Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Sir Graham said one MP 'several years ago' - which implies Cameron not May could well have been PM at the time - claimed publicly to have submitted a letter but didn't. Yet that is now being taken as implying that is the case in this instance?
I do find the whole process very odd - that one person (and not even their Deputies) - knows how many letters have been submitted and where they are kept.
How are they (or can they be) submitted - by hand, email, signed for post? Where are they kept? Does Sir Graham acknowledge receipt by letter or email or text What happens if there is a miscommunication if the previous point does not apply What happens if the Chair of the 1922 Committee falls ill, is on holiday or even say has undiagnosed dementia and forgets where they are.
I sort of assumed one or more of his Deputies would be in the loop for this reason - it almost seems like the Tories have not actually moved on much from 1922 in terms of this process. All down to one person with no separate record?
It does seem like the most antiquated system. I guess the thing is a) this happens rarely and b) when it does, normally the swell of discontent is so large you aren't worrying about if it is 47, 47.5 or 48 (or equivalent required amounts), it is more concern if you will pull your back out lifting the mail sack as there are so many letters.
47.5? Has Boris sent one of no confidence and one of confidence, or just one where he can't make his mind up?
Its the equivalent of a hanging chad in Florida...
I think Boris is more into pregnant chads...
"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment"
Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Who do we know who makes rash promises that they can't keep, regrets them, wobbles and then caves in in the most incompetent imaginable way?
I'm sure we can all think of some candidates for this role :🤔
Saying you have submitted a letter when you have not is not a 'rash-promise' - it's a lie, plain and simple.
True, O Cophetua. How about this:
Who do we know who makes rash promises that they can't keeptells blatant lies, regrets them, wobbles and then caves in in claims something different in the most incompetent and dishonest way imaginable?🤔
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
They have really been doing a number on her. It was a few news cycles ago, but they had her on the Daily Politics or some such show. Isabelle Oakshott was on as well. They managed to completely prevent Cadwalladr making her points though she battled on pluckily. (I was drive to Google to find out what she had been proposing.) A few days later there were stories going around on social media that she had been reduced to tears by the . Having watched the programme I found that highly unlikely.
I have no way of independently checking the facts behind the story she has put into the public domain. But the way she is being personally attacked makes me inclined to believe it.
Well other than the continuous retracted / corrections to her stories by the Guardian / Observer, they have just had an independent investigation, and found a central claim was not true.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
Yes. The Brexiters have been trying to smear and malign Carole since day one. Even some of the outriders on here have gone along with it.
Brexit is nasty, among its other sins.
And she has been doing a lot of front page scoops - followed by retractions the next week on page 35 of the Observer (i.e. smears and claims she makes but can't always back up). Maybe she needs a break too from fighting the last referendum. If there is a second vote I don't know how she will cope with the excitement of another 3 years of stories.
In the end the official remain campaign spent £5 million more than the leave campaign and that excludes Cameron's £10m leaflet to every household. Remain was backed by the CBI, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Ryanair and big business generally, the TUC, all the main UK parties and their infrastructure bar UKIP, Obama, Merkel, the IMF, World Bank, the EU etc etc. Poor diddums!
Maybe its just time to move on - cos despite all those big backers Remain still lost. And it wasn't down to the Russians, twitter, Aaron Banks or marginal offshoots of the unofficial leave campaigns. Its for the same reason Corbyn did so well last year - because many people aren't happy with the system and the hand it is dealing them and their kids. And the referendum was the first time many Brits in safe seats had a meaningful vote to make a statement. And many did.
The 2016 referendum is done - and her endless Observer front pages are just getting a bit boring now.
Presumably the Okies want to flog us hormone beef?
Perhaps they are a good market for our innovative jams.
If you talk to financial services companies operating in the US (particularly insurance) then one of their biggest frustrations is the state level regulation.
Presumably recognition of UK regulation by a state would be good thing.
The thing about the letters I’ve never understood is that apparently they don’t lapse. It seems to me that if, say, 6 months passes it should be deemed lapsed and you should have to resubmit if you’re still unhappy. Do they lapse at general elections or are they valid throughout a leaders tenure?
McD is in this week's Newstatesman, in his new role as sensible provincial bank manager, making the case for no tax rises for working people. Beefing up his defence of not changing tory tax personal allowances for example.
Only the top 5% will pay more under Corbyn's government. He spells out the reality that to win, they must reach out to people and not scare them including middling types like school heads and senior police. A "universalist" policy he calls it.
Talk about pragmatism. Could have been written by New Labour to be honest.
I think he closes his eyes and sees that tax bombshell advert just waiting for them.
I don't share his politics, but I find him quite an impressive operator. I suspect that this is phase one of a plan which will make a lot more sense when we get to the next general election.
I agree. I suspect he has privately decided that a second referendum is inevitable - he has begun to refer in public to the possibility of a "people's vote" which, of course, is the language of those promoting the idea. He probably realises that if there is a second referendum the Tories will collapse and Labour will come to power in any case, so there is really very little difference from Labour's point of view between a general election and second referendum. Both are likely to result in a Labour government.
The news cycle being led by the former Brexit Secretary saying the PM "has not stood up to the EUs bullies" is toxic to Theresa.
The one that only just worked out we're an island?
That one?
If you look at his actual comment
“We are, and I hadn't quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and if you look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.”
I don’t understand the problem with this - do we expect every politician to understand everything about everything - surely not. It is clear he understands we live on an island. He holds plenty of views you could legitimately criticise him for
Was he genuinely surprised that goods hauliers chose the shortest and fastest Channel crossing? Are you?
He said he hadn't appreciated the "full extent".
If someone asked we, I'd guess that Dover-Calais would account for 80% of our trade.
If the actual answer was 95% (I have no idea) then I wouldn't have appreciated "the full extent" to which we were dependent. But I would have appreciated the importance of the link.
The news cycle being led by the former Brexit Secretary saying the PM "has not stood up to the EUs bullies" is toxic to Theresa.
The one that only just worked out we're an island?
That one?
If you look at his actual comment
“We are, and I hadn't quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and if you look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.”
I don’t understand the problem with this - do we expect every politician to understand everything about everything - surely not. It is clear he understands we live on an island. He holds plenty of views you could legitimately criticise him for
Was he genuinely surprised that goods hauliers chose the shortest and fastest Channel crossing? Are you?
He said he hadn't appreciated the "full extent".
If someone asked we, I'd guess that Dover-Calais would account for 80% of our trade.
If the actual answer was 95% (I have no idea) then I wouldn't have appreciated "the full extent" to which we were dependent. But I would have appreciated the importance of the link.
It's actually 17% of our trade in goods, although that would be (without checking) about 40% of our trade with Europe. 2.6 million lorries or roughly 8,000 each working day.
Paddy Power taking accepting a ten thousand pound bet. I mean really.
A COUSIN of England ace Daniel Sturridge placed a £10,000 bet on him quitting Liverpool.
The Sun can reveal the close relative put the huge wager on the striker moving to Inter Milan.
At the time it was placed on January 17 this year, it was not clear which club Sturridge was joining — and would have netted a massive £27,000 payout.
The family bet will now form a key part of the FA’s investigation into whether the £100,000-a-week player broke strict betting rules. He is charged with misconduct.
Sturridge’s move to the Italian club collapsed at the 11th hour, sparking a feud between members of the star’s family, who had apparently promised to help fund the stake.
The row became so heated the cousin was forced to provide proof he had placed the bet with bookies Paddy Power.
The news cycle being led by the former Brexit Secretary saying the PM "has not stood up to the EUs bullies" is toxic to Theresa.
The one that only just worked out we're an island?
That one?
If you look at his actual comment
“We are, and I hadn't quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and if you look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.”
I don’t understand the problem with this - do we expect every politician to understand everything about everything - surely not. It is clear he understands we live on an island. He holds plenty of views you could legitimately criticise him for
Was he genuinely surprised that goods hauliers chose the shortest and fastest Channel crossing? Are you?
He said he hadn't appreciated the "full extent".
If someone asked we, I'd guess that Dover-Calais would account for 80% of our trade.
If the actual answer was 95% (I have no idea) then I wouldn't have appreciated "the full extent" to which we were dependent. But I would have appreciated the importance of the link.
It's actually 17% of our trade in goods, although that would be (without checking) about 40% of our trade with Europe. 2.6 million lorries or roughly 8,000 each working day.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
Yes. The Brexiters have been trying to smear and malign Carole since day one. Even some of the outriders on here have gone along with it.
Brexit is nasty, among its other sins.
And she has been doing a lot of front page scoops - followed by retractions the next week on page 35 of the Observer (i.e. smears and claims she makes but can't always back up). Maybe she needs a break too from fighting the last referendum. If there is a second vote I don't know how she will cope with the excitement of another 3 years of stories.
In the end the official remain campaign spent £5 million more than the leave campaign and that excludes Cameron's £10m leaflet to every household. Remain was backed by the CBI, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Ryanair and big business generally, the TUC, all the main UK parties and their infrastructure bar UKIP, Obama, Merkel, the IMF, World Bank, the EU etc etc. Poor diddums!
Maybe its just time to move on - cos despite all those big backers Remain still lost. And it wasn't down to the Russians, twitter, Aaron Banks or marginal offshoots of the unofficial leave campaigns. Its for the same reason Corbyn did so well last year - because many people aren't happy with the system and the hand it is dealing them and their kids. And the referendum was the first time many Brits in safe seats had a meaningful vote to make a statement. And many did.
The 2016 referendum is done - and her endless Observer front pages are just getting a bit boring now.
Actually, the central allegations have seen Cambridge Analytica closed, Facebook shares down, Aaron Banks under investigation by the National Crime Agency, and a lingering bad smell around Leave’s links with Bannon and the Russians.
Meanwhile, Cadwalladr has won both the Orwell Prize and the L’esprit de RSF from Reporters Without Borders this year.
Of course this is all highly inconvenient for those who paint Brexit as some kind of People’s Revolution.
The news cycle being led by the former Brexit Secretary saying the PM "has not stood up to the EUs bullies" is toxic to Theresa.
The one that only just worked out we're an island?
That one?
If you look at his actual comment
“We are, and I hadn't quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and if you look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.”
I don’t understand the problem with this - do we expect every politician to understand everything about everything - surely not. It is clear he understands we live on an island. He holds plenty of views you could legitimately criticise him for
Was he genuinely surprised that goods hauliers chose the shortest and fastest Channel crossing? Are you?
He said he hadn't appreciated the "full extent".
If someone asked we, I'd guess that Dover-Calais would account for 80% of our trade.
If the actual answer was 95% (I have no idea) then I wouldn't have appreciated "the full extent" to which we were dependent. But I would have appreciated the importance of the link.
It's actually 17% of our trade in goods, although that would be (without checking) about 40% of our trade with Europe. 2.6 million lorries or roughly 8,000 each working day.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
They have really been doing a number on her. It was a few news cycles ago, but they had her on the Daily Politics or some such show. Isabelle Oakshott was on as well. They managed to completely prevent Cadwalladr making her points though she battled on pluckily. (I was drive to Google to find out what she had been proposing.) A few days later there were stories going around on social media that she had been reduced to tears by the . Having watched the programme I found that highly unlikely.
I have no way of independently checking the facts behind the story she has put into the public domain. But the way she is being personally attacked makes me inclined to believe it.
Well other than the continuous retracted / corrections to her stories by the Guardian / Observer, they have just had an independent investigation, and found a central claim was not true.
While of course you should be sceptical about things on the Guido site there are several examples here. Perhaps they are all false and all her stories and retractions are correct.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
Yes. The Brexiters have been trying to smear and malign Carole since day one. Even some of the outriders on here have gone along with it.
Brexit is nasty, among its other sins.
And she has been doing a lot of front page scoops - followed by retractions the next week on page 35 of the Observer (i.e. smears and claims she makes but can't always back up). Maybe she needs a break too from fighting the last referendum. If there is a second vote I don't know how she will cope with the excitement of another 3 years of stories.
In the end the official remain campaign spent £5 million more than the leave campaign and that excludes Cameron's £10m leaflet to every household. Remain was backed by the CBI, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Ryanair and big business generally, the TUC, all the main UK parties and their infrastructure bar UKIP, Obama, Merkel, the IMF, World Bank, the EU etc etc. Poor diddums!
Maybe its just time to move on - cos despite all those big backers Remain still lost. And it wasn't down to the Russians, twitter, Aaron Banks or marginal offshoots of the unofficial leave campaigns. Its for the same reason Corbyn did so well last year - because many people aren't happy with the system and the hand it is dealing them and their kids. And the referendum was the first time many Brits in safe seats had a meaningful vote to make a statement. And many did.
The 2016 referendum is done - and her endless Observer front pages are just getting a bit boring now.
Actually, the central allegations have seen Cambridge Analytica closed, Facebook shares down, Aaron Banks under investigation by the National Crime Agency, and a lingering bad smell around Leave’s links with Bannon and the Russians.
Meanwhile, Cadwalladr has won both the Orwell Prize and the L’esprit de RSF from Reporters Without Borders this year.
Of course this is all highly inconvenient for those who paint Brexit as some kind of People’s Revolution.
I remember when Julian Assange was being lauded by some as a fearless independent exposer of truth and given awards and uncritical praise from some quarters.
Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Sir Graham said one MP 'several years ago' - which implies Cameron not May could well have been PM at the time - claimed publicly to have submitted a letter but didn't. Yet that is now being taken as implying that is the case in this instance?
I do find the whole process very odd - that one person (and not even their Deputies) - knows how many letters have been submitted and where they are kept.
How are they (or can they be) submitted - by hand, email, signed for post, internal Commons mail? Where are they kept? Does Sir Graham acknowledge receipt by letter or email or text What happens if there is a miscommunication if the previous point does not apply What happens if the Chair of the 1922 Committee falls ill, is on holiday or even say has undiagnosed dementia and forgets where they are.
I sort of assumed one or more of his Deputies would be in the loop for this reason - it almost seems like the Tories have not actually moved on much from 1922 in terms of this process. All down to one person with no separate record?
Oh look, I've just found a dozen more in this drawer.
The news cycle being led by the former Brexit Secretary saying the PM "has not stood up to the EUs bullies" is toxic to Theresa.
The one that only just worked out we're an island?
That one?
If you look at his actual comment
“We are, and I hadn't quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and if you look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.”
I don’t understand the problem with this - do we expect every politician to understand everything about everything - surely not. It is clear he understands we live on an island. He holds plenty of views you could legitimately criticise him for
Was he genuinely surprised that goods hauliers chose the shortest and fastest Channel crossing? Are you?
He said he hadn't appreciated the "full extent".
If someone asked we, I'd guess that Dover-Calais would account for 80% of our trade.
If the actual answer was 95% (I have no idea) then I wouldn't have appreciated "the full extent" to which we were dependent. But I would have appreciated the importance of the link.
Somebody over the past forty years should perhaps have done something to diversify some - to avoid such a potential economic threat. If, for example, we had an outbreak of Foot and Mouth centred around Dover, not sure how we would cope....
Why no buzz around Stephen Barclay for leader? He's the Brexit Secretary for heaven's sake. Certainly he looks the part with his serious yet with a hint of mischief face, his wide shoulders, his rolling confident gait, a physique which speaks of some experience of the gym but without making a fetish of it. The perfect goldilocks age too, neither wizened and old nor callow and young. Just all in all a prime piece of political specimen right there, and with a chance now in cabinet to shine for a week or so and then resign with great fuss and drama on a matter of high principle. Ought to be 10/1 max but I can't even find him quoted.
McD is in this week's Newstatesman, in his new role as sensible provincial bank manager, making the case for no tax rises for working people. Beefing up his defence of not changing tory tax personal allowances for example.
Only the top 5% will pay more under Corbyn's government. He spells out the reality that to win, they must reach out to people and not scare them including middling types like school heads and senior police. A "universalist" policy he calls it.
Talk about pragmatism. Could have been written by New Labour to be honest.
I think he closes his eyes and sees that tax bombshell advert just waiting for them.
I don't share his politics, but I find him quite an impressive operator. I suspect that this is phase one of a plan which will make a lot more sense when we get to the next general election.
I agree. I suspect he has privately decided that a second referendum is inevitable - he has begun to refer in public to the possibility of a "people's vote" which, of course, is the language of those promoting the idea. He probably realises that if there is a second referendum the Tories will collapse and Labour will come to power in any case, so there is really very little difference from Labour's point of view between a general election and second referendum. Both are likely to result in a Labour government.
Indeed. On this issue at least Labour have been been cautious, vague and flexible, and some of them have been better at that than others.
The thing about the letters I’ve never understood is that apparently they don’t lapse. It seems to me that if, say, 6 months passes it should be deemed lapsed and you should have to resubmit if you’re still unhappy. Do they lapse at general elections or are they valid throughout a leaders tenure?
It would seem prudent for Brady to check with anyone who has not submitted one recently.
Why no buzz around Stephen Barclay for leader? He's the Brexit Secretary for heaven's sake. Certainly he looks the part with his serious yet with a hint of mischief face, his wide shoulders, his rolling confident gait, a physique which speaks of some experience of the gym but without making a fetish of it. The perfect goldilocks age too, neither wizened and old nor callow and young. Just all in all a prime piece of political specimen right there, and with a chance now in cabinet to shine for a week or so and then resign with great fuss and drama on a matter of high principle. Ought to be 10/1 max but I can't even find him quoted.
Because the current role of the Brexit Secretary is to count the paperclips?
1. There is nothing new in many of her revelations. The situation with Banks (and others) in particular was known for some time. Some of it was set out on this forum.
2. She has stopped being a journalist and started acting the zealot based on her own prejudices.
3. She is trying to change historical fact, the vote was to exit in a binary referendum. Its called democracy whether you like the result or not.
I voted in favour of getting out of the EU. I have, however, not been behind the door regarding the likes of Banks and Farage and have been as clear as I can be about my problems with them even though some people think my views on them are somewhat harsh and, ridiculously, somehow causing legal jeopardy .
On the other hand, being told that those of us who voted in favour exiting the EU that we are, at the least, dupes at the worst a sack of ignorant racist backwards by the comfy circle of the inhabitants of media and politico land is going to get a two fingered reaction.
Why no buzz around Stephen Barclay for leader? He's the Brexit Secretary for heaven's sake. Certainly he looks the part with his serious yet with a hint of mischief face, his wide shoulders, his rolling confident gait, a physique which speaks of some experience of the gym but without making a fetish of it. The perfect goldilocks age too, neither wizened and old nor callow and young. Just all in all a prime piece of political specimen right there, and with a chance now in cabinet to shine for a week or so and then resign with great fuss and drama on a matter of high principle. Ought to be 10/1 max but I can't even find him quoted.
Oh please, don't mention Stephen Barclay - Sunil will be encouraged to try his totally hilarious play on said MP's surname again.
Why no buzz around Stephen Barclay for leader? He's the Brexit Secretary for heaven's sake. Certainly he looks the part with his serious yet with a hint of mischief face, his wide shoulders, his rolling confident gait, a physique which speaks of some experience of the gym but without making a fetish of it. The perfect goldilocks age too, neither wizened and old nor callow and young. Just all in all a prime piece of political specimen right there, and with a chance now in cabinet to shine for a week or so and then resign with great fuss and drama on a matter of high principle. Ought to be 10/1 max but I can't even find him quoted.
I think everyone was suitably surprised he existed for his appointment that he hasn't had a chance to develop buzz as a potential leader yet. Even Cox got an opportunity to stir the masses with his sonorous oratory to get tipped.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
Yes. The Brexiters have been trying to smear and malign Carole since day one. Even some of the outriders on here have gone along with it.
Brexit is nasty, among its other sins.
And she has been doing a lot of front page scoops - followed by retractions the next week on page 35 of the Observer (i.e. smears and claims she makes but can't always back up). Maybe she needs a break too from fighting the last referendum. If there is a second vote I don't know how she will cope with the excitement of another 3 years of stories.
In the end the official remain campaign spent £5 million more than the leave campaign and that excludes Cameron's £10m leaflet to every household. Remain was backed by the CBI, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Ryanair and big business generally, the TUC, all the main UK parties and their infrastructure bar UKIP, Obama, Merkel, the IMF, World Bank, the EU etc etc. Poor diddums!
Maybe its just time to move on - cos despite all those big backers Remain still lost. And it wasn't down to the Russians, twitter, Aaron Banks or marginal offshoots of the unofficial leave campaigns. Its for the same reason Corbyn did so well last year - because many people aren't happy with the system and the hand it is dealing them and their kids. And the referendum was the first time many Brits in safe seats had a meaningful vote to make a statement. And many did.
The 2016 referendum is done - and her endless Observer front pages are just getting a bit boring now.
Actually, the central allegations have seen Cambridge Analytica closed, Facebook shares down, Aaron Banks under investigation by the National Crime Agency, and a lingering bad smell around Leave’s links with Bannon and the Russians.
Meanwhile, Cadwalladr has won both the Orwell Prize and the L’esprit de RSF from Reporters Without Borders this year.
Of course this is all highly inconvenient for those who paint Brexit as some kind of People’s Revolution.
I remember when Julian Assange was being lauded by some as a fearless independent exposer of truth and given awards and uncritical praise from some quarters.
Yep. Turns out he was batting for your side all along!
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
Yes. The Brexiters have been trying to smear and malign Carole since day one. Even some of the outriders on here have gone along with it.
Brexit is nasty, among its other sins.
And she has been doing a lot of front page scoops - followed by retractions the next week on page 35 of the Observer (i.e. smears and claims she makes but can't always back up). Maybe she needs a break too from fighting the last referendum. If there is a second vote I don't know how she will cope with the excitement of another 3 years of stories.
In the end the official remain campaign spent £5 million more than the leave campaign and that excludes Cameron's £10m leaflet to every household. Remain was backed by the CBI, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Ryanair and big business generally, the TUC, all the main UK parties and their infrastructure bar UKIP, Obama, Merkel, the IMF, World Bank, the EU etc etc. Poor diddums!
Maybe its just time to move on - cos despite all those big backers Remain still lost. And it wasn't down to the Russians, twitter, Aaron Banks or marginal offshoots of the unofficial leave campaigns. Its for the same reason Corbyn did so well last year - because many people aren't happy with the system and the hand it is dealing them and their kids. And the referendum was the first time many Brits in safe seats had a meaningful vote to make a statement. And many did.
The 2016 referendum is done - and her endless Observer front pages are just getting a bit boring now.
Actually, the central allegations have seen Cambridge Analytica closed, Facebook shares down, Aaron Banks under investigation by the National Crime Agency, and a lingering bad smell around Leave’s links with Bannon and the Russians.
Meanwhile, Cadwalladr has won both the Orwell Prize and the L’esprit de RSF from Reporters Without Borders this year.
Of course this is all highly inconvenient for those who paint Brexit as some kind of People’s Revolution.
I remember when Julian Assange was being lauded by some as a fearless independent exposer of truth and given awards and uncritical praise from some quarters.
Yep. Turns out he was batting for your side all along!
Isn't the pont that it was an MP who said he or she had written a letter then withdrawn it, but who had in fact done neither of those things?
Sir Graham said one MP 'several years ago' - which implies Cameron not May could well have been PM at the time - claimed publicly to have submitted a letter but didn't. Yet that is now being taken as implying that is the case in this instance?
I do find the whole process very odd - that one person (and not even their Deputies) - knows how many letters have been submitted and where they are kept.
How are they (or can they be) submitted - by hand, email, signed for post, internal Commons mail? Where are they kept? Does Sir Graham acknowledge receipt by letter or email or text What happens if there is a miscommunication if the previous point does not apply What happens if the Chair of the 1922 Committee falls ill, is on holiday or even say has undiagnosed dementia and forgets where they are.
I sort of assumed one or more of his Deputies would be in the loop for this reason - it almost seems like the Tories have not actually moved on much from 1922 in terms of this process. All down to one person with no separate record?
Oh look, I've just found a dozen more in this drawer.
Perhaps his wife Victoria saw them arrive in the post along with some pizza home delivery leaflets, thought they were junk mail and shredded them?!
I merely find the whole lack of transparency over the process bizarre - a process which could trigger removing our PM. Placing it all entirely in one man's hands - or drawers?
Maybe we should call in Brenda Snipes from Broward county to run the process with Sir Graham?!
Why no buzz around Stephen Barclay for leader? He's the Brexit Secretary for heaven's sake. Certainly he looks the part with his serious yet with a hint of mischief face, his wide shoulders, his rolling confident gait, a physique which speaks of some experience of the gym but without making a fetish of it. The perfect goldilocks age too, neither wizened and old nor callow and young. Just all in all a prime piece of political specimen right there, and with a chance now in cabinet to shine for a week or so and then resign with great fuss and drama on a matter of high principle. Ought to be 10/1 max but I can't even find him quoted.
Many people can't even find him, let alone quoted.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
Yes. The Brexiters have been trying to smear and malign Carole since day one. Even some of the outriders on here have gone along with it.
Brexit is nasty, among its other sins.
And she has been doing a lot of front page scoops - followed by retractions the next week on page 35 of the Observer (i.e. smears and claims she makes but can't always back up). Maybe she needs a break too from fighting the last referendum. If there is a second vote I don't know how she will cope with the excitement of another 3 years of stories.
In the end the official remain campaign spent £5 million more than the leave campaign and that excludes Cameron's £10m leaflet to every household. Remain was backed by the CBI, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Ryanair and big business generally, the TUC, all the main UK parties and their infrastructure bar UKIP, Obama, Merkel, the IMF, World Bank, the EU etc etc. Poor diddums!
Maybe its just time to move on - cos despite all those big backers Remain still lost. And it wasn't down to the Russians, twitter, Aaron Banks or marginal offshoots of the unofficial leave campaigns. Its for the same reason Corbyn did so well last year - because many people aren't happy with the system and the hand it is dealing them and their kids. And the referendum was the first time many Brits in safe seats had a meaningful vote to make a statement. And many did.
The 2016 referendum is done - and her endless Observer front pages are just getting a bit boring now.
Actually, the central allegations have seen Cambridge Analytica closed, Facebook shares down, Aaron Banks under investigation by the National Crime Agency, and a lingering bad smell around Leave’s links with Bannon and the Russians.
Meanwhile, Cadwalladr has won both the Orwell Prize and the L’esprit de RSF from Reporters Without Borders this year.
Of course this is all highly inconvenient for those who paint Brexit as some kind of People’s Revolution.
I remember when Julian Assange was being lauded by some as a fearless independent exposer of truth and given awards and uncritical praise from some quarters.
You mean the 'arbitrarily detained' hero of freedom Julian Assange, surely.
Why no buzz around Stephen Barclay for leader? He's the Brexit Secretary for heaven's sake. Certainly he looks the part with his serious yet with a hint of mischief face, his wide shoulders, his rolling confident gait, a physique which speaks of some experience of the gym but without making a fetish of it. The perfect goldilocks age too, neither wizened and old nor callow and young. Just all in all a prime piece of political specimen right there, and with a chance now in cabinet to shine for a week or so and then resign with great fuss and drama on a matter of high principle. Ought to be 10/1 max but I can't even find him quoted.
Oh please, don't mention Stephen Barclay - Sunil will be encouraged to try his totally hilarious play on said MP's surname again.
Stephen Lloyd will be voting for the deal too, two names May can bank on.
Parliament would have to vote on any referendum and on the question to be asked.
Would it get a majority?
It might. If we accept as truth the claims that parliament will not permit no deal, even the unthinkable with other options, even things outright ruled out before, become possible, even probable, since they have to positively decide on something to prevent no deal by default.
Why no buzz around Stephen Barclay for leader? He's the Brexit Secretary for heaven's sake. Certainly he looks the part with his serious yet with a hint of mischief face, his wide shoulders, his rolling confident gait, a physique which speaks of some experience of the gym but without making a fetish of it. The perfect goldilocks age too, neither wizened and old nor callow and young. Just all in all a prime piece of political specimen right there, and with a chance now in cabinet to shine for a week or so and then resign with great fuss and drama on a matter of high principle. Ought to be 10/1 max but I can't even find him quoted.
Many people can't even find him, let alone quoted.
Unlike my Barclays card he isn't allowed out of the country by Mrs May - in case he tries to negotiate something on Brexit. He is purely a domestic as one might say!
I think Raheem sterling needs hypnotherapy to make him believe that when he plays for England he is actually playing for Man City. He would have 2 goals at least.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
Yes. The Brexiters have been trying to smear and malign Carole since day one. Even some of the outriders on here have gone along with it.
Brexit is nasty, among its other sins.
Leaving aside any personal attacks on her.
Carole seems to have started work from your premise of "Brexit is nasty" and worked from there.
How many retractions and corrections has she had to make now?
BTW - you don't think you are a bit of a hypocrite for complaining about people being smeared when you have tried to smear everyone who voted to leave in this very thread?
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
They have really been doing a number on her. It was a few news cycles ago, but they had her on the Daily Politics or some such show. Isabelle Oakshott was on as well. They managed to completely prevent Cadwalladr making her points though she battled on pluckily. (I was drive to Google to find out what she had been proposing.) A few days later there were stories going around on social media that she had been reduced to tears by the . Having watched the programme I found that highly unlikely.
I have no way of independently checking the facts behind the story she has put into the public domain. But the way she is being personally attacked makes me inclined to believe it.
Well other than the continuous retracted / corrections to her stories by the Guardian / Observer, they have just had an independent investigation, and found a central claim was not true.
Well there you go.
So this is a story about a particular journalist's character rather than a major political donation being made illegally by a foreign country that does not have interests that align with those of the UK.
The published corrections are minor and have no material bearing on the story. But they are continually brought up. Why is that?
1. There is nothing new in many of her revelations. The situation with Banks (and others) in particular was known for some time. Some of it was set out on this forum.
2. She has stopped being a journalist and started acting the zealot based on her own prejudices.
3. She is trying to change historical fact, the vote was to exit in a binary referendum. Its called democracy whether you like the result or not.
I voted in favour of getting out of the EU. I have, however, not been behind the door regarding the likes of Banks and Farage and have been as clear as I can be about my problems with them even though some people think my views on them are somewhat harsh and, ridiculously, somehow causing legal jeopardy .
On the other hand, being told that those of us who voted in favour exiting the EU that we are, at the least, dupes at the worst a sack of ignorant racist backwards by the comfy circle of the inhabitants of media and politico land is going to get a two fingered reaction.
Yes, Putin's little fellow travellers really don't like being exposed, do they?
When a journalist is so abused by politicians, we should take notice. It is what a free press is for.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
They have really been doing a number on her. It was a few news cycles ago, but they had her on the Daily Politics or some such show. Isabelle Oakshott was on as well. They managed to completely prevent Cadwalladr making her points though she battled on pluckily. (I was drive to Google to find out what she had been proposing.) A few days later there were stories going around on social media that she had been reduced to tears by the . Having watched the programme I found that highly unlikely.
I have no way of independently checking the facts behind the story she has put into the public domain. But the way she is being personally attacked makes me inclined to believe it.
Well other than the continuous retracted / corrections to her stories by the Guardian / Observer, they have just had an independent investigation, and found a central claim was not true.
Well there you go.
So this is a story about a particular journalist's character rather than a major political donation being made illegally by a foreign country that does not have interests that align with those of the UK.
The published corrections are minor and have no material bearing on the story. But they are continually brought up. Why is that?
The corrections aren’t all minor and as I say an independent investigation found her central claim on the role of facebook data / ca / vote leave to be false.
The whistleblower she based her story around is incredibly unreliable “witness” who has also been found to have been telling plenty of porkies.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
Yes. The Brexiters have been trying to smear and malign Carole since day one. Even some of the outriders on here have gone along with it.
Brexit is nasty, among its other sins.
And she has been doing a lot of front page scoops - followed by retractions the next week on page 35 of the Observer (i.e. smears and claims she makes but can't always back up). Maybe she needs a break too from fighting the last referendum. If there is a second vote I don't know how she will cope with the excitement of another 3 years of stories.
In the end the official remain campaign spent £5 million more than the leave campaign and that excludes Cameron's £10m leaflet to every household. Remain was backed by the CBI, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Ryanair and big business generally, the TUC, all the main UK parties and their infrastructure bar UKIP, Obama, Merkel, the IMF, World Bank, the EU etc etc. Poor diddums!
Maybe its just time to move on - cos despite all those big backers Remain still lost. And it wasn't down to the Russians, twitter, Aaron Banks or marginal offshoots of the unofficial leave campaigns. Its for the same reason Corbyn did so well last year - because many people aren't happy with the system and the hand it is dealing them and their kids. And the referendum was the first time many Brits in safe seats had a meaningful vote to make a statement. And many did.
The 2016 referendum is done - and her endless Observer front pages are just getting a bit boring now.
Actually, the central allegations have seen Cambridge Analytica closed, Facebook shares down, Aaron Banks under investigation by the National Crime Agency, and a lingering bad smell around Leave’s links with Bannon and the Russians.
Meanwhile, Cadwalladr has won both the Orwell Prize and the L’esprit de RSF from Reporters Without Borders this year.
Of course this is all highly inconvenient for those who paint Brexit as some kind of People’s Revolution.
I remember when Julian Assange was being lauded by some as a fearless independent exposer of truth and given awards and uncritical praise from some quarters.
Yep. Turns out he was batting for your side all along!
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
Yes. The Brexiters have been trying to smear and malign Carole since day one. Even some of the outriders on here have gone along with it.
Brexit is nasty, among its other sins.
And she has been doing a lot of front page scoops - followed by retractions the next week on page 35 of the Observer (i.e. smears and claims she makes but can't always back up). Maybe she needs a break too from fighting the last referendum. If there is a second vote I don't know how she will cope with the excitement of another 3 years of stories.
In the end the official remain campaign spent £5 million more than the leave campaign and that excludes Cameron's £10m leaflet to every household. Remain was backed by the CBI, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Ryanair and big business generally, the TUC, all the main UK parties and their infrastructure bar UKIP, Obama, Merkel, the IMF, World Bank, the EU etc etc. Poor diddums!
Maybe its just time to move on - cos despite all those big backers Remain still lost. And it wasn't down to the Russians, twitter, Aaron Banks or marginal offshoots of the unofficial leave campaigns. Its for the same reason Corbyn did so well last year - because many people aren't happy with the system and the hand it is dealing them and their kids. And the referendum was the first time many Brits in safe seats had a meaningful vote to make a statement. And many did.
The 2016 referendum is done - and her endless Observer front pages are just getting a bit boring now.
Actually, the central allegations have seen Cambridge Analytica closed, Facebook shares down, Aaron Banks under investigation by the National Crime Agency, and a lingering bad smell around Leave’s links with Bannon and the Russians.
Meanwhile, Cadwalladr has won both the Orwell Prize and the L’esprit de RSF from Reporters Without Borders this year.
Of course this is all highly inconvenient for those who paint Brexit as some kind of People’s Revolution.
I remember when Julian Assange was being lauded by some as a fearless independent exposer of truth and given awards and uncritical praise from some quarters.
Yep. Turns out he was batting for your side all along!
Why no buzz around Stephen Barclay for leader? He's the Brexit Secretary for heaven's sake. Certainly he looks the part with his serious yet with a hint of mischief face, his wide shoulders, his rolling confident gait, a physique which speaks of some experience of the gym but without making a fetish of it. The perfect goldilocks age too, neither wizened and old nor callow and young. Just all in all a prime piece of political specimen right there, and with a chance now in cabinet to shine for a week or so and then resign with great fuss and drama on a matter of high principle. Ought to be 10/1 max but I can't even find him quoted.
Many people can't even find him, let alone quoted.
Unlike my Barclays card he isn't allowed out of the country by Mrs May - in case he tries to negotiate something on Brexit. He is purely a domestic as one might say!
Raab on Marr - Boris is not an ally and I support TM and will not be submitting a letter. Warfare in ERG
More like fission in the Tory party. Are they bent on self-destruction ?
I could not care less if the Tories destroy themselves. Just so long as they don’t destroy the country with them.
Me too... But the prospect of PM Corbyn navigating the aftermath of Brexit leaves the second bit in doubt.
The way some Tories are behaving is to make the prospect of Corbyn in power more likely. That fills me with horror. I do not think his instincts are fundamentally liberal or democratic or in favour of freedom. But those Tories behaving like extremist self-indulgent ninnies are behaving like his useful idiots and will bring about what they claim to abhor. They are a disgrace to their party. They are not patriots and they are taking the voters for fools.
Based on both polls last night Corbyn will only be in power having his policies dictated by Sturgeon and Blackford as he will need the SNP for confidence and supply.
Based on Sturgeon's comments on Marr she will demand the UK stays in the single market and the customs union as the price of her support.
So we will move from having a PM being dictated to by Arlene Foster to a PM being dictated to by Nicola Sturgeon
But isn't it already Labour's position to stay in the customs union?
This is really why all Brexits need to be abandoned, via a democratic vote. As an ideology, Brexitry is ultimately backward, irrational, paranoid, revanchist, xenophobic.
Everyone is now complaining about the ERGers.
Yet it was the ERGers who won the referendum in the first place, and they did so with the same platform they continue to campaign on. It is no use being angry and surprised that it has led to trade missions to Oklahoma, “fuck business”, and ignorance about the precise location of Dover. That was all baked in right from the start.
There is no such thing as moderate, sensible Eurosceptism. Eurosceptism is a one way ticket to Nazi tweets and moonbattery.
1. There is nothing new in many of her revelations. The situation with Banks (and others) in particular was known for some time. Some of it was set out on this forum.
2. She has stopped being a journalist and started acting the zealot based on her own prejudices.
3. She is trying to change historical fact, the vote was to exit in a binary referendum. Its called democracy whether you like the result or not.
I voted in favour of getting out of the EU. I have, however, not been behind the door regarding the likes of Banks and Farage and have been as clear as I can be about my problems with them even though some people think my views on them are somewhat harsh and, ridiculously, somehow causing legal jeopardy .
On the other hand, being told that those of us who voted in favour exiting the EU that we are, at the least, dupes at the worst a sack of ignorant racist backwards by the comfy circle of the inhabitants of media and politico land is going to get a two fingered reaction.
Yes, Putin's little fellow travellers really don't like being exposed, do they?
When a journalist is so abused by politicians, we should take notice. It is what a free press is for.
The security services have already provided briefs on the extent of external actor efforts to influence the vote, they know the web of contacts and cut outs who had communication with some prominent figures, the know about cybersphere efforts. They are still going on today.
Not surprisingly the public hasn't heard a peep but its possible they will.
The issue of whether one or other campaign spent a million quid here or there in excess is frankly a non story. The question of foreign attempts to steer in the democratic process is another thing altogether, whether its something overt from nominal friends of the UK (Obama and his back of the queue nonsense) or not so overt measures by outright enemies. I would consider myself a British nationalist. I do not feel in anyway bound by image that such a phrase has got tagged with. By default I'm going to have a problem with external influence/interference. I'm also 100% a liberal who believes in democratic process. I just happen to believe that the nation state is just about the largest truly feasible unifying political entity. Anything supranational is co-operation, not control.
The problem today is that to profess to have both views is apparently impossible, or so we are told because so much of the debate is being run by zealots and idealogues.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
Yes. The Brexiters have been trying to smear and malign Carole since day one. Even some of the outriders on here have gone along with it.
Brexit is nasty, among its other sins.
And she has been doing a lot of front page scoops - followed by retractions the next week on page 35 of the Observer (i.e. smears and claims she makes but can't always back up). Maybe she needs a break too from fighting the last referendum. If there is a second vote I don't know how she will cope with the excitement of another 3 years of stories.
In the end the official remain campaign spent £5 million more than the leave campaign and that excludes Cameron's £10m leaflet to every household. Remain was backed by the CBI, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Ryanair and big business generally, the TUC, all the main UK parties and their infrastructure bar UKIP, Obama, Merkel, the IMF, World Bank, the EU etc etc. Poor diddu
The 2016 referendum is done - and her endless Observer front pages are just getting a bit boring now.
Actually, the central allegations have seen Cambridge Analytica closed, Facebook shares down, Aaron Banks under investigation by the National Crime Agency, and a lingering bad smell around Leave’s links with Bannon and the Russians.
Meanwhile, Cadwalladr has won both the Orwell Prize and the L’esprit de RSF from Reporters Without Borders this year.
Of course this is all highly inconvenient for those who paint Brexit as some kind of People’s Revolution.
I remember when Julian Assange was being lauded by some as a fearless independent exposer of truth and given awards and uncritical praise from some quarters.
Yep. Turns out he was batting for your side all along!
My side? What side is that?
Pro Brexit
I voted remain.....
And now? I apologise if I am suggesting you are a Brexiter and are not.
Hmm. I didn't really appreciate how nasty Brillo's tweet about Carole Cadwalladr was. I assumed that the 'Cat Woman' bit was a reference to the Batman character, but he was actually suggesting she was a childless old spinster who shouldn't be taken seriously. Dark.
Yes. The Brexiters have been trying to smear and malign Carole since day one. Even some of the outriders on here have gone along with it.
Brexit is nasty, among its other sins.
Leaving aside any personal attacks on her.
Carole seems to have started work from your premise of "Brexit is nasty" and worked from there.
How many retractions and corrections has she had to make now?
BTW - you don't think you are a bit of a hypocrite for complaining about people being smeared when you have tried to smear everyone who voted to leave in this very thread?
Not really. I have not “smeared” anyone. Not on this thread, anyway.
Why is it any different in principle from having a constitution which limits the freedom of democratically elected governments to, say, take away or abuse peoples’ human rights?
The EU has sought to set minimum standards of governance which all members must abide by. That seems to me to be a good thing to prevent a cabal who do not believe in such things taking power and ruining a country. There have been some notable examples in Europe, after all.
Nope. It is a massive curtailment of democracy and eventually leads to violence. Once people know their votes are worthless they turn to other means.
You really think that Constitutions are a curtailment of democracy and lead to violence?? Really??
I would consider myself a British nationalist. I do not feel in anyway bound by image that such a phrase has got tagged with. By default I'm going to have a problem with external influence/interference. I'm also 100% a liberal who believes in democratic process. I just happen to believe that the nation state is just about the largest truly feasible unifying political entity. Anything supranational is co-operation, not control.
The problem today is that to profess to have both views is apparently impossible, or so we are told because so much of the debate is being run by zealots and idealogues.
The UK is clearly a supranational political construct and you live amongst people who reject the idea that they are part of a British nation. Unionists of any description voting for Brexit on the basis that they wanted a return to the nation state were like turkeys voting for Christmas.
This is really why all Brexits need to be abandoned, via a democratic vote. As an ideology, Brexitry is ultimately backward, irrational, paranoid, revanchist, xenophobic.
Everyone is now complaining about the ERGers.
Yet it was the ERGers who won the referendum in the first place, and they did so with the same platform they continue to campaign on. It is no use being angry and surprised that it has led to trade missions to Oklahoma, “fuck business”, and ignorance about the precise location of Dover. That was all baked in right from the start.
There is no such thing as moderate, sensible Eurosceptism. Eurosceptism is a one way ticket to Nazi tweets and moonbattery.
Comments
MARK RECKLESS?!!!
In the end the official remain campaign spent £5 million more than the leave campaign and that excludes Cameron's £10m leaflet to every household. Remain was backed by the CBI, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Ryanair and big business generally, the TUC, all the main UK parties and their infrastructure bar UKIP, Obama, Merkel, the IMF, World Bank, the EU etc etc. Poor diddums!
Maybe its just time to move on - cos despite all those big backers Remain still lost. And it wasn't down to the Russians, twitter, Aaron Banks or marginal offshoots of the unofficial leave campaigns. Its for the same reason Corbyn did so well last year - because many people aren't happy with the system and the hand it is dealing them and their kids. And the referendum was the first time many Brits in safe seats had a meaningful vote to make a statement. And many did.
The 2016 referendum is done - and her endless Observer front pages are just getting a bit boring now.
Presumably recognition of UK regulation by a state would be good thing.
If someone asked we, I'd guess that Dover-Calais would account for 80% of our trade.
If the actual answer was 95% (I have no idea) then I wouldn't have appreciated "the full extent" to which we were dependent. But I would have appreciated the importance of the link.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/09/record-number-of-lorries-using-dover-port-raises-fears-of-brexit-delays
Paddy Power taking accepting a ten thousand pound bet. I mean really.
A COUSIN of England ace Daniel Sturridge placed a £10,000 bet on him quitting Liverpool.
The Sun can reveal the close relative put the huge wager on the striker moving to Inter Milan.
At the time it was placed on January 17 this year, it was not clear which club Sturridge was joining — and would have netted a massive £27,000 payout.
The family bet will now form a key part of the FA’s investigation into whether the £100,000-a-week player broke strict betting rules. He is charged with misconduct.
Sturridge’s move to the Italian club collapsed at the 11th hour, sparking a feud between members of the star’s family, who had apparently promised to help fund the stake.
The row became so heated the cousin was forced to provide proof he had placed the bet with bookies Paddy Power.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/7767399/daniel-sturridge-bet-gambling-fa-family/
Meanwhile, Cadwalladr has won both the Orwell Prize and the L’esprit de RSF from Reporters Without Borders this year.
Of course this is all highly inconvenient for those who paint Brexit as some kind of People’s Revolution.
https://order-order.com/people/carole-cadwalladr/
Fair to say Pickford's not even in top two goalkeepers playing in Liverpool.
1. There is nothing new in many of her revelations. The situation with Banks (and others) in particular was known for some time. Some of it was set out on this forum.
2. She has stopped being a journalist and started acting the zealot based on her own prejudices.
3. She is trying to change historical fact, the vote was to exit in a binary referendum. Its called democracy whether you like the result or not.
I voted in favour of getting out of the EU. I have, however, not been behind the door regarding the likes of Banks and Farage and have been as clear as I can be about my problems with them even though some people think my views on them are somewhat harsh and, ridiculously, somehow causing legal jeopardy .
On the other hand, being told that those of us who voted in favour exiting the EU that we are, at the least, dupes at the worst a sack of ignorant racist backwards by the comfy circle of the inhabitants of media and politico land is going to get a two fingered reaction.
I merely find the whole lack of transparency over the process bizarre - a process which could trigger removing our PM. Placing it all entirely in one man's hands - or drawers?
Maybe we should call in Brenda Snipes from Broward county to run the process with Sir Graham?!
Carole seems to have started work from your premise of "Brexit is nasty" and worked from there.
How many retractions and corrections has she had to make now?
BTW - you don't think you are a bit of a hypocrite for complaining about people being smeared when you have tried to smear everyone who voted to leave in this very thread?
So this is a story about a particular journalist's character rather than a major political donation being made illegally by a foreign country that does not have interests that align with those of the UK.
The published corrections are minor and have no material bearing on the story. But they are continually brought up. Why is that?
When a journalist is so abused by politicians, we should take notice. It is what a free press is for.
The whistleblower she based her story around is incredibly unreliable “witness” who has also been found to have been telling plenty of porkies.
NEW THREAD
I'll get my coat.
Not surprisingly the public hasn't heard a peep but its possible they will.
The issue of whether one or other campaign spent a million quid here or there in excess is frankly a non story. The question of foreign attempts to steer in the democratic process is another thing altogether, whether its something overt from nominal friends of the UK (Obama and his back of the queue nonsense) or not so overt measures by outright enemies. I would consider myself a British nationalist. I do not feel in anyway bound by image that such a phrase has got tagged with. By default I'm going to have a problem with external influence/interference. I'm also 100% a liberal who believes in democratic process. I just happen to believe that the nation state is just about the largest truly feasible unifying political entity. Anything supranational is co-operation, not control.
The problem today is that to profess to have both views is apparently impossible, or so we are told because so much of the debate is being run by zealots and idealogues.
I have not “smeared” anyone.
Not on this thread, anyway.