...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.
Oh and first.
Has Baroness Kneecapped recanted? The impression I've got generally is that the Living Marxism crowd are deeply unwilling to admit that they were ever wrong about anything.
Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
My belief is that the Russian incident is what turned Tory empty attacks into reality for many, totally self-inflicted too
...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.
Oh and first.
Has Baroness Kneecapped recanted? The impression I've got generally is that the Living Marxism crowd are deeply unwilling to admit that they were ever wrong about anything.
She is no longer a Revolutionary Communist, not since the 1990s. Corbyn still is a Revolutionary Communist!
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
A little research indicates that while she may have recanted her support for the IRA (if she has) it’s going a bit far to suggest she’s recanted being a headcase. Her views on Gary Glitter should have disbarred her from every legislative assembly on the planet.
For many years, politicians have been telling paramilitaries to put down weapons are engage with democratic institutions. So they can hardly complain when someone goes and does just that.
...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.
Oh and first.
Has Baroness Kneecapped recanted? The impression I've got generally is that the Living Marxism crowd are deeply unwilling to admit that they were ever wrong about anything.
She's never recanted her denial of Bosnian genocide.
Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
I don't think the IRA issue alone did for Jezza, it was the continuous expressions of support / unwillingness to denounce a range of terrorist sympathising groups, foreign powers not aligned to our interests and anti-semites, all added up to the a section of public the noticing that perhaps he wasn't for them.
Sounds like this lady is the similar, in expressing support for a range of unsavoury groups / individuals.
Double quote marks are your friend, just spent 5 minutes wondering what made 'Labour uses Tories' a good jibe.
I wish this was a runner, but it isn't. “What does Labour offer a defender of the IRA? The party leadership” is the obvious response. Starmer has done nowhere near enough, yet, to efface the memory of Corbyn.
As the IRA loved a mortar (even getting within shrapnel distance of No 10), I very much hope your hoist by their own petard reference is intentional.
But trust a Fenn Poly boy to misquote Shakespeare - it's "Hoist with his own petard"
On topic - completely avoidable self inflicted wound which the Tories opponents are absolutely right to give them a well deserved drubbing for. I and the previous PM lost a mutual friend to the IRA Harrods bombing, so I doubt she's too thrilled either.
I can't imagine the Mayor of the West Midlands is a fan, nor Birmingham MPs, what with the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham Pub bombings within 6 months of the 2025 GE.
I wonder which useless idiot put Johnson up to it?
Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
I think it became an issue after Salisbury.
Nationally, perhaps, but that's more that Corbyn hates Britain. North London picked up on his antisemitism when Warrington didn't pick up on his pro-IRA position.
Incidentally, on Fox I still haven't worked out if she thinks all's fair in love and war (if, perhaps, inadvisable) or whether she thinks the IRA had right on their side and were justified in taking whatever action they considered necessary to achieve their goals. If it's the former then I think that's a bit weird, but okay. If it's the latter, it's thoroughly reprehensible.
So we have it, supports Brexit so any views can be just explained away.
Tories are so utterly transparent, it's never been about racism or support of the IRA, it's about point scoring. End of story.
I hope Labour makes hay out of this - but I hope Keir is prepared for the inevitable attacks on him for serving in Corbyn's SC.
Of course there's an easy response to that, if he hadn't served in the SC he'd have been branded a coward and the reality is he'd never have become the leader in the first place.
Something like, ‘You know what, the reason this government is shit is because Cummings is thick as mince and lazy as a toad, as well as a bully, a liar and a failure. Oh and by the way, you were all right, he didn’t care about childcare, he just wanted a nice garden.
And Johnson’s a coward and a liar who can’t deal with the small dicked idiot.
It’s all shit, so I’m going to Labour where serious people are trying to sort it out.’
It’ll never happen but would be even funnier than watching Aaron Bastani’s face as the results came in in December, which was pretty damn funny.
Edit - on a serious note, Cummings needs to be a bit careful which government ministers he tries to dispose of. If any of the ones who have defended him turn on him, he could be in big trouble.
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
Probably - but it's a great stick to beat the government with which they have carelessly handed to their opponents. Why? What is the advantage to them?
Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
I think it became an issue after Salisbury.
Nationally, perhaps, but that's more that Corbyn hates Britain. North London picked up on his antisemitism when Warrington didn't pick up on his pro-IRA position.
Incidentally, on Fox I still haven't worked out if she thinks all's fair in love and war (if, perhaps, inadvisable) or whether she thinks the IRA had right on their side and were justified in taking whatever action they considered necessary to achieve their goals. If it's the former then I think that's a bit weird, but okay. If it's the latter, it's thoroughly reprehensible.
The RCP defended "the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures necessary in their struggle for freedom" in the party's newsletter published shortly after the [Warrington Attack].
As the IRA loved a mortar (even getting within shrapnel distance of No 10), I very much hope your hoist by their own petard reference is intentional.
But trust a Fenn Poly boy to misquote Shakespeare - it's "Hoist with his own petard"
On topic - completely avoidable self inflicted wound which the Tories opponents are absolutely right to give them a well deserved drubbing for. I and the previous PM lost a mutual friend to the IRA Harrods bombing, so I doubt she's too thrilled either.
I can't imagine the Mayor of the West Midlands is a fan, nor Birmingham MPs, what with the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham Pub bombings within 6 months of the 2025 GE.
I wonder which useless idiot put Johnson up to it?
Peter Hitchens thinks it might have something to do with Munira Mirza:
But this Government is all about Brexit and if you support that you're in. Nothing to do with talent, it's a Government devoid of talent, all Johnson wants is yes people.
And Sunak so far is popular by being slightly less shit than all the others - and handing out tonnes of money.
Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
I think it became an issue after Salisbury.
Nationally, perhaps, but that's more that Corbyn hates Britain. North London picked up on his antisemitism when Warrington didn't pick up on his pro-IRA position.
Incidentally, on Fox I still haven't worked out if she thinks all's fair in love and war (if, perhaps, inadvisable) or whether she thinks the IRA had right on their side and were justified in taking whatever action they considered necessary to achieve their goals. If it's the former then I think that's a bit weird, but okay. If it's the latter, it's thoroughly reprehensible.
The RCP defended "the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures necessary in their struggle for freedom" in the party's newsletter published shortly after the [Warrington Attack].
It would be helpful to get confirmation that they didn't like the other lot and the British government fighting back. But if that is the case, it's a very poor decision by Boris.
And if this is the response now, I can only imagine the screams of betrayal when Farage gets involved. Then we'll see what Johnson's coalition looks like.
The other thing that is interesting is Fox's rise to prominence in the media before the EU referendum was a thing. The BBC even had her on their list of 100 Women in 2015:
Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
I think it became an issue after Salisbury.
Nationally, perhaps, but that's more that Corbyn hates Britain. North London picked up on his antisemitism when Warrington didn't pick up on his pro-IRA position.
Incidentally, on Fox I still haven't worked out if she thinks all's fair in love and war (if, perhaps, inadvisable) or whether she thinks the IRA had right on their side and were justified in taking whatever action they considered necessary to achieve their goals. If it's the former then I think that's a bit weird, but okay. If it's the latter, it's thoroughly reprehensible.
The RCP defended "the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures necessary in their struggle for freedom" in the party's newsletter published shortly after the [Warrington Attack].
It would be helpful to get confirmation that they didn't like the other lot and the British government fighting back. But if that is the case, it's a very poor decision by Boris.
It's the RCP, they hate[d] everything British.
They saw Brits in Ireland as vile imperialism that had to be ended by any means necessary.
As the IRA loved a mortar (even getting within shrapnel distance of No 10), I very much hope your hoist by their own petard reference is intentional.
But trust a Fenn Poly boy to misquote Shakespeare - it's "Hoist with his own petard"
On topic - completely avoidable self inflicted wound which the Tories opponents are absolutely right to give them a well deserved drubbing for. I and the previous PM lost a mutual friend to the IRA Harrods bombing, so I doubt she's too thrilled either.
I can't imagine the Mayor of the West Midlands is a fan, nor Birmingham MPs, what with the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham Pub bombings within 6 months of the 2025 GE.
I wonder which useless idiot put Johnson up to it?
Peter Hitchens thinks it might have something to do with Munira Mirza:
That fits - Mirza recommends her "sound on Brexit", Johnson, with his "World Beating" attention to detail, doesn't remotely see the elephant traps and jumps straight in.
Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
I think it became an issue after Salisbury.
Nationally, perhaps, but that's more that Corbyn hates Britain. North London picked up on his antisemitism when Warrington didn't pick up on his pro-IRA position.
Incidentally, on Fox I still haven't worked out if she thinks all's fair in love and war (if, perhaps, inadvisable) or whether she thinks the IRA had right on their side and were justified in taking whatever action they considered necessary to achieve their goals. If it's the former then I think that's a bit weird, but okay. If it's the latter, it's thoroughly reprehensible.
The RCP defended "the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures necessary in their struggle for freedom" in the party's newsletter published shortly after the [Warrington Attack].
It would be helpful to get confirmation that they didn't like the other lot and the British government fighting back. But if that is the case, it's a very poor decision by Boris.
It's the RCP, they hate[d] everything British.
They saw Brits in Ireland as vile imperialism that had to be ended by any means necessary.
Isn't this the key to why Jeremy Corbyn is seen as genuinely evil. The difference is, Corbyn still thinks he is in the right, Claire Fox has almost moved full circle and is now a Revolutionary Conservative.
As the IRA loved a mortar (even getting within shrapnel distance of No 10), I very much hope your hoist by their own petard reference is intentional.
But trust a Fenn Poly boy to misquote Shakespeare - it's "Hoist with his own petard"
On topic - completely avoidable self inflicted wound which the Tories opponents are absolutely right to give them a well deserved drubbing for. I and the previous PM lost a mutual friend to the IRA Harrods bombing, so I doubt she's too thrilled either.
I can't imagine the Mayor of the West Midlands is a fan, nor Birmingham MPs, what with the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham Pub bombings within 6 months of the 2025 GE.
I wonder which useless idiot put Johnson up to it?
Peter Hitchens thinks it might have something to do with Munira Mirza:
That fits - Mirza recommends her "sound on Brexit", Johnson, with his "World Beating" attention to detail, doesn't remotely see the elephant traps and jumps straight in.
More likely Dom thinks "this will get the bubble talking about something that's not COVID-19, Brexit, the economy, etc. etc."
How many of the rest of the Revolutionary Communist Party ended up in significant positions in the Media? Claire Fox for years was a regular guest on BBC programmes such as The Moral Maze and now I'd estimate at least 30% of guest reviewers on programmes such as 'What The Papers Say' are libertarian marxists such as Ash Sarkar ,the Spiked team etc. .The odd thing is both are presented by the MSM as respectively the voice of either the right wing or the left wing and as such that the MSM is not biased. Never see libertarian marxist guests asked though whether it is correct that genuinely right wing voices like Hopkins and Robinson or left wing voices that are in disgrace like Livingston and Galloway should be in practice banned from TV & radio channels which they currently are. Maybe if a presenter asked the question they believe they would be out of a job soon?
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
All whilst attacking Corbyn in the same sentence. Their double standards are plain and pathetic and they clearly don't give a shit about anything unless it is for scoring political points.
I wonder if Johnson will find himself in a similar position to Corbyn.
Did well (won) with little scrutiny but next time around he'll have been exposed and found out
No, Johnson's quite controversial back story including Darius Guppy, the casual racism and the misogyny was all known about in 2019 (as it will be in 2024) in the same way as Corbyn's distasteful back story was well understood.
The voters of Great Britain decided they trusted and will trust, someone who acts and behaves like an aggressive version of the Benny Hill character, Fred Scuttle. They did not want a humourless characterisation of Catweasel.
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
Well, I have never before been condemned for sharing in Johnson's shame.
I was merely pointing out that Corbyn's evil remains ever present. This woman's unpleasant, peculiar views are from history, Corbyn's remain today..
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
Well, I have never before been condemned for sharing in Johnson's shame.
I was merely pointing out that Corbyn's evil remains ever present. This woman's unpleasant, peculiar views are from history, Corbyn's remain today..
Her views are not from history. They are not peculiar. They are dangerous. Someone who denies facts is no better than a Holocaust denier. She has never recanted them. She is a female version of Corbyn.
But unlike him, once she is in the Lords we can never vote her out.
It is utterly contemptible and contemptuous of the public the Tories claim to be speaking for.
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
All whilst attacking Corbyn in the same sentence. Their double standards are plain and pathetic and they clearly don't give a shit about anything unless it is for scoring political points.
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
All whilst attacking Corbyn in the same sentence. Their double standards are plain and pathetic and they clearly don't give a shit about anything unless it is for scoring political points.
I hope you're not refering to my condemnation of Corbyn as political point scoring.
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
All whilst attacking Corbyn in the same sentence. Their double standards are plain and pathetic and they clearly don't give a shit about anything unless it is for scoring political points.
I hope you're not refering to my condemnation of Corbyn as political point scoring.
If you are, I am not sure who i am scoring for.
Not you mate, you should hopefully know full well by now you're one of the few posters I have consistently respected on here.
You're one of the very few who has been fair in criticism of both parties and have not attempted to score political points. You can take the moral high ground.
I have got absolutely no problem with people attacking Corbyn's past history and however stupid or naive it makes me sound, over time I have come to respect this point of view.
But what I don't like is when people do that and then explain away the Tories doing the same thing.
I have a simple test I have developed for this kind of situation. If you replaced Tory with Labour, what would your reaction be? If you're saying anything other than outrage you're not being honest with yourself.
Then you get stuck in a bubble as I did - and it's hard to get out of it. I know that.
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
What surprises me is that the Palace didn't veto this one. It looks bad for them too.
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
What surprises me is that the Palace didn't veto this one. It looks bad for them too.
I can often see why someone would think something was a good idea, even if I disagree with their conclusion. Here I keep thinking there must be something else to it as without it the decision has no upside at all.
Does she have the negatives? And if so what could possibly be used to blackmail Boris?
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
What surprises me is that the Palace didn't veto this one. It looks bad for them too.
Can the Palace veto life peerages?
Do the Standards Committee not get involved in these kind of decisions?
I can often see why someone would think something was a good idea, even if I disagree with their conclusion. Here I keep thinking there must be something else to it as without it the decision has no upside at all.
Does she have the negatives? And if so what could possibly be used to blackmail Boris?
There's starting to be a pattern developing in this Government of this kind of thing - and I start to think they're just a bit shit at the whole strategy thing.
I saw no upside to keeping Cummings either. It's not like he couldn't have disappeared and continued to advise anyway. Keeping him on just seems to have damaged the Government.
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
Well, I have never before been condemned for sharing in Johnson's shame.
I was merely pointing out that Corbyn's evil remains ever present. This woman's unpleasant, peculiar views are from history, Corbyn's remain today..
Her views are not from history. They are not peculiar. They are dangerous. Someone who denies facts is no better than a Holocaust denier. She has never recanted them. She is a female version of Corbyn.
But unlike him, once she is in the Lords we can never vote her out.
It is utterly contemptible and contemptuous of the public the Tories claim to be speaking for.
Mexicanpete is nonetheless correct it’s about Brexit. Apparently if you tick that box, anything else (IRA apologism; genocide denial; all round moonbattery) doesn’t matter
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
Well, I have never before been condemned for sharing in Johnson's shame.
I was merely pointing out that Corbyn's evil remains ever present. This woman's unpleasant, peculiar views are from history, Corbyn's remain today..
Her views are not from history. They are not peculiar. They are dangerous. Someone who denies facts is no better than a Holocaust denier. She has never recanted them. She is a female version of Corbyn.
But unlike him, once she is in the Lords we can never vote her out.
It is utterly contemptible and contemptuous of the public the Tories claim to be speaking for.
Mexicanpete is nonetheless correct it’s about Brexit. Apparently if you tick that box, anything else (IRA apologism; genocide denial; all round moonbattery) doesn’t matter
Oh it's about Brexit and that's why this cabinet is the most useless of my (albeit limited and short) lifetime
I can often see why someone would think something was a good idea, even if I disagree with their conclusion. Here I keep thinking there must be something else to it as without it the decision has no upside at all.
Does she have the negatives? And if so what could possibly be used to blackmail Boris?
There's starting to be a pattern developing in this Government of this kind of thing - and I start to think they're just a bit shit at the whole strategy thing.
I saw no upside to keeping Cummings either. It's not like he couldn't have disappeared and continued to advise anyway. Keeping him on just seems to have damaged the Government.
I just think they’re a bit shit.
And I haven’t started to think that either, I’ve thought it from the start.
I can often see why someone would think something was a good idea, even if I disagree with their conclusion. Here I keep thinking there must be something else to it as without it the decision has no upside at all.
Does she have the negatives? And if so what could possibly be used to blackmail Boris?
There's starting to be a pattern developing in this Government of this kind of thing - and I start to think they're just a bit shit at the whole strategy thing.
I saw no upside to keeping Cummings either. It's not like he couldn't have disappeared and continued to advise anyway. Keeping him on just seems to have damaged the Government.
I just think they’re a bit shit.
And I haven’t started to think that either, I’ve thought it from the start.
I always thought they were shit, I just thought they might have a good way to hide it.
As time goes by, I wonder if we will see whether Johnson won that election or whether Corbyn just lost it and lost it badly.
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
What surprises me is that the Palace didn't veto this one. It looks bad for them too.
It's not up to the palace - it's the Lords Appointments Commission who do the vetting - apparently catching the noncefindergeneral and Bercow in their net, but not Fox.
The Role of the Appointments Commission As well as making recommendations for non-party-political peerages, the Prime Minister asks the Commission to vet nominations for peerages – including those of the political parties – for propriety.
The Commission plays no part in assessing the suitability of those nominated by the political parties, which is a matter for the parties themselves.
Its role is to advise the Prime Minister if it has any concerns about the propriety of a nominee. The Commission takes the view that in this context, propriety means:
i) the individual should be in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular; and
ii) the past conduct of the nominee would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.
One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.
Johnson has rules?
Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.
I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.
Johnson has rules?
Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.
I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
I can often see why someone would think something was a good idea, even if I disagree with their conclusion. Here I keep thinking there must be something else to it as without it the decision has no upside at all.
Does she have the negatives? And if so what could possibly be used to blackmail Boris?
There's starting to be a pattern developing in this Government of this kind of thing - and I start to think they're just a bit shit at the whole strategy thing.
I saw no upside to keeping Cummings either. It's not like he couldn't have disappeared and continued to advise anyway. Keeping him on just seems to have damaged the Government.
I just think they’re a bit shit.
And I haven’t started to think that either, I’ve thought it from the start.
I always thought they were shit, I just thought they might have a good way to hide it.
As time goes by, I wonder if we will see whether Johnson won that election or whether Corbyn just lost it and lost it badly.
It’s a bit of both. A less divisive Labour Leader would probably still be LoTO, but facing a much smaller majority.
Actually a less divisive Labour Leader might have become PM last September after forcing a vote of no-confidence.
One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.
Johnson has rules?
Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.
I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.
Johnson has rules?
Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.
I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
Making things up again I see. It’s a constant stream of fiction with you isn’t it.
Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
Well, I have never before been condemned for sharing in Johnson's shame.
I was merely pointing out that Corbyn's evil remains ever present. This woman's unpleasant, peculiar views are from history, Corbyn's remain today..
Her views are not from history. They are not peculiar. They are dangerous. Someone who denies facts is no better than a Holocaust denier. She has never recanted them. She is a female version of Corbyn.
But unlike him, once she is in the Lords we can never vote her out.
It is utterly contemptible and contemptuous of the public the Tories claim to be speaking for.
Mexicanpete is nonetheless correct it’s about Brexit. Apparently if you tick that box, anything else (IRA apologism; genocide denial; all round moonbattery) doesn’t matter
Wash your mouth out! Not someone to tell tales, but MarqueeMark said it was about Brexit not me . I am most definately no Brexiteer!
One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.
Johnson has rules?
Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.
I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
Making things up again I see. It’s a constant stream of fiction with you isn’t it.
Emulating his(?) leader?
Anyway, I have a lawn to cut. Have a good afternoon.
One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.
Johnson has rules?
Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.
I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
Nah, Johnson will be gutted CHB doesn't rate him. As we speak Johnson is formulating a policy to bring CHB on board.
One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.
Johnson has rules?
Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.
I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
Nah, Johnson will be gutted CHB doesn't rate him. As we speak Johnson is formulating a policy to bring CHB on board.
Comments
Oh and first.
Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
Thank God, this is absolutely right.
And the ad itself looks simple but devastating, let's get back to winning
As usual, hypocrisy from the usual suspects
She is no longer a Revolutionary Communist, not since the 1990s. Corbyn still is a Revolutionary Communist!
Oh.
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/04/24/fox-breaks-cover-from-revolutionary-communist-to-farages-right-hand-woman/
So they can hardly complain when someone goes and does just that.
It is never Boris Johnson's fault.
So Hancock is gone, have they any talent left?
So this should be a much stronger reaction.
Sounds like this lady is the similar, in expressing support for a range of unsavoury groups / individuals.
I wish this was a runner, but it isn't. “What does Labour offer a defender of the IRA? The party leadership” is the obvious response. Starmer has done nowhere near enough, yet, to efface the memory of Corbyn.
On topic - completely avoidable self inflicted wound which the Tories opponents are absolutely right to give them a well deserved drubbing for. I and the previous PM lost a mutual friend to the IRA Harrods bombing, so I doubt she's too thrilled either.
I can't imagine the Mayor of the West Midlands is a fan, nor Birmingham MPs, what with the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham Pub bombings within 6 months of the 2025 GE.
I wonder which useless idiot put Johnson up to it?
Incidentally, on Fox I still haven't worked out if she thinks all's fair in love and war (if, perhaps, inadvisable) or whether she thinks the IRA had right on their side and were justified in taking whatever action they considered necessary to achieve their goals. If it's the former then I think that's a bit weird, but okay. If it's the latter, it's thoroughly reprehensible.
Tories are so utterly transparent, it's never been about racism or support of the IRA, it's about point scoring. End of story.
I hope Labour makes hay out of this - but I hope Keir is prepared for the inevitable attacks on him for serving in Corbyn's SC.
Of course there's an easy response to that, if he hadn't served in the SC he'd have been branded a coward and the reality is he'd never have become the leader in the first place.
Something like, ‘You know what, the reason this government is shit is because Cummings is thick as mince and lazy as a toad, as well as a bully, a liar and a failure. Oh and by the way, you were all right, he didn’t care about childcare, he just wanted a nice garden.
And Johnson’s a coward and a liar who can’t deal with the small dicked idiot.
It’s all shit, so I’m going to Labour where serious people are trying to sort it out.’
It’ll never happen but would be even funnier than watching Aaron Bastani’s face as the results came in in December, which was pretty damn funny.
Edit - on a serious note, Cummings needs to be a bit careful which government ministers he tries to dispose of. If any of the ones who have defended him turn on him, he could be in big trouble.
And the issue is, she hasn't recanted.
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/08/peter-hitchens-should-the-woman-who-said-the-ira-had-a-right-to-kill-children-really-be-a-baroness.html
Frankly I wonder if Starmer is keeping the SC quiet on purpose. I can't see much advantage of making a song and dance at this stage.
But this Government is all about Brexit and if you support that you're in. Nothing to do with talent, it's a Government devoid of talent, all Johnson wants is yes people.
And Sunak so far is popular by being slightly less shit than all the others - and handing out tonnes of money.
No Deal it is then.
These people are genuinely morons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Women_(BBC)
Her interesting background didn't preclude her from becoming a media figure.
They saw Brits in Ireland as vile imperialism that had to be ended by any means necessary.
Did well (won) with little scrutiny but next time around he'll have been exposed and found out
Claire Fox for years was a regular guest on BBC programmes such as The Moral Maze and now I'd estimate at least 30% of guest reviewers on programmes such as 'What The Papers Say' are libertarian marxists such as Ash Sarkar ,the Spiked team etc. .The odd thing is both are presented by the MSM as respectively the voice of either the right wing or the left wing and as such that the MSM is not biased.
Never see libertarian marxist guests asked though whether it is correct that genuinely right wing voices like Hopkins and Robinson or left wing voices that are in disgrace like Livingston and Galloway should be in practice banned from TV & radio channels which they currently are.
Maybe if a presenter asked the question they believe they would be out of a job soon?
If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?
It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1292456925691555841?s=20
The voters of Great Britain decided they trusted and will trust, someone who acts and behaves like an aggressive version of the Benny Hill character, Fred Scuttle. They did not want a humourless characterisation of Catweasel.
I was merely pointing out that Corbyn's evil remains ever present. This woman's unpleasant, peculiar views are from history, Corbyn's remain today..
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1292459896496099329
Now he’s throwing OFQUAL under a bus.
OFQUAL are throwing teachers under a bus.
The children just get totally ignored as a load of fifth rate wankers try to save their worthless careers.
But unlike him, once she is in the Lords we can never vote her out.
It is utterly contemptible and contemptuous of the public the Tories claim to be speaking for.
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/08/04/if-youre-in-a-glasshouse/
If you are, I am not sure who i am scoring for.
You're one of the very few who has been fair in criticism of both parties and have not attempted to score political points. You can take the moral high ground.
https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1292456330482024449?s=20
But what I don't like is when people do that and then explain away the Tories doing the same thing.
I have a simple test I have developed for this kind of situation. If you replaced Tory with Labour, what would your reaction be? If you're saying anything other than outrage you're not being honest with yourself.
Then you get stuck in a bubble as I did - and it's hard to get out of it. I know that.
I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Does she have the negatives? And if so what could possibly be used to blackmail Boris?
I saw no upside to keeping Cummings either. It's not like he couldn't have disappeared and continued to advise anyway. Keeping him on just seems to have damaged the Government.
Apparently if you tick that box, anything else (IRA apologism; genocide denial; all round moonbattery) doesn’t matter
And I haven’t started to think that either, I’ve thought it from the start.
As time goes by, I wonder if we will see whether Johnson won that election or whether Corbyn just lost it and lost it badly.
The Role of the Appointments Commission
As well as making recommendations for non-party-political peerages, the Prime Minister asks the Commission to vet nominations for peerages – including those of the political parties – for propriety.
The Commission plays no part in assessing the suitability of those nominated by the political parties, which is a matter for the parties themselves.
Its role is to advise the Prime Minister if it has any concerns about the propriety of a nominee. The Commission takes the view that in this context, propriety means:
i) the individual should be in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular; and
ii) the past conduct of the nominee would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.
https://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/vetting
But Fox is sitting as "non-affiliated" - so is it this commission which has recommended her, not Johnson?
Who is? What evidence is there of this?
Seems to me it's worse now than it has been for months.
Ben Stokes: England all-rounder to miss remainder of Pakistan series
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53712110
Woakes will presumably now keep his place.
So which one of Crawley, Bracey or Lawrence would you play as a specialist batsman?
Crawley is favourite, Bracey would be the best choice for 3, Lawrence would do better as a straight swap at 4.
Actually a less divisive Labour Leader might have become PM last September after forcing a vote of no-confidence.
Especially as Buttler will presumably now be the new vice-captain, unless they give that to Woakes as well.
Anyway, I have a lawn to cut. Have a good afternoon.