Just had booster in Dundee. No criticism of our NHS but they have got the army in today to help. I have to say it is going like a fair, at least twice as fast as my earlier vaccinations. Very solid and steady queues moving quickly. Really get the feeling we are on top of this.
Well done. Beat you by a day. No side effects at all btw (for those who were worried about me).
Glad to hear that. Have heard enough stories of people being more affected by the booster than the original vaccines to be a little concerned. Did you get the flu jab at the same time too?
Yep. Left arm Pfizer, right arm flu. I'm ironman now.
The Beach Boys had a song about this...
Well, we're going to Surf City 'coz it's two to one Yeah, we're going to Surf City, wanna have some fun Well, we're going to Surf City 'coz it's two to one Yeah, we're going to Surf City, wanna have some fun
Just had booster in Dundee. No criticism of our NHS but they have got the army in today to help. I have to say it is going like a fair, at least twice as fast as my earlier vaccinations. Very solid and steady queues moving quickly. Really get the feeling we are on top of this.
Well done. Beat you by a day. No side effects at all btw (for those who were worried about me).
Glad to hear that. Have heard enough stories of people being more affected by the booster than the original vaccines to be a little concerned. Did you get the flu jab at the same time too?
Yep. Left arm Pfizer, right arm flu. I'm ironman now.
If you see me coming, better step aside A lot of men didn't and a lot of men died I got one fist of iron the other of steel And if the right one don't get you boy, the left one will
Another 387k booster doses yesterday. This definitely needs added to the successes.
Yes, at Xmas - 3 weeks we'll be at 20m booster doses done, at Xmas - 1 week (which is probably how long it actually takes to get significantly better protection) we'll be at 25-27m booster doses done and probably anyone in groups 1-910 who want one will have been able to get one.
Grp 10 (40 - 49) coming soon
Hopefully 30-39 not long after, I expect we'll get the call up in January.
It'll be a race to see whether 30-39 gets the call or I switch over to the 40-49 group first!
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
When John Major came down on that Private Eye wannabe like a tonne of bricks, he was able to because the story about him was untrue.
So Boris either goes nuclear (which may be tricky) or ignores the story as a non-story in a non-paper.
The stupid thing is to give the damn thing legs. Which he's done.
And even if the report is misleading-to-inaccurate, well that's karma...
It's the sort of tacky tale that ought to be not credible but sadly is. Actually I'd hope it's not true.
For the sake of couple involved- they're people, even if one of them is ghastly- I hope so too.
Had the response been "I won't dignify a silly story in a silly paper with a response", great.
But the No 10 response, puffed up threats that then deflate, that's another matter. Partly because it's a combination of bullying and weakness that isn't good in a leader.
But also, it's not the first time we've seen it from BoJo.
In the same Friday afternoon spirit, I've just been told a joke that I'd not heard before, but may be as old as the hills. Clean, as well.
Bloke goes into local baker to buy a cake. All the cakes are 50p, except one, which is £1. Bloke asks "Why is that cake twice as expensive as the others?" Baker replies "Ah well, that's Madeira cake".
PS: I'm grateful to whoever flagged my little joke as off topic. I wouldn't have known otherwise.
Just had booster in Dundee. No criticism of our NHS but they have got the army in today to help. I have to say it is going like a fair, at least twice as fast as my earlier vaccinations. Very solid and steady queues moving quickly. Really get the feeling we are on top of this.
Well done. Beat you by a day. No side effects at all btw (for those who were worried about me).
Glad to hear that. Have heard enough stories of people being more affected by the booster than the original vaccines to be a little concerned. Did you get the flu jab at the same time too?
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
When John Major came down on that Private Eye wannabe like a tonne of bricks, he was able to because the story about him was untrue.
So Boris either goes nuclear (which may be tricky) or ignores the story as a non-story in a non-paper.
The stupid thing is to give the damn thing legs. Which he's done.
And even if the report is misleading-to-inaccurate, well that's karma...
It's the sort of tacky tale that ought to be not credible but sadly is. Actually I'd hope it's not true.
For the sake of couple involved- they're people, even if one of them is ghastly- I hope so too.
Had the response been "I won't dignify a silly story in a silly paper with a response", great.
But the No 10 response, puffed up threats that then deflate, that's another matter. Partly because it's a combination of bullying and weakness that isn't good in a leader.
But also, it's not the first time we've seen it from BoJo.
I personally think this is a non-story. It’s perfectly believable, but it’s all on the press guy.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
You find it unbelievable that he would make such a comment and authorize such a phone call?
I find the coincidence that when the PM is having a tough time of it elsewhere this newspaper suddenly gets a legal threat for something no one really cared about in the first place tough to believe. They're a joke and you want to believe them. I have no love for the PM, in fact I think I probably loathe him more than you do, this just strikes me as extremely unlikely.
In that case Matt Kelly has defamed the PM and the PM's head of comms to an extent worth millions in costs and damages and destroyed his own reputation as a serious journalist.
Or, a known betrayer, liar and bully has committed a couple more betrayals and lies and commissioned another bit of bullying.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
You find it unbelievable that he would make such a comment and authorize such a phone call?
I find the coincidence that when the PM is having a tough time of it elsewhere this newspaper suddenly gets a legal threat for something no one really cared about in the first place tough to believe. They're a joke and you want to believe them. I have no love for the PM, in fact I think I probably loathe him more than you do, this just strikes me as extremely unlikely.
In that case Matt Kelly has defamed the PM and the PM's head of comms to an extent worth millions in costs and damages and destroyed his own reputation as a serious journalist.
Or, a known betrayer, liar and bully has committed a couple more betrayals and lies and commissioned another bit of bullying.
Tricky one.
Nah, serious journalists don't write for the New European. It's a joke of a paper, he's just trying to keep it relevant by jumping onto the bandwagon. Has anyone in the country thought about their article until today, or even the newspaper? He's achieved what he's set out to do and he's also done it in a way where he doesn't have to show his working. It's a smart move, but ultimately I don't buy it.
IMHO Tory to hold NS, outside chance of Lab to take OB & S, but probably Tory hold.
Any further data would be welcome.
OB&S is a difficult balancing exercise between the competing forces of: stay at home, plague on all houses, Brexit, sleaze, Corbyn now gone. Which, if it fell a particular way could mean Labour.
NS: just can't see beyond the Tory. Current odds absurd.
1. Does anyone know, is their a replacement (so to speak) for the series "Almanac of British Politics" the last edition (8th) which was published 2007 or thereabouts?
2. Also wondering IF there's a book available re: 2016 Brexit Referendum in the style of "The British General Election of ____" series (just got my 2017 edition and now awaiting 2019 in the mail). BTW, such a study WAS done (which I have) for the 1975 Referendum by David Butler (grand old man of TBGE series) and Uwe Kitzinger; would be very interesting comparing that book with one for 2016 side by side.
3. Also, seems that copies of "Times Guide to the House of Commons 2017" are not to be found for sale on the web. Does anyone know where you can get a copy? OR if it's been digitized and is on the web somewhere?
Thanks in advance for any answers - helpful or otherwise!
IMHO Tory to hold NS, outside chance of Lab to take OB & S, but probably Tory hold.
Any further data would be welcome.
OB&S is a difficult balancing exercise between the competing forces of: stay at home, plague on all houses, Brexit, sleaze, Corbyn now gone. Which, if it fell a particular way could mean Labour.
NS: just can't see beyond the Tory. Current odds absurd.
I have OB&S as an easy hold and NS as a more difficult hold but a hold nonetheless thanks to the wonderful James Brokenshire and the ghastly Owen Paterson.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
You find it unbelievable that he would make such a comment and authorize such a phone call?
I find the coincidence that when the PM is having a tough time of it elsewhere this newspaper suddenly gets a legal threat for something no one really cared about in the first place tough to believe. They're a joke and you want to believe them. I have no love for the PM, in fact I think I probably loathe him more than you do, this just strikes me as extremely unlikely.
In that case Matt Kelly has defamed the PM and the PM's head of comms to an extent worth millions in costs and damages and destroyed his own reputation as a serious journalist.
Or, a known betrayer, liar and bully has committed a couple more betrayals and lies and commissioned another bit of bullying.
Tricky one.
Nah, serious journalists don't write for the New European. It's a joke of a paper, he's just trying to keep it relevant by jumping onto the bandwagon. Has anyone in the country thought about their article until today, or even the newspaper? He's achieved what he's set out to do and he's also done it in a way where he doesn't have to show his working. It's a smart move, but ultimately I don't buy it.
He was the night editor of the Mirror.
You are missing the rather simple logic of the situation. Either what he says is true - big story - or it is false but he is being allowed to get away with it - big story.
IMHO Tory to hold NS, outside chance of Lab to take OB & S, but probably Tory hold.
Any further data would be welcome.
OB&S is a difficult balancing exercise between the competing forces of: stay at home, plague on all houses, Brexit, sleaze, Corbyn now gone. Which, if it fell a particular way could mean Labour.
NS: just can't see beyond the Tory. Current odds absurd.
I have OB&S as an easy hold and NS as a more difficult hold but a hold nonetheless thanks to the wonderful James Brokenshire and the ghastly Owen Paterson.
I’ve a couple’s quid on labour at 12-1 on OB&S as I think that’s value. The value in NS will be the Tories if the odds continue to narrow.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
You find it unbelievable that he would make such a comment and authorize such a phone call?
I find the coincidence that when the PM is having a tough time of it elsewhere this newspaper suddenly gets a legal threat for something no one really cared about in the first place tough to believe. They're a joke and you want to believe them. I have no love for the PM, in fact I think I probably loathe him more than you do, this just strikes me as extremely unlikely.
In that case Matt Kelly has defamed the PM and the PM's head of comms to an extent worth millions in costs and damages and destroyed his own reputation as a serious journalist.
Or, a known betrayer, liar and bully has committed a couple more betrayals and lies and commissioned another bit of bullying.
Tricky one.
Nah, serious journalists don't write for the New European. It's a joke of a paper, he's just trying to keep it relevant by jumping onto the bandwagon. Has anyone in the country thought about their article until today, or even the newspaper? He's achieved what he's set out to do and he's also done it in a way where he doesn't have to show his working. It's a smart move, but ultimately I don't buy it.
He was the night editor of the Mirror.
You are missing the rather simple logic of the situation. Either what he says is true - big story - or it is false but he is being allowed to get away with it - big story.
+1 - if the story isn't 100% true why aren't No 10 / Jack Doyle suing them - it would be a very open and shut case.
The fact Jack Doyle isn't suing them tells you a great deal
1) the original story is true and equally 2) Boris and No 10 are so desperate that they are attempting to bully complete non entities of a paper for reasons unknown...
Like the fact that at Bexley and Old Sidcup we're gonna have a battle royal between two (at least) of PB semi-superstars: NPxMP and HYUFD.
To bad they won't be there the same day.
Perhaps on Monday, Nick can retrace where the Pride of Epping went on Sunday (can anyone loan a tracking dog?) That way, he can gently undo - or redo - the damage at the doorstep.
1. Does anyone know, is their a replacement (so to speak) for the series "Almanac of British Politics" the last edition (8th) which was published 2007 or thereabouts?
2. Also wondering IF there's a book available re: 2016 Brexit Referendum in the style of "The British General Election of ____" series (just got my 2017 edition and now awaiting 2019 in the mail). BTW, such a study WAS done (which I have) for the 1975 Referendum by David Butler (grand old man of TBGE series) and Uwe Kitzinger; would be very interesting comparing that book with one for 2016 side by side.
3. Also, seems that copies of "Times Guide to the House of Commons 2017" are not to be found for sale on the web. Does anyone know where you can get a copy? OR if it's been digitized and is on the web somewhere?
Thanks in advance for any answers - helpful or otherwise!
Not sure about the times guide (2017) seems to be >£50 on abe. Have you looked at Politico's 2017 guide? Although It appears an inferior product.
Edit @SeaShantyIrish2 You might find hope through the library networks, with possible international library loans if you're truly desperate!
1. Does anyone know, is their a replacement (so to speak) for the series "Almanac of British Politics" the last edition (8th) which was published 2007 or thereabouts?
2. Also wondering IF there's a book available re: 2016 Brexit Referendum in the style of "The British General Election of ____" series (just got my 2017 edition and now awaiting 2019 in the mail). BTW, such a study WAS done (which I have) for the 1975 Referendum by David Butler (grand old man of TBGE series) and Uwe Kitzinger; would be very interesting comparing that book with one for 2016 side by side.
3. Also, seems that copies of "Times Guide to the House of Commons 2017" are not to be found for sale on the web. Does anyone know where you can get a copy? OR if it's been digitized and is on the web somewhere?
Thanks in advance for any answers - helpful or otherwise!
You not in the UK? amazon uk has several copies of the Times guide.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
You find it unbelievable that he would make such a comment and authorize such a phone call?
I find the coincidence that when the PM is having a tough time of it elsewhere this newspaper suddenly gets a legal threat for something no one really cared about in the first place tough to believe. They're a joke and you want to believe them. I have no love for the PM, in fact I think I probably loathe him more than you do, this just strikes me as extremely unlikely.
In that case Matt Kelly has defamed the PM and the PM's head of comms to an extent worth millions in costs and damages and destroyed his own reputation as a serious journalist.
Or, a known betrayer, liar and bully has committed a couple more betrayals and lies and commissioned another bit of bullying.
Tricky one.
Nah, serious journalists don't write for the New European. It's a joke of a paper, he's just trying to keep it relevant by jumping onto the bandwagon. Has anyone in the country thought about their article until today, or even the newspaper? He's achieved what he's set out to do and he's also done it in a way where he doesn't have to show his working. It's a smart move, but ultimately I don't buy it.
He was the night editor of the Mirror.
You are missing the rather simple logic of the situation. Either what he says is true - big story - or it is false but he is being allowed to get away with it - big story.
+1 - if the story isn't 100% true why aren't No 10 / Jack Doyle suing them - it would be a very open and shut case.
The fact Jack Doyle isn't suing them tells you a great deal
1) the original story is true and equally 2) Boris and No 10 are so desperate that they are attempting to bully complete non entities of a paper for reasons unknown...
I know Jack Doyle, I’ll message him and find out what’s going on.
1. Does anyone know, is their a replacement (so to speak) for the series "Almanac of British Politics" the last edition (8th) which was published 2007 or thereabouts?
2. Also wondering IF there's a book available re: 2016 Brexit Referendum in the style of "The British General Election of ____" series (just got my 2017 edition and now awaiting 2019 in the mail). BTW, such a study WAS done (which I have) for the 1975 Referendum by David Butler (grand old man of TBGE series) and Uwe Kitzinger; would be very interesting comparing that book with one for 2016 side by side.
3. Also, seems that copies of "Times Guide to the House of Commons 2017" are not to be found for sale on the web. Does anyone know where you can get a copy? OR if it's been digitized and is on the web somewhere?
Thanks in advance for any answers - helpful or otherwise!
CORRECTION, #3 should be for 2019 edition of Times Guide; the earlier edition is available.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
You find it unbelievable that he would make such a comment and authorize such a phone call?
I find the coincidence that when the PM is having a tough time of it elsewhere this newspaper suddenly gets a legal threat for something no one really cared about in the first place tough to believe. They're a joke and you want to believe them. I have no love for the PM, in fact I think I probably loathe him more than you do, this just strikes me as extremely unlikely.
In that case Matt Kelly has defamed the PM and the PM's head of comms to an extent worth millions in costs and damages and destroyed his own reputation as a serious journalist.
Or, a known betrayer, liar and bully has committed a couple more betrayals and lies and commissioned another bit of bullying.
Tricky one.
Nah, serious journalists don't write for the New European. It's a joke of a paper, he's just trying to keep it relevant by jumping onto the bandwagon. Has anyone in the country thought about their article until today, or even the newspaper? He's achieved what he's set out to do and he's also done it in a way where he doesn't have to show his working. It's a smart move, but ultimately I don't buy it.
He was the night editor of the Mirror.
You are missing the rather simple logic of the situation. Either what he says is true - big story - or it is false but he is being allowed to get away with it - big story.
It can be true and still be a nothing story. Sounds like the sort of thing Johnson might say as part of a joke. Meaningless. Director of Communications a bit robust with a minor journalist. Unedifying, but pretty much standard practice.
1. Does anyone know, is their a replacement (so to speak) for the series "Almanac of British Politics" the last edition (8th) which was published 2007 or thereabouts?
2. Also wondering IF there's a book available re: 2016 Brexit Referendum in the style of "The British General Election of ____" series (just got my 2017 edition and now awaiting 2019 in the mail). BTW, such a study WAS done (which I have) for the 1975 Referendum by David Butler (grand old man of TBGE series) and Uwe Kitzinger; would be very interesting comparing that book with one for 2016 side by side.
3. Also, seems that copies of "Times Guide to the House of Commons 2017" are not to be found for sale on the web. Does anyone know where you can get a copy? OR if it's been digitized and is on the web somewhere?
Thanks in advance for any answers - helpful or otherwise!
You not in the UK? amazon uk has several copies of the Times guide.
For 2019? Which is what I meant to ask about, not the TGTHC '17 - thanks!
Andy Burnham @AndyBurnhamGM · 8h The patronising “the-North-should-be-grateful-for-what-it’s-given” mentality that’s been on display over the last 24 hours is the primary reason why we have such a large North-South divide in this country.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
You find it unbelievable that he would make such a comment and authorize such a phone call?
I find the coincidence that when the PM is having a tough time of it elsewhere this newspaper suddenly gets a legal threat for something no one really cared about in the first place tough to believe. They're a joke and you want to believe them. I have no love for the PM, in fact I think I probably loathe him more than you do, this just strikes me as extremely unlikely.
In that case Matt Kelly has defamed the PM and the PM's head of comms to an extent worth millions in costs and damages and destroyed his own reputation as a serious journalist.
Or, a known betrayer, liar and bully has committed a couple more betrayals and lies and commissioned another bit of bullying.
Tricky one.
Nah, serious journalists don't write for the New European. It's a joke of a paper, he's just trying to keep it relevant by jumping onto the bandwagon. Has anyone in the country thought about their article until today, or even the newspaper? He's achieved what he's set out to do and he's also done it in a way where he doesn't have to show his working. It's a smart move, but ultimately I don't buy it.
He was the night editor of the Mirror.
You are missing the rather simple logic of the situation. Either what he says is true - big story - or it is false but he is being allowed to get away with it - big story.
+1 - if the story isn't 100% true why aren't No 10 / Jack Doyle suing them - it would be a very open and shut case.
The fact Jack Doyle isn't suing them tells you a great deal
1) the original story is true and equally 2) Boris and No 10 are so desperate that they are attempting to bully complete non entities of a paper for reasons unknown...
Reasons very obvious: Boris has understandably been given an earful by Carrie and has said of course darling I would never say such a thing and I'll sue the rotten scoundrel to within an inch of his life
He is now explaining that following talks with the Attorney General he has regretfully decided for undisclosed reasons of state not to proceed with his open and shut legal case.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
When I said earlier today that I remained less than wholly impressed with SKS after hearing him on R4 this was what I meant. Should have just said yes, it's an easy answer surely. (FWIW I think Corbyn would have cleared that low bar, despite his manifest failings, and even if SKS disagreed he should have said yes because just 2 years ago he was trying to make him PM).
Joe Biden hands over to Kamala Harris (temporarily).
And he'll be handing over to Donald Trump in Jan 2025. Permanently.
You think he will live until 2025?
You raise an interesting, yet disturbing possibility. Right now the two favourites for nomination are Biden and Trump. There is a good chance one of them won't make it through death or incapacity. There is a non discountable chance neither will make it from nomination to inauguration day.
Anyone can die at anytime but when you vote people so old to be President you are vastly increasing that chance.
Everythime I see Biden I think how ill he looks.
Yesterday I went to visit a friend who is 78, spent the afternoon chatting. He is in really good physical shape.Around 4 p.m. he was chatting about Brighton FC when he fell asleep whilst talking. It was hilarious, he woke up 10 minutes later, wondering what had happened. I wonder if Biden does such things.
Many moons ago, I was a junior analyst at Goldman Sachs and was tasked with escorting a Partner from New York around fund managers in Paris. Said partner got off the plane in Paris, and we went on a whistestop tour of French finance.
Lunch was organised at a very posh restaurant just off the Champs-Elysees, and there were perhaps a dozen French finance people there to listen to the words of wisdom of the great tech analyst (him, not me). Perhaps fifteen minutes into his presentation his eyelids started drooping and then he fell asleep, mid sentence, his head pointing at his food.
The French guests took it all in their stride; they drank their wine, they chatted amongst themselves, some even smoked cigarettes (it was after all 1999).
About ten, fifteen minutes later Rick awoke with a start, and continued speaking exactly where he'd left off.
In the car after lunch, he said to me "I think I almost fell asleep in that meeting there, but I don't think anyone noticed."
As he was my boss's boss, I decided to let him think that.
1. Does anyone know, is their a replacement (so to speak) for the series "Almanac of British Politics" the last edition (8th) which was published 2007 or thereabouts?
2. Also wondering IF there's a book available re: 2016 Brexit Referendum in the style of "The British General Election of ____" series (just got my 2017 edition and now awaiting 2019 in the mail). BTW, such a study WAS done (which I have) for the 1975 Referendum by David Butler (grand old man of TBGE series) and Uwe Kitzinger; would be very interesting comparing that book with one for 2016 side by side.
3. Also, seems that copies of "Times Guide to the House of Commons 2017" are not to be found for sale on the web. Does anyone know where you can get a copy? OR if it's been digitized and is on the web somewhere?
Thanks in advance for any answers - helpful or otherwise!
You not in the UK? amazon uk has several copies of the Times guide.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
You find it unbelievable that he would make such a comment and authorize such a phone call?
I find the coincidence that when the PM is having a tough time of it elsewhere this newspaper suddenly gets a legal threat for something no one really cared about in the first place tough to believe. They're a joke and you want to believe them. I have no love for the PM, in fact I think I probably loathe him more than you do, this just strikes me as extremely unlikely.
In that case Matt Kelly has defamed the PM and the PM's head of comms to an extent worth millions in costs and damages and destroyed his own reputation as a serious journalist.
Or, a known betrayer, liar and bully has committed a couple more betrayals and lies and commissioned another bit of bullying.
Tricky one.
Nah, serious journalists don't write for the New European. It's a joke of a paper, he's just trying to keep it relevant by jumping onto the bandwagon. Has anyone in the country thought about their article until today, or even the newspaper? He's achieved what he's set out to do and he's also done it in a way where he doesn't have to show his working. It's a smart move, but ultimately I don't buy it.
He was the night editor of the Mirror.
You are missing the rather simple logic of the situation. Either what he says is true - big story - or it is false but he is being allowed to get away with it - big story.
+1 - if the story isn't 100% true why aren't No 10 / Jack Doyle suing them - it would be a very open and shut case.
The fact Jack Doyle isn't suing them tells you a great deal
1) the original story is true and equally 2) Boris and No 10 are so desperate that they are attempting to bully complete non entities of a paper for reasons unknown...
Or that Jack Doyle has heard of the Streisand Effect.
Just had booster in Dundee. No criticism of our NHS but they have got the army in today to help. I have to say it is going like a fair, at least twice as fast as my earlier vaccinations. Very solid and steady queues moving quickly. Really get the feeling we are on top of this.
Well done. Beat you by a day. No side effects at all btw (for those who were worried about me).
Glad to hear that. Have heard enough stories of people being more affected by the booster than the original vaccines to be a little concerned. Did you get the flu jab at the same time too?
I had both at once, one in each arm. Pfizer produced very slight soreness which wore off in a couple of days. Flu jab had no discernible side-effect at all.
Not discounting incidents of side-effects, but allow for reporting bias - people generally don't bother to mention non-events.
Well, here's hoping. We shall see during the weekend but just a small bruise on the covid are at the moment.
I've looked at the New European story and I'm wondering if the threat to sue comes either from, or from pressure from, the other party. I remember Classic Dom at the select committee trying to convince people over another lockdown whilst fending off a panic about Dilyn the dog.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Joe Biden hands over to Kamala Harris (temporarily).
And he'll be handing over to Donald Trump in Jan 2025. Permanently.
I’m finding it hard to imagine any scenario at the moment where the Democrats win in Nov 24. Yes, it’s three years away and lots can happen but many of the issues causing disruption seem to be long, not short, term and there is an obvious split developing between progressives and non-progressives when it comes to the agenda. Harris looks to be toast (and there is no reason to think she can pull things back), Biden has obvious health issues and Pelosi is set to retire. Anyone who thinks Pete B will be the saviour is off their rocker - the parental cafe story alone will sink his chances as the idea a US President can take time off will go down like a lead balloon with the swing voters they need.
The Republicans are the slight betting favourites at 1.96. Agree they should be shorter. The big problem they have imo is Donald Trump. They need to find a way for him not to be the candidate. I think they will but I admit that's intuition and little else. I have no clue what the actual path looks like from here to a not Donald Trump getting the ticket for WH24. You will have more insight on this, I'd have thought. I also don't think Biden will be the Dem candidate. So, for me, WH24 is wide open, both as to which party wins and who the person is.
If the GOP take the House and Senate next year, then with the state legislatures they control, it doesn't matter if Trump is their candidate in '24 or not. Whoever it is, they will claim election fraud, seat whichever spurious slate of electors the GOP in swing states cares to present and voila the coup will be complete.
Remember only 5 Republican senators objected to the AZ and PA electors last year, and 3 more objected to one set of electors.
If the Republicans do win the Senate it's only going to be approx 52-48 maximum - so they would need 51 out of 52 senators to object. That looks like a very tall order.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
What's your rationale for suggesting it is true? The New European does not have a reputation of being particularly fair 'n balanced.
Just had booster in Dundee. No criticism of our NHS but they have got the army in today to help. I have to say it is going like a fair, at least twice as fast as my earlier vaccinations. Very solid and steady queues moving quickly. Really get the feeling we are on top of this.
Well done. Beat you by a day. No side effects at all btw (for those who were worried about me).
Glad to hear that. Have heard enough stories of people being more affected by the booster than the original vaccines to be a little concerned. Did you get the flu jab at the same time too?
I had both at once, one in each arm. Pfizer produced very slight soreness which wore off in a couple of days. Flu jab had no discernible side-effect at all.
Not discounting incidents of side-effects, but allow for reporting bias - people generally don't bother to mention non-events.
Yep - I had a very strong reaction to my Pfizer booster after two non-events with AZ. Flu shot on wednesday gave no effects at all, unless you count the pain of removing the pointless plaster in the shower the next morning...
You got a plaster?! Pampered southerner.
Quite. I was simply told I wasn't bleeding and the rather charming female soldier was already into next mode.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
You find it unbelievable that he would make such a comment and authorize such a phone call?
I find the coincidence that when the PM is having a tough time of it elsewhere this newspaper suddenly gets a legal threat for something no one really cared about in the first place tough to believe. They're a joke and you want to believe them. I have no love for the PM, in fact I think I probably loathe him more than you do, this just strikes me as extremely unlikely.
In that case Matt Kelly has defamed the PM and the PM's head of comms to an extent worth millions in costs and damages and destroyed his own reputation as a serious journalist.
Or, a known betrayer, liar and bully has committed a couple more betrayals and lies and commissioned another bit of bullying.
Tricky one.
Nah, serious journalists don't write for the New European. It's a joke of a paper, he's just trying to keep it relevant by jumping onto the bandwagon. Has anyone in the country thought about their article until today, or even the newspaper? He's achieved what he's set out to do and he's also done it in a way where he doesn't have to show his working. It's a smart move, but ultimately I don't buy it.
He was the night editor of the Mirror.
You are missing the rather simple logic of the situation. Either what he says is true - big story - or it is false but he is being allowed to get away with it - big story.
+1 - if the story isn't 100% true why aren't No 10 / Jack Doyle suing them - it would be a very open and shut case.
The fact Jack Doyle isn't suing them tells you a great deal
1) the original story is true and equally 2) Boris and No 10 are so desperate that they are attempting to bully complete non entities of a paper for reasons unknown...
Reasons very obvious: Boris has understandably been given an earful by Carrie and has said of course darling I would never say such a thing and I'll sue the rotten scoundrel to within an inch of his life
He is now explaining that following talks with the Attorney General he has regretfully decided for undisclosed reasons of state not to proceed with his open and shut legal case.
Not only that, but revealing what was actually discussed at that ill fated dinner would probably far more damaging than an ungallant jest about his 3rd wife.
1. Does anyone know, is their a replacement (so to speak) for the series "Almanac of British Politics" the last edition (8th) which was published 2007 or thereabouts?
2. Also wondering IF there's a book available re: 2016 Brexit Referendum in the style of "The British General Election of ____" series (just got my 2017 edition and now awaiting 2019 in the mail). BTW, such a study WAS done (which I have) for the 1975 Referendum by David Butler (grand old man of TBGE series) and Uwe Kitzinger; would be very interesting comparing that book with one for 2016 side by side.
3. Also, seems that copies of "Times Guide to the House of Commons 2017" are not to be found for sale on the web. Does anyone know where you can get a copy? OR if it's been digitized and is on the web somewhere?
Thanks in advance for any answers - helpful or otherwise!
Not sure about the times guide (2017) seems to be >£50 on abe. Have you looked at Politico's 2017 guide? Although It appears an inferior product.
Edit @SeaShantyIrish2 You might find hope through the library networks, with possible international library loans if you're truly desperate!
Just checked the University of Washington Library online search, they don't have it which is interesting as they have plenty of earlier editions.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
You mean like Harold Wilson didn't sue The Move, or the International Herald Tribune, while he was PM?
Just had booster in Dundee. No criticism of our NHS but they have got the army in today to help. I have to say it is going like a fair, at least twice as fast as my earlier vaccinations. Very solid and steady queues moving quickly. Really get the feeling we are on top of this.
Well done. Beat you by a day. No side effects at all btw (for those who were worried about me).
Glad to hear that. Have heard enough stories of people being more affected by the booster than the original vaccines to be a little concerned. Did you get the flu jab at the same time too?
I had both at once, one in each arm. Pfizer produced very slight soreness which wore off in a couple of days. Flu jab had no discernible side-effect at all.
Not discounting incidents of side-effects, but allow for reporting bias - people generally don't bother to mention non-events.
Well, here's hoping. We shall see during the weekend but just a small bruise on the covid are at the moment.
Plus a weird side effect of not spotting typos, apparently!
Just had booster in Dundee. No criticism of our NHS but they have got the army in today to help. I have to say it is going like a fair, at least twice as fast as my earlier vaccinations. Very solid and steady queues moving quickly. Really get the feeling we are on top of this.
Well done. Beat you by a day. No side effects at all btw (for those who were worried about me).
Glad to hear that. Have heard enough stories of people being more affected by the booster than the original vaccines to be a little concerned. Did you get the flu jab at the same time too?
Yep. Left arm Pfizer, right arm flu. I'm ironman now.
If you see me coming, better step aside A lot of men didn't and a lot of men died I got one fist of iron the other of steel And if the right one don't get you boy, the left one will
Like that image for me, yes. I terminate, I terminate!
Cases up ~4K on last week but hospital admissions and deaths still trending downwards. Very obvious booster effect now. Admissions are down almost 18% from the previous week.
Deaths by day of report (7 day average) has trended up the last two days.
And if you look at the date of death graph it looks like the 7 day average (excluding last 4 days) will turn upwards tomorrow.
Like the fact that at Bexley and Old Sidcup we're gonna have a battle royal between two (at least) of PB semi-superstars: NPxMP and HYUFD.
To bad they won't be there the same day.
Perhaps on Monday, Nick can retrace where the Pride of Epping went on Sunday (can anyone loan a tracking dog?) That way, he can gently undo - or redo - the damage at the doorstep.
May the best acronym win!
True. Maybe I should revise my betting position given that the Tory voters of Bexley and Old Sidcup will be told on Sunday that they're not proper Conservatives and would better fit in another party
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
What's your rationale for suggesting it is true? The New European does not have a reputation of being particularly fair 'n balanced.
The thing is, if it was The Guardian, I'd believe it. They have no reason to lie about it, they're not exactly struggling for eyeballs or advertising sales. This guy has a reason to make it up and blame it on "tired and emotional" should he ever need to show his receipts. His paper is probably going bankrupt next year, it's readership is dwindling to the point that no one cares about Brexit except a few die hards on both sides. He needs relevance and becoming the story for a few days and reminding people that they still exist helps them.
1. Does anyone know, is their a replacement (so to speak) for the series "Almanac of British Politics" the last edition (8th) which was published 2007 or thereabouts?
2. Also wondering IF there's a book available re: 2016 Brexit Referendum in the style of "The British General Election of ____" series (just got my 2017 edition and now awaiting 2019 in the mail). BTW, such a study WAS done (which I have) for the 1975 Referendum by David Butler (grand old man of TBGE series) and Uwe Kitzinger; would be very interesting comparing that book with one for 2016 side by side.
3. Also, seems that copies of "Times Guide to the House of Commons 2017" are not to be found for sale on the web. Does anyone know where you can get a copy? OR if it's been digitized and is on the web somewhere?
Thanks in advance for any answers - helpful or otherwise!
You not in the UK? amazon uk has several copies of the Times guide.
For 2019? Which is what I meant to ask about, not the TGTHC '17 - thanks!
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
What's your rationale for suggesting it is true? The New European does not have a reputation of being particularly fair 'n balanced.
In fairness, this may the danger of small samples. How many are aware that it still exists or, for that matter, that it ever did?
Cases up ~4K on last week but hospital admissions and deaths still trending downwards. Very obvious booster effect now. Admissions are down almost 18% from the previous week.
Deaths by day of report (7 day average) has trended up the last two days.
And if you look at the date of death graph it looks like the 7 day average (excluding last 4 days) will turn upwards tomorrow.
So we may be right on the turning point.
Day of report with deaths is so random as to make the reporting day case numbers look solid.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
What's your rationale for suggesting it is true? The New European does not have a reputation of being particularly fair 'n balanced.
On topic. Can't see other than two Tory holds. Can see them being close, but if CCHQ had had to choose two to have right now, these would be on the shortlist for sure.
I'm sure I said exactly that a while ago.
Windsor (when it occurs) will be a different matter as there the Lib Dems do stand a decent chance.
By my measures Windsor looks a cert. 54% Remain - 36% grads - LDs in clear second - close to W London where many activists are based.
You fail to understand the mindset of the average Windsor resident - for us having a castle and a Tory MP are the ultimate in must-have status symbols.
You are joking of course, Mr Dawning! Windsor castle means tourists, and over two million of them in the course of a normal year makes Windsor a very uncomfortable place to live.
And all the Tory MPs in recent years have been about as useless as it is possible for a Tory MP to be!
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Are we sure it actually happened in the first place?
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Fuck The FIA. Those cock juggling thunder c**** might as well give the title to the Dutch shunt (sic) now before we even race on Sunday.
What happened?
The Mercedes request that Sunday's incident where Max ran Lewis off the road was disallowed even though the stewards had admitted to not looking at the Max's on car video when making their decision.
Basically it's now game on for pushing cars off the track at corners.
When I said earlier today that I remained less than wholly impressed with SKS after hearing him on R4 this was what I meant. Should have just said yes, it's an easy answer surely. (FWIW I think Corbyn would have cleared that low bar, despite his manifest failings, and even if SKS disagreed he should have said yes because just 2 years ago he was trying to make him PM).
Yes, I was mentally urging him to say a clear Yes there. Perhaps just a little TOO focused on Jez detox? It's a correct focus imo but I think that question could have been fronted up to without Middle England or the Red Wall going nuts.
Cases up ~4K on last week but hospital admissions and deaths still trending downwards. Very obvious booster effect now. Admissions are down almost 18% from the previous week.
Deaths by day of report (7 day average) has trended up the last two days.
And if you look at the date of death graph it looks like the 7 day average (excluding last 4 days) will turn upwards tomorrow.
So we may be right on the turning point.
To me we seem to be on something of a plateau where the number of cases is still running pretty hot but the number of hospital admissions and deaths is broadly static. I think, as we approach winter, the government is right to be pretty relaxed about that.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Nah, it's more likely that everyone simply ignored it because why give any airtime to an irrelevance? They made this out to be 100x more than it actually is and now they can't row back on it, I expect the same is true here as well, they're purposefully making something where there is nothing to help them stay relevant. Look at it this way, I fully expect that other pro-EU journalists were in the room, if Boris said, in any serious sense, what they've alleged wouldn't it have been front page news for the i or the Guardian? That it's not is pretty telling, that their comrades in these other pro-EU papers haven't come and backed them up is also pretty telling.
It's like the idiotic story about Boris going to Italy in the pandemic. Anyone could see it was a bunch of bullshit, yet we got endless blue tick twats going on about it and trying to convince everyone that it happened. I met someone last weekend who thinks it was true and it got covered up by MI5.
The New European is trying to manufacture controversy knowing that a sitting PM has no legal recourse.
Cases up ~4K on last week but hospital admissions and deaths still trending downwards. Very obvious booster effect now. Admissions are down almost 18% from the previous week.
Deaths by day of report (7 day average) has trended up the last two days.
And if you look at the date of death graph it looks like the 7 day average (excluding last 4 days) will turn upwards tomorrow).
So we may be right on the turning point.
Apologies if this has been discussed and I've missed it.
I'd like to pick the wise brains of PB on something that has been puzzling me...
I'm curious why covid is suddenly going exponential in some European countries but in the UK it has been more or less steady for months now, despite: - some of those countries having higher vaccination rates - most of the UK basically having no restrictions for months while most of those countries have more restrictions
I'm struggling to understand it myself. I thought maybe it could be a case of prior infection giving better protection against spreading the virus and the UK having more prior infection. Or maybe those countries have been too restrictive and now people are going back to high levels of social contact whereas people in the UK are not. I'm really stumped tbh
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Are we sure it actually happened in the first place?
As I say, I think if he hadn't there would have been a lot of his pals rallying to his defence. They can't because they heard it perhaps? In any event, it doesn't really matter. It fits in with the narrative that he is an unpleasant tosser, which isn't just a narrative, it is a clear and obvious fact.
OOooooooo ! Big news. Politician makes a minor slip up. Not exactly slapping a female colleague on the arse is it?
Blimey these threads would be very short if minor political news and observations were banned.
But it does show he panics, waffles and makes mistakes when pressed. Stiff as a board. He also made a mess of the interview when sky caught him out over his Mishcon job last week
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Are we sure it actually happened in the first place?
As I say, I think if he hadn't there would have been a lot of his pals rallying to his defence. They can't because they heard it perhaps? In any event, it doesn't really matter. It fits in with the narrative that he is an unpleasant tosser, which isn't just a narrative, it is a clear and obvious fact.
You'd think the story would have to be corroborated by someone before actually publishing it.
Fuck The FIA. Those cock juggling thunder c**** might as well give the title to the Dutch shunt (sic) now before we even race on Sunday.
What happened?
The Mercedes request that Sunday's incident where Max ran Lewis off the road was disallowed even though the stewards had admitted to not looking at the Max's on car video when making their decision.
Basically it's now game on for pushing cars off the track at corners.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Are we sure it actually happened in the first place?
If it didn't, you'd sue. This is the woman he married in May of this year ffs. What would you do if someone falsely claimed you had said this about Mrs D? What would Mrs D be likely to say if you said No biggie, let's just ignore?
Cases up ~4K on last week but hospital admissions and deaths still trending downwards. Very obvious booster effect now. Admissions are down almost 18% from the previous week.
Deaths by day of report (7 day average) has trended up the last two days.
And if you look at the date of death graph it looks like the 7 day average (excluding last 4 days) will turn upwards tomorrow).
So we may be right on the turning point.
Apologies if this has been discussed and I've missed it.
I'd like to pick the wise brains of PB on something that has been puzzling me...
I'm curious why covid is suddenly going exponential in some European countries but in the UK it has been more or less steady for months now, despite: - some of those countries having higher vaccination rates - most of the UK basically having no restrictions for months while most of those countries have more restrictions
I'm struggling to understand it myself. I thought maybe it could be a case of prior infection giving better protection against spreading the virus and the UK having more prior infection. Or maybe those countries have been too restrictive and now people are going back to high levels of social contact whereas people in the UK are not. I'm really stumped tbh
Something to consider - the headline rates of vaccination can be deceptive. One factor is that JCVI delayed a very long time in authorising vaccinations below 18. Many European countries went ahead and vaccinated down to 12
This gives a higher overall number. But the critical numbers are in take up over 40 or 45 (say) - at least for hospitalisation and deaths. Vaccinating younger people is more about reducing the spread - though they still get protection from the vaccine relative to being unvaccinated.
In Eastern Germany, for example there are surprisingly high numbers of older people not vaccinated. At all.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Are we sure it actually happened in the first place?
If it didn't, you'd sue. This is the woman he married in May of this year ffs. What would you do if someone falsely claimed you had said this about Mrs D? What would Mrs D be likely to say if you said No biggie, let's just ignore?
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Are we sure it actually happened in the first place?
As I say, I think if he hadn't there would have been a lot of his pals rallying to his defence. They can't because they heard it perhaps? In any event, it doesn't really matter. It fits in with the narrative that he is an unpleasant tosser, which isn't just a narrative, it is a clear and obvious fact.
Why would they draw attention to it by denying it? The New European is read by about 20 people, half of whom post on here. It was the lack of corroboration that was so damning. None of the pro-EU comrades came out and backed them up.
I learnt today that Nadine Dorries is a member of the Cabinet. Not just any Cabinet Minister but Minister for culture! Has there ever been a more ill equipped person for this job?
My question is this; How come there isn't a rebellion on the Tory benches? Can the 300 odd Tory MPs who AREN'T Minister for Culture be content that they've been overlooked in favour of this vulgar self publicist?
Have they no self respect? They've got Johnson's future in their hands and they're letting him ridicule them
Re British General Election, Times Guide to HoC and Almanac of British Politics series, I began collecting these about thirty years ago.
First ran across a few ex libris copies of BGE for 1964 and 1966 at a "Friends of the Seattle Public Library" book sale. From there started seeking them out at bookstores eventually) on the web.
Initially ran across copies of Times Guide for same period at a used bookstore in the old Carnegie Library building in Parkersburg, WV, again ex libris.
Cannot recall when I first encountered AOBP think it was just prior to 1997; distinctly remember lugging copy of subsequent edition around UK with me during the (incredibly boring) general election of 2000.
OOooooooo ! Big news. Politician makes a minor slip up. Not exactly slapping a female colleague on the arse is it?
Blimey these threads would be very short if minor political news and observations were banned.
But it does show he panics, waffles and makes mistakes when pressed. Stuff as a board. He also made a mess of the interview when sky caught him out over his Mishcon job last week
He probably does. OH, look - look - look! You wrote stuff instead of stiff! Goodness me. What should be interpret from that?
On the panic waffle and making mistakes stakes, how well does that blond haired object of your uncritical devotion stack up? Not too well does he?
Sleepy Joe is 79 tomorrow. I'm sure we'll all wish him many happy returns.
I think it's a bit scary Sleepy Joe's got his hands on the nuclear passcode. Trump was at least spritely and had his facualties.
Joe's the same age as me, and if that's anything to go by I wouldn't worry if I were you. I mean, I have written down the four digit code to our bowling green many times, but each time I set off to bowl I realise it's out with the recycling bin. Anyway Kamala has the code today. Feel better?
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Nah, it's more likely that everyone simply ignored it because why give any airtime to an irrelevance? They made this out to be 100x more than it actually is and now they can't row back on it, I expect the same is true here as well, they're purposefully making something where there is nothing to help them stay relevant. Look at it this way, I fully expect that other pro-EU journalists were in the room, if Boris said, in any serious sense, what they've alleged wouldn't it have been front page news for the i or the Guardian? That it's not is pretty telling, that their comrades in these other pro-EU papers haven't come and backed them up is also pretty telling.
It's like the idiotic story about Boris going to Italy in the pandemic. Anyone could see it was a bunch of bullshit, yet we got endless blue tick twats going on about it and trying to convince everyone that it happened. I met someone last weekend who thinks it was true and it got covered up by MI5.
The New European is trying to manufacture controversy knowing that a sitting PM has no legal recourse.
Maybe, either way he is a good target because he is a twat, so if you live by the lie...
I learnt today that Nadine Dorries is a member of the Cabinet. Not just any Cabinet Minister but Minister for culture! No point in asking if there has ever been a more ill equipped person for the job or a tiresome Tory lickspittle will simply dredge up a bunch of Labour names.
My question is this; How come there isn't a rebellion on the Tory benches? Can the 300 odd Tory MPs who AREN'T Minister for Culture be content that they've been overlooked in favour of this vulgar self publicist?
Have they no self respect? They've got Johnson's future in their hands and they're letting him ridicule them
Self publicist? All I know about her is that she's got a reasonable enough position on abortion.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Nah, it's more likely that everyone simply ignored it because why give any airtime to an irrelevance? They made this out to be 100x more than it actually is and now they can't row back on it, I expect the same is true here as well, they're purposefully making something where there is nothing to help them stay relevant. Look at it this way, I fully expect that other pro-EU journalists were in the room, if Boris said, in any serious sense, what they've alleged wouldn't it have been front page news for the i or the Guardian? That it's not is pretty telling, that their comrades in these other pro-EU papers haven't come and backed them up is also pretty telling.
It's like the idiotic story about Boris going to Italy in the pandemic. Anyone could see it was a bunch of bullshit, yet we got endless blue tick twats going on about it and trying to convince everyone that it happened. I met someone last weekend who thinks it was true and it got covered up by MI5.
The New European is trying to manufacture controversy knowing that a sitting PM has no legal recourse.
Is the last bit true?
I'm not a lawyer, but how would this case be different to John Major suing Scallywag magazine in 1993?
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Are we sure it actually happened in the first place?
As I say, I think if he hadn't there would have been a lot of his pals rallying to his defence. They can't because they heard it perhaps? In any event, it doesn't really matter. It fits in with the narrative that he is an unpleasant tosser, which isn't just a narrative, it is a clear and obvious fact.
Why would they draw attention to it by denying it? The New European is read by about 20 people, half of whom post on here. It was the lack of corroboration that was so damning. None of the pro-EU comrades came out and backed them up.
If you search "buyers remorse" today google helpfully autocompletes with "Johnson." Attention has now been drawn.
I learnt today that Nadine Dorries is a member of the Cabinet. Not just any Cabinet Minister but Minister for culture! Has there ever been a more ill equipped person for this job?
My question is this; How come there isn't a rebellion on the Tory benches? Can the 300 odd Tory MPs who AREN'T Minister for Culture be content that they've been overlooked in favour of this vulgar self publicist?
Have they no self respect? They've got Johnson's future in their hands and they're letting him ridicule them
At least she is not in charge of anything important.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Are we sure it actually happened in the first place?
As I say, I think if he hadn't there would have been a lot of his pals rallying to his defence. They can't because they heard it perhaps? In any event, it doesn't really matter. It fits in with the narrative that he is an unpleasant tosser, which isn't just a narrative, it is a clear and obvious fact.
Why would they draw attention to it by denying it? The New European is read by about 20 people, half of whom post on here. It was the lack of corroboration that was so damning. None of the pro-EU comrades came out and backed them up.
Oh get over it.
Did the New European print a bad horoscope for you or something.
This is a non-story, though you are doing your best to Streisand it.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Are we sure it actually happened in the first place?
As I say, I think if he hadn't there would have been a lot of his pals rallying to his defence. They can't because they heard it perhaps? In any event, it doesn't really matter. It fits in with the narrative that he is an unpleasant tosser, which isn't just a narrative, it is a clear and obvious fact.
Why would they draw attention to it by denying it? The New European is read by about 20 people, half of whom post on here. It was the lack of corroboration that was so damning. None of the pro-EU comrades came out and backed them up.
Oh get over it.
Did the New European print a bad horoscope for you or something.
This is a non-story, though you are doing your best to Streisand it.
You certainly don't do that by posting about it on PB.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Nah, it's more likely that everyone simply ignored it because why give any airtime to an irrelevance? They made this out to be 100x more than it actually is and now they can't row back on it, I expect the same is true here as well, they're purposefully making something where there is nothing to help them stay relevant. Look at it this way, I fully expect that other pro-EU journalists were in the room, if Boris said, in any serious sense, what they've alleged wouldn't it have been front page news for the i or the Guardian? That it's not is pretty telling, that their comrades in these other pro-EU papers haven't come and backed them up is also pretty telling.
It's like the idiotic story about Boris going to Italy in the pandemic. Anyone could see it was a bunch of bullshit, yet we got endless blue tick twats going on about it and trying to convince everyone that it happened. I met someone last weekend who thinks it was true and it got covered up by MI5.
The New European is trying to manufacture controversy knowing that a sitting PM has no legal recourse.
Is the last bit true?
I'm not a lawyer, but how would this case be different to John Major suing Scallywag magazine in 1993?
or Harold Wilson suing The Move and the IHT? it is complete unmitigated nonsense.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Nah, it's more likely that everyone simply ignored it because why give any airtime to an irrelevance? They made this out to be 100x more than it actually is and now they can't row back on it, I expect the same is true here as well, they're purposefully making something where there is nothing to help them stay relevant. Look at it this way, I fully expect that other pro-EU journalists were in the room, if Boris said, in any serious sense, what they've alleged wouldn't it have been front page news for the i or the Guardian? That it's not is pretty telling, that their comrades in these other pro-EU papers haven't come and backed them up is also pretty telling.
It's like the idiotic story about Boris going to Italy in the pandemic. Anyone could see it was a bunch of bullshit, yet we got endless blue tick twats going on about it and trying to convince everyone that it happened. I met someone last weekend who thinks it was true and it got covered up by MI5.
The New European is trying to manufacture controversy knowing that a sitting PM has no legal recourse.
"a sitting PM has no legal recourse"
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the published story, is this true?
Sleepy Joe is 79 tomorrow. I'm sure we'll all wish him many happy returns.
I think it's a bit scary Sleepy Joe's got his hands on the nuclear passcode. Trump was at least spritely and had his facualties.
Joe's the same age as me, and if that's anything to go by I wouldn't worry if I were you. I mean, I have written down the four digit code to our bowling green many times, but each time I set off to bowl I realise it's out with the recycling bin. Anyway Kamala has the code today. Feel better?
Yeah - I had kinda priced in that Kamala would need to help to launch the nukes even on a everyday basis so I wasn't actually that scared.
Sleepy Joe still leader of the free world though...
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
The damage for Boris Johnson is that whether he said it or not enough people can imagine him saying it.
In Boris Johnson’s defence his utter fidelity to his previous wives will help him rebut the vile smear.
It's a load of crap to get remainers to buy more newspapers. Their relevance is going down the drain and they've got to try and stay in the public eye. With the virus and other scandals, Brexit is, finally, off the agenda and so are they. They don't even make the "tomorrow's headline" twitter accounts these days.
So that is your rationale for suggesting it is untrue? You don't like the paper so Johnson didn't say it? You seem to have morphed into being Philip Thompson.
My rationale is that people want this to be true because they don't like Boris. That doesn't make it true. The only people who gain from this episode are the newspaper people, it makes sense for them to make a big splash about a non-existent lawsuit threat. They need the attention. I don't care one way or the other for the paper, I think it's irrelevant, but I do think they want to be relevant, hence the original fabrication and now the fabrication on the law suit. It gives them the attention that they wouldn't otherwise have knowing a sitting PM is never going to take it to court. Even one as disreputable as Boris.
Whether we "want it to be true" is immaterial. The reality is that it was a room full of journos. Many of them will probably be as EU-phobe as you, probably more so. Do you not think there might be dozens of them coming forward to say that he didn't say it? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the denials from those that were there have happened? That suggests to me a lot of them heard it, and let's face it, it is the sort of wanky thing the fat oaf would have said.
Are we sure it actually happened in the first place?
As I say, I think if he hadn't there would have been a lot of his pals rallying to his defence. They can't because they heard it perhaps? In any event, it doesn't really matter. It fits in with the narrative that he is an unpleasant tosser, which isn't just a narrative, it is a clear and obvious fact.
Why would they draw attention to it by denying it? The New European is read by about 20 people, half of whom post on here. It was the lack of corroboration that was so damning. None of the pro-EU comrades came out and backed them up.
How does it keep going with such a low circulation. I only ever see it mentioned on twitter
OOooooooo ! Big news. Politician makes a minor slip up. Not exactly slapping a female colleague on the arse is it?
Blimey these threads would be very short if minor political news and observations were banned.
But it does show he panics, waffles and makes mistakes when pressed. Stuff as a board. He also made a mess of the interview when sky caught him out over his Mishcon job last week
He probably does. OH, look - look - look! You wrote stuff instead of stiff! Goodness me. What should be interpret from that?
On the panic waffle and making mistakes stakes, how well does that blond haired object of your uncritical devotion stack up? Not too well does he?
If you are referring to the PM, I think I’ve noticed it mentioned on here when he errs. It dominates the day! When anyone mentions Sir Keir’s rickets we have to set up a safe space for people to sob in
Comments
I got 2 jabs, they've got ...
Yes, I know. Sorry. Been a long week.
A lot of men didn't and a lot of men died
I got one fist of iron the other of steel
And if the right one don't get you boy, the left one will
Had the response been "I won't dignify a silly story in a silly paper with a response", great.
But the No 10 response, puffed up threats that then deflate, that's another matter. Partly because it's a combination of bullying and weakness that isn't good in a leader.
But also, it's not the first time we've seen it from BoJo.
https://twitter.com/bbcbreakfast/status/1461621518866210817?s=21
It’s perfectly believable, but it’s all on the press guy.
Alistair Campbell did similar things, didn’t he?
Or, a known betrayer, liar and bully has committed a couple more betrayals and lies and commissioned another bit of bullying.
Tricky one.
Any further data would be welcome.
OB&S is a difficult balancing exercise between the competing forces of: stay at home, plague on all houses, Brexit, sleaze, Corbyn now gone. Which, if it fell a particular way could mean Labour.
NS: just can't see beyond the Tory. Current odds absurd.
1. Does anyone know, is their a replacement (so to speak) for the series "Almanac of British Politics" the last edition (8th) which was published 2007 or thereabouts?
2. Also wondering IF there's a book available re: 2016 Brexit Referendum in the style of "The British General Election of ____" series (just got my 2017 edition and now awaiting 2019 in the mail). BTW, such a study WAS done (which I have) for the 1975 Referendum by David Butler (grand old man of TBGE series) and Uwe Kitzinger; would be very interesting comparing that book with one for 2016 side by side.
3. Also, seems that copies of "Times Guide to the House of Commons 2017" are not to be found for sale on the web. Does anyone know where you can get a copy? OR if it's been digitized and is on the web somewhere?
Thanks in advance for any answers - helpful or otherwise!
You are missing the rather simple logic of the situation. Either what he says is true - big story - or it is false but he is being allowed to get away with it - big story.
The fact Jack Doyle isn't suing them tells you a great deal
1) the original story is true and equally
2) Boris and No 10 are so desperate that they are attempting to bully complete non entities of a paper for reasons unknown...
To bad they won't be there the same day.
Perhaps on Monday, Nick can retrace where the Pride of Epping went on Sunday (can anyone loan a tracking dog?) That way, he can gently undo - or redo - the damage at the doorstep.
May the best acronym win!
Edit @SeaShantyIrish2 You might find hope through the library networks, with possible international library loans if you're truly desperate!
I may have a PB exclusive shortly.
Beyond that, I make no predictions.
Why are you being distracted by such minutiae?
Andy Burnham
@AndyBurnhamGM
·
8h
The patronising “the-North-should-be-grateful-for-what-it’s-given” mentality that’s been on display over the last 24 hours is the primary reason why we have such a large North-South divide in this country.
He is now explaining that following talks with the Attorney General he has regretfully decided for undisclosed reasons of state not to proceed with his open and shut legal case.
Lunch was organised at a very posh restaurant just off the Champs-Elysees, and there were perhaps a dozen French finance people there to listen to the words of wisdom of the great tech analyst (him, not me). Perhaps fifteen minutes into his presentation his eyelids started drooping and then he fell asleep, mid sentence, his head pointing at his food.
The French guests took it all in their stride; they drank their wine, they chatted amongst themselves, some even smoked cigarettes (it was after all 1999).
About ten, fifteen minutes later Rick awoke with a start, and continued speaking exactly where he'd left off.
In the car after lunch, he said to me "I think I almost fell asleep in that meeting there, but I don't think anyone noticed."
As he was my boss's boss, I decided to let him think that.
If the Republicans do win the Senate it's only going to be approx 52-48 maximum - so they would need 51 out of 52 senators to object. That looks like a very tall order.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/list-republicans-voted-to-reject-election-results
And if you look at the date of death graph it looks like the 7 day average (excluding last 4 days) will turn upwards tomorrow.
So we may be right on the turning point.
And all the Tory MPs in recent years have been about as useless as it is possible for a Tory MP to be!
Basically it's now game on for pushing cars off the track at corners.
It's like the idiotic story about Boris going to Italy in the pandemic. Anyone could see it was a bunch of bullshit, yet we got endless blue tick twats going on about it and trying to convince everyone that it happened. I met someone last weekend who thinks it was true and it got covered up by MI5.
The New European is trying to manufacture controversy knowing that a sitting PM has no legal recourse.
I'd like to pick the wise brains of PB on something that has been puzzling me...
I'm curious why covid is suddenly going exponential in some European countries but in the UK it has been more or less steady for months now, despite:
- some of those countries having higher vaccination rates
- most of the UK basically having no restrictions for months while most of those countries have more restrictions
I'm struggling to understand it myself. I thought maybe it could be a case of prior infection giving better protection against spreading the virus and the UK having more prior infection. Or maybe those countries have been too restrictive and now people are going back to high levels of social contact whereas people in the UK are not. I'm really stumped tbh
But it does show he panics, waffles and makes mistakes when pressed. Stiff as a board. He also made a mess of the interview when sky caught him out over his Mishcon job last week
This gives a higher overall number. But the critical numbers are in take up over 40 or 45 (say) - at least for hospitalisation and deaths. Vaccinating younger people is more about reducing the spread - though they still get protection from the vaccine relative to being unvaccinated.
In Eastern Germany, for example there are surprisingly high numbers of older people not vaccinated. At all.
My question is this; How come there isn't a rebellion on the Tory benches? Can the 300 odd Tory MPs who AREN'T Minister for Culture be content that they've been overlooked in favour of this vulgar self publicist?
Have they no self respect? They've got Johnson's future in their hands and they're letting him ridicule them
First ran across a few ex libris copies of BGE for 1964 and 1966 at a "Friends of the Seattle Public Library" book sale. From there started seeking them out at bookstores eventually) on the web.
Initially ran across copies of Times Guide for same period at a used bookstore in the old Carnegie Library building in Parkersburg, WV, again ex libris.
Cannot recall when I first encountered AOBP think it was just prior to 1997; distinctly remember lugging copy of subsequent edition around UK with me during the (incredibly boring) general election of 2000.
On the panic waffle and making mistakes stakes, how well does that blond haired object of your uncritical devotion stack up? Not too well does he?
Anyway Kamala has the code today. Feel better?
I'm not a lawyer, but how would this case be different to John Major suing Scallywag magazine in 1993?
Did the New European print a bad horoscope for you or something.
This is a non-story, though you are doing your best to Streisand it.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the published story, is this true?
1967 - Harold Wilson wins Moving apology
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/11/newsid_2542000/2542413.stm
Sleepy Joe still leader of the free world though...