You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
You need to remember that the likes of Burgon, Shah and Sultana are part of what is still only a very small faction of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and that Pidcock didn't get that far even. Four years of Corbyn changed the balance of the PLP only at the margin. That was one reason why the team around Corbyn was so poor - he appointed on their political outlook but there were so few MPs of his ideological wing that he did not have much scope for rejecting those who were not up to the job. Starmer can by contrast pick and choose from a fairly wide pool based on competance and ability.
I sometimes wonder if I’m a classical liberal, libertarian or a bit of a secret radical.
However, I keep coming back to the fact I’m really a conservative. There are one-nation Conservatives like David Herdson and DavidL, liberal Conservatives like TSE and praetorian Thatcherites like HD2.
I am basically a shire Tory. It’s why I always had a soft spot for David Cameron, despite getting very frustrated with him at times.
I don't know if this helps but I can tell you that Toby Young self-identifies very strongly as a "classical liberal". Indeed it used to be the rather stark strap-line on his Twitter profile. Toby Young. Classical Liberal - Just that.
But not anymore. It now says "General Secretary of the Free Speech Union."
Which means he won't mind me saying all this. Or even if he does mind he would defend to the death my right to do so.
I’ve now joined the Free Speech Union after my experiences of the last week.
Fair enough. Although I have not noticed you struggling in this department. You always seem to speak your mind. Although of course only you can know if this is really true.
I do. It's the protection (verbal and legal) it offers in case I get witch-hunted.
I don't find accusations of racism funny - it's a move I made to protect myself.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Interesting (to me) that Jess Phillips likes him. He can't be that bad.
Yes, mates. I find that surprising. Either means Mogg is not as bad as I thought or there's something a bit off about Jess.
What kind of self-respecting leftie could ever be friends with a Tory?
It is that kind of attitude which leads to the deep partisan divides in politics, in the 1950s and 1960s plenty of Labour and Tory MPs were friends despite political differences and had often been in the forces in the war together
Are there still not a few about? I remember hearing the 2 who fought Stroud 5 times interviewed. They got on really well and co-operated on case work even as they plotted to take each other's job.
David Drew was hardly a classic Labour MP though. In fact, while out of Parliament he was a councillor in Stroud and sat as an independent allied to the Greens.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Have you tried water divination or casting the runes? Both are based on how people "feel" about things.
Do you never get an impression of what a famous person is like based on what you see and hear from them on various media outlets?
It has been my invariant experience that, when you meet them, they turn out to be very different to how they are portrayed. Both by friends and enemies.
A classic example was when I met Blair, when he was a backbencher.
So I write off "impressions" I may have as bad data.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
C'mon, Alastair, it's an absolutely appalling letter no matter how you look at. It begins badly ("Dear Rt Hon Priti Patel MP'), and gets worse from there on. I particularly appreciated "Being a person of colour does not automatically make you an authority on all forms of racism", which, whilst true, shows a spectacular failure of self-awareness since they are saying exactly that they are authorities on all forms of racism, what with being persons of colour themselves.
Sir Keir really needs to get a grip on this nonsense. If Labour starts descending back into student politics again, it won't do go down well with potential voters.
It's tone deaf, I agree.
Is there much substantively wrong with it? No - it's expressing a point of view that this is a subject that needs to be dealt with and that Priti Patel's status as a woman of Asian background does not give her the monopoly of wisdom on the subject.
Should it have been sent? Well, I had been leaning to the view that it was a waste of ink and paper, but seeing as how it has driven all the usual suspects on here absolutely crackers, perhaps it served a purpose after all.
I think we can add "BLM", and related debates, as a subject on which your views can safely be ignored going forwards.
For you, it's all about annoying the right people and your obsession with Brexit.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I half expected that middle paragraph to end 'and the other is the President.'
But I was misjudging you!
There are quite a few of the Bernie supporters who are trying to sell the "they are both the same" thing. Or were. The recent BLM issue seems to have made most of them shut up shop...
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
Cummings saved 50,000 lives?
You've gone bad again, Philip.
Knew it would happen.
If the conclusion of the public inquiry is anything close to that, guess who's in for a handsome statue in the grounds of Barnard Castle?
If the coming public enquiry affirms Sage took too long to recommend lockdown and it was Cumming's intervention that forced the decision forward by a week or more saving thousands of lives then that will be quite a moment in UK politics
Fat chance , he will still be the arsehole of arseholes
Hi Malc.
I could have written your response but it does not address the substance of the comment
He should be on the dole G, the man is a charlatan. And Johnson should join him along with that odious creep Gove. Unprincipled liars. None of them should be let anywhere near public jobs.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Interesting (to me) that Jess Phillips likes him. He can't be that bad.
Yes, mates. I find that surprising. Either means Mogg is not as bad as I thought or there's something a bit off about Jess.
What kind of self-respecting leftie could ever be friends with a Tory?
I used to be friends with Tories. They haven't stopped being my friends, they've just stopped being Tories.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
Cummings saved 50,000 lives?
You've gone bad again, Philip.
Knew it would happen.
If the conclusion of the public inquiry is anything close to that, guess who's in for a handsome statue in the grounds of Barnard Castle?
Nobody. It’s a scheduled monument and it’s a right bastard to make changes to such places.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
C'mon, Alastair, it's an absolutely appalling letter no matter how you look at. It begins badly ("Dear Rt Hon Priti Patel MP'), and gets worse from there on. I particularly appreciated "Being a person of colour does not automatically make you an authority on all forms of racism", which, whilst true, shows a spectacular failure of self-awareness since they are saying exactly that they are authorities on all forms of racism, what with being persons of colour themselves.
Sir Keir really needs to get a grip on this nonsense. If Labour starts descending back into student politics again, it won't do go down well with potential voters.
I haven't seen any Conservatives on here saying they abhor Black Lives Matter - in fact, they all agree they do matter: very much.
They just don't like the politics of some of those who profess to associate themselves with it, and leverage it for their own ends.
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I half expected that middle paragraph to end 'and the other is the President.'
But I was misjudging you!
There are quite a few of the Bernie supporters who are trying to sell the "they are both the same" thing. Or were. The recent BLM issue seems to have made most of them shut up shop...
Are you suggesting that "shoot them in the leg" Biden is to the left on the issue of policing?
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
Cummings saved 50,000 lives?
You've gone bad again, Philip.
Knew it would happen.
If the conclusion of the public inquiry is anything close to that, guess who's in for a handsome statue in the grounds of Barnard Castle?
Nobody. It’s a scheduled monument and it’s a right bastard to make changes to such places.
I think an exception could be made for its new hereditary lord, especially if one had a majority in Parliament, for instance...
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
So, Baden Powell still very much hanging on in Poole then.
Quick stock take (like on Spoty) of Those We Have Lost -
Edward Colston. Robert Milligan.
Is that it? Just these 2 hardcore slaver ones? Plus HBO's Gone With The Wind is in for review, of course, but on the statues front?
Don't forget old Leopold. PB hysterics overcame their instinctive antipathy towards Brussels to adopt the genocidal self-enricher as one of their own.
At some point, the mob will be coming for something you value in Scotland that gives you the 4-inch tartan hard-on you that so rarely experience these days.
I will relish your posts on this with delight when they do.
I sometimes wonder if I’m a classical liberal, libertarian or a bit of a secret radical.
However, I keep coming back to the fact I’m really a conservative. There are one-nation Conservatives like David Herdson and DavidL, liberal Conservatives like TSE and praetorian Thatcherites like HD2.
I am basically a shire Tory. It’s why I always had a soft spot for David Cameron, despite getting very frustrated with him at times.
I don't know if this helps but I can tell you that Toby Young self-identifies very strongly as a "classical liberal". Indeed it used to be the rather stark strap-line on his Twitter profile. Toby Young. Classical Liberal - Just that.
But not anymore. It now says "General Secretary of the Free Speech Union."
Which means he won't mind me saying all this. Or even if he does mind he would defend to the death my right to do so.
I’ve now joined the Free Speech Union after my experiences of the last week.
Fair enough. Although I have not noticed you struggling in this department. You always seem to speak your mind. Although of course only you can know if this is really true.
I do. It's the protection (verbal and legal) it offers in case I get witch-hunted.
I don't find accusations of racism funny - it's a move I made to protect myself.
Well based on what you post on here, I don't think you have anything to fear and you are being a touch "precious".
But it's OK. We're ALL precious in the eyes of the lord.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
Cummings saved 50,000 lives?
You've gone bad again, Philip.
Knew it would happen.
If the conclusion of the public inquiry is anything close to that, guess who's in for a handsome statue in the grounds of Barnard Castle?
Nobody. It’s a scheduled monument and it’s a right bastard to make changes to such places.
I think an exception could be made for its new hereditary lord, especially if one had a majority in Parliament, for instance...
That would put you on the same level as those vandals in Bristol.
Although, given that Barnard Castle is chiefly famous for being one of the two bases of Britain’s most infamous child murderer, maybe he wouldn’t want to be there.
"Marxist anarchists" Talk about internal contradictions! Marshall Knutt could do with an education. Twitter is like a big mass of clippings from workplace Christmas round robins written by bores who think they're witty. Mind you, so is most of the internet.
If the coming public enquiry affirms Sage took too long to recommend lockdown and it was Cumming's intervention that forced the decision forward by a week or more saving thousands of lives then that will be quite a moment in UK politics
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
Cummings saved 50,000 lives?
You've gone bad again, Philip.
Knew it would happen.
If the conclusion of the public inquiry is anything close to that, guess who's in for a handsome statue in the grounds of Barnard Castle?
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
Cummings saved 50,000 lives?
You've gone bad again, Philip.
Knew it would happen.
If the conclusion of the public inquiry is anything close to that, guess who's in for a handsome statue in the grounds of Barnard Castle?
I rise above this sort of provocation.
Very wise, as any conversation about statues tends to end with everything being pulled down.
exegi monumentum aere perennius regalique situ pyramidum altius, quod non imber edax, non aquilo impotens possit diruere aut innumerabilis laevorum series et fuga temporum...
I have built a monument more lasting than bronze and loftier than the royal pile of the pyramids, which no devouring rain, no raging North Wind can destroy, nor the countless march of lefties and the flight of time...
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
A rewriting of history methinks
Or perhaps he means to say that Boris very nearly killed another 50,000?
Biden v Trump, why can't they both lose? It would not surprise me if either of them failed to complete their term in office.
It is odd how The Democrats have managed to almost airbrush their past as The Party of The Confederacy.
One thing I loathe about PB is the false equivalence between Biden and Trump.
One is an odious white supremacist moron, and the other a slightly doddery old bruiser who was VP in one the most successful US administrations of modern times.
Give over with 'plague on both their houses' stuff. It's risible.
I half expected that middle paragraph to end 'and the other is the President.'
But I was misjudging you!
There are quite a few of the Bernie supporters who are trying to sell the "they are both the same" thing. Or were. The recent BLM issue seems to have made most of them shut up shop...
Are you suggesting that "shoot them in the leg" Biden is to the left on the issue of policing?
No. He is definitely on the right of the Dems. He is quite clearly not Trump either.
Anyone who says they are the same is selling horse manure. Of an inferior kind.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
If the coming public enquiry affirms Sage took too long to recommend lockdown and it was Cumming's intervention that forced the decision forward by a week or more saving thousands of lives then that will be quite a moment in UK politics
By when it reports in 2029 he'll be forgotten.
Lefties on here say he will never be forgotten
They also forget that the smartphones taking the pictures of the toppling statues were made by slaves.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
Have you tried water divination or casting the runes? Both are based on how people "feel" about things.
Do you never get an impression of what a famous person is like based on what you see and hear from them on various media outlets?
It has been my invariant experience that, when you meet them, they turn out to be very different to how they are portrayed. Both by friends and enemies.
A classic example was when I met Blair, when he was a backbencher.
So I write off "impressions" I may have as bad data.
I think you mean you write off MY impressions.
Which is only to be expected obviously. I'd be ridiculously flattered otherwise.
I suspect this letter will be dynamite for exciteable Tories and less than controversial from my side of the fence. I am not a fan of Naz Shah. She rarely engages her brain, if indeed she was ever blessed with one.
More telling are Corbyn's anti-Israeli ramblings further down the twitter page. What are the odds for a former leader of the party being ejected within a year or two of leaving office?
That doesn’t leave many successful generals for the USA to celebrate though.
Let’s face it most of the Union’s generals were pisspoor. And the ones in the War of Independence were scarcely better.
You’re realistically down to Patton and Pershing.
After the Civil War, most of the Union's generals went off to fight what were then called the Indian Wars.
Like General George Armstrong Custer.
If you want someone squeaky clean for naming purposes, I suspect you don't want to look at any army generals.
There’s no way anyone could consider Custer a successful general!
Wiki does.
He "fought at Gettysburg, where he commanded the Michigan Cavalry Brigade and despite being outnumbered, defeated J. E. B. Stuart's attack at what is now known as the East Cavalry Field. In 1864, Custer served in the Overland Campaign and in Sheridan's army in the Shenandoah Valley, defeating Jubal Early at Cedar Creek. His division blocked the Army of Northern Virginia's final retreat and received the first flag of truce from the Confederates, and Custer was present at Robert E. Lee's surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox."
Almost all the Union generals are compromised by the subsequent extermination of the native Americans.
My son in law has just e mailed a powerpoint presentation by our 11 year old grandson as part of his online schooling and it is amazing just how well he has accomplished this task
Is online education going to become the new normal
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
That doesn’t leave many successful generals for the USA to celebrate though.
Let’s face it most of the Union’s generals were pisspoor. And the ones in the War of Independence were scarcely better.
You’re realistically down to Patton and Pershing.
After the Civil War, most of the Union's generals went off to fight what were then called the Indian Wars.
Like General George Armstrong Custer.
If you want someone squeaky clean for naming purposes, I suspect you don't want to look at any army generals.
There’s no way anyone could consider Custer a successful general!
Wiki does.
He "fought at Gettysburg, where he commanded the Michigan Cavalry Brigade and despite being outnumbered, defeated J. E. B. Stuart's attack at what is now known as the East Cavalry Field. In 1864, Custer served in the Overland Campaign and in Sheridan's army in the Shenandoah Valley, defeating Jubal Early at Cedar Creek. His division blocked the Army of Northern Virginia's final retreat and received the first flag of truce from the Confederates, and Custer was present at Robert E. Lee's surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox."
Almost all the Union generals are compromised by the subsequent extermination of the native Americans.
Beating Stuart was easy. All you had to do was wait until he got bored. Wiki also has a bad habit of overegging American generals because the articles are written by their admirers.
Splitting his force into three and challenging an army that outnumbered him six to one was not smart generalship.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
The one in which they slag off a BAME Conservative Home Secretary for daring to disagree with them? Why ever would one have a problem with that?
You don't have a problem with 20,000 avoidable deaths caused by the current government, so it's a bit late to be reaching for the sal volatile over a letter.
'Avoidable' with perfect foresight and / or a time-machine perhaps. Where did you buy yours? I'd like one in chrome.
m As @Pulpstar mentioned this morning, he and I exchanged private messages on 12 March expressing deep concern at the failure to lock down (all credit to him, he was more assertive on the subject than I was).
Now if this was a judgement call that we could both make on publicly available information on 12 March, there really was no excuse for the government waiting as many as 11 long days after that before taking that step, a step that many governments had taken well before that point far earlier in the epidemic cycle.
The question you never ask yourself, because you are slavishly loyal to a government that was scandalously negligent despite the many thousands of deaths that it caused, is why Britain has done so terribly badly when it had many advantages that should have meant that it did particularly well.
Did you submit your data to SAGE? Maybe it would have changed their advice.
SAGE appears to have fallen prey to classic weaknesses of committees. It is ironic that Dominic Cummings, enemy of the traditional model of government in this country, appears to have been part of the epitome of its failings.
Has he?
From the reports that Cummings questioned SAGE leading to them suggesting lockdown it appears that Cummings saw the problem with SAGE and challenged them.
Far from costing 20,000 deaths it appears to me if we'd taken another week to lockdown as SAGE were considering then its worth thinking that there'd have been 50,000 more deaths. Cummings may have saved 50,000 lives by challenging SAGE.
Cummings saved 50,000 lives?
You've gone bad again, Philip.
Knew it would happen.
If the conclusion of the public inquiry is anything close to that, guess who's in for a handsome statue in the grounds of Barnard Castle?
I rise above this sort of provocation.
Very wise, as any conversation about statues tends to end with everything being pulled down.
Woke me up before you go-go Dodgy statues surely are a no-no
My son in law has just e mailed a powerpoint presentation by our 11 year old grandson as part of his online schooling and it is amazing just how well he has accomplished this task
Is online education going to become the new normal
Wales and Scotland seem to be determined to ignore England's changes with no indication when single people can meet in a bubble or drive more than 5 miles from home
The new policy in England has huge support and the First Minister's refusing to follow will cause increasing resentment and in the end defiance in their countries
Is was not surprising to hear Nicola, in her press conference today, when faced with tens of thousands of Scots job loses comment that Scotland will need UK support to mitigate the economic devastation
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
Interesting statement by the Gladstone Library at Hawarden. Recognising that he was a 'stern and unbending' Tory in his early years but transformed himself as he became a radical proponent of human rights both at home and abroad. However they conclude that as a democrat he would have supported any lawful decision to take down his statue or rename buildings.
My son in law has just e mailed a powerpoint presentation by our 11 year old grandson as part of his online schooling and it is amazing just how well he has accomplished this task
Is online education going to become the new normal
No. Not below A-level, at least.
I would expect it to develop but attending school is vital for young people
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
That's exactly my take. Oppression by accent and table manners. In yer face class privilege.
This is all a bit bitchy. I think he uses language because he can - why shouldn't you put on your best self? Does Tiger Woods miss a few putts because he does not want to be seen as elitist in his field?
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
That's exactly my take. Oppression by accent and table manners. In yer face class privilege.
This is all a bit bitchy. I think he uses language because he can - why shouldn't you put on your best self? Does Tiger Woods miss a few putts because he doe snot want to be seen as elitist in his field?
I once saw him described as a stupid person's idea of a clever person, which I think is accurate.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
That's exactly my take. Oppression by accent and table manners. In yer face class privilege.
This is all a bit bitchy. I think he uses language because he can - why shouldn't you put on your best self? Does Tiger Woods miss a few putts because he doe snot want to be seen as elitist in his field?
I once saw him described as a stupid person's idea of a clever person, which I think is accurate.
I can see that but again the originator of the phrase would seem a bit sneering and insulting to non elite intellectuals
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
That's exactly my take. Oppression by accent and table manners. In yer face class privilege.
The way JRM says "floccinaucinihilipilification" suggests he plays to the same market as Carol Vorderman.
Edit: I just checked and as I expected JRM got a second-class degree. "Classy" except where his academic achievements are concerned.
Harsh - he got a 2:1 from Oxford.
So the equivalent of a third from a proper university?
*Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
On leaving University I recall a job advertisement in The Telegraph small ads. 'Only those with a First Class Honours degree OR a Headmaster's Conference School education need apply'!
Wales and Scotland seem to be determined to ignore England's changes with no indication when single people can meet in a bubble or drive more than 5 miles from home
The new policy in England has huge support and the First Minister's refusing to follow will cause increasing resentment and in the end defiance in their countries
Is was not surprising to hear Nicola, in her press conference today, when faced with tens of thousands of Scots job loses comment that Scotland will need UK support to mitigate the economic devastation
People are very happy G if you care to look at all the polls , she is doing a great job despite Bozo and his thugs. Given UK has all our money , they are not allowed to borrow and so what else do you expect her to do other than ask for some of it back.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
The word 'vow' is only properly to be used in short large headlines in popular and local papers when dealing with futile statements by nobodies about lost causes. I'm not sure if they are sticking to the rules. The headline is too long and the cause may not be completely lost.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
That's exactly my take. Oppression by accent and table manners. In yer face class privilege.
The way JRM says "floccinaucinihilipilification" suggests he plays to the same market as Carol Vorderman.
Edit: I just checked and as I expected JRM got a second-class degree. "Classy" except where his academic achievements are concerned.
Harsh - he got a 2:1 from Oxford.
So the equivalent of a third from a proper university?
*Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
You think you are joking. Oxford hands out firsts and upper seconds to 95 per cent of its graduates. 95 per cent.
Really? I once knew someone who graduated with an Oxford pass degree. How little work must he have done!
Cambridge does the same. Now. 20 years ago was very different.
Their argument is that with the pool of candidates being now so large, the ones they accept are so high quality that they are that good.
The alternative view is that, much like the Iron Cross (second class) under the generalship of the Imperial German Crown Prince in WWI, it requires suicide to avoid getting an Honours degree at a British university.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
The word 'vow' is only properly to be used in short large headlines in popular and local papers when dealing with futile statements by nobodies about lost causes. I'm not sure if they are sticking to the rules. The headline is too long and the cause may not be completely lost.
Baden Powell would be loving his supporters who obviously have took the message to be prepared!
Wales and Scotland seem to be determined to ignore England's changes with no indication when single people can meet in a bubble or drive more than 5 miles from home
The new policy in England has huge support and the First Minister's refusing to follow will cause increasing resentment and in the end defiance in their countries
Is was not surprising to hear Nicola, in her press conference today, when faced with tens of thousands of Scots job loses comment that Scotland will need UK support to mitigate the economic devastation
People are very happy G if you care to look at all the polls , she is doing a great job despite Bozo and his thugs. Given UK has all our money , they are not allowed to borrow and so what else do you expect her to do other than ask for some of it back.
She is doing well because lockdown is easy and she is 'feart' of moving out of it.
It is not in doubt the UK will need to fund Scotland and Wales out of this for years to come, hence why independence is likely to be a dream unfulfilled
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
Interesting today cracks appearing in the monolithic Rep support for Trump. House Minority Leader open to renaming bases. And wants to ban chokeholds. Scaramucci scathing about his rally on Juneteenth. Almost as if folk are beginning to twig he might not help with re-election.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
C'mon, Alastair, it's an absolutely appalling letter no matter how you look at. It begins badly ("Dear Rt Hon Priti Patel MP'), and gets worse from there on. I particularly appreciated "Being a person of colour does not automatically make you an authority on all forms of racism", which, whilst true, shows a spectacular failure of self-awareness since they are saying exactly that they are authorities on all forms of racism, what with being persons of colour themselves.
Sir Keir really needs to get a grip on this nonsense. If Labour starts descending back into student politics again, it won't do go down well with potential voters.
It's tone deaf, I agree.
Is there much substantively wrong with it? No - it's expressing a point of view that this is a subject that needs to be dealt with and that Priti Patel's status as a woman of Asian background does not give her the monopoly of wisdom on the subject.
Should it have been sent? Well, I had been leaning to the view that it was a waste of ink and paper, but seeing as how it has driven all the usual suspects on here absolutely crackers, perhaps it served a purpose after all.
I think we can add "BLM", and related debates, as a subject on which your views can safely be ignored going forwards.
For you, it's all about annoying the right people and your obsession with Brexit.
Muted.
Member of Free Speech Union cancels offensive Meaks!
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
That's exactly my take. Oppression by accent and table manners. In yer face class privilege.
The way JRM says "floccinaucinihilipilification" suggests he plays to the same market as Carol Vorderman.
Edit: I just checked and as I expected JRM got a second-class degree. "Classy" except where his academic achievements are concerned.
Harsh - he got a 2:1 from Oxford.
So the equivalent of a third from a proper university?
*Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
You think you are joking. Oxford hands out firsts and upper seconds to 95 per cent of its graduates. 95 per cent.
Really? I once knew someone who graduated with an Oxford pass degree. How little work must he have done!
Cambridge does the same. Now. 20 years ago was very different.
Their argument is that with the pool of candidates being now so large, the ones they accept are so high quality that they are that good.
The alternative view is that, much like the Iron Cross (second class) under the generalship of the Imperial German Crown Prince in WWI, it requires suicide to avoid getting an Honours degree at a British university.
That doesn't always work, there are honorary post mortem awards.
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
C'mon, Alastair, it's an absolutely appalling letter no matter how you look at. It begins badly ("Dear Rt Hon Priti Patel MP'), and gets worse from there on. I particularly appreciated "Being a person of colour does not automatically make you an authority on all forms of racism", which, whilst true, shows a spectacular failure of self-awareness since they are saying exactly that they are authorities on all forms of racism, what with being persons of colour themselves.
Sir Keir really needs to get a grip on this nonsense. If Labour starts descending back into student politics again, it won't do go down well with potential voters.
It's tone deaf, I agree.
Is there much substantively wrong with it? No - it's expressing a point of view that this is a subject that needs to be dealt with and that Priti Patel's status as a woman of Asian background does not give her the monopoly of wisdom on the subject.
Should it have been sent? Well, I had been leaning to the view that it was a waste of ink and paper, but seeing as how it has driven all the usual suspects on here absolutely crackers, perhaps it served a purpose after all.
I think we can add "BLM", and related debates, as a subject on which your views can safely be ignored going forwards.
For you, it's all about annoying the right people and your obsession with Brexit.
Muted.
Member of Free Speech Union cancels offensive Meaks!
Interesting today cracks appearing in the monolithic Rep support for Trump. House Minority Leader open to renaming bases. And wants to ban chokeholds. Scaramucci scathing about his rally on Juneteenth. Almost as if folk are beginning to twig he might not help with re-election.
Also:
George Floyd death: Gen Mark Milley sorry for joining Trump walk to church
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
That's exactly my take. Oppression by accent and table manners. In yer face class privilege.
This is all a bit bitchy. I think he uses language because he can - why shouldn't you put on your best self? Does Tiger Woods miss a few putts because he does not want to be seen as elitist in his field?
Mogg as the Tiger Woods of political discourse?
Gives me a chance to use one I've been avoiding on here to this point but now is the time -
It seems that all the Conservative posters who abhor the Black Lives Matter movement have decided that they don't like the Labour BAME MPs' letter on the subject. Well you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear that.
C'mon, Alastair, it's an absolutely appalling letter no matter how you look at. It begins badly ("Dear Rt Hon Priti Patel MP'), and gets worse from there on. I particularly appreciated "Being a person of colour does not automatically make you an authority on all forms of racism", which, whilst true, shows a spectacular failure of self-awareness since they are saying exactly that they are authorities on all forms of racism, what with being persons of colour themselves.
Sir Keir really needs to get a grip on this nonsense. If Labour starts descending back into student politics again, it won't do go down well with potential voters.
It's tone deaf, I agree.
Is there much substantively wrong with it? No - it's expressing a point of view that this is a subject that needs to be dealt with and that Priti Patel's status as a woman of Asian background does not give her the monopoly of wisdom on the subject.
Should it have been sent? Well, I had been leaning to the view that it was a waste of ink and paper, but seeing as how it has driven all the usual suspects on here absolutely crackers, perhaps it served a purpose after all.
I think we can add "BLM", and related debates, as a subject on which your views can safely be ignored going forwards.
For you, it's all about annoying the right people and your obsession with Brexit.
Muted.
Member of Free Speech Union cancels offensive Meaks!
It means I'll ignore everything he says on the subject.
Wouldn't we be surprised if we start to see below average levels, due to a lot of old people having dying a few months before they would due to covid or reduced medical coverage.
We could end up with a situation where all those.using the excessive mortality numbers start going quiet / redefining their metric, after projecting excess mortality forward to get bigger numbers.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
I sometimes wonder if I’m a classical liberal, libertarian or a bit of a secret radical.
However, I keep coming back to the fact I’m really a conservative. There are one-nation Conservatives like David Herdson and DavidL, liberal Conservatives like TSE and praetorian Thatcherites like HD2.
I am basically a shire Tory. It’s why I always had a soft spot for David Cameron, despite getting very frustrated with him at times.
I don't know if this helps but I can tell you that Toby Young self-identifies very strongly as a "classical liberal". Indeed it used to be the rather stark strap-line on his Twitter profile. Toby Young. Classical Liberal - Just that.
But not anymore. It now says "General Secretary of the Free Speech Union."
Which means he won't mind me saying all this. Or even if he does mind he would defend to the death my right to do so.
I’ve now joined the Free Speech Union after my experiences of the last week.
Fair enough. Although I have not noticed you struggling in this department. You always seem to speak your mind. Although of course only you can know if this is really true.
I do. It's the protection (verbal and legal) it offers in case I get witch-hunted.
I don't find accusations of racism funny - it's a move I made to protect myself.
Well based on what you post on here, I don't think you have anything to fear and you are being a touch "precious".
But it's OK. We're ALL precious in the eyes of the lord.
The accusation of racism alone is enough to lose one's job, and it's a short step from there to doxxing. It was one very regular poster on here (who's met me) that drove me to this; he still hasn't fully apologised.
Unlike some very public posters on here I don't have the security of income or career to take that risk.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
That's exactly my take. Oppression by accent and table manners. In yer face class privilege.
This is all a bit bitchy. I think he uses language because he can - why shouldn't you put on your best self? Does Tiger Woods miss a few putts because he does not want to be seen as elitist in his field?
Mogg as the Tiger Woods of political discourse?
Gives me a chance to use one I've been avoiding on here to this point but now is the time -
It's a view.
You and JRM might share more than you think in being a bit pompous
Wales and Scotland seem to be determined to ignore England's changes with no indication when single people can meet in a bubble or drive more than 5 miles from home
The new policy in England has huge support and the First Minister's refusing to follow will cause increasing resentment and in the end defiance in their countries
Is was not surprising to hear Nicola, in her press conference today, when faced with tens of thousands of Scots job loses comment that Scotland will need UK support to mitigate the economic devastation
People are very happy G if you care to look at all the polls , she is doing a great job despite Bozo and his thugs. Given UK has all our money , they are not allowed to borrow and so what else do you expect her to do other than ask for some of it back.
She is doing well because lockdown is easy and she is 'feart' of moving out of it.
It is not in doubt the UK will need to fund Scotland and Wales out of this for years to come, hence why independence is likely to be a dream unfulfilled
That is just garbage G, we more than fund ourselves over the spell, using some fudged Tory numbers does not make it real. We will continue to fund ourselves till and after independence. I agree Wales is a basket case and will need to stay a colony. We will see in the near future who is right and who is wrong , Scotland at 67% death rate of England is doing reasonably well so far and would have done much better if allowed to lockdown when they wanted to. Better to be careful than stupid.
You do wonder if the Labour Party as distinct from its leader will be electable by the time of the next election.
Most of those were unelectable last time. I mean, how could anyone vote for Zarah Sultana or Tulip Siddiq or Kate Osamor after the way they've behaved? Indeed, Sultana very nearly lost in Coventry as it was. Naz Shah, meanwhile, would surely have gone the way of Aidan Burley had she been a Tory.
The more compelling problem is how to make sure such people, which also include Burgon, Pidcock and Gardiner, don't get on the candidate shortlists to start. That's where Starmer should be focussing his energies.
Although the Tories can hardly talk given they have Rees-Mogg, Francois and Baker.
Rees-Mogg is a nutty crank, he's not maliciously nasty in the way of Shah, Sultana or Pidcock.
Depends on your perspective. JRM is maliciously nasty and stupid,
Do you mind if I ask how?
I can't stand him but because he's an outdated crank who likes to pretend the country is as it was hundreds of years ago. Not noticed him be maliciously nasty, but if he has I'd be curious to learn how?
JRM's suggestion that Grenfell dead should have ignored the fire service advice to stay in their houses and used 'common sense' (like he would have done) managed to be stupid and nasty. That he scuttled away from that statement shortly after suggests even he realised what a twattish thing it was to say.
I think that was twattishly stupid yes, not maliciously nasty. Not saying that's any better.
Mogg does not come across to me as a particularly nice person. His much vaunted and ridiculously exaggerated "politeness" hits my ear as supercilious and consciously stylized. Adopted to lecture and intimidate rather than to be pleasant.
This is my genuine take. It's not because he's posh or a Tory. I could name some posh Tories who I sense are quite nice people.
This is so true. Being politely spoken doesn't mean you don't have a nasty side.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
Comments
Let’s face it most of the Union’s generals were pisspoor. And the ones in the War of Independence were scarcely better.
You’re realistically down to Patton and Pershing.
https://twitter.com/NazShahBfd/status/1271100667516633089?s=20
I don't find accusations of racism funny - it's a move I made to protect myself.
A classic example was when I met Blair, when he was a backbencher.
So I write off "impressions" I may have as bad data.
This seems very popular for something that we've been assured is overly-complex nonsense that no one's going to listen to...
You've gone bad again, Philip.
Knew it would happen.
For you, it's all about annoying the right people and your obsession with Brexit.
Muted.
I remember finding his bizarre and aggressive style guide (and ludicrious vocabulary in general) quite revealling for it's sheer bloody pointlessness. He uses language as a tool to berate subordinates, to impress and assert his superiority. Not to communicate ideas, to help colleagues or the public understand his objecitves.
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-07-26/itv-news-exclusive-jacob-rees-mogg-issues-style-guide-to-staff/
They haven't stopped being my friends, they've just stopped being Tories.
They just don't like the politics of some of those who profess to associate themselves with it, and leverage it for their own ends.
I will relish your posts on this with delight when they do.
But it's OK. We're ALL precious in the eyes of the lord.
Although, given that Barnard Castle is chiefly famous for being one of the two bases of Britain’s most infamous child murderer, maybe he wouldn’t want to be there.
exegi monumentum aere perennius
regalique situ pyramidum altius,
quod non imber edax, non aquilo impotens
possit diruere aut innumerabilis
laevorum series et fuga temporum...
I have built a monument more lasting than bronze
and loftier than the royal pile of the pyramids,
which no devouring rain, no raging North Wind
can destroy, nor the countless
march of lefties and the flight of time...
Like General George Armstrong Custer.
If you want someone squeaky clean for naming purposes, I suspect you don't want to look at any army generals.
Anyone who says they are the same is selling horse manure. Of an inferior kind.
Which is only to be expected obviously. I'd be ridiculously flattered otherwise.
More telling are Corbyn's anti-Israeli ramblings further down the twitter page. What are the odds for a former leader of the party being ejected within a year or two of leaving office?
He "fought at Gettysburg, where he commanded the Michigan Cavalry Brigade and despite being outnumbered, defeated J. E. B. Stuart's attack at what is now known as the East Cavalry Field. In 1864, Custer served in the Overland Campaign and in Sheridan's army in the Shenandoah Valley, defeating Jubal Early at Cedar Creek. His division blocked the Army of Northern Virginia's final retreat and received the first flag of truce from the Confederates, and Custer was present at Robert E. Lee's surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox."
Almost all the Union generals are compromised by the subsequent extermination of the native Americans.
Is online education going to become the new normal
Edit: I just checked and as I expected JRM got a second-class degree. "Classy" except where his academic achievements are concerned.
Splitting his force into three and challenging an army that outnumbered him six to one was not smart generalship.
Dodgy statues surely are a no-no
Bradley?
The new policy in England has huge support and the First Minister's refusing to follow will cause increasing resentment and in the end defiance in their countries
Is was not surprising to hear Nicola, in her press conference today, when faced with tens of thousands of Scots job loses comment that Scotland will need UK support to mitigate the economic devastation
B. The other is believed to have been sexually repressed.
Identify which statement applies to which character.
Oh.
*Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
Edit: Thank goodness it is not the Fairbourne Railway!
So with my Desmond, I was somewhat hamstrung.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1271131598268882948
Their argument is that with the pool of candidates being now so large, the ones they accept are so high quality that they are that good.
The alternative view is that, much like the Iron Cross (second class) under the generalship of the Imperial German Crown Prince in WWI, it requires suicide to avoid getting an Honours degree at a British university.
It is not in doubt the UK will need to fund Scotland and Wales out of this for years to come, hence why independence is likely to be a dream unfulfilled
Low budget alien remake.
It really wasn't funny, I think they knew it was coming but still a shock.
I also know of someone who got a negative mark
House Minority Leader open to renaming bases. And wants to ban chokeholds.
Scaramucci scathing about his rally on Juneteenth.
Almost as if folk are beginning to twig he might not help with re-election.
deleted
George Floyd death: Gen Mark Milley sorry for joining Trump walk to church
Gives me a chance to use one I've been avoiding on here to this point but now is the time -
It's a view.
He can say what he likes.
We could end up with a situation where all those.using the excessive mortality numbers start going quiet / redefining their metric, after projecting excess mortality forward to get bigger numbers.
He was duly served but fined afterwards for not wearing his sword.
Unlike some very public posters on here I don't have the security of income or career to take that risk.
We will see in the near future who is right and who is wrong , Scotland at 67% death rate of England is doing reasonably well so far and would have done much better if allowed to lockdown when they wanted to. Better to be careful than stupid.
Fail to wear it - get fined.
Wear it - get arrested for carrying a lethal weapon in public.