit described as "A Welcome Present for Friends at the Front" containing cocaine, morphine, syringes and needles."
And as for C19th Pope Leo XIII: "He didn't just take cocaine. He advertised it, appearing on a poster having awarded a Gold Medal to the manufacturer of the "tonic" he carried in a personal hipflask to fortify himself in those moments when prayer was insufficient."
I seem to recall, long years ago having to study, or at least be aware of, the history of 'control of drugs' legislation. The first such drug to be controlled was arsenic, back in 1851. There was no coherent effort at comprehensive drug control until the 1933 Pharmacy and Poisons Act, which, as a pharmacy student in the v. late 50's I had to be fully aware of, although not required to recite on a line-by-line basis.
Actually that replaced the earlier Dangerous Drugs Act of 1921, a punitive system derived from certain powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, with the Rolleston system of control through medical means.
So 1933 wasn't the first comprehensive system, although it may have been the first coherent one. It lasted I think until the hippy culture of the 1960s.
I did find it funny that in the 1920s the British government were trying to stamp out cocaine use while simultaneously using protectionist tariffs and large sums of public money establishing a domestic cocaine industry.
Anyway, I have an organ to inflate. Have a good morning.
Comments
An odious little creep getting his just desserts. Hopefully followed by Javid and Davidson , another pair of pompous twats.
I wonder what the figures would be for speeding and fiddling your expenses.
I've seen two careers entirely destroyed because of it.
She had no traits that would distinguish her at this point. The field is already packed with middle-brow liars that are prepared to indulge irrational idolatry of xenophobia. S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt offers precisely zero beyond that.
On the whole I think these things were known but not openly admitted or publicly discussed. Nor do I believe serial lying, or drug-taking applied.
Policies come with choices, intended and unintended, both have to be owned by the people who insist on them.
It would be rather brave of him, or her, to fight it at the 1000s.
And those are definitely the ones everyone knew about.
Sky News - Sophie Ridge - 9:00am - Hunt and Javid
BBC - Marr - 10:00am - Gove and McVey
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest
Official govt stats are black men are 9.5 times as likely to be stopped as white men, obviously that leads to a higher percentage of black drug users getting convicted than white drug users.
Compare a young working class black man and a young white middle class media type and enforcement is completely different. It is either extremely naive or deliberately blind to assume otherwise.
Further betting observation -
Not sure of the wisdom of all that laying of Leadsom at the supposedly false price of 10.
With Gove imploding up his own nostrils, Raab not connecting with anybody bar himself, Hunt being a quisling Remainer, the others not a cat's chance, and the inherent 'time risk' with charlatan Johnson - lay at 10?
As I say, not so sure.
Then when the connection is made to his past life, we could call him Opportunity Knox.
Mr. Above, I'd want to look at a significant amount of statistical data before drawing conclusions readily. Sometimes, things are as straightforward as they seem, but they're sometimes more complicated, and the statistical understanding of journalists and politicians is often questionable.
I recall from Lammy's report some time ago that black people tend to confess later in the process than white people, which is one reason for relatively longer sentences.
Whilst Gove is a hypocrite, do we know whose game we are playing here?
Miliband got mutterings and a bit of grief in his early days because he was behind his brother in the MPs part of the electoral college, and that was for a relatively small margin and in a system that is a lot more opaque. (Edit/ and his brother then did him the favour of disappearing)
And openly acknowledged lying and philandering?
Look, I'm not that bothered if the next PM sniffed a bit of charlie from time to time. I am bothered if he makes the country even more of a laughing stock than it is at present. Boris has form. Masses of it. And it looks like he's going to be selected as PM but a peculiarly narrow, strange and self-selecting electorate.
That bothers me.
Lloyd George knew my dealer
My dealer knew Lloyd George
Soz
Lammy's report is probably right about confessing later, the reason will be a (natural) distrust of the legal system which is the govt's fault not the individual black suspects fault.
Boris in hiding again.
One thing is certain politics is going to dial up the rhetoric, sound and fury for some considerable time
The days of Cameron and Clegg in the rose garden seem so distant
I'm not dismissing your perspective, I'm saying that opinions should be formed only after looking at a lot of data as snapshots can appear to give clear indications only for them to become illusory once more contextual information is observed.
If they want to take the moral high ground it sounds like they need a new set of candidates.
https://twitter.com/philipsime/status/671996006192447490?s=21
Have a great day
And as for C19th Pope Leo XIII: "He didn't just take cocaine. He advertised it, appearing on a poster having awarded a Gold Medal to the manufacturer of the "tonic" he carried in a personal hipflask to fortify himself in those moments when prayer was insufficient."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/drug-that-spans-the-ages-the-history-of-cocaine-6107930.html
So Conservative politicians are all out their minds on drugs???
Who knew! Who knew!
With rare exceptions most of them do not have minds to be out of.
Looks like a fit-up of this lady by someone else, I wonder who else might have been hanging around with London journalists in the 1990s and want to discredit Michael Gove?
how drunk he iswhat time it is?However, he will only have one opponent which makes it easier to focus on his own ambition
Maybe he is being clever and well advised. Mind you he still will not get my vote
As an example, I can't see the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Laboratory being sold to kids nowadays ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_U-238_Atomic_Energy_Laboratory
Boris meanwhile is hiding under someone else’s girlfriend/wives duvet.
That, or being a sociopath/psychopath.
Sky News - Cleverly backs Boris.
His Constituents voted 68.5% Lab. Only 6.5% LD.
They now have a LD MP.
He refuses to call a By Election.
Too right Politics is broken.
https://twitter.com/JustinTalksF1/status/1137468765476728833
https://wondery.com/shows/american-innovations/
So 1933 wasn't the first comprehensive system, although it may have been the first coherent one. It lasted I think until the hippy culture of the 1960s.
I did find it funny that in the 1920s the British government were trying to stamp out cocaine use while simultaneously using protectionist tariffs and large sums of public money establishing a domestic cocaine industry.
Anyway, I have an organ to inflate. Have a good morning.