Even if Boris’s No 10 apartment refurbishment is funded by a charity a large slice of it will effect

A great post-Covid header!

MarqueeMark said:

This header means Covid is over.

And Boris has got away with the tens of thousands of Covid deaths that the media had tried to lay at his door. Because....soft furnishings.

Boris doesn't have any deaths at his door, disease happens. Pandemics happen. That is nature.

What mankind can do is develop vaccines and along with Israel the UK is first and one of the best in the world for that.

So let's all talk about wallpaper that is not being billed to taxpayers. 🙄

fpt Nick Palmer and canvassing/leafleting - had a communication from my local Party that it will be allowed from 8th March "whilst complying with Covid best practice".

Shame I have left that Party but still.

YouGov has a new subject for chat 'What should the government do differently if there’s a new pandemic?"

'K'nell, we haven't finished with the last one yet!

Philip_Thompson said:

MarqueeMark said:

This header means Covid is over.

And Boris has got away with the tens of thousands of Covid deaths that the media had tried to lay at his door. Because....soft furnishings.

Boris doesn't have any deaths at his door, disease happens. Pandemics happen. That is nature.

What mankind can do is develop vaccines and along with Israel the UK is first and one of the best in the world for that.

So let's all talk about wallpaper that is not being billed to taxpayers. 🙄

Um, glad to hear you are firing on all cylinders.

In time there will be a public enquiry about all this and it may well find that actions taken caused further deaths.

Now, I am more a fan of the "heat of battle" theory of coping with such events but we must all wait for that enquiry before we can say with any certainty whatsoever that he "doesn't have any deaths at his door". Or that he does, for that matter.

Mr Waterfield in hot water with EU fans:

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1366657069458325505?s=20

I see the snowflakes were getting upset at the Prince NutNut moniker.

I'm sure none of them have ever used or laughed at say Nicola Sturgeon being called Janette Krankie.

ErgoPropterHoc said:

I think she's his fiancée, not his finance.

Good point!

Are you some kind of magician, by the way? I see that you have zero posts, notwithstanding the above. Also a total of 20 likes on 0 posts. That's highly impressive, your average per post is... infinite

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MarqueeMark said:

This header means Covid is over.

And Boris has got away with the tens of thousands of Covid deaths that the media had tried to lay at his door. Because....soft furnishings.

Boris doesn't have any deaths at his door, disease happens. Pandemics happen. That is nature.

What mankind can do is develop vaccines and along with Israel the UK is first and one of the best in the world for that.

So let's all talk about wallpaper that is not being billed to taxpayers. 🙄

This story may contain Nut-Nuts....

There is an interesting political element here - hidden behind the wallpaper. Not that I expect the press to get their scrapers out....

I personally believe that government indecision - ultimately Boris’s - cost tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Yet I do struggle to get angry about it.

Am I morally deficient somehow?

TheScreamingEagles said:

As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.

So much for all that Yaaaarkshurrrrr bollocks.

They always said you were a Man of Kent. Or something.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MarqueeMark said:

This header means Covid is over.

And Boris has got away with the tens of thousands of Covid deaths that the media had tried to lay at his door. Because....soft furnishings.

Boris doesn't have any deaths at his door, disease happens. Pandemics happen. That is nature.

What mankind can do is develop vaccines and along with Israel the UK is first and one of the best in the world for that.

So let's all talk about wallpaper that is not being billed to taxpayers. 🙄

Um, glad to hear you are firing on all cylinders.

In time there will be a public enquiry about all this and it may well find that actions taken caused further deaths.

Now, I am more a fan of the "heat of battle" theory of coping with such events but we must all wait for that enquiry before we can say with any certainty whatsoever that he "doesn't have any deaths at his door". Or that he does, for that matter.

All prime ministers will have "deaths at their door". Decisions have consequences and if you are leading a government you will need to make decisions that will kill people, often on the basis that saving those lives would cost too much money rather than the more dramatic "let's bomb X".
With the benefit of hindsight we can see a number of things we would now do differently, and in many cases at the time there were a lot of people calling for what now appears to be the better decision, but in most cases there were those calling for the opposite.
I think it would be essential to have a major enquiry (inquiry?) into the government's response if only to learn what lessons we can, but it it is just designed to find fault then those who might end up being blamed will not be prepared to cooperate and we will not learn nearly as much as we might.

Dura_Ace said:

I would bet the contents of my garage that this anti NutNuts campaign is being orchestrated by Gove.

Or Sarah V?

Dura_Ace said:

I would bet the contents of my garage that this anti NutNuts campaign is being orchestrated by Gove.

I don't think he's that stupid.

Anyone going after her will be out the door surely, just like Cummings, and quite right too. Anyone attacking my wife would not be on my good books so I expect the same from Johnson.

Gove is definitely a schemer but you need to pick your battles. Picking a battle with the 'first lady' is suicide so he's an idiot if he's doing that.

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MarqueeMark said:

This header means Covid is over.

And Boris has got away with the tens of thousands of Covid deaths that the media had tried to lay at his door. Because....soft furnishings.

Boris doesn't have any deaths at his door, disease happens. Pandemics happen. That is nature.

What mankind can do is develop vaccines and along with Israel the UK is first and one of the best in the world for that.

So let's all talk about wallpaper that is not being billed to taxpayers. 🙄

Philip, if you can't see this story as at the very least looking very dodgy, can I suggest you book an eye test? I have it on good authority that there is a very good optician in County Durham.

Copying the charity the Americans have used for decades?

If that's your definition of dodgy then you have an extraordinarily low threshold for dodgy. I'll pass thanks.

Considering this charity was first introduced by LBJ its funny I've never heard about the scandal around this associated with LBJ before? I thought LBJ was disliked because of Vietnam, not because of wallpapers or magnolia. Learn something every day.

That wonderful old incorruptible, LBJ.

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Poor attempt to smear Johnson for doing something so that it doesn't come out of the public purse.

Or they could just.... Not redecorate and live with TMay's "John Lewis furniture nightmare" (quote from The Times), like any normal person would.

Besides, everyone knows that there's no point redecorating when you've just had a baby. Mark my words, it'll need redoing faster than you can say "Darling, how many times have I asked you to keep the Sharpies out of Wilfed's reach?"

The (Mail) article says May didn’t do any renovations - after all the Cameron’s did a big overhaul relatively recently.

TOPPING said:

There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.

But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.

tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.

But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?

I was going to post on the previous thread that it's the landlords responsbility for the fixtures of a rental property.

And the Government was happy to spend £30k doing the work - the fact everything has to be unique is Boris and Carrie's problem no-one elses.

Cyclefree and Cyclefree's daughter is more likely to see my money than Boris's charity is.

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Poor attempt to smear Johnson for doing something so that it doesn't come out of the public purse.

Or they could just.... Not redecorate and live with TMay's "John Lewis furniture nightmare" (quote from The Times), like any normal person would.

Besides, everyone knows that there's no point redecorating when you've just had a baby. Mark my words, it'll need redoing faster than you can say "Darling, how many times have I asked you to keep the Sharpies out of Wilfed's reach?"

Few live with other peoples style. As an extreme example of this, our lovely neighbours spent a lot of money putting in a kitchen that they liked. They moved to Scotland and the new owners (wife) didn't like the kitchen and had it ripped out and spent zillions putting another one in that was more to her taste...

Mr. Thompson, even in inverted commas, we don't have a first lady.

She's the current PM's current lady friend. And if she wants to blow a load of cash beyond an annual £30k allowance that's fine. The taxpayer shouldn't pick up the bill because she's a spendaholic.

Fysics_Teacher said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MarqueeMark said:

This header means Covid is over.

And Boris has got away with the tens of thousands of Covid deaths that the media had tried to lay at his door. Because....soft furnishings.

Boris doesn't have any deaths at his door, disease happens. Pandemics happen. That is nature.

What mankind can do is develop vaccines and along with Israel the UK is first and one of the best in the world for that.

So let's all talk about wallpaper that is not being billed to taxpayers. 🙄

Um, glad to hear you are firing on all cylinders.

In time there will be a public enquiry about all this and it may well find that actions taken caused further deaths.

Now, I am more a fan of the "heat of battle" theory of coping with such events but we must all wait for that enquiry before we can say with any certainty whatsoever that he "doesn't have any deaths at his door". Or that he does, for that matter.

All prime ministers will have "deaths at their door". Decisions have consequences and if you are leading a government you will need to make decisions that will kill people, often on the basis that saving those lives would cost too much money rather than the more dramatic "let's bomb X".
With the benefit of hindsight we can see a number of things we would now do differently, and in many cases at the time there were a lot of people calling for what now appears to be the better decision, but in most cases there were those calling for the opposite.
I think it would be essential to have a major enquiry (inquiry?) into the government's response if only to learn what lessons we can, but it it is just designed to find fault then those who might end up being blamed will not be prepared to cooperate and we will not learn nearly as much as we might.

Couldn't agree more. You finished off the second half of what I was going to write!

We need some kind of learning repository for these types of situations - perish the thought another virus/lockdown one, but general crises. If people think they are going to be blamed then we will not get as much useable info as we might have.

Then again it's the classic warlord conundrum - do you grant amnesty and hence encourage people to lay down their arms; or not and not!

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Thompson, even in inverted commas, we don't have a first lady.

She's the current PM's current lady friend. And if she wants to blow a load of cash beyond an annual £30k allowance that's fine. The taxpayer shouldn't pick up the bill because she's a spendaholic.

Is the allowance annual or one off?

Completely agreed that she shouldn't bill it to the taxpayers. If others want to pay for it though I couldn't care less what others do with their money. I won't be donating to this charity but if others want to that's on them. Works for the Americans.

I can't recall seeing CNN or others complaining about scandals about this stateside. If they have I've missed it, otherwise seems much ado about nothing.

FPT

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Nobody made the PM or his wife redecorate. I have this crazy idea that this voluntary act of expenditure should be funded by those that chose to make it. And who also live there.

Only this grasping clown could imagine that his latest trick's vast redecoration bill should be picked up by "charity". Prime Ministers and their Spouses have complained about the Downing Street accommodation since times past - and yet all have resisted claiming that "charity" should pick up the bill as they redecorated "for the nation".

But lets not look at that. Far more fun to look north at he said she said as we get to the heart of the vast SNP conspiracy that culminated in 9 women deliberately perjuring themselves as part of a plot to jail the former leader of the SNP to advance the cause of the SNP or whatever.

Re your last paragraph it is the SNP involved in their own civil war, and as a matter of interest did you listen to all of Salmond’s testimony and if so not recognise just how serious this is for the SNP and has nothing to do with anything south of the border

As I have posted repeatedly, there is a lot of heat and light being generated by the central event. Others are fascinated by the heat and light and opportunities for outrage based off it. I am far more interested in the central event which is the source of the heat and light.

According to Salmond, there is a conspiracy against him within the SNP which culminated in 9 women making entirely false and malicious allegations against him to the police and on the witness stand. These women, and the SNP/government bigwigs, were supposedly motivated by the desire to have Salmond carted away to prison and thus out of the way politically.

As I do not for a minute believe this central allegation, I am not really interested in the heat and the light generated from it. You may want it to be serious for the SNP for political reasons, but wanting something doesn't always make it fact. Especially when the second part of your narrative is that as the SNP are crooks you have to vote Tory to get them out. Because the idea that people vote Tory to remove the stench of corruption and cronyism is laughable.

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MarqueeMark said:

This header means Covid is over.

And Boris has got away with the tens of thousands of Covid deaths that the media had tried to lay at his door. Because....soft furnishings.

Boris doesn't have any deaths at his door, disease happens. Pandemics happen. That is nature.

What mankind can do is develop vaccines and along with Israel the UK is first and one of the best in the world for that.

So let's all talk about wallpaper that is not being billed to taxpayers. 🙄

Philip, if you can't see this story as at the very least looking very dodgy, can I suggest you book an eye test? I have it on good authority that there is a very good optician in County Durham.

Copying the charity the Americans have used for decades?

If that's your definition of dodgy then you have an extraordinarily low threshold for dodgy. I'll pass thanks.

Considering this charity was first introduced by LBJ its funny I've never heard about the scandal around this associated with LBJ before? I thought LBJ was disliked because of Vietnam, not because of wallpapers or magnolia. Learn something every day.

This project is for the personal aggrandisement of the POTUK and the FLOTUK. It is not a scheme of benefit to the nation. Now a million pounds on Union Flags to be flown behind Boris at press conferences, that would be a different kettle of fish entirely. Something of benefit to the nation at large.

The nation is the landlord.

If this reduces the bills to the nation then the nation benefits. Like the National Trust.

Its a pissweak benefit for me, but then I wouldn't donate to the National Trust either. Others do, that's on them.

Philip_Thompson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Thompson, even in inverted commas, we don't have a first lady.

She's the current PM's current lady friend. And if she wants to blow a load of cash beyond an annual £30k allowance that's fine. The taxpayer shouldn't pick up the bill because she's a spendaholic.

Is the allowance annual or one off?

Completely agreed that she shouldn't bill it to the taxpayers. If others want to pay for it though I couldn't care less what others do with their money. I won't be donating to this charity but if others want to that's on them. Works for the Americans.

I can't recall seeing CNN or others complaining about scandals about this stateside. If they have I've missed it, otherwise seems much ado about nothing.

Annual.

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

I would bet the contents of my garage that this anti NutNuts campaign is being orchestrated by Gove.

Or Sarah V?

Both likely, two cheeks of the same arse.

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.

But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.

tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.

But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?

FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.

Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?

I mean this is a bit of the why does the PM fly by PJ/first class thing. Because he is the PM. Because it's No.10 - an iconic building, etc...

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MarqueeMark said:

This header means Covid is over.

And Boris has got away with the tens of thousands of Covid deaths that the media had tried to lay at his door. Because....soft furnishings.

Boris doesn't have any deaths at his door, disease happens. Pandemics happen. That is nature.

What mankind can do is develop vaccines and along with Israel the UK is first and one of the best in the world for that.

So let's all talk about wallpaper that is not being billed to taxpayers. 🙄

Philip, if you can't see this story as at the very least looking very dodgy, can I suggest you book an eye test? I have it on good authority that there is a very good optician in County Durham.

Copying the charity the Americans have used for decades?

If that's your definition of dodgy then you have an extraordinarily low threshold for dodgy. I'll pass thanks.

Considering this charity was first introduced by LBJ its funny I've never heard about the scandal around this associated with LBJ before? I thought LBJ was disliked because of Vietnam, not because of wallpapers or magnolia. Learn something every day.

This project is for the personal aggrandisement of the POTUK and the FLOTUK. It is not a scheme of benefit to the nation. Now a million pounds on Union Flags to be flown behind Boris at press conferences, that would be a different kettle of fish entirely. Something of benefit to the nation at large.

The nation is the landlord.

If this reduces the bills to the nation then the nation benefits. Like the National Trust.

Its a pissweak benefit for me, but then I wouldn't donate to the National Trust either. Others do, that's on them.

Read Mike's header. There is a potential negative tax implication. Time to do some work.

That's a real stretch and applies to all charities

If the Charity Commission approves it, like the US equivalent charity or National Trust, then it is what it is. If they don't then so be it.

ErgoPropterHoc said:

Selebian said:

ErgoPropterHoc said:

I think she's his fiancée, not his finance.

Good point!

Are you some kind of magician, by the way? I see that you have zero posts, notwithstanding the above. Also a total of 20 likes on 0 posts. That's highly impressive, your average per post is... infinite

I do seem to have adopted a somewhat ghostly presence here.. Side effect of the Pfizer?!

We ain't seen you...

I know parties have to declare donations but do charities?

Would it be possible to set up a charity but keep the donors to it anonymous? Would that help smooth concerns?

Also could a proposed charity potentially cover all such accomodations, like the Lord Chancellor's £165k wallpaper etc

squareroot2 said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Poor attempt to smear Johnson for doing something so that it doesn't come out of the public purse.

Or they could just.... Not redecorate and live with TMay's "John Lewis furniture nightmare" (quote from The Times), like any normal person would.

Besides, everyone knows that there's no point redecorating when you've just had a baby. Mark my words, it'll need redoing faster than you can say "Darling, how many times have I asked you to keep the Sharpies out of Wilfed's reach?"

Few live with other peoples style. As an extreme example of this, our lovely neighbours spent a lot of money putting in a kitchen that they liked. They moved to Scotland and the new owners (wife) didn't like the kitchen and had it ripped out and spent zillions putting another one in that was more to her taste...

Which is why most tied/rental/temporary accommodation tends towards the bland and inoffensive.

What we have here appears to be a couple who want to spend a fortune they don't have making a lifestyle statement that someone else may then have to live with.

For Boris, too, is mortal.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see the snowflakes were getting upset at the Prince NutNut moniker.

I'm sure none of them have ever used or laughed at say Nicola Sturgeon being called Janette Krankie.

To be honest I haven't

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Nobody made the PM or his wife redecorate. I have this crazy idea that this voluntary act of expenditure should be funded by those that chose to make it. And who also live there.

Only this grasping clown could imagine that his latest trick's vast redecoration bill should be picked up by "charity". Prime Ministers and their Spouses have complained about the Downing Street accommodation since times past - and yet all have resisted claiming that "charity" should pick up the bill as they redecorated "for the nation".

But lets not look at that. Far more fun to look north at he said she said as we get to the heart of the vast SNP conspiracy that culminated in 9 women deliberately perjuring themselves as part of a plot to jail the former leader of the SNP to advance the cause of the SNP or whatever.

Re your last paragraph it is the SNP involved in their own civil war, and as a matter of interest did you listen to all of Salmond’s testimony and if so not recognise just how serious this is for the SNP and has nothing to do with anything south of the border

As I have posted repeatedly, there is a lot of heat and light being generated by the central event. Others are fascinated by the heat and light and opportunities for outrage based off it. I am far more interested in the central event which is the source of the heat and light.

According to Salmond, there is a conspiracy against him within the SNP which culminated in 9 women making entirely false and malicious allegations against him to the police and on the witness stand. These women, and the SNP/government bigwigs, were supposedly motivated by the desire to have Salmond carted away to prison and thus out of the way politically.

As I do not for a minute believe this central allegation, I am not really interested in the heat and the light generated from it. You may want it to be serious for the SNP for political reasons, but wanting something doesn't always make it fact. Especially when the second part of your narrative is that as the SNP are crooks you have to vote Tory to get them out. Because the idea that people vote Tory to remove the stench of corruption and cronyism is laughable.

All the evidence points to the conspiracy and fact that despite most of it being known about , the government not allowing it to be in the inquiry is the only thing that stops it being stated says it all. Anyone interested will have seen the evidence , know at least some of the names being hidden etc and know it is true. They tried to nobble him , he did not fold and they knew their goose was cooked on judicial review so gathered together a list and handed it direct to crown , despite the original two participants stating they did not want police involved. They hoped the criminal case would overtake the judicial review and save their skins. Then it was a case of ever increasing problems trying to hide, burn , etc all the evidence. They stupidly had not thought that Salmond got every document to help with his defence. So it all comes down to whether they can continue to sue crown etc to hide the evidence from parliament.

Just so we are clear. The evidence points to these 9 women lying to the police and perjuring themselves on the stand?

I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see the snowflakes were getting upset at the Prince NutNut moniker.

I'm sure none of them have ever used or laughed at say Nicola Sturgeon being called Janette Krankie.

To be honest I haven't

But you have compared politicians to the Stasi, as satire, so you're happy to throw insults about when it suits.

As a wise man once said, grow up.

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.

But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.

tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.

But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?

FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.

Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?

I mean this is a bit of the why does the PM fly by PJ/first class thing. Because he is the PM. Because it's No.10 - an iconic building, etc...

£30k pa as a typical cost for decorating a mid terrace house in Harlow? Do you paint your walls with gold?

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Stuartinromford said:

squareroot2 said:

Poor attempt to smear Johnson for doing something so that it doesn't come out of the public purse.

Or they could just.... Not redecorate and live with TMay's "John Lewis furniture nightmare" (quote from The Times), like any normal person would.

Besides, everyone knows that there's no point redecorating when you've just had a baby. Mark my words, it'll need redoing faster than you can say "Darling, how many times have I asked you to keep the Sharpies out of Wilfed's reach?"

Few live with other peoples style. As an extreme example of this, our lovely neighbours spent a lot of money putting in a kitchen that they liked. They moved to Scotland and the new owners (wife) didn't like the kitchen and had it ripped out and spent zillions putting another one in that was more to her taste...

Which is why most tied/rental/temporary accommodation tends towards the bland and inoffensive.

What we have here appears to be a couple who want to spend a fortune they don't have making a lifestyle statement that someone else may then have to live with.

For Boris, too, is mortal.

Eldest Granddaughter and her partner are in the process of buying a 'pre-owned' house .... well he's buying, she's a post grad student ..... and the 'white goods', which are being left, are black. Not Eldest Granddaughter's taste at all. Nor her partners, apparently.

YBarddCwsc said:

Flatlander said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Perhaps in the list of reasons the Prime Minister might retire before 2024, this provides more evidence that Boris is cash-strapped.

Last week as I was applauding Boris's performance, other PBers debated whether he looked 80 or just 70 years old. If Boris does hope to make serious money on the American lecture circuit, he must keep a rheumy eye on the calendar.

Theresa May outdoes Boris Johnson with £1m from speech fees

... The former prime minister earned £136,000 last month [September] for delivering a speech in Seoul on global responses to the coronavirus pandemic. It takes her total for after-dinner talks so far this year to more than £1 million.

The fee means that the MP for Maidenhead appears to have surpassed Boris Johnson for after-dinner earning power.

Before becoming prime minister in July [2019], Mr Johnson was paid £123,000 to fly to India and address a publishing company in the New Delhi quarter of Connaught Place.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-may-outdoes-boris-johnson-with-1m-from-speech-fees-8cvwnhvxd (£££)

Being paid far too much too give speeches seems like a much bigger issue than some soft furnishings.

What piece of insight about Covid could Theresa possibly offer that is worth £136k to South Korea?

An astonishing sum, even for a lively & interesting speaker providing genuine insight.

At market rates, a Theresa May speech is surely worth more like £1.36.

They are paying for the meltdown in the Q&A afterwards. “NOTHING HAS CHANGED”.

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.

But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.

tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.

But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?

FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.

Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?...

Per annum ?
You have elevated tastes.

https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1366692961136828416?s=20

https://www.scottishparliament.tv/

"Single"

https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/1366692039820247040?s=20

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I see the snowflakes were getting upset at the Prince NutNut moniker.

I'm sure none of them have ever used or laughed at say Nicola Sturgeon being called Janette Krankie.

To be honest I haven't

But you have compared politicians to the Stasi, as satire, so you're happy to throw insults about when it suits.

As a wise man once said, grow up.

He who is without sin first cast the stone

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FPT

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Nobody made the PM or his wife redecorate. I have this crazy idea that this voluntary act of expenditure should be funded by those that chose to make it. And who also live there.

Only this grasping clown could imagine that his latest trick's vast redecoration bill should be picked up by "charity". Prime Ministers and their Spouses have complained about the Downing Street accommodation since times past - and yet all have resisted claiming that "charity" should pick up the bill as they redecorated "for the nation".

But lets not look at that. Far more fun to look north at he said she said as we get to the heart of the vast SNP conspiracy that culminated in 9 women deliberately perjuring themselves as part of a plot to jail the former leader of the SNP to advance the cause of the SNP or whatever.

Re your last paragraph it is the SNP involved in their own civil war, and as a matter of interest did you listen to all of Salmond’s testimony and if so not recognise just how serious this is for the SNP and has nothing to do with anything south of the border

As I have posted repeatedly, there is a lot of heat and light being generated by the central event. Others are fascinated by the heat and light and opportunities for outrage based off it. I am far more interested in the central event which is the source of the heat and light.

According to Salmond, there is a conspiracy against him within the SNP which culminated in 9 women making entirely false and malicious allegations against him to the police and on the witness stand. These women, and the SNP/government bigwigs, were supposedly motivated by the desire to have Salmond carted away to prison and thus out of the way politically.

As I do not for a minute believe this central allegation, I am not really interested in the heat and the light generated from it. You may want it to be serious for the SNP for political reasons, but wanting something doesn't always make it fact. Especially when the second part of your narrative is that as the SNP are crooks you have to vote Tory to get them out. Because the idea that people vote Tory to remove the stench of corruption and cronyism is laughable.

All the evidence points to the conspiracy and fact that despite most of it being known about , the government not allowing it to be in the inquiry is the only thing that stops it being stated says it all. Anyone interested will have seen the evidence , know at least some of the names being hidden etc and know it is true. They tried to nobble him , he did not fold and they knew their goose was cooked on judicial review so gathered together a list and handed it direct to crown , despite the original two participants stating they did not want police involved. They hoped the criminal case would overtake the judicial review and save their skins. Then it was a case of ever increasing problems trying to hide, burn , etc all the evidence. They stupidly had not thought that Salmond got every document to help with his defence. So it all comes down to whether they can continue to sue crown etc to hide the evidence from parliament.

Just so we are clear. The evidence points to these 9 women lying to the police and perjuring themselves on the stand?

I haven't followed it in that much detail so I have considered the likelihood that 9 people could be persuaded to open themselves up to such deep legal shit if they were caught doing something that not only doesn't benefit them personally but is also of questionable political benefit to the SNP.

I would respectively suggest that as you have not followed it in much detail, Malc is a far better judge of this matter and indeed Salmond's own testimony was articulate, persuasive and given under oath

There is a lot more to this but then you admit you have not done the detail

Rochdale seems to rather missed the point here. So far as the complainants are concerned they have a quite considerable beef with the people who let them down so badly.

Cookie said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MarqueeMark said:

This header means Covid is over.

And Boris has got away with the tens of thousands of Covid deaths that the media had tried to lay at his door. Because....soft furnishings.

Boris doesn't have any deaths at his door, disease happens. Pandemics happen. That is nature.

What mankind can do is develop vaccines and along with Israel the UK is first and one of the best in the world for that.

So let's all talk about wallpaper that is not being billed to taxpayers. 🙄

Um, glad to hear you are firing on all cylinders.

In time there will be a public enquiry about all this and it may well find that actions taken caused further deaths.

Now, I am more a fan of the "heat of battle" theory of coping with such events but we must all wait for that enquiry before we can say with any certainty whatsoever that he "doesn't have any deaths at his door". Or that he does, for that matter.

All prime ministers will have "deaths at their door". Decisions have consequences and if you are leading a government you will need to make decisions that will kill people, often on the basis that saving those lives would cost too much money rather than the more dramatic "let's bomb X".
With the benefit of hindsight we can see a number of things we would now do differently, and in many cases at the time there were a lot of people calling for what now appears to be the better decision, but in most cases there were those calling for the opposite.
I think it would be essential to have a major enquiry (inquiry?) into the government's response if only to learn what lessons we can, but it it is just designed to find fault then those who might end up being blamed will not be prepared to cooperate and we will not learn nearly as much as we might.

Excellent post.

Indeed. The air transport industry is the gold standard in this. When 'summat happens' there is, when the immediate issues have been sorted, an inquiry, which very very rarely assigns 'blame' to any individual or corporation. It's far more likely to be systemic. For example, there was a Korean Airlines crash in which the basic problem was found to be that, in Korean, there are forms of speech to be used by an inferior to a superior, and the use of these failed to alert the captain of the aircraft to the danger.
As a result, I believe, Korean Airlines aircrew, certainly those in conceivably 'risky' situations, use English.

Bit small-scale and provincial, isn't it? Boris and Carrie should Think Bigger in this era of Global Britain. Perhaps they could ask Vladimir to send them a virtual tour of his pad, to expand their horizons.

kjh said:

ErgoPropterHoc said:

Selebian said:

ErgoPropterHoc said:

I think she's his fiancée, not his finance.

Good point!

Are you some kind of magician, by the way? I see that you have zero posts, notwithstanding the above. Also a total of 20 likes on 0 posts. That's highly impressive, your average per post is... infinite

I do seem to have adopted a somewhat ghostly presence here.. Side effect of the Pfizer?!

I'm glad I had AZ if Pfizer turns you into a ghost.

I can personally testify that AZ can cause horrific symptoms for 48 hours in the under 40s and have heard this anecdotedly from several others as well. Like the worst flu you've ever had, violent shaking tremors and cold sweats that drench the bed.

Conversely everyone I know older than 60 has had nothing more than a sore arm for a day with either vaccine. If this reaction is typical for younger recipients, then if the government is smart, they'll find a way to give something else to the Clean Living Gen Z crowd. Or not only will take-up of Dose 2 seriously lag Dose 1, they'll put back the general vaccine cause for years.

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

This, and Naomi Wolf's recent mad tweet, provide further evidence for my assertion that analogies rarely illuminate, and often do quite the opposite.

https://twitter.com/Garnet_Smuczer/status/1365879949031333894

People who offer them behave like they’re giving you a pair of binoculars, but usually it turns out they have been looking through the wrong end?

Analogies are a real problem in teaching Physics because it is easy to take the whole thing beyond the point where the analogy works. Thinking of electrical circuits as being like water in a pipe is good for some aspects of teaching current, but electrons in a wire can't leak out (and yes, I do know about short circuits: the point is you can't run out of electrons in the wire), nor can they freeze...

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1366691780251574273?s=20

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I know parties have to declare donations but do charities?

Would it be possible to set up a charity but keep the donors to it anonymous? Would that help smooth concerns?

Also could a proposed charity potentially cover all such accomodations, like the Lord Chancellor's £165k wallpaper etc

No, but charities cannot pass legislation, our Prime Minister can.

Anonymous donors in your scenario would be much much worse.

We need as much transparency as possible on who is giving money to improve the PM's house.

I actually agree with that in so far as charity donations would not be acceptable, but private ones not involving the taxpayer is a matter for them

YBarddCwsc said:

Flatlander said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Perhaps in the list of reasons the Prime Minister might retire before 2024, this provides more evidence that Boris is cash-strapped.

Last week as I was applauding Boris's performance, other PBers debated whether he looked 80 or just 70 years old. If Boris does hope to make serious money on the American lecture circuit, he must keep a rheumy eye on the calendar.

Theresa May outdoes Boris Johnson with £1m from speech fees

... The former prime minister earned £136,000 last month [September] for delivering a speech in Seoul on global responses to the coronavirus pandemic. It takes her total for after-dinner talks so far this year to more than £1 million.

The fee means that the MP for Maidenhead appears to have surpassed Boris Johnson for after-dinner earning power.

Before becoming prime minister in July [2019], Mr Johnson was paid £123,000 to fly to India and address a publishing company in the New Delhi quarter of Connaught Place.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-may-outdoes-boris-johnson-with-1m-from-speech-fees-8cvwnhvxd (£££)

Being paid far too much too give speeches seems like a much bigger issue than some soft furnishings.

What piece of insight about Covid could Theresa possibly offer that is worth £136k to South Korea?

An astonishing sum, even for a lively & interesting speaker providing genuine insight.

At market rates, a Theresa May speech is surely worth more like £1.36.

A remarkable success for British invisible exports, then...