Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
You're thinking of milspec cargo planes - it would be a civilian type flight ewith the hounds in the lower tier where the baggage normally goes, with people up above as usual.
Any environment a dog can survive, so can a human.
I'm not sure that's technically true. Some small spaces would require the human to be cut up to fit in.
Interesting definition of "more accessible"....some may argue more ghettoised.
Hmm. The original plays were all white, all male casts. If it's good enough for Willie S. ...
I am not sure how going to the other extreme improves things.
If someone wants to do all gay, or all male, or all transgender, or all disabled, or all with an IQ below 35, or all members of UKIP Shakespeare, then good for them.
I probably shan't watch it, but it's a free country.
I would be interested to know if they get grant money....I imagine you might struggle to be grant money if you proudly promised to exclude all staff (not just the actors) who weren't white or male. Somebody might just complain it was a tad racist and sexist.
Well, "grant money" covers a wide variety of sins.
It can range from £250 from the local council, through subsidised use of publicly (or charity) owned theatre spaces, right through to a £10m cheque from the Arts Council.
My money is on "yes", they have received grant money.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
There are no questions to be asked. It's an f**ing disgrace morally and practically. What the hell does anyone think the message will be to Afghanis abandoned to the Taliban is to discover they were turned away or never got the invitation, but a load of pets not even in danger were allowed through? It's absolutely unbelievable, full Carrie Antoinette madness.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said supporters of Pen Farthing, a charity worker trying to evacuate animals from Afghanistan, have “taken up too much time” of the senior commanders dealing with the humanitarian crisis
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
You're thinking of milspec cargo planes - it would be a civilian type flight ewith the hounds in the lower tier where the baggage normally goes, with people up above as usual.
Any environment a dog can survive, so can a human.
I'm not sure that's technically true. Some small spaces would require the human to be cut up to fit in.
A baby isn't much bigger than a Mexican hairless dog.
Edit: a friend's aunt bred the things (the latter I mean). (He always maintained they were baby substitutes. Bit IANAE.)
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
You're thinking of milspec cargo planes - it would be a civilian type flight ewith the hounds in the lower tier where the baggage normally goes, with people up above as usual.
Any environment a dog can survive, so can a human.
I'm not sure that's technically true. Some small spaces would require the human to be cut up to fit in.
A baby isn't much bigger than a Mexican hairless dog.
Careful: if you go down that route, larger people would never be allowed on planes, as you could have got three skinny people on for the same weight.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
You're thinking of milspec cargo planes - it would be a civilian type flight ewith the hounds in the lower tier where the baggage normally goes, with people up above as usual.
Any environment a dog can survive, so can a human.
I'm not sure that's technically true. Some small spaces would require the human to be cut up to fit in.
A baby isn't much bigger than a Mexican hairless dog.
Careful: if you go down that route, larger people would never be allowed on planes, as you could have got three skinny people on for the same weight.
Very good idea. I've always thought that ticket prices should be per kilo.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
The idea his pets took precedent over people is absurd, but do not underestimate the Brits love for animals surreal as it may seem in these circumstances
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
You're thinking of milspec cargo planes - it would be a civilian type flight ewith the hounds in the lower tier where the baggage normally goes, with people up above as usual.
Any environment a dog can survive, so can a human.
I'm not sure that's technically true. Some small spaces would require the human to be cut up to fit in.
A baby isn't much bigger than a Mexican hairless dog.
Careful: if you go down that route, larger people would never be allowed on planes, as you could have got three skinny people on for the same weight.
Very good idea. I've always thought that ticket prices should be per kilo.
Don't some US Americas force individuals over a certain weight to purchase a second ticket?
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
You're thinking of milspec cargo planes - it would be a civilian type flight ewith the hounds in the lower tier where the baggage normally goes, with people up above as usual.
Any environment a dog can survive, so can a human.
I'm not sure that's technically true. Some small spaces would require the human to be cut up to fit in.
A baby isn't much bigger than a Mexican hairless dog.
Careful: if you go down that route, larger people would never be allowed on planes, as you could have got three skinny people on for the same weight.
Very good idea. I've always thought that ticket prices should be per kilo.
One can form a suspicion as to which of us are svelte, and which are more on the Boris Johnson end of the spectrum.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
The idea his pets took precedent over people is absurd, but do not underestimate the Brits love for animals surreal as it may seem in these circumstances
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said supporters of Pen Farthing, a charity worker trying to evacuate animals from Afghanistan, have “taken up too much time” of the senior commanders dealing with the humanitarian crisis
As far as the topic is concerned, the question is what will "normality" do to the polls?
Between leaving the EU and the pandemic, the Johnson Government has had a pretty busy first couple of years (and 18 months since the GE victory). If I've learnt nothing else, it's rarely the big things which impact but the small things - the gaffes which become scandals and can lead to a Ministerial resignation.
Apart from looking like they are in control of events, the only other things a Government needs to do is to look competent and look as though it will deliver something for those who voted for it. This is why any attempt to scale back on the levelling up agenda is politically risky.
As life returns to normal and we've seen some signs of it since July 19th, concerns other than whether there'll be another outbreak of coronavirus will come to the fore. The post-pandemic economy may enjoy a period of extreme growth as, to paraphrase Mr Bulsara, "we want it all and we want it now".
The sudden but widely expected release of consumption and money into the economy will have impacts and has exposed some issues in both the supply chain and especially the labour market. How and whether these will become bigger issues in the next 12-24 months remains to be seen.
"It's the economy, stupid" as someone wisely opined and you won't go far wrong speculating the next election will be won and lost on whether people feel materially and economically secure.
The other side of that is whether, in the Opposition, enough people see a positive and attractive vision of the future. This was the card Boris played in 2019 - it won't be so easy for him to play it again next time. There will quite rightly be scrutiny of the Government's record (not just on Covid) and excuses made for promises not delivered (primarily Covid),
We know next to nothing about Starmer's vision of mid to late 2020s Britain. He's no Corbyn - he lacks the left-wing charisma but he's also a figure to whom more in the centre will be willing to give a fair hearing.
We also know next to nothing about Johnson's vision of mid to late 2020s Britain - what does a second term look like in terms of key policy areas and principles?
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
You're thinking of milspec cargo planes - it would be a civilian type flight ewith the hounds in the lower tier where the baggage normally goes, with people up above as usual.
Any environment a dog can survive, so can a human.
I'm not sure that's technically true. Some small spaces would require the human to be cut up to fit in.
There are small people and large dogs.
Best outcome is this arsewipe gets his collar felt for flying his animals in inhumane conditions.
As far as the topic is concerned, the question is what will "normality" do to the polls?
Between leaving the EU and the pandemic, the Johnson Government has had a pretty busy first couple of years (and 18 months since the GE victory). If I've learnt nothing else, it's rarely the big things which impact but the small things - the gaffes which become scandals and can lead to a Ministerial resignation.
Apart from looking like they are in control of events, the only other things a Government needs to do is to look competent and look as though it will deliver something for those who voted for it. This is why any attempt to scale back on the levelling up agenda is politically risky.
As life returns to normal and we've seen some signs of it since July 19th, concerns other than whether there'll be another outbreak of coronavirus will come to the fore. The post-pandemic economy may enjoy a period of extreme growth as, to paraphrase Mr Bulsara, "we want it all and we want it now".
The sudden but widely expected release of consumption and money into the economy will have impacts and has exposed some issues in both the supply chain and especially the labour market. How and whether these will become bigger issues in the next 12-24 months remains to be seen.
"It's the economy, stupid" as someone wisely opined and you won't go far wrong speculating the next election will be won and lost on whether people feel materially and economically secure.
The other side of that is whether, in the Opposition, enough people see a positive and attractive vision of the future. This was the card Boris played in 2019 - it won't be so easy for him to play it again next time. There will quite rightly be scrutiny of the Government's record (not just on Covid) and excuses made for promises not delivered (primarily Covid),
We know next to nothing about Starmer's vision of mid to late 2020s Britain. He's no Corbyn - he lacks the left-wing charisma but he's also a figure to whom more in the centre will be willing to give a fair hearing.
We also know next to nothing about Johnson's vision of mid to late 2020s Britain - what does a second term look like in terms of key policy areas and principles?
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
With all due respect, only one recent Prime Minister can genuinely claim to have been a rock star: step forward the lead singer and guitarist of the band Ugly Rumours.
A wannabe rock star, to be more precise. When he found he didn't have the talent for that, he had to make do with becoming PM instead.
Anecdote: My wife used to work with one of the other Ugly Rumours.
Who was it who said politics is show biz for ugly people?
Up to a point, rarely do ugly party leaders win elections, though you can certainly have ugly backbenchers and Cabinet members.
A bit like you can have ugly character actors or drummers but rarely do you get an ugly leading man or woman or lead singer
Interesting point. I was going to suggest that Gordon Brown was a bit of a minger, but then remembered he didn't win. Harold Wilson was pretty ugly, and going further back you have Alec Douglas Home (not sure whether he won?).
Maybe you have something here. Perhaps the PM that wins is normally the better looking:
Puppy eyes Johnson v Corbyn (Corbyn def a minger) Cameron v Miliband (Miliband looks a bit wierd) Cameron v Brown (Brown is a minger) Blair v Major (Major not really a minger, but Blair better looking than Major) Major v Kinnock (Kinnoch a bit of a minger) Thatcher v Kinnoch (see above) Thatcher v Foot (Foot def minger)
Isam's charisma nonsense has just been trumped for absolute banality.
To be fair though the most successful leaders in terms of winning elections do tend to be both charismatic and good looking, even if it is banal
As far as the topic is concerned, the question is what will "normality" do to the polls?
Between leaving the EU and the pandemic, the Johnson Government has had a pretty busy first couple of years (and 18 months since the GE victory). If I've learnt nothing else, it's rarely the big things which impact but the small things - the gaffes which become scandals and can lead to a Ministerial resignation.
Apart from looking like they are in control of events, the only other things a Government needs to do is to look competent and look as though it will deliver something for those who voted for it. This is why any attempt to scale back on the levelling up agenda is politically risky.
As life returns to normal and we've seen some signs of it since July 19th, concerns other than whether there'll be another outbreak of coronavirus will come to the fore. The post-pandemic economy may enjoy a period of extreme growth as, to paraphrase Mr Bulsara, "we want it all and we want it now".
The sudden but widely expected release of consumption and money into the economy will have impacts and has exposed some issues in both the supply chain and especially the labour market. How and whether these will become bigger issues in the next 12-24 months remains to be seen.
"It's the economy, stupid" as someone wisely opined and you won't go far wrong speculating the next election will be won and lost on whether people feel materially and economically secure.
The other side of that is whether, in the Opposition, enough people see a positive and attractive vision of the future. This was the card Boris played in 2019 - it won't be so easy for him to play it again next time. There will quite rightly be scrutiny of the Government's record (not just on Covid) and excuses made for promises not delivered (primarily Covid),
We know next to nothing about Starmer's vision of mid to late 2020s Britain. He's no Corbyn - he lacks the left-wing charisma but he's also a figure to whom more in the centre will be willing to give a fair hearing.
We also know next to nothing about Johnson's vision of mid to late 2020s Britain - what does a second term look like in terms of key policy areas and principles?
But yes, this is a very interesting question and an excellent post. Particlarly the last question.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
The idea his pets took precedent over people is absurd, but do not underestimate the Brits love for animals surreal as it may seem in these circumstances
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
People are starving in Afghanistan. And you support flying out their dinner?
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
The idea his pets took precedent over people is absurd, but do not underestimate the Brits love for animals surreal as it may seem in these circumstances
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
The idea his pets took precedent over people is absurd, but do not underestimate the Brits love for animals surreal as it may seem in these circumstances
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
The idea his pets took precedent over people is absurd, but do not underestimate the Brits love for animals surreal as it may seem in these circumstances
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said supporters of Pen Farthing, a charity worker trying to evacuate animals from Afghanistan, have “taken up too much time” of the senior commanders dealing with the humanitarian crisis
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said supporters of Pen Farthing, a charity worker trying to evacuate animals from Afghanistan, have “taken up too much time” of the senior commanders dealing with the humanitarian crisis
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
The idea his pets took precedent over people is absurd, but do not underestimate the Brits love for animals surreal as it may seem in these circumstances
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said supporters of Pen Farthing, a charity worker trying to evacuate animals from Afghanistan, have “taken up too much time” of the senior commanders dealing with the humanitarian crisis
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
The idea his pets took precedent over people is absurd, but do not underestimate the Brits love for animals surreal as it may seem in these circumstances
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
The idea his pets took precedent over people is absurd, but do not underestimate the Brits love for animals surreal as it may seem in these circumstances
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
People are starving in Afghanistan. And you support flying out their dinner?
We could solve the problem of starving Afghanis and feral dogs at the same time...
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
The idea his pets took precedent over people is absurd, but do not underestimate the Brits love for animals surreal as it may seem in these circumstances
There was a whole episode of Yes, Prime Minister which turned on a lost dog on Salisbury Plain.
But sometimes, wise popular government is about explaining to the public why what they want shouldn't happen.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said supporters of Pen Farthing, a charity worker trying to evacuate animals from Afghanistan, have “taken up too much time” of the senior commanders dealing with the humanitarian crisis
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
How do you prioritise between feral, domesticated and semi-feral?
In the circumstances, isn't that a rather irrelevant question? But if you want an answer, the charity apparently started off helping stray dogs.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
People are starving in Afghanistan. And you support flying out their dinner?
We could solve the problem of starving Afghanis and feral dogs at the same time...
Eating dogs or cats is haram.
The Taliban wouldn't allow eating of Pen Farthing's pets.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said supporters of Pen Farthing, a charity worker trying to evacuate animals from Afghanistan, have “taken up too much time” of the senior commanders dealing with the humanitarian crisis
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
A long long time ago there was a BBC play called I think 'The March'. iirc thousands, maybe tens of thousands had marched from Africa to UK to escape some catastrophe. I have a vague memory that one of the marchers says at one point - we could be like your cats, just treat us like your cats and that would be enough.
If there was a sniff of the govt spending more than 0.01 seconds on this because of public opinion and Wallace was against it a) the govt is more disgusting than I thought; and b) Wallace should resign.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
How do you prioritise between feral, domesticated and semi-feral?
In the circumstances, isn't that a rather irrelevant question? But if you want an answer, the charity apparently started off helping stray dogs.
If there was a sniff of the govt spending more than 0.01 seconds on this because of public opinion and Wallace was against it a) the govt is more disgusting than I thought; and b) Wallace should resign.
I have a thread on this very subject for tomorrow.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
You are missing a trick here Philip. Why not sell this as Johnson was so well organised he got all the UK and Afghani citizens he needed out, and still had capacity for the kittens and puppies?
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
People are starving in Afghanistan. And you support flying out their dinner?
We could solve the problem of starving Afghanis and feral dogs at the same time...
Eating dogs or cats is haram.
The Taliban wouldn't allow eating of Pen Farthing's pets.
Back in the ‘90’s the taliban watched on as children dug up human bones in cemeteries, mixed them with animal bones and sent them to Pakistan to make glue.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said supporters of Pen Farthing, a charity worker trying to evacuate animals from Afghanistan, have “taken up too much time” of the senior commanders dealing with the humanitarian crisis
Here's an idea; anybody who thinks that an animal's life is worth more than a human's, and especially if they argue that, should be known to the fire brigade. If there is an incident in their house, the fire service should do a sweep for any animals in the house (including rats) and recover them. Only then, if it is safe for the firefighters, should they go back in to rescue any humans who might be inside.
The question should really be: do you value an animal's life over *your* life?
The case was a judicial review brought by a female prisoner who was raped in prison by a man who claimed to be a woman but did not have a gender reassignment certificate and who had taken no steps to transition. So in all physical respects a man.
The court ruled that the Prison Service had to balance the rights of women and those of men claiming to be women. It accepted that this particular woman and other women had justified and reasonable fears of being sexually assaulted. It also accepted that if men claiming to be women were put into women's prisons there was a risk to women and that therefore the rights of transwomen would be at the expense of women's rights ie their right to have a prison only for women as well as the even more important right not to be put at risks of a serious sexual assault, an assault which actually happened.
The judge said that the Prison Service had to come up with a policy which took account of these competing rights. It declined the applicants' claim because it said that the Prison service's policy was capable of being lawful. But an assessment of risk needs to be made - and in different circumstances and with different facts - a policy of allowing men into women's' spaces would not be lawful.
The important thing about this judgment is that it makes clear that these rights are a pie - if biological men get access to women only spaces then women lose the right to have women only spaces. And they do so even if that means that they are real risk of sexual assault. Women must pay the price of allowing someone who is in all respects a man to say that he feels he is a woman, without even the bother of getting a medical diagnosis, let alone taking any steps to transition.
And what a price that is - rape or the fear of it.
What the actual fuck! Woman have to risk rape to assuage men's feelings. Well, fuck that, frankly.
The case was a judicial review brought by a female prisoner who was raped in prison by a man who claimed to be a woman but did not have a gender reassignment certificate and who had taken no steps to transition. So in all physical respects a man.
The court ruled that the Prison Service had to balance the rights of women and those of men claiming to be women. It accepted that this particular woman and other women had justified and reasonable fears of being sexually assaulted. It also accepted that if men claiming to be women were put into women's prisons there was a risk to women and that therefore the rights of transwomen would be at the expense of women's rights ie their right to have a prison only for women as well as the even more important right not to be put at risks of a serious sexual assault, an assault which actually happened.
The judge said that the Prison Service had to come up with a policy which took account of these competing rights. It declined the applicants' claim because it said that the Prison service's policy was capable of being lawful. But an assessment of risk needs to be made - and in different circumstances and with different facts - a policy of allowing men into women's' spaces would not be lawful.
The important thing about this judgment is that it makes clear that these rights are a pie - if biological men get access to women only spaces then women lose the right to have women only spaces. And they do so even if that means that they are real risk of sexual assault. Women must pay the price of allowing someone who is in all respects a man to say that he feels he is a woman, without even the bother of getting a medical diagnosis, let alone taking any steps to transition.
And what a price that is - rape or the fear of it.
What the actual fuck! Woman have to risk rape to assuage men's feelings. Well, fuck that, frankly.
Yes I feel strongly about this.
As I have been boring on ad nauseam, the reason why women need and want women only spaces is because of the risk that men present. Not all men obviously. But you know what, men don't come with an identifying mark saying "Threat" or "No threat". We can't tell the difference so when we are undressing or in a loo or a girl in school going through her first periods or in a women's refuge or seeking help from a rape counsellor or in a prison or in some other place where we are vulnerable (more so than normal), we don't want men in there.
And the reason I have picked all these examples is because in all these cases there are trans rights activists and some daft politicians (especially in Scotland) who are saying that biological men should have access to such places and that women should lose the right, for instance, to have a female counsellor after rape.
I am furious about this. And sick of hearing men tell women who they are and how they should behave and that our fears and concerns are of no consequence by comparison with the feelings of some men who, frankly, need proper medical advice and help not to be used by activists in what feels like a bullying campaign against women and their hard-won sex-based rights.
The case was a judicial review brought by a female prisoner who was raped in prison by a man who claimed to be a woman but did not have a gender reassignment certificate and who had taken no steps to transition. So in all physical respects a man.
The court ruled that the Prison Service had to balance the rights of women and those of men claiming to be women. It accepted that this particular woman and other women had justified and reasonable fears of being sexually assaulted. It also accepted that if men claiming to be women were put into women's prisons there was a risk to women and that therefore the rights of transwomen would be at the expense of women's rights ie their right to have a prison only for women as well as the even more important right not to be put at risks of a serious sexual assault, an assault which actually happened.
The judge said that the Prison Service had to come up with a policy which took account of these competing rights. It declined the applicants' claim because it said that the Prison service's policy was capable of being lawful. But an assessment of risk needs to be made - and in different circumstances and with different facts - a policy of allowing men into women's' spaces would not be lawful.
The important thing about this judgment is that it makes clear that these rights are a pie - if biological men get access to women only spaces then women lose the right to have women only spaces. And they do so even if that means that they are real risk of sexual assault. Women must pay the price of allowing someone who is in all respects a man to say that he feels he is a woman, without even the bother of getting a medical diagnosis, let alone taking any steps to transition.
And what a price that is - rape or the fear of it.
What the actual fuck! Woman have to risk rape to assuage men's feelings. Well, fuck that, frankly.
Yes I feel strongly about this.
As I have been boring on ad nauseam, the reason why women need and want women only spaces is because of the risk that men present. Not all men obviously. But you know what, men don't come with an identifying mark saying "Threat" or "No threat". We can't tell the difference so when we are undressing or in a loo or a girl in school going through her first periods or in a women's refuge or seeking help from a rape counsellor or in a prison or in some other place where we are vulnerable (more so than normal), we don't want men in there.
And the reason I have picked all these examples is because in all these cases there are trans rights activists and some daft politicians (especially in Scotland) who are saying that biological men should have access to such places and that women should lose the right, for instance, to have a female counsellor after rape.
I am furious about this. And sick of hearing men tell women who they are and how they should behave and that our fears and concerns are of no consequence by comparison with the feelings of some men who, frankly, need proper medical advice and help not to be used by activists in what feels like a bullying campaign against women and their hard-won sex-based rights.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
Has a touch of Milo Minderbinder in Catch 22 about it.
It does just show how out of touch with public opinion some of us are
I would not have expected the animals lives to be considered the same as human lives at 40% and even 3% consider they are worth more
I know plenty of crazies who think animals lives are worth more than humans, as they're not "fucking up the planet". (n=6 or 7)
Indeed, I know far more of them, than people who boast of having an abortion. (n=0)
I had discussions with an 'an animal's life is worth more than a humans' guy at uni, thirty years ago. He was... unpersuasive. Especially as he seemed to think it was other people's lives, not his own, than an animal's was worth more than.
It was particularly funny when we had the discussion in front of his girlfriend, and he made it clear she was not an exception ...
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
A long long time ago there was a BBC play called I think 'The March'. iirc thousands, maybe tens of thousands had marched from Africa to UK to escape some catastrophe. I have a vague memory that one of the marchers says at one point - we could be like your cats, just treat us like your cats and that would be enough.
Was that a v controversial play? I think I have heard of it
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
With all due respect, only one recent Prime Minister can genuinely claim to have been a rock star: step forward the lead singer and guitarist of the band Ugly Rumours.
A wannabe rock star, to be more precise. When he found he didn't have the talent for that, he had to make do with becoming PM instead.
Anecdote: My wife used to work with one of the other Ugly Rumours.
Who was it who said politics is show biz for ugly people?
Up to a point, rarely do ugly party leaders win elections, though you can certainly have ugly backbenchers and Cabinet members.
A bit like you can have ugly character actors or drummers but rarely do you get an ugly leading man or woman or lead singer
Interesting point. I was going to suggest that Gordon Brown was a bit of a minger, but then remembered he didn't win. Harold Wilson was pretty ugly, and going further back you have Alec Douglas Home (not sure whether he won?).
Maybe you have something here. Perhaps the PM that wins is normally the better looking:
Puppy eyes Johnson v Corbyn (Corbyn def a minger) Cameron v Miliband (Miliband looks a bit wierd) Cameron v Brown (Brown is a minger) Blair v Major (Major not really a minger, but Blair better looking than Major) Major v Kinnock (Kinnoch a bit of a minger) Thatcher v Kinnoch (see above) Thatcher v Foot (Foot def minger)
PB.com: the home of sophisticated political debate.
And incredibly off beam.
In no way is Gordon Brown a "minger" ffs! Dark, brooding, brooding, dark, he's all of that. He's the whole package. Could have been in 50 Shades quite easily.
And Boris "Boris" Johnson is NOT objectively speaking a physically attractive man, regardless of blond locks and high muscle/fat ratio. He laughs them into bed (or voting Conservative) with his comedy.
Yes. My other half (a woman of great discernment, naturally) finds Boris physically repulsive, and whenever he appears on TV makes strange, slightly disconcerting, noises of disgust. Not a fan of his politics either, mind you.
My wife, a shire Tory of a similar age to Johnson, finds him particularly unattractive. She found both Brown and Hague alluring. She had no particular view on Blair, Corbyn, Howard, Milliband or Cameron's appearance. She did think May a shape shifting lizard.
Are you trying to wind people up.. Brown alluring?? You gotta be joking.. seriously it has to be a joke...
The case was a judicial review brought by a female prisoner who was raped in prison by a man who claimed to be a woman but did not have a gender reassignment certificate and who had taken no steps to transition. So in all physical respects a man.
The court ruled that the Prison Service had to balance the rights of women and those of men claiming to be women. It accepted that this particular woman and other women had justified and reasonable fears of being sexually assaulted. It also accepted that if men claiming to be women were put into women's prisons there was a risk to women and that therefore the rights of transwomen would be at the expense of women's rights ie their right to have a prison only for women as well as the even more important right not to be put at risks of a serious sexual assault, an assault which actually happened.
The judge said that the Prison Service had to come up with a policy which took account of these competing rights. It declined the applicants' claim because it said that the Prison service's policy was capable of being lawful. But an assessment of risk needs to be made - and in different circumstances and with different facts - a policy of allowing men into women's' spaces would not be lawful.
The important thing about this judgment is that it makes clear that these rights are a pie - if biological men get access to women only spaces then women lose the right to have women only spaces. And they do so even if that means that they are real risk of sexual assault. Women must pay the price of allowing someone who is in all respects a man to say that he feels he is a woman, without even the bother of getting a medical diagnosis, let alone taking any steps to transition.
And what a price that is - rape or the fear of it.
What the actual fuck! Woman have to risk rape to assuage men's feelings. Well, fuck that, frankly.
Yes I feel strongly about this.
As I have been boring on ad nauseam, the reason why women need and want women only spaces is because of the risk that men present. (snip)
Not all women. Mrs J would vehemently disagree with you on this.
Edit: I'd also say that when I was a teenager in the 1980s, similar things were said about gay men. "They go cottaging in public toilets! Kids aren't safe!"
Since then, the majority of society have thankfully got over it.
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
With all due respect, only one recent Prime Minister can genuinely claim to have been a rock star: step forward the lead singer and guitarist of the band Ugly Rumours.
A wannabe rock star, to be more precise. When he found he didn't have the talent for that, he had to make do with becoming PM instead.
Anecdote: My wife used to work with one of the other Ugly Rumours.
Who was it who said politics is show biz for ugly people?
Up to a point, rarely do ugly party leaders win elections, though you can certainly have ugly backbenchers and Cabinet members.
A bit like you can have ugly character actors or drummers but rarely do you get an ugly leading man or woman or lead singer
Interesting point. I was going to suggest that Gordon Brown was a bit of a minger, but then remembered he didn't win. Harold Wilson was pretty ugly, and going further back you have Alec Douglas Home (not sure whether he won?).
Maybe you have something here. Perhaps the PM that wins is normally the better looking:
Puppy eyes Johnson v Corbyn (Corbyn def a minger) Cameron v Miliband (Miliband looks a bit wierd) Cameron v Brown (Brown is a minger) Blair v Major (Major not really a minger, but Blair better looking than Major) Major v Kinnock (Kinnoch a bit of a minger) Thatcher v Kinnoch (see above) Thatcher v Foot (Foot def minger)
PB.com: the home of sophisticated political debate.
And incredibly off beam.
In no way is Gordon Brown a "minger" ffs! Dark, brooding, brooding, dark, he's all of that. He's the whole package. Could have been in 50 Shades quite easily.
And Boris "Boris" Johnson is NOT objectively speaking a physically attractive man, regardless of blond locks and high muscle/fat ratio. He laughs them into bed (or voting Conservative) with his comedy.
Yes. My other half (a woman of great discernment, naturally) finds Boris physically repulsive, and whenever he appears on TV makes strange, slightly disconcerting, noises of disgust. Not a fan of his politics either, mind you.
My wife, a shire Tory of a similar age to Johnson, finds him particularly unattractive. She found both Brown and Hague alluring. She had no particular view on Blair, Corbyn, Howard, Milliband or Cameron's appearance. She did think May a shape shifting lizard.
Are you trying to wind people up.. Brown alluring?? You gotta be joking.. seriously it has to be a joke...
He was involved with a Romania princess at one point.
Manchester United have confirmed they have re-signed Cristiano Ronaldo from Juventus.
Why? Are they really going to deny Greenwood game time for Ronnie?
I don't understand the signing at all...screams of nostalgia more than anything. Greenwood, Sancho, Rashford, Martial, James, etc....
They just spent £100m on Sancho, who is a younger Ronaldo.
I suspect it makes good commercial sense if not pure footbal sense.
Perhaps. They are paying £13m as a transfer, call it £20m after agent fees etc. Then what another £30m in wages for a couple of years?
Call £50m for 2 years of past his prime Ronaldo. But then Ben White costs you that in transfer alone and nobody is going to Arsenal, buying a shirt etc, just to watch Ben White.
Agent fees are an abomination. The FA should say that clubs paying them will be fined. Twice the amount of the paid fee.
Perhaps I should become an Imam and tell the masses what is permissible in Islam.
Islamic rules of jurisprudence pretty much allow any Muslim man to become an Imam, and as you all know I'm a very good Muslim.
I don't doubt you could get away with it, but do you think if you did become an Imam and then your TSE identity were discovered along with your glibly expressed association to Islam here - could that get you in trouble?
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
The idea his pets took precedent over people is absurd, but do not underestimate the Brits love for animals surreal as it may seem in these circumstances
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
With all due respect, only one recent Prime Minister can genuinely claim to have been a rock star: step forward the lead singer and guitarist of the band Ugly Rumours.
A wannabe rock star, to be more precise. When he found he didn't have the talent for that, he had to make do with becoming PM instead.
Anecdote: My wife used to work with one of the other Ugly Rumours.
Who was it who said politics is show biz for ugly people?
Up to a point, rarely do ugly party leaders win elections, though you can certainly have ugly backbenchers and Cabinet members.
A bit like you can have ugly character actors or drummers but rarely do you get an ugly leading man or woman or lead singer
Interesting point. I was going to suggest that Gordon Brown was a bit of a minger, but then remembered he didn't win. Harold Wilson was pretty ugly, and going further back you have Alec Douglas Home (not sure whether he won?).
Maybe you have something here. Perhaps the PM that wins is normally the better looking:
Puppy eyes Johnson v Corbyn (Corbyn def a minger) Cameron v Miliband (Miliband looks a bit wierd) Cameron v Brown (Brown is a minger) Blair v Major (Major not really a minger, but Blair better looking than Major) Major v Kinnock (Kinnoch a bit of a minger) Thatcher v Kinnoch (see above) Thatcher v Foot (Foot def minger)
PB.com: the home of sophisticated political debate.
And incredibly off beam.
In no way is Gordon Brown a "minger" ffs! Dark, brooding, brooding, dark, he's all of that. He's the whole package. Could have been in 50 Shades quite easily.
And Boris "Boris" Johnson is NOT objectively speaking a physically attractive man, regardless of blond locks and high muscle/fat ratio. He laughs them into bed (or voting Conservative) with his comedy.
Yes. My other half (a woman of great discernment, naturally) finds Boris physically repulsive, and whenever he appears on TV makes strange, slightly disconcerting, noises of disgust. Not a fan of his politics either, mind you.
My wife, a shire Tory of a similar age to Johnson, finds him particularly unattractive. She found both Brown and Hague alluring. She had no particular view on Blair, Corbyn, Howard, Milliband or Cameron's appearance. She did think May a shape shifting lizard.
Are you trying to wind people up.. Brown alluring?? You gotta be joking.. seriously it has to be a joke...
The fact that the portly Brown doesn't float your boat, yet the portly Johnson does is your business mate!
Don't forget beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To my wife Johnson is a lard-arse. There may be ladies out there, maybe at random, a Pole- Dancer, a Dog Lover or even a Russian Violinist who find him attractive. Unlikely I know, but then you never know.
On topic, Labour will be as easy to demonise under Starmer as they were under Miliband.
Their economic offering remains one of piling more public sector spending onto the private sector than the private sector can bear. It always ends in tears....
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
With all due respect, only one recent Prime Minister can genuinely claim to have been a rock star: step forward the lead singer and guitarist of the band Ugly Rumours.
A wannabe rock star, to be more precise. When he found he didn't have the talent for that, he had to make do with becoming PM instead.
Anecdote: My wife used to work with one of the other Ugly Rumours.
Who was it who said politics is show biz for ugly people?
Up to a point, rarely do ugly party leaders win elections, though you can certainly have ugly backbenchers and Cabinet members.
A bit like you can have ugly character actors or drummers but rarely do you get an ugly leading man or woman or lead singer
Interesting point. I was going to suggest that Gordon Brown was a bit of a minger, but then remembered he didn't win. Harold Wilson was pretty ugly, and going further back you have Alec Douglas Home (not sure whether he won?).
Maybe you have something here. Perhaps the PM that wins is normally the better looking:
Puppy eyes Johnson v Corbyn (Corbyn def a minger) Cameron v Miliband (Miliband looks a bit wierd) Cameron v Brown (Brown is a minger) Blair v Major (Major not really a minger, but Blair better looking than Major) Major v Kinnock (Kinnoch a bit of a minger) Thatcher v Kinnoch (see above) Thatcher v Foot (Foot def minger)
PB.com: the home of sophisticated political debate.
And incredibly off beam.
In no way is Gordon Brown a "minger" ffs! Dark, brooding, brooding, dark, he's all of that. He's the whole package. Could have been in 50 Shades quite easily.
And Boris "Boris" Johnson is NOT objectively speaking a physically attractive man, regardless of blond locks and high muscle/fat ratio. He laughs them into bed (or voting Conservative) with his comedy.
Yes. My other half (a woman of great discernment, naturally) finds Boris physically repulsive, and whenever he appears on TV makes strange, slightly disconcerting, noises of disgust. Not a fan of his politics either, mind you.
My wife, a shire Tory of a similar age to Johnson, finds him particularly unattractive. She found both Brown and Hague alluring. She had no particular view on Blair, Corbyn, Howard, Milliband or Cameron's appearance. She did think May a shape shifting lizard.
Are you trying to wind people up.. Brown alluring?? You gotta be joking.. seriously it has to be a joke...
He was involved with a Romania princess at one point.
Power.. ?? Certainly not being alluring.. at least, as a guy I can't see it. I thought he was ghastly as a person.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
A long long time ago there was a BBC play called I think 'The March'. iirc thousands, maybe tens of thousands had marched from Africa to UK to escape some catastrophe. I have a vague memory that one of the marchers says at one point - we could be like your cats, just treat us like your cats and that would be enough.
Was that a v controversial play? I think I have heard of it
I remember the trailer for it, where one of the marchers said "we are poor, because you are rich".
Which put me right off it. Because it's such an extraordinary simplification.
On topic, Labour will be as easy to demonise under Starmer as they were under Miliband.
Their economic offering remains one of piling more public sector spending onto the private sector than the private sector can bear. It always ends in tears....
So, not as easier as Corbyn, but a lot more than Blair.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
You're thinking of milspec cargo planes - it would be a civilian type flight ewith the hounds in the lower tier where the baggage normally goes, with people up above as usual.
Any environment a dog can survive, so can a human.
I'm not sure that's technically true. Some small spaces would require the human to be cut up to fit in.
Some smaller spaces would require the dog to be cut up to fit in. But it’s not a healthy way to go.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
If the chartered flight could have taken people out instead of the semi-feral animals, then it should have taken people out. (I know it took some people out; if it could have taken more without the animals, then it should have left the animals.)
There are many questions over this. How many of the 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons eligible wanted to leave; the BBC said earlier that not all did. What were the limiting factors in getting everyone who wanted to get out, out? Landing slots? Processing people? Did the charter flight get any special considerations wrt landing slot? Did the people from the charity and their associates get any special processing?
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
The idea his pets took precedent over people is absurd, but do not underestimate the Brits love for animals surreal as it may seem in these circumstances
And I expect many on here are shocked at the result of this poll
Mind you my father used to say the more he saw of people, the more he liked his dog
Doubt whether folk were thinking of slugs, wasps and mosquitos.
Technical point - are they animals
They aren't plants or fungi. So yes.
You missed out protists and monera.
They aren't those either. Key tests for "animals are as important as people" folk. Do they eat them? Do they do all they can to avoid killing them? That includes mozzies, snails, wasps, rats and others we don't naturally warm to. Do they rescue them when drowning? If not then they aren't as important. However much they love their cat, dog or rabbit.
On topic, Labour will be as easy to demonise under Starmer as they were under Miliband.
Their economic offering remains one of piling more public sector spending onto the private sector than the private sector can bear. It always ends in tears....
Unlike Johnsonians who set up or get their friends and family to set up private enterprises and get the public purse to pay those enterprises.
That might be a wizard wheeze wearing thin by 2024.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
A long long time ago there was a BBC play called I think 'The March'. iirc thousands, maybe tens of thousands had marched from Africa to UK to escape some catastrophe. I have a vague memory that one of the marchers says at one point - we could be like your cats, just treat us like your cats and that would be enough.
Was that a v controversial play? I think I have heard of it
I remember the trailer for it, where one of the marchers said "we are poor, because you are rich".
Which put me right off it. Because it's such an extraordinary simplification.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
I’d have left the cats, personally.
But fact is, few of the planes have been leaving full, as the challenge seems to be getting to the airport rather than onto a plane. And the life chances of the pets had they remained were surely shorter than those of most (but not all) of the humans.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
A long long time ago there was a BBC play called I think 'The March'. iirc thousands, maybe tens of thousands had marched from Africa to UK to escape some catastrophe. I have a vague memory that one of the marchers says at one point - we could be like your cats, just treat us like your cats and that would be enough.
Was that a v controversial play? I think I have heard of it
I remember the trailer for it, where one of the marchers said "we are poor, because you are rich".
Which put me right off it. Because it's such an extraordinary simplification.
Easier to chant than a whole chapter by Adam Smith, Keynes or Piketty though.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
People are starving in Afghanistan. And you support flying out their dinner?
We could solve the problem of starving Afghanis and feral dogs at the same time...
We could strike a Meal Deal with the Taliban.
Seriously, could the bad optics here, rather than be next weeks chips wrapper go down into Urban Folklore? Anyone who aided our war as contractor, never imagining this would come about, who is still there now live in fear of a knock on the door? We have scattered some of their names and addresses around the floor of the embassy for good measure. And, as Topping put it, are they outside in the sewer, watching a plane of cats fly to safety?
We're told by Farage and co that we're fed up of politicians that are born to rule, never had a proper job etc.
Starmer has, he really should lean into that.
A Human Rights lawyer. I wouldn't if I were him
One of the biggest myths out there is that there is an entire separate category of “human rights” lawyers. All us lawyers are human rights lawyers. We all deal with rights, mostly rights that belong to humans (some deal with rights that belong to corporations too) including rights to land, right to a fair trial, rights to workplace safety, rights to enforce a contract. We all, at some point, probably have course to refer to the Human Rights Act, some more than others. But no one deals with the HRA in a vacuum. In Starmer’s case he was a criminal defence lawyer, who specialised in the application of the HRA, turned prosecutor.
Oh even better - A criminal defence lawyer, specialising in Human Rights. Yes, that will resonate with the lads down the pub "At least he's had a proper job like us"
Yeah that Boris Johnson. King's Scholar at Eton- just like Ted who's getting the beers in right now. What characters.
Perhaps so, but he’s already won people over
Absolutely. He is a rock star. But that is because of who he is and his personality, not because of his previous incarnations.
SKS has had a charisma bypass. Lawyer or not lawyer that is the root of the problem.
With all due respect, only one recent Prime Minister can genuinely claim to have been a rock star: step forward the lead singer and guitarist of the band Ugly Rumours.
A wannabe rock star, to be more precise. When he found he didn't have the talent for that, he had to make do with becoming PM instead.
Anecdote: My wife used to work with one of the other Ugly Rumours.
Who was it who said politics is show biz for ugly people?
Up to a point, rarely do ugly party leaders win elections, though you can certainly have ugly backbenchers and Cabinet members.
A bit like you can have ugly character actors or drummers but rarely do you get an ugly leading man or woman or lead singer
Interesting point. I was going to suggest that Gordon Brown was a bit of a minger, but then remembered he didn't win. Harold Wilson was pretty ugly, and going further back you have Alec Douglas Home (not sure whether he won?).
Maybe you have something here. Perhaps the PM that wins is normally the better looking:
Puppy eyes Johnson v Corbyn (Corbyn def a minger) Cameron v Miliband (Miliband looks a bit wierd) Cameron v Brown (Brown is a minger) Blair v Major (Major not really a minger, but Blair better looking than Major) Major v Kinnock (Kinnoch a bit of a minger) Thatcher v Kinnoch (see above) Thatcher v Foot (Foot def minger)
PB.com: the home of sophisticated political debate.
And incredibly off beam.
In no way is Gordon Brown a "minger" ffs! Dark, brooding, brooding, dark, he's all of that. He's the whole package. Could have been in 50 Shades quite easily.
And Boris "Boris" Johnson is NOT objectively speaking a physically attractive man, regardless of blond locks and high muscle/fat ratio. He laughs them into bed (or voting Conservative) with his comedy.
Yes. My other half (a woman of great discernment, naturally) finds Boris physically repulsive, and whenever he appears on TV makes strange, slightly disconcerting, noises of disgust. Not a fan of his politics either, mind you.
My wife, a shire Tory of a similar age to Johnson, finds him particularly unattractive. She found both Brown and Hague alluring. She had no particular view on Blair, Corbyn, Howard, Milliband or Cameron's appearance. She did think May a shape shifting lizard.
Are you trying to wind people up.. Brown alluring?? You gotta be joking.. seriously it has to be a joke...
Brown's physical appeal is a generally acknowledged fact. I think you’re allowing political bias to creep in.
On topic, Labour will be as easy to demonise under Starmer as they were under Miliband.
Their economic offering remains one of piling more public sector spending onto the private sector than the private sector can bear. It always ends in tears....
Demonisation always occurs, but the question is how effective it will be. The buffer the Tories hold mean it need not be that effective to still work.
Perhaps I should become an Imam and tell the masses what is permissible in Islam.
Islamic rules of jurisprudence pretty much allow any Muslim man to become an Imam, and as you all know I'm a very good Muslim.
I will convert for long enough to hear at least one prayer session you lead.
I will declare supporting Manchester United haram and will be issues fatwas left, right, and centre to those who don't renounce their support for Manchester United.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
A plane which could have carried people, carried a load of fucking cats and dogs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarrassing myself. It was his chartered plane that went there in addition to the planes that were being used.
What should have been done? Told him that despite chartering his own plane that it was being commandeered and he couldn't use it as chartered for afterall?
He was told he wouldn't be assisted to get the animals out but if he chartered his own plane they could be - he did so - that's fair enough isn't it?
Fucking horrible. Just as well we're leaving. Afghanis on the airport perimeter looking as a plane of cats takes off to safety.
A long long time ago there was a BBC play called I think 'The March'. iirc thousands, maybe tens of thousands had marched from Africa to UK to escape some catastrophe. I have a vague memory that one of the marchers says at one point - we could be like your cats, just treat us like your cats and that would be enough.
Was that a v controversial play? I think I have heard of it
I remember the trailer for it, where one of the marchers said "we are poor, because you are rich".
Which put me right off it. Because it's such an extraordinary simplification.
Easier to chant than a whole chapter by Adam Smith, Keynes or Piketty though.
Ah, but Ricardo would be OK. He's pretty readable.
Pen Farthing and his pets were assisted through the system at Kabul airport by the UK Armed Forces. They are currently being supported while he awaits transportation. ..... On the direction of the Defence Secretary, clearance for their charter flight has been sponsored by the UK Government.
Doggies or darkies. Always a difficult, and I think fundamentally a personal, choice.
"The UK has entered the final stages of its Kabul evacuation and no more people will be called to the airport to leave, the Ministry of Defence says.
The MoD said processing facilities at the Baron Hotel, outside the capital's airport, had been closed.
The defence secretary expressed "deep regret" that not everyone eligible had been evacuated, including around 800 to 1,100 Afghans and 100 to 150 Britons."
BBC
No dogs were prioritised over people.
Farthing was told if he could charter his own flight then he could take his anmials out. He did.
Should his chartered flight have been turned away?
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said supporters of Pen Farthing, a charity worker trying to evacuate animals from Afghanistan, have “taken up too much time” of the senior commanders dealing with the humanitarian crisis
On topic, Labour will be as easy to demonise under Starmer as they were under Miliband.
Their economic offering remains one of piling more public sector spending onto the private sector than the private sector can bear. It always ends in tears....
No chance of Labour having any lefty economic policy just like that. The current government already doing it 😄
Comments
And there will be many millions in shirt sales and sponsorship
It can range from £250 from the local council, through subsidised use of publicly (or charity) owned theatre spaces, right through to a £10m cheque from the Arts Council.
My money is on "yes", they have received grant money.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1431249017044865029
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1431311307660267524?s=19
You can almost hear the grinding of gritted teeth. I wonder if the second tweet means the civil servants asked for a formal direction (which is what you do when asked to do something obviously mad).
Edit: a friend's aunt bred the things (the latter I mean). (He always maintained they were baby substitutes. Bit IANAE.)
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1431283018853928970?s=19
Between leaving the EU and the pandemic, the Johnson Government has had a pretty busy first couple of years (and 18 months since the GE victory). If I've learnt nothing else, it's rarely the big things which impact but the small things - the gaffes which become scandals and can lead to a Ministerial resignation.
Apart from looking like they are in control of events, the only other things a Government needs to do is to look competent and look as though it will deliver something for those who voted for it. This is why any attempt to scale back on the levelling up agenda is politically risky.
As life returns to normal and we've seen some signs of it since July 19th, concerns other than whether there'll be another outbreak of coronavirus will come to the fore. The post-pandemic economy may enjoy a period of extreme growth as, to paraphrase Mr Bulsara, "we want it all and we want it now".
The sudden but widely expected release of consumption and money into the economy will have impacts and has exposed some issues in both the supply chain and especially the labour market. How and whether these will become bigger issues in the next 12-24 months remains to be seen.
"It's the economy, stupid" as someone wisely opined and you won't go far wrong speculating the next election will be won and lost on whether people feel materially and economically secure.
The other side of that is whether, in the Opposition, enough people see a positive and attractive vision of the future. This was the card Boris played in 2019 - it won't be so easy for him to play it again next time. There will quite rightly be scrutiny of the Government's record (not just on Covid) and excuses made for promises not delivered (primarily Covid),
We know next to nothing about Starmer's vision of mid to late 2020s Britain. He's no Corbyn - he lacks the left-wing charisma but he's also a figure to whom more in the centre will be willing to give a fair hearing.
We also know next to nothing about Johnson's vision of mid to late 2020s Britain - what does a second term look like in terms of key policy areas and principles?
Best outcome is this arsewipe gets his collar felt for flying his animals in inhumane conditions.
Human lives v Animal lives
And I expect many on here are shocked at the result of this poll
Mind you my father used to say the more he saw of people, the more he liked his dog
https://www.twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1431297919399993347
I would not have expected the animals lives to be considered the same as human lives at 40% and even 3% consider they are worth more
To call them “pets” is an “ignorant insult”… apparently.
But sometimes, wise popular government is about explaining to the public why what they want shouldn't happen.
Unless you go one step higher and you are at Carrie level.
The Taliban wouldn't allow eating of Pen Farthing's pets.
Islamic rules of jurisprudence pretty much allow any Muslim man to become an Imam, and as you all know I'm a very good Muslim.
Ydoethur will love this thread as well.
Twenty point Tory lead in the bag.
Indeed, I know far more of them, than people who boast of having an abortion. (n=0)
Verified by a bbc correspondent.
The question should really be: do you value an animal's life over *your* life?
"I don't happen to think that trans rights impact the rights of women at all, I see very little evidence that this is the case."
You are quite wrong on this and the following court judgment makes this clear.
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1746.html&query=(4198/2019
The case was a judicial review brought by a female prisoner who was raped in prison by a man who claimed to be a woman but did not have a gender reassignment certificate and who had taken no steps to transition. So in all physical respects a man.
The court ruled that the Prison Service had to balance the rights of women and those of men claiming to be women. It accepted that this particular woman and other women had justified and reasonable fears of being sexually assaulted. It also accepted that if men claiming to be women were put into women's prisons there was a risk to women and that therefore the rights of transwomen would be at the expense of women's rights ie their right to have a prison only for women as well as the even more important right not to be put at risks of a serious sexual assault, an assault which actually happened.
The judge said that the Prison Service had to come up with a policy which took account of these competing rights. It declined the applicants' claim because it said that the Prison service's policy was capable of being lawful. But an assessment of risk needs to be made - and in different circumstances and with different facts - a policy of allowing men into women's' spaces would not be lawful.
The important thing about this judgment is that it makes clear that these rights are a pie - if biological men get access to women only spaces then women lose the right to have women only spaces. And they do so even if that means that they are real risk of sexual assault. Women must pay the price of allowing someone who is in all respects a man to say that he feels he is a woman, without even the bother of getting a medical diagnosis, let alone taking any steps to transition.
And what a price that is - rape or the fear of it.
What the actual fuck! Woman have to risk rape to assuage men's feelings. Well, fuck that, frankly.
Yes I feel strongly about this.
As I have been boring on ad nauseam, the reason why women need and want women only spaces is because of the risk that men present. Not all men obviously. But you know what, men don't come with an identifying mark saying "Threat" or "No threat". We can't tell the difference so when we are undressing or in a loo or a girl in school going through her first periods or in a women's refuge or seeking help from a rape counsellor or in a prison or in some other place where we are vulnerable (more so than normal), we don't want men in there.
And the reason I have picked all these examples is because in all these cases there are trans rights activists and some daft politicians (especially in Scotland) who are saying that biological men should have access to such places and that women should lose the right, for instance, to have a female counsellor after rape.
I am furious about this. And sick of hearing men tell women who they are and how they should behave and that our fears and concerns are of no consequence by comparison with the feelings of some men who, frankly, need proper medical advice and help not to be used by activists in what feels like a bullying campaign against women and their hard-won sex-based rights.
It was particularly funny when we had the discussion in front of his girlfriend, and he made it clear she was not an exception ...
Edit: I'd also say that when I was a teenager in the 1980s, similar things were said about gay men. "They go cottaging in public toilets! Kids aren't safe!"
Since then, the majority of society have thankfully got over it.
Don't forget beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To my wife Johnson is a lard-arse. There may be ladies out there, maybe at random, a Pole- Dancer, a Dog Lover or even a Russian Violinist who find him attractive. Unlikely I know, but then you never know.
Their economic offering remains one of piling more public sector spending onto the private sector than the private sector can bear. It always ends in tears....
Which put me right off it. Because it's such an extraordinary simplification.
Key tests for "animals are as important as people" folk.
Do they eat them?
Do they do all they can to avoid killing them? That includes mozzies, snails, wasps, rats and others we don't naturally warm to. Do they rescue them when drowning?
If not then they aren't as important. However much they love their cat, dog or rabbit.
That might be a wizard wheeze wearing thin by 2024.
And got the quote right
But fact is, few of the planes have been leaving full, as the challenge seems to be getting to the airport rather than onto a plane. And the life chances of the pets had they remained were surely shorter than those of most (but not all) of the humans.
Seriously, could the bad optics here, rather than be next weeks chips wrapper go down into Urban Folklore? Anyone who aided our war as contractor, never imagining this would come about, who is still there now live in fear of a knock on the door? We have scattered some of their names and addresses around the floor of the embassy for good measure. And, as Topping put it, are they outside in the sewer, watching a plane of cats fly to safety?
😕
https://twitter.com/ryanobles/status/1431283777809100813?s=19
In that way, Islam is a little bit like some of the more hardcore Radiohead fan groups.
Impossible things before breakfast brigade.