Speaking of Burgon's peace pledge idea, I don't even see how he could implement it even if he became deputy leader unless one of the leader candidates is also backing it, and that one won the contest. So it really is a nonsense.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare Burgon to Trump. Trump won an election.
That's comparing us to Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and the Ukraine. IE we would have a deal, but not be in the Single Market. Which is what the government is still working on. Any "frictions" Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and/or the Ukraine have to deal with would not violate that.
Gove answered Andrew Neil in one word whether we would be in the Single Market or not - do you know which word that was?
Neither I nor Gove mentioned anything about the Single Market. Gove claimed the EU and UK would maintain "current free trade arrangements". Now he says there will be “significant change” with “inevitable” border checks for “almost everybody” who imports from the EU from next year. “You [Note the pronoun] have to accept we will need some friction. We will minimise it but it is an inevitability of our departure,”
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
Moreover, assessments of bullying can be highly affected by the perception of the victim, whatever the intentions of the alleged bully who may not see it as bullying. WIthout knowing Burgon's view, I'm wary of labelling anonymous internet commentators discussing him - as opposed to directing comments at him - to be bullying. People doing so in reply to him, more possibly, but its bullying to mock him in a forum?
Go down that route and someone saying being mean to Burgon on this page is bullying is liable to lead to accusations that saying it is bullying is bullying people on here. Bullying loses all meaning.
Speaking of Burgon's peace pledge idea, I don't even see how he could implement it even if he became deputy leader unless one of the leader candidates is also backing it, and that one won the contest. So it really is a nonsense.
It seems very similar to Laski’s idea in 1945 that Attlee would have to clear any decisions at Potsdam with the Labour membership, that led Attlee to comment acidly ‘a period of silence on your part would be welcome.’
It was silly then, and it is silly now. But it isn’t designed to be sensible policy. It’s designed as a dog whistle to the far left.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare Burgon to Trump. Trump won an election.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare Burgon to Trump. Trump won an election.
So because he has had success we are allowed to make fun of his appearance, his speech, his ideas? Best not, before kinbalu gets mad!
Being super cynical here, is there really any plan to build this bridge?
The Denmark-Sweden bridge connected two major metropolises (Malmo and Copenhagen), and linked Sweden, Norway and Finland to the Continental railways systems. It also linked Malmo to a major international airport. There was clear demand for the link, and the distance was not too great.
Now, Scotland-Northern Ireland... I would guess, and I could be wrong here, that the number of Glasgow to Dublin flights isn't that great. So, you'd mostly be displacing ferry activity for HGVs in different routes.
And this bridge would be an order of magnitude more expensive.
It's hard to see the economic rationale.
Now, Mr Cummings is no idiot. Is there really a plan to build this bridge? Or is it a kite floating exercise to demonstrate a commitment to the Northern Irish and Scottish economies, where actual cancellation is left to some other government in the future?
I think the charlatan is as sincere about this bridge as all the previous ones. When conmen swindle you out of your life savings, at some level, at the point when they seal the deal they have to believe in their own story, otherwise they will never convince you.
That's comparing us to Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and the Ukraine. IE we would have a deal, but not be in the Single Market. Which is what the government is still working on. Any "frictions" Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and/or the Ukraine have to deal with would not violate that.
Gove answered Andrew Neil in one word whether we would be in the Single Market or not - do you know which word that was?
Neither I nor Gove mentioned anything about the Single Market. Gove claimed the EU and UK would maintain "current free trade arrangements". Now he says there will be “significant change” with “inevitable” border checks for “almost everybody” who imports from the EU from next year. “You [Note the pronoun] have to accept we will need some friction. We will minimise it but it is an inevitability of our departure,”
The highfalutin promises of the Brexit men are slipping away before our eyes. All we're likely to get from this - if we're lucky - are some refurbished shopping centres in Stoke. It will linger on for a little while, but this time next year is when the Brexit dream will have finally died.
Why does Trump want to spend more on the Military when he is supposed to be pulling back from foreign wars?
Is it because he just likes the idea of having lots of soldiers and tanks and missiles?
US is home to addictions. Military Industrial Dictatorship is a habit they can’t say no to, no matter how big the deficit grows.
The US may be the playground of addictions, it doesn't have a dictatorship, but is certainly does have a strong military-industrial theme, and the deficit probably doesn't matter when you're the keeper of coin.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare Burgon to Trump. Trump won an election.
Burgon’s an MP; must have won an election.
For a given value of ‘won,’ give the seat he holds.
This is incredible... let off after brandishing a sword outside Buckingham Palace shouting ‘Allahu Alhbar’... oh wait he was blagging it all along, what a surprise
Who seriously thinks this guy should not be locked up for a life sentence?
And what about the Jury that unanimously acquitted him?
Presumably lock up the prosecutor, defence barrister and judge for being a bit shit too.
Isn't the retrospectoscope a wonderful thing?
You don't have to be Lady Hale to know that our system of 'beyond reasonable doubt' allows lots of the guilty to go free so as to minimise the chance of convicting the innocent. Amazingly some of the guilty take advantage of this ancient and excellent principle. Gosh.
Its the fact it was all recorded on video and two police officers were attacked, who gave their testimony saying he was trying to kill them.
Not exactly a he said / she said incident with with no sign of some mystery Russian.
Nothing should ever be taken for granted with juries. There will be hell to pay if another ongoing trial ends with an acquittal.
Someone accused of plotting mass murder, but scant evidence other than retracted hearsay, jury acquits. Turns out suspect lied, uses freedom to commit mass carnage, you saying the jury got it wrong?
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
Moreover, assessments of bullying can be highly affected by the perception of the victim, whatever the intentions of the alleged bully who may not see it as bullying. WIthout knowing Burgon's view, I'm wary of labelling anonymous internet commentators discussing him - as opposed to directing comments at him - to be bullying. People doing so in reply to him, more possibly, but its bullying to mock him in a forum?
Go down that route and someone saying being mean to Burgon on this page is bullying is liable to lead to accusations that saying it is bullying is bullying people on here. Bullying loses all meaning.
Private Eye, HIGNFY, etc would be out of business if poking fun at public figures making arses of themselves was deemed bullying.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
Moreover, assessments of bullying can be highly affected by the perception of the victim, whatever the intentions of the alleged bully who may not see it as bullying. WIthout knowing Burgon's view, I'm wary of labelling anonymous internet commentators discussing him - as opposed to directing comments at him - to be bullying. People doing so in reply to him, more possibly, but its bullying to mock him in a forum?
Go down that route and someone saying being mean to Burgon on this page is bullying is liable to lead to accusations that saying it is bullying is bullying people on here. Bullying loses all meaning.
Private Eye, HIGNFY, etc would be out of business if poking fun at public figures making arses of themselves was deemed bullying.
Andrew Neil in particular would have had Private Eye years ago.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare Burgon to Trump. Trump won an election.
Burgon’s an MP; must have won an election.
Some elections are easier to win than others. Leeds East is probably easier for a Labour candidate than the USA was for Trump. Though Burgon has taken the Labour majority there to its lowest since the 50s, though it was similar in the early 80s.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare Burgon to Trump. Trump won an election.
Burgon’s an MP; must have won an election.
Some elections are easier to win than others. Leeds East is probably easier for a Labour candidate than the USA was for Trump. Though Burgon has taken the Labour majority there to its lowest since the 50s, though it was similar in the early 80s.
It was lower in percentage terms but higher in absolute terms in the 80s. Meanwhile, it was higher in absolute terms yet lower in percentage terms in the 50s.
It’s probably as marginal now as it has ever been, and it isn’t marginal.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare Burgon to Trump. Trump won an election.
Burgon’s an MP; must have won an election.
For a given value of ‘won,’ give the seat he holds.
The logical development of Boris's Bridge Too Far would be to link it to HS2 Phase 4, offering a seamless rail connection from London to Dublin taking, I dunno, 15 hours? But force passengers from Brussels to walk 400 metres from St Pancras to Euston so they can smell the freedom.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare Burgon to Trump. Trump won an election.
Burgon’s an MP; must have won an election.
For a given value of ‘won,’ give the seat he holds.
Labour has a selection process.
And we all know how rigorous party selection processes are!
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
Not so easy to bully someone who plainly by nature so enjoys a challenge and takes no prisoners, and to whom a bullying manner is second nature.
It is time however that someone put the rational, quietly thought out case for his merits and the overall contribution he has made to Labour as a national party capable of governing well and thoughtfully. Good luck. I am all ears.
Burgon Baiting much like hare coursing. Going into the playground and picking on the weakest link not the toughest, not your best moment Mr Kirk.
Have I missed something, the promised review into Islamaphobia in the Conservative Party due to get underway by end of 2019, when did it get underway?
The black swan security report publication delayed until after voting, what did it actually say when published, anything of note?
I also missed death of Neil Innes several weeks back, saddened to learn of it today.
The review is just getting underway. It has its budget, terms of reference, just waiting for all the personnel to be finalised and it will be up and running.
This is incredible... let off after brandishing a sword outside Buckingham Palace shouting ‘Allahu Alhbar’... oh wait he was blagging it all along, what a surprise
Who seriously thinks this guy should not be locked up for a life sentence?
And what about the Jury that unanimously acquitted him?
Presumably lock up the prosecutor, defence barrister and judge for being a bit shit too.
Isn't the retrospectoscope a wonderful thing?
You don't have to be Lady Hale to know that our system of 'beyond reasonable doubt' allows lots of the guilty to go free so as to minimise the chance of convicting the innocent. Amazingly some of the guilty take advantage of this ancient and excellent principle. Gosh.
Its the fact it was all recorded on video and two police officers were attacked, who gave their testimony saying he was trying to kill them.
Not exactly a he said / she said incident with with no sign of some mystery Russian.
Nothing should ever be taken for granted with juries. There will be hell to pay if another ongoing trial ends with an acquittal.
Someone accused of plotting mass murder, but scant evidence other than retracted hearsay, jury acquits. Turns out suspect lied, uses freedom to commit mass carnage, you saying the jury got it wrong?
Me? I haven’t said a word about the jury
How went the football on Saturday?
I didn’t play but we won 6-3, promotion still in our hands
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare Burgon to Trump. Trump won an election.
Burgon’s an MP; must have won an election.
For a given value of ‘won,’ give the seat he holds.
Labour has a selection process.
And we all know how rigorous party selection processes are!
I was trying to find out how he was selected but it’s surprisingly hard to track down. He is local to the seat, which does make it perhaps less likely that he was parachuted in. Equally the fact that his uncle was an MP and he was employed by a major union probably smoothed his path somewhat.
The logical development of Boris's Bridge Too Far would be to link it to HS2 Phase 4, offering a seamless rail connection from London to Dublin taking, I dunno, 15 hours? But force passengers from Brussels to walk 400 metres from St Pancras to Euston so they can smell the freedom.
They would have to walk past St Pancras, the British library and, er, the portico of Euston Station.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare Burgon to Trump. Trump won an election.
Burgon’s an MP; must have won an election.
For a given value of ‘won,’ give the seat he holds.
Labour has a selection process.
And we all know how rigorous party selection processes are!
I was trying to find out how he was selected but it’s surprisingly hard to track down. He is local to the seat, which does make it perhaps less likely that he was parachuted in. Equally the fact that his uncle was an MP and he was employed by a major union probably smoothed his path somewhat.
Not being a party man or particularly concerned that someone must have local links the rigorousness in selection for any party that concerns me is that they ensure they select someone competent, even talented if the local people are to be fortunate. The people of Leeds East may be well served by Burgon, I would not know, but I think we know there are many places where people are ill served and don't even have the mitigation of said MP being a good parliamentarian instead.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
Given the power our political masters can exercise over us (witness, for example, the Civil Contingencies Act), it would be insupportable if we were not allowed to ridicule them.
Indeed it is a mark of despotism that doing so becomes forbidden, illegal, dangerous...
Someone who aspires to be the deputy leader of one of our two large parties in an electoral system rigged to guarantee either of them will hold power most of the time ought to be able to take it in stride. Should he decide to retire to the back benches, then the calculus changes a little.
If this is intended as gesture politics, it's not well thought-through. With the public on balance hostile to HS2, which does at least have some kind of theoretical justification, it's not going to take kindly to money being spaffed up a bridge to nowhere.
This is incredible... let off after brandishing a sword outside Buckingham Palace shouting ‘Allahu Alhbar’... oh wait he was blagging it all along, what a surprise
Who seriously thinks this guy should not be locked up for a life sentence?
And what about the Jury that unanimously acquitted him?
Presumably lock up the prosecutor, defence barrister and judge for being a bit shit too.
Isn't the retrospectoscope a wonderful thing?
You don't have to be Lady Hale to know that our system of 'beyond reasonable doubt' allows lots of the guilty to go free so as to minimise the chance of convicting the innocent. Amazingly some of the guilty take advantage of this ancient and excellent principle. Gosh.
Its the fact it was all recorded on video and two police officers were attacked, who gave their testimony saying he was trying to kill them.
Not exactly a he said / she said incident with with no sign of some mystery Russian.
Nothing should ever be taken for granted with juries. There will be hell to pay if another ongoing trial ends with an acquittal.
Someone accused of plotting mass murder, but scant evidence other than retracted hearsay, jury acquits. Turns out suspect lied, uses freedom to commit mass carnage, you saying the jury got it wrong?
Me? I haven’t said a word about the jury
How went the football on Saturday?
I didn’t play but we won 6-3, promotion still in our hands
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare Burgon to Trump. Trump won an election.
Burgon’s an MP; must have won an election.
For a given value of ‘won,’ give the seat he holds.
Labour has a selection process.
And we all know how rigorous party selection processes are!
I was trying to find out how he was selected but it’s surprisingly hard to track down. He is local to the seat, which does make it perhaps less likely that he was parachuted in. Equally the fact that his uncle was an MP and he was employed by a major union probably smoothed his path somewhat.
And there was me thinking that the best approach was to work in the private sector for 30 years and then whack in a speculative application.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
Moreover, assessments of bullying can be highly affected by the perception of the victim, whatever the intentions of the alleged bully who may not see it as bullying. WIthout knowing Burgon's view, I'm wary of labelling anonymous internet commentators discussing him - as opposed to directing comments at him - to be bullying. People doing so in reply to him, more possibly, but its bullying to mock him in a forum?
Go down that route and someone saying being mean to Burgon on this page is bullying is liable to lead to accusations that saying it is bullying is bullying people on here. Bullying loses all meaning.
Private Eye, HIGNFY, etc would be out of business if poking fun at public figures making arses of themselves was deemed bullying.
Under what law would they be out of business?
It's unlikely that Burgon is aware of his infamy on this blog, in which case it wouldn't meet the legal threshold for bullying. Not that that could ever be tested in court, because bullying is only illegal under circumstances that wouldn't apply.
Nevertheless, I share kinabalu's reaction when I see people coalescing around bashing any one person way in excess of the influence that person wields, especially when most of the bashing doesn't relate to anything they are doing. It's not bullying, but it has exactly the same social function as bullying.
Ah, we're supposed to accept as truth things Trump advisers say now, that's good to know.
How would hiding this wonderful US/UK trade deal from the world possibly benefit the Trump regime? (I wouldn't say Trump and co. lie like the Epimenides Cretan - just that they'll happily do so when it suits them.)
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
I think it’s a bit unfair to compare Burgon to Trump. Trump won an election.
Burgon’s an MP; must have won an election.
For a given value of ‘won,’ give the seat he holds.
Labour has a selection process.
And we all know how rigorous party selection processes are!
I was trying to find out how he was selected but it’s surprisingly hard to track down. He is local to the seat, which does make it perhaps less likely that he was parachuted in. Equally the fact that his uncle was an MP and he was employed by a major union probably smoothed his path somewhat.
And there was me thinking that the best approach was to work in the private sector for 30 years and then whack in a speculative application.
So the best way to be an MP is to have a family member who was an MP, not have some practical experience of management?
(Yes, I am joking, but I am also making a wry point.)
The logical development of Boris's Bridge Too Far would be to link it to HS2 Phase 4, offering a seamless rail connection from London to Dublin taking, I dunno, 15 hours? But force passengers from Brussels to walk 400 metres from St Pancras to Euston so they can smell the freedom.
Or just run a bridge from Holyhead to Dublin instead
SF 37 FF 34 FG 33 Ind 19 Greens 11 Lab 6 Social Democrats 5 People Before Profit 5 Independent4Change 1 Aontù 1
The remaining 8 are in
Sligo-Leitrim: 2 seats...FF-FF-FG left...they are redistributing second FG's transfers now...so likely to be 1 FF and 1FG Wicklow: 4 seats...SD-FG-FF-FG-Greens left...they are redistributing an Indy's transfer now....1 SD, 1 FG and 1 FF pretty sure..last seat between second FG and Greens Cavan-Monaghan: 2 seats...FF-FG-FF-FF left....so it can end up with 2 FF.
So FF can end up at 38 seats
FF's 38 figure include the Speaker returned automatically.
Sense that Richard Burgon is becoming a victim of bullying on here now. Rather like Chris Grayling did. Makes me a little uncomfortable. I never joined in the Grayling abuse and I feel the need to stand up for Burgon now. Well not NOW - other things call - but at some point going forward.
I really dislike the overuse of the term bullying, and while I certainly do not go down the route of saying prominent or powerful people cannot be subjected to bullying, I do think it in most cases pretty unreasonable to suggest that a prominent political figure being mocked for putting forth an idea that many think is mockable is akin to bullying. Being abusive would be crossing a line, but if a political figure does something mockable why should they not be mocked, so long as it is not abusive?
I don't think there's anything wrong with being reflective and not wanting to pile on an individual in a mean way, but Burgon is politically attacked for the things he says and does, not because of who he is, and careful judgement though it can be as to whether a bullying line has been crossed, there is such a thing as over shooting in the other direction. Should we not mock Trump for example?
Moreover, assessments of bullying can be highly affected by the perception of the victim, whatever the intentions of the alleged bully who may not see it as bullying. WIthout knowing Burgon's view, I'm wary of labelling anonymous internet commentators discussing him - as opposed to directing comments at him - to be bullying. People doing so in reply to him, more possibly, but its bullying to mock him in a forum?
Go down that route and someone saying being mean to Burgon on this page is bullying is liable to lead to accusations that saying it is bullying is bullying people on here. Bullying loses all meaning.
Private Eye, HIGNFY, etc would be out of business if poking fun at public figures making arses of themselves was deemed bullying.
SF 37 FF 34 FG 33 Ind 19 Greens 11 Lab 6 Social Democrats 5 People Before Profit 5 Independent4Change 1 Aontù 1
The remaining 8 are in
Sligo-Leitrim: 2 seats...FF-FF-FG left...they are redistributing second FG's transfers now...so likely to be 1 FF and 1FG Wicklow: 4 seats...SD-FG-FF-FG-Greens left...they are redistributing an Indy's transfer now....1 SD, 1 FG and 1 FF pretty sure..last seat between second FG and Greens Cavan-Monaghan: 2 seats...FF-FG-FF-FF left....so it can end up with 2 FF.
So FF can end up at 38 seats
FF's 38 figure include the Speaker returned automatically.
I reckon FF 38 FG 36 SF 37 Grn 12
So the only viable options are FF/FG/Grn or FF/SF/Grn. FG have ruled out a coalition with SF.
I'm on FF/FG/Grn at 10/1 with Paddy Power. FF/SF/Grn at 5/2.
So because he has had success we are allowed to make fun of his appearance, his speech, his ideas? Best not, before kinbalu gets mad!
Deliberately misspelling someone's name can be bullying in fact. But I think it was accidental so no problem at all in this case. ☺
But look, the Burgon thing. Perhaps "bullying" is not quite right, since he probably doesn't read this blog except occasionally, and I wasn't referring specifically to this Peace Pledge of his, it's more of a general point I'm making - that people have got in the habit of making Burgon cracks apropos of nothing, almost using him as a synonym for anything stupid, and I'm not sure it's such a great thing. It's not because I'm a Labour supporter, as I said I felt the same thing about Chris Grayling when it was happening to him. Trump is different because that is punching up. Ditto Johnson. But Burgon is not a man riding high atm.
You all laugh but I see Burgon as a Lucius Junius Brutus figure; it's all just an act and when no one suspects he'll swoop in and become the greatest PM in living memory.
Ah, we're supposed to accept as truth things Trump advisers say now, that's good to know.
You can believe whatever you wish. If you want to think he’s lying I have no problem with that whatsoever.
I read it as the UK-US talks are not getting anywhere.
Which is terrific news
Perhaps the Huawei thing really did antagonize Donald as much as predicted, and Boris is now irredeemably discredited in his eyes. If so, then I'd expect the Tories to reach out to the Dems secretly, offering no end of advice and support. Boris needs friends.
Comments
Go down that route and someone saying being mean to Burgon on this page is bullying is liable to lead to accusations that saying it is bullying is bullying people on here. Bullying loses all meaning.
It was silly then, and it is silly now. But it isn’t designed to be sensible policy. It’s designed as a dog whistle to the far left.
It’s probably as marginal now as it has ever been, and it isn’t marginal.
https://twitter.com/hoolylooly/status/1062474482189811712
Or so I was told Saturday.
https://twitter.com/sdonnan/status/1226907988444749825?s=21
What twat knocked down the arch?
Indeed it is a mark of despotism that doing so becomes forbidden, illegal, dangerous...
Someone who aspires to be the deputy leader of one of our two large parties in an electoral system rigged to guarantee either of them will hold power most of the time ought to be able to take it in stride.
Should he decide to retire to the back benches, then the calculus changes a little.
Shouldn’t you be applauding that?
It's unlikely that Burgon is aware of his infamy on this blog, in which case it wouldn't meet the legal threshold for bullying. Not that that could ever be tested in court, because bullying is only illegal under circumstances that wouldn't apply.
Nevertheless, I share kinabalu's reaction when I see people coalescing around bashing any one person way in excess of the influence that person wields, especially when most of the bashing doesn't relate to anything they are doing. It's not bullying, but it has exactly the same social function as bullying.
https://twitter.com/CLPNominations/status/1226976123025854466
(Yes, I am joking, but I am also making a wry point.)
152 out of 160 filled
SF 37
FF 34
FG 33
Ind 19
Greens 11
Lab 6
Social Democrats 5
People Before Profit 5
Independent4Change 1
Aontù 1
The remaining 8 are in
Sligo-Leitrim: 2 seats...FF-FF-FG left...they are redistributing second FG's transfers now...so likely to be 1 FF and 1FG
Wicklow: 4 seats...SD-FG-FF-FG-Greens left...they are redistributing an Indy's transfer now....1 SD, 1 FG and 1 FF pretty sure..last seat between second FG and Greens
Cavan-Monaghan: 2 seats...FF-FG-FF-FF left....so it can end up with 2 FF.
So FF can end up at 38 seats
FF's 38 figure include the Speaker returned automatically.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7988465/New-BBC-Director-General-tipped-woman-Rupert-Murdochs-daughter-running.html
Set Guardianista apoplectic rating to 11.
bwahahahahahahahah
hahahah
hahah
why not get a members vote to decide the correct course of action?
Harris FG
Donnelly FF
Matthws Greens
Doyle FG
Another round!
Whitemore's surpluses....Green is 400 votes ahead of Doyle
FF 38
FG 36
SF 37
Grn 12
So the only viable options are FF/FG/Grn or FF/SF/Grn.
FG have ruled out a coalition with SF.
I'm on FF/FG/Grn at 10/1 with Paddy Power. FF/SF/Grn at 5/2.
But look, the Burgon thing. Perhaps "bullying" is not quite right, since he probably doesn't read this blog except occasionally, and I wasn't referring specifically to this Peace Pledge of his, it's more of a general point I'm making - that people have got in the habit of making Burgon cracks apropos of nothing, almost using him as a synonym for anything stupid, and I'm not sure it's such a great thing. It's not because I'm a Labour supporter, as I said I felt the same thing about Chris Grayling when it was happening to him. Trump is different because that is punching up. Ditto Johnson. But Burgon is not a man riding high atm.
After a caucus recount, this thread has been declared old.