Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Undefined discussion subject.

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited August 2020 in General
Undefined discussion subject.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588
    edited August 2020
    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Warrington South was a Labour gain in 2017...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,753
    As the IRA loved a mortar (even getting within shrapnel distance of No 10), I very much hope your hoist by their own petard reference is intentional.
  • As the IRA loved a mortar (even getting within shrapnel distance of No 10), I very much hope your hoist by their own petard reference is intentional.

    Yay, someone got it.
  • tlg86 said:

    Warrington South was a Labour gain in 2017...

    Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.
  • No wonder you can't trust Boris Johnson, is the new Labour attack line.

    Thank God, this is absolutely right.

    And the ad itself looks simple but devastating, let's get back to winning
  • Ben Stokes to miss the rest of the Pakistan series, off to New Zealand for family reasons.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,753

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Has Baroness Kneecapped recanted? The impression I've got generally is that the Living Marxism crowd are deeply unwilling to admit that they were ever wrong about anything.
  • Ben Stokes to miss the rest of the Pakistan series, off to New Zealand for family reasons.

    That's England losing the next two matches then.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    tlg86 said:

    Warrington South was a Labour gain in 2017...

    Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
    Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
  • It's funny how somebody's past views can be explained away when they politically align with you isn't it.

    As usual, hypocrisy from the usual suspects
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Warrington South was a Labour gain in 2017...

    Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
    Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
    My belief is that the Russian incident is what turned Tory empty attacks into reality for many, totally self-inflicted too
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588
    edited August 2020

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Has Baroness Kneecapped recanted? The impression I've got generally is that the Living Marxism crowd are deeply unwilling to admit that they were ever wrong about anything.

    She is no longer a Revolutionary Communist, not since the 1990s. Corbyn still is a Revolutionary Communist!
  • Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    Which is why ardent Remainers like Lord Tebbit are criticising the appointment.

    Oh.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    A little research indicates that while she may have recanted her support for the IRA (if she has) it’s going a bit far to suggest she’s recanted being a headcase. Her views on Gary Glitter should have disbarred her from every legislative assembly on the planet.

    https://bylinetimes.com/2019/04/24/fox-breaks-cover-from-revolutionary-communist-to-farages-right-hand-woman/
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    For many years, politicians have been telling paramilitaries to put down weapons are engage with democratic institutions.
    So they can hardly complain when someone goes and does just that.
  • ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Has Baroness Kneecapped recanted? The impression I've got generally is that the Living Marxism crowd are deeply unwilling to admit that they were ever wrong about anything.
    She's never recanted her denial of Bosnian genocide.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588

    It's funny how somebody's past views can be explained away when they politically align with you isn't it.

    As usual, hypocrisy from the usual suspects

    Steady on!
  • Let's be honest, if this was a Labour appointment we know what the reaction would be.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    At least you are honest about the reason for her being given a peerage.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Warrington South was a Labour gain in 2017...

    Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
    Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
    I think it became an issue after Salisbury.
  • https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/08/knives-hancock-cobra-failings/

    It is never Boris Johnson's fault.

    So Hancock is gone, have they any talent left?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761

    Let's be honest, if this was a Labour appointment we know what the reaction would be.

    I don’t think even Labour under Corbyn knowingly appointed holocaust deniers to the Lords, which would be the equivalent.

    So this should be a much stronger reaction.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    Which is why ardent Remainers like Lord Tebbit are criticising the appointment.

    Oh.
    Not unexpected from an arch- trade unionist! (BALPA)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited August 2020
    I don't think the IRA issue alone did for Jezza, it was the continuous expressions of support / unwillingness to denounce a range of terrorist sympathising groups, foreign powers not aligned to our interests and anti-semites, all added up to the a section of public the noticing that perhaps he wasn't for them.

    Sounds like this lady is the similar, in expressing support for a range of unsavoury groups / individuals.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Double quote marks are your friend, just spent 5 minutes wondering what made 'Labour uses Tories' a good jibe.

    I wish this was a runner, but it isn't. “What does Labour offer a defender of the IRA? The party leadership” is the obvious response. Starmer has done nowhere near enough, yet, to efface the memory of Corbyn.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/08/knives-hancock-cobra-failings/

    It is never Boris Johnson's fault.

    So Hancock is gone, have they any talent left?

    Hancock and talent are not two words normally found in the same sentence.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    As the IRA loved a mortar (even getting within shrapnel distance of No 10), I very much hope your hoist by their own petard reference is intentional.

    But trust a Fenn Poly boy to misquote Shakespeare - it's "Hoist with his own petard"

    On topic - completely avoidable self inflicted wound which the Tories opponents are absolutely right to give them a well deserved drubbing for. I and the previous PM lost a mutual friend to the IRA Harrods bombing, so I doubt she's too thrilled either.

    I can't imagine the Mayor of the West Midlands is a fan, nor Birmingham MPs, what with the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham Pub bombings within 6 months of the 2025 GE.

    I wonder which useless idiot put Johnson up to it?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Warrington South was a Labour gain in 2017...

    Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
    Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
    I think it became an issue after Salisbury.
    Nationally, perhaps, but that's more that Corbyn hates Britain. North London picked up on his antisemitism when Warrington didn't pick up on his pro-IRA position.

    Incidentally, on Fox I still haven't worked out if she thinks all's fair in love and war (if, perhaps, inadvisable) or whether she thinks the IRA had right on their side and were justified in taking whatever action they considered necessary to achieve their goals. If it's the former then I think that's a bit weird, but okay. If it's the latter, it's thoroughly reprehensible.
  • So we have it, supports Brexit so any views can be just explained away.

    Tories are so utterly transparent, it's never been about racism or support of the IRA, it's about point scoring. End of story.

    I hope Labour makes hay out of this - but I hope Keir is prepared for the inevitable attacks on him for serving in Corbyn's SC.

    Of course there's an easy response to that, if he hadn't served in the SC he'd have been branded a coward and the reality is he'd never have become the leader in the first place.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    edited August 2020

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/08/knives-hancock-cobra-failings/

    It is never Boris Johnson's fault.

    So Hancock is gone, have they any talent left?

    If he’s to go, he should go in a blaze of glory.

    Something like, ‘You know what, the reason this government is shit is because Cummings is thick as mince and lazy as a toad, as well as a bully, a liar and a failure. Oh and by the way, you were all right, he didn’t care about childcare, he just wanted a nice garden.

    And Johnson’s a coward and a liar who can’t deal with the small dicked idiot.

    It’s all shit, so I’m going to Labour where serious people are trying to sort it out.’

    It’ll never happen but would be even funnier than watching Aaron Bastani’s face as the results came in in December, which was pretty damn funny.

    Edit - on a serious note, Cummings needs to be a bit careful which government ministers he tries to dispose of. If any of the ones who have defended him turn on him, he could be in big trouble.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    Probably - but it's a great stick to beat the government with which they have carelessly handed to their opponents. Why? What is the advantage to them?

    And the issue is, she hasn't recanted.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Warrington South was a Labour gain in 2017...

    Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
    Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
    I think it became an issue after Salisbury.
    Nationally, perhaps, but that's more that Corbyn hates Britain. North London picked up on his antisemitism when Warrington didn't pick up on his pro-IRA position.

    Incidentally, on Fox I still haven't worked out if she thinks all's fair in love and war (if, perhaps, inadvisable) or whether she thinks the IRA had right on their side and were justified in taking whatever action they considered necessary to achieve their goals. If it's the former then I think that's a bit weird, but okay. If it's the latter, it's thoroughly reprehensible.
    The RCP defended "the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures necessary in their struggle for freedom" in the party's newsletter published shortly after the [Warrington Attack].
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    As the IRA loved a mortar (even getting within shrapnel distance of No 10), I very much hope your hoist by their own petard reference is intentional.

    But trust a Fenn Poly boy to misquote Shakespeare - it's "Hoist with his own petard"

    On topic - completely avoidable self inflicted wound which the Tories opponents are absolutely right to give them a well deserved drubbing for. I and the previous PM lost a mutual friend to the IRA Harrods bombing, so I doubt she's too thrilled either.

    I can't imagine the Mayor of the West Midlands is a fan, nor Birmingham MPs, what with the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham Pub bombings within 6 months of the 2025 GE.

    I wonder which useless idiot put Johnson up to it?
    Peter Hitchens thinks it might have something to do with Munira Mirza:

    https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/08/peter-hitchens-should-the-woman-who-said-the-ira-had-a-right-to-kill-children-really-be-a-baroness.html
  • Green did well on Times Radio this morning. Came across vaguely normal and human and not at all terrifying, she may be a dark horse.

    Frankly I wonder if Starmer is keeping the SC quiet on purpose. I can't see much advantage of making a song and dance at this stage.
  • It does seem a thoroughly odd appointment.

    But this Government is all about Brexit and if you support that you're in. Nothing to do with talent, it's a Government devoid of talent, all Johnson wants is yes people.

    And Sunak so far is popular by being slightly less shit than all the others - and handing out tonnes of money.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Warrington South was a Labour gain in 2017...

    Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
    Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
    I think it became an issue after Salisbury.
    Nationally, perhaps, but that's more that Corbyn hates Britain. North London picked up on his antisemitism when Warrington didn't pick up on his pro-IRA position.

    Incidentally, on Fox I still haven't worked out if she thinks all's fair in love and war (if, perhaps, inadvisable) or whether she thinks the IRA had right on their side and were justified in taking whatever action they considered necessary to achieve their goals. If it's the former then I think that's a bit weird, but okay. If it's the latter, it's thoroughly reprehensible.
    The RCP defended "the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures necessary in their struggle for freedom" in the party's newsletter published shortly after the [Warrington Attack].
    It would be helpful to get confirmation that they didn't like the other lot and the British government fighting back. But if that is the case, it's a very poor decision by Boris.
  • And if this is the response now, I can only imagine the screams of betrayal when Farage gets involved. Then we'll see what Johnson's coalition looks like.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    edited August 2020
    The other thing that is interesting is Fox's rise to prominence in the media before the EU referendum was a thing. The BBC even had her on their list of 100 Women in 2015:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Women_(BBC)

    Her interesting background didn't preclude her from becoming a media figure.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Warrington South was a Labour gain in 2017...

    Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
    Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
    I think it became an issue after Salisbury.
    Nationally, perhaps, but that's more that Corbyn hates Britain. North London picked up on his antisemitism when Warrington didn't pick up on his pro-IRA position.

    Incidentally, on Fox I still haven't worked out if she thinks all's fair in love and war (if, perhaps, inadvisable) or whether she thinks the IRA had right on their side and were justified in taking whatever action they considered necessary to achieve their goals. If it's the former then I think that's a bit weird, but okay. If it's the latter, it's thoroughly reprehensible.
    The RCP defended "the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures necessary in their struggle for freedom" in the party's newsletter published shortly after the [Warrington Attack].
    It would be helpful to get confirmation that they didn't like the other lot and the British government fighting back. But if that is the case, it's a very poor decision by Boris.
    It's the RCP, they hate[d] everything British.

    They saw Brits in Ireland as vile imperialism that had to be ended by any means necessary.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    tlg86 said:

    As the IRA loved a mortar (even getting within shrapnel distance of No 10), I very much hope your hoist by their own petard reference is intentional.

    But trust a Fenn Poly boy to misquote Shakespeare - it's "Hoist with his own petard"

    On topic - completely avoidable self inflicted wound which the Tories opponents are absolutely right to give them a well deserved drubbing for. I and the previous PM lost a mutual friend to the IRA Harrods bombing, so I doubt she's too thrilled either.

    I can't imagine the Mayor of the West Midlands is a fan, nor Birmingham MPs, what with the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham Pub bombings within 6 months of the 2025 GE.

    I wonder which useless idiot put Johnson up to it?
    Peter Hitchens thinks it might have something to do with Munira Mirza:

    https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/08/peter-hitchens-should-the-woman-who-said-the-ira-had-a-right-to-kill-children-really-be-a-baroness.html
    That fits - Mirza recommends her "sound on Brexit", Johnson, with his "World Beating" attention to detail, doesn't remotely see the elephant traps and jumps straight in.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Warrington South was a Labour gain in 2017...

    Fox defended the Warrington attack in a way that Corbyn never did.
    Perhaps not but Jezza was very much on the side of the IRA. It made no difference in 2017, unlike the antisemitism which hurt Labour in parts of North London.
    I think it became an issue after Salisbury.
    Nationally, perhaps, but that's more that Corbyn hates Britain. North London picked up on his antisemitism when Warrington didn't pick up on his pro-IRA position.

    Incidentally, on Fox I still haven't worked out if she thinks all's fair in love and war (if, perhaps, inadvisable) or whether she thinks the IRA had right on their side and were justified in taking whatever action they considered necessary to achieve their goals. If it's the former then I think that's a bit weird, but okay. If it's the latter, it's thoroughly reprehensible.
    The RCP defended "the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures necessary in their struggle for freedom" in the party's newsletter published shortly after the [Warrington Attack].
    It would be helpful to get confirmation that they didn't like the other lot and the British government fighting back. But if that is the case, it's a very poor decision by Boris.
    It's the RCP, they hate[d] everything British.

    They saw Brits in Ireland as vile imperialism that had to be ended by any means necessary.
    Isn't this the key to why Jeremy Corbyn is seen as genuinely evil. The difference is, Corbyn still thinks he is in the right, Claire Fox has almost moved full circle and is now a Revolutionary Conservative.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    tlg86 said:

    As the IRA loved a mortar (even getting within shrapnel distance of No 10), I very much hope your hoist by their own petard reference is intentional.

    But trust a Fenn Poly boy to misquote Shakespeare - it's "Hoist with his own petard"

    On topic - completely avoidable self inflicted wound which the Tories opponents are absolutely right to give them a well deserved drubbing for. I and the previous PM lost a mutual friend to the IRA Harrods bombing, so I doubt she's too thrilled either.

    I can't imagine the Mayor of the West Midlands is a fan, nor Birmingham MPs, what with the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham Pub bombings within 6 months of the 2025 GE.

    I wonder which useless idiot put Johnson up to it?
    Peter Hitchens thinks it might have something to do with Munira Mirza:

    https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/08/peter-hitchens-should-the-woman-who-said-the-ira-had-a-right-to-kill-children-really-be-a-baroness.html
    That fits - Mirza recommends her "sound on Brexit", Johnson, with his "World Beating" attention to detail, doesn't remotely see the elephant traps and jumps straight in.
    More likely Dom thinks "this will get the bubble talking about something that's not COVID-19, Brexit, the economy, etc. etc."
  • I wonder if Johnson will find himself in a similar position to Corbyn.

    Did well (won) with little scrutiny but next time around he'll have been exposed and found out
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 193
    How many of the rest of the Revolutionary Communist Party ended up in significant positions in the Media?
    Claire Fox for years was a regular guest on BBC programmes such as The Moral Maze and now I'd estimate at least 30% of guest reviewers on programmes such as 'What The Papers Say' are libertarian marxists such as Ash Sarkar ,the Spiked team etc. .The odd thing is both are presented by the MSM as respectively the voice of either the right wing or the left wing and as such that the MSM is not biased.
    Never see libertarian marxist guests asked though whether it is correct that genuinely right wing voices like Hopkins and Robinson or left wing voices that are in disgrace like Livingston and Galloway should be in practice banned from TV & radio channels which they currently are.
    Maybe if a presenter asked the question they believe they would be out of a job soon?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,753
    Ironically the type of incels attracted to the Tobes' world view would probably benefit from a bit of face covering.

    https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1292456925691555841?s=20

  • Cyclefree said:

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.

    If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?

    It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
    All whilst attacking Corbyn in the same sentence. Their double standards are plain and pathetic and they clearly don't give a shit about anything unless it is for scoring political points.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588

    I wonder if Johnson will find himself in a similar position to Corbyn.

    Did well (won) with little scrutiny but next time around he'll have been exposed and found out

    No, Johnson's quite controversial back story including Darius Guppy, the casual racism and the misogyny was all known about in 2019 (as it will be in 2024) in the same way as Corbyn's distasteful back story was well understood.

    The voters of Great Britain decided they trusted and will trust, someone who acts and behaves like an aggressive version of the Benny Hill character, Fred Scuttle. They did not want a humourless characterisation of Catweasel.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588
    edited August 2020
    Cyclefree said:

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.

    If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?

    It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
    Well, I have never before been condemned for sharing in Johnson's shame.

    I was merely pointing out that Corbyn's evil remains ever present. This woman's unpleasant, peculiar views are from history, Corbyn's remain today..
  • Apologies for anyone who has had their lunch.

    https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1292459896496099329
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761

    Apologies for anyone who has had their lunch.

    Are you emulating Sunak by having a two for one offer? Once going down, and once coming back up...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.

    If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?

    It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
    All whilst attacking Corbyn in the same sentence. Their double standards are plain and pathetic and they clearly don't give a shit about anything unless it is for scoring political points.
    Indeed.

    https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/08/04/if-youre-in-a-glasshouse/
  • One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588

    Cyclefree said:

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.

    If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?

    It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
    All whilst attacking Corbyn in the same sentence. Their double standards are plain and pathetic and they clearly don't give a shit about anything unless it is for scoring political points.
    I hope you're not refering to my condemnation of Corbyn as political point scoring.

    If you are, I am not sure who i am scoring for.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    edited August 2020

    Cyclefree said:

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.

    If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?

    It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
    All whilst attacking Corbyn in the same sentence. Their double standards are plain and pathetic and they clearly don't give a shit about anything unless it is for scoring political points.
    I hope you're not refering to my condemnation of Corbyn as political point scoring.

    If you are, I am not sure who i am scoring for.
    Not you mate, you should hopefully know full well by now you're one of the few posters I have consistently respected on here.

    You're one of the very few who has been fair in criticism of both parties and have not attempted to score political points. You can take the moral high ground.
  • I have got absolutely no problem with people attacking Corbyn's past history and however stupid or naive it makes me sound, over time I have come to respect this point of view.

    But what I don't like is when people do that and then explain away the Tories doing the same thing.

    I have a simple test I have developed for this kind of situation. If you replaced Tory with Labour, what would your reaction be? If you're saying anything other than outrage you're not being honest with yourself.

    Then you get stuck in a bubble as I did - and it's hard to get out of it. I know that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761

    One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.

    Johnson has rules?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,081
    Cyclefree said:

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.

    If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?

    It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
    What surprises me is that the Palace didn't veto this one. It looks bad for them too.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.

    If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?

    It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
    What surprises me is that the Palace didn't veto this one. It looks bad for them too.
    Can the Palace veto life peerages?
  • ydoethur said:

    One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.

    Johnson has rules?
    Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.

    I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
  • I can often see why someone would think something was a good idea, even if I disagree with their conclusion. Here I keep thinking there must be something else to it as without it the decision has no upside at all.

    Does she have the negatives? And if so what could possibly be used to blackmail Boris?
  • ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.

    If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?

    It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
    What surprises me is that the Palace didn't veto this one. It looks bad for them too.
    Can the Palace veto life peerages?
    Do the Standards Committee not get involved in these kind of decisions?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    ydoethur said:

    One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.

    Johnson has rules?
    Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.

    I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
    I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
  • I can often see why someone would think something was a good idea, even if I disagree with their conclusion. Here I keep thinking there must be something else to it as without it the decision has no upside at all.

    Does she have the negatives? And if so what could possibly be used to blackmail Boris?

    There's starting to be a pattern developing in this Government of this kind of thing - and I start to think they're just a bit shit at the whole strategy thing.

    I saw no upside to keeping Cummings either. It's not like he couldn't have disappeared and continued to advise anyway. Keeping him on just seems to have damaged the Government.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.

    If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?

    It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
    Well, I have never before been condemned for sharing in Johnson's shame.

    I was merely pointing out that Corbyn's evil remains ever present. This woman's unpleasant, peculiar views are from history, Corbyn's remain today..
    Her views are not from history. They are not peculiar. They are dangerous. Someone who denies facts is no better than a Holocaust denier. She has never recanted them. She is a female version of Corbyn.

    But unlike him, once she is in the Lords we can never vote her out.

    It is utterly contemptible and contemptuous of the public the Tories claim to be speaking for.
    Mexicanpete is nonetheless correct it’s about Brexit.
    Apparently if you tick that box, anything else (IRA apologism; genocide denial; all round moonbattery) doesn’t matter
  • ydoethur said:

    One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.

    Johnson has rules?
    Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.

    I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
    I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
    Hit a nerve did I? Come on big boy, let's have a proper debate
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588

    ydoethur said:

    One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.

    Johnson has rules?
    Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.

    I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
    I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
    Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
  • Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.

    If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?

    It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
    Well, I have never before been condemned for sharing in Johnson's shame.

    I was merely pointing out that Corbyn's evil remains ever present. This woman's unpleasant, peculiar views are from history, Corbyn's remain today..
    Her views are not from history. They are not peculiar. They are dangerous. Someone who denies facts is no better than a Holocaust denier. She has never recanted them. She is a female version of Corbyn.

    But unlike him, once she is in the Lords we can never vote her out.

    It is utterly contemptible and contemptuous of the public the Tories claim to be speaking for.
    Mexicanpete is nonetheless correct it’s about Brexit.
    Apparently if you tick that box, anything else (IRA apologism; genocide denial; all round moonbattery) doesn’t matter
    Oh it's about Brexit and that's why this cabinet is the most useless of my (albeit limited and short) lifetime
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: very satisfied with that result.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761

    I can often see why someone would think something was a good idea, even if I disagree with their conclusion. Here I keep thinking there must be something else to it as without it the decision has no upside at all.

    Does she have the negatives? And if so what could possibly be used to blackmail Boris?

    There's starting to be a pattern developing in this Government of this kind of thing - and I start to think they're just a bit shit at the whole strategy thing.

    I saw no upside to keeping Cummings either. It's not like he couldn't have disappeared and continued to advise anyway. Keeping him on just seems to have damaged the Government.
    I just think they’re a bit shit.

    And I haven’t started to think that either, I’ve thought it from the start.
  • ydoethur said:

    I can often see why someone would think something was a good idea, even if I disagree with their conclusion. Here I keep thinking there must be something else to it as without it the decision has no upside at all.

    Does she have the negatives? And if so what could possibly be used to blackmail Boris?

    There's starting to be a pattern developing in this Government of this kind of thing - and I start to think they're just a bit shit at the whole strategy thing.

    I saw no upside to keeping Cummings either. It's not like he couldn't have disappeared and continued to advise anyway. Keeping him on just seems to have damaged the Government.
    I just think they’re a bit shit.

    And I haven’t started to think that either, I’ve thought it from the start.
    I always thought they were shit, I just thought they might have a good way to hide it.

    As time goes by, I wonder if we will see whether Johnson won that election or whether Corbyn just lost it and lost it badly.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.

    If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?

    It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
    What surprises me is that the Palace didn't veto this one. It looks bad for them too.
    It's not up to the palace - it's the Lords Appointments Commission who do the vetting - apparently catching the noncefindergeneral and Bercow in their net, but not Fox.

    The Role of the Appointments Commission
    As well as making recommendations for non-party-political peerages, the Prime Minister asks the Commission to vet nominations for peerages – including those of the political parties – for propriety.

    The Commission plays no part in assessing the suitability of those nominated by the political parties, which is a matter for the parties themselves.

    Its role is to advise the Prime Minister if it has any concerns about the propriety of a nominee. The Commission takes the view that in this context, propriety means:

    i) the individual should be in good standing in the community in general and with the public regulatory authorities in particular; and

    ii) the past conduct of the nominee would not reasonably be regarded as bringing the House of Lords into disrepute.


    https://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/vetting

    But Fox is sitting as "non-affiliated" - so is it this commission which has recommended her, not Johnson?

  • https://twitter.com/spectator/status/1292367681266614273

    Who is? What evidence is there of this?

    Seems to me it's worse now than it has been for months.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761
    edited August 2020
    Something of a blow for England:

    Ben Stokes: England all-rounder to miss remainder of Pakistan series
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53712110

    Woakes will presumably now keep his place.

    So which one of Crawley, Bracey or Lawrence would you play as a specialist batsman?

    Crawley is favourite, Bracey would be the best choice for 3, Lawrence would do better as a straight swap at 4.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    ydoethur said:

    One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.

    Johnson has rules?
    Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.

    I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
    I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
    Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
    Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
  • ydoethur said:

    One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.

    Johnson has rules?
    Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.

    I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
    I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
    Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
    Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
    Nice to have a fan
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288
    ydoethur said:

    Something of a blow for England:

    Ben Stokes: England all-rounder to miss remainder of Pakistan series
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53712110

    Woakes will presumably now keep his place.

    So which one of Crawley, Bracey or Lawrence would you play as a specialist batsman?

    Crawley is favourite, Bracey would be the best choice for 3, Lawrence would do better as a straight swap at 4.

    Foakes should play. let Buttler be a specialist batsman.
  • ydoethur said:

    I can often see why someone would think something was a good idea, even if I disagree with their conclusion. Here I keep thinking there must be something else to it as without it the decision has no upside at all.

    Does she have the negatives? And if so what could possibly be used to blackmail Boris?

    There's starting to be a pattern developing in this Government of this kind of thing - and I start to think they're just a bit shit at the whole strategy thing.

    I saw no upside to keeping Cummings either. It's not like he couldn't have disappeared and continued to advise anyway. Keeping him on just seems to have damaged the Government.
    I just think they’re a bit shit.

    And I haven’t started to think that either, I’ve thought it from the start.
    I always thought they were shit, I just thought they might have a good way to hide it.

    As time goes by, I wonder if we will see whether Johnson won that election or whether Corbyn just lost it and lost it badly.
    It’s a bit of both. A less divisive Labour Leader would probably still be LoTO, but facing a much smaller majority.

    Actually a less divisive Labour Leader might have become PM last September after forcing a vote of no-confidence.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761

    ydoethur said:

    Something of a blow for England:

    Ben Stokes: England all-rounder to miss remainder of Pakistan series
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53712110

    Woakes will presumably now keep his place.

    So which one of Crawley, Bracey or Lawrence would you play as a specialist batsman?

    Crawley is favourite, Bracey would be the best choice for 3, Lawrence would do better as a straight swap at 4.

    Foakes should play. let Buttler be a specialist batsman.
    That of course is another option.

    Especially as Buttler will presumably now be the new vice-captain, unless they give that to Woakes as well.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761

    ydoethur said:

    One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.

    Johnson has rules?
    Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.

    I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
    I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
    Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
    Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
    Nice to have a fan
    Especially in this heat.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    ydoethur said:

    One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.

    Johnson has rules?
    Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.

    I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
    I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
    Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
    Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
    Making things up again I see. It’s a constant stream of fiction with you isn’t it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588
    edited August 2020
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ...but she has recanted her former madness. Corbyn wanted to foist his onto all of us.

    Oh and first.

    Somebody nobody has ever heard of was a headcase thirty years ago. But has since recanted.

    Be honest, this is not about the IRA. It is about Brexit.

    She has not recanted. Not her support for the IRA. Nor her denial of the Serbian genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Nor her vile views on child abuse videos and jihadist videos.

    If the PM wanted a Brexit supporter in the Lords (why? it’s been done, we keep being told) Carswell or Hannan would do. Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey were ennobled. What does Fox bring other than a disregard for facts, vile opinions and insults to those bereaved and injured by terrorists?

    It is utterly shameful by the PM and Tory supporters who defend it share in his shame.
    Well, I have never before been condemned for sharing in Johnson's shame.

    I was merely pointing out that Corbyn's evil remains ever present. This woman's unpleasant, peculiar views are from history, Corbyn's remain today..
    Her views are not from history. They are not peculiar. They are dangerous. Someone who denies facts is no better than a Holocaust denier. She has never recanted them. She is a female version of Corbyn.

    But unlike him, once she is in the Lords we can never vote her out.

    It is utterly contemptible and contemptuous of the public the Tories claim to be speaking for.
    Mexicanpete is nonetheless correct it’s about Brexit.
    Apparently if you tick that box, anything else (IRA apologism; genocide denial; all round moonbattery) doesn’t matter
    Wash your mouth out! Not someone to tell tales, but MarqueeMark said it was about Brexit not me . I am most definately no Brexiteer!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,761

    ydoethur said:

    One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.

    Johnson has rules?
    Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.

    I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
    I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
    Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
    Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
    Making things up again I see. It’s a constant stream of fiction with you isn’t it.
    Emulating his(?) leader?

    Anyway, I have a lawn to cut. Have a good afternoon.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588

    ydoethur said:

    One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.

    Johnson has rules?
    Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.

    I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
    I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
    Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
    Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
    Nah, Johnson will be gutted CHB doesn't rate him. As we speak Johnson is formulating a policy to bring CHB on board.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Something of a blow for England:

    Ben Stokes: England all-rounder to miss remainder of Pakistan series
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/53712110

    Woakes will presumably now keep his place.

    So which one of Crawley, Bracey or Lawrence would you play as a specialist batsman?

    Crawley is favourite, Bracey would be the best choice for 3, Lawrence would do better as a straight swap at 4.

    Foakes should play. let Buttler be a specialist batsman.
    That of course is another option.

    Especially as Buttler will presumably now be the new vice-captain, unless they give that to Woakes as well.
    Trouble is, playing Foakes denudes Surrey even further.. difficult times at the Oval this season..😒😒😒😒😒😒
  • ydoethur said:

    One rule for Boris Johnson and one rule for the rest of us.

    Johnson has rules?
    Oh he has rules, he just makes them up on the spot makes new ones when those no longer are useful for him.

    I hold him in complete and utter contempt. And for me he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
    I'm sure he cares enormously what you think about him.
    Boris hates to be disliked, so he may be reading CHBs post in tears!
    Tears of laughter, more like it! Literally the most deluded Corbyn booster who told us Boris was completely doomed before the election is now 100% certain that Boris is ... completely doomed. Wrong before, wrong again.
    Nah, Johnson will be gutted CHB doesn't rate him. As we speak Johnson is formulating a policy to bring CHB on board.
    Can he get me a fan?
This discussion has been closed.