After a dismal month for the Tories, the latest YouGov poll has found Boris Johnson's party has slumped to a 13% lead over Labour (2% up from last time)
Theory. Labour and it’s supporters need to get off Twitter. A quarter of the country use Twitter and only a small subsection of that are engaged with political Twitter. Add in the fact that they use Twitter to publicly air their factional beefs (more so than the Tories who appear to use the marginally more private WhatsApp for such purposes) I recommend a moratorium on Twitter use by Labour MPs forthwith.
The media do as well. They are so captured by it as what they think the country thinks.
The amount of times I've heard things like "and now let's see the public response" followed by a scraping of Tweets.
Twitter is not the public!
And of course the other problem is social media serves you more stuff along the lines of what you have been looking at....its like spotify kerps serving me the same type of bands, as clearly i must only ever want to listen to that type of music.
@tnewtondunn and @TimesRadio Catching covid is not a death sentence for kids without comorbidites. I trust their immune system. More then a rushed/experimental vx. They’ll be ok to wait for proper studies.
@tnewtondunn and @TimesRadio Catching covid is not a death sentence for kids without comorbidites. I trust their immune system. More then a rushed/experimental vx. They’ll be ok to wait for proper studies.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
It is remarkable and almost inexplicable, other than Starmer is just failing to capture the public
And Boris is +4 in that poll
Really, what do any of us know
We're all anoraks, we fallow every single little thing that any of them do. That isn't normal - the non-political which is most people don't even hear about such things.
Which is why the polls can appear to be counter-factual at times.
We are in a politically engaged bubble here on PB
Yep, why would anyone else be bothered or changing their opinion on who to vote for? Covid is still the main story, there will likely be a fall for Cons if the unlocking goes very badly, but other than that, what would Labour have done differently that would have been better? Or even plain different. I'm politically engaged and I don't know.
The other sub-story is Brexit, but that - as the saner people predicted - is, in it's bad points, death by a thousand papercuts, not a big catastrophic story and the problems are overshadowed by Covid anyway. Not many people who are not directly affected getting very excited abut Brexit at the moment, I should think.And again, what would Labour be doing differently now that Brexit has happened? I don't know. Why should anyone else?
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
It is remarkable and almost inexplicable, other than Starmer is just failing to capture the public
And Boris is +4 in that poll
Really, what do any of us know
We're all anoraks, we fallow every single little thing that any of them do. That isn't normal - the non-political which is most people don't even hear about such things.
Which is why the polls can appear to be counter-factual at times.
We are in a politically engaged bubble here on PB
Yep, why would anyone else be bothered or changing their opinion on who to vote for? Covid is still the main story, there will likely be a fall for Cons if the unlocking goes very badly, but other than that, what would Labour have done differently that would have been better? Or even plain different. I'm politically engaged and I don't know.
The other sub-story is Brexit, but that - as the saner people predicted - is, in it's bad points, death by a thousand papercuts, not a big catastrophic story and the problems are overshadowed by Covid anyway. Not many people who are not directly affected getting very excited abut Brexit at the moment, I should think.And again, what would Labour be doing differently now that Brexit has happened? I don't know. Why should anyone else?
The other problem with Brexit angle is like Coalition "austerity" drive. We can argue if it was right or wrong, but the media literally said it was back to Wigan pier stuff...then when it wasn't, people stop listening.
Brexit literally hyped up as we will all starve to death, die from no medicines, the end of days etc etc etc...and instead people are arguing about if they can get a packet of haribo or not in their local super market.
Now i think a bit like austerity it isn't there are no issues, in fact serious issues to work through and extra barriers in place, but it isn't end of days. But too late, people hyped up we would be having Indian style medicine shortages and instead we are ahead on things like vaccines.
It is remarkable and almost inexplicable, other than Starmer is just failing to capture the public
And Boris is +4 in that poll
Really, what do any of us know
We're all anoraks, we fallow every single little thing that any of them do. That isn't normal - the non-political which is most people don't even hear about such things.
Which is why the polls can appear to be counter-factual at times.
We are in a politically engaged bubble here on PB
Yep, why would anyone else be bothered or changing their opinion on who to vote for? Covid is still the main story, there will likely be a fall for Cons if the unlocking goes very badly, but other than that, what would Labour have done differently that would have been better? Or even plain different. I'm politically engaged and I don't know.
The other sub-story is Brexit, but that - as the saner people predicted - is, in it's bad points, death by a thousand papercuts, not a big catastrophic story and the problems are overshadowed by Covid anyway. Not many people who are not directly affected getting very excited abut Brexit at the moment, I should think.And again, what would Labour be doing differently now that Brexit has happened? I don't know. Why should anyone else?
The other problem with Brexit angle is like Coalition "austerity" drive. We can argue if it was right or wrong, but the media literally said it was back to Wigan pier stuff...then when it wasn't, people stop listening.
Brexit literally hyped up as we will all starve to death, die from no medicines, the end of days etc etc etc...and instead people are arguing about if they can get a packet of haribo or not in their local super market.
Now i think a bit like austerity it isn't there are no issues, in fact serious issues to work through and extra barriers in place, but it isn't end of days. But too late, people hyped up we would be having Indian style medicine shortages and instead we are ahead on things like vaccines.
Hmm, are you absolutely sure Covid isn't because of Brexit?
It’s all context specific. Scotland is, in my experience, more sweary than England, and England is by some degrees of magnitude more sweary than the USA. In my experience, in England, the c-word is almost exclusively used to describe men, whereas on the rare occasions I’ve heard it used in the US it was in relation to women, which shocked me more - but there’s no rhyme or reason to it. It’s a question of “when in Rome” and all that.
I know women who use it frequently about both sexes, just as generally dismissive. The Sun implicitly used it about women in their front page pun about "cupid stunts".
It's all in the eye of the beholder (because my parents never swore, I thought it sexy when I met girls who did), but where you're talking to a lot of people (e.g. writing on PB) it makes sense to assume that some of them will be disturbed or alienated by serious swearing, so it's both courteous and sensible not to do it. What's "serious" swearing is changing over time - I doubt if anyone is still bothered by "damn", and "f..." has entered common usage. I'm more alienated by people abusing each other (a la MalcolmG) than expressing exasperation ("what the ... are we supposed to do now?").
Are there examples of swearwords that used to be accepted but are now taboo? I can only think of racial insults and similar abuse ("retard", for instance) in that category.
Mr. Thompson, some might argue that hiding in Afghanistan to avoid keeping an electoral promise, deception over the Irish Sea, and having as much success sticking to vows of fidelity as a Frenchman with a viagra addiction is not necessarily amoral so much as immoral.
It is remarkable and almost inexplicable, other than Starmer is just failing to capture the public
And Boris is +4 in that poll
Really, what do any of us know
We're all anoraks, we fallow every single little thing that any of them do. That isn't normal - the non-political which is most people don't even hear about such things.
Which is why the polls can appear to be counter-factual at times.
We are in a politically engaged bubble here on PB
Yep, why would anyone else be bothered or changing their opinion on who to vote for? Covid is still the main story, there will likely be a fall for Cons if the unlocking goes very badly, but other than that, what would Labour have done differently that would have been better? Or even plain different. I'm politically engaged and I don't know.
The other sub-story is Brexit, but that - as the saner people predicted - is, in it's bad points, death by a thousand papercuts, not a big catastrophic story and the problems are overshadowed by Covid anyway. Not many people who are not directly affected getting very excited abut Brexit at the moment, I should think.And again, what would Labour be doing differently now that Brexit has happened? I don't know. Why should anyone else?
Labour need to know how they would approach Brexit (and a number of other things) for the simple reason that they would like to be the next government. Think how Mr A Blair would approach it.....He would regard it as an open goal with regard to what is now the plurality who think it was bad idea, and would be on the media every day with a five point plan for making it a Labour based workable wheeze.
I don't understand why 16-17 year olds are being excluded. What is the justification - scientific or otherwise - for this?
If Paul Mainwood is to be believed (and since the government won't release contracts or supply data, we don't have much of an alternative), it will be a while before we have enough doses to vaccinate teens- maybe September. Even if Pfizer order 2 has started coming in (and we don't know because we're not told), it's still only 2 million doses a week.
Again- we don't know, but I suspect that the plan back in the spring was that jabbing nearly all adults, so about 80% of all people, would be enough to get to herd immunity with a bit to spare. Because delta spreads so well, that's been overtaken by events. And the UK government was so busy slapping its back in the spring that the Covid Hubris Detector (h/t @Leon) kicked in.
Antibodies in COVID-19 patients remain high even nine months after infection, according to a landmark study which tested almost the entirety of a small Italian town.
Mr. Thompson, some might argue that hiding in Afghanistan to avoid keeping an electoral promise, deception over the Irish Sea, and having as much success sticking to vows of fidelity as a Frenchman with a viagra addiction is not necessarily amoral so much as immoral.
Some might. Probably his critics who disliked him already mainly.
Personally I find it refreshing to have a PM who doesn't hide behind his marriage vows bleating about his morality.
He should be judged more on whether he fucks over his voters, than whether he fucks a mistress, and speaking personally as someone who voted for him, I feel like I'm getting what I voted for.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
I don't understand why 16-17 year olds are being excluded. What is the justification - scientific or otherwise - for this?
If Paul Mainwood is to be believed (and since the government won't release contracts or supply data, we don't have much of an alternative), it will be a while before we have enough doses to vaccinate teens- maybe September. Even if Pfizer order 2 has started coming in (and we don't know because we're not told), it's still only 2 million doses a week.
Again- we don't know, but I suspect that the plan back in the spring was that jabbing nearly all adults, so about 80% of all people, would be enough to get to herd immunity with a bit to spare. Because delta spreads so well, that's been overtaken by events. And the UK government was so busy slapping its back in the spring that the Covid Hubris Detector (h/t @Leon) kicked in.
It's really infuriating that the Gov't doesn't just tell the truth and say we don't have supply to do group x (Non vulnerable 12 - 17), so we're delaying a decision till we can start this group instead of providing succour for antivaxxers.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
Indeed, but I don't see a way of going back to pre-Alastair Campbell politics.
I don't understand why 16-17 year olds are being excluded. What is the justification - scientific or otherwise - for this?
It does seem logical but I am not qualified as you would expect the JCVI to be
I think the tweet doesn't fill in all the details. AIUI, "vulnerable" 16/17 year olds were already able to be vaccinated, so it extends the vulnerable and, I think, carer availability down from 16 to 12.
It's the blanket availability where they are not going to announce much, just vaccinate a little further down to 17 3/4, and I think even that is simply a holding position pending further data from abroad.
This is just from bits of reading and listening this morning, so don't take as gospel until the statement lands.
Of all the bodies advising government, JCVI has done well, so I'm inclined to cut them some slack on ensuring balance of risk. That said I have a 17 and a 13 year old, and am also keen to know what will be done.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
Perhaps felix who 'liked' your post could explain why 'Boris's amorality is a strength not a weakness'.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
We are in unique and unusual times. No-one but Boris could be relied on to get Brexit done, and the unique difficulties of it (especially Ireland) required and requires, sadly, greater inexactitude even than usual from politicians. Note how those in opposition recoil from exact solutions to the dilemma. Clean hands but no policy.
However the day will come when the idea of, say Jeremy Hunt v SKS, with both parties purged of the worst extremes, in the Commons will seem a refreshing throwback to an earlier age.
Masks are little but social control, according to way out alt right conspiracy theorists like.....er.......newly re-elected 1922 committee chairman Sir Graham Brady.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
Indeed, but I don't see a way of going back to pre-Alastair Campbell politics.
There was no greater propensity to lie under Blair than under previous governments. You just noticed more because it was a Labour government and you're a Tory. All politicians lie, they have to, I get that. But Johnson is different, he just lies whenever he opens his mouth, even over unimportant things, when the only reason seems to be that he finds it easier than telling the truth, and he can get away with it. That is utterly poisonous.
I'm curious what all those people pretending that Boris is the first dishonest politician thought of the past couple of generations of politicians? Were they all the height of probity and integrity?
Theresa "Brexit Means Brexit" May? David "£4300/The Pledge" Cameron? George "Punishment Budget" Osborne? Gordon "Abolished Boom and Bust" Brown? Tony "Pretty Straight Kind of Guy" Blair? John "Back to Basics" Major?
Thatcher was probably the last conviction politician with integrity.
Boris's lack of integrity is water off a ducks back from me, as its all I've ever known from our politicians.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
Perhaps felix who 'liked' your post could explain why 'Boris's amorality is a strength not a weakness'.
(I know love is blind Philip so I wont ask you)
I won't try but wonder this: at this moment do we prefer a morally flawed leader who seems profoundly unwilling to see our troops die overseas in a worthless cause to more upright ones who are much more willing to do so?
I'm curious what all those people pretending that Boris is the first dishonest politician thought of the past couple of generations of politicians? Were they all the height of probity and integrity?
Theresa "Brexit Means Brexit" May? David "£4300/The Pledge" Cameron? George "Punishment Budget" Osborne? Gordon "Abolished Boom and Bust" Brown? Tony "Pretty Straight Kind of Guy" Blair? John "Back to Basics" Major?
Thatcher was probably the last conviction politician with integrity.
''U-turn if you want, the lady's not for turning''.
I don't understand why 16-17 year olds are being excluded. What is the justification - scientific or otherwise - for this?
If Paul Mainwood is to be believed (and since the government won't release contracts or supply data, we don't have much of an alternative), it will be a while before we have enough doses to vaccinate teens- maybe September. Even if Pfizer order 2 has started coming in (and we don't know because we're not told), it's still only 2 million doses a week.
Again- we don't know, but I suspect that the plan back in the spring was that jabbing nearly all adults, so about 80% of all people, would be enough to get to herd immunity with a bit to spare. Because delta spreads so well, that's been overtaken by events. And the UK government was so busy slapping its back in the spring that the Covid Hubris Detector (h/t @Leon) kicked in.
It's really infuriating that the Gov't doesn't just tell the truth and say we don't have supply to do group x (Non vulnerable 12 - 17), so we're delaying a decision till we can start this group instead of providing succour for antivaxxers.
I'm not sure how much this is being talked about in the real world. My point about parents letting their kids go to school is that it clearly isn't worrying them.
The bigger issue is foreign travel, but that can wait for a bit longer, I think.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
Here's the paradox.
Why should anyone support a politician or a party? Because what they do, and what they intend to do is, in your view, the right thing for you and the country.
But how does that work if you know that they are deceitful as a matter of course and policy? If they have already misled P, Q, R and S, what makes you think that you're not just T, the next rube in the line waiting to be tricked? You might believe that they're "really" on your side, but how can you tell? Boris can tell you that he's doing what you want until he's blue in the face, but if he has form for lying to everyone about everything, how can you believe him?
(And no, few if any politicians have ever told the whole truth. But it's one thing to tell incomplete truths which allow the hearer to get at the truth if they apply effort. It's a completely different thing to just say stuff with no connection to reality. And that's the Rubicon that has been crossed, and only quite recently.)
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
We are in unique and unusual times. No-one but Boris could be relied on to get Brexit done, and the unique difficulties of it (especially Ireland) required and requires, sadly, greater inexactitude even than usual from politicians. Note how those in opposition recoil from exact solutions to the dilemma. Clean hands but no policy.
However the day will come when the idea of, say Jeremy Hunt v SKS, with both parties purged of the worst extremes, in the Commons will seem a refreshing throwback to an earlier age.
Of course the reason we were in that situation, of trying to "get Brexit done" in the face of the complexities of the Irish border, was entirely because of previous lies by Johnson and others in the Vote Leave camp. They promised that Brexit would be easy, the Irish border a distraction. That was a lie. That is the danger of liars - one lie begets another.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
Why should we be "milder in tone" towards the lying clown twat?
Yesterday he tret the entire country like fools. Caused a huge uproar, backs down and then goes one better and openly lies that the thing that caused the first uproar didn't actually happen.
You may be happy to be an apologist for this twat, others are not.
Because he’s not reading your posts. It’s just crude and unpleasant. This is a great website - no need to pollute it
You really are a Lying Clown Apologist aren't you.
I'd have thought his sort was beneath you.
I have more respect for women than to call any man a c**t or a t**t.
That sort of language is misogynistic. Its basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body.
Most women I know find that language offensive and demeaning. Plenty of women here before have said it, I believe @Beverley_C is one who is no fan of Boris at all but has said before her dislike of that language. Plenty of women post here and will be reading these comments.
If you want to show yourself to be a fool using language like Bliar or Liar then go ahead. If you want to demean women then you just show yourself up, nobody else.
Interesting discussion, not sure which side is right, but think the point that "basically saying you consider women so dirty, so impure, so unclean that the worst thing you can call a man is a natural part of a woman's body." is a giant and probably incorrect leap.
Words like cock, arse, piss, bollocks are also common swear words. I think it is just swear words originate from people being very childish rather than searching for the most impure and unclean thing you can call someone.
The thing is that cock, arse, piss and bollocks [and shit too] are considered 'mild' swear words compared to calling someone a female's genitals.
If you're calling someone a c**t because cock just isn't strong enough language for you, then what does that say about attitudes towards women?
A lot less thought goes into swearing than you are imagining.
Not really.
Simple question do you think that calling someone a c**t is stronger language than calling them a dick?
If so, what does that say about attitudes towards women? Nothing?
I believe I live in the sweariest city in the UK, we quite frequently use cunt as a neutral or positive term, e.g. ‘he’s a good cunt’. What attitudes to women do you think are being expressed there?
I would just ask would you say it the presence of women
I'm curious what all those people pretending that Boris is the first dishonest politician thought of the past couple of generations of politicians? Were they all the height of probity and integrity?
Theresa "Brexit Means Brexit" May? David "£4300/The Pledge" Cameron? George "Punishment Budget" Osborne? Gordon "Abolished Boom and Bust" Brown? Tony "Pretty Straight Kind of Guy" Blair? John "Back to Basics" Major?
Thatcher was probably the last conviction politician with integrity.
Boris's lack of integrity is water off a ducks back from me, as its all I've ever known from our politicians.
The trouble with lying is it can be an effective tactic. But as a strategy it has drawbacks. And your examples are political slogans not lies.
I'm curious what all those people pretending that Boris is the first dishonest politician thought of the past couple of generations of politicians? Were they all the height of probity and integrity?
Theresa "Brexit Means Brexit" May? David "£4300/The Pledge" Cameron? George "Punishment Budget" Osborne? Gordon "Abolished Boom and Bust" Brown? Tony "Pretty Straight Kind of Guy" Blair? John "Back to Basics" Major?
Thatcher was probably the last conviction politician with integrity.
Boris's lack of integrity is water off a ducks back from me, as its all I've ever known from our politicians.
The trouble with lying is it can be an effective tactic. But as a strategy it has drawbacks. And your examples are political slogans not lies.
They're all slogans that represent lies though.
And none surely bigger than WMD.
As both a tactic and a strategy Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair drove a coach and horses across the rubicon, Boris is nothing new. He's just utilising the lessons others drew before him - and leftwingers object more because its not their side doing it anymore.
Mr. Boy, to be fair, Blair did lie over WMD at the dispatch box which is pretty bloody hefty.
Did he? I disagreed with the Iraq war 100% and didn't believe that Iraq had WMD at the time, but I felt like Blair was exaggerating the risk, over-extrapolating from partial and faulty intelligence, rather than telling a barefaced lie. Perhaps I am going too easy on him, because I feel like he was basically a decent and competent leader and he was on "my side". Certainly at the time I wanted him replaced as PM over Iraq, which I felt was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.
I'm curious what all those people pretending that Boris is the first dishonest politician thought of the past couple of generations of politicians? Were they all the height of probity and integrity?
Theresa "Brexit Means Brexit" May? David "£4300/The Pledge" Cameron? George "Punishment Budget" Osborne? Gordon "Abolished Boom and Bust" Brown? Tony "Pretty Straight Kind of Guy" Blair? John "Back to Basics" Major?
Thatcher was probably the last conviction politician with integrity.
Boris's lack of integrity is water off a ducks back from me, as its all I've ever known from our politicians.
Mr. Thompson, some might argue that hiding in Afghanistan to avoid keeping an electoral promise, deception over the Irish Sea, and having as much success sticking to vows of fidelity as a Frenchman with a viagra addiction is not necessarily amoral so much as immoral.
Some might. Probably his critics who disliked him already mainly.
Personally I find it refreshing to have a PM who doesn't hide behind his marriage vows bleating about his morality.
He should be judged more on whether he fucks over his voters, than whether he fucks a mistress, and speaking personally as someone who voted for him, I feel like I'm getting what I voted for.
Boris is the most pontificating, morally arrogant PM in history. Think of those endless Telegraph/Spectator articles sneering at anyone who happens to be outside the predetermined Boris worldview. Boris's whole career has been based on bellowing out division - what is good (what Boris likes) from what is wicked (what Boris dislikes). The man's a megalomaniac.
Sorry, having a deep long laugh at the idea Alistair Campbell invented the idea of lying.
Fair enough. As far as I know he weaponised it the most, but maybe it predated him. I was only 14 when Labour won in 97 so can't think back much earlier than that.
I'm curious what all those people pretending that Boris is the first dishonest politician thought of the past couple of generations of politicians? Were they all the height of probity and integrity?
Theresa "Brexit Means Brexit" May? David "£4300/The Pledge" Cameron? George "Punishment Budget" Osborne? Gordon "Abolished Boom and Bust" Brown? Tony "Pretty Straight Kind of Guy" Blair? John "Back to Basics" Major?
Thatcher was probably the last conviction politician with integrity.
Boris's lack of integrity is water off a ducks back from me, as its all I've ever known from our politicians.
The trouble with lying is it can be an effective tactic. But as a strategy it has drawbacks. And your examples are political slogans not lies.
They're all slogans that represent lies though.
And none surely bigger than WMD.
As both a tactic and a strategy Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair drove a coach and horses across the rubicon, Boris is nothing new. He's just utilising the lessons others drew before him - and leftwingers object more because its not their side doing it anymore.
Labour surely undermine their own critique completely by continually granting Boris and his ministers powers enjoyed by few prime ministers before him.
If Boris is so unfit, why do you keep renewing these every six months? shouldn't you be trying to take powers off him?
Mr. Thompson, some might argue that hiding in Afghanistan to avoid keeping an electoral promise, deception over the Irish Sea, and having as much success sticking to vows of fidelity as a Frenchman with a viagra addiction is not necessarily amoral so much as immoral.
Some might. Probably his critics who disliked him already mainly.
Personally I find it refreshing to have a PM who doesn't hide behind his marriage vows bleating about his morality.
He should be judged more on whether he fucks over his voters, than whether he fucks a mistress, and speaking personally as someone who voted for him, I feel like I'm getting what I voted for.
Boris is the most pontificating, morally arrogant PM in history. Think of those endless Telegraph/Spectator articles sneering at anyone who happens to be outside the predetermined Boris worldview. Boris's whole career has been based on bellowing out division - what is good (what Boris likes) from what is wicked (what Boris dislikes). The man's a megalomaniac.
It isn't predetermined though. What Boris likes, and thus what is good, flows from what benefits him at any particular moment.
Anyway, the situation in my part of the Lakes is this.
1. The weather continues to be sublime. 2. A couple of people with Covid went to a showing of the football match at the local rugby club. This has resulted in lots of people in the local town catching it and some businesses having to shut. This has not gone down well. 3. Daughter has - reluctantly - decided to maintain some restrictions for a couple of weeks for 3 main reasons: (a) she wants to discourage the sorts of idiots who do stuff like this from coming to her pub; (b) she wants to protect and reassure her regular customers; and (c) she wants to avoid having to shut down, which she can ill afford.
As the weather is so good, most customers are sitting outside anyway. Hopefully, in a couple of weeks she can lift restrictions. She is closely monitoring the situation here.
4. I have been banned from going into town. So I cannot do any shopping and must sit in my garden in the sunshine. The sacrifices I have to make ......
In consequence I have just planted some quite rare and very beautiful aloe polyphylla in a bed I've created outside the kitchen. They come from Lesotho and are I am told hardy down to -15 degrees. We will see.
As I had a bad outbreak of asthma a week or so ago, I have cancelled my planned visit to London this week. Just don't want to take the risk.
Re other matters, on the whole this site is better when people are not swearing on it or talking about swearing. I have occasionally used the "f" word myself so am hardly a saint in this regard. But I don't particularly like female-focused swear words. It does bespeak of a certain disregard for women. I don't I will confess particularly like the word "screw" for sex either. It does not say much about either the act or what the man thinks of the woman at the receiving end.
A screw is something you do to a wall or a plank of wood. One makes love with a woman.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
We are in unique and unusual times. No-one but Boris could be relied on to get Brexit done, and the unique difficulties of it (especially Ireland) required and requires, sadly, greater inexactitude even than usual from politicians. Note how those in opposition recoil from exact solutions to the dilemma. Clean hands but no policy.
However the day will come when the idea of, say Jeremy Hunt v SKS, with both parties purged of the worst extremes, in the Commons will seem a refreshing throwback to an earlier age.
Of course the reason we were in that situation, of trying to "get Brexit done" in the face of the complexities of the Irish border, was entirely because of previous lies by Johnson and others in the Vote Leave camp. They promised that Brexit would be easy, the Irish border a distraction. That was a lie. That is the danger of liars - one lie begets another.
TBF Brexit campaigning had to be done in simplifications, and both sides can be equally criticised.
Over Ireland it was notable that Remain never acknowledged that the reality for them was that we can't rationally leave because of the interaction of EU and GFA.
For a Brexiteer it was rational to assume that an electronic solution would be found and/or that we would compromise by both sides relaxing their red lines rather than only the UK doing so.
I'm curious what all those people pretending that Boris is the first dishonest politician thought of the past couple of generations of politicians? Were they all the height of probity and integrity?
Theresa "Brexit Means Brexit" May? David "£4300/The Pledge" Cameron? George "Punishment Budget" Osborne? Gordon "Abolished Boom and Bust" Brown? Tony "Pretty Straight Kind of Guy" Blair? John "Back to Basics" Major?
Thatcher was probably the last conviction politician with integrity.
Boris's lack of integrity is water off a ducks back from me, as its all I've ever known from our politicians.
There are two differences.
One is of degree. Johnson lies more often and more extensively than other politicians.
The other is in shamelessness. Johnson feels no shame in being caught in a lie, because he simply lies about it again. This is particularly notable when he's been caught lying to the House, which is now something his ministers are doing too, because this lack of shame is corrosive.
There is a difference between being evasive or misleading and outright shameless, incontinent lying. One can be remedied and held in check, the other destroys any possibility of a common political discourse.
Hamilton sent it down the inside, wasn't going to make the corner, collided with Verstappen and rightly picked up a penalty. The idea that the move was deliberately or uniquely dangerous is just silly. There have been far worse attempts as passing than that.
Let the boys have their war of words and move on. I'd rather have it where drivers go for a gap than not. Its Senna vs Prost at the chicane all over again. Hamilton/Senna up the inside in an iffy pass, Verstappen/Prost turning in regardless as "its my corner".
Let them race! Hamilton a deserved winner yesterday after another brilliant recovery drive where he highlights his own immense talents and the lack of ability to chase / overtake / attack of Bottas.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
We are in unique and unusual times. No-one but Boris could be relied on to get Brexit done, and the unique difficulties of it (especially Ireland) required and requires, sadly, greater inexactitude even than usual from politicians. Note how those in opposition recoil from exact solutions to the dilemma. Clean hands but no policy.
However the day will come when the idea of, say Jeremy Hunt v SKS, with both parties purged of the worst extremes, in the Commons will seem a refreshing throwback to an earlier age.
Of course the reason we were in that situation, of trying to "get Brexit done" in the face of the complexities of the Irish border, was entirely because of previous lies by Johnson and others in the Vote Leave camp. They promised that Brexit would be easy, the Irish border a distraction. That was a lie. That is the danger of liars - one lie begets another.
TBF Brexit campaigning had to be done in simplifications, and both sides can be equally criticised.
Over Ireland it was notable that Remain never acknowledged that the reality for them was that we can't rationally leave because of the interaction of EU and GFA.
For a Brexiteer it was rational to assume that an electronic solution would be found and/or that we would compromise by both sides relaxing their red lines rather than only the UK doing so.
Unless you worked in IT at which point the idea of there being a working electronic solution was seen for the impossibility we will discover it actually is.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
Here's the paradox.
Why should anyone support a politician or a party? Because what they do, and what they intend to do is, in your view, the right thing for you and the country.
But how does that work if you know that they are deceitful as a matter of course and policy? If they have already misled P, Q, R and S, what makes you think that you're not just T, the next rube in the line waiting to be tricked? You might believe that they're "really" on your side, but how can you tell? Boris can tell you that he's doing what you want until he's blue in the face, but if he has form for lying to everyone about everything, how can you believe him?
(And no, few if any politicians have ever told the whole truth. But it's one thing to tell incomplete truths which allow the hearer to get at the truth if they apply effort. It's a completely different thing to just say stuff with no connection to reality. And that's the Rubicon that has been crossed, and only quite recently.)
One approach (and one the media generally find too hard) is only and remorselessly examine what is actually done (including actual legislation) and ignore altogether what is said. This approach would entail ceasing to pay attention to almost everything in the media.
Amidst the utter shambles of this ludicrous shower in charge, Simon Heffer is railing in the Telegraph about The Hundred. He thinks that the MCC could, and should, have put a stop to it.
I love Simon Heffer in the way that I love flared trousers or mullet hair (neither of which you'd ever catch him sporting). He's reactionary about everything contemporary. A fortnight ago he was lambasting all forms of sculpture made since World War Two. I bumped into him once in London. He was suited walking on his own across the Jubilee footbridge on a warm day. A forlorn figure, he looked the perfect picture of malcontent. He has a particular chip about Etonians.
I'm not a massive fan of T20 and expect to avoid The Hundred, but I can see what a fantastic injection the former has given the game especially via the IPL which is sensational. Unlike the English, Indians seem capable of percolating the shorter format into their test side.
Simon Heffer is not alone in being a Telegraph columnist reactionary. You can follow more of them for 3 months @ £2 on a special offer. Despite some amusingly off-beam articles, and occasional downright nastiness, the journalism is often excellent and invariably interesting. Unlike The Times which, in my opinion, somehow contrives to make the centre of politics extremely dull.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
We are in unique and unusual times. No-one but Boris could be relied on to get Brexit done, and the unique difficulties of it (especially Ireland) required and requires, sadly, greater inexactitude even than usual from politicians. Note how those in opposition recoil from exact solutions to the dilemma. Clean hands but no policy.
However the day will come when the idea of, say Jeremy Hunt v SKS, with both parties purged of the worst extremes, in the Commons will seem a refreshing throwback to an earlier age.
Of course the reason we were in that situation, of trying to "get Brexit done" in the face of the complexities of the Irish border, was entirely because of previous lies by Johnson and others in the Vote Leave camp. They promised that Brexit would be easy, the Irish border a distraction. That was a lie. That is the danger of liars - one lie begets another.
TBF Brexit campaigning had to be done in simplifications, and both sides can be equally criticised.
Over Ireland it was notable that Remain never acknowledged that the reality for them was that we can't rationally leave because of the interaction of EU and GFA.
For a Brexiteer it was rational to assume that an electronic solution would be found and/or that we would compromise by both sides relaxing their red lines rather than only the UK doing so.
Unless you worked in IT at which point the idea of there being a working electronic solution was seen for the impossibility we will discover it actually is.
Its not remotely impossible, it just requires compromise and accepting compromise as better than the alternative. Not letting the striving for perfection to be the enemy of the good enough, which was the entire principle of the GFA that got lost when Theresa May became weak in the negotiations.
Mr. Boy, to be fair, Blair did lie over WMD at the dispatch box which is pretty bloody hefty.
Did he? I disagreed with the Iraq war 100% and didn't believe that Iraq had WMD at the time, but I felt like Blair was exaggerating the risk, over-extrapolating from partial and faulty intelligence, rather than telling a barefaced lie. Perhaps I am going too easy on him, because I feel like he was basically a decent and competent leader and he was on "my side". Certainly at the time I wanted him replaced as PM over Iraq, which I felt was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.
Agreed. The misinformation about Iraq was Blair's colossal mistake. It was as if he desperately needed Bush's support, for some inexplicable reason. What's perhaps worse, it all turned out badly for everyone even the Iraqis. They lost Saddam and for many of them the replacement was ISIS.
Going back, there were a lot of remarks about Wilson's honesty; he wasn't really, after all, a pipe and pints man, as per his carefully crafted image. He was, though, plotted against, and quite seriously, too. I don't recall Heath as being felt to be dishonest, though, Or Home, who was felt to be ineffectual as PM, although I don't think he did a bad job at the Foreign Office. Macmillan was, IIRC, a bit like an honest Boris Johnson.
None of them said the sort of things Johnson has, and then either denied saying them, or flat out did the opposite.
oh dear, 2000+ more cases of the Johnson Variant in Wales from today's figures...
Why is it not the Drakeford variant there?
because he didn't keep the borders with India open, that was Johnson, keep up please.
Drakeford kept the Welsh borders open....he has the power to close them, and has done so in the past. This is the man who banned the sale of oven gloves after all.
On Good Morning Scotland today speaking about the reckless endangerment of public by our government. Policies heaped in exceptionalism, ideology, false narratives, and pseudoscience. Herd immunity through infection rather than vaccination
Some are. Some aren’t. But that is not my objection to Carlotta’s post. The contributor to the radio show was criticising the UK government, not the Scottish government.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
We are in unique and unusual times. No-one but Boris could be relied on to get Brexit done, and the unique difficulties of it (especially Ireland) required and requires, sadly, greater inexactitude even than usual from politicians. Note how those in opposition recoil from exact solutions to the dilemma. Clean hands but no policy.
However the day will come when the idea of, say Jeremy Hunt v SKS, with both parties purged of the worst extremes, in the Commons will seem a refreshing throwback to an earlier age.
Of course the reason we were in that situation, of trying to "get Brexit done" in the face of the complexities of the Irish border, was entirely because of previous lies by Johnson and others in the Vote Leave camp. They promised that Brexit would be easy, the Irish border a distraction. That was a lie. That is the danger of liars - one lie begets another.
TBF Brexit campaigning had to be done in simplifications, and both sides can be equally criticised.
Over Ireland it was notable that Remain never acknowledged that the reality for them was that we can't rationally leave because of the interaction of EU and GFA.
For a Brexiteer it was rational to assume that an electronic solution would be found and/or that we would compromise by both sides relaxing their red lines rather than only the UK doing so.
Unless you worked in IT at which point the idea of there being a working electronic solution was seen for the impossibility we will discover it actually is.
Its not remotely impossible, it just requires compromise and accepting compromise as better than the alternative. Not letting the striving for perfection to be the enemy of the good enough, which was the entire principle of the GFA that got lost when Theresa May became weak in the negotiations.
How many years experience do you have working on complex intercompany IT systems?
Amidst the utter shambles of this ludicrous shower in charge, Simon Heffer is railing in the Telegraph about The Hundred. He thinks that the MCC could, and should, have put a stop to it.
I love Simon Heffer in the way that I love flared trousers or mullet hair (neither of which you'd ever catch him sporting). He's reactionary about everything contemporary. A fortnight ago he was lambasting all forms of sculpture made since World War Two. I bumped into him once in London. He was suited walking on his own across the Jubilee footbridge on a warm day. A forlorn figure, he looked the perfect picture of malcontent. He has a particular chip about Etonians.
I'm not a massive fan of T20 and expect to avoid The Hundred, but I can see what a fantastic injection the former has given the game especially via the IPL which is sensational. Unlike the English, Indians seem capable of percolating the shorter format into their test side.
Simon Heffer is not alone in being a Telegraph columnist reactionary. You can follow more of them for 3 months @ £2 on a special offer. Despite some amusingly off-beam articles, and occasional downright nastiness, the journalism is often excellent and invariably interesting. Unlike The Times which, in my opinion, somehow contrives to make the centre of politics extremely dull.
Amidst the utter shambles of this ludicrous shower in charge, Simon Heffer is railing in the Telegraph about The Hundred. He thinks that the MCC could, and should, have put a stop to it.
I love Simon Heffer in the way that I love flared trousers or mullet hair (neither of which you'd ever catch him sporting). He's reactionary about everything contemporary. A fortnight ago he was lambasting all forms of sculpture made since World War Two. I bumped into him once in London. He was suited walking on his own across the Jubilee footbridge on a warm day. A forlorn figure, he looked the perfect picture of malcontent. He has a particular chip about Etonians.
I'm not a massive fan of T20 and expect to avoid The Hundred, but I can see what a fantastic injection the former has given the game especially via the IPL which is sensational. Unlike the English, Indians seem capable of percolating the shorter format into their test side.
Simon Heffer is not alone in being a Telegraph columnist reactionary. You can follow more of them for 3 months @ £2 on a special offer. Despite some amusingly off-beam articles, and occasional downright nastiness, the journalism is often excellent and invariably interesting. Unlike The Times which, in my opinion, somehow contrives to make the centre of politics extremely dull.
The Hundred is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist / provide supply for which there isn't demand.
Its like soccerball saying we want to increase attendances at Division Two, what we need is yet another competition, we will call it the Johnson Paint Trophy...what do you mean nobody turns up to watch it.
The Telegraph - well, Nick Timothy anyway - is going after Cressida Dick and the Met. One wonders whether he has been reading some of the headers on here .....
I managed to get myself temporarily banned from /r/Formula1 for calling a Max Verstappen fanboi an “idiot”. Proud of that
Max has competed in 129 races, so I'm sure there is a whole highlight reel on youtube of him backing out whilst overlapped with another car on the inside line...
Glad he's not injured, but also glad he got some of his own medicine.
I agree that Hamilton was being a bit more circumspect with the Leclerc move. But that makes complete sense. Why would you want to risk losing 18 points when your main rival is out?
The fundamental question is, who was at fault for the collision? Hamilton had every right to be where he was going into Copse. Max had swerved back to the outside to take it as fast as he could and Lewis did the same. Now, it may be that Hamilton was going to run Verstappen off the road. But we'll never know because the contact happened on Hamilton's tarmac. Max should have been wider at the point when they touched.
It is remarkable and almost inexplicable, other than Starmer is just failing to capture the public
And Boris is +4 in that poll
Really, what do any of us know
We're all anoraks, we fallow every single little thing that any of them do. That isn't normal - the non-political which is most people don't even hear about such things.
Which is why the polls can appear to be counter-factual at times.
We are in a politically engaged bubble here on PB
Politics - where being engaged and being divorced are synonymous.
Amidst the utter shambles of this ludicrous shower in charge, Simon Heffer is railing in the Telegraph about The Hundred. He thinks that the MCC could, and should, have put a stop to it.
I love Simon Heffer in the way that I love flared trousers or mullet hair (neither of which you'd ever catch him sporting). He's reactionary about everything contemporary. A fortnight ago he was lambasting all forms of sculpture made since World War Two. I bumped into him once in London. He was suited walking on his own across the Jubilee footbridge on a warm day. A forlorn figure, he looked the perfect picture of malcontent. He has a particular chip about Etonians.
I'm not a massive fan of T20 and expect to avoid The Hundred, but I can see what a fantastic injection the former has given the game especially via the IPL which is sensational. Unlike the English, Indians seem capable of percolating the shorter format into their test side.
Simon Heffer is not alone in being a Telegraph columnist reactionary. You can follow more of them for 3 months @ £2 on a special offer. Despite some amusingly off-beam articles, and occasional downright nastiness, the journalism is often excellent and invariably interesting. Unlike The Times which, in my opinion, somehow contrives to make the centre of politics extremely dull.
oh dear, 2000+ more cases of the Johnson Variant in Wales from today's figures...
Why is it not the Drakeford variant there?
because he didn't keep the borders with India open, that was Johnson, keep up please.
Drakeford kept the Welsh borders open....he has the power to close them, and has done so in the past. This is the man who banned the sale of oven gloves after all.
The Johnson Variant leached across the border with English and Scots carrying it in early June. By then it was too late anyway. Not his fault, the fault lies with the clown in Downing Street. What's this about Oven Gloves anyway, typical stupid comment.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
We are in unique and unusual times. No-one but Boris could be relied on to get Brexit done, and the unique difficulties of it (especially Ireland) required and requires, sadly, greater inexactitude even than usual from politicians. Note how those in opposition recoil from exact solutions to the dilemma. Clean hands but no policy.
However the day will come when the idea of, say Jeremy Hunt v SKS, with both parties purged of the worst extremes, in the Commons will seem a refreshing throwback to an earlier age.
Of course the reason we were in that situation, of trying to "get Brexit done" in the face of the complexities of the Irish border, was entirely because of previous lies by Johnson and others in the Vote Leave camp. They promised that Brexit would be easy, the Irish border a distraction. That was a lie. That is the danger of liars - one lie begets another.
TBF Brexit campaigning had to be done in simplifications, and both sides can be equally criticised.
Over Ireland it was notable that Remain never acknowledged that the reality for them was that we can't rationally leave because of the interaction of EU and GFA.
For a Brexiteer it was rational to assume that an electronic solution would be found and/or that we would compromise by both sides relaxing their red lines rather than only the UK doing so.
Unless you worked in IT at which point the idea of there being a working electronic solution was seen for the impossibility we will discover it actually is.
Its not remotely impossible, it just requires compromise and accepting compromise as better than the alternative. Not letting the striving for perfection to be the enemy of the good enough, which was the entire principle of the GFA that got lost when Theresa May became weak in the negotiations.
How many years experience do you have working on complex intercompany IT systems?
Do not stand in front of the Thommo Epistemological Dreadnought. That ways lies oblivion.
I agree that Hamilton was being a bit more circumspect with the Leclerc move. But that makes complete sense. Why would you want to risk losing 18 points when your main rival is out?
The fundamental question is, who was at fault for the collision? Hamilton had every right to be where he was going into Copse. Max had swerved back to the outside to take it as fast as he could and Lewis did the same. Now, it may be that Hamilton was going to run Verstappen off the road. But we'll never know because the contact happened on Hamilton's tarmac. Max should have been wider at the point when they touched.
10 seconds earlier Hamilton was on the outside at the end of the Wellington Straight and further ahead than Max was in the later incident. He backed out regardless as he knew Max was inside and would have no compunction about running in to him.
Max expects more respect from everyone else than he is willing to show and it's about time he learnt better.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
I agree with you 100% on the sexual stuff, but I think the habitual lying is debating political discourse, perhaps permanently. It is definitely not OK that nobody can believe a word coming out of the mouth of the political leader of the UK.
We are in unique and unusual times. No-one but Boris could be relied on to get Brexit done, and the unique difficulties of it (especially Ireland) required and requires, sadly, greater inexactitude even than usual from politicians. Note how those in opposition recoil from exact solutions to the dilemma. Clean hands but no policy.
However the day will come when the idea of, say Jeremy Hunt v SKS, with both parties purged of the worst extremes, in the Commons will seem a refreshing throwback to an earlier age.
Of course the reason we were in that situation, of trying to "get Brexit done" in the face of the complexities of the Irish border, was entirely because of previous lies by Johnson and others in the Vote Leave camp. They promised that Brexit would be easy, the Irish border a distraction. That was a lie. That is the danger of liars - one lie begets another.
TBF Brexit campaigning had to be done in simplifications, and both sides can be equally criticised.
Over Ireland it was notable that Remain never acknowledged that the reality for them was that we can't rationally leave because of the interaction of EU and GFA.
For a Brexiteer it was rational to assume that an electronic solution would be found and/or that we would compromise by both sides relaxing their red lines rather than only the UK doing so.
Unless you worked in IT at which point the idea of there being a working electronic solution was seen for the impossibility we will discover it actually is.
Its not remotely impossible, it just requires compromise and accepting compromise as better than the alternative. Not letting the striving for perfection to be the enemy of the good enough, which was the entire principle of the GFA that got lost when Theresa May became weak in the negotiations.
How many years experience do you have working on complex intercompany IT systems?
As I suspect it will be a lot less than me
I am sure it is.
What I do have experience in is making tough choices and compromises and not expecting everything to be achievable via IT alone.
Do you disagree with that point? The principle of an electronic border is similar to the principle of having electronic PAYE, electronic Furlough, electronic VAT, electronic corporation tax and more. Self declaration as much as possible with punishment if convicted of committing fraud.
Will it be perfect? No. Will it be better than the Troubles? Yes. Will it be good enough? Meh, yeah, why not?
oh dear, 2000+ more cases of the Johnson Variant in Wales from today's figures...
Why is it not the Drakeford variant there?
because he didn't keep the borders with India open, that was Johnson, keep up please.
When did Drakeford close the border with India?
He couldn't that's a UK issue, moron.
He had the power to stop all travel in and out of Wales, as he has done previously. Instead he decided to "monitor" the situation while cases numbers were low. But of course once you think you might have a problem, you have a massive problem.
That we are not having to bear some ludicrous speech from that twat in Downing Street is the only consolation from today’s fiasco.
A typical ludicrous comment with the preempt of the attack on Boris before anything else...
I take it that you are a big supporter of his claim that at no time yesterday did he go onto the dodge lockdown trial?
No he obviously lied.. that's fair enough.. what I don't like is the preamble....
With apologies for quoting the same comment twice.
This here is why the government are still comfortably ahead in the polls. "Stop attacking Boris" says the commentator in response to Boris lying. So you check if the commentator thinks Boris is telling the truth. "no, he obviously lied".
But you still support him. We have ended up with a polity where people support a Prime Minister who lies to their face because he thinks they are stupid - despite knowing that he is lying to them because he thinks they are stupid.
Eugh, you lot attack Boris before anything else! You are so biased! Erm, we're pointing out that he is lying and treating people like fools. Yeah he does that. But he's winding you lot up so thats ok
I don't get the mentality of people who dislike people calling the PM Liar because he is a liar, yet recognise that he is lying to them.
I think the point was the @IanB2 post was crude, unpleasant and didn’t further the discussion in anyway.
Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was crude, unpleasant and didn't further the discussion. @IanB2 's comment was simply partisan. If you find that offends you sensibilities so much, suggest you flounce off and find another site maybe?
Sure it was partisan. But I’d argue that using the word “twat” is crude and unpleasant. There are other alternatives (such as”dickhead” or “wanker”) that would convey the same sentiment but are milder in tone.
I would put twat, wanker and dickhead in the same category. The first is no more crude and unpleasant than the second two, surely?
Calling a man a twat is misogynistic and offensive to women, not the person you called a twat.
If you wish to insult women then go ahead, that's your choice.
For someone who has spent two years defending the most amoral Prime Minister in any of our lifetimes complaining that the word 'TWAT' is offensive is way beyond parody.
I've said before, there's nothing I find more untrustworthy or a bigger red flag than politicians banging on about "morality".
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
Perhaps felix who 'liked' your post could explain why 'Boris's amorality is a strength not a weakness'.
(I know love is blind Philip so I wont ask you)
Not the way I'd put it but I understand his point perfectly. Be much more inclined to say politics is very much about choosing the least bad option - pragmatism is all. Boris is not my optimum choice of PM but the Tories are very definitely my optimum choice to rule the country. Simples. As for truth there are very few politicians who have more than a passing acquaintance with it. Anyone who thinks Starmer is being honest regarding his intentions wrt the EU for example is destined to be very disappointed should he ever be PM. Remember he sat in Corbyn's cabinet all those years while tacitly accepting the anti-semitism within the party from the leadership down. I prefer my principles where I can see them.
Amidst the utter shambles of this ludicrous shower in charge, Simon Heffer is railing in the Telegraph about The Hundred. He thinks that the MCC could, and should, have put a stop to it.
I love Simon Heffer in the way that I love flared trousers or mullet hair (neither of which you'd ever catch him sporting). He's reactionary about everything contemporary. A fortnight ago he was lambasting all forms of sculpture made since World War Two. I bumped into him once in London. He was suited walking on his own across the Jubilee footbridge on a warm day. A forlorn figure, he looked the perfect picture of malcontent. He has a particular chip about Etonians.
I'm not a massive fan of T20 and expect to avoid The Hundred, but I can see what a fantastic injection the former has given the game especially via the IPL which is sensational. Unlike the English, Indians seem capable of percolating the shorter format into their test side.
Simon Heffer is not alone in being a Telegraph columnist reactionary. You can follow more of them for 3 months @ £2 on a special offer. Despite some amusingly off-beam articles, and occasional downright nastiness, the journalism is often excellent and invariably interesting. Unlike The Times which, in my opinion, somehow contrives to make the centre of politics extremely dull.
The Hundred is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist / provide supply for which there isn't demand.
Its like soccerball saying we want to increase attendances at Division Two, what we need is yet another competition, we will call it the Johnson Paint Trophy...what do you mean nobody turns up to watch it.
You will, I hope, forgive me for suggesting that a lump of old white men complaining on here about the newer formats is not quite at the sharp end.
The IPL has been a sensational success. As has T20 generally. The same oldies moaned back then, and were proven wrong, as Jonathan Agnew has since acknowledged.
Mind you, there's not a lot of point moving from 120 balls to 100 balls and if the ECB thought T20 wasn't exciting enough, they should attend the post-covid IPL.
I prefer Test cricket myself but that doesn't blind me to the brilliance of T20 and probably this new format.
Amidst the utter shambles of this ludicrous shower in charge, Simon Heffer is railing in the Telegraph about The Hundred. He thinks that the MCC could, and should, have put a stop to it.
I love Simon Heffer in the way that I love flared trousers or mullet hair (neither of which you'd ever catch him sporting). He's reactionary about everything contemporary. A fortnight ago he was lambasting all forms of sculpture made since World War Two. I bumped into him once in London. He was suited walking on his own across the Jubilee footbridge on a warm day. A forlorn figure, he looked the perfect picture of malcontent. He has a particular chip about Etonians.
I'm not a massive fan of T20 and expect to avoid The Hundred, but I can see what a fantastic injection the former has given the game especially via the IPL which is sensational. Unlike the English, Indians seem capable of percolating the shorter format into their test side.
Simon Heffer is not alone in being a Telegraph columnist reactionary. You can follow more of them for 3 months @ £2 on a special offer. Despite some amusingly off-beam articles, and occasional downright nastiness, the journalism is often excellent and invariably interesting. Unlike The Times which, in my opinion, somehow contrives to make the centre of politics extremely dull.
The Hundred is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist / provide supply for which there isn't demand.
The Hundred is something that they feel they will have more control over.
But it's hard to see what it offers that T20 doesn't already offer except for removing a single ball from every over.
The reason to create a new, minimally different format, was to justify creating the eight new franchise teams. If they'd stuck with T20, but wanted to bring in more foreign players, etc, to compete with the IPL and BBL, then it would have been harder to get the Counties to agree to being shoved aside.
Long-term the ECB would rather have eight franchise teams, under their control, than 18 independent first-class counties.
The sport is taking a back seat to a long-term power struggle over the structure of the domestic game.
TBF Brexit campaigning had to be done in simplifications, and both sides can be equally criticised.
Over Ireland it was notable that Remain never acknowledged that the reality for them was that we can't rationally leave because of the interaction of EU and GFA.
For a Brexiteer it was rational to assume that an electronic solution would be found and/or that we would compromise by both sides relaxing their red lines rather than only the UK doing so.
The issue, as I saw it, is that there was no acceptable way to leave the European Union that didn't result in the UK following EU rules on the EU's terms, because of the dominance of the EU in the part of the world we inhabit, because of our historic integration, because of what the UK wants to achieve as an open liberal democracy and because of the situation in Ireland and to some extent Scotland. And given the motivation behind Leave was to be masters of our own ship there is a huge contradiction that lies behind Brexit.
I don't believe that contradiction has gone away. The attitude of many Leavers, and certainly that of Lord Frost in his negotiations, is that it is up to the EU to remove the contradiction. But as Donald Tusk put it, it is in the interest of no-one in the EU to shield the UK from the consequences of the UK's decision to leave.
Amidst the utter shambles of this ludicrous shower in charge, Simon Heffer is railing in the Telegraph about The Hundred. He thinks that the MCC could, and should, have put a stop to it.
I love Simon Heffer in the way that I love flared trousers or mullet hair (neither of which you'd ever catch him sporting). He's reactionary about everything contemporary. A fortnight ago he was lambasting all forms of sculpture made since World War Two. I bumped into him once in London. He was suited walking on his own across the Jubilee footbridge on a warm day. A forlorn figure, he looked the perfect picture of malcontent. He has a particular chip about Etonians.
I'm not a massive fan of T20 and expect to avoid The Hundred, but I can see what a fantastic injection the former has given the game especially via the IPL which is sensational. Unlike the English, Indians seem capable of percolating the shorter format into their test side.
Simon Heffer is not alone in being a Telegraph columnist reactionary. You can follow more of them for 3 months @ £2 on a special offer. Despite some amusingly off-beam articles, and occasional downright nastiness, the journalism is often excellent and invariably interesting. Unlike The Times which, in my opinion, somehow contrives to make the centre of politics extremely dull.
oh dear, 2000+ more cases of the Johnson Variant in Wales from today's figures...
Why is it not the Drakeford variant there?
because he didn't keep the borders with India open, that was Johnson, keep up please.
When did Drakeford close the border with India?
He couldn't that's a UK issue, moron.
No it's not, it is a devolved power. Moron.
Drakeford had the authority to close the border to Wales, he chose not to. He freeloaded onto letting Boris make all the tough choices for him, while he fiddled about telling supermarkets not to sell frying pans.
oh dear, 2000+ more cases of the Johnson Variant in Wales from today's figures...
Why is it not the Drakeford variant there?
because he didn't keep the borders with India open, that was Johnson, keep up please.
When did Drakeford close the border with India?
He couldn't that's a UK issue, moron.
He had the power to stop all travel in and out of Wales, as he has done previously. Instead he decided to "monitor" the situation while cases numbers were low. But of course once you think you might have a problem, you have a massive problem.
I think the majority of UK people realised we had a problem when the clown was elected.
On Good Morning Scotland today speaking about the reckless endangerment of public by our government. Policies heaped in exceptionalism, ideology, false narratives, and pseudoscience. Herd immunity through infection rather than vaccination
Some are. Some aren’t. But that is not my objection to Carlotta’s post. The contributor to the radio show was criticising the UK government, not the Scottish government.
Then she should have made that clear. You go on "Good Morning Scotland" to criticise "the government" which government do you suppose she's criticising? France? Germany? Japan?
Amidst the utter shambles of this ludicrous shower in charge, Simon Heffer is railing in the Telegraph about The Hundred. He thinks that the MCC could, and should, have put a stop to it.
I love Simon Heffer in the way that I love flared trousers or mullet hair (neither of which you'd ever catch him sporting). He's reactionary about everything contemporary. A fortnight ago he was lambasting all forms of sculpture made since World War Two. I bumped into him once in London. He was suited walking on his own across the Jubilee footbridge on a warm day. A forlorn figure, he looked the perfect picture of malcontent. He has a particular chip about Etonians.
I'm not a massive fan of T20 and expect to avoid The Hundred, but I can see what a fantastic injection the former has given the game especially via the IPL which is sensational. Unlike the English, Indians seem capable of percolating the shorter format into their test side.
Simon Heffer is not alone in being a Telegraph columnist reactionary. You can follow more of them for 3 months @ £2 on a special offer. Despite some amusingly off-beam articles, and occasional downright nastiness, the journalism is often excellent and invariably interesting. Unlike The Times which, in my opinion, somehow contrives to make the centre of politics extremely dull.
The Hundred is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist / provide supply for which there isn't demand.
The Hundred is something that they feel they will have more control over.
But it's hard to see what it offers that T20 doesn't already offer except for removing a single ball from every over.
The county T20 tournament is perfect. I can take all three daughters for £11 for the four of us. It's great fun and easy to follow and even if you're six years old there's something to look at. If Lancashire win, we leave elated. If they don't, well, it's only a game and it doesn't spoil our enjoyment.
During the 2019 season, Old Trafford was close to full every game - but not so close to full that tickets were hard to come by. The place was full of families, because of the pricing structure, but also full of people just there for a good day out.
And for no readily apparent reason, you can often see an indie band from the 90s - Cast, or Dodgy, or someone of that strips - playing on the way out. (They don't as far as I can see, make any refence to this in the promotional material; or if they do it passed me by.)
It's not cricket for the purists, but it's a gateway into cricket for a new generation.
Nothing the hundred offers is an improvement on this.
Comments
Vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds were done months ago as part of Group 6: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccination-advice-from-the-jcvi-30-december-2020/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation-advice-on-priority-groups-for-covid-19-vaccination-30-december-2020
heather
@howisthismylif
·
2h
Replying to
@basileuspingu
@tnewtondunn
and
@TimesRadio
Catching covid is not a death sentence for kids without comorbidites.
I trust their immune system. More then a rushed/experimental vx.
They’ll be ok to wait for proper studies.
The other sub-story is Brexit, but that - as the saner people predicted - is, in it's bad points, death by a thousand papercuts, not a big catastrophic story and the problems are overshadowed by Covid anyway. Not many people who are not directly affected getting very excited abut Brexit at the moment, I should think.And again, what would Labour be doing differently now that Brexit has happened? I don't know. Why should anyone else?
Boris's amorality is to me a strength, not a weakness.
In the large garage chain, not so many in masks.
I usually keep a couple of masks in the car for politeness. Not that I have a lot of faith in them, but it's not the weather for FFP3s.
Brexit literally hyped up as we will all starve to death, die from no medicines, the end of days etc etc etc...and instead people are arguing about if they can get a packet of haribo or not in their local super market.
Now i think a bit like austerity it isn't there are no issues, in fact serious issues to work through and extra barriers in place, but it isn't end of days. But too late, people hyped up we would be having Indian style medicine shortages and instead we are ahead on things like vaccines.
Hmm, are you absolutely sure Covid isn't because of Brexit?
It's all in the eye of the beholder (because my parents never swore, I thought it sexy when I met girls who did), but where you're talking to a lot of people (e.g. writing on PB) it makes sense to assume that some of them will be disturbed or alienated by serious swearing, so it's both courteous and sensible not to do it. What's "serious" swearing is changing over time - I doubt if anyone is still bothered by "damn", and "f..." has entered common usage. I'm more alienated by people abusing each other (a la MalcolmG) than expressing exasperation ("what the ... are we supposed to do now?").
Are there examples of swearwords that used to be accepted but are now taboo? I can only think of racial insults and similar abuse ("retard", for instance) in that category.
Again- we don't know, but I suspect that the plan back in the spring was that jabbing nearly all adults, so about 80% of all people, would be enough to get to herd immunity with a bit to spare. Because delta spreads so well, that's been overtaken by events. And the UK government was so busy slapping its back in the spring that the Covid Hubris Detector (h/t @Leon) kicked in.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-antibodies-persist-at-least-nine-months-after-infection-study-finds-12359003?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
Personally I find it refreshing to have a PM who doesn't hide behind his marriage vows bleating about his morality.
He should be judged more on whether he fucks over his voters, than whether he fucks a mistress, and speaking personally as someone who voted for him, I feel like I'm getting what I voted for.
https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1417069030960160772?s=20
If not, it'll be interesting to see how I end up voting. Won't be for him if the alternative is Starmer.
It's the blanket availability where they are not going to announce much, just vaccinate a little further down to 17 3/4, and I think even that is simply a holding position pending further data from abroad.
This is just from bits of reading and listening this morning, so don't take as gospel until the statement lands.
Of all the bodies advising government, JCVI has done well, so I'm inclined to cut them some slack on ensuring balance of risk. That said I have a 17 and a 13 year old, and am also keen to know what will be done.
(I know love is blind Philip so I wont ask you)
However the day will come when the idea of, say Jeremy Hunt v SKS, with both parties purged of the worst extremes, in the Commons will seem a refreshing throwback to an earlier age.
But Johnson is different, he just lies whenever he opens his mouth, even over unimportant things, when the only reason seems to be that he finds it easier than telling the truth, and he can get away with it. That is utterly poisonous.
Theresa "Brexit Means Brexit" May?
David "£4300/The Pledge" Cameron?
George "Punishment Budget" Osborne?
Gordon "Abolished Boom and Bust" Brown?
Tony "Pretty Straight Kind of Guy" Blair?
John "Back to Basics" Major?
Thatcher was probably the last conviction politician with integrity.
Boris's lack of integrity is water off a ducks back from me, as its all I've ever known from our politicians.
The UK alongside its allies has attributed the widespread hack of Microsoft Exchange Server to Chinese state-backed actors.
China must end this reckless cyber sabotage, and we will continue to expose it.
https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1417072918442434565?s=20
who seems profoundly unwilling to see our troops die overseas in a worthless cause to more upright ones who are much more willing to do so?
The bigger issue is foreign travel, but that can wait for a bit longer, I think.
Why should anyone support a politician or a party? Because what they do, and what they intend to do is, in your view, the right thing for you and the country.
But how does that work if you know that they are deceitful as a matter of course and policy? If they have already misled P, Q, R and S, what makes you think that you're not just T, the next rube in the line waiting to be tricked? You might believe that they're "really" on your side, but how can you tell? Boris can tell you that he's doing what you want until he's blue in the face, but if he has form for lying to everyone about everything, how can you believe him?
(And no, few if any politicians have ever told the whole truth. But it's one thing to tell incomplete truths which allow the hearer to get at the truth if they apply effort. It's a completely different thing to just say stuff with no connection to reality. And that's the Rubicon that has been crossed, and only quite recently.)
https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/status/1417023610666065920
And your examples are political slogans not lies.
And none surely bigger than WMD.
As both a tactic and a strategy Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair drove a coach and horses across the rubicon, Boris is nothing new. He's just utilising the lessons others drew before him - and leftwingers object more because its not their side doing it anymore.
It doesn't detract from the habitual deceptions of the incompetent we're currently lumbered with, though.
At least you're not pretending that Boris did. 😂
If Boris is so unfit, why do you keep renewing these every six months? shouldn't you be trying to take powers off him?
1. The weather continues to be sublime.
2. A couple of people with Covid went to a showing of the football match at the local rugby club. This has resulted in lots of people in the local town catching it and some businesses having to shut. This has not gone down well.
3. Daughter has - reluctantly - decided to maintain some restrictions for a couple of weeks for 3 main reasons: (a) she wants to discourage the sorts of idiots who do stuff like this from coming to her pub; (b) she wants to protect and reassure her regular customers; and (c) she wants to avoid having to shut down, which she can ill afford.
As the weather is so good, most customers are sitting outside anyway. Hopefully, in a couple of weeks she can lift restrictions. She is closely monitoring the situation here.
4. I have been banned from going into town. So I cannot do any shopping and must sit in my garden in the sunshine. The sacrifices I have to make ......
In consequence I have just planted some quite rare and very beautiful aloe polyphylla in a bed I've created outside the kitchen. They come from Lesotho and are I am told hardy down to -15 degrees. We will see.
As I had a bad outbreak of asthma a week or so ago, I have cancelled my planned visit to London this week. Just don't want to take the risk.
Re other matters, on the whole this site is better when people are not swearing on it or talking about swearing. I have occasionally used the "f" word myself so am hardly a saint in this regard. But I don't particularly like female-focused swear words. It does bespeak of a certain disregard for women. I don't I will confess particularly like the word "screw" for sex either. It does not say much about either the act or what the man thinks of the woman at the receiving end.
A screw is something you do to a wall or a plank of wood. One makes love with a woman.
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2021/news/journalists-slam-football-clubs-reported-25k-press-access-charge/
Over Ireland it was notable that Remain never acknowledged that the reality for them was that we can't rationally leave because of the interaction of EU and GFA.
For a Brexiteer it was rational to assume that an electronic solution would be found and/or that we would compromise by both sides relaxing their red lines rather than only the UK doing so.
One is of degree. Johnson lies more often and more extensively than other politicians.
The other is in shamelessness. Johnson feels no shame in being caught in a lie, because he simply lies about it again. This is particularly notable when he's been caught lying to the House, which is now something his ministers are doing too, because this lack of shame is corrosive.
There is a difference between being evasive or misleading and outright shameless, incontinent lying. One can be remedied and held in check, the other destroys any possibility of a common political discourse.
Let the boys have their war of words and move on. I'd rather have it where drivers go for a gap than not. Its Senna vs Prost at the chicane all over again. Hamilton/Senna up the inside in an iffy pass, Verstappen/Prost turning in regardless as "its my corner".
Let them race! Hamilton a deserved winner yesterday after another brilliant recovery drive where he highlights his own immense talents and the lack of ability to chase / overtake / attack of Bottas.
I love Simon Heffer in the way that I love flared trousers or mullet hair (neither of which you'd ever catch him sporting). He's reactionary about everything contemporary. A fortnight ago he was lambasting all forms of sculpture made since World War Two. I bumped into him once in London. He was suited walking on his own across the Jubilee footbridge on a warm day. A forlorn figure, he looked the perfect picture of malcontent. He has a particular chip about Etonians.
I'm not a massive fan of T20 and expect to avoid The Hundred, but I can see what a fantastic injection the former has given the game especially via the IPL which is sensational. Unlike the English, Indians seem capable of percolating the shorter format into their test side.
Simon Heffer is not alone in being a Telegraph columnist reactionary. You can follow more of them for 3 months @ £2 on a special offer. Despite some amusingly off-beam articles, and occasional downright nastiness, the journalism is often excellent and invariably interesting. Unlike The Times which, in my opinion, somehow contrives to make the centre of politics extremely dull.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2021/07/19/strong-mcc-could-have-killed-hundred-alas-powerless-servile/
As it grows it spirals in the most beautiful mathematical way, if that makes sense.
I plan to plant some ferns - another plant which is exquisite and rewards the careful watcher - epimedium and autumn / spring bulbs around them.
What's perhaps worse, it all turned out badly for everyone even the Iraqis. They lost Saddam and for many of them the replacement was ISIS.
Going back, there were a lot of remarks about Wilson's honesty; he wasn't really, after all, a pipe and pints man, as per his carefully crafted image. He was, though, plotted against, and quite seriously, too.
I don't recall Heath as being felt to be dishonest, though, Or Home, who was felt to be ineffectual as PM, although I don't think he did a bad job at the Foreign Office.
Macmillan was, IIRC, a bit like an honest Boris Johnson.
None of them said the sort of things Johnson has, and then either denied saying them, or flat out did the opposite.
As I suspect it will be a lot less than me
Its like soccerball saying we want to increase attendances at Division Two, what we need is yet another competition, we will call it the Johnson Paint Trophy...what do you mean nobody turns up to watch it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/07/18/time-priti-patel-step-force-change-failing-met-police/
Glad he's not injured, but also glad he got some of his own medicine.
Unionist poster highlights anti-SNP message in a Unionist newspaper. How novel.
At some point Unionists will realise that they have to stop appealing to their core vote and start talking to normal Scots.
The fundamental question is, who was at fault for the collision? Hamilton had every right to be where he was going into Copse. Max had swerved back to the outside to take it as fast as he could and Lewis did the same. Now, it may be that Hamilton was going to run Verstappen off the road. But we'll never know because the contact happened on Hamilton's tarmac. Max should have been wider at the point when they touched.
But it's hard to see what it offers that T20 doesn't already offer except for removing a single ball from every over.
Max expects more respect from everyone else than he is willing to show and it's about time he learnt better.
What I do have experience in is making tough choices and compromises and not expecting everything to be achievable via IT alone.
Do you disagree with that point? The principle of an electronic border is similar to the principle of having electronic PAYE, electronic Furlough, electronic VAT, electronic corporation tax and more. Self declaration as much as possible with punishment if convicted of committing fraud.
Will it be perfect? No. Will it be better than the Troubles? Yes. Will it be good enough? Meh, yeah, why not?
The IPL has been a sensational success. As has T20 generally. The same oldies moaned back then, and were proven wrong, as Jonathan Agnew has since acknowledged.
Mind you, there's not a lot of point moving from 120 balls to 100 balls and if the ECB thought T20 wasn't exciting enough, they should attend the post-covid IPL.
I prefer Test cricket myself but that doesn't blind me to the brilliance of T20 and probably this new format.
Long-term the ECB would rather have eight franchise teams, under their control, than 18 independent first-class counties.
The sport is taking a back seat to a long-term power struggle over the structure of the domestic game.
I don't believe that contradiction has gone away. The attitude of many Leavers, and certainly that of Lord Frost in his negotiations, is that it is up to the EU to remove the contradiction. But as Donald Tusk put it, it is in the interest of no-one in the EU to shield the UK from the consequences of the UK's decision to leave.
Drakeford had the authority to close the border to Wales, he chose not to. He freeloaded onto letting Boris make all the tough choices for him, while he fiddled about telling supermarkets not to sell frying pans.
I can take all three daughters for £11 for the four of us.
It's great fun and easy to follow and even if you're six years old there's something to look at.
If Lancashire win, we leave elated. If they don't, well, it's only a game and it doesn't spoil our enjoyment.
During the 2019 season, Old Trafford was close to full every game - but not so close to full that tickets were hard to come by. The place was full of families, because of the pricing structure, but also full of people just there for a good day out.
And for no readily apparent reason, you can often see an indie band from the 90s - Cast, or Dodgy, or someone of that strips - playing on the way out. (They don't as far as I can see, make any refence to this in the promotional material; or if they do it passed me by.)
It's not cricket for the purists, but it's a gateway into cricket for a new generation.
Nothing the hundred offers is an improvement on this.