I would like to point out that I have 6+ years of experience in a salaried professional role that arose from an initial graduate role so I do know these things work. I've just never been in a position where my salaried role was so close to minimum wage, especially if there's an expectation to work many more hours than the contract stipulates.
Of course I did do the cost/benefit analysis when I accepted the role so the actual value isn't the issue — I just hadn't done the calculation in relation to minimum wage, which was quite the shock!
Ha! Next session we will be covering shoelace tying.
As you are well aware this is investment time for you. Per hr calcs are irrelevant. I'm sure a Goldman junior would be working at or below NMW but has all the benefits (or not!) of a career at GS to look forward to.
A Goldman Junior is paid around £50k so even if they're working 18 hour days, 6 days a week, that's £8.90 an hour. 1p below minimum wage for someone over the age of 23.
I would like to point out that I have 6+ years of experience in a salaried professional role that arose from an initial graduate role so I do know these things work. I've just never been in a position where my salaried role was so close to minimum wage, especially if there's an expectation to work many more hours than the contract stipulates.
Of course I did do the cost/benefit analysis when I accepted the role so the actual value isn't the issue — I just hadn't done the calculation in relation to minimum wage, which was quite the shock!
Ha! Next session we will be covering shoelace tying.
As you are well aware this is investment time for you. Per hr calcs are irrelevant. I'm sure a Goldman junior would be working at or below NMW but has all the benefits (or not!) of a career at GS to look forward to.
A Goldman Junior is paid around £50k so even if they're working 18 hour days, 6 days a week, that's £8.90 an hour. 1p below minimum wage for someone over the age of 23.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Anyone who cares about corruption.
Not the BoZo fanbois, obviously...
Corruption? LOL. State-owned flat redecorated for no-cost-to tax payer shocker. Now - accepting money from an F1 Billionaire to change the law to allow Tobacco advertising to continue in a sport which heavily relied on it. That's corruption.
You're displaying almost Meeksian hysteria. The amusing thing is that deep down you know this will make sod-all difference to anything, hence your frantic spinning of anything you find in the bowels of Twitter to convince yourself it will make a difference.
And I feel for you. I really do. It must be painful.
I'm with you, but it could make a difference. The story is being spun to create the impression that it is their own flat and so cementing the false understanding in the lumpen that Boris and that evil Carrie are benefiting financially. The Mail is on board.
They ARE benefiting financially. They are not having to pay the spend over the allowance out of their own pockets like previous residents all did. Yes they don't own the place but that is no different to everyone else who lives in rented accommodation and has to fund the decorations.
If they were to die their estate has not increased.
It is a national asset. Grade One listed to boot. There is no requirement for a PM to pay out of own funds. They could have kept to £30k pa at taxpayer expense. A third party has in effect paid a voluntary tax to upgrade a national asset that is not adequately being preserved at the ordinary budget.
Perhaps we have more things to worry about at this time. I'm no Johnson fan but this is political mischief-making in a pandemic.
£10k on a sofa - will it stay in No 10 or will it go with Boris?
Do you understand the concept of owning property? Or rather the difference between owning and not owning something?
Do you understand buying things you can't afford with other peoples' money?
And the thing you "buy" isn't your asset.
I live in a rented flat. If I ask someone to lend me £10k to redecorate it, when I leave the landlord has the benefit of it. Not me. I haven't benefitted financially at all. I don't have the money in the bank to spend on anything else. I'm in the same position when I leave as when I arrived. The landlord has been "enriched".
What is it you're not understanding?
You benefit from (a) the decor you have enjoyed as a tenant and (b) from keeping £10k in the bank which you would otherwise have spent.
Of all the nothing to see here, move along arguments on here, this one is the silliest.
Now that IS silly.
I've borrowed 10k. Because I don't have £10k. To enjoy decor for a few years which I can't take with me.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Anyone who cares about corruption.
Not the BoZo fanbois, obviously...
Corruption? LOL. State-owned flat redecorated for no-cost-to tax payer shocker. Now - accepting money from an F1 Billionaire to change the law to allow Tobacco advertising to continue in a sport which heavily relied on it. That's corruption.
You're displaying almost Meeksian hysteria. The amusing thing is that deep down you know this will make sod-all difference to anything, hence your frantic spinning of anything you find in the bowels of Twitter to convince yourself it will make a difference.
And I feel for you. I really do. It must be painful.
I'm with you, but it could make a difference. The story is being spun to create the impression that it is their own flat and so cementing the false understanding in the lumpen that Boris and that evil Carrie are benefiting financially. The Mail is on board.
They ARE benefiting financially. They are not having to pay the spend over the allowance out of their own pockets like previous residents all did. Yes they don't own the place but that is no different to everyone else who lives in rented accommodation and has to fund the decorations.
If they were to die their estate has not increased.
It is a national asset. Grade One listed to boot. There is no requirement for a PM to pay out of own funds. They could have kept to £30k pa at taxpayer expense. A third party has in effect paid a voluntary tax to upgrade a national asset that is not adequately being preserved at the ordinary budget.
Perhaps we have more things to worry about at this time. I'm no Johnson fan but this is political mischief-making in a pandemic.
£10k on a sofa - will it stay in No 10 or will it go with Boris?
THAT is the issue. Right there. If it's taken with him then THAT is wrong unless it is bought-back off the State.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Anyone who cares about corruption.
Not the BoZo fanbois, obviously...
Corruption? LOL. State-owned flat redecorated for no-cost-to tax payer shocker. Now - accepting money from an F1 Billionaire to change the law to allow Tobacco advertising to continue in a sport which heavily relied on it. That's corruption.
You're displaying almost Meeksian hysteria. The amusing thing is that deep down you know this will make sod-all difference to anything, hence your frantic spinning of anything you find in the bowels of Twitter to convince yourself it will make a difference.
And I feel for you. I really do. It must be painful.
I'm with you, but it could make a difference. The story is being spun to create the impression that it is their own flat and so cementing the false understanding in the lumpen that Boris and that evil Carrie are benefiting financially. The Mail is on board.
They ARE benefiting financially. They are not having to pay the spend over the allowance out of their own pockets like previous residents all did. Yes they don't own the place but that is no different to everyone else who lives in rented accommodation and has to fund the decorations.
If they were to die their estate has not increased.
It is a national asset. Grade One listed to boot. There is no requirement for a PM to pay out of own funds. They could have kept to £30k pa at taxpayer expense. A third party has in effect paid a voluntary tax to upgrade a national asset that is not adequately being preserved at the ordinary budget.
Perhaps we have more things to worry about at this time. I'm no Johnson fan but this is political mischief-making in a pandemic.
£10k on a sofa - will it stay in No 10 or will it go with Boris?
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Anyone who cares about corruption.
Not the BoZo fanbois, obviously...
Corruption? LOL. State-owned flat redecorated for no-cost-to tax payer shocker. Now - accepting money from an F1 Billionaire to change the law to allow Tobacco advertising to continue in a sport which heavily relied on it. That's corruption.
You're displaying almost Meeksian hysteria. The amusing thing is that deep down you know this will make sod-all difference to anything, hence your frantic spinning of anything you find in the bowels of Twitter to convince yourself it will make a difference.
And I feel for you. I really do. It must be painful.
How long before the embarrassing condition of hysterical impotence is taken seriously in our society, and treatment made freely available for sufferers on the NHS? If that's not a national scandal, I don't know what is...
Do you understand the concept of owning property? Or rather the difference between owning and not owning something?
Do you understand buying things you can't afford with other peoples' money?
And the thing you "buy" isn't your asset.
I live in a rented flat. If I ask someone to lend me £10k to redecorate it, when I leave the landlord has the benefit of it. Not me. I haven't benefitted financially at all. I don't have the money in the bank to spend on anything else. I'm in the same position when I leave as when I arrived. The landlord has been "enriched".
What is it you're not understanding?
The real answer is the benefit is split.
Decorating probably has a life expectancy of 5-20 years depending on whats done. The tenancy deposit schemes have guidelines for the various life span of wallpaper, flooring, chairs, sofas etc.
If a £10k sofa has a life span of 10 years and the PM stays in office for 5 of them, then using the process that impacts deposits for other tenants across the land, he would have had £5k value, and the other £5k goes to future PMs.
It is incorrect to say he has the full benefit, but also incorrect to say he does not benefit.
I would like to point out that I have 6+ years of experience in a salaried professional role that arose from an initial graduate role so I do know these things work. I've just never been in a position where my salaried role was so close to minimum wage, especially if there's an expectation to work many more hours than the contract stipulates.
Of course I did do the cost/benefit analysis when I accepted the role so the actual value isn't the issue — I just hadn't done the calculation in relation to minimum wage, which was quite the shock!
Ha! Next session we will be covering shoelace tying.
As you are well aware this is investment time for you. Per hr calcs are irrelevant. I'm sure a Goldman junior would be working at or below NMW but has all the benefits (or not!) of a career at GS to look forward to.
A Goldman Junior is paid around £50k so even if they're working 18 hour days, 6 days a week, that's £8.90 an hour. 1p below minimum wage for someone over the age of 23.
My experience is that I've had to jump around from firm to firm a bit in my career, to get on.
Within 2-3 years most firms form a view of you (what you're good at/not good at) and your career trajectory accordingly, which won't necessarily be aligned to what you think.
Good luck to @Gallowgate - my advice is head down and graft but with your eyes open. Just get past that magic one year experience to clean up your cv then do one to a much better paid role unless they massively improve your deal. Taking notes is good advice but really you are looking to run down the clock past 12 months.
On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.
And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.
It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
Judging by some of the evidence which has come out of the inquiry a number of the builders and developers did not follow the law and/ or built properties in ways which they knew or ought to have known were unsafe. So they should be held financially responsible. Of course, if they have disappeared that is a big problem. But making a lot of voters either bankrupt or homeless or both is a brave policy. Those people have votes. Disappearing developers do not.
One little mentioned risk is that the insulation companies making the insulation are the two which are most strategic for greening homes - as they make the insulation with the best u-value for lots of heat retention whilst being as thin as possible.
When was the last Prime Minister who didn't redecorate - one of the prime drivers of policians is self belief so they all think they are better than the last incumbent even regarding interior design. What a surprise! Personally I don't mind if some rich donor wants to pay as long as it is declared and we can all judge what said donor gets for their donation. I don't like measures to make this opaque. I don't like the idea for a Labour PM that unions will pay for it - I am sure those who are paying union subs aren't thinking that is where they will end up. Personally I think we should keep our PMs in relative comfort. They have had a pool and tennis court at the White House.
There seems to be lots of excellent news about vaccines that have won almost zero media coverage. Last night’s report on the huge cut in transmission from one dose, and today’s research about the 12-week policy being the right one.
Yet I’m still seeing Stockholm Syndrome all around me: only yesterday George Aligiah on BBC 6pm News prefaced 17 recorded deaths as “deaths are often much lower on a Monday”. It was of course Tuesday, a day which usually reports the highest totals.
Good luck to @Gallowgate - my advice is head down and graft but with your eyes open. Just get past that magic one year experience to clean up your cv then do one to a much better paid role unless they massively improve your deal. Taking notes is good advice but really you are looking to run down the clock past 12 months.
I'd suggest 1.5-2 years as a prospective employer, but if it's really awful you can probably get away with 12 months and then 12-18 months again at a slightly better job with the the third one being a longer term bet.
When was the last Prime Minister who didn't redecorate - one of the prime drivers of policians is self belief so they all think they are better than the last incumbent even regarding interior design. What a surprise! Personally I don't mind if some rich donor wants to pay as long as it is declared and we can all judge what said donor gets for their donation. I don't like measures to make this opaque. I don't like the idea for a Labour PM that unions will pay for it - I am sure those who are paying union subs aren't thinking that is where they will end up. Personally I think we should keep our PMs in relative comfort. They have had a pool and tennis court at the White House.
Yes, the issue is that rules are seen as something that powerful people can ignore or bypass with sleight of hand, and then lie about, not about an inconsequential amount to the national budget on the PMs flat decoration.
There seems to be lots of excellent news about vaccines that have won almost zero media coverage. Last night’s report on the huge cut in transmission from one dose, and today’s research about the 12-week policy being the right one.
Yet I’m still seeing Stockholm Syndrome all around me: only yesterday George Aligiah on BBC 6pm News prefaced 17 recorded deaths as “deaths are often much lower on a Monday”. It was of course Tuesday, a day which usually reports the highest totals.
What’s going on?
I complained to BBC - I'll let you know their response. Did you complain?
Do you understand the concept of owning property? Or rather the difference between owning and not owning something?
Do you understand buying things you can't afford with other peoples' money?
And the thing you "buy" isn't your asset.
I live in a rented flat. If I ask someone to lend me £10k to redecorate it, when I leave the landlord has the benefit of it. Not me. I haven't benefitted financially at all. I don't have the money in the bank to spend on anything else. I'm in the same position when I leave as when I arrived. The landlord has been "enriched".
What is it you're not understanding?
You benefit from (a) the decor you have enjoyed as a tenant and (b) from keeping £10k in the bank which you would otherwise have spent.
Of all the nothing to see here, move along arguments on here, this one is the silliest.
In a private lease agreement / rental you have some liability regarding wear and tear on the decorations, whereas the landlord should have liability of capital items such as boiler windows etc. Not sure whether such agreement exists at Downing At but they were charging him £50 for his guests breakfasts so it wouldn't surprise ne
Good luck to @Gallowgate - my advice is head down and graft but with your eyes open. Just get past that magic one year experience to clean up your cv then do one to a much better paid role unless they massively improve your deal. Taking notes is good advice but really you are looking to run down the clock past 12 months.
I'd suggest 1.5-2 years as a prospective employer, but if it's really awful you can probably get away with 12 months and then 12-18 months again at a slightly better job with the the third one being a longer term bet.
The short-term aim is to secure a training contract, hopefully at the firm I'll be working at. That'll pull my salary up to the mid-to-high 20s straight away. My new manager knows this is my goal, and paralegals are expected to jump ship ASAP if they get offered a training contract, so that works in my favour.
Do you understand the concept of owning property? Or rather the difference between owning and not owning something?
Do you understand buying things you can't afford with other peoples' money?
And the thing you "buy" isn't your asset.
I live in a rented flat. If I ask someone to lend me £10k to redecorate it, when I leave the landlord has the benefit of it. Not me. I haven't benefitted financially at all. I don't have the money in the bank to spend on anything else. I'm in the same position when I leave as when I arrived. The landlord has been "enriched".
What is it you're not understanding?
You benefit from (a) the decor you have enjoyed as a tenant and (b) from keeping £10k in the bank which you would otherwise have spent.
Of all the nothing to see here, move along arguments on here, this one is the silliest.
Now that IS silly.
I've borrowed 10k. Because I don't have £10k. To enjoy decor for a few years which I can't take with me.
So financially - how have I gained?
You *haven't* borrowed £10. You've been *given* £10k. The benefit is that you don't have £10k of debt. Are you now claiming that clearance of debt is not a benefit?
Like I said, very silly. But quality cabaret so do keep going.
There seems to be lots of excellent news about vaccines that have won almost zero media coverage. Last night’s report on the huge cut in transmission from one dose, and today’s research about the 12-week policy being the right one.
Yet I’m still seeing Stockholm Syndrome all around me: only yesterday George Aligiah on BBC 6pm News prefaced 17 recorded deaths as “deaths are often much lower on a Monday”. It was of course Tuesday, a day which usually reports the highest totals.
What’s going on?
The people at the Beeb who would be laughing at Trump's fake news being 180 degrees wrong.
There seems to be lots of excellent news about vaccines that have won almost zero media coverage. Last night’s report on the huge cut in transmission from one dose, and today’s research about the 12-week policy being the right one.
Yet I’m still seeing Stockholm Syndrome all around me: only yesterday George Aligiah on BBC 6pm News prefaced 17 recorded deaths as “deaths are often much lower on a Monday”. It was of course Tuesday, a day which usually reports the highest totals.
What’s going on?
This is the result of people willingly giving up their freedoms in the name of anything, whether that's terrorists, a health crisis or just for more general fear mongering. They become fearful of being given their freedoms back, the captors who have taken them away look more like protectors than captors and some begin to wonder whether it might be safer to stay under their "protection" rather than live freely.
Nasty people like Gove and some of these SAGE lockdown ultras will use this to their advantage to push an agenda of lockdown forever and no return to the old normal to maintain control over the population. They will constantly highlight the "danger" from variants, that we could all die at any time from this, that variants are more deadly, or more likely to hospitalise the young, or that the NHS could be overwhelmed in days unless they are allowed to keep us in some form of social control with movement tracking.
There seems to be lots of excellent news about vaccines that have won almost zero media coverage. Last night’s report on the huge cut in transmission from one dose, and today’s research about the 12-week policy being the right one.
Yet I’m still seeing Stockholm Syndrome all around me: only yesterday George Aligiah on BBC 6pm News prefaced 17 recorded deaths as “deaths are often much lower on a Monday”. It was of course Tuesday, a day which usually reports the highest totals.
What’s going on?
The reporting on it is very "conservative" as well.
The bbc starts with "A single dose of a coronavirus vaccine can reduce household transmission of the virus by up to half, a study shows."
Later on it says "this protection was on top of the reduced risk of a vaccinated person developing symptomatic infection in the first place, which is around 60 to 65% - four weeks after one dose of either vaccine."
What that really means is a single dose of a coronavirus vaccine reduces household transmission of the virus by up to 83% (35% chance of being infected, then a 49% chance of passing it on, using the "up to" numbers).
Good luck to @Gallowgate - my advice is head down and graft but with your eyes open. Just get past that magic one year experience to clean up your cv then do one to a much better paid role unless they massively improve your deal. Taking notes is good advice but really you are looking to run down the clock past 12 months.
I'd suggest 1.5-2 years as a prospective employer, but if it's really awful you can probably get away with 12 months and then 12-18 months again at a slightly better job with the the third one being a longer term bet.
The short-term aim is to secure a training contract, hopefully at the firm I'll be working at. That'll pull my salary up to the mid-to-high 20s straight away. My new manager knows this is my goal, and paralegals are expected to jump ship ASAP if they get offered a training contract, so that works in my favour.
That's good, I'm sure once you're in there and you show them your capabilities they won't want to keep you waiting for long. Especially if it's already a stated goal.
There seems to be lots of excellent news about vaccines that have won almost zero media coverage. Last night’s report on the huge cut in transmission from one dose, and today’s research about the 12-week policy being the right one.
Yet I’m still seeing Stockholm Syndrome all around me: only yesterday George Aligiah on BBC 6pm News prefaced 17 recorded deaths as “deaths are often much lower on a Monday”. It was of course Tuesday, a day which usually reports the highest totals.
What’s going on?
The reporting on it is very "conservative" as well.
The bbc starts with "A single dose of a coronavirus vaccine can reduce household transmission of the virus by up to half, a study shows."
Later on it says "this protection was on top of the reduced risk of a vaccinated person developing symptomatic infection in the first place, which is around 60 to 65% - four weeks after one dose of either vaccine."
What that really means is a single dose of a coronavirus vaccine reduces household transmission of the virus by up to 83% (35% chance of being infected, then a 49% chance of passing it on, using the "up to" numbers).
Indeed, and as these cumulate we get to what we see in the US where only a handful of the 83m people who have been double jabbed end up in hospital once the vaccine reaches full efficacy. We're looking at a cumulative effect of reducing hospitalisation by over 99.9% among vaccinated people, in fact the US data already shows this.
There seems to be lots of excellent news about vaccines that have won almost zero media coverage. Last night’s report on the huge cut in transmission from one dose, and today’s research about the 12-week policy being the right one.
Yet I’m still seeing Stockholm Syndrome all around me: only yesterday George Aligiah on BBC 6pm News prefaced 17 recorded deaths as “deaths are often much lower on a Monday”. It was of course Tuesday, a day which usually reports the highest totals.
What’s going on?
The reporting on it is very "conservative" as well.
The bbc starts with "A single dose of a coronavirus vaccine can reduce household transmission of the virus by up to half, a study shows."
Later on it says "this protection was on top of the reduced risk of a vaccinated person developing symptomatic infection in the first place, which is around 60 to 65% - four weeks after one dose of either vaccine."
What that really means is a single dose of a coronavirus vaccine reduces household transmission of the virus by up to 83% (35% chance of being infected, then a 49% chance of passing it on, using the "up to" numbers).
This is how herd immunity is created broadly speaking.
& why 95.1% uptake from 50+ (ONS denominator) is so good.
It is the proud tradition that when a PM leaves office a moving van turns up at Downing Street within hours.
Perhaps the fanbois can explain exactly what it is they are moving, if not furnishings from the flat?
BoZo did not spend 60 grand of someone else's money on wallpaper.
Evidence? Basically you have absolutely no idea what it was spent on. You don't know what Boris moved in there and you don't know what was done. Possibly some was spent on furnishings. As I posted above as long as things as declared and they might not have been here, I don't care what the politicians do whatever background. Can you name the last PM who didn't redecorate?
The tortured ramblings of the BoZo fanbois are my reward.
For me I find little to admire in Boris Johnson, though one does have to admire the blind loyalty he seems to inspire in some on here though. It is worryingly similar to Trumpians on the other side of the pond, and the similar display of affection for Alex Salmond north of the border. All three are dishonest creeps; the type of people I would not leave in charge of your mother-in-law's mangy cat, let alone a country. I can understand loyalty to political principles, political parties or movements, but blind loyalty to obese misogynistic liars is perplexing. Perhaps there is something weirdly Freudian going on?
I’ve seen worse than that, at the local kart track every Saturday.
Was he an employee or not? I think that BBC presenters are directors of their own ltd companies and contracted to do work by BBC. If he is not an employee why are the BBC prepared to pay what is in effect taxpayer money to this guy?
I’ve seen worse than that, at the local kart track every Saturday.
Was he an employee or not? I think that BBC presenters are directors of their own ltd companies and contracted to do work by BBC. If he is not an employee why are the BBC prepared to pay what is in effect taxpayer money to this guy?
Presumably the BBC would have had insurance for stunts like this, and said insurer would have required a professional stunt co-ordinator and H&S representative on site. Whether he was a contractor or an employee is pretty much irrelevant, either he or his company will be suing the BBC production company involved.
Pretty much everyone involved in TV production works for themselves in one way or another, on a per-project basis. Those that called out were those employed full-time in jobs like journalists or regular presenters - who should have been on the payroll under IR35 rules.
The tortured ramblings of the BoZo fanbois are my reward.
For me I find little to admire in Boris Johnson, though one does have to admire the blind loyalty he seems to inspire in some on here though. It is worryingly similar to Trumpians on the other side of the pond, and the similar display of affection for Alex Salmond north of the border. All three are dishonest creeps; the type of people I would not leave in charge of your mother-in-law's mangy cat, let alone a country. I can understand loyalty to political principles, political parties or movements, but blind loyalty to obese misogynistic liars is perplexing. Perhaps there is something weirdly Freudian going on?
Agree that some here have a blind loyalty to the CP (obvs) but I'm not convinced that Johnson himself inspires blind loyalty from anyone here. Maybe the odd poster.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Politico appear to have stopped updating their "Vaccinated" table - latest data for UK is April 20.
I can't imagine why......
As someone who turns 42 later this year, I was feeling extremely trolled by the latest vaccination announcements yesterday.
My local surgery, which seems to be VERY fast texted everyone on the 1st April between 40 and 49 !!, a cut off I missed by a few months to book. I received a message to book on the 21st April. So don't worry about just missing a cut off, it means you'll be next.
It is the proud tradition that when a PM leaves office a moving van turns up at Downing Street within hours.
Perhaps the fanbois can explain exactly what it is they are moving, if not furnishings from the flat?
BoZo did not spend 60 grand of someone else's money on wallpaper.
Evidence? Basically you have absolutely no idea what it was spent on. You don't know what Boris moved in there and you don't know what was done. Possibly some was spent on furnishings. As I posted above as long as things as declared and they might not have been here, I don't care what the politicians do whatever background. Can you name the last PM who didn't redecorate?
The important point, old chap, is that they appear to want to hide something. Is that simple enough for you? That is why it is an important political story. Oh, yes, and also the "piles of bodies" quote which he has clearly said and then lied about. Some people think that might be important too.
It seems that blind loyalists such as yourself would say "nothing to see here" if Boris Johnson was filmed rogering Larry the Number 10 cat while singing " I am going to sell the nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin"
I'm sure you could find some interesting tweets about these
Oh that is OK then, we clearly shouldn't expect our politicians to have high moral standards, it is far too much to ask. I mean, look at Robert Mugabe!
When was the last Prime Minister who didn't redecorate - one of the prime drivers of policians is self belief so they all think they are better than the last incumbent even regarding interior design. What a surprise! Personally I don't mind if some rich donor wants to pay as long as it is declared and we can all judge what said donor gets for their donation. I don't like measures to make this opaque. I don't like the idea for a Labour PM that unions will pay for it - I am sure those who are paying union subs aren't thinking that is where they will end up. Personally I think we should keep our PMs in relative comfort. They have had a pool and tennis court at the White House.
Yes, the issue is that rules are seen as something that powerful people can ignore or bypass with sleight of hand, and then lie about, not about an inconsequential amount to the national budget on the PMs flat decoration.
Foreigners are often incredulous at the trivial level of British sleaze - during the expenses scandal I met people from the US to China who were astonished that anyone was bothered about an MP buying a big TV or a posh carpet on expenses - "Is that all?" was a common question. But again I think it's the air of subterfuge that bothers people and that's not very different around the world.
Thing to note. Electoral Commission says "we are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred". That is clearly also the view within Government. It's the only rational explanation for the attempt to cover all this up. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1387348031960453123
I'm sure you could find some interesting tweets about these
Scott n Paste doesn’t do interesting, just low rent trolling and wind ups. He’s admitted it below. He’s a waste of space. I’m just ignoring him from now on.
The tortured ramblings of the BoZo fanbois are my reward.
For me I find little to admire in Boris Johnson, though one does have to admire the blind loyalty he seems to inspire in some on here though. It is worryingly similar to Trumpians on the other side of the pond, and the similar display of affection for Alex Salmond north of the border. All three are dishonest creeps; the type of people I would not leave in charge of your mother-in-law's mangy cat, let alone a country. I can understand loyalty to political principles, political parties or movements, but blind loyalty to obese misogynistic liars is perplexing. Perhaps there is something weirdly Freudian going on?
Agree that some here have a blind loyalty to the CP (obvs) but I'm not convinced that Johnson himself inspires blind loyalty from anyone here. Maybe the odd poster.
There are quite a few on here attempting to defend what may turn out to be indefensible. That is not loyalty to the CP, that is blind loyalty to a very flawed leader and is worryingly similar to the cultish following of Trump. "My leader right or wrong" is not a healthy position.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
It definitely is, their "prosecution" of the Leave campaigns was nakedly political and their "judgement" was struck down by the courts.
Ssshhh! Don't complicate things by providing relativity and context.
Which of them are under investigation?
None - because their political system and media are evidently grown-up enough to appreciate the difference between owning something and not, and that the head of Government or State should actually live somewhere befitting the Office. Not the person necessarily, but the Office.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
But isn't the real court also full of remainers? I lose track.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
But isn't the real court also full of remainers? I lose track.
The real courts threw out all of the Electoral Commission's nakedly partisan "judgements" against the Leavers they persecuted for years. The organisation really should have been wound up or massively reformed.
So what. Politicians in double standards shock. The same politicians who refused to accept the result of the Brexit vote were demanding Trump accept the result of the US election. Politicians are hypocrites. People aren’t blind.
Can’t you find something edgy and pithy from Marina Hyde to post now ?
It’s a problem for Labour. People can remember Labour sleaze so are less likely to care. In the mid-90s, I reckon people genuinely believed New Labour would be different.
It’s bit of a shame for Starmer, as I think he and a lot of his front bench would probably be pretty sound in this regard. But Blair et al have poisoned the well.
Didn't Rayner make an expenses claim for Airpods she wasn't using for Zoom calls literally a few months ago?
Wasn't the faux outrage because Rayner had the Airpods personalised with her initials? At a cost of nothing because that is a free Apple service.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
It definitely is, their "prosecution" of the Leave campaigns was nakedly political and their "judgement" was struck down by the courts.
If there is nothing to see that will no doubt be the ultimate result. The obfuscation at the moment would suggest that may not be the outcome.
I did NOT have decorating relations with that woman.....(crikey whats her name again) er...er..er..Miss Symonds
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
But isn't the real court also full of remainers? I lose track.
The real courts threw out all of the Electoral Commission's nakedly partisan "judgements" against the Leavers they persecuted for years. The organisation really should have been wound up or massively reformed.
But I thought the real courts were also full of remainers?
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
But isn't the real court also full of remainers? I lose track.
All remainers are actually lizard people. They are everywhere. Q told me.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
Their treatment of Grimes in particular was dreadful. He asked permission at the time to do what he did, then was prosecuted afterwards by the EC for doing what they’d given him prior permission to do. Three times for the same offence. Thankfully he managed to get some good lawyers, and got the case heard in front of an actual high court judge who threw it out.
The tortured ramblings of the BoZo fanbois are my reward.
For me I find little to admire in Boris Johnson, though one does have to admire the blind loyalty he seems to inspire in some on here though. It is worryingly similar to Trumpians on the other side of the pond, and the similar display of affection for Alex Salmond north of the border. All three are dishonest creeps; the type of people I would not leave in charge of your mother-in-law's mangy cat, let alone a country. I can understand loyalty to political principles, political parties or movements, but blind loyalty to obese misogynistic liars is perplexing. Perhaps there is something weirdly Freudian going on?
Agree that some here have a blind loyalty to the CP (obvs) but I'm not convinced that Johnson himself inspires blind loyalty from anyone here. Maybe the odd poster.
There are quite a few on here attempting to defend what may turn out to be indefensible. That is not loyalty to the CP, that is blind loyalty to a very flawed leader and is worryingly similar to the cultish following of Trump. "My leader right or wrong" is not a healthy position.
Trouble is that Boris is the Conservative Party in a way that none of his predecessors have been. Not even Mrs Thatcher in her late 80's pomp. That strengthens his position in the short to medium term, because there is almost nobody of stature with any sort of independent power base (Jeremy Hunt? Andy Street?). In that sense, the Conservatives are storing up more trouble than the Republicans; at least they kept senators and governors who didn't entirely buy into Trumpism.
But that is trouble for the future and for somebody else, and those are among the things Boris is least interested in.
It is the proud tradition that when a PM leaves office a moving van turns up at Downing Street within hours.
Perhaps the fanbois can explain exactly what it is they are moving, if not furnishings from the flat?
BoZo did not spend 60 grand of someone else's money on wallpaper.
Evidence? Basically you have absolutely no idea what it was spent on. You don't know what Boris moved in there and you don't know what was done. Possibly some was spent on furnishings. As I posted above as long as things as declared and they might not have been here, I don't care what the politicians do whatever background. Can you name the last PM who didn't redecorate?
The important point, old chap, is that they appear to want to hide something. Is that simple enough for you? That is why it is an important political story. Oh, yes, and also the "piles of bodies" quote which he has clearly said and then lied about. Some people think that might be important too.
It seems that blind loyalists such as yourself would say "nothing to see here" if Boris Johnson was filmed rogering Larry the Number 10 cat while singing " I am going to sell the nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin"
The latter would only boost him in the eyes of the fanbase. Just an iteration of "Boris being Boris" and being "not like normal politicians" and "a real character".
What might damage him is if he showed sings of getting on top of his brief and taking life halfway seriously. Sadly there's little sign of such a development.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
Their treatment of Grimes in particular was dreadful. He asked permission at the time to do what he did, then was prosecuted afterwards by the EC for doing what they’d given him prior permission to do. Three times for the same offence. Thankfully he managed to get some good lawyers, and got the case heard in front of an actual high court judge who threw it out.
My point was that these organisations are only "full of remainers" when they do something "leavers" don't agree with.
The Supreme Court was also "full of remainers" I recall.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
Their treatment of Grimes in particular was dreadful. He asked permission at the time to do what he did, then was prosecuted afterwards by the EC for doing what they’d given him prior permission to do. Three times for the same offence. Thankfully he managed to get some good lawyers, and got the case heard in front of an actual high court judge who threw it out.
Yes it was absolutely contemptuous and blatantly partisan.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
Their treatment of Grimes in particular was dreadful. He asked permission at the time to do what he did, then was prosecuted afterwards by the EC for doing what they’d given him prior permission to do. Three times for the same offence. Thankfully he managed to get some good lawyers, and got the case heard in front of an actual high court judge who threw it out.
My point was that these organisations are only "full of remainers" when they do something "leavers" don't agree with.
The Supreme Court was also "full of remainers" I recall.
I don’t think you need to be a leaver to see their treatment of Grimes was somewhat unfair.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
Their treatment of Grimes in particular was dreadful. He asked permission at the time to do what he did, then was prosecuted afterwards by the EC for doing what they’d given him prior permission to do. Three times for the same offence. Thankfully he managed to get some good lawyers, and got the case heard in front of an actual high court judge who threw it out.
My point was that these organisations are only "full of remainers" when they do something "leavers" don't agree with.
The Supreme Court was also "full of remainers" I recall.
So do you think the way that the Electoral Commission treated Grimes and others was above board and impartial?
Or was it a partisan hatchet job that the Courts rightly chucked out in full?
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
Their treatment of Grimes in particular was dreadful. He asked permission at the time to do what he did, then was prosecuted afterwards by the EC for doing what they’d given him prior permission to do. Three times for the same offence. Thankfully he managed to get some good lawyers, and got the case heard in front of an actual high court judge who threw it out.
My point was that these organisations are only "full of remainers" when they do something "leavers" don't agree with.
The Supreme Court was also "full of remainers" I recall.
I don’t think you need to be a leaver to see their treatment of Grimes was somewhat unfair.
I don't know anything that about that case so I'm not commenting.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
Their treatment of Grimes in particular was dreadful. He asked permission at the time to do what he did, then was prosecuted afterwards by the EC for doing what they’d given him prior permission to do. Three times for the same offence. Thankfully he managed to get some good lawyers, and got the case heard in front of an actual high court judge who threw it out.
My point was that these organisations are only "full of remainers" when they do something "leavers" don't agree with.
The Supreme Court was also "full of remainers" I recall.
So do you think the way that the Electoral Commission treated Grimes and others was above board and impartial?
Or was it a partisan hatchet job that the Courts rightly chucked out in full?
I have no idea — I don't know anything about it.
I was merely making a humorous comment about how "unjust" or "I disagree" turns into "REMAINERS".
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
Their treatment of Grimes in particular was dreadful. He asked permission at the time to do what he did, then was prosecuted afterwards by the EC for doing what they’d given him prior permission to do. Three times for the same offence. Thankfully he managed to get some good lawyers, and got the case heard in front of an actual high court judge who threw it out.
My point was that these organisations are only "full of remainers" when they do something "leavers" don't agree with.
The Supreme Court was also "full of remainers" I recall.
So do you think the way that the Electoral Commission treated Grimes and others was above board and impartial?
Or was it a partisan hatchet job that the Courts rightly chucked out in full?
Sometimes in the real world matters take on a momentum for good or ill. Not everything is a conspiracy, it is often just cock up. Btw: Have you heard from Q recently?
To be honest the electoral commission investigation is fine by me and when they report then everything will be in the public domain and not allegations and to be honest even potentially libellous comments
Everyone needs to calm down and let the commission do their job
Mind you, no matter I do not see Boris resigning over this
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
Their treatment of Grimes in particular was dreadful. He asked permission at the time to do what he did, then was prosecuted afterwards by the EC for doing what they’d given him prior permission to do. Three times for the same offence. Thankfully he managed to get some good lawyers, and got the case heard in front of an actual high court judge who threw it out.
He asked permission to do what he did, but then failed to complete the returns appropriately.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
Their treatment of Grimes in particular was dreadful. He asked permission at the time to do what he did, then was prosecuted afterwards by the EC for doing what they’d given him prior permission to do. Three times for the same offence. Thankfully he managed to get some good lawyers, and got the case heard in front of an actual high court judge who threw it out.
My point was that these organisations are only "full of remainers" when they do something "leavers" don't agree with.
The Supreme Court was also "full of remainers" I recall.
I don’t think you need to be a leaver to see their treatment of Grimes was somewhat unfair.
I don't know anything that about that case so I'm not commenting.
What a terrifyingly radical approach...the number of posts on here could collapse. It will never catch on.
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
Yes. They harrassed for years Darren Grimes and others only to have all their allegations thrown out when it reached a real court.
Their treatment of Grimes in particular was dreadful. He asked permission at the time to do what he did, then was prosecuted afterwards by the EC for doing what they’d given him prior permission to do. Three times for the same offence. Thankfully he managed to get some good lawyers, and got the case heard in front of an actual high court judge who threw it out.
My point was that these organisations are only "full of remainers" when they do something "leavers" don't agree with.
The Supreme Court was also "full of remainers" I recall.
So do you think the way that the Electoral Commission treated Grimes and others was above board and impartial?
Or was it a partisan hatchet job that the Courts rightly chucked out in full?
Sometimes in the real world matters take on a momentum for good or ill. Not everything is a conspiracy, it is often just cock up. Btw: Have you heard from Q recently?
Partisanly looking into your opponents more than your own side isn't a conspiracy, just partisanship. We see it on here every single day.
You're the one who sees conspiracies everywhere not me. I've never had the time of day for Trump or his supporters and I made my opinion on him abundantly clear - even if you're functionally illiterate and can't tell the difference between someone backing Biden and someone backing Trump.
Comments
Perhaps the fanbois can explain exactly what it is they are moving, if not furnishings from the flat?
BoZo did not spend 60 grand of someone else's money on wallpaper.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/tv-star-sues-bbc-37million-23996028#source=push
The crash was 16 miles an hour
https://bit.ly/3u1Wfgh
I've borrowed 10k. Because I don't have £10k. To enjoy decor for a few years which I can't take with me.
So financially - how have I gained?
Decorating probably has a life expectancy of 5-20 years depending on whats done. The tenancy deposit schemes have guidelines for the various life span of wallpaper, flooring, chairs, sofas etc.
If a £10k sofa has a life span of 10 years and the PM stays in office for 5 of them, then using the process that impacts deposits for other tenants across the land, he would have had £5k value, and the other £5k goes to future PMs.
It is incorrect to say he has the full benefit, but also incorrect to say he does not benefit.
Within 2-3 years most firms form a view of you (what you're good at/not good at) and your career trajectory accordingly, which won't necessarily be aligned to what you think.
Yet I’m still seeing Stockholm Syndrome all around me: only yesterday George Aligiah on BBC 6pm News prefaced 17 recorded deaths as “deaths are often much lower on a Monday”. It was of course Tuesday, a day which usually reports the highest totals.
What’s going on?
... and the parliamentary standards probe is still ongoing 🏝☀️
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9518197/Sleaze-inquiry-Boris-Johnsons-15-000-Mustique-holiday-ongoing.html
Like I said, very silly. But quality cabaret so do keep going.
"Even Fox News are laughing at us...."
Nasty people like Gove and some of these SAGE lockdown ultras will use this to their advantage to push an agenda of lockdown forever and no return to the old normal to maintain control over the population. They will constantly highlight the "danger" from variants, that we could all die at any time from this, that variants are more deadly, or more likely to hospitalise the young, or that the NHS could be overwhelmed in days unless they are allowed to keep us in some form of social control with movement tracking.
The bbc starts with "A single dose of a coronavirus vaccine can reduce household transmission of the virus by up to half, a study shows."
Later on it says "this protection was on top of the reduced risk of a vaccinated person developing symptomatic infection in the first place, which is around 60 to 65% - four weeks after one dose of either vaccine."
What that really means is a single dose of a coronavirus vaccine reduces household transmission of the virus by up to 83% (35% chance of being infected, then a 49% chance of passing it on, using the "up to" numbers).
I can't imagine why......
& why 95.1% uptake from 50+ (ONS denominator) is so good.
https://twitter.com/BalanceTonMedia/status/1387158761165426697
Lord Geidt will become Boris Johnson’s new independent advisor on ministerial interests.
Was the Queen’s private secretary for 2007-2017. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/28/lord-geidt-queens-former-private-secretary-boris-johnsons-new/ https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1387344189499887616/photo/1
Pretty much everyone involved in TV production works for themselves in one way or another, on a per-project basis. Those that called out were those employed full-time in jobs like journalists or regular presenters - who should have been on the payroll under IR35 rules.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/02/boris-johnson-s-clever-trick-get-away-anything-even-covid-catastrophe
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
So don't worry about just missing a cut off, it means you'll be next.
It seems that blind loyalists such as yourself would say "nothing to see here" if Boris Johnson was filmed rogering Larry the Number 10 cat while singing " I am going to sell the nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin"
Biden
https://www.tatler.com/article/jill-biden-white-house-renovations-12-million-bathroom-makeover
Macron
https://www.google.com/amp/s/observer.com/2018/06/brigitte-macron-emmanuel-macron-elysee-palace-renovations-paris-france/amp/
I'm sure you could find some interesting tweets about these
Let us know if either of them have been referred to their authorities for investigation...
Foreigners are often incredulous at the trivial level of British sleaze - during the expenses scandal I met people from the US to China who were astonished that anyone was bothered about an MP buying a big TV or a posh carpet on expenses - "Is that all?" was a common question. But again I think it's the air of subterfuge that bothers people and that's not very different around the world.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1387348031960453123
Comical timing, nothing to see here etc
Scott n Paste doesn’t do interesting, just low rent trolling and wind ups. He’s admitted it below. He’s a waste of space. I’m just ignoring him from now on.
Regular columnist at Le Figaro, explaining about "victims of factchecking" and "intellectual terrorism".
https://twitter.com/Oncle_Zouhair/status/1387308345816756226
I did NOT have decorating relations with that woman.....(crikey whats her name again) er...er..er..Miss Symonds
But that is trouble for the future and for somebody else, and those are among the things Boris is least interested in.
What might damage him is if he showed sings of getting on top of his brief and taking life halfway seriously. Sadly there's little sign of such a development.
The Supreme Court was also "full of remainers" I recall.
Or was it a partisan hatchet job that the Courts rightly chucked out in full?
Who pays for that...
Otherwise the EU may have an obvious problem.
PB Tories and hypocrisy, name a better combo
I was merely making a humorous comment about how "unjust" or "I disagree" turns into "REMAINERS".
Everyone needs to calm down and let the commission do their job
Mind you, no matter I do not see Boris resigning over this
https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1387350072107671554/photo/1
You're the one who sees conspiracies everywhere not me. I've never had the time of day for Trump or his supporters and I made my opinion on him abundantly clear - even if you're functionally illiterate and can't tell the difference between someone backing Biden and someone backing Trump.