New poll for the Daily Mail has Rishi beating Boris as “Best PM” – politicalbetting.com
New poll for the Daily Mail has Rishi beating Boris as “Best PM” – politicalbetting.com
The graphic above is from today’s Daily Mail and has numbers that will seriously worry Downing Street. For as can been seen it suggests that those polled want Rishi Sunak to replace Johnson as PM and for the change to take place if not now then within a year.
Comments
-
Test0
-
Facebook has removed hundreds of accounts which it says were involved in anti-vax disinformation campaigns operated from Russia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-58167339
(There's a podcast linked from the bottom btw.)
We are lucky British elections and referendums are immune!
Oh, and that Russian outfit running the anti-vax campaign? It's registered in Britain.
https://about.fb.com/news/2021/08/july-2021-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior-report/2 -
"That the paper should commission such a survey and highlight the outcome in the manner it has indicates a desire that Johnson should go and this looks set to impact on future coverage. "
You say that like it is a a revelation. Its not new or a massive secret that the editor of the Daily Mail despises Boris and Brexit. They aren't the Daily Boris-graph. People seem to fail to grasp this. The only thing that restrains this is they have to be careful not lose the readership.
But their COVID coverage has been incredibly critical of the government's handling, I would say up there with the most hostile, government too slow, government too fast, not spending enough, spending too much....sometimes all these articles in the same day.3 -
Nurse in Germany suspected of replacing Covid vaccines with saline solution
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/11/nurse-in-germany-suspected-of-replacing-covid-vaccines-with-saline-solution0 -
- “I’ve just had a small bet at 8/1 on an exit this year.”
Best price in that market now is 15/2 (PP). Alternatively, there is this market:
Next G20 leader to leave - Smarkets
- Which of the listed G20 leaders will be the next to leave their position?
Yoshihide Suga, Japan 10/11
Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil 10/3
Emmanuel Macron, France 36/5
Boris Johnson, England 38/5
Joe Biden, U.S. 39/5
Justin Trudeau, Canada 42/5
Cyril Ramaphosa, S Africa 56/5
Vladimir Putin, Russia 56/5
Xi Jinping, China 68/5
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey 68/5
(“In the event of the death of any of the listed contracts before the completion of this market, the market will be void.”)
1 -
Dr Richard Sargeant, an academic and former cricketer, said in June before the review concluded: “I’d ask how a black person is meant to feel when they go to Lord’s, the so-called home of cricket, and there is a stand named after a man whose family wealth was built on slavery?”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/10/not-lords-keep-stand-named-england-captain-family-ties-slavery/
What a dickhead statement....if that's your standard, pretty much every bodies surname could be considered taboo, as I am sure somebody somewhere at some point called that did something really bad. And of course lots of people whose family wealth was built on things now considered bad, famously used that advantage for good, should we also cancel them because their forefathers did evil stuff?
Thankfully Holding is more sensible chap.
“I would not be crucifying family members for what happened 100 years ago. That aspect I don’t care about. The Warner Stand is named after him, but he was not someone actively involved in slavery. I have no problem with that.”1 -
Call for urgent A-levels overhaul as grades soar
70% of private school entries A or higher as Williamson at risk after series of missteps
The credibility of the A-level system risks being undermined by soaring grade inflation, politicians and education experts warned after yesterday’s unprecedented results.
0 -
Hopefuly Matt will be back from their holidays soon, so we can get some decent cartoons.Scott_xP said:Call for urgent A-levels overhaul as grades soar
70% of private school entries A or higher as Williamson at risk after series of missteps
The credibility of the A-level system risks being undermined by soaring grade inflation, politicians and education experts warned after yesterday’s unprecedented results.
6 -
Speaking of Michael Holding, his new book on racism and sport has been well-reviewed by the Racing Post.FrancisUrquhart said:Dr Richard Sargeant, an academic and former cricketer, said in June before the review concluded: “I’d ask how a black person is meant to feel when they go to Lord’s, the so-called home of cricket, and there is a stand named after a man whose family wealth was built on slavery?”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/10/not-lords-keep-stand-named-england-captain-family-ties-slavery/
What a dickhead statement....if that's your standard, pretty much every bodies surname could be considered taboo, as I am sure somebody somewhere at some point called that did something really bad. And of course lots of people whose family wealth was built on things now considered bad, used that advantage for good, should we also cancel them because their forefathers did evil stuff?
Thankfully Holding is more sensible chap.
“I would not be crucifying family members for what happened 100 years ago. That aspect I don’t care about. The Warner Stand is named after him, but he was not someone actively involved in slavery. I have no problem with that.”
Michael Holding's masterpiece might be the most important sports book you read
https://www.racingpost.com/news/michael-holdings-masterpiece-might-be-the-most-important-sports-book-you-read/5042060 -
I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.6
-
It is all right.Scott_xP said:Call for urgent A-levels overhaul as grades soar
70% of private school entries A or higher as Williamson at risk after series of missteps
The credibility of the A-level system risks being undermined by soaring grade inflation, politicians and education experts warned after yesterday’s unprecedented results.
[cartoon removed]
The government has a cunning plan to replace grade letters A to E with numbers.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/10/a-level-grades-could-scrapped-end-top-marks-free-for-all/ (£££)0 -
‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then?
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
1 -
One thing is for certain Airmiles Andy won't be sweating.....StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then?
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.0 -
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
ETA the Mail doubts Andrew has immunity anyway, not being the Queen.0 -
The girl was below the age of consent in her home state, but, unless I'm mistaken above it in UK. It doesn't make what appears to be trafficking any less unpleasant, of course. Or, as I understand it, illegal, since the (any) sex surely can't be described as consensual.DecrepiterJohnL said:
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
And good morning everyone. Brighter looking today, weatherise, although it's only 3 deg, according to my app.0 -
Him and Fergie, who I’m amazed to learn actually introduced him to Epstein, turned up at Balmoral yesterday. Fergie didn’t waste any time! The Duke of Edinburgh banned her from Balmoral 25 years ago, but the second he’s six feet under she swans back in the joint. Absolutely no shame.FrancisUrquhart said:
One thing is for certain Airmiles Andy won't be sweating.....StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then?
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Fergie’s social media outing last week was gut-wrenching. I urge anyone who missed it to catch up. You will not believe your eyes.
One feels sorry for Her Majesty who has to share a breakfast table this morning with that pair. If I was her I’d kick them out the door and release the hounds.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15834016/prince-andrew-bombshell-lawsuit-rape-first-degree/
2 -
Either this is a great time to lay Rishi, or I should really stop laying Rishi.0
-
Of course.OldKingCole said:
The girl was below the age of consent in her home state, but, unless I'm mistaken above it in UK. It doesn't make what appears to be trafficking any less unpleasant, of course. Or, as I understand it, illegal, since the (any) sex surely can't be described as consensual.DecrepiterJohnL said:
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
And good morning everyone. Brighter looking today, weatherise, although it's only 3 deg, according to my app.0 -
Are the skids finally under Williamson? Or will he creep away from trouble again?Casino_Royale said:Either this is a great time to lay Rishi, or I should really stop laying Rishi.
0 -
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.0 -
A+ for whataboutery and squirrel spotting. Impressive even by PB standards.DecrepiterJohnL said:
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
ETA the Mail doubts Andrew has immunity anyway, not being the Queen.
The place to deny allegations of criminal “incidents” against a teenager is in a court of law, not in the media.
Rape, sex trafficking, sexual assault and sex abuse are illegal. If the person is 7, 17, 27 or 87, it is illegal. These are very serious criminal acts.
If it also transpires that the victim was underage in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred, that will increase the sentence.
Incidentally, the man in a powerful position in Scotland actually faced the allegations in a court of law, and was cleared on all counts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-520042853 -
With what.or how, should they be replaced? The cohort now approaching 16 and about to do GCSE seem, if my family is any guide, to be in as bad a position as those who have just completed A levels. Then there ae those about to enter what I still call the Upper VIth; half way though a course which they know could well be life defining and their elders and 'betters' are threatening to shake the system up yet again.ydoethur said:
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.0 -
What’s wrong with awarding A Level grades on a forced ranking basis but with a 100 point rather than 6 letter scale?OldKingCole said:
With what.or how, should they be replaced? The cohort now approaching 16 and about to do GCSE seem, if my family is any guide, to be in as bad a position as those who have just completed A levels. Then there ae those about to enter what I still call the Upper VIth; half way though a course which they know could well be life defining and their elders and 'betters' are threatening to shake the system up yet again.ydoethur said:
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.1 -
Why is the Daily Mail describing it as “the Epstein scandal” and not “the Windsor scandal”. It’s a Windsor who’s being dragged to court screaming and shouting.
And why is the Daily Mail focussing on Andrew and Fergie losing their grace and favour (ie taxpayer-funded) mansion in Windsor? I’ll tell you why: this is the establishment setting up their own idea of what a reasonable “punishment” is for a royal deviant: getting his vast mansion taken away so that he can live in another slightly less vast mansion. They really do despise the public. Take their cash and then spit in their faces.0 -
You’re rather presupposing in that post that having nothing would be worse than what we have now.OldKingCole said:
With what.or how, should they be replaced? The cohort now approaching 16 and about to do GCSE seem, if my family is any guide, to be in as bad a position as those who have just completed A levels. Then there ae those about to enter what I still call the Upper VIth; half way though a course which they know could well be life defining and their elders and 'betters' are threatening to shake the system up yet again.ydoethur said:
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.
Most of the actually important functions of the three education admin bodies could be moved elsewhere and done better - the DfE’s functions to the Treasury or the DCLG, OFSTED’s to the HSE and OFQUAL’s to either the universities (who used to hold it) or to the major professional bodies.
The last is probably the way we’re heading anyway given unis and professional associations are looking at having their own entrance exams.1 -
Agreed. The alleged crimes are terrible. It was your insinuation about specifically English courts.StuartDickson said:
A+ for whataboutery and squirrel spotting. Impressive even by PB standards.DecrepiterJohnL said:
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
ETA the Mail doubts Andrew has immunity anyway, not being the Queen.
The place to deny allegations of criminal “incidents” against a teenager is in a court of law, not in the media.
Rape, sex trafficking, sexual assault and sex abuse are illegal. If the person is 7, 17, 27 or 87, it is illegal. These are very serious criminal acts.
If it also transpires that the victim was underage in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred, that will increase the sentence.
Incidentally, the man in a powerful position in Scotland actually faced the allegations in a court of law, and was cleared on all counts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-520042850 -
Awful arrogant woman. Fergie I mean. I’m about fed up with the Royals. The only question mark is what to replace the head of state with.StuartDickson said:
Him and Fergie, who I’m amazed to learn actually introduced him to Epstein, turned up at Balmoral yesterday. Fergie didn’t waste any time! The Duke of Edinburgh banned her from Balmoral 25 years ago, but the second he’s six feet under she swans back in the joint. Absolutely no shame.FrancisUrquhart said:
One thing is for certain Airmiles Andy won't be sweating.....StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then?
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Fergie’s social media outing last week was gut-wrenching. I urge anyone who missed it to catch up. You will not believe your eyes.
One feels sorry for Her Majesty who has to share a breakfast table this morning with that pair. If I was her I’d kick them out the door and release the hounds.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15834016/prince-andrew-bombshell-lawsuit-rape-first-degree/
How about an Archbishop as head of the church, a lords clerk to rubber stamp bills, and an honorary position to entertain lesser dignitaries that the PM is too busy to meet. Johanna Lumley perhaps. Or Jo Rowling, Michael Palin. Russell Brand for the ones you want to get given an earful.
And if the US President visits, he can jolly well do what we have to do and put up with listening to our elected leader.0 -
It's at least arguable that a massive rethink, and confusion could be worse than what we have now. I'm thinking of the young people in the system; they know we may well haven't finished with Covid yet, so they fear that they could have their school time, their study time interrupted and disorganised yet again. And on top of that there are threats that the exam system will be substantially rejigged.ydoethur said:
You’re rather presupposing in that post that having nothing would be worse than what we have now.OldKingCole said:
With what.or how, should they be replaced? The cohort now approaching 16 and about to do GCSE seem, if my family is any guide, to be in as bad a position as those who have just completed A levels. Then there ae those about to enter what I still call the Upper VIth; half way though a course which they know could well be life defining and their elders and 'betters' are threatening to shake the system up yet again.ydoethur said:
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.
Most of the actually important functions of the three education admin bodies could be moved elsewhere and done better - the DfE’s functions to the Treasury or the DCLG, OFSTED’s to the HSE and OFQUAL’s to either the universities (who used to hold it) or to the major professional bodies.
The last is probably the way we’re heading anyway given unis and professional associations are looking at having their own entrance exams.
Whatever happens ought to happen in a planned and thoughtful way. Not hastily and piecemeal.0 -
One fundamental question is whether we still need GCSEs now that, for all practical purposes, the school-leaving age has been raised to 18. Scrap GCSEs and save a bunch of money and teenage angst.OldKingCole said:
It's at least arguable that a massive rethink, and confusion could be worse than what we have now. I'm thinking of the young people in the system; they know we may well haven't finished with Covid yet, so they fear that they could have their school time, their study time interrupted and disorganised yet again. And on top of that there are threats that the exam system will be substantially rejigged.ydoethur said:
You’re rather presupposing in that post that having nothing would be worse than what we have now.OldKingCole said:
With what.or how, should they be replaced? The cohort now approaching 16 and about to do GCSE seem, if my family is any guide, to be in as bad a position as those who have just completed A levels. Then there ae those about to enter what I still call the Upper VIth; half way though a course which they know could well be life defining and their elders and 'betters' are threatening to shake the system up yet again.ydoethur said:
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.
Most of the actually important functions of the three education admin bodies could be moved elsewhere and done better - the DfE’s functions to the Treasury or the DCLG, OFSTED’s to the HSE and OFQUAL’s to either the universities (who used to hold it) or to the major professional bodies.
The last is probably the way we’re heading anyway given unis and professional associations are looking at having their own entrance exams.
Whatever happens ought to happen in a planned and thoughtful way. Not hastily and piecemeal.0 -
‘Prince Andrew Accuser 'Feared Death' If She Defied Him and Epstein: Court Filing’
Prince Andrew's accuser feared for her life if she did not have sex with him on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's orders…
… accused the royal of "sexual assault and battery" when she was 17 years old in a court filing alleging abuse in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
… "During each of the aforementioned incidents, [Giuffre] was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority."
She had previously complained to the Metropolitan Police about Prince Andrew's conduct but Britain's biggest police force had dropped the investigation.
…"In this country no person, whether President or Prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable, can be deprived of the law's protection.”
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-ghislaine-maxwell-feared-death-defied-epstein-lawsuit-new-york-1617735?amp=1
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.0 -
‘Fix Wobbly Shelf’ !0
-
Not sure; it's a sorting-out opportunity, but at least arguable.DecrepiterJohnL said:
One fundamental question is whether we still need GCSEs now that, for all practical purposes, the school-leaving age has been raised to 18. Scrap GCSEs and save a bunch of money and teenage angst.OldKingCole said:
It's at least arguable that a massive rethink, and confusion could be worse than what we have now. I'm thinking of the young people in the system; they know we may well haven't finished with Covid yet, so they fear that they could have their school time, their study time interrupted and disorganised yet again. And on top of that there are threats that the exam system will be substantially rejigged.ydoethur said:
You’re rather presupposing in that post that having nothing would be worse than what we have now.OldKingCole said:
With what.or how, should they be replaced? The cohort now approaching 16 and about to do GCSE seem, if my family is any guide, to be in as bad a position as those who have just completed A levels. Then there ae those about to enter what I still call the Upper VIth; half way though a course which they know could well be life defining and their elders and 'betters' are threatening to shake the system up yet again.ydoethur said:
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.
Most of the actually important functions of the three education admin bodies could be moved elsewhere and done better - the DfE’s functions to the Treasury or the DCLG, OFSTED’s to the HSE and OFQUAL’s to either the universities (who used to hold it) or to the major professional bodies.
The last is probably the way we’re heading anyway given unis and professional associations are looking at having their own entrance exams.
Whatever happens ought to happen in a planned and thoughtful way. Not hastily and piecemeal.0 -
I'm not sure you are in a position to make that assertion. Unless you've seen the evidence they reviewed when they took that decision?StuartDickson said:
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.
1 -
Part of doing well in A Levels is being well practiced at taking exams. Having GCSEs as a dry run is no bad thing.OldKingCole said:
Not sure; it's a sorting-out opportunity, but at least arguable.DecrepiterJohnL said:
One fundamental question is whether we still need GCSEs now that, for all practical purposes, the school-leaving age has been raised to 18. Scrap GCSEs and save a bunch of money and teenage angst.OldKingCole said:
It's at least arguable that a massive rethink, and confusion could be worse than what we have now. I'm thinking of the young people in the system; they know we may well haven't finished with Covid yet, so they fear that they could have their school time, their study time interrupted and disorganised yet again. And on top of that there are threats that the exam system will be substantially rejigged.ydoethur said:
You’re rather presupposing in that post that having nothing would be worse than what we have now.OldKingCole said:
With what.or how, should they be replaced? The cohort now approaching 16 and about to do GCSE seem, if my family is any guide, to be in as bad a position as those who have just completed A levels. Then there ae those about to enter what I still call the Upper VIth; half way though a course which they know could well be life defining and their elders and 'betters' are threatening to shake the system up yet again.ydoethur said:
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.
Most of the actually important functions of the three education admin bodies could be moved elsewhere and done better - the DfE’s functions to the Treasury or the DCLG, OFSTED’s to the HSE and OFQUAL’s to either the universities (who used to hold it) or to the major professional bodies.
The last is probably the way we’re heading anyway given unis and professional associations are looking at having their own entrance exams.
Whatever happens ought to happen in a planned and thoughtful way. Not hastily and piecemeal.2 -
Given that the nature of the top administration is to make hasty, piecemeal decisions to (a) respond to criticism and (b) justify their ridiculous salaries, that seems an even better argument for getting rid of it.OldKingCole said:
It's at least arguable that a massive rethink, and confusion could be worse than what we have now. I'm thinking of the young people in the system; they know we may well haven't finished with Covid yet, so they fear that they could have their school time, their study time interrupted and disorganised yet again. And on top of that there are threats that the exam system will be substantially rejigged.ydoethur said:
You’re rather presupposing in that post that having nothing would be worse than what we have now.OldKingCole said:
With what.or how, should they be replaced? The cohort now approaching 16 and about to do GCSE seem, if my family is any guide, to be in as bad a position as those who have just completed A levels. Then there ae those about to enter what I still call the Upper VIth; half way though a course which they know could well be life defining and their elders and 'betters' are threatening to shake the system up yet again.ydoethur said:
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.
Most of the actually important functions of the three education admin bodies could be moved elsewhere and done better - the DfE’s functions to the Treasury or the DCLG, OFSTED’s to the HSE and OFQUAL’s to either the universities (who used to hold it) or to the major professional bodies.
The last is probably the way we’re heading anyway given unis and professional associations are looking at having their own entrance exams.
Whatever happens ought to happen in a planned and thoughtful way. Not hastily and piecemeal.0 -
15.5C here; you must live up a mountain to be down at 3C this morning.OldKingCole said:
The girl was below the age of consent in her home state, but, unless I'm mistaken above it in UK. It doesn't make what appears to be trafficking any less unpleasant, of course. Or, as I understand it, illegal, since the (any) sex surely can't be described as consensual.DecrepiterJohnL said:
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
And good morning everyone. Brighter looking today, weatherise, although it's only 3 deg, according to my app.0 -
According to Virginia Giuffre herself, the FBI had also dropped the case, or been forced to drop the case.StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew Accuser 'Feared Death' If She Defied Him and Epstein: Court Filing’
Prince Andrew's accuser feared for her life if she did not have sex with him on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's orders…
… accused the royal of "sexual assault and battery" when she was 17 years old in a court filing alleging abuse in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
… "During each of the aforementioned incidents, [Giuffre] was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority."
She had previously complained to the Metropolitan Police about Prince Andrew's conduct but Britain's biggest police force had dropped the investigation.
…"In this country no person, whether President or Prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable, can be deprived of the law's protection.”
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-ghislaine-maxwell-feared-death-defied-epstein-lawsuit-new-york-1617735?amp=1
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.
https://twitter.com/VRSVirginia/status/1199113816077824001
It's a mess but not a particularly English one.0 -
deleted0
-
Tim Brooke-Taylor would have done a great job, in his Union Jack waistcoat. Cheery, friendly, light-hearted, twinkle in the eye, and a slight air of vulnerability. But the poor bloke got Covid early on. I sense that the BBC were largely to blame for unreasonably exposing him, and many other elderly people (audience and performers), to the then-known dangers of the virus.moonshine said:
Awful arrogant woman. Fergie I mean. I’m about fed up with the Royals. The only question mark is what to replace the head of state with.StuartDickson said:
Him and Fergie, who I’m amazed to learn actually introduced him to Epstein, turned up at Balmoral yesterday. Fergie didn’t waste any time! The Duke of Edinburgh banned her from Balmoral 25 years ago, but the second he’s six feet under she swans back in the joint. Absolutely no shame.FrancisUrquhart said:
One thing is for certain Airmiles Andy won't be sweating.....StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then?
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Fergie’s social media outing last week was gut-wrenching. I urge anyone who missed it to catch up. You will not believe your eyes.
One feels sorry for Her Majesty who has to share a breakfast table this morning with that pair. If I was her I’d kick them out the door and release the hounds.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15834016/prince-andrew-bombshell-lawsuit-rape-first-degree/
How about an Archbishop as head of the church, a lords clerk to rubber stamp bills, and an honorary position to entertain lesser dignitaries that the PM is too busy to meet. Johanna Lumley perhaps. Or Jo Rowling, Michael Palin. Russell Brand for the ones you want to get given an earful.
And if the US President visits, he can jolly well do what we have to do and put up with listening to our elected leader.
But Bill Oddie or Graeme Garden would do. Even a giant white kitten would suffice.1 -
Nurse!StuartDickson said:Why is the Daily Mail describing it as “the Epstein scandal” and not “the Windsor scandal”. It’s a Windsor who’s being dragged to court screaming and shouting.
And why is the Daily Mail focussing on Andrew and Fergie losing their grace and favour (ie taxpayer-funded) mansion in Windsor? I’ll tell you why: this is the establishment setting up their own idea of what a reasonable “punishment” is for a royal deviant: getting his vast mansion taken away so that he can live in another slightly less vast mansion. They really do despise the public. Take their cash and then spit in their faces.4 -
Returning drivers who have killed people abroad don’t seem particularly troubled by the law.StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew Accuser 'Feared Death' If She Defied Him and Epstein: Court Filing’
Prince Andrew's accuser feared for her life if she did not have sex with him on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's orders…
… accused the royal of "sexual assault and battery" when she was 17 years old in a court filing alleging abuse in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
… "During each of the aforementioned incidents, [Giuffre] was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority."
She had previously complained to the Metropolitan Police about Prince Andrew's conduct but Britain's biggest police force had dropped the investigation.
…"In this country no person, whether President or Prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable, can be deprived of the law's protection.”
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-ghislaine-maxwell-feared-death-defied-epstein-lawsuit-new-york-1617735?amp=1
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.6 -
Donald Trump’s accountants and Rudy Giuliani also seem to have been behind the door when the memo was read out.IanB2 said:
Returning drivers who have killed people abroad don’t seem particularly troubled by the law.StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew Accuser 'Feared Death' If She Defied Him and Epstein: Court Filing’
Prince Andrew's accuser feared for her life if she did not have sex with him on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's orders…
… accused the royal of "sexual assault and battery" when she was 17 years old in a court filing alleging abuse in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
… "During each of the aforementioned incidents, [Giuffre] was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority."
She had previously complained to the Metropolitan Police about Prince Andrew's conduct but Britain's biggest police force had dropped the investigation.
…"In this country no person, whether President or Prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable, can be deprived of the law's protection.”
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-ghislaine-maxwell-feared-death-defied-epstein-lawsuit-new-york-1617735?amp=1
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.
Possibly along with Epstein...0 -
Bad proof-reading! should have been 13! And nearly up to 14 now. Slightly concerning clouds, but only slightly!IanB2 said:
15.5C here; you must live up a mountain to be down at 3C this morning.OldKingCole said:
The girl was below the age of consent in her home state, but, unless I'm mistaken above it in UK. It doesn't make what appears to be trafficking any less unpleasant, of course. Or, as I understand it, illegal, since the (any) sex surely can't be described as consensual.DecrepiterJohnL said:
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
And good morning everyone. Brighter looking today, weatherise, although it's only 3 deg, according to my app.0 -
If you’d actually stepped outside you might have noticed the difference!OldKingCole said:
Bad proof-reading! should have been 13! And nearly up to 14 now. Slightly concerning clouds, but only slightly!IanB2 said:
15.5C here; you must live up a mountain to be down at 3C this morning.OldKingCole said:
The girl was below the age of consent in her home state, but, unless I'm mistaken above it in UK. It doesn't make what appears to be trafficking any less unpleasant, of course. Or, as I understand it, illegal, since the (any) sex surely can't be described as consensual.DecrepiterJohnL said:
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
And good morning everyone. Brighter looking today, weatherise, although it's only 3 deg, according to my app.0 -
He would never see the inside of a court in this country.StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then?
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.0 -
The tricky bit would be finding someone to agree to dine with violent African dictators. Tyson Fury perhaps. You could have a new junior minister role to arrange it all, “Minister for Lunching”. Or just appoint a Domestic Ambassador. Job done. I would vote for that. President vs Monarchy I would choose Monarch still. Can’t run the risk of someone like Blair squeezing his way back in.StuartDickson said:
Tim Brooke-Taylor would have done a great job, in his Union Jack waistcoat. Cheery, friendly, light-hearted, twinkle in the eye, and a slight air of vulnerability. But the poor bloke got Covid early on. I sense that the BBC were largely to blame for unreasonably exposing him, and many other elderly people (audience and performers), to the then-known dangers of the virus.moonshine said:
Awful arrogant woman. Fergie I mean. I’m about fed up with the Royals. The only question mark is what to replace the head of state with.StuartDickson said:
Him and Fergie, who I’m amazed to learn actually introduced him to Epstein, turned up at Balmoral yesterday. Fergie didn’t waste any time! The Duke of Edinburgh banned her from Balmoral 25 years ago, but the second he’s six feet under she swans back in the joint. Absolutely no shame.FrancisUrquhart said:
One thing is for certain Airmiles Andy won't be sweating.....StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then?
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Fergie’s social media outing last week was gut-wrenching. I urge anyone who missed it to catch up. You will not believe your eyes.
One feels sorry for Her Majesty who has to share a breakfast table this morning with that pair. If I was her I’d kick them out the door and release the hounds.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15834016/prince-andrew-bombshell-lawsuit-rape-first-degree/
How about an Archbishop as head of the church, a lords clerk to rubber stamp bills, and an honorary position to entertain lesser dignitaries that the PM is too busy to meet. Johanna Lumley perhaps. Or Jo Rowling, Michael Palin. Russell Brand for the ones you want to get given an earful.
And if the US President visits, he can jolly well do what we have to do and put up with listening to our elected leader.
But Bill Oddie or Graeme Garden would do. Even a giant white kitten would suffice.0 -
What guff as well , in US all you need is lots of cash and you are well above the lawDecrepiterJohnL said:
According to Virginia Giuffre herself, the FBI had also dropped the case, or been forced to drop the case.StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew Accuser 'Feared Death' If She Defied Him and Epstein: Court Filing’
Prince Andrew's accuser feared for her life if she did not have sex with him on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's orders…
… accused the royal of "sexual assault and battery" when she was 17 years old in a court filing alleging abuse in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
… "During each of the aforementioned incidents, [Giuffre] was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority."
She had previously complained to the Metropolitan Police about Prince Andrew's conduct but Britain's biggest police force had dropped the investigation.
…"In this country no person, whether President or Prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable, can be deprived of the law's protection.”
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-ghislaine-maxwell-feared-death-defied-epstein-lawsuit-new-york-1617735?amp=1
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.
https://twitter.com/VRSVirginia/status/1199113816077824001
It's a mess but not a particularly English one.0 -
The Met are a joke, Keystone Cops could do a better job.RobD said:
I'm not sure you are in a position to make that assertion. Unless you've seen the evidence they reviewed when they took that decision?StuartDickson said:
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.0 -
What do you mean “insinuation”?DecrepiterJohnL said:
Agreed. The alleged crimes are terrible. It was your insinuation about specifically English courts.StuartDickson said:
A+ for whataboutery and squirrel spotting. Impressive even by PB standards.DecrepiterJohnL said:
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
ETA the Mail doubts Andrew has immunity anyway, not being the Queen.
The place to deny allegations of criminal “incidents” against a teenager is in a court of law, not in the media.
Rape, sex trafficking, sexual assault and sex abuse are illegal. If the person is 7, 17, 27 or 87, it is illegal. These are very serious criminal acts.
If it also transpires that the victim was underage in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred, that will increase the sentence.
Incidentally, the man in a powerful position in Scotland actually faced the allegations in a court of law, and was cleared on all counts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52004285
One of the alleged crimes took place in London. If her case had ever got to court it would have been tried under English law, in an English court, led by a member of the English judiciary. The N Ireland and Scottish legal systems lack jurisdiction to try a criminal case alleged to have taken place in England.
Failures in this case lie fairly and squarely with England’s law enforcement and legal system. Don’t blame the rest of us.0 -
That sounds gruesomeCasino_Royale said:Either this is a great time to lay Rishi, or I should really stop laying Rishi.
1 -
My statement is correct, even the FBI in the US (where no person is above the law) chucked it out.malcolmg said:
The Met are a joke, Keystone Cops could do a better job.RobD said:
I'm not sure you are in a position to make that assertion. Unless you've seen the evidence they reviewed when they took that decision?StuartDickson said:
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.0 -
I might well have, but I don't usually do that until after 8am, when my wife awakens.IanB2 said:
If you’d actually stepped outside you might have noticed the difference!OldKingCole said:
Bad proof-reading! should have been 13! And nearly up to 14 now. Slightly concerning clouds, but only slightly!IanB2 said:
15.5C here; you must live up a mountain to be down at 3C this morning.OldKingCole said:
The girl was below the age of consent in her home state, but, unless I'm mistaken above it in UK. It doesn't make what appears to be trafficking any less unpleasant, of course. Or, as I understand it, illegal, since the (any) sex surely can't be described as consensual.DecrepiterJohnL said:
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
And good morning everyone. Brighter looking today, weatherise, although it's only 3 deg, according to my app.
Annoyingly sometimes I'm one of life's larks; I wake early and, when I was concerned about such things, my best working time was about 7.30am - 2pm. After that I tended to tail off.
My next duty this morning, having dispensed wisdom and good cheer here, is to go and make my wife a coffee to start her day. We both start early, but she not quite as early as me.0 -
On the peak train this morning for the first time since February 2020.
It's August but I'd say commuting traffic is at least 50% of normal (a normal Wednesday; I'd expect Fridays to be very quiet).1 -
Also, didn’t plenty of slaves take the surname of their slaveholder? So we’d need to cancel their descendants.FrancisUrquhart said:Dr Richard Sargeant, an academic and former cricketer, said in June before the review concluded: “I’d ask how a black person is meant to feel when they go to Lord’s, the so-called home of cricket, and there is a stand named after a man whose family wealth was built on slavery?”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/10/not-lords-keep-stand-named-england-captain-family-ties-slavery/
What a dickhead statement....if that's your standard, pretty much every bodies surname could be considered taboo, as I am sure somebody somewhere at some point called that did something really bad. And of course lots of people whose family wealth was built on things now considered bad, famously used that advantage for good, should we also cancel them because their forefathers did evil stuff?
Thankfully Holding is more sensible chap.
“I would not be crucifying family members for what happened 100 years ago. That aspect I don’t care about. The Warner Stand is named after him, but he was not someone actively involved in slavery. I have no problem with that.”0 -
They will just shuffles some of the arse lickers and give them much higher salaries and say it is their top priority and we will be world beaters in 5 years, rinse and repeat many times. Different donkeys same results.ydoethur said:
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.0 -
Stuart's analysis of this issue is driven by a simple reflexive anti-Englishness.IanB2 said:
Returning drivers who have killed people abroad don’t seem particularly troubled by the law.StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew Accuser 'Feared Death' If She Defied Him and Epstein: Court Filing’
Prince Andrew's accuser feared for her life if she did not have sex with him on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's orders…
… accused the royal of "sexual assault and battery" when she was 17 years old in a court filing alleging abuse in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
… "During each of the aforementioned incidents, [Giuffre] was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority."
She had previously complained to the Metropolitan Police about Prince Andrew's conduct but Britain's biggest police force had dropped the investigation.
…"In this country no person, whether President or Prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable, can be deprived of the law's protection.”
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-ghislaine-maxwell-feared-death-defied-epstein-lawsuit-new-york-1617735?amp=1
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.
He's not even bothering to try and hide it.4 -
Odious as it is and he is a creepy git for sure, but was she brought to UK in chains and tied to a bed. It is always dubious when these people turn up 20+ years later looking to get money.OldKingCole said:
The girl was below the age of consent in her home state, but, unless I'm mistaken above it in UK. It doesn't make what appears to be trafficking any less unpleasant, of course. Or, as I understand it, illegal, since the (any) sex surely can't be described as consensual.DecrepiterJohnL said:
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
And good morning everyone. Brighter looking today, weatherise, although it's only 3 deg, according to my app.1 -
LOL , US statement is bollox as well, the FBI are about as straight and honest as the Met.RobD said:
My statement is correct, even the FBI in the US (where no person is above the law) chucked it out.malcolmg said:
The Met are a joke, Keystone Cops could do a better job.RobD said:
I'm not sure you are in a position to make that assertion. Unless you've seen the evidence they reviewed when they took that decision?StuartDickson said:
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.0 -
Slavery seems to have ended the original culture of the slaves. And, of course. some of the slaves were the children of the slave-owners or white overseers.tlg86 said:
Also, didn’t plenty of slaves take the surname of their slaveholder? So we’d need to cancel their descendants.FrancisUrquhart said:Dr Richard Sargeant, an academic and former cricketer, said in June before the review concluded: “I’d ask how a black person is meant to feel when they go to Lord’s, the so-called home of cricket, and there is a stand named after a man whose family wealth was built on slavery?”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/10/not-lords-keep-stand-named-england-captain-family-ties-slavery/
What a dickhead statement....if that's your standard, pretty much every bodies surname could be considered taboo, as I am sure somebody somewhere at some point called that did something really bad. And of course lots of people whose family wealth was built on things now considered bad, famously used that advantage for good, should we also cancel them because their forefathers did evil stuff?
Thankfully Holding is more sensible chap.
“I would not be crucifying family members for what happened 100 years ago. That aspect I don’t care about. The Warner Stand is named after him, but he was not someone actively involved in slavery. I have no problem with that.”
IIRC the child of a slave was presumed to be a slave, even though it's father was free.0 -
That case pissed off the English. And quite rightly.IanB2 said:
Returning drivers who have killed people abroad don’t seem particularly troubled by the law.StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew Accuser 'Feared Death' If She Defied Him and Epstein: Court Filing’
Prince Andrew's accuser feared for her life if she did not have sex with him on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's orders…
… accused the royal of "sexual assault and battery" when she was 17 years old in a court filing alleging abuse in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
… "During each of the aforementioned incidents, [Giuffre] was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority."
She had previously complained to the Metropolitan Police about Prince Andrew's conduct but Britain's biggest police force had dropped the investigation.
…"In this country no person, whether President or Prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable, can be deprived of the law's protection.”
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-ghislaine-maxwell-feared-death-defied-epstein-lawsuit-new-york-1617735?amp=1
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.
But this is different. This Windsor scandal could seriously piss off the Americans. Just as the Tories are desperately trying to scrape together a trade deal. Then add in Joe Biden’s unswerving support for Clinton’s Good Friday Agreement, and the Tories have a diplomatic nightmare on their hands.
And troubles usually come in threes. Any other big issues on the horizon where the U.S. is going to be displeased with its 51st colony?
0 -
Why would it be a diplomatic nightmare? The US authorities similarly dismissed the allegations.StuartDickson said:
That case pissed off the English. And quite rightly.IanB2 said:
Returning drivers who have killed people abroad don’t seem particularly troubled by the law.StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew Accuser 'Feared Death' If She Defied Him and Epstein: Court Filing’
Prince Andrew's accuser feared for her life if she did not have sex with him on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's orders…
… accused the royal of "sexual assault and battery" when she was 17 years old in a court filing alleging abuse in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
… "During each of the aforementioned incidents, [Giuffre] was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority."
She had previously complained to the Metropolitan Police about Prince Andrew's conduct but Britain's biggest police force had dropped the investigation.
…"In this country no person, whether President or Prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable, can be deprived of the law's protection.”
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-ghislaine-maxwell-feared-death-defied-epstein-lawsuit-new-york-1617735?amp=1
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.
But this is different. This Windsor scandal could seriously piss off the Americans. Just as the Tories are desperately trying to scrape together a trade deal. Then add in Joe Biden’s unswerving support for Clinton’s Good Friday Agreement, and the Tories have a diplomatic nightmare on their hands.
And troubles usually come in threes. Any other big issues on the horizon where the U.S. is going to be displeased with its 51st colony?1 -
Tuesday and Thursday are both the busiest, the tube is standing room only on both. Friday is basically only under 40s looking to go for drinks after work.Casino_Royale said:On the peak train this morning for the first time since February 2020.
It's August but I'd say commuting traffic is at least 50% of normal (a normal Wednesday; I'd expect Fridays to be very quiet).0 -
That figures.MaxPB said:
Tuesday and Thursday are both the busiest, the tube is standing room only on both. Friday is basically only under 40s looking to go for drinks after work.Casino_Royale said:On the peak train this morning for the first time since February 2020.
It's August but I'd say commuting traffic is at least 50% of normal (a normal Wednesday; I'd expect Fridays to be very quiet).1 -
The polling on Sunak is bizarre in the header. He leads Johnson even in areas of policy where he has expressed no particular view. It looks like projection to me. Also that there are loads of people that really loathe Johnson, which is quite a motivator to GOTV.3
-
Time for these saddo's to get a life , it was hundreds of years ago and they have had zero involvement, just moire shysters trying to get money from some perceived historic issue. Tell them if they don't like it then don't go to the cricket ground and go get a life. FFS always anyone could come up with some bollox about their relatives being treated like crap two or three hundred years ago , apart from the handful of silver spoon brigade whose forbears were meting out the crap.OldKingCole said:
Slavery seems to have ended the original culture of the slaves. And, of course. some of the slaves were the children of the slave-owners or white overseers.tlg86 said:
Also, didn’t plenty of slaves take the surname of their slaveholder? So we’d need to cancel their descendants.FrancisUrquhart said:Dr Richard Sargeant, an academic and former cricketer, said in June before the review concluded: “I’d ask how a black person is meant to feel when they go to Lord’s, the so-called home of cricket, and there is a stand named after a man whose family wealth was built on slavery?”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/10/not-lords-keep-stand-named-england-captain-family-ties-slavery/
What a dickhead statement....if that's your standard, pretty much every bodies surname could be considered taboo, as I am sure somebody somewhere at some point called that did something really bad. And of course lots of people whose family wealth was built on things now considered bad, famously used that advantage for good, should we also cancel them because their forefathers did evil stuff?
Thankfully Holding is more sensible chap.
“I would not be crucifying family members for what happened 100 years ago. That aspect I don’t care about. The Warner Stand is named after him, but he was not someone actively involved in slavery. I have no problem with that.”
IIRC the child of a slave was presumed to be a slave, even though it's father was free.0 -
He's always got that place in Switzerland for which he and Fergie are getting sued over not paying.StuartDickson said:Why is the Daily Mail describing it as “the Epstein scandal” and not “the Windsor scandal”. It’s a Windsor who’s being dragged to court screaming and shouting.
And why is the Daily Mail focussing on Andrew and Fergie losing their grace and favour (ie taxpayer-funded) mansion in Windsor? I’ll tell you why: this is the establishment setting up their own idea of what a reasonable “punishment” is for a royal deviant: getting his vast mansion taken away so that he can live in another slightly less vast mansion. They really do despise the public. Take their cash and then spit in their faces.0 -
Aha. I see you have not read up on the various cases. No worries. Take your time.RobD said:
Why would it be a diplomatic nightmare? The US authorities similarly dismissed the allegations.StuartDickson said:
That case pissed off the English. And quite rightly.IanB2 said:
Returning drivers who have killed people abroad don’t seem particularly troubled by the law.StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew Accuser 'Feared Death' If She Defied Him and Epstein: Court Filing’
Prince Andrew's accuser feared for her life if she did not have sex with him on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's orders…
… accused the royal of "sexual assault and battery" when she was 17 years old in a court filing alleging abuse in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
… "During each of the aforementioned incidents, [Giuffre] was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority."
She had previously complained to the Metropolitan Police about Prince Andrew's conduct but Britain's biggest police force had dropped the investigation.
…"In this country no person, whether President or Prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable, can be deprived of the law's protection.”
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-ghislaine-maxwell-feared-death-defied-epstein-lawsuit-new-york-1617735?amp=1
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.
But this is different. This Windsor scandal could seriously piss off the Americans. Just as the Tories are desperately trying to scrape together a trade deal. Then add in Joe Biden’s unswerving support for Clinton’s Good Friday Agreement, and the Tories have a diplomatic nightmare on their hands.
And troubles usually come in threes. Any other big issues on the horizon where the U.S. is going to be displeased with its 51st colony?0 -
Agreed but do we really need the GCSE system if it has been reduced to a round of glorified mock A-levels? GCSEs used to be a pathway to jobs and a route into sixth form or further education. Now it is neither because the school-leaving age is effectively 18. Of course, it may be that abolition is more trouble than it is worth but it is hard to see why they could not have been suspended during the pandemic.moonshine said:
Part of doing well in A Levels is being well practiced at taking exams. Having GCSEs as a dry run is no bad thing.OldKingCole said:
Not sure; it's a sorting-out opportunity, but at least arguable.DecrepiterJohnL said:
One fundamental question is whether we still need GCSEs now that, for all practical purposes, the school-leaving age has been raised to 18. Scrap GCSEs and save a bunch of money and teenage angst.OldKingCole said:
It's at least arguable that a massive rethink, and confusion could be worse than what we have now. I'm thinking of the young people in the system; they know we may well haven't finished with Covid yet, so they fear that they could have their school time, their study time interrupted and disorganised yet again. And on top of that there are threats that the exam system will be substantially rejigged.ydoethur said:
You’re rather presupposing in that post that having nothing would be worse than what we have now.OldKingCole said:
With what.or how, should they be replaced? The cohort now approaching 16 and about to do GCSE seem, if my family is any guide, to be in as bad a position as those who have just completed A levels. Then there ae those about to enter what I still call the Upper VIth; half way though a course which they know could well be life defining and their elders and 'betters' are threatening to shake the system up yet again.ydoethur said:
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.
Most of the actually important functions of the three education admin bodies could be moved elsewhere and done better - the DfE’s functions to the Treasury or the DCLG, OFSTED’s to the HSE and OFQUAL’s to either the universities (who used to hold it) or to the major professional bodies.
The last is probably the way we’re heading anyway given unis and professional associations are looking at having their own entrance exams.
Whatever happens ought to happen in a planned and thoughtful way. Not hastily and piecemeal.0 -
In your original comment you compared the Met to the authorities in the US, where supposedly no-one is above the law. Except the FBI dismissed the allegations of the same complainant. I'm not sure how this translates into a diplomatic nightmare given that the Met and the FBI obviously thought the same thing.StuartDickson said:
Aha. I see you have not read up on the various cases. No worries. Take your time.RobD said:
Why would it be a diplomatic nightmare? The US authorities similarly dismissed the allegations.StuartDickson said:
That case pissed off the English. And quite rightly.IanB2 said:
Returning drivers who have killed people abroad don’t seem particularly troubled by the law.StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew Accuser 'Feared Death' If She Defied Him and Epstein: Court Filing’
Prince Andrew's accuser feared for her life if she did not have sex with him on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's orders…
… accused the royal of "sexual assault and battery" when she was 17 years old in a court filing alleging abuse in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
… "During each of the aforementioned incidents, [Giuffre] was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority."
She had previously complained to the Metropolitan Police about Prince Andrew's conduct but Britain's biggest police force had dropped the investigation.
…"In this country no person, whether President or Prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable, can be deprived of the law's protection.”
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-ghislaine-maxwell-feared-death-defied-epstein-lawsuit-new-york-1617735?amp=1
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.
But this is different. This Windsor scandal could seriously piss off the Americans. Just as the Tories are desperately trying to scrape together a trade deal. Then add in Joe Biden’s unswerving support for Clinton’s Good Friday Agreement, and the Tories have a diplomatic nightmare on their hands.
And troubles usually come in threes. Any other big issues on the horizon where the U.S. is going to be displeased with its 51st colony?1 -
Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.2 -
My advice would be to buy some comfy headphones.Casino_Royale said:Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.2 -
Quite. Supports the argument for having a good hard think and discussion about these exams, rather than having a piecemeal, panic-driven 'quick-fix'.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Agreed but do we really need the GCSE system if it has been reduced to a round of glorified mock A-levels? GCSEs used to be a pathway to jobs and a route into sixth form or further education. Now it is neither because the school-leaving age is effectively 18. Of course, it may be that abolition is more trouble than it is worth but it is hard to see why they could not have been suspended during the pandemic.moonshine said:
Part of doing well in A Levels is being well practiced at taking exams. Having GCSEs as a dry run is no bad thing.OldKingCole said:
Not sure; it's a sorting-out opportunity, but at least arguable.DecrepiterJohnL said:
One fundamental question is whether we still need GCSEs now that, for all practical purposes, the school-leaving age has been raised to 18. Scrap GCSEs and save a bunch of money and teenage angst.OldKingCole said:
It's at least arguable that a massive rethink, and confusion could be worse than what we have now. I'm thinking of the young people in the system; they know we may well haven't finished with Covid yet, so they fear that they could have their school time, their study time interrupted and disorganised yet again. And on top of that there are threats that the exam system will be substantially rejigged.ydoethur said:
You’re rather presupposing in that post that having nothing would be worse than what we have now.OldKingCole said:
With what.or how, should they be replaced? The cohort now approaching 16 and about to do GCSE seem, if my family is any guide, to be in as bad a position as those who have just completed A levels. Then there ae those about to enter what I still call the Upper VIth; half way though a course which they know could well be life defining and their elders and 'betters' are threatening to shake the system up yet again.ydoethur said:
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.
Most of the actually important functions of the three education admin bodies could be moved elsewhere and done better - the DfE’s functions to the Treasury or the DCLG, OFSTED’s to the HSE and OFQUAL’s to either the universities (who used to hold it) or to the major professional bodies.
The last is probably the way we’re heading anyway given unis and professional associations are looking at having their own entrance exams.
Whatever happens ought to happen in a planned and thoughtful way. Not hastily and piecemeal.1 -
Is Prince Andrew set to lose £13million on a quick sale of his Verbier skiing chalet?Dura_Ace said:
He's always got that place in Switzerland for which he and Fergie are getting sued over not paying.StuartDickson said:Why is the Daily Mail describing it as “the Epstein scandal” and not “the Windsor scandal”. It’s a Windsor who’s being dragged to court screaming and shouting.
And why is the Daily Mail focussing on Andrew and Fergie losing their grace and favour (ie taxpayer-funded) mansion in Windsor? I’ll tell you why: this is the establishment setting up their own idea of what a reasonable “punishment” is for a royal deviant: getting his vast mansion taken away so that he can live in another slightly less vast mansion. They really do despise the public. Take their cash and then spit in their faces.
… The pair are said to be desperate to shift it to repay part of a reported £6.7 million debt…
… a chalet which reportedly boasts a 650 square foot indoor pool, sauna, sun terrace and bar…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9071557/TALK-TOWN-Prince-Andrew-set-lose-13m-quick-sale-Verbier-skiing-chalet.html
0 -
Or to work from home, and skip those commuting pleasures.RobD said:
My advice would be to buy some comfy headphones.Casino_Royale said:Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.0 -
Thermos brother, commiserations on restarting the commute.Casino_Royale said:Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.2 -
Well, they can't go for as long now, can they!StuartDickson said:
Is Prince Andrew set to lose £13million on a quick sale of his Verbier skiing chalet?Dura_Ace said:
He's always got that place in Switzerland for which he and Fergie are getting sued over not paying.StuartDickson said:Why is the Daily Mail describing it as “the Epstein scandal” and not “the Windsor scandal”. It’s a Windsor who’s being dragged to court screaming and shouting.
And why is the Daily Mail focussing on Andrew and Fergie losing their grace and favour (ie taxpayer-funded) mansion in Windsor? I’ll tell you why: this is the establishment setting up their own idea of what a reasonable “punishment” is for a royal deviant: getting his vast mansion taken away so that he can live in another slightly less vast mansion. They really do despise the public. Take their cash and then spit in their faces.
… The pair are said to be desperate to shift it to repay part of a reported £6.7 million debt…
… a chalet which reportedly boasts a 650 square foot indoor pool, sauna, sun terrace and bar…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9071557/TALK-TOWN-Prince-Andrew-set-lose-13m-quick-sale-Verbier-skiing-chalet.html0 -
The Tory voters opinions (in brackets on the graphic) are nowhere near as bad as the headline figures, and surely that’s where to look if you’re thinking about betting on whether Boris should be replaced? They prefer him to Rishi0
-
Meh, going into the office has its advantages. Maybe not every day, but never going in doesn't seem like an enticing prospect.Foxy said:
Or to work from home, and skip those commuting pleasures.RobD said:
My advice would be to buy some comfy headphones.Casino_Royale said:Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.0 -
JL partners also did a poll asking who was doing a better job, Boris or Sir Keir, last week
1 -
Aha. I see you have not read up on the various cases. No worries. Take your time.RobD said:
In your original comment you compared the Met to the authorities in the US, where supposedly no-one is above the law. Except the FBI dismissed the allegations of the same complainant. I'm not sure how this translates into a diplomatic nightmare given that the Met and the FBI obviously thought the same thing.StuartDickson said:
Aha. I see you have not read up on the various cases. No worries. Take your time.RobD said:
Why would it be a diplomatic nightmare? The US authorities similarly dismissed the allegations.StuartDickson said:
That case pissed off the English. And quite rightly.IanB2 said:
Returning drivers who have killed people abroad don’t seem particularly troubled by the law.StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew Accuser 'Feared Death' If She Defied Him and Epstein: Court Filing’
Prince Andrew's accuser feared for her life if she did not have sex with him on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's orders…
… accused the royal of "sexual assault and battery" when she was 17 years old in a court filing alleging abuse in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
… "During each of the aforementioned incidents, [Giuffre] was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority."
She had previously complained to the Metropolitan Police about Prince Andrew's conduct but Britain's biggest police force had dropped the investigation.
…"In this country no person, whether President or Prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable, can be deprived of the law's protection.”
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-ghislaine-maxwell-feared-death-defied-epstein-lawsuit-new-york-1617735?amp=1
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.
But this is different. This Windsor scandal could seriously piss off the Americans. Just as the Tories are desperately trying to scrape together a trade deal. Then add in Joe Biden’s unswerving support for Clinton’s Good Friday Agreement, and the Tories have a diplomatic nightmare on their hands.
And troubles usually come in threes. Any other big issues on the horizon where the U.S. is going to be displeased with its 51st colony?0 -
You don't think it says anything about the reliability of the claimant that their allegations were dismissed by both the Met and the FBI (where no one is above the law)?StuartDickson said:
Aha. I see you have not read up on the various cases. No worries. Take your time.RobD said:
In your original comment you compared the Met to the authorities in the US, where supposedly no-one is above the law. Except the FBI dismissed the allegations of the same complainant. I'm not sure how this translates into a diplomatic nightmare given that the Met and the FBI obviously thought the same thing.StuartDickson said:
Aha. I see you have not read up on the various cases. No worries. Take your time.RobD said:
Why would it be a diplomatic nightmare? The US authorities similarly dismissed the allegations.StuartDickson said:
That case pissed off the English. And quite rightly.IanB2 said:
Returning drivers who have killed people abroad don’t seem particularly troubled by the law.StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew Accuser 'Feared Death' If She Defied Him and Epstein: Court Filing’
Prince Andrew's accuser feared for her life if she did not have sex with him on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's orders…
… accused the royal of "sexual assault and battery" when she was 17 years old in a court filing alleging abuse in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
… "During each of the aforementioned incidents, [Giuffre] was compelled by express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell, and/or Prince Andrew to engage in sexual acts with Prince Andrew, and feared death or physical injury to herself or another and other repercussions for disobeying Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew due to their powerful connections, wealth, and authority."
She had previously complained to the Metropolitan Police about Prince Andrew's conduct but Britain's biggest police force had dropped the investigation.
…"In this country no person, whether President or Prince, is above the law, and no person, no matter how powerless or vulnerable, can be deprived of the law's protection.”
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-andrew-ghislaine-maxwell-feared-death-defied-epstein-lawsuit-new-york-1617735?amp=1
In the U.S. no person is above the law, but the Metropolitan Police do not recognise that basic principle.
But this is different. This Windsor scandal could seriously piss off the Americans. Just as the Tories are desperately trying to scrape together a trade deal. Then add in Joe Biden’s unswerving support for Clinton’s Good Friday Agreement, and the Tories have a diplomatic nightmare on their hands.
And troubles usually come in threes. Any other big issues on the horizon where the U.S. is going to be displeased with its 51st colony?1 -
Does he slurp when taking a drink ?Casino_Royale said:Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.0 -
Noise cancelling headphones are the best invention for commuting. It does legitimately block out the rest of the world.RobD said:
My advice would be to buy some comfy headphones.Casino_Royale said:Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.2 -
Not so much, but unscrewing a metal cap from a metal flask (and it requires several rotations to get it off and on) is really loud and a few commuters try and nap in the quiet carriage on the way up, particularly if they have young kids at home and they've had a disturbed night.Taz said:
Does he slurp when taking a drink ?Casino_Royale said:Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.
This guy just doesn't get it - even though he gets DefCon1 grade British looks at times from others.2 -
The right wing press is pretty grim reading for Number 10 today. Fury over grade inflation turned full force on the hapless Williamson. Cameron lobbying stories finally surfacing. Nasty polls for Johnson. As in Chesham and Amersham, those most critical of this shambles of a government are those who voted for it in 2019.
In the end "the economy, stupid" is probably where Conservatives may well decide that Johnson isn´t a Conservative. If that happens then his grip on power will be gone immediately. The problem for GBNI is that the endless soap opera of Tory party leadership challenges is the epitome of Westminster bubble politics: in the end frustration at government failures may vent with "a plague of all your houses" and then no Tory leader looks credible.
Therefore those who think that Sunak is the 7th cavalry riding to the rescue may well find that this figure who has risen without trace is a straw man at a barn fire. An urbane Wykhamist who married his money is not exactly a firey tribune of the people.
Wait until the polls get really bad in the late winter. Starmer (and Davey) have gravitas and that may well be what counts as the country faces ever increasing problems from the slow puncture Brexit and the government´s sloppy fiscal incontinence while the economy wallows in post Covid incompetence and inefficiency and the spectre of exploding government debt turns into a crisis.
Calls to "Get a grip" will move to "Get Lost". Johnson may then be the fall guy, but looking at the cabinet I, for one, see no beginning to their talents. Choosing a Jim Hacker like figure such as Sunak will not alter that.
The pendulum will be really swinging by then.2 -
I love our British way of dealing with these situations. Glaring daggers and mild tut tutting.Casino_Royale said:
Not so much, but unscrewing a metal cap from a metal flask (and it requires several rotations to get it off and on) is really loud and a few commuters try and nap in the quiet carriage on the way up, particularly if they have young kids at home and they've had a disturbed night.Taz said:
Does he slurp when taking a drink ?Casino_Royale said:Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.
This guy just doesn't get it - even though he gets DefCon1 grade British looks at times from others.1 -
We are not betting on whether Boris should be replaced but whether, or rather when, he will be. Lots of things should happen that don't, or at least not within the right timescale.isam said:The Tory voters opinions (in brackets on the graphic) are nowhere near as bad as the headline figures, and surely that’s where to look if you’re thinking about betting on whether Boris should be replaced? They prefer him to Rishi
0 -
Morning all. Picking my way through the threads
So the Gina Miller muppet show thinks that a contingency measure for use when necessary is the same as "preparing to make Kent a permanent lorry park"?StuartDickson said:Transition? Pull the other one. The Brexit Revolution has only just begun.
‘Emergency Brexit powers for lorry queues to be made permanent’
- Exclusive: ministers to make traffic provisions indefinite in expectation of further cross-Channel disruption
… Naomi Smith, the chief executive of the internationalist campaign group Best for Britain, said: “This is an admission that far from ‘teething problems’, the government expects supply problems from their rushed Brexit deal to continue indefinitely. Shelves are empty and our supply chains are already at breaking point. The government should be seeking improvements to their deal with Europe rather than preparing to make Kent a permanent lorry park.”
… Operation Brock has proved unpopular with residents as a way of managing lorry traffic…
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/10/emergency-brexit-powers-for-lorry-queues-to-be-made-permanent
How embarrassing for them.
Internationalist?
Sorry - that's just funny.0 -
I think a problem for the Scottish courts (and quite possibly for the English courts too) is that the age of consent here is 16 and she was 17 when this allegedly happened. That means, in the absence of other coercion, this was not an offence here. IANAE on this but my understanding is that other than under special cases like the EAW for someone to be extradited the offence in the requesting country would normally have to be an offence here too.DecrepiterJohnL said:
How would Scottish courts have handled it? And what is the age of consent in Scotland? Remember the victim here was 17 at the time of the incidents, which have been denied (although it might be that some denials at least focussed on the under-age part). Can you think of any recent cases in Scotland involving alleged sexual abuse by men in powerful positions?StuartDickson said:‘Prince Andrew faces no good choice in Epstein accuser case’
… Andrew’s team is likely to wage a protracted battle over the U.S. court’s jurisdiction while arguing that their client is entitled to immunity as a member of the royal family.
https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/celebrities/article253400255.html
This strikes me as being profoundly unwise. There are shades of Tories breaking Covid rules (Johnson, Jenrick, Cummings, Gove, Hancock, Seely etc): one rule for the plebs but another rule for the entitled.
Why should teenage girls be protected in law from sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape and sex trafficking, but then when it transpires that the repulsive middle-aged man who allegedly forced her to have sex was a member of a royal family, then… oh well… that’s alright then.
A lot of people will forgive, or at least look away, when ministers break Covid rules. These are after all busy people doing important jobs. But what that pathetic man is accused of doing is utterly unforgivable. There is zero excuse.
Luckily the US courts will not swallow such guff. One hates to think how the English courts would have (mis)handled this case.
Doubtless some conspiracy theorists will be disappointed no MI6 assassins are sent to Australia to silence the accuser.
ETA the Mail doubts Andrew has immunity anyway, not being the Queen.
This, of course, is a civil suit so what she will need to prove is that this occurred in the US, specifically in NY. The case has been raised to prevent it being time barred for ever on the expiry of a time limited exemption for claimants who were children at the time of the alleged conduct. I suspect that the jurisdiction dispute will be lengthy.
Andrew does not benefit from Crown immunity.1 -
That requires actual thinking (and worse would make Gove's reforms look like the complete f**k up that they were) so I can't see this Government doing that.OldKingCole said:
Quite. Supports the argument for having a good hard think and discussion about these exams, rather than having a piecemeal, panic-driven 'quick-fix'.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Agreed but do we really need the GCSE system if it has been reduced to a round of glorified mock A-levels? GCSEs used to be a pathway to jobs and a route into sixth form or further education. Now it is neither because the school-leaving age is effectively 18. Of course, it may be that abolition is more trouble than it is worth but it is hard to see why they could not have been suspended during the pandemic.moonshine said:
Part of doing well in A Levels is being well practiced at taking exams. Having GCSEs as a dry run is no bad thing.OldKingCole said:
Not sure; it's a sorting-out opportunity, but at least arguable.DecrepiterJohnL said:
One fundamental question is whether we still need GCSEs now that, for all practical purposes, the school-leaving age has been raised to 18. Scrap GCSEs and save a bunch of money and teenage angst.OldKingCole said:
It's at least arguable that a massive rethink, and confusion could be worse than what we have now. I'm thinking of the young people in the system; they know we may well haven't finished with Covid yet, so they fear that they could have their school time, their study time interrupted and disorganised yet again. And on top of that there are threats that the exam system will be substantially rejigged.ydoethur said:
You’re rather presupposing in that post that having nothing would be worse than what we have now.OldKingCole said:
With what.or how, should they be replaced? The cohort now approaching 16 and about to do GCSE seem, if my family is any guide, to be in as bad a position as those who have just completed A levels. Then there ae those about to enter what I still call the Upper VIth; half way though a course which they know could well be life defining and their elders and 'betters' are threatening to shake the system up yet again.ydoethur said:
But as I said yesterday, getting rid of him but not the DfE itself will be the equivalent of deckchairs on the Titanic.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't know about A-Levels being scrapped, surely the more pressing issue is scrapping Gavin Williamson.
I know in Scotland they are planning some changes, but from what I’ve seen so far it’s likely the same people who have screwed up before will simply be left running a new, even less coherent quango.
Most of the actually important functions of the three education admin bodies could be moved elsewhere and done better - the DfE’s functions to the Treasury or the DCLG, OFSTED’s to the HSE and OFQUAL’s to either the universities (who used to hold it) or to the major professional bodies.
The last is probably the way we’re heading anyway given unis and professional associations are looking at having their own entrance exams.
Whatever happens ought to happen in a planned and thoughtful way. Not hastily and piecemeal.
Worse people will now be expecting changes for next year and that isnt going to help anyone.1 -
Oh No! Have they strapped you in to your seat on a 50% capacity train? How awful.Casino_Royale said:Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.0 -
Club together and get him a modern insulated mug with a click on/off cap. It'll be just like The Railway Children.Casino_Royale said:
Not so much, but unscrewing a metal cap from a metal flask (and it requires several rotations to get it off and on) is really loud and a few commuters try and nap in the quiet carriage on the way up, particularly if they have young kids at home and they've had a disturbed night.Taz said:
Does he slurp when taking a drink ?Casino_Royale said:Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.
This guy just doesn't get it - even though he gets DefCon1 grade British looks at times from others.3 -
On topic.
Poor old Boris all he ever wanted to do was be PM without a care in the world and having saved theworldUK from the EU and then the vaccine some beastly upstart seems to be challenging for his position.1 -
IPCC report gonna do wonders for Alpine property prices, too.OldKingCole said:
Well, they can't go for as long now, can they!StuartDickson said:
Is Prince Andrew set to lose £13million on a quick sale of his Verbier skiing chalet?Dura_Ace said:
He's always got that place in Switzerland for which he and Fergie are getting sued over not paying.StuartDickson said:Why is the Daily Mail describing it as “the Epstein scandal” and not “the Windsor scandal”. It’s a Windsor who’s being dragged to court screaming and shouting.
And why is the Daily Mail focussing on Andrew and Fergie losing their grace and favour (ie taxpayer-funded) mansion in Windsor? I’ll tell you why: this is the establishment setting up their own idea of what a reasonable “punishment” is for a royal deviant: getting his vast mansion taken away so that he can live in another slightly less vast mansion. They really do despise the public. Take their cash and then spit in their faces.
… The pair are said to be desperate to shift it to repay part of a reported £6.7 million debt…
… a chalet which reportedly boasts a 650 square foot indoor pool, sauna, sun terrace and bar…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9071557/TALK-TOWN-Prince-Andrew-set-lose-13m-quick-sale-Verbier-skiing-chalet.html0 -
The silent passive aggressive opprobrium of 20 other commuters is a beautiful thing. In the days of broadsheets woe betide the commuter who didn't know the regulation way to fold a broadsheet.Casino_Royale said:Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.
I remember when we went to the Olympics with the kids on one of the special advance tickets that got you into London cheaply before 9am. The Peterborough crew didn't like their train invading one little bit.
Not really like that on the Transpennine trains - not so much Northern friendliness, more that it is a much more mixed group of passengers, so never the sense that commuters rule the roost.2 -
Apologies if already pointed out, but the 58% is 58% of the 42% who want a change, i.e. 24%. It's natural that people who want a change would like it soon, but a mistake to think that 58% of the voters want that.
The substantial lead for spend/borrow less seems to be among all voters, not just Tories, if that's correctly reported. That represents a substantial gap between the voters and the current policies of all the major parties, and I wonder how proof it will be against actual substantial tax rises.2 -
Of course a slightly different lens would say that a government that has a popular and apparently competent chancellor is a strong government and well done Boris for picking him.
Williamson, not so much.0 -
So just 43% of CON voters want Johnson to stay - 57% don't hardly a vote of confidence except for 'Boris fan boys.isam said:The Tory voters opinions (in brackets on the graphic) are nowhere near as bad as the headline figures, and surely that’s where to look if you’re thinking about betting on whether Boris should be replaced? They prefer him to Rishi
1 -
Ah, it's you.TOPPING said:
Oh No! Have they strapped you in to your seat on a 50% capacity train? How awful.Casino_Royale said:Ah, Captain Thermos is here; that makes me nostalgic.
He spends the whole journey up to Waterloo sitting in a quiet carriage whilst noisly screwing and unscrewing his thermos so he can take regular sips of coffee the whole way.
Woe betide you if you are seated within 2-3 rows of him. It drives you mad like a dripping tap.0 -
Come on Mike, you know full well that is not the question that was asked.MikeSmithson said:
So just 43% of CON voters want Johnson to stay - 57% don't hardly a vote of confidence except for 'Boris fan boys.isam said:The Tory voters opinions (in brackets on the graphic) are nowhere near as bad as the headline figures, and surely that’s where to look if you’re thinking about betting on whether Boris should be replaced? They prefer him to Rishi
If given a hypothetical forced choice between Boris and Rishi then I might say I think Rishi could do a better job, but I still want Boris to stay. For one thing, I don't know if Boris goes if he will definitely be replaced by Rishi or if he could be replaced by someone worse like Williamson (no sniggering in the back).
If you want to know what percentage of CON voters want Boris to stay then ask that question, don't put up a forced choice between him and another Tory and then claim everyone who doesn't choose him wants him to go.2
