If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
No, it shouldn't. I wouldn't withdraw the whip until conviction if there is one. Anything else prejudices the process, "even his own party thinks he's guilty" etc...
Allegations aren't in and of themselves proof of wrongdoing and this rush to condemn people who are accused before hearing the evidence is a very worrying societal change.
Deleted. Can't ber bopthered to wonder why Tory MPs behave differently from any normal workplace and organization.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
No, it shouldn't. I wouldn't withdraw the whip until conviction if there is one. Anything else prejudices the process, "even his own party thinks he's guilty" etc...
Allegations aren't in and of themselves proof of wrongdoing and this rush to condemn people who are accused before hearing the evidence is a very worrying societal change.
Withdrawing, or to be more exact, suspending the whip is not in itself judging guilt or innocence.
It would be the equivalent of informing somebody working in an office that due to allegations made against them they were to be placed on leave while an investigation is carried out. Which would be normal procedure.
If you think that wouldn’t or shouldn’t be normal procedure, I very much hope you’re not a manager.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
I think that (to avoid identifying him) is why it hasn’t been done.
But that’s the only reason for it, and also, I am not sure that would have been enough had Parliament not been in recess rendering the matter moot.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
Doing so would identify him though, wouldn't (Bleedin' obvious statement!)
If he’s charged, he’ll likely be named by the police.
If he’s kept anonymous for reasons of identifying the victim, and given the nature of the offences, he’ll likely be remanded in custody awaiting trial, with the full contempt notice sent to the media. The whips won’t need to do anything if he’s in the clink.
The media can narrow it down a fair bit as it is - 'male - in his 50s - ex-Minister'.
Yes, you can get it down to half a dozen pretty quickly, and from there only a little more digging required to work it out. Media outlets are also seltively omitting details, but collectively they might as well have just printed the name.
Surprisingly, a quick look around foreign media this morning didn’t come up with anything except republished wire stories.
In the old days, you'd buy all the papers and tot up the number of completely inconsequential stories -- MP opens fete; MP speaks in favour of motherhood and apple pie; that sort of thing -- and that was your man.
On withdrawing the whip, good luck in not being suspended on full pay in any other job. There is no reason the whip could not have been withdrawn on the QT, if that was the concern.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
No, it shouldn't. I wouldn't withdraw the whip until conviction if there is one. Anything else prejudices the process, "even his own party thinks he's guilty" etc...
Allegations aren't in and of themselves proof of wrongdoing and this rush to condemn people who are accused before hearing the evidence is a very worrying societal change.
In other words - Tory MPs demand to be treated differently from the rest of us, who would be instantly suspended from our workplaces if accused of serious crime therein, or to a fellow employee.
That's wrong as well though. It's an accusation, not a pronouncement of guilt. As I've said many, many times this culture of treating all accusations as the absolute truth and labelling complainants as victims is appalling. We've ended up with people being treated like criminals based on absolutely nothing, see The Sun vs Johnny Depp for the most recent example. Depp is lucky that he's got money to pursue those false claims in court, most others don't have that recourse.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
I think that (to avoid identifying him) is why it hasn’t been done.
But that’s the only reason for it, and also, I am not sure that would have been enough had Parliament not been in recess rendering the matter moot.
Does he not have the right to anonymity until the point at which he is charged? Could the Tory Party not be in trouble for identifying him?
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
No, it shouldn't. I wouldn't withdraw the whip until conviction if there is one. Anything else prejudices the process, "even his own party thinks he's guilty" etc...
Allegations aren't in and of themselves proof of wrongdoing and this rush to condemn people who are accused before hearing the evidence is a very worrying societal change.
In other words - Tory MPs demand to be treated differently from the rest of us, who would be instantly suspended from our workplaces if accused of serious crime therein, or to a fellow employee.
That's wrong as well though. It's an accusation, not a pronouncement of guilt. As I've said many, many times this culture of treating all accusations as the absolute truth and labelling complainants as victims is appalling. We've ended up with people being treated like criminals based on absolutely nothing, see The Sun vs Johnny Depp for the most recent example. Depp is lucky that he's got money to pursue those false claims in court, most others don't have that recourse.
If HMG feels that way, then it is perfectly placed to change the law on anonymity. But in any case, in this instance, the whip could have been withdrawn without issuing a press release as the government has a majority of 80 and parliament is in recess anyway.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
No, it shouldn't. I wouldn't withdraw the whip until conviction if there is one. Anything else prejudices the process, "even his own party thinks he's guilty" etc...
Allegations aren't in and of themselves proof of wrongdoing and this rush to condemn people who are accused before hearing the evidence is a very worrying societal change.
Withdrawing, or to be more exact, suspending the whip is not in itself judging guilt or innocence.
It would be the equivalent of informing somebody working in an office that due to allegations made against them they were to be placed on leave while an investigation is carried out. Which would be normal procedure.
If you think that wouldn’t or shouldn’t be normal procedure, I very much hope you’re not a manager.
Working in finance I've seen more than my fair share of these cases happen to colleagues and friends. The most common procedure has been to effectively separate accuser and accused until an investigation is complete, if the accuser goes to the police then it's left to the police to handle but suspensions are not usually the first recourse unless the accusation is related to hiding losses or anything that can hurt the company's reputation.
Meanwhile, habits of brutally abusing strangers that have developed on anti-social media bleed out into the real world at an ever-increasing rate.
Mask rage: ‘One man told me I shouldn't be allowed out if I can't wear one’
In the past few weeks, Paul Feeley has been abused four times for not wearing a mask on public transport. “I have a disability lanyard, which signifies I have a hidden disability. I tried to show it … And all I got back was a complete torrent of abuse.”
This is a total non-surprise. My husband, whose asthma is sufficiently bad that he was put on the shielding list and struggles with mask-wearing for extended periods, is nonetheless lumbered with using a rag primarily for this reason. Although it is mercifully unlikely, if we do nonetheless encounter some self-righteous, beetroot-faced screamer in a shop or on a train then they aren't going to be interested in excuses, are they?
There's not a day goes by where we're not bombarded with messages about human rights, but the right that trumps all others would now seem to be the right to scream in somebody else's face if you feel offended about something - hence the fact that the ban on mass gatherings is deemed not to apply to angry protest marches. Johnson probably ought to go on TV and instruct the general public simply to desist from trying to police mask wearing themselves, but I doubt that this would do anything to discourage such vigilantism. The people doing it enjoy their petty power trip far too much.
Yes there are a lot of covid Karens around- Society is pretty depressing at the moment ,made worse by the order to wear ineffective masks
I recall a similar argument over seat belts in 1983. "Seat belts restrict my movement" was the complaint at the time. Well yes they did, in the event of sudden inertia they prevented "movement" through the windscreen of your Austin Ambassador at 70 mph.
Likewise masks, a little uncomfortable, however they might prevent transmission of a disease which could have a similar ultimate outcome.
Yes but seat belts dont cut you off from people (especially hard of hearing ones), create horrible debris and create such a miserable picture of life. All of these effects are hard to quantify unlike obsessively working out deaths from a illness that has a death rate below 0.5% and will spread anyway (see Australia) .The only way out is herd immunity and protecting the economy and people's sanity
Look, I don't like wearing a mask, and I don't have to wear one here in Wales, but if I am told so to do because it "might" benefit myself and my family, I will wear one.
Time to go, it is getting silly here again.
Anecadata from Sweden: still (almost) no masks here.
A couple of weeks ago I reported that I maybe saw one mask-wearer a week. That has crept up to maybe three a week. And I am out and about a lot.
They are still so rare that my wife and I usually comment if we see one.
Back to work tomorrow after my 6 weeks and 2 days (!!) summer hols, so I’ll soon find out what culture is prevailing at my workplace. There was some dissatisfaction with management over their Covid19 response before I left, but my expectations of change are very low. Almost nothing of note happens in Swedish workplaces during June-August.
(!! even in the annals of super-generous Swedish leave, I’ve just set a personal best in lazy summers.)
yes it seems like is coping without masks there and a lot more pleasant as well. Wake up the rest of the world .
In the Mail there is a report from Amsterdam, where nobody is wearing masks and there is no nauseating climate of intimidation and fear.
Their scientists do not believe masks work and they may even hinder the control of the virus.
In Germany there were vast protests yesterday against lockdown.
I posted yesterday that what threatens the Johnson government is evidence others are pulling out of this without any of the horrible stuff we are having to endure.
One SAGE guy yesterday threatened us with tanks on the streets and today's threat is house arrest for the over 50s.
Its running at a threat a day as the government and the SAGE politburo fight to retain the control they have had since March.
I was in Amsterdam 3 weeks ago. Masks are compulsory on public transport and everyone wears them there. Otherwise not many people wearing them. This is just the same as here in Germany where everyone wears masks where they are supposed to, and not much elsewhere.
In the Netherlands they take the 1.5m rule very seriously and this seems to be well organised and complied with, much more so than in Germany. Though that is also logical: being in a shop very close to a stranger feels very different if you both have masks on compared to if neither of you do.
I see the Libertarian frothers are turning up, so.... later peeps!
OK but odd to leave a debate if somebody shows up with a different view imo. Isn't that the point of a debate or is this some kind of politburo?
Mask wearing is the new Brexit. "Debate" left the building some time ago, to be replaced by a mindless shouting match of sloganeering.
This will be going on for the rest of the day on here now. Say anything in favour of masks and you're a fascist, say anything against them and you're a nihilistic lunatic.
I'm conflicted on the issue. Heart is nihilistic lunatic. Head is fascist.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
Doing so would identify him though, wouldn't (Bleedin' obvious statement!)
If he’s charged, he’ll likely be named by the police.
If he’s kept anonymous for reasons of identifying the victim, and given the nature of the offences, he’ll likely be remanded in custody awaiting trial, with the full contempt notice sent to the media. The whips won’t need to do anything if he’s in the clink.
The media can narrow it down a fair bit as it is - 'male - in his 50s - ex-Minister'.
Yes, you can get it down to half a dozen pretty quickly, and from there only a little more digging required to work it out. Media outlets are also seltively omitting details, but collectively they might as well have just printed the name.
Surprisingly, a quick look around foreign media this morning didn’t come up with anything except republished wire stories.
In the old days, you'd buy all the papers and tot up the number of completely inconsequential stories -- MP opens fete; MP speaks in favour of motherhood and apple pie; that sort of thing -- and that was your man.
On withdrawing the whip, good luck in not being suspended on full pay in any other job. There is no reason the whip could not have been withdrawn on the QT, if that was the concern.
Yes, there were a number of MPs who appeared to go out of their way to be pictured watching events at Wembley and Silverstone yesterday, with the TV in the background.
Surely withdrawing the whip would lead to his identity being revealed? And it wouldn't take Sherlock to then guess his accuser, given what we know already. I am sure said person will be arm's length already.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
No, it shouldn't. I wouldn't withdraw the whip until conviction if there is one. Anything else prejudices the process, "even his own party thinks he's guilty" etc...
Allegations aren't in and of themselves proof of wrongdoing and this rush to condemn people who are accused before hearing the evidence is a very worrying societal change.
Withdrawing, or to be more exact, suspending the whip is not in itself judging guilt or innocence.
It would be the equivalent of informing somebody working in an office that due to allegations made against them they were to be placed on leave while an investigation is carried out. Which would be normal procedure.
If you think that wouldn’t or shouldn’t be normal procedure, I very much hope you’re not a manager.
Working in finance I've seen more than my fair share of these cases happen to colleagues and friends. The most common procedure has been to effectively separate accuser and accused until an investigation is complete, if the accuser goes to the police then it's left to the police to handle but suspensions are not usually the first recourse unless the accusation is related to hiding losses or anything that can hurt the company's reputation.
Are accusations of sexual assault particularly prevalent in finance?
Surely withdrawing the whip would lead to his identity being revealed? And it wouldn't take Sherlock to then guess his accuser, given what we know already. I am sure said person will be arm's length already.
You're absolutely right. The identity of the MP might never be revealed even if it goes to trial because, as you say, the identity of the accuser will probably become known to a lot of people.
Surely withdrawing the whip would lead to his identity being revealed? And it wouldn't take Sherlock to then guess his accuser, given what we know already. I am sure said person will be arm's length already.
I doubt Tom Newton Dunn finds anything shocking. After all he is a journalist.. Journalists are lucky that their shenanigans don't usually hit the front page, I'd wager they are no different to other cross sections of society.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
No, it shouldn't. I wouldn't withdraw the whip until conviction if there is one. Anything else prejudices the process, "even his own party thinks he's guilty" etc...
Allegations aren't in and of themselves proof of wrongdoing and this rush to condemn people who are accused before hearing the evidence is a very worrying societal change.
Withdrawing, or to be more exact, suspending the whip is not in itself judging guilt or innocence.
It would be the equivalent of informing somebody working in an office that due to allegations made against them they were to be placed on leave while an investigation is carried out. Which would be normal procedure.
If you think that wouldn’t or shouldn’t be normal procedure, I very much hope you’re not a manager.
Working in finance I've seen more than my fair share of these cases happen to colleagues and friends. The most common procedure has been to effectively separate accuser and accused until an investigation is complete, if the accuser goes to the police then it's left to the police to handle but suspensions are not usually the first recourse unless the accusation is related to hiding losses or anything that can hurt the company's reputation.
Then it’s small wonder finance has such a dreadful reputation for covering up allegations of RSA.
I’ve worked in academia, the civil service and in secondary education. All of them would consider allegations like this a reason to suspend someone.
Of course, there are other questions. For example, why did Mogg and Spencer apparently know about this before the police? Did they inform the police or advice the complainant to do so? If not, who did?
And would should worry Tories most of all is it looks as though this is not the person I thought it was. So there are even more damaging allegations out there.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
Doing so would identify him though, wouldn't (Bleedin' obvious statement!)
Usual one law for the Tories and their chums, they were not so particular re Alex Salmond, wall to wall for weeks and long long before any charges. PS: Fake charges at that
As I recall, he admitted quite a few of the charges, but he averred (and the jury agreed) that they didn’t amount to criminal offences.
If he admitted to the charges how was he aquitted. You are mixing up him saying there were a couple of consensual acts which the jury agreed with rather than the lies. Also it was in the papers months before there were ever charges. He was not charged until after the stitch up was foiled and he had 500K of public money awarded. So desperate to get him they kept pushing their lies and mistruths but luckily they could not fool the jury given he had a shedload of witnesses that proved it was a total fabrication.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Is there any proof that the Tory Party has a looks hiring policy? One would think it more likely that females are more attracted to the men (or women) of the party in power....
That would be unionist racists I bet as well, pretty shoddy Manny stooping as low just because he fell out with his fellow AUOB members over who was the big chief.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
Doing so would identify him though, wouldn't (Bleedin' obvious statement!)
Usual one law for the Tories and their chums, they were not so particular re Alex Salmond, wall to wall for weeks and long long before any charges. PS: Fake charges at that
As I recall, he admitted quite a few of the charges, but he averred (and the jury agreed) that they didn’t amount to criminal offences.
If he admitted to the charges how was he aquitted. You are mixing up him saying there were a couple of consensual acts which the jury agreed with rather than the lies. Also it was in the papers months before there were ever charges. He was not charged until after the stitch up was foiled and he had 500K of public money awarded. So desperate to get him they kept pushing their lies and mistruths but luckily they could not fool the jury given he had a shedload of witnesses that proved it was a total fabrication.
He did not say they were consensual. He said he stopped climbing onto a woman while she was in bed and trying to kiss her when she said ‘this isn’t right.’ He also said he was drunk at the time.
So Salmond himself disagreed with your claim it was a total fabrication.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
It's the affiliation of the hirers that counts. Mostly true blue Conservative? Yes, I would imagine so.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Is there any proof that the Tory Party has a looks hiring policy? One would think it more likely that females are more attracted to the men (or women) of the party in power....
Bit of both obviously. But the blame lies with the exploiters not the exploited and the exploiters are usually the men. Not always but usually. Such is the way of things.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
It's the affiliation of the hirers that counts. Mostly true blue Conservative? Yes, I would imagine so.
Tory sleaze making a comeback - grim news if so.
Well, given that I don't have a clue who works for who, they could easily be Labour staffers.
To be honest, young attractive women do have an advantage and it's not something peculiar to politics. What is more specific to Westminster is the structure of the workplace, which perhaps creates more potential for bad behaviour.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Is there any proof that the Tory Party has a looks hiring policy? One would think it more likely that females are more attracted to the men (or women) of the party in power....
Bit of both obviously. But the blame lies with the exploiters not the exploited and the exploiters are usually the men. Not always but usually. Such is the way of things.
Why is someone always to blame? Its not Judge Judy you know....
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
Doing so would identify him though, wouldn't (Bleedin' obvious statement!)
Usual one law for the Tories and their chums, they were not so particular re Alex Salmond, wall to wall for weeks and long long before any charges. PS: Fake charges at that
As I recall, he admitted quite a few of the charges, but he averred (and the jury agreed) that they didn’t amount to criminal offences.
If he admitted to the charges how was he aquitted. You are mixing up him saying there were a couple of consensual acts which the jury agreed with rather than the lies. Also it was in the papers months before there were ever charges. He was not charged until after the stitch up was foiled and he had 500K of public money awarded. So desperate to get him they kept pushing their lies and mistruths but luckily they could not fool the jury given he had a shedload of witnesses that proved it was a total fabrication.
He did not say they were consensual. He said he stopped climbing onto a woman while she was in bed and trying to kiss her when she said ‘this isn’t right.’ He also said he was drunk at the time.
So Salmond himself disagreed with your claim it was a total fabrication.
They were both drunk supposedly and she chose to keep working with him so obviously knew both were complicit. You should read something other than SUN I think.
Surely withdrawing the whip would lead to his identity being revealed? And it wouldn't take Sherlock to then guess his accuser, given what we know already. I am sure said person will be arm's length already.
You're absolutely right. The identity of the MP might never be revealed even if it goes to trial because, as you say, the identity of the accuser will probably become known to a lot of people.
“Over the next 48 hours, information came out in dribs and drabs — but not from ministers. The director of public health for Blackburn with Darwen said that 79% of recent cases in the predominantly white city had been among people from a south Asian background. Statistics from Public Health England for the week ending July 26 showed that 1,369 of those testing positive in England (37%) were Asian or Asian-British — a group that made up 7.5% of the population in the last census. Shouldn’t ministers have helped us interpret these statistics, rather than pretend they didn’t exist?”
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
No, it shouldn't. I wouldn't withdraw the whip until conviction if there is one. Anything else prejudices the process, "even his own party thinks he's guilty" etc...
Allegations aren't in and of themselves proof of wrongdoing and this rush to condemn people who are accused before hearing the evidence is a very worrying societal change.
Withdrawing, or to be more exact, suspending the whip is not in itself judging guilt or innocence.
It would be the equivalent of informing somebody working in an office that due to allegations made against them they were to be placed on leave while an investigation is carried out. Which would be normal procedure.
If you think that wouldn’t or shouldn’t be normal procedure, I very much hope you’re not a manager.
Working in finance I've seen more than my fair share of these cases happen to colleagues and friends. The most common procedure has been to effectively separate accuser and accused until an investigation is complete, if the accuser goes to the police then it's left to the police to handle but suspensions are not usually the first recourse unless the accusation is related to hiding losses or anything that can hurt the company's reputation.
Are accusations of sexual assault particularly prevalent in finance?
Surely withdrawing the whip would lead to his identity being revealed? And it wouldn't take Sherlock to then guess his accuser, given what we know already. I am sure said person will be arm's length already.
Tories will crucify the victim not the perpetrator
Meanwhile, habits of brutally abusing strangers that have developed on anti-social media bleed out into the real world at an ever-increasing rate.
Mask rage: ‘One man told me I shouldn't be allowed out if I can't wear one’
In the past few weeks, Paul Feeley has been abused four times for not wearing a mask on public transport. “I have a disability lanyard, which signifies I have a hidden disability. I tried to show it … And all I got back was a complete torrent of abuse.”
This is a total non-surprise. My husband, whose asthma is sufficiently bad that he was put on the shielding list and struggles with mask-wearing for extended periods, is nonetheless lumbered with using a rag primarily for this reason. Although it is mercifully unlikely, if we do nonetheless encounter some self-righteous, beetroot-faced screamer in a shop or on a train then they aren't going to be interested in excuses, are they?
There's not a day goes by where we're not bombarded with messages about human rights, but the right that trumps all others would now seem to be the right to scream in somebody else's face if you feel offended about something - hence the fact that the ban on mass gatherings is deemed not to apply to angry protest marches. Johnson probably ought to go on TV and instruct the general public simply to desist from trying to police mask wearing themselves, but I doubt that this would do anything to discourage such vigilantism. The people doing it enjoy their petty power trip far too much.
Yes there are a lot of covid Karens around- Society is pretty depressing at the moment ,made worse by the order to wear ineffective masks
I recall a similar argument over seat belts in 1983. "Seat belts restrict my movement" was the complaint at the time. Well yes they did, in the event of sudden inertia they prevented "movement" through the windscreen of your Austin Ambassador at 70 mph.
Likewise masks, a little uncomfortable, however they might prevent transmission of a disease which could have a similar ultimate outcome.
Yes but seat belts dont cut you off from people (especially hard of hearing ones), create horrible debris and create such a miserable picture of life. All of these effects are hard to quantify unlike obsessively working out deaths from a illness that has a death rate below 0.5% and will spread anyway (see Australia) .The only way out is herd immunity and protecting the economy and people's sanity
Look, I don't like wearing a mask, and I don't have to wear one here in Wales, but if I am told so to do because it "might" benefit myself and my family, I will wear one.
Time to go, it is getting silly here again.
Anecadata from Sweden: still (almost) no masks here.
A couple of weeks ago I reported that I maybe saw one mask-wearer a week. That has crept up to maybe three a week. And I am out and about a lot.
They are still so rare that my wife and I usually comment if we see one.
Back to work tomorrow after my 6 weeks and 2 days (!!) summer hols, so I’ll soon find out what culture is prevailing at my workplace. There was some dissatisfaction with management over their Covid19 response before I left, but my expectations of change are very low. Almost nothing of note happens in Swedish workplaces during June-August.
(!! even in the annals of super-generous Swedish leave, I’ve just set a personal best in lazy summers.)
yes it seems like is coping without masks there and a lot more pleasant as well. Wake up the rest of the world .
In the Mail there is a report from Amsterdam, where nobody is wearing masks and there is no nauseating climate of intimidation and fear.
Their scientists do not believe masks work and they may even hinder the control of the virus.
In Germany there were vast protests yesterday against lockdown.
I posted yesterday that what threatens the Johnson government is evidence others are pulling out of this without any of the horrible stuff we are having to endure.
One SAGE guy yesterday threatened us with tanks on the streets and today's threat is house arrest for the over 50s.
Its running at a threat a day as the government and the SAGE politburo fight to retain the control they have had since March.
These people need to get a grip. They might not work, but they might. If there is even a small chance that they help, then we should be wearing them. There is literally no down side FFS.
i am sorry but anyone who thinks there is no downside to wearing masks gives me the creeps . Because it does mean that once this illness is gone people will still advocate or wear them because "just in case" as there is "no downside" -Of course there is a downside - massive ones
If you are a libertarian nut job
but you just listed two downsides in your recent post!! There are many more of course and far too many to tolerate given they are of no use in controlling the virus -
Would you go into a hospital without a mask? Probably I suppose it’s such an imposition and affront to YOUR human rights.
No its sensible in a hospital , not least because people know how to wear them in a trained way. Its not sensible away from those type of environments. And its nothing to do with human rights (or extreme libertarian stance (even if opponents like to ridicule it like that) its to do with saving society, saving the economy and businesses and jobs, saving the tax base from which the NHS and welfare are funded and peoples health (mentally and physically)
Wearing masks does nothing to inhibit those developments, they actually assist. There is no downside to them especially if everybody did.
Possible downsides of masks: With untrained members of the public they result in much more frequent contact with the face by hands increasing the rate of infection. The repeated use of the same mask (unlike medical staff) increases the risk that the user will themselves become infected via the mask. They can cause complacency resulting in less use of more effective mechanisms. Purely anecdotal but I have observed far fewer people sterilising their trollies and hands in Tesco's since we have all worn masks. They inhibit social interaction and make going to shops more unpleasant making the return to normality more problematic than it is anyway.
No doubt that there are others and undoubtedly there are counter-arguments which may well be more compelling but this masks good, no masks bad nonsense is similar to the 4 legs 2 legs mantra in Animal Farm and every bit as thoughtful.
I suspect many of the mask fanatics are also house cowerers and secret lockdown obsessives.
It would be human nature for there to be bitter people angry at seeing other going about and enjoying their lives.
There is no doubt that masks also do some good. A person with a cough, for example, can exhale virus laden particles a considerable distance and is a hazard to others. A mask reduces that risk, unquestionably. It may be that the element of caution and inhibition of interaction with others is a good thing right now. I just don't believe that this is simple or straightforward. When I am out in shops I wear a mask because the law requires it. I think people are still entitled to query whether that law is particularly sensible.
Masks do some good, more in some places than others, but they also have negative effects as you pointed out.
But the government focus on them seems to be displacement activity to distract from their laxity on international travel to tolerance of loutish joggers in the spring.
I really despair of the government's attitude to international travel and quarantine. It is beyond irrational.
Lots of lobbying from airlines, travel companies and newspapers who rely on travel advertising.
Wrong call, we shouldn’t be allowing people on planes without negative test results, this is what’s happening elsewhere. AIUI we still have flights coming in from India.
And it's not like the relative lack of control has saved the airline industry. It's still stuffed. We may as well get the benefit of keeping the virus out than suffer this weird halfway house where we don't have effective controls, allowing importation of the virus, but all the economic damage anyway.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
Doing so would identify him though, wouldn't (Bleedin' obvious statement!)
Usual one law for the Tories and their chums, they were not so particular re Alex Salmond, wall to wall for weeks and long long before any charges. PS: Fake charges at that
As I recall, he admitted quite a few of the charges, but he averred (and the jury agreed) that they didn’t amount to criminal offences.
If he admitted to the charges how was he aquitted. You are mixing up him saying there were a couple of consensual acts which the jury agreed with rather than the lies. Also it was in the papers months before there were ever charges. He was not charged until after the stitch up was foiled and he had 500K of public money awarded. So desperate to get him they kept pushing their lies and mistruths but luckily they could not fool the jury given he had a shedload of witnesses that proved it was a total fabrication.
He did not say they were consensual. He said he stopped climbing onto a woman while she was in bed and trying to kiss her when she said ‘this isn’t right.’ He also said he was drunk at the time.
So Salmond himself disagreed with your claim it was a total fabrication.
They were both drunk supposedly and she chose to keep working with him so obviously knew both were complicit. You should read something other than SUN I think.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
Doing so would identify him though, wouldn't (Bleedin' obvious statement!)
Usual one law for the Tories and their chums, they were not so particular re Alex Salmond, wall to wall for weeks and long long before any charges. PS: Fake charges at that
As I recall, he admitted quite a few of the charges, but he averred (and the jury agreed) that they didn’t amount to criminal offences.
If he admitted to the charges how was he aquitted. You are mixing up him saying there were a couple of consensual acts which the jury agreed with rather than the lies. Also it was in the papers months before there were ever charges. He was not charged until after the stitch up was foiled and he had 500K of public money awarded. So desperate to get him they kept pushing their lies and mistruths but luckily they could not fool the jury given he had a shedload of witnesses that proved it was a total fabrication.
He did not say they were consensual. He said he stopped climbing onto a woman while she was in bed and trying to kiss her when she said ‘this isn’t right.’ He also said he was drunk at the time.
So Salmond himself disagreed with your claim it was a total fabrication.
They were both drunk supposedly and she chose to keep working with him so obviously knew both were complicit. You should read something other than SUN I think.
LOL, unionist mouthpiece, say no more. Senior SNP people said they would weaponise it and kept the tittle tattle till Salmond said he was coming back to politics and thought they could scare him off. They then hurriedly coached a few people , changed rules so he could be accused and hey presto, millions of public money down the drain and all by the establishment . SNP, unionist head of civil service , CPS and police all plugged a flimsy sham for political ends. Aided and abetted by the unionist media , leaked to daily Record editor by an old squeeze and they spent weeks and months bigging it up.
"Over recent years, I've become somewhat aware that technological progress combined with politically motivated social policies have had the effect of hollowing out the fabric of society—that which binds people together. This is an important topic and deserves a separate discussion, but the family in the western world has been broken. Working class people and culture have been discarded. Long established communities and ways of life have vanished.
My first experience of the Internet was in 1989. I am a programmer and was a relatively early adopter of social media in the early 2000s. You might think, therefore, that I would suggest that we look to life online as the future. But I do no such thing. I have come view social media as an insidious phenomena which, in its current form, is a threat to human well-being. It does not foster connection, but divides people into ever smaller bubbles of perceived reality. This is another deep topic which deserves separate discussion. Moreover, it is no substitute for authentic human socialisation and it disturbs me that so many seem to think that Zoom is the answer to lockdown."
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Is there any proof that the Tory Party has a looks hiring policy? One would think it more likely that females are more attracted to the men (or women) of the party in power....
Bit of both obviously. But the blame lies with the exploiters not the exploited and the exploiters are usually the men. Not always but usually. Such is the way of things.
Why is someone always to blame? Its not Judge Judy you know....
No blame in an exploitative relationship? That is a bit too laissez faire and c'est la vie for me.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
Doing so would identify him though, wouldn't (Bleedin' obvious statement!)
Usual one law for the Tories and their chums, they were not so particular re Alex Salmond, wall to wall for weeks and long long before any charges. PS: Fake charges at that
As I recall, he admitted quite a few of the charges, but he averred (and the jury agreed) that they didn’t amount to criminal offences.
If he admitted to the charges how was he aquitted. You are mixing up him saying there were a couple of consensual acts which the jury agreed with rather than the lies. Also it was in the papers months before there were ever charges. He was not charged until after the stitch up was foiled and he had 500K of public money awarded. So desperate to get him they kept pushing their lies and mistruths but luckily they could not fool the jury given he had a shedload of witnesses that proved it was a total fabrication.
He did not say they were consensual. He said he stopped climbing onto a woman while she was in bed and trying to kiss her when she said ‘this isn’t right.’ He also said he was drunk at the time.
So Salmond himself disagreed with your claim it was a total fabrication.
They were both drunk supposedly and she chose to keep working with him so obviously knew both were complicit. You should read something other than SUN I think.
LOL, unionist mouthpiece, say no more. Senior SNP people said they would weaponise it and kept the tittle tattle till Salmond said he was coming back to politics and thought they could scare him off. They then hurriedly coached a few people , changed rules so he could be accused and hey presto, millions of public money down the drain and all by the establishment . SNP, unionist head of civil service , CPS and police all plugged a flimsy sham for political ends. Aided and abetted by the unionist media , leaked to daily Record editor by an old squeeze and they spent weeks and months bigging it up.
They coached a few people into saying things that Salmond admitted were true?
Why would they need to?
It’s like the manslaughter/murder debate. Intention is important. The jury either accepted his word, or felt the prosecution had not proved he was lying, probably the first given Scots law has a verdict of ‘not proven.’
Meanwhile, habits of brutally abusing strangers that have developed on anti-social media bleed out into the real world at an ever-increasing rate.
Mask rage: ‘One man told me I shouldn't be allowed out if I can't wear one’
In the past few weeks, Paul Feeley has been abused four times for not wearing a mask on public transport. “I have a disability lanyard, which signifies I have a hidden disability. I tried to show it … And all I got back was a complete torrent of abuse.”
This is a total non-surprise. My husband, whose asthma is sufficiently bad that he was put on the shielding list and struggles with mask-wearing for extended periods, is nonetheless lumbered with using a rag primarily for this reason. Although it is mercifully unlikely, if we do nonetheless encounter some self-righteous, beetroot-faced screamer in a shop or on a train then they aren't going to be interested in excuses, are they?
There's not a day goes by where we're not bombarded with messages about human rights, but the right that trumps all others would now seem to be the right to scream in somebody else's face if you feel offended about something - hence the fact that the ban on mass gatherings is deemed not to apply to angry protest marches. Johnson probably ought to go on TV and instruct the general public simply to desist from trying to police mask wearing themselves, but I doubt that this would do anything to discourage such vigilantism. The people doing it enjoy their petty power trip far too much.
Yes there are a lot of covid Karens around- Society is pretty depressing at the moment ,made worse by the order to wear ineffective masks
I recall a similar argument over seat belts in 1983. "Seat belts restrict my movement" was the complaint at the time. Well yes they did, in the event of sudden inertia they prevented "movement" through the windscreen of your Austin Ambassador at 70 mph.
Likewise masks, a little uncomfortable, however they might prevent transmission of a disease which could have a similar ultimate outcome.
Yes but seat belts dont cut you off from people (especially hard of hearing ones), create horrible debris and create such a miserable picture of life. All of these effects are hard to quantify unlike obsessively working out deaths from a illness that has a death rate below 0.5% and will spread anyway (see Australia) .The only way out is herd immunity and protecting the economy and people's sanity
Look, I don't like wearing a mask, and I don't have to wear one here in Wales, but if I am told so to do because it "might" benefit myself and my family, I will wear one.
Time to go, it is getting silly here again.
Anecadata from Sweden: still (almost) no masks here.
A couple of weeks ago I reported that I maybe saw one mask-wearer a week. That has crept up to maybe three a week. And I am out and about a lot.
They are still so rare that my wife and I usually comment if we see one.
Back to work tomorrow after my 6 weeks and 2 days (!!) summer hols, so I’ll soon find out what culture is prevailing at my workplace. There was some dissatisfaction with management over their Covid19 response before I left, but my expectations of change are very low. Almost nothing of note happens in Swedish workplaces during June-August.
(!! even in the annals of super-generous Swedish leave, I’ve just set a personal best in lazy summers.)
yes it seems like is coping without masks there and a lot more pleasant as well. Wake up the rest of the world .
In the Mail there is a report from Amsterdam, where nobody is wearing masks and there is no nauseating climate of intimidation and fear.
Their scientists do not believe masks work and they may even hinder the control of the virus.
In Germany there were vast protests yesterday against lockdown.
I posted yesterday that what threatens the Johnson government is evidence others are pulling out of this without any of the horrible stuff we are having to endure.
One SAGE guy yesterday threatened us with tanks on the streets and today's threat is house arrest for the over 50s.
Its running at a threat a day as the government and the SAGE politburo fight to retain the control they have had since March.
These people need to get a grip. They might not work, but they might. If there is even a small chance that they help, then we should be wearing them. There is literally no down side FFS.
The Dutch scientists believe there may be a downside in that masks give a false sense of security.
This may be the reason mask crazy Spain is having an upsurge in cases whereas Sweden and the Netherlands are simply trusting people to behave responsibly.
The science, I'm afraid, is not necessarily on your side.
Don’t talk bollocks about mask usage in Spain it’s been pointed out numerous times that this is not the cause of the uplift but you continue to spout your claptrap,
No. I will not be silenced by authoritarians like you who are getting ever shriller as the evidence turns against them and their control freakery is exposed.
Sweden and now the Netherlands. Other countries are managing much better without the horrible climate of fear and intimidation we have here.
I don’t get shriller just point out the truth, can’t work out your agenda, think counseling could help.
Ah I see, mental health smears now. You really are pulling out all the stops aren;t you?
Frankly there really is something slightly odd about people who can get so hysterical about being required to wear a mask when going into a shop. I can quite see why some people don't think it makes much difference either way but frothing about it day in day out is something else. I really do wonder what your agenda is.
The overly passionate views on masks seems to apply both ways imo. Perhaps we are all a bit stressed due a particularly malign virus.
I'm not sure it does. The vast majority of people comply with the mask wearing regulations with varying degrees of enthusiasm. A very small minority are vociferously anti-mask (the usual suspects, Katie Hopkins, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens),
People such as myself only get angry when people like Contrarian and State-go-away relentlessly spend their time trying to undermine the use of masks, frequently posting misinformation. I genuinely wonder what their agenda is because it goes way beyond being asked to wear a mask in enclosed public space.
I loathe wearing a mask with a passion that surprises me, but I do so because I feel I have to trust that the government is trying its best to do what is right and they have asked me to do so.
I can understand that people would want to find refuge in explanations that mask-wearing is ineffective - as indeed I, and government advisers, did in weeks not so long ago. And you do see people not wearing them correctly, etc, and wonder whether it's all a bit of Corona-theatre.
The idea that I might be putting myself through the trouble of mask-wearing for no benefit to anyone certainly has the potential to bring me out in a rage. So I'm not at all surprised by the intensity of debate.
Meanwhile, habits of brutally abusing strangers that have developed on anti-social media bleed out into the real world at an ever-increasing rate.
Mask rage: ‘One man told me I shouldn't be allowed out if I can't wear one’
In the past few weeks, Paul Feeley has been abused four times for not wearing a mask on public transport. “I have a disability lanyard, which signifies I have a hidden disability. I tried to show it … And all I got back was a complete torrent of abuse.”
This is a total non-surprise. My husband, whose asthma is sufficiently bad that he was put on the shielding list and struggles with mask-wearing for extended periods, is nonetheless lumbered with using a rag primarily for this reason. Although it is mercifully unlikely, if we do nonetheless encounter some self-righteous, beetroot-faced screamer in a shop or on a train then they aren't going to be interested in excuses, are they?
There's not a day goes by where we're not bombarded with messages about human rights, but the right that trumps all others would now seem to be the right to scream in somebody else's face if you feel offended about something - hence the fact that the ban on mass gatherings is deemed not to apply to angry protest marches. Johnson probably ought to go on TV and instruct the general public simply to desist from trying to police mask wearing themselves, but I doubt that this would do anything to discourage such vigilantism. The people doing it enjoy their petty power trip far too much.
Yes there are a lot of covid Karens around- Society is pretty depressing at the moment ,made worse by the order to wear ineffective masks
I recall a similar argument over seat belts in 1983. "Seat belts restrict my movement" was the complaint at the time. Well yes they did, in the event of sudden inertia they prevented "movement" through the windscreen of your Austin Ambassador at 70 mph.
Likewise masks, a little uncomfortable, however they might prevent transmission of a disease which could have a similar ultimate outcome.
Yes but seat belts dont cut you off from people (especially hard of hearing ones), create horrible debris and create such a miserable picture of life. All of these effects are hard to quantify unlike obsessively working out deaths from a illness that has a death rate below 0.5% and will spread anyway (see Australia) .The only way out is herd immunity and protecting the economy and people's sanity
Look, I don't like wearing a mask, and I don't have to wear one here in Wales, but if I am told so to do because it "might" benefit myself and my family, I will wear one.
Time to go, it is getting silly here again.
Anecadata from Sweden: still (almost) no masks here.
A couple of weeks ago I reported that I maybe saw one mask-wearer a week. That has crept up to maybe three a week. And I am out and about a lot.
They are still so rare that my wife and I usually comment if we see one.
Back to work tomorrow after my 6 weeks and 2 days (!!) summer hols, so I’ll soon find out what culture is prevailing at my workplace. There was some dissatisfaction with management over their Covid19 response before I left, but my expectations of change are very low. Almost nothing of note happens in Swedish workplaces during June-August.
(!! even in the annals of super-generous Swedish leave, I’ve just set a personal best in lazy summers.)
yes it seems like is coping without masks there and a lot more pleasant as well. Wake up the rest of the world .
In the Mail there is a report from Amsterdam, where nobody is wearing masks and there is no nauseating climate of intimidation and fear.
Their scientists do not believe masks work and they may even hinder the control of the virus.
In Germany there were vast protests yesterday against lockdown.
I posted yesterday that what threatens the Johnson government is evidence others are pulling out of this without any of the horrible stuff we are having to endure.
One SAGE guy yesterday threatened us with tanks on the streets and today's threat is house arrest for the over 50s.
Its running at a threat a day as the government and the SAGE politburo fight to retain the control they have had since March.
These people need to get a grip. They might not work, but they might. If there is even a small chance that they help, then we should be wearing them. There is literally no down side FFS.
The Dutch scientists believe there may be a downside in that masks give a false sense of security.
This may be the reason mask crazy Spain is having an upsurge in cases whereas Sweden and the Netherlands are simply trusting people to behave responsibly.
The science, I'm afraid, is not necessarily on your side.
Don’t talk bollocks about mask usage in Spain it’s been pointed out numerous times that this is not the cause of the uplift but you continue to spout your claptrap,
No. I will not be silenced by authoritarians like you who are getting ever shriller as the evidence turns against them and their control freakery is exposed.
Sweden and now the Netherlands. Other countries are managing much better without the horrible climate of fear and intimidation we have here.
I don’t get shriller just point out the truth, can’t work out your agenda, think counseling could help.
Ah I see, mental health smears now. You really are pulling out all the stops aren;t you?
Frankly there really is something slightly odd about people who can get so hysterical about being required to wear a mask when going into a shop. I can quite see why some people don't think it makes much difference either way but frothing about it day in day out is something else. I really do wonder what your agenda is.
The overly passionate views on masks seems to apply both ways imo. Perhaps we are all a bit stressed due a particularly malign virus.
I'm not sure it does. The vast majority of people comply with the mask wearing regulations with varying degrees of enthusiasm. A very small minority are vociferously anti-mask (the usual suspects, Katie Hopkins, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens),
People such as myself only get angry when people like Contrarian and State-go-away relentlessly spend their time trying to undermine the use of masks, frequently posting misinformation. I genuinely wonder what their agenda is because it goes way beyond being asked to wear a mask in enclosed public space.
I loathe wearing a mask with a passion that surprises me, but I do so because I feel I have to trust that the government is trying its best to do what is right and they have asked me to do so.
I can understand that people would want to find refuge in explanations that mask-wearing is ineffective - as indeed I, and government advisers, did in weeks not so long ago. And you do see people not wearing them correctly, etc, and wonder whether it's all a bit of Corona-theatre.
The idea that I might be putting myself through the trouble of mask-wearing for no benefit to anyone certainly has the potential to bring me out in a rage. So I'm not at all surprised by the intensity of debate.
In real life I don’t know anyone who’s bothered by it
Unsure how I feel about this proposed change in planning law in England. On the face of it, it seems like a good idea, but I bet there’s a whole host of unintended consequences incoming.
Not exactly being an expert on building regulations - and I therefore stand to be corrected by those who may be - one suspects that where this will end is with...
Bad conversions of commercial property into tiny shoebox flats, which will end up as slums - which has already started, as per the notorious eyesore described here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-47720887
AND
Large tracts of very small, crappy new houses, sold for hugely inflated prices and subsequently found to be full of defects, and without adequate roads, public transport links, additional capacity for local schools and GPs, or any other necessary infrastructure provided
In short, homes will probably end up getting built in much greater numbers - which will enable the Government to trumpet its successes through the raw statistics - but most of these homes will be total shit.
There really needs to be an incentive to make houses attractive from the outside as well as in . I often thought that the Victorians did this well (maybe it was just pure showing off by the owners) and it benefits the locality having attractive buildings and houses . There probably needs to be these days a public subsidy for this but thats fine as it is a public benefit.
The external appearance of new build houses is one of the less important problems with them - yes, unless they're being built for the upper end of the market then they're typically very, very boring, but not necessarily overtly ugly - it's what's inside that's the real problem. Tiny poky little rooms are the norm, shoddy construction and disastrous leasehold traps always a risk.
I'm not sure when the Rook household might move up to something a bit larger - being mortgage-free is a considerable blessing, especially in the current economic climate - but if and when this happens I wouldn't touch a new build with the proverbial barge pole. They're expensive and horrible and they might fall down around your ears five minutes after you've signed the contract. Why risk it?
There’s a misconception with new builds that because the materials are thin, they are poorly made. They are not. They are built with engineered materials that are not required to be super thick to be strong with good thermal performance.
There’s a huge misconception in the UK that “brick” and “stone” is good and everything else is bad.
I couldn’t buy an older property now that I am used to new build thermal performance. It really is night and day.
Regardless, you are right that there are other issues with design. I’m lucky that I did 2 years worth of research so that my house (built in 2018) actually has very good room proportions, and a double side by side drive - something rare in a new build in my price range.
You are right to highlight the leasehold problem, but it gets deeper than that. All new build homes are now freehold but with management companys. An arrangement that offers even less rights than leaseholders posses. I’ve wrote quite a few times about it on here but it attracts little interest.
I'd disagree on quite a lot of that - on the basis that *consistency* of new build quality is very poor, partly due to the Building Regs inspection by sampling on estates. So one or two get built properly and the rest can be skimped.
That can to some extent be mitigated by personal sweating of the detail as you have done, but I would be reluctant to have a newbuild unless I was supervising the build personally.
Equally doing refurbs now that rentals are regulated on an efficiency improvement ratchet I really prefer to refurb myself as I know that the underlying hard work / attention to detail is being done.
I think a real issue with newbuilds is analogous to new cars - there is a big chunk of the price of the house that has been invested in other things than building a high quality house.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
I am very much not a PB Tory, but my understanding is that no charges have yet been brought. Until and unless they are, parties in this case should be allowed privacy. If the Met and CPS believe it has met the threshold, and the MP is charged, then the Tories should suspend the whip.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
It's the affiliation of the hirers that counts. Mostly true blue Conservative? Yes, I would imagine so.
Tory sleaze making a comeback - grim news if so.
Well, given that I don't have a clue who works for who, they could easily be Labour staffers.
To be honest, young attractive women do have an advantage and it's not something peculiar to politics. What is more specific to Westminster is the structure of the workplace, which perhaps creates more potential for bad behaviour.
More likely to be Tory staffers. Mauling women and chanting "I'm a naughty socialist" - no, doesn't scan.
As for the advantage - yes - but a double edged sword given the "opportunities" to be harassed.
And that's right about the environment. Not open plan. Nooks and crannies. Long and "flexible" hours. Late nights. Work and social blurred. Male bosses, one on one with much younger female employees.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
Doing so would identify him though, wouldn't (Bleedin' obvious statement!)
Usual one law for the Tories and their chums, they were not so particular re Alex Salmond, wall to wall for weeks and long long before any charges. PS: Fake charges at that
As I recall, he admitted quite a few of the charges, but he averred (and the jury agreed) that they didn’t amount to criminal offences.
If he admitted to the charges how was he aquitted. You are mixing up him saying there were a couple of consensual acts which the jury agreed with rather than the lies. Also it was in the papers months before there were ever charges. He was not charged until after the stitch up was foiled and he had 500K of public money awarded. So desperate to get him they kept pushing their lies and mistruths but luckily they could not fool the jury given he had a shedload of witnesses that proved it was a total fabrication.
He did not say they were consensual. He said he stopped climbing onto a woman while she was in bed and trying to kiss her when she said ‘this isn’t right.’ He also said he was drunk at the time.
So Salmond himself disagreed with your claim it was a total fabrication.
They were both drunk supposedly and she chose to keep working with him so obviously knew both were complicit. You should read something other than SUN I think.
LOL, unionist mouthpiece, say no more. Senior SNP people said they would weaponise it and kept the tittle tattle till Salmond said he was coming back to politics and thought they could scare him off. They then hurriedly coached a few people , changed rules so he could be accused and hey presto, millions of public money down the drain and all by the establishment . SNP, unionist head of civil service , CPS and police all plugged a flimsy sham for political ends. Aided and abetted by the unionist media , leaked to daily Record editor by an old squeeze and they spent weeks and months bigging it up.
They coached a few people into saying things that Salmond admitted were true?
Why would they need to?
It’s like the manslaughter/murder debate. Intention is important. The jury either accepted his word, or felt the prosecution had not proved he was lying, probably the first given Scots law has a verdict of ‘not proven.’
But he didn’t come out of it looking good.
He was not found 'Not Proven' though, and he came out better than the ones who lied , we will see what comes out in the enquiry this month and his book where he can print the evidence the court hid from view. His witnesses blew the stories apart , even to the extent that the claimants were not even there when events have supposed to have taken place. It was a stitch up from start to finish and they knew that even if they got beat they would have besmirched him anyway. It is the establishments way.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
I am very much not a PB Tory, but my understanding is that no charges have yet been brought. Until and unless they are, parties in this case should be allowed privacy. If the Met and CPS believe it has met the threshold, and the MP is charged, then the Tories should suspend the whip.
The problem is they haven't really maintained privacy. Saying it's a 50 year old male Tory MP who used to be a minister probably already narrows it down to a small number of people.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
I am very much not a PB Tory, but my understanding is that no charges have yet been brought. Until and unless they are, parties in this case should be allowed privacy. If the Met and CPS believe it has met the threshold, and the MP is charged, then the Tories should suspend the whip.
The problem is they haven't really maintained privacy. Saying it's a 50 year old male Tory MP who used to be a minister probably already narrows it down to a small number of people.
Luckily most ex ministers are Tory, male, and in their 50s.
Meanwhile, habits of brutally abusing strangers that have developed on anti-social media bleed out into the real world at an ever-increasing rate.
Mask rage: ‘One man told me I shouldn't be allowed out if I can't wear one’
In the past few weeks, Paul Feeley has been abused four times for not wearing a mask on public transport. “I have a disability lanyard, which signifies I have a hidden disability. I tried to show it … And all I got back was a complete torrent of abuse.”
This is a total non-surprise. My husband, whose asthma is sufficiently bad that he was put on the shielding list and struggles with mask-wearing for extended periods, is nonetheless lumbered with using a rag primarily for this reason. Although it is mercifully unlikely, if we do nonetheless encounter some self-righteous, beetroot-faced screamer in a shop or on a train then they aren't going to be interested in excuses, are they?
There's not a day goes by where we're not bombarded with messages about human rights, but the right that trumps all others would now seem to be the right to scream in somebody else's face if you feel offended about something - hence the fact that the ban on mass gatherings is deemed not to apply to angry protest marches. Johnson probably ought to go on TV and instruct the general public simply to desist from trying to police mask wearing themselves, but I doubt that this would do anything to discourage such vigilantism. The people doing it enjoy their petty power trip far too much.
Yes there are a lot of covid Karens around- Society is pretty depressing at the moment ,made worse by the order to wear ineffective masks
I recall a similar argument over seat belts in 1983. "Seat belts restrict my movement" was the complaint at the time. Well yes they did, in the event of sudden inertia they prevented "movement" through the windscreen of your Austin Ambassador at 70 mph.
Likewise masks, a little uncomfortable, however they might prevent transmission of a disease which could have a similar ultimate outcome.
Yes but seat belts dont cut you off from people (especially hard of hearing ones), create horrible debris and create such a miserable picture of life. All of these effects are hard to quantify unlike obsessively working out deaths from a illness that has a death rate below 0.5% and will spread anyway (see Australia) .The only way out is herd immunity and protecting the economy and people's sanity
Look, I don't like wearing a mask, and I don't have to wear one here in Wales, but if I am told so to do because it "might" benefit myself and my family, I will wear one.
Time to go, it is getting silly here again.
Anecadata from Sweden: still (almost) no masks here.
A couple of weeks ago I reported that I maybe saw one mask-wearer a week. That has crept up to maybe three a week. And I am out and about a lot.
They are still so rare that my wife and I usually comment if we see one.
Back to work tomorrow after my 6 weeks and 2 days (!!) summer hols, so I’ll soon find out what culture is prevailing at my workplace. There was some dissatisfaction with management over their Covid19 response before I left, but my expectations of change are very low. Almost nothing of note happens in Swedish workplaces during June-August.
(!! even in the annals of super-generous Swedish leave, I’ve just set a personal best in lazy summers.)
yes it seems like is coping without masks there and a lot more pleasant as well. Wake up the rest of the world .
In the Mail there is a report from Amsterdam, where nobody is wearing masks and there is no nauseating climate of intimidation and fear.
Their scientists do not believe masks work and they may even hinder the control of the virus.
In Germany there were vast protests yesterday against lockdown.
I posted yesterday that what threatens the Johnson government is evidence others are pulling out of this without any of the horrible stuff we are having to endure.
One SAGE guy yesterday threatened us with tanks on the streets and today's threat is house arrest for the over 50s.
Its running at a threat a day as the government and the SAGE politburo fight to retain the control they have had since March.
These people need to get a grip. They might not work, but they might. If there is even a small chance that they help, then we should be wearing them. There is literally no down side FFS.
The Dutch scientists believe there may be a downside in that masks give a false sense of security.
This may be the reason mask crazy Spain is having an upsurge in cases whereas Sweden and the Netherlands are simply trusting people to behave responsibly.
The science, I'm afraid, is not necessarily on your side.
Don’t talk bollocks about mask usage in Spain it’s been pointed out numerous times that this is not the cause of the uplift but you continue to spout your claptrap,
No. I will not be silenced by authoritarians like you who are getting ever shriller as the evidence turns against them and their control freakery is exposed.
Sweden and now the Netherlands. Other countries are managing much better without the horrible climate of fear and intimidation we have here.
I don’t get shriller just point out the truth, can’t work out your agenda, think counseling could help.
Ah I see, mental health smears now. You really are pulling out all the stops aren;t you?
Frankly there really is something slightly odd about people who can get so hysterical about being required to wear a mask when going into a shop. I can quite see why some people don't think it makes much difference either way but frothing about it day in day out is something else. I really do wonder what your agenda is.
The overly passionate views on masks seems to apply both ways imo. Perhaps we are all a bit stressed due a particularly malign virus.
I'm not sure it does. The vast majority of people comply with the mask wearing regulations with varying degrees of enthusiasm. A very small minority are vociferously anti-mask (the usual suspects, Katie Hopkins, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens),
People such as myself only get angry when people like Contrarian and State-go-away relentlessly spend their time trying to undermine the use of masks, frequently posting misinformation. I genuinely wonder what their agenda is because it goes way beyond being asked to wear a mask in enclosed public space.
I loathe wearing a mask with a passion that surprises me, but I do so because I feel I have to trust that the government is trying its best to do what is right and they have asked me to do so.
I can understand that people would want to find refuge in explanations that mask-wearing is ineffective - as indeed I, and government advisers, did in weeks not so long ago. And you do see people not wearing them correctly, etc, and wonder whether it's all a bit of Corona-theatre.
The idea that I might be putting myself through the trouble of mask-wearing for no benefit to anyone certainly has the potential to bring me out in a rage. So I'm not at all surprised by the intensity of debate.
We simply do not know therefore it makes sense to err on the side of caution
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters.
*Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
It's the affiliation of the hirers that counts. Mostly true blue Conservative? Yes, I would imagine so.
Tory sleaze making a comeback - grim news if so.
Well, given that I don't have a clue who works for who, they could easily be Labour staffers.
To be honest, young attractive women do have an advantage and it's not something peculiar to politics. What is more specific to Westminster is the structure of the workplace, which perhaps creates more potential for bad behaviour.
More likely to be Tory staffers. Mauling women and chanting "I'm a naughty socialist" - no, doesn't scan.
As for the advantage - yes - but a double edged sword given the "opportunities" to be harassed.
And that's right about the environment. Not open plan. Nooks and crannies. Long and "flexible" hours. Late nights. Work and social blurred. Male bosses, one on one with much younger female employees.
Ah yes, the "socialists can't be bad people" belief.
Interesting symbolism, thanking the NHS with a 1940's killing machine.
Would it be equally churlish to point out that the NHS has killed far more through negligence than the Spitfire ever managed in its career as a killing machine?
I rather think most people will see both as a symbol of all that is best about this country in delivering us from dark times...
Meanwhile, habits of brutally abusing strangers that have developed on anti-social media bleed out into the real world at an ever-increasing rate.
Mask rage: ‘One man told me I shouldn't be allowed out if I can't wear one’
In the past few weeks, Paul Feeley has been abused four times for not wearing a mask on public transport. “I have a disability lanyard, which signifies I have a hidden disability. I tried to show it … And all I got back was a complete torrent of abuse.”
This is a total non-surprise. My husband, whose asthma is sufficiently bad that he was put on the shielding list and struggles with mask-wearing for extended periods, is nonetheless lumbered with using a rag primarily for this reason. Although it is mercifully unlikely, if we do nonetheless encounter some self-righteous, beetroot-faced screamer in a shop or on a train then they aren't going to be interested in excuses, are they?
There's not a day goes by where we're not bombarded with messages about human rights, but the right that trumps all others would now seem to be the right to scream in somebody else's face if you feel offended about something - hence the fact that the ban on mass gatherings is deemed not to apply to angry protest marches. Johnson probably ought to go on TV and instruct the general public simply to desist from trying to police mask wearing themselves, but I doubt that this would do anything to discourage such vigilantism. The people doing it enjoy their petty power trip far too much.
Yes there are a lot of covid Karens around- Society is pretty depressing at the moment ,made worse by the order to wear ineffective masks
I recall a similar argument over seat belts in 1983. "Seat belts restrict my movement" was the complaint at the time. Well yes they did, in the event of sudden inertia they prevented "movement" through the windscreen of your Austin Ambassador at 70 mph.
Likewise masks, a little uncomfortable, however they might prevent transmission of a disease which could have a similar ultimate outcome.
Yes but seat belts dont cut you off from people (especially hard of hearing ones), create horrible debris and create such a miserable picture of life. All of these effects are hard to quantify unlike obsessively working out deaths from a illness that has a death rate below 0.5% and will spread anyway (see Australia) .The only way out is herd immunity and protecting the economy and people's sanity
Look, I don't like wearing a mask, and I don't have to wear one here in Wales, but if I am told so to do because it "might" benefit myself and my family, I will wear one.
Time to go, it is getting silly here again.
Anecadata from Sweden: still (almost) no masks here.
A couple of weeks ago I reported that I maybe saw one mask-wearer a week. That has crept up to maybe three a week. And I am out and about a lot.
They are still so rare that my wife and I usually comment if we see one.
Back to work tomorrow after my 6 weeks and 2 days (!!) summer hols, so I’ll soon find out what culture is prevailing at my workplace. There was some dissatisfaction with management over their Covid19 response before I left, but my expectations of change are very low. Almost nothing of note happens in Swedish workplaces during June-August.
(!! even in the annals of super-generous Swedish leave, I’ve just set a personal best in lazy summers.)
yes it seems like is coping without masks there and a lot more pleasant as well. Wake up the rest of the world .
In the Mail there is a report from Amsterdam, where nobody is wearing masks and there is no nauseating climate of intimidation and fear.
Their scientists do not believe masks work and they may even hinder the control of the virus.
In Germany there were vast protests yesterday against lockdown.
I posted yesterday that what threatens the Johnson government is evidence others are pulling out of this without any of the horrible stuff we are having to endure.
One SAGE guy yesterday threatened us with tanks on the streets and today's threat is house arrest for the over 50s.
Its running at a threat a day as the government and the SAGE politburo fight to retain the control they have had since March.
These people need to get a grip. They might not work, but they might. If there is even a small chance that they help, then we should be wearing them. There is literally no down side FFS.
The Dutch scientists believe there may be a downside in that masks give a false sense of security.
This may be the reason mask crazy Spain is having an upsurge in cases whereas Sweden and the Netherlands are simply trusting people to behave responsibly.
The science, I'm afraid, is not necessarily on your side.
Don’t talk bollocks about mask usage in Spain it’s been pointed out numerous times that this is not the cause of the uplift but you continue to spout your claptrap,
No. I will not be silenced by authoritarians like you who are getting ever shriller as the evidence turns against them and their control freakery is exposed.
Sweden and now the Netherlands. Other countries are managing much better without the horrible climate of fear and intimidation we have here.
I don’t get shriller just point out the truth, can’t work out your agenda, think counseling could help.
Ah I see, mental health smears now. You really are pulling out all the stops aren;t you?
Frankly there really is something slightly odd about people who can get so hysterical about being required to wear a mask when going into a shop. I can quite see why some people don't think it makes much difference either way but frothing about it day in day out is something else. I really do wonder what your agenda is.
The overly passionate views on masks seems to apply both ways imo. Perhaps we are all a bit stressed due a particularly malign virus.
I'm not sure it does. The vast majority of people comply with the mask wearing regulations with varying degrees of enthusiasm. A very small minority are vociferously anti-mask (the usual suspects, Katie Hopkins, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens),
People such as myself only get angry when people like Contrarian and State-go-away relentlessly spend their time trying to undermine the use of masks, frequently posting misinformation. I genuinely wonder what their agenda is because it goes way beyond being asked to wear a mask in enclosed public space.
I loathe wearing a mask with a passion that surprises me, but I do so because I feel I have to trust that the government is trying its best to do what is right and they have asked me to do so.
I can understand that people would want to find refuge in explanations that mask-wearing is ineffective - as indeed I, and government advisers, did in weeks not so long ago. And you do see people not wearing them correctly, etc, and wonder whether it's all a bit of Corona-theatre.
The idea that I might be putting myself through the trouble of mask-wearing for no benefit to anyone certainly has the potential to bring me out in a rage. So I'm not at all surprised by the intensity of debate.
In real life I don’t know anyone who’s bothered by it
Even if Covid were just like flu, it might be the case that, in future, we should wear masks on public transport and some other places during regular flu seasons
Interesting symbolism, thanking the NHS with a 1940's killing machine.
Would it be equally churlish to point out that the NHS has killed far more through negligence than the Spitfire ever managed in its career as a killing machine?
I rather think most people will see both as a symbol of all that is best about this country in delivering us from dark times...
I am reminded of the teacher, who on the 45th anniversary of D-Day, commented to the BBC - "Unfortunately, we won the war...."
On Vanilla on mobile any Tweets don't appear to be showing today, which is making many posts appear very, very confusing since don't know what they're responding to. Don't know if this is just my side or related to the emergency server upgrade? Is anyone else having issues?
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters. Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
It's the affiliation of the hirers that counts. Mostly true blue Conservative? Yes, I would imagine so.
Tory sleaze making a comeback - grim news if so.
Well, given that I don't have a clue who works for who, they could easily be Labour staffers.
To be honest, young attractive women do have an advantage and it's not something peculiar to politics. What is more specific to Westminster is the structure of the workplace, which perhaps creates more potential for bad behaviour.
More likely to be Tory staffers. Mauling women and chanting "I'm a naughty socialist" - no, doesn't scan.
As for the advantage - yes - but a double edged sword given the "opportunities" to be harassed.
And that's right about the environment. Not open plan. Nooks and crannies. Long and "flexible" hours. Late nights. Work and social blurred. Male bosses, one on one with much younger female employees.
Ah yes, the "socialists can't be bad people" belief.
No they can be of course. But I sense less likely to do what we're talking about - sexually exploit young women. There is probably data to show this somewhere.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
I am very much not a PB Tory, but my understanding is that no charges have yet been brought. Until and unless they are, parties in this case should be allowed privacy. If the Met and CPS believe it has met the threshold, and the MP is charged, then the Tories should suspend the whip.
This is so obvious, I can only assume 'rattling the right people' remains a prime motivation.
“Over the next 48 hours, information came out in dribs and drabs — but not from ministers. The director of public health for Blackburn with Darwen said that 79% of recent cases in the predominantly white city had been among people from a south Asian background. Statistics from Public Health England for the week ending July 26 showed that 1,369 of those testing positive in England (37%) were Asian or Asian-British — a group that made up 7.5% of the population in the last census. Shouldn’t ministers have helped us interpret these statistics, rather than pretend they didn’t exist?”
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters. Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
It's the affiliation of the hirers that counts. Mostly true blue Conservative? Yes, I would imagine so.
Tory sleaze making a comeback - grim news if so.
Well, given that I don't have a clue who works for who, they could easily be Labour staffers.
To be honest, young attractive women do have an advantage and it's not something peculiar to politics. What is more specific to Westminster is the structure of the workplace, which perhaps creates more potential for bad behaviour.
More likely to be Tory staffers. Mauling women and chanting "I'm a naughty socialist" - no, doesn't scan.
As for the advantage - yes - but a double edged sword given the "opportunities" to be harassed.
And that's right about the environment. Not open plan. Nooks and crannies. Long and "flexible" hours. Late nights. Work and social blurred. Male bosses, one on one with much younger female employees.
Ah yes, the "socialists can't be bad people" belief.
No they can be of course. But I sense less likely to do what we're talking about - sexually exploit young women. There is probably data to show this somewhere.
Comrade Delta says hi.
Stop blinding yourself to reality. Politics is about power. Power and sex are always mixed.
Meanwhile, habits of brutally abusing strangers that have developed on anti-social media bleed out into the real world at an ever-increasing rate.
Mask rage: ‘One man told me I shouldn't be allowed out if I can't wear one’
In the past few weeks, Paul Feeley has been abused four times for not wearing a mask on public transport. “I have a disability lanyard, which signifies I have a hidden disability. I tried to show it … And all I got back was a complete torrent of abuse.”
This is a total non-surprise. My husband, whose asthma is sufficiently bad that he was put on the shielding list and struggles with mask-wearing for extended periods, is nonetheless lumbered with using a rag primarily for this reason. Although it is mercifully unlikely, if we do nonetheless encounter some self-righteous, beetroot-faced screamer in a shop or on a train then they aren't going to be interested in excuses, are they?
There's not a day goes by where we're not bombarded with messages about human rights, but the right that trumps all others would now seem to be the right to scream in somebody else's face if you feel offended about something - hence the fact that the ban on mass gatherings is deemed not to apply to angry protest marches. Johnson probably ought to go on TV and instruct the general public simply to desist from trying to police mask wearing themselves, but I doubt that this would do anything to discourage such vigilantism. The people doing it enjoy their petty power trip far too much.
Yes there are a lot of covid Karens around- Society is pretty depressing at the moment ,made worse by the order to wear ineffective masks
I recall a similar argument over seat belts in 1983. "Seat belts restrict my movement" was the complaint at the time. Well yes they did, in the event of sudden inertia they prevented "movement" through the windscreen of your Austin Ambassador at 70 mph.
Likewise masks, a little uncomfortable, however they might prevent transmission of a disease which could have a similar ultimate outcome.
Yes but seat belts dont cut you off from people (especially hard of hearing ones), create horrible debris and create such a miserable picture of life. All of these effects are hard to quantify unlike obsessively working out deaths from a illness that has a death rate below 0.5% and will spread anyway (see Australia) .The only way out is herd immunity and protecting the economy and people's sanity
Look, I don't like wearing a mask, and I don't have to wear one here in Wales, but if I am told so to do because it "might" benefit myself and my family, I will wear one.
Time to go, it is getting silly here again.
Anecadata from Sweden: still (almost) no masks here.
A couple of weeks ago I reported that I maybe saw one mask-wearer a week. That has crept up to maybe three a week. And I am out and about a lot.
They are still so rare that my wife and I usually comment if we see one.
Back to work tomorrow after my 6 weeks and 2 days (!!) summer hols, so I’ll soon find out what culture is prevailing at my workplace. There was some dissatisfaction with management over their Covid19 response before I left, but my expectations of change are very low. Almost nothing of note happens in Swedish workplaces during June-August.
(!! even in the annals of super-generous Swedish leave, I’ve just set a personal best in lazy summers.)
yes it seems like is coping without masks there and a lot more pleasant as well. Wake up the rest of the world .
In the Mail there is a report from Amsterdam, where nobody is wearing masks and there is no nauseating climate of intimidation and fear.
Their scientists do not believe masks work and they may even hinder the control of the virus.
In Germany there were vast protests yesterday against lockdown.
I posted yesterday that what threatens the Johnson government is evidence others are pulling out of this without any of the horrible stuff we are having to endure.
One SAGE guy yesterday threatened us with tanks on the streets and today's threat is house arrest for the over 50s.
Its running at a threat a day as the government and the SAGE politburo fight to retain the control they have had since March.
These people need to get a grip. They might not work, but they might. If there is even a small chance that they help, then we should be wearing them. There is literally no down side FFS.
The Dutch scientists believe there may be a downside in that masks give a false sense of security.
This may be the reason mask crazy Spain is having an upsurge in cases whereas Sweden and the Netherlands are simply trusting people to behave responsibly.
The science, I'm afraid, is not necessarily on your side.
Don’t talk bollocks about mask usage in Spain it’s been pointed out numerous times that this is not the cause of the uplift but you continue to spout your claptrap,
No. I will not be silenced by authoritarians like you who are getting ever shriller as the evidence turns against them and their control freakery is exposed.
Sweden and now the Netherlands. Other countries are managing much better without the horrible climate of fear and intimidation we have here.
I don’t get shriller just point out the truth, can’t work out your agenda, think counseling could help.
Ah I see, mental health smears now. You really are pulling out all the stops aren;t you?
Frankly there really is something slightly odd about people who can get so hysterical about being required to wear a mask when going into a shop. I can quite see why some people don't think it makes much difference either way but frothing about it day in day out is something else. I really do wonder what your agenda is.
The overly passionate views on masks seems to apply both ways imo. Perhaps we are all a bit stressed due a particularly malign virus.
I'm not sure it does. The vast majority of people comply with the mask wearing regulations with varying degrees of enthusiasm. A very small minority are vociferously anti-mask (the usual suspects, Katie Hopkins, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens),
People such as myself only get angry when people like Contrarian and State-go-away relentlessly spend their time trying to undermine the use of masks, frequently posting misinformation. I genuinely wonder what their agenda is because it goes way beyond being asked to wear a mask in enclosed public space.
I loathe wearing a mask with a passion that surprises me, but I do so because I feel I have to trust that the government is trying its best to do what is right and they have asked me to do so.
I can understand that people would want to find refuge in explanations that mask-wearing is ineffective - as indeed I, and government advisers, did in weeks not so long ago. And you do see people not wearing them correctly, etc, and wonder whether it's all a bit of Corona-theatre.
The idea that I might be putting myself through the trouble of mask-wearing for no benefit to anyone certainly has the potential to bring me out in a rage. So I'm not at all surprised by the intensity of debate.
In real life I don’t know anyone who’s bothered by it
I think I'd be bothered a lot less if I didn't wear glasses. I've been wondering whether I can send off for some disposable contacts to use, instead of glasses, when I need to use a mask.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters. Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
It's the affiliation of the hirers that counts. Mostly true blue Conservative? Yes, I would imagine so.
Tory sleaze making a comeback - grim news if so.
Well, given that I don't have a clue who works for who, they could easily be Labour staffers.
To be honest, young attractive women do have an advantage and it's not something peculiar to politics. What is more specific to Westminster is the structure of the workplace, which perhaps creates more potential for bad behaviour.
More likely to be Tory staffers. Mauling women and chanting "I'm a naughty socialist" - no, doesn't scan.
As for the advantage - yes - but a double edged sword given the "opportunities" to be harassed.
And that's right about the environment. Not open plan. Nooks and crannies. Long and "flexible" hours. Late nights. Work and social blurred. Male bosses, one on one with much younger female employees.
Ah yes, the "socialists can't be bad people" belief.
No they can be of course. But I sense less likely to do what we're talking about - sexually exploit young women. There is probably data to show this somewhere.
I think several Labour MPs were accused of this during the last parliament. And some other senior staff.
Meanwhile, habits of brutally abusing strangers that have developed on anti-social media bleed out into the real world at an ever-increasing rate.
Mask rage: ‘One man told me I shouldn't be allowed out if I can't wear one’
In the past few weeks, Paul Feeley has been abused four times for not wearing a mask on public transport. “I have a disability lanyard, which signifies I have a hidden disability. I tried to show it … And all I got back was a complete torrent of abuse.”
This is a total non-surprise. My husband, whose asthma is sufficiently bad that he was put on the shielding list and struggles with mask-wearing for extended periods, is nonetheless lumbered with using a rag primarily for this reason. Although it is mercifully unlikely, if we do nonetheless encounter some self-righteous, beetroot-faced screamer in a shop or on a train then they aren't going to be interested in excuses, are they?
There's not a day goes by where we're not bombarded with messages about human rights, but the right that trumps all others would now seem to be the right to scream in somebody else's face if you feel offended about something - hence the fact that the ban on mass gatherings is deemed not to apply to angry protest marches. Johnson probably ought to go on TV and instruct the general public simply to desist from trying to police mask wearing themselves, but I doubt that this would do anything to discourage such vigilantism. The people doing it enjoy their petty power trip far too much.
Yes there are a lot of covid Karens around- Society is pretty depressing at the moment ,made worse by the order to wear ineffective masks
I recall a similar argument over seat belts in 1983. "Seat belts restrict my movement" was the complaint at the time. Well yes they did, in the event of sudden inertia they prevented "movement" through the windscreen of your Austin Ambassador at 70 mph.
Likewise masks, a little uncomfortable, however they might prevent transmission of a disease which could have a similar ultimate outcome.
Yes but seat belts dont cut you off from people (especially hard of hearing ones), create horrible debris and create such a miserable picture of life. All of these effects are hard to quantify unlike obsessively working out deaths from a illness that has a death rate below 0.5% and will spread anyway (see Australia) .The only way out is herd immunity and protecting the economy and people's sanity
Look, I don't like wearing a mask, and I don't have to wear one here in Wales, but if I am told so to do because it "might" benefit myself and my family, I will wear one.
Time to go, it is getting silly here again.
Anecadata from Sweden: still (almost) no masks here.
A couple of weeks ago I reported that I maybe saw one mask-wearer a week. That has crept up to maybe three a week. And I am out and about a lot.
They are still so rare that my wife and I usually comment if we see one.
Back to work tomorrow after my 6 weeks and 2 days (!!) summer hols, so I’ll soon find out what culture is prevailing at my workplace. There was some dissatisfaction with management over their Covid19 response before I left, but my expectations of change are very low. Almost nothing of note happens in Swedish workplaces during June-August.
(!! even in the annals of super-generous Swedish leave, I’ve just set a personal best in lazy summers.)
yes it seems like is coping without masks there and a lot more pleasant as well. Wake up the rest of the world .
In the Mail there is a report from Amsterdam, where nobody is wearing masks and there is no nauseating climate of intimidation and fear.
Their scientists do not believe masks work and they may even hinder the control of the virus.
In Germany there were vast protests yesterday against lockdown.
I posted yesterday that what threatens the Johnson government is evidence others are pulling out of this without any of the horrible stuff we are having to endure.
One SAGE guy yesterday threatened us with tanks on the streets and today's threat is house arrest for the over 50s.
Its running at a threat a day as the government and the SAGE politburo fight to retain the control they have had since March.
These people need to get a grip. They might not work, but they might. If there is even a small chance that they help, then we should be wearing them. There is literally no down side FFS.
The Dutch scientists believe there may be a downside in that masks give a false sense of security.
This may be the reason mask crazy Spain is having an upsurge in cases whereas Sweden and the Netherlands are simply trusting people to behave responsibly.
The science, I'm afraid, is not necessarily on your side.
Don’t talk bollocks about mask usage in Spain it’s been pointed out numerous times that this is not the cause of the uplift but you continue to spout your claptrap,
No. I will not be silenced by authoritarians like you who are getting ever shriller as the evidence turns against them and their control freakery is exposed.
Sweden and now the Netherlands. Other countries are managing much better without the horrible climate of fear and intimidation we have here.
I don’t get shriller just point out the truth, can’t work out your agenda, think counseling could help.
Ah I see, mental health smears now. You really are pulling out all the stops aren;t you?
Frankly there really is something slightly odd about people who can get so hysterical about being required to wear a mask when going into a shop. I can quite see why some people don't think it makes much difference either way but frothing about it day in day out is something else. I really do wonder what your agenda is.
The overly passionate views on masks seems to apply both ways imo. Perhaps we are all a bit stressed due a particularly malign virus.
I'm not sure it does. The vast majority of people comply with the mask wearing regulations with varying degrees of enthusiasm. A very small minority are vociferously anti-mask (the usual suspects, Katie Hopkins, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens),
People such as myself only get angry when people like Contrarian and State-go-away relentlessly spend their time trying to undermine the use of masks, frequently posting misinformation. I genuinely wonder what their agenda is because it goes way beyond being asked to wear a mask in enclosed public space.
I loathe wearing a mask with a passion that surprises me, but I do so because I feel I have to trust that the government is trying its best to do what is right and they have asked me to do so.
I can understand that people would want to find refuge in explanations that mask-wearing is ineffective - as indeed I, and government advisers, did in weeks not so long ago. And you do see people not wearing them correctly, etc, and wonder whether it's all a bit of Corona-theatre.
The idea that I might be putting myself through the trouble of mask-wearing for no benefit to anyone certainly has the potential to bring me out in a rage. So I'm not at all surprised by the intensity of debate.
In real life I don’t know anyone who’s bothered by it
I think I'd be bothered a lot less if I didn't wear glasses. I've been wondering whether I can send off for some disposable contacts to use, instead of glasses, when I need to use a mask.
Yes, my Mum had trouble with that. I meant I don't know anyone who is refusing to wear a mask or angry about it
“Over the next 48 hours, information came out in dribs and drabs — but not from ministers. The director of public health for Blackburn with Darwen said that 79% of recent cases in the predominantly white city had been among people from a south Asian background. Statistics from Public Health England for the week ending July 26 showed that 1,369 of those testing positive in England (37%) were Asian or Asian-British — a group that made up 7.5% of the population in the last census. Shouldn’t ministers have helped us interpret these statistics, rather than pretend they didn’t exist?”
But a man had a Calippo on Southend Beach and that's a far greater sin.
Syed goes on to say
"One of the most beautiful things about my father’s side of the family (he hails from Pakistan) is the deep love and respect for older people. It is rare to put parents into nursing homes because of the duty to care for them at home. But this is precisely why nothing would have had a deeper impact on Asian communities than a frank statement about how this cultural strength can, in the context of an epidemic, prove perilous. By tiptoeing around racial sensibilities, Hancock will, I fear, cost lives."
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters. Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
It's the affiliation of the hirers that counts. Mostly true blue Conservative? Yes, I would imagine so.
Tory sleaze making a comeback - grim news if so.
Well, given that I don't have a clue who works for who, they could easily be Labour staffers.
To be honest, young attractive women do have an advantage and it's not something peculiar to politics. What is more specific to Westminster is the structure of the workplace, which perhaps creates more potential for bad behaviour.
More likely to be Tory staffers. Mauling women and chanting "I'm a naughty socialist" - no, doesn't scan.
As for the advantage - yes - but a double edged sword given the "opportunities" to be harassed.
And that's right about the environment. Not open plan. Nooks and crannies. Long and "flexible" hours. Late nights. Work and social blurred. Male bosses, one on one with much younger female employees.
Ah yes, the "socialists can't be bad people" belief.
No they can be of course. But I sense less likely to do what we're talking about - sexually exploit young women. There is probably data to show this somewhere.
Meanwhile, habits of brutally abusing strangers that have developed on anti-social media bleed out into the real world at an ever-increasing rate.
Mask rage: ‘One man told me I shouldn't be allowed out if I can't wear one’
In the past few weeks, Paul Feeley has been abused four times for not wearing a mask on public transport. “I have a disability lanyard, which signifies I have a hidden disability. I tried to show it … And all I got back was a complete torrent of abuse.”
This is a total non-surprise. My husband, whose asthma is sufficiently bad that he was put on the shielding list and struggles with mask-wearing for extended periods, is nonetheless lumbered with using a rag primarily for this reason. Although it is mercifully unlikely, if we do nonetheless encounter some self-righteous, beetroot-faced screamer in a shop or on a train then they aren't going to be interested in excuses, are they?
There's not a day goes by where we're not bombarded with messages about human rights, but the right that trumps all others would now seem to be the right to scream in somebody else's face if you feel offended about something - hence the fact that the ban on mass gatherings is deemed not to apply to angry protest marches. Johnson probably ought to go on TV and instruct the general public simply to desist from trying to police mask wearing themselves, but I doubt that this would do anything to discourage such vigilantism. The people doing it enjoy their petty power trip far too much.
Yes there are a lot of covid Karens around- Society is pretty depressing at the moment ,made worse by the order to wear ineffective masks
I recall a similar argument over seat belts in 1983. "Seat belts restrict my movement" was the complaint at the time. Well yes they did, in the event of sudden inertia they prevented "movement" through the windscreen of your Austin Ambassador at 70 mph.
Likewise masks, a little uncomfortable, however they might prevent transmission of a disease which could have a similar ultimate outcome.
Yes but seat belts dont cut you off from people (especially hard of hearing ones), create horrible debris and create such a miserable picture of life. All of these effects are hard to quantify unlike obsessively working out deaths from a illness that has a death rate below 0.5% and will spread anyway (see Australia) .The only way out is herd immunity and protecting the economy and people's sanity
Look, I don't like wearing a mask, and I don't have to wear one here in Wales, but if I am told so to do because it "might" benefit myself and my family, I will wear one.
Time to go, it is getting silly here again.
Anecadata from Sweden: still (almost) no masks here.
A couple of weeks ago I reported that I maybe saw one mask-wearer a week. That has crept up to maybe three a week. And I am out and about a lot.
They are still so rare that my wife and I usually comment if we see one.
Back to work tomorrow after my 6 weeks and 2 days (!!) summer hols, so I’ll soon find out what culture is prevailing at my workplace. There was some dissatisfaction with management over their Covid19 response before I left, but my expectations of change are very low. Almost nothing of note happens in Swedish workplaces during June-August.
(!! even in the annals of super-generous Swedish leave, I’ve just set a personal best in lazy summers.)
yes it seems like is coping without masks there and a lot more pleasant as well. Wake up the rest of the world .
In the Mail there is a report from Amsterdam, where nobody is wearing masks and there is no nauseating climate of intimidation and fear.
Their scientists do not believe masks work and they may even hinder the control of the virus.
In Germany there were vast protests yesterday against lockdown.
I posted yesterday that what threatens the Johnson government is evidence others are pulling out of this without any of the horrible stuff we are having to endure.
One SAGE guy yesterday threatened us with tanks on the streets and today's threat is house arrest for the over 50s.
Its running at a threat a day as the government and the SAGE politburo fight to retain the control they have had since March.
These people need to get a grip. They might not work, but they might. If there is even a small chance that they help, then we should be wearing them. There is literally no down side FFS.
The Dutch scientists believe there may be a downside in that masks give a false sense of security.
This may be the reason mask crazy Spain is having an upsurge in cases whereas Sweden and the Netherlands are simply trusting people to behave responsibly.
The science, I'm afraid, is not necessarily on your side.
Don’t talk bollocks about mask usage in Spain it’s been pointed out numerous times that this is not the cause of the uplift but you continue to spout your claptrap,
No. I will not be silenced by authoritarians like you who are getting ever shriller as the evidence turns against them and their control freakery is exposed.
Sweden and now the Netherlands. Other countries are managing much better without the horrible climate of fear and intimidation we have here.
I don’t get shriller just point out the truth, can’t work out your agenda, think counseling could help.
Ah I see, mental health smears now. You really are pulling out all the stops aren;t you?
Frankly there really is something slightly odd about people who can get so hysterical about being required to wear a mask when going into a shop. I can quite see why some people don't think it makes much difference either way but frothing about it day in day out is something else. I really do wonder what your agenda is.
The overly passionate views on masks seems to apply both ways imo. Perhaps we are all a bit stressed due a particularly malign virus.
I'm not sure it does. The vast majority of people comply with the mask wearing regulations with varying degrees of enthusiasm. A very small minority are vociferously anti-mask (the usual suspects, Katie Hopkins, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens),
People such as myself only get angry when people like Contrarian and State-go-away relentlessly spend their time trying to undermine the use of masks, frequently posting misinformation. I genuinely wonder what their agenda is because it goes way beyond being asked to wear a mask in enclosed public space.
I loathe wearing a mask with a passion that surprises me, but I do so because I feel I have to trust that the government is trying its best to do what is right and they have asked me to do so.
I can understand that people would want to find refuge in explanations that mask-wearing is ineffective - as indeed I, and government advisers, did in weeks not so long ago. And you do see people not wearing them correctly, etc, and wonder whether it's all a bit of Corona-theatre.
The idea that I might be putting myself through the trouble of mask-wearing for no benefit to anyone certainly has the potential to bring me out in a rage. So I'm not at all surprised by the intensity of debate.
In real life I don’t know anyone who’s bothered by it
I think I'd be bothered a lot less if I didn't wear glasses. I've been wondering whether I can send off for some disposable contacts to use, instead of glasses, when I need to use a mask.
Yes, my Mum had trouble with that. I meant I don't know anyone who is refusing to wear a mask or angry about it
A quick smear with washing up liquid should prevent that.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters. Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
It's the affiliation of the hirers that counts. Mostly true blue Conservative? Yes, I would imagine so.
Tory sleaze making a comeback - grim news if so.
Well, given that I don't have a clue who works for who, they could easily be Labour staffers.
To be honest, young attractive women do have an advantage and it's not something peculiar to politics. What is more specific to Westminster is the structure of the workplace, which perhaps creates more potential for bad behaviour.
More likely to be Tory staffers. Mauling women and chanting "I'm a naughty socialist" - no, doesn't scan.
As for the advantage - yes - but a double edged sword given the "opportunities" to be harassed.
And that's right about the environment. Not open plan. Nooks and crannies. Long and "flexible" hours. Late nights. Work and social blurred. Male bosses, one on one with much younger female employees.
Ah yes, the "socialists can't be bad people" belief.
No they can be of course. But I sense less likely to do what we're talking about - sexually exploit young women. There is probably data to show this somewhere.
Are you saying John Prescott wasn’t Labour?
The personification of traditional old Labour. Perhaps he voted for Boris in December 2019?
First, I'm genuinely not sure PL983 'L' ever had guns. This is one spectacularly SHITHOT take. Throw in a PBTory while you're there, will you?
second, I was walking down the A33 out of Basingstoke when it flew past - unexpectedly - and, yeah, it cheered me up immensely.
The implication that photo reconnaissance aircraft have nothing to do with the nasty business of getting people killed during wartime is a pretty warm take in itself.
Did the the 'Thank U NHS' add to, detract from or leave your immense cheerfulness about the same?
“Over the next 48 hours, information came out in dribs and drabs — but not from ministers. The director of public health for Blackburn with Darwen said that 79% of recent cases in the predominantly white city had been among people from a south Asian background. Statistics from Public Health England for the week ending July 26 showed that 1,369 of those testing positive in England (37%) were Asian or Asian-British — a group that made up 7.5% of the population in the last census. Shouldn’t ministers have helped us interpret these statistics, rather than pretend they didn’t exist?”
But a man had a Calippo on Southend Beach and that's a far greater sin.
Syed goes on to say
"One of the most beautiful things about my father’s side of the family (he hails from Pakistan) is the deep love and respect for older people. It is rare to put parents into nursing homes because of the duty to care for them at home. But this is precisely why nothing would have had a deeper impact on Asian communities than a frank statement about how this cultural strength can, in the context of an epidemic, prove perilous. By tiptoeing around racial sensibilities, Hancock will, I fear, cost lives."
Syed wanted to become a Labour MP. Too bad he wasn’t successful.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters. Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
It's the affiliation of the hirers that counts. Mostly true blue Conservative? Yes, I would imagine so.
Tory sleaze making a comeback - grim news if so.
Well, given that I don't have a clue who works for who, they could easily be Labour staffers.
To be honest, young attractive women do have an advantage and it's not something peculiar to politics. What is more specific to Westminster is the structure of the workplace, which perhaps creates more potential for bad behaviour.
More likely to be Tory staffers. Mauling women and chanting "I'm a naughty socialist" - no, doesn't scan.
As for the advantage - yes - but a double edged sword given the "opportunities" to be harassed.
And that's right about the environment. Not open plan. Nooks and crannies. Long and "flexible" hours. Late nights. Work and social blurred. Male bosses, one on one with much younger female employees.
Ah yes, the "socialists can't be bad people" belief.
No they can be of course. But I sense less likely to do what we're talking about - sexually exploit young women. There is probably data to show this somewhere.
Are you saying John Prescott wasn’t Labour?
There are also a significant number of allegations that have proven to be groundless against MPs over recent years, so I can see media being nervous.
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters. Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
It's the affiliation of the hirers that counts. Mostly true blue Conservative? Yes, I would imagine so.
Tory sleaze making a comeback - grim news if so.
Well, given that I don't have a clue who works for who, they could easily be Labour staffers.
To be honest, young attractive women do have an advantage and it's not something peculiar to politics. What is more specific to Westminster is the structure of the workplace, which perhaps creates more potential for bad behaviour.
More likely to be Tory staffers. Mauling women and chanting "I'm a naughty socialist" - no, doesn't scan.
As for the advantage - yes - but a double edged sword given the "opportunities" to be harassed.
And that's right about the environment. Not open plan. Nooks and crannies. Long and "flexible" hours. Late nights. Work and social blurred. Male bosses, one on one with much younger female employees.
Ah yes, the "socialists can't be bad people" belief.
No they can be of course. But I sense less likely to do what we're talking about - sexually exploit young women. There is probably data to show this somewhere.
Are you saying John Prescott wasn’t Labour?
There are also a significant number of allegations that have proven to be groundless against MPs over recent years, so I can see media being nervous.
I would have thought they’re much more nervous about what happened when they named Cliff Richard rather too early.
Meanwhile, habits of brutally abusing strangers that have developed on anti-social media bleed out into the real world at an ever-increasing rate.
Mask rage: ‘One man told me I shouldn't be allowed out if I can't wear one’
In the past few weeks, Paul Feeley has been abused four times for not wearing a mask on public transport. “I have a disability lanyard, which signifies I have a hidden disability. I tried to show it … And all I got back was a complete torrent of abuse.”
This is a total non-surprise. My husband, whose asthma is sufficiently bad that he was put on the shielding list and struggles with mask-wearing for extended periods, is nonetheless lumbered with using a rag primarily for this reason. Although it is mercifully unlikely, if we do nonetheless encounter some self-righteous, beetroot-faced screamer in a shop or on a train then they aren't going to be interested in excuses, are they?
There's not a day goes by where we're not bombarded with messages about human rights, but the right that trumps all others would now seem to be the right to scream in somebody else's face if you feel offended about something - hence the fact that the ban on mass gatherings is deemed not to apply to angry protest marches. Johnson probably ought to go on TV and instruct the general public simply to desist from trying to police mask wearing themselves, but I doubt that this would do anything to discourage such vigilantism. The people doing it enjoy their petty power trip far too much.
Yes there are a lot of covid Karens around- Society is pretty depressing at the moment ,made worse by the order to wear ineffective masks
I recall a similar argument over seat belts in 1983. "Seat belts restrict my movement" was the complaint at the time. Well yes they did, in the event of sudden inertia they prevented "movement" through the windscreen of your Austin Ambassador at 70 mph.
Likewise masks, a little uncomfortable, however they might prevent transmission of a disease which could have a similar ultimate outcome.
Yes but seat belts dont cut you off from people (especially hard of hearing ones), create horrible debris and create such a miserable picture of life. All of these effects are hard to quantify unlike obsessively working out deaths from a illness that has a death rate below 0.5% and will spread anyway (see Australia) .The only way out is herd immunity and protecting the economy and people's sanity
Look, I don't like wearing a mask, and I don't have to wear one here in Wales, but if I am told so to do because it "might" benefit myself and my family, I will wear one.
Time to go, it is getting silly here again.
Anecadata from Sweden: still (almost) no masks here.
A couple of weeks ago I reported that I maybe saw one mask-wearer a week. That has crept up to maybe three a week. And I am out and about a lot.
They are still so rare that my wife and I usually comment if we see one.
Back to work tomorrow after my 6 weeks and 2 days (!!) summer hols, so I’ll soon find out what culture is prevailing at my workplace. There was some dissatisfaction with management over their Covid19 response before I left, but my expectations of change are very low. Almost nothing of note happens in Swedish workplaces during June-August.
(!! even in the annals of super-generous Swedish leave, I’ve just set a personal best in lazy summers.)
yes it seems like is coping without masks there and a lot more pleasant as well. Wake up the rest of the world .
In the Mail there is a report from Amsterdam, where nobody is wearing masks and there is no nauseating climate of intimidation and fear.
Their scientists do not believe masks work and they may even hinder the control of the virus.
In Germany there were vast protests yesterday against lockdown.
I posted yesterday that what threatens the Johnson government is evidence others are pulling out of this without any of the horrible stuff we are having to endure.
One SAGE guy yesterday threatened us with tanks on the streets and today's threat is house arrest for the over 50s.
Its running at a threat a day as the government and the SAGE politburo fight to retain the control they have had since March.
These people need to get a grip. They might not work, but they might. If there is even a small chance that they help, then we should be wearing them. There is literally no down side FFS.
The Dutch scientists believe there may be a downside in that masks give a false sense of security.
This may be the reason mask crazy Spain is having an upsurge in cases whereas Sweden and the Netherlands are simply trusting people to behave responsibly.
The science, I'm afraid, is not necessarily on your side.
Don’t talk bollocks about mask usage in Spain it’s been pointed out numerous times that this is not the cause of the uplift but you continue to spout your claptrap,
No. I will not be silenced by authoritarians like you who are getting ever shriller as the evidence turns against them and their control freakery is exposed.
Sweden and now the Netherlands. Other countries are managing much better without the horrible climate of fear and intimidation we have here.
I don’t get shriller just point out the truth, can’t work out your agenda, think counseling could help.
Ah I see, mental health smears now. You really are pulling out all the stops aren;t you?
Frankly there really is something slightly odd about people who can get so hysterical about being required to wear a mask when going into a shop. I can quite see why some people don't think it makes much difference either way but frothing about it day in day out is something else. I really do wonder what your agenda is.
The overly passionate views on masks seems to apply both ways imo. Perhaps we are all a bit stressed due a particularly malign virus.
I'm not sure it does. The vast majority of people comply with the mask wearing regulations with varying degrees of enthusiasm. A very small minority are vociferously anti-mask (the usual suspects, Katie Hopkins, Toby Young, Peter Hitchens),
People such as myself only get angry when people like Contrarian and State-go-away relentlessly spend their time trying to undermine the use of masks, frequently posting misinformation. I genuinely wonder what their agenda is because it goes way beyond being asked to wear a mask in enclosed public space.
I loathe wearing a mask with a passion that surprises me, but I do so because I feel I have to trust that the government is trying its best to do what is right and they have asked me to do so.
I can understand that people would want to find refuge in explanations that mask-wearing is ineffective - as indeed I, and government advisers, did in weeks not so long ago. And you do see people not wearing them correctly, etc, and wonder whether it's all a bit of Corona-theatre.
The idea that I might be putting myself through the trouble of mask-wearing for no benefit to anyone certainly has the potential to bring me out in a rage. So I'm not at all surprised by the intensity of debate.
In real life I don’t know anyone who’s bothered by it
I think I'd be bothered a lot less if I didn't wear glasses. I've been wondering whether I can send off for some disposable contacts to use, instead of glasses, when I need to use a mask.
Yes, my Mum had trouble with that. I meant I don't know anyone who is refusing to wear a mask or angry about it
Judging by the number of people not bothering to obey the law here there are plenty of people bothered by it. Perhaps they just don't tell you their views in case you might be a beetroot faced mask fascist?
If he’s charged with an offence, I’m sure the whips will suspend him.
While he is under investigation, it would be appropriate to suspend the whip. Or do you think somebody under investigation for allegations of this nature would be allowed to attend their place of work while being investigated?*
I think the reason it hasn’t been done, however, is that that would inevitably publicly identify who it is, so I am guessing the police or lawyers might have advised patience. After all, Parliament is in recess, so there is time to make a decision before it matters. Yes, I know that can’t be prevented, but he could be prevented from attending meetings where colleagues of his accuser might be present.
An allegation is just that, there is no charge and nothing close to a conviction. Naming the accused would be subjecting them to trial by media and potentially prejudice any jury in a court case should charges be brought. If the police have seen fit not to name the accused then why should the Conservative party?
That is however the reason why it may not have been done, which is theoretically separate from the principle of withdrawing the whip.
Or to put it another way - do you think the whip should not be suspended in the event of investigations being carried out? If not, why not?
Are you suggesting the whip be suspended without saying who has had the whip suspended? Seems a bit pointless and wouldn't it just lead to opponents complaining that we don't know for sure that the whip has been suspended because the parliament web page won't have been updated.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
A "looks" hiring policy for females is a sure sign of a sleazy organization.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
Of course, I don't know the political affiliation of the eye candy in Portcullis House...
It's the affiliation of the hirers that counts. Mostly true blue Conservative? Yes, I would imagine so.
Tory sleaze making a comeback - grim news if so.
Well, given that I don't have a clue who works for who, they could easily be Labour staffers.
To be honest, young attractive women do have an advantage and it's not something peculiar to politics. What is more specific to Westminster is the structure of the workplace, which perhaps creates more potential for bad behaviour.
More likely to be Tory staffers. Mauling women and chanting "I'm a naughty socialist" - no, doesn't scan.
As for the advantage - yes - but a double edged sword given the "opportunities" to be harassed.
And that's right about the environment. Not open plan. Nooks and crannies. Long and "flexible" hours. Late nights. Work and social blurred. Male bosses, one on one with much younger female employees.
Ah yes, the "socialists can't be bad people" belief.
No they can be of course. But I sense less likely to do what we're talking about - sexually exploit young women. There is probably data to show this somewhere.
Comrade Delta says hi.
Stop blinding yourself to reality. Politics is about power. Power and sex are always mixed.
Neither of which clichés contradict my sense of things on this specific point. I'll try and dig out some relevant data.
"Over recent years, I've become somewhat aware that technological progress combined with politically motivated social policies have had the effect of hollowing out the fabric of society—that which binds people together. This is an important topic and deserves a separate discussion, but the family in the western world has been broken. Working class people and culture have been discarded. Long established communities and ways of life have vanished.
My first experience of the Internet was in 1989. I am a programmer and was a relatively early adopter of social media in the early 2000s. You might think, therefore, that I would suggest that we look to life online as the future. But I do no such thing. I have come view social media as an insidious phenomena which, in its current form, is a threat to human well-being. It does not foster connection, but divides people into ever smaller bubbles of perceived reality. This is another deep topic which deserves separate discussion. Moreover, it is no substitute for authentic human socialisation and it disturbs me that so many seem to think that Zoom is the answer to lockdown."
On that basis we'd never use a telephone (a lot of people do a lot of the time) or write a letter as "authentic human socialisation" seems to be the only acceptable modus vivendi.
"People like people like themselves" is an adage I've always lived by. It's fascinating how often contributors on here claim everyone in their acquaintance holds the same views as they do and everyone in their Facebook groups thinks the way they do.
We avoid prolonged confrontation with people with whom we disagree or whose views we don't like or accept. Oddly enough, forums like this allow some kind of outlet for differing views but the range isn't as wide as it could be.
As a result. people withdraw into the chambers of the like-minded (echo chambers) where they can have their opinions validated and re-enforced. Has social media intensified this? Slightly but to imagine it never existed before the coming of the Internet is foolish.
"Over recent years, I've become somewhat aware that technological progress combined with politically motivated social policies have had the effect of hollowing out the fabric of society—that which binds people together. This is an important topic and deserves a separate discussion, but the family in the western world has been broken. Working class people and culture have been discarded. Long established communities and ways of life have vanished.
My first experience of the Internet was in 1989. I am a programmer and was a relatively early adopter of social media in the early 2000s. You might think, therefore, that I would suggest that we look to life online as the future. But I do no such thing. I have come view social media as an insidious phenomena which, in its current form, is a threat to human well-being. It does not foster connection, but divides people into ever smaller bubbles of perceived reality. This is another deep topic which deserves separate discussion. Moreover, it is no substitute for authentic human socialisation and it disturbs me that so many seem to think that Zoom is the answer to lockdown."
On that basis we'd never use a telephone (a lot of people do a lot of the time) or write a letter as "authentic human socialisation" seems to be the only acceptable modus vivendi.
"People like people like themselves" is an adage I've always lived by. It's fascinating how often contributors on here claim everyone in their acquaintance holds the same views as they do and everyone in their Facebook groups thinks the way they do.
We avoid prolonged confrontation with people with whom we disagree or whose views we don't like or accept. Oddly enough, forums like this allow some kind of outlet for differing views but the range isn't as wide as it could be.
As a result. people withdraw into the chambers of the like-minded (echo chambers) where they can have their opinions validated and re-enforced. Has social media intensified this? Slightly but to imagine it never existed before the coming of the Internet is foolish.
I never met a real Brexiter till I came on PB (quite some years ago now).
“Over the next 48 hours, information came out in dribs and drabs — but not from ministers. The director of public health for Blackburn with Darwen said that 79% of recent cases in the predominantly white city had been among people from a south Asian background. Statistics from Public Health England for the week ending July 26 showed that 1,369 of those testing positive in England (37%) were Asian or Asian-British — a group that made up 7.5% of the population in the last census. Shouldn’t ministers have helped us interpret these statistics, rather than pretend they didn’t exist?”
But a man had a Calippo on Southend Beach and that's a far greater sin.
Syed goes on to say
"One of the most beautiful things about my father’s side of the family (he hails from Pakistan) is the deep love and respect for older people. It is rare to put parents into nursing homes because of the duty to care for them at home. But this is precisely why nothing would have had a deeper impact on Asian communities than a frank statement about how this cultural strength can, in the context of an epidemic, prove perilous. By tiptoeing around racial sensibilities, Hancock will, I fear, cost lives."
What would that frank statement comprise other than here are the rules and all must comply be they white black asian chinese or even cummings?
"Over recent years, I've become somewhat aware that technological progress combined with politically motivated social policies have had the effect of hollowing out the fabric of society—that which binds people together. This is an important topic and deserves a separate discussion, but the family in the western world has been broken. Working class people and culture have been discarded. Long established communities and ways of life have vanished.
My first experience of the Internet was in 1989. I am a programmer and was a relatively early adopter of social media in the early 2000s. You might think, therefore, that I would suggest that we look to life online as the future. But I do no such thing. I have come view social media as an insidious phenomena which, in its current form, is a threat to human well-being. It does not foster connection, but divides people into ever smaller bubbles of perceived reality. This is another deep topic which deserves separate discussion. Moreover, it is no substitute for authentic human socialisation and it disturbs me that so many seem to think that Zoom is the answer to lockdown."
On that basis we'd never use a telephone (a lot of people do a lot of the time) or write a letter as "authentic human socialisation" seems to be the only acceptable modus vivendi.
"People like people like themselves" is an adage I've always lived by. It's fascinating how often contributors on here claim everyone in their acquaintance holds the same views as they do and everyone in their Facebook groups thinks the way they do.
We avoid prolonged confrontation with people with whom we disagree or whose views we don't like or accept. Oddly enough, forums like this allow some kind of outlet for differing views but the range isn't as wide as it could be.
As a result. people withdraw into the chambers of the like-minded (echo chambers) where they can have their opinions validated and re-enforced. Has social media intensified this? Slightly but to imagine it never existed before the coming of the Internet is foolish.
I never met a real Brexiter till I came on PB (quite some years ago now).
Comments
A night-time curfew, between from 20:00 to 05:00, will be implemented across Melbourne
The only reasons for leaving home during these hours will be work, medical care or care-giving
Melbourne residents will only be allowed to shop and exercise within 5 km (3.1 miles) of their home
Exercise outside of the home will only be allowed for one hour at a time
I wonder if the softness of the UK lockdown was a reason why it was more widely followed than expected.
It would be the equivalent of informing somebody working in an office that due to allegations made against them they were to be placed on leave while an investigation is carried out. Which would be normal procedure.
If you think that wouldn’t or shouldn’t be normal procedure, I very much hope you’re not a manager.
Anyway, innocent until proven guilty etc. etc. If he is charged, then perhaps the whip will be removed (isn't that what happened with Elphicke? Until a key Brexit vote if I remember rightly).
The Tory Party would be better off reviewing their own internal party processes. Portcullis House was full of pretty young girls last time I was there a few years ago; I doubt their appearances hurt them when trying to become staffers.
But that’s the only reason for it, and also, I am not sure that would have been enough had Parliament not been in recess rendering the matter moot.
On withdrawing the whip, good luck in not being suspended on full pay in any other job. There is no reason the whip could not have been withdrawn on the QT, if that was the concern.
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1289855857359032322?s=20
In the Netherlands they take the 1.5m rule very seriously and this seems to be well organised and complied with, much more so than in Germany. Though that is also logical: being in a shop very close to a stranger feels very different if you both have masks on compared to if neither of you do.
Vast demonstrations here in Germany? Not really
Anyway, let’s not get OGH in trouble.
And it wouldn't take Sherlock to then guess his accuser, given what we know already.
I am sure said person will be arm's length already.
Not surprised to hear that the Tory Party has one.
I’ve worked in academia, the civil service and in secondary education. All of them would consider allegations like this a reason to suspend someone.
Of course, there are other questions. For example, why did Mogg and Spencer apparently know about this before the police? Did they inform the police or advice the complainant to do so? If not, who did?
And would should worry Tories most of all is it looks as though this is not the person I thought it was. So there are even more damaging allegations out there.
So Salmond himself disagreed with your claim it was a total fabrication.
Tory sleaze making a comeback - grim news if so.
That’s a very good price for a two horse race, where the two horses are twin brothers and the other jockey might have a slight edge.
To be honest, young attractive women do have an advantage and it's not something peculiar to politics. What is more specific to Westminster is the structure of the workplace, which perhaps creates more potential for bad behaviour.
Why is someone always to blame? Its not Judge Judy you know....
https://twitter.com/matthewsyed/status/1289878598510288897?s=21
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18311014.alex-salmond-trial-former-first-minister-says-allegations-made-political-reasons/
Aided and abetted by the unionist media , leaked to daily Record editor by an old squeeze and they spent weeks and months bigging it up.
"Over recent years, I've become somewhat aware that technological progress combined with politically motivated social policies have had the effect of hollowing out the fabric of society—that which binds people together. This is an important topic and deserves a separate discussion, but the family in the western world has been broken. Working class people and culture have been discarded. Long established communities and ways of life have vanished.
My first experience of the Internet was in 1989. I am a programmer and was a relatively early adopter of social media in the early 2000s. You might think, therefore, that I would suggest that we look to life online as the future. But I do no such thing. I have come view social media as an insidious phenomena which, in its current form, is a threat to human well-being. It does not foster connection, but divides people into ever smaller bubbles of perceived reality. This is another deep topic which deserves separate discussion. Moreover, it is no substitute for authentic human socialisation and it disturbs me that so many seem to think that Zoom is the answer to lockdown."
https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=190202&sec_id=190202
Why would they need to?
It’s like the manslaughter/murder debate. Intention is important. The jury either accepted his word, or felt the prosecution had not proved he was lying, probably the first given Scots law has a verdict of ‘not proven.’
But he didn’t come out of it looking good.
I can understand that people would want to find refuge in explanations that mask-wearing is ineffective - as indeed I, and government advisers, did in weeks not so long ago. And you do see people not wearing them correctly, etc, and wonder whether it's all a bit of Corona-theatre.
The idea that I might be putting myself through the trouble of mask-wearing for no benefit to anyone certainly has the potential to bring me out in a rage. So I'm not at all surprised by the intensity of debate.
Take back control, give it to Boris Johnson and his cronies
That can to some extent be mitigated by personal sweating of the detail as you have done, but I would be reluctant to have a newbuild unless I was supervising the build personally.
Equally doing refurbs now that rentals are regulated on an efficiency improvement ratchet I really prefer to refurb myself as I know that the underlying hard work / attention to detail is being done.
I think a real issue with newbuilds is analogous to new cars - there is a big chunk of the price of the house that has been invested in other things than building a high quality house.
As for the advantage - yes - but a double edged sword given the "opportunities" to be harassed.
And that's right about the environment. Not open plan. Nooks and crannies. Long and "flexible" hours. Late nights. Work and social blurred. Male bosses, one on one with much younger female employees.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/08/02/britains-ship-fools-sails-rudderless-amid-covid-seas/
It was a stitch up from start to finish and they knew that even if they got beat they would have besmirched him anyway. It is the establishments way.
I rather think most people will see both as a symbol of all that is best about this country in delivering us from dark times...
Why the delay?
Chrome browser on a Samsung S9.
second, I was walking down the A33 out of Basingstoke when it flew past - unexpectedly - and, yeah, it cheered me up immensely.
But a man had a Calippo on Southend Beach and that's a far greater sin.
Stop blinding yourself to reality. Politics is about power. Power and sex are always mixed.
"One of the most beautiful things about my father’s side of the family (he hails from Pakistan) is the deep love and respect for older people. It is rare to put parents into nursing homes because of the duty to care for them at home. But this is precisely why nothing would have had a deeper impact on Asian communities than a frank statement about how this cultural strength can, in the context of an epidemic, prove perilous. By tiptoeing around racial sensibilities, Hancock will, I fear, cost lives."
- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/21/labour-shadow-minister-allowed-stand-mp-despite-police-investigation/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7817741/Labour-MP-ally-Jeremy-Corbyn-probed-police-allegation-sexual-assault.htmlhttps://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/outgoing-mp-claims-labour-party-3467473
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-labour-party-suspends-mp-over-sexual-misconduct-allegations/
A quick google suggests accusations against Labour politicians are not entirely unheard of.
Bad is bad, irrespective of political stripe.
Did the the 'Thank U NHS' add to, detract from or leave your immense cheerfulness about the same?
"People like people like themselves" is an adage I've always lived by. It's fascinating how often contributors on here claim everyone in their acquaintance holds the same views as they do and everyone in their Facebook groups thinks the way they do.
We avoid prolonged confrontation with people with whom we disagree or whose views we don't like or accept. Oddly enough, forums like this allow some kind of outlet for differing views but the range isn't as wide as it could be.
As a result. people withdraw into the chambers of the like-minded (echo chambers) where they can have their opinions validated and re-enforced. Has social media intensified this? Slightly but to imagine it never existed before the coming of the Internet is foolish.
Headline - 5
7 Days - 5
Yesterday - 2