CarlottaVance said:

MSPs are being sworn in for the new session of the Scottish Parliament. The parliament has issued a list of MSPs swearing the oath or taking the affirmation in a language or dialect other than English.

https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1392764399769821184?s=20

That's going to be wonderful for virtue signalling in future years.

I'd do it in Latin.

Does a Rhodesian-born white person doing it in Shona count as cultural appropriation?

Nice of HMG to take responsibility for this sort of thing, if only they could be as officious about incoming Covid carriers.

MattW said:

CarlottaVance said:

MSPs are being sworn in for the new session of the Scottish Parliament. The parliament has issued a list of MSPs swearing the oath or taking the affirmation in a language or dialect other than English.

https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1392764399769821184?s=20

Does this byelection effectively give the SNP a majority? It would be 65 out of 130.

What happens re: the Presiding Officer in those circs?

No as it is for Westminster

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

True. So still a bit of a cock-up on their side.

I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).

If someone is being vexatious then the courts can put a stop to that and they do.

I work for a company that issues a lot of a CCJs, this I didn't receive the paperwork usually doesn't wash with the courts.

Bloke on the radio (LBC) said it usually did. A genuine reason for not having received it - say it was in a pile of letters on the PMs desk with a "will get round to" or "not important" label; the PM isn't expected to open his own letters - is a good enough reason to have it set aside.

Having in the long dead past received such letters I wish I'd known I could have told the Court that.
Quite frankly I don't believe the Court would have accepted that excuse.

I've never had a CCJ - but I was close to it. I left a room I was renting (1st year out of uni) as the landlord was letching over my girlfriend. A little while later I went round to chat to the guys who still lived there and they said I had mail. Sat there were various Housing Benefit cheques (still sealed in their envelopes) and then a couple of letters from the council, the latter saying they were taking me to court for having taken housing benefit having moved out.

So I rang the council:
"Why are you talking me to court in 5 days?"
"Because you didn't tell us you had moved out, we paid you housing benefit you weren't entitled to, we want to recoup the money".
"Great - except that I did tell you I had moved out. Can I ask a question, how much housing benefit do you claim I have had that I wasn't entitled to?" they gave an amount which was the same as the cheques I had just opened.
"Have the cheques been cashed?"
"The money has been issued to you and you need to pay it back"
"yes, and have the cheques been cashed?"

Grudgingly they withdrew the claim when I pointed out that the money I had taken from them was still in their bank account. Had I not gone back I would have a CCJ against me for monies I didn't owe.

CarlottaVance said:

MSPs are being sworn in for the new session of the Scottish Parliament. The parliament has issued a list of MSPs swearing the oath or taking the affirmation in a language or dialect other than English.

https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1392764399769821184?s=20

Glad to see that two of my MSPs are swearing in Doric.

tlg86 said:

Malmesbury said:

tlg86 said:

MattW said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Anabobazina said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

This isn't official (we don't have those numbers) but the workings are plausible and this guy's predictions have been right before.
If the UK does have 11 million unused Covid doses as of now, that's not really on, is it?
https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1392135558126870530?s=19

I've heard the second half of this month will see much of the stockpile drawn down as supply issues loosen and Moderna ramps up a bit. It exists because the EU threatened to cut off supply and the government needed to ensure it had enough for second doses.

Indeed, worth noting that 11m might sound like a lot but it doesn’t even get us through the remaining first doses, never mind the coming second dose debt. Absolute numbers fallacy strikes back.

The UK has done about 55 million jabs so far, so it's another 20% in float, so to speak. At half a million a day, it's a bit more than 3 week's stock. Intuitively, that seems like a lot.

And whilst there was a vaccine war, and the EU was much more in the wrong than the UK, that seems to have settled down. It also doesn't explain the unused AZ doses. I though the UK production network was chugging away reliably now.

Still seems odd. And not entirely on.

We're not doing many AZ first doses. All under 40s are getting Pfizer or Moderna, there's only around 3-4m AZ first doses needed in total now and around 15m second doses but second doses for AZ need to be timed to 12 weeks.

There's no great conspiracy here, just timing and changes of plan.

Do they have to be timed to 12 weeks? I had mine after 10.

I thought that maximising immunity was 8-12 (ish), which gives plenty of leeway to juggle if we have spare distribution capacity.

Agree that there is no issue, however.

My mum was told that if you didn't get your second AZ within 12 weeks, you had to start over.

Who said that? Professor Peston, FRS, DipShit?

Someone at Epsom Racecourse. Whether they knew what they were talking about, I don't know.

They did not.

RochdalePioneers said:

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

True. So still a bit of a cock-up on their side.

I was thinking more of the fact that someone could be caused a lot of hassle by being bombarded with nonsense claims all of which would (apparently) require some degree of response and the time/money that implies if the courts don't do some basic checking (of course, if the courts did do some basic checking, they'd be the ones with time/money wasted, so it's understandable).

If someone is being vexatious then the courts can put a stop to that and they do.

I work for a company that issues a lot of a CCJs, this I didn't receive the paperwork usually doesn't wash with the courts.

Bloke on the radio (LBC) said it usually did. A genuine reason for not having received it - say it was in a pile of letters on the PMs desk with a "will get round to" or "not important" label; the PM isn't expected to open his own letters - is a good enough reason to have it set aside.

Having in the long dead past received such letters I wish I'd known I could have told the Court that.
Quite frankly I don't believe the Court would have accepted that excuse.

I've never had a CCJ - but I was close to it. I left a room I was renting (1st year out of uni) as the landlord was letching over my girlfriend. A little while later I went round to chat to the guys who still lived there and they said I had mail. Sat there were various Housing Benefit cheques (still sealed in their envelopes) and then a couple of letters from the council, the latter saying they were taking me to court for having taken housing benefit having moved out.

So I rang the council:
"Why are you talking me to court in 5 days?"
"Because you didn't tell us you had moved out, we paid you housing benefit you weren't entitled to, we want to recoup the money".
"Great - except that I did tell you I had moved out. Can I ask a question, how much housing benefit do you claim I have had that I wasn't entitled to?" they gave an amount which was the same as the cheques I had just opened.
"Have the cheques been cashed?"
"The money has been issued to you and you need to pay it back"
"yes, and have the cheques been cashed?"

Grudgingly they withdrew the claim when I pointed out that the money I had taken from them was still in their bank account. Had I not gone back I would have a CCJ against me for monies I didn't owe.

We once lost a mortgage offer because their credit searches found my wife had a judgment against her.

We literally had no idea, never had any correspondence from them or any collection agency and it came as a huge shock and upset.

Spoke to credit rating agency who gave us some details and we spoke to the bank in question and if memory serves also the regulator.

In the end it was withdrawn and she received compensation - but we lost the house we were going for and it caused a huge amount of emotional distress in the meantime.

My sympathies are with anyone who gets caught up in one of these things because it is so very upsetting and stressful.

CarlottaVance said:

MSPs are being sworn in for the new session of the Scottish Parliament. The parliament has issued a list of MSPs swearing the oath or taking the affirmation in a language or dialect other than English.

https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1392764399769821184?s=20

That looks quite self-indulgent to me.

bigjohnowls said:

CLP AGM 14 days away

I will no longer be a Labour member in 15 days (although I understand I will still be counted as a member for a further 7 months)

I knew you were unhappy with the lack of progress -who will you vote for in future?

Floater said:

bigjohnowls said:

CLP AGM 14 days away

I will no longer be a Labour member in 15 days (although I understand I will still be counted as a member for a further 7 months)

I knew you were unhappy with the lack of progress -who will you vote for in future?

I think he would be happy with a lack of Progress.

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

CarlottaVance said:

MSPs are being sworn in for the new session of the Scottish Parliament. The parliament has issued a list of MSPs swearing the oath or taking the affirmation in a language or dialect other than English.

https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1392764399769821184?s=20

That looks quite self-indulgent to me.

I just wanted to know what the best Doric swear words are...

Ionian know sharn (shit) and dowp (arse).

borisatsun said:

williamglenn said:

Oh dear.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00899-0/fulltext

I started reading the article and just over halfway through the first sentence,

"Restricted access to data hampers trust in research."

I asked myself "WTF is a 'data hamper'?"

You can get them from Fortnums.....

Theuniondivvie said:

Nice of HMG to take responsibility for this sort of thing, if only they could be as officious about incoming Covid carriers.

Are you sure it is not an SNP instruction based on a rumour of English people being spotted in that street?

Industrial strategies are back in fashion.

Korea to create world's largest chip manufacturing complex
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2021/05/133_308778.html

MarqueeMark said:

borisatsun said:

williamglenn said:

Oh dear.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00899-0/fulltext

I started reading the article and just over halfway through the first sentence,

"Restricted access to data hampers trust in research."

I asked myself "WTF is a 'data hamper'?"

You can get them from Fortnums.....

But have to give them back if you’re BJ.

‘Boris Johnson has silk ties and luxury food hampers confiscated for exceeding limits on gifts to MPs’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-food-gifts-confiscated-b1844876.html

Some Republicans beginning to acknowledge that they have their own cancel culture...
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/553254-senate-gop-dismayed-by-vote-to-boot-cheney
...Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), who urged his Senate colleagues at the end of last year not to support objections to the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, said “I hope that Republicans will continue to be the party that values to free speech and doesn’t give in to group think.”

He praised Cheney as a “strong voice for conservative principles.”

“People ought to be able to speak their minds,” he said...

...Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) acknowledged she is worried about what the vote on Cheney says about how the Republican Party deals with members who criticize Trump, regardless of their good standing on a variety of other issues.

“Yeah, I am,” she said. “None of us should live in fear of a comment that might be made. I recognize that we all have decisions and choices we make but if I as an elected member feel that I cannot speak because I will be shut down by my party or my party leader, I don’t think that that allows for the type of representation that I think Alaskans [expect.]”...

borisatsun said:

@Floater was just reading your posts about your son's insane electricity bills.

I don't know her at all, but Felicity Hannah (who's a consumer affairs journalist, sometimes on the Beeb) seems a good egg and is often asking on the twitters for people to bring their problems to her..

Her email and twitter are on her website here
http://felicityhannah.co.uk/pitch-me/

Thank you!

This has come up on my Facebook page. Originally somewhat racist, so I've amended it.

THE CURRENT BANKING CRISIS
Chap bought a donkey from a farmer for £100.
The farmer agreed to deliver the donkey the next day.
The next day he drove up and said, 'Sorry son,
but I have some bad news. The donkey's died.'
Chap replied, 'Well then just give me my money back.'
The farmer said, 'Can't do that. I've already spent it.' ,
'OK, then, just bring me the dead donkey.'
The farmer asked, 'What are you going to do with him?'
'I'm going to raffle him off.'
The farmer said, 'You can't raffle a dead donkey!'
Chap said, 'Of course I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he's dead.'
A month later, the two met up again and the farmer asked,
' What happened with that dead donkey?'
'I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at £2 each
and made a profit of £898'
The farmer said, 'Didn't anyone complain?'
'Just the guy who won. So I gave him his £2 back.'

Appealed to me, given the current discussion here.

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

I very much doubt whether Mr F is, but there is somebody/are somebodies who are paid good money to do so, and had plenty of time in which to check.
If that person /those persons were so stupid as to simply throw the letter(s) away without checking, then I fear for the recruitment polices at 10 Downing Street.

Casino_Royale said:

CarlottaVance said:

MSPs are being sworn in for the new session of the Scottish Parliament. The parliament has issued a list of MSPs swearing the oath or taking the affirmation in a language or dialect other than English.

https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1392764399769821184?s=20

That looks quite self-indulgent to me.

It isn't quite self-indulgent, its MASSIVELY self-indulgent. Set aside the stupidity of swearing in foreign languages (Canadian French???) and look at the dialects. We have people swearing in English (ok), Scottish Gaelic (ok), Scots (ok). And then dialects - Doric (a dialect of Scots), and fabulously Orcadian (a dialect of insular Scots which is itself a dialect of Scots).

We need to see that kind of variety at Westminster. Lets have MPs sworn in not just using English, Welsh or Cornish, but in Geordie, or Brummie etc. Lets have a debate about the proper term for a round bread item using proper dialectal words.

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

I think what is very evident is that with respect to naivety you are at great deal more risk than me. How are your efforts to spend less a keyboard warrior and get a little more experience of real life going?

A CCJ would have almost certainly been brought to his attention. He most likely forgot about it. You do not have to be a great scholar of human psychology to realise that is what Johnson is very likely to have done, in the same way as it was easy to imagine he said the line about the piles of bodies. Unsurprisingly, Mr Scholar of The keyboard, 'tis you that is being naïve. Go and get some fresh air!

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

CarlottaVance said:

MSPs are being sworn in for the new session of the Scottish Parliament. The parliament has issued a list of MSPs swearing the oath or taking the affirmation in a language or dialect other than English.

https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1392764399769821184?s=20

That looks quite self-indulgent to me.

It isn't quite self-indulgent, its MASSIVELY self-indulgent. Set aside the stupidity of swearing in foreign languages (Canadian French???) and look at the dialects. We have people swearing in English (ok), Scottish Gaelic (ok), Scots (ok). And then dialects - Doric (a dialect of Scots), and fabulously Orcadian (a dialect of insular Scots which is itself a dialect of Scots).

We need to see that kind of variety at Westminster. Lets have MPs sworn in not just using English, Welsh or Cornish, but in Geordie, or Brummie etc. Lets have a debate about the proper term for a round bread item using proper dialectal words.

Hasn't Orcadian some Norse roots as well?

Birmingham Council is tearing down statues after they consulted citizens in a ‘poll’. I have my doubts about this ‘poll’. Some of the findings:


‘Other highlights from the consultation were that 51 per cent of people agreed to proposals to include Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and female candidates for all council shortlists, with 35 per cent disagreeing, while 75 per cent agreed compulsory equalities training was needed.’

https://twitter.com/_saveourstatues/status/1392112322571874306?s=21

This Wokeness is going to destroy the Left. But before it does the Left will do its best to destroy our culture, streets and self-esteem

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

I think what is very evident is that with respect to naivety you are at great deal more risk than me. How are your efforts to spend less a keyboard warrior and get a little more experience of real life going?

A CCJ would have almost certainly been brought to his attention. He most likely forgot about it. You do not have to be a great scholar of human psychology to realise that is what Johnson is very likely to have done, in the same way as it was easy to imagine he said the line about the piles of bodies. Unsurprisingly, Mr Scholar of The keyboard, 'tis you that is being naïve. Go and get some fresh air!

So what you're saying is that it may have come to his attention that there was a vexatious and clearly bullshit claim by a crank but he felt he has more important stuff to deal with during a global pandemic like vaccines etc?

I'm late to this, but I note that some early responses to this thread revolved around the usual argument that we have very low levels of reported electoral fraud currently, and therefore there is no need to introduce measures to combat it. This always amuses me, in much the same way as it's fun to ask ministers how many illegal immigrants there are in the country that they don't know about.

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

I think what is very evident is that with respect to naivety you are at great deal more risk than me. How are your efforts to spend less a keyboard warrior and get a little more experience of real life going?

A CCJ would have almost certainly been brought to his attention. He most likely forgot about it. You do not have to be a great scholar of human psychology to realise that is what Johnson is very likely to have done, in the same way as it was easy to imagine he said the line about the piles of bodies. Unsurprisingly, Mr Scholar of The keyboard, 'tis you that is being naïve. Go and get some fresh air!

So what you're saying is that it may have come to his attention that there was a vexatious and clearly bullshit claim by a crank but he felt he has more important stuff to deal with during a global pandemic like vaccines etc?

'I have consulted with the Prime Minister and he has no recollection of any dealings with this person, and there is no record of him having done so.This claim is false and indeed vexatious.'

There; that wasn't hard, was it?

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon said:

Birmingham Council is tearing down statues after they consulted citizens in a ‘poll’. I have my doubts about this ‘poll’. Some of the findings:


‘Other highlights from the consultation were that 51 per cent of people agreed to proposals to include Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and female candidates for all council shortlists, with 35 per cent disagreeing, while 75 per cent agreed compulsory equalities training was needed.’

https://twitter.com/_saveourstatues/status/1392112322571874306?s=21

This Wokeness is going to destroy the Left. But before it does the Left will do its best to destroy our culture, streets and self-esteem

Seems entirely plausible for Birmingham.

What's the issue? Buildings and statues are pulled down all the time. What proportion of buildings and statues up in Birmingham at the start of the 20th century are still there today?

Birmingham would be a much much finer city if they had retained 100% of the buildings and statues from 1900, and lost everything from the postwar period. As we have established.

I guess this latest iconoclasm is in keeping with that civic determination to self-harm

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlistairM said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I have to admit if there's one thing I'm going to miss about Covid-19 is no longer having the perfect excuse for not going to the mosque on Eid or in general.

What's wrong with "I don't want to"?

Doesn't work.

Genuinely interested, why not?

My mother and I have an agreement on my duties as a Muslim are pretty much limited to.

1) Don't drink alcohol

2) Don't gamble

3) Attend mosque for Eid (which is twice a year)

in exchange she won't ambush me with potential wives for an arranged marriage.

I'm looking at number 2 ...........

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

I think what is very evident is that with respect to naivety you are at great deal more risk than me. How are your efforts to spend less a keyboard warrior and get a little more experience of real life going?

A CCJ would have almost certainly been brought to his attention. He most likely forgot about it. You do not have to be a great scholar of human psychology to realise that is what Johnson is very likely to have done, in the same way as it was easy to imagine he said the line about the piles of bodies. Unsurprisingly, Mr Scholar of The keyboard, 'tis you that is being naïve. Go and get some fresh air!

So what you're saying is that it may have come to his attention that there was a vexatious and clearly bullshit claim by a crank but he felt he has more important stuff to deal with during a global pandemic like vaccines etc?

'I have consulted with the Prime Minister and he has no recollection of any dealings with this person, and there is no record of him having done so.This claim is false and indeed vexatious.'

There; that wasn't hard, was it?

No and that's what's happening now that it's been brought to attention instead of buried in a pile of spam.

Philip_Thompson said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

I think what is very evident is that with respect to naivety you are at great deal more risk than me. How are your efforts to spend less a keyboard warrior and get a little more experience of real life going?

A CCJ would have almost certainly been brought to his attention. He most likely forgot about it. You do not have to be a great scholar of human psychology to realise that is what Johnson is very likely to have done, in the same way as it was easy to imagine he said the line about the piles of bodies. Unsurprisingly, Mr Scholar of The keyboard, 'tis you that is being naïve. Go and get some fresh air!

So what you're saying is that it may have come to his attention that there was a vexatious and clearly bullshit claim by a crank but he felt he has more important stuff to deal with during a global pandemic like vaccines etc?

'I have consulted with the Prime Minister and he has no recollection of any dealings with this person, and there is no record of him having done so.This claim is false and indeed vexatious.'

There; that wasn't hard, was it?

No and that's what's happening now that it's been brought to attention instead of buried in a pile of spam.

Horse, stable door.

bigjohnowls said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

I think what is very evident is that with respect to naivety you are at great deal more risk than me. How are your efforts to spend less a keyboard warrior and get a little more experience of real life going?

A CCJ would have almost certainly been brought to his attention. He most likely forgot about it. You do not have to be a great scholar of human psychology to realise that is what Johnson is very likely to have done, in the same way as it was easy to imagine he said the line about the piles of bodies. Unsurprisingly, Mr Scholar of The keyboard, 'tis you that is being naïve. Go and get some fresh air!

So what you're saying is that it may have come to his attention that there was a vexatious and clearly bullshit claim by a crank but he felt he has more important stuff to deal with during a global pandemic like vaccines etc?

Can he not multitask?

With the million and one things that probably get spammed to his office daily? No, prioritisation is surely key.

When we got married my then fiancée sent wedding invitations to 10 Downing Street, as well as the Queen, Mickey Mouse and to LFC.

Mr. Eagles, I had an excellent RE/RS teacher. He was a Methodist laypreacher. His approach to the Methodist prohibition on drinking was akin to Jack Sparrow's interpretation of the rules of piracy.

Philip_Thompson said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

I think what is very evident is that with respect to naivety you are at great deal more risk than me. How are your efforts to spend less a keyboard warrior and get a little more experience of real life going?

A CCJ would have almost certainly been brought to his attention. He most likely forgot about it. You do not have to be a great scholar of human psychology to realise that is what Johnson is very likely to have done, in the same way as it was easy to imagine he said the line about the piles of bodies. Unsurprisingly, Mr Scholar of The keyboard, 'tis you that is being naïve. Go and get some fresh air!

So what you're saying is that it may have come to his attention that there was a vexatious and clearly bullshit claim by a crank but he felt he has more important stuff to deal with during a global pandemic like vaccines etc?

Can he not multitask?

With the million and one things that probably get spammed to his office daily? No, prioritisation is surely key.

When we got married my then fiancée sent wedding invitations to 10 Downing Street, as well as the Queen, Mickey Mouse and to LFC.

Someone will open all the letters. All of them.

Oh and someone from the Queen's household will have read your wife's letter.

Philip_Thompson said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

I think what is very evident is that with respect to naivety you are at great deal more risk than me. How are your efforts to spend less a keyboard warrior and get a little more experience of real life going?

A CCJ would have almost certainly been brought to his attention. He most likely forgot about it. You do not have to be a great scholar of human psychology to realise that is what Johnson is very likely to have done, in the same way as it was easy to imagine he said the line about the piles of bodies. Unsurprisingly, Mr Scholar of The keyboard, 'tis you that is being naïve. Go and get some fresh air!

So what you're saying is that it may have come to his attention that there was a vexatious and clearly bullshit claim by a crank but he felt he has more important stuff to deal with during a global pandemic like vaccines etc?

Can he not multitask?

With the million and one things that probably get spammed to his office daily? No, prioritisation is surely key.

When we got married my then fiancée sent wedding invitations to 10 Downing Street, as well as the Queen, Mickey Mouse and to LFC.

John McEnroe at Wimbledon applies.

TOPPING said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

I very much doubt whether Mr F is, but there is somebody/are somebodies who are paid good money to do so, and had plenty of time in which to check.
If that person /those persons were so stupid as to simply throw the letter(s) away without checking, then I fear for the recruitment polices at 10 Downing Street.

They can't not open every letter because that will be the one from the homeless disabled orphan of colour writing to Boris to ask for housing.

And miss out on a good laugh at their misery? I don't think so.

Wales will overtake Israel for first doses next week.

Leon said:

THE WEATHER

Is fucking shit again. It is definitely whisky in front of the fire weather.

That said I just went to a proper shop and spent some money so a sliver of normality for me has returned.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, I had an excellent RE/RS teacher. He was a Methodist laypreacher. His approach to the Methodist prohibition on drinking was akin to Jack Sparrow's interpretation of the rules of piracy.

To be honest drinking alcohol has never really appealed to me.

At university about a fortnight in a few of us went out to the pub/bars/nightclub for one day of heavy drinking, I was solely on the soft drinks, pepsi and J20s, one of the group got so drunk he ended up vomiting at the end of the night and at 2.45am he decided to ring his mother to tell her to come look after him. She was 250 miles away and unimpressed.

I kinda realised if I did that it would kill my mother and also I didn't want anything to impact my studies, so drinking wasn't for me.

When I finished university then I jumped straight into a career that was a 100 plus hours a week at the start, so again booze wasn't an option.

When I left London in 2005 for a job in Leeds I bought a place 60 miles away in North Yorkshire, so I was doing 600 miles a week just for work, and in late 2005 I started a relationship with a girl in Liverpool, so not really an option to drink for me, given those miles I was doing.

One thing that did scare me off as well as one my colleagues failed a breathalyzer test 72 hours after his last drink was like wow.

Why is the word "COULD" always used so fucking dishonestly in articles such as this.

June 21 'freedom' day could be DELAYED

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572939/SAGE-experts-hold-emergency-meeting-spread-Indian-variant-UK.html?ito=push-notification&ci=162472&si=30054150&ai=9572939

If I drive past a speed camera at 100 mph, it COULD flash me.

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
16m
Tory MPs, wrong as usual: if Johnson wanted 2023 election, he would wait another 8 weeks until 6 Jul, when new boundaries take effect

How soon after new boundaries take effect can an election be held? After all if there was an election on 6 July 2023 that would be after the boundaries are in place, but Parliament would have dissolved with the old ones. So is that viable?

Also is time needed for candidate selection on the new boundaries or won't that be an issue?

I believe the 1983 (?) election was held a matter of weeks after boundary review went through.
I think the difference then was that they were appealed, debated and voted on.
So everyone had a pretty good idea months before what they were.
They will report in July 2023. Which may be the first anyone hears. The tighter quota rules mean plenty more changes than usual.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

I think what is very evident is that with respect to naivety you are at great deal more risk than me. How are your efforts to spend less a keyboard warrior and get a little more experience of real life going?

A CCJ would have almost certainly been brought to his attention. He most likely forgot about it. You do not have to be a great scholar of human psychology to realise that is what Johnson is very likely to have done, in the same way as it was easy to imagine he said the line about the piles of bodies. Unsurprisingly, Mr Scholar of The keyboard, 'tis you that is being naïve. Go and get some fresh air!

So what you're saying is that it may have come to his attention that there was a vexatious and clearly bullshit claim by a crank but he felt he has more important stuff to deal with during a global pandemic like vaccines etc?

Can he not multitask?

With the million and one things that probably get spammed to his office daily? No, prioritisation is surely key.

When we got married my then fiancée sent wedding invitations to 10 Downing Street, as well as the Queen, Mickey Mouse and to LFC.

Someone will open all the letters. All of them.

Oh and someone from the Queen's household will have read your wife's letter.

Someone did. We got a response from all of them but hers was the only really personalised one.

Disneyland sent a postcard of Mickey and Minnie Mouse.
LFC sent a signed photo.
Downing Street (Cameron was PM) sent a polite stock response. I can't even remember how it went.

Buckingham Palace sent a personalised reply signed from the Queen's Lady in Waiting, addressed to my wife's father (only one to do that, her parents names were on the invitation), politely saying that Her Majesty would be unable to attend the wedding but wishing us the best for the wedding.

Someone at all will have opened them, but I doubt for a second that HMQ, Cameron, Dalglish (or it might have been Rodgers) or Mickey actually personally saw them.

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

Why is the word "COULD" always used so fucking dishonestly in articles such as this.

June 21 'freedom' day could be DELAYED

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572939/SAGE-experts-hold-emergency-meeting-spread-Indian-variant-UK.html?ito=push-notification&ci=162472&si=30054150&ai=9572939

If I drive past a speed camera at 100 mph, it COULD flash me.

Could and may are the journalists essential words.

Up to 100% of journalists write complete crap up to 100% of the time.

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

THE WEATHER

Is fucking shit again. It is definitely whisky in front of the fire weather.

That said I just went to a proper shop and spent some money so a sliver of normality for me has returned.

Again, don’t look at the forecast. Ugh

For anyone in any doubt April was a month of record-breaking cold and May is set to be the same, with added rain

Oops just did.
Weekend. Ugh.

rottenborough said:

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

THE WEATHER

Lovely day up here.

Seems ok today to me.

What do people expect in May?

Spring. Potentially summer weather.

Trump's former defence chief says 6th Jan insurrection was just tourists.


Steven Dennis
@StevenTDennis
·
15h
“There was no insurrection and to call it an insurrection in my opinion is a boldface lie,” he said. He said people walked in an orderly fashion between roped off stanchions at the Capitol taking videos and pictures. !!

https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1392563023697563653

Leon said:

Birmingham Council is tearing down statues after they consulted citizens in a ‘poll’. I have my doubts about this ‘poll’. Some of the findings:


‘Other highlights from the consultation were that 51 per cent of people agreed to proposals to include Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and female candidates for all council shortlists, with 35 per cent disagreeing, while 75 per cent agreed compulsory equalities training was needed.’

https://twitter.com/_saveourstatues/status/1392112322571874306?s=21

This Wokeness is going to destroy the Left. But before it does the Left will do its best to destroy our culture, streets and self-esteem

It's voodoo. It was an online consultation to gauge the thoughts of residents, with more than 4,000 people filling in the questionnaire online, so entirely self-selecting and vulnerable to campaign groups. I bet they haven't even checked where they lived.

It's probably what the leaders want anyway, so confirmation bias did the rest.

It will lead to key historic figures like Sir Robert Peel, Matthew Boulton and Joseph Chamberlain being targeted.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

bigjohnowls said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Selebian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.

Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.

The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'

She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.

But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.

She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html

As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.

You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.

A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.

Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?

I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.

I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.

Some poor sod has to wade through it all.

Why has a court, any court issued a judgement based on a bogus claim and not to his correct name ???
That's the worrying part of this

I said yesterday it isn't that worrying.

Many people when they apply for credit/services don't actually put their full names down.

For example plenty of Andrews put down their name as Andy. Other thing is people have a tendency miss out their middle name(s).

Financial service companies tend to overlook that so long as the the DOB and address is filled in correctly.

It happens a lot when you take in payslips to the bank for a mortgage/loan application.

Payslip might say And but HMRC don't care that much so long as the NI number is right (and of course the right of amount of tax is paid.)

That explains the name, but what about the apparently bogus claim. Do the courts not require some evidence of the debt before issuing a CCJ?

It's a bit worrying if anyone can file a false claim and if the victim doesn't oppose it in court then a CCJ is issue without any evidence, although presumably the person knowingly filing a false claim is open to sanction - would this count as perjury?

Boris Johnson/his staff would have three opportunities to show to the court that the debt was bogus, two before the CCJ was issued, and one 30 days after the CCJ was issued.

Here's the pre action protocol before submitting a CCJ claim.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

It is just another piece of evidence in the case of "Boris Johnson is an incompetent twat" court. Unfortunately the jury still seem to think the jovial ex-public schoolboy with the puppydog eyes is someone that needs to keep getting another chance.

Are you really so naive as to think that every letter that gets posted to 10 Downing Street is personally opened and read by Boris?

I think what is very evident is that with respect to naivety you are at great deal more risk than me. How are your efforts to spend less a keyboard warrior and get a little more experience of real life going?

A CCJ would have almost certainly been brought to his attention. He most likely forgot about it. You do not have to be a great scholar of human psychology to realise that is what Johnson is very likely to have done, in the same way as it was easy to imagine he said the line about the piles of bodies. Unsurprisingly, Mr Scholar of The keyboard, 'tis you that is being naïve. Go and get some fresh air!

So what you're saying is that it may have come to his attention that there was a vexatious and clearly bullshit claim by a crank but he felt he has more important stuff to deal with during a global pandemic like vaccines etc?

Can he not multitask?

With the million and one things that probably get spammed to his office daily? No, prioritisation is surely key.

When we got married my then fiancée sent wedding invitations to 10 Downing Street, as well as the Queen, Mickey Mouse and to LFC.

Someone will open all the letters. All of them.

Oh and someone from the Queen's household will have read your wife's letter.

Someone did. We got a response from all of them but hers was the only really personalised one.

Disneyland sent a postcard of Mickey and Minnie Mouse.
LFC sent a signed photo.
Downing Street (Cameron was PM) sent a polite stock response. I can't even remember how it went.

Buckingham Palace sent a personalised reply signed from the Queen's Lady in Waiting, addressed to my wife's father (only one to do that, her parents names were on the invitation), politely saying that Her Majesty would be unable to attend the wedding but wishing us the best for the wedding.

Someone at all will have opened them, but I doubt for a second that HMQ, Cameron, Dalglish (or it might have been Rodgers) or Mickey actually personally saw them.

Just thought I might mention to @Philip_Thompson that Boris Johnson did not invent the vaccines, nor does he put them through clinical trials or manage the logistical rollout. That may come as a surprise to you Philip, and I am sorry to break it to you, and also my apologies for telling you about Father Christmas a while ago.

Johnson did take the good advice that he was offered with respect to procurement for which we can be grateful that he did not overlook said advice. Personally I have more gratitude to the vaccine inventors and manufacturers than I do to politicians, but whatever floats your boat!

NEW THREAD

OldKingCole said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Casino_Royale said:

CarlottaVance said:

MSPs are being sworn in for the new session of the Scottish Parliament. The parliament has issued a list of MSPs swearing the oath or taking the affirmation in a language or dialect other than English.

https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1392764399769821184?s=20

That looks quite self-indulgent to me.

It isn't quite self-indulgent, its MASSIVELY self-indulgent. Set aside the stupidity of swearing in foreign languages (Canadian French???) and look at the dialects. We have people swearing in English (ok), Scottish Gaelic (ok), Scots (ok). And then dialects - Doric (a dialect of Scots), and fabulously Orcadian (a dialect of insular Scots which is itself a dialect of Scots).

We need to see that kind of variety at Westminster. Lets have MPs sworn in not just using English, Welsh or Cornish, but in Geordie, or Brummie etc. Lets have a debate about the proper term for a round bread item using proper dialectal words.

Hasn't Orcadian some Norse roots as well?

It does, as does Shetland. Also formerly Caithness on the mainland of Scotland originally. Very clear in placenames such as Wick, Papigoe, Sibster.