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
The slow motion death of newspapers and magazines is fascinating - they keep going long after they are commercially dead. The stories of how they get banks to advance them more money, even as their readerships fall away..
I've read some accounts of this process... they really give a sense of ending of eras. People who life and friendships were constructed around a publication, grimly hanging on as the smart run away....
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
Really? That's news to me. I couldn't really give a toss about SKS. You clearly do. Seem a bit obsessed. If he is so crap I am surprised you wouldn't like to keep him in place, so that Johnsonian populism can have it's version of the 1000 year Reich.
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?
I misread that initially as @kinabalu so the first response was, err, not really. And I am not entirely convinced that Kamala is either.
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.
No matter how much I disapprove of Boris' recent form, he and the Tory party was overwhelmingly the right vote in 2019. Even if Labour had been led by Starmer I'd still not have had not the slightest hesitation.
Currently though, mid term, Boris is letting himself down. The mid term bit is just that I wouldn't say such a thing close to an election.
I think the only way the Tories could lose Bexley is if they lose a big chunk of support to Richard Tice, with Labour coming through the middle on a relatively low share of the vote.
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.
Thanks - makes sense. That would certainly explain why their hospital systems are being overloaded.
It doesn't explain the massive growth in cases surely? I would have thought that'd be driven by overall immunity which would correlate with overall vaccination?
Another thing I wondered - the Republic of Ireland has just recently opened up nightclubs, etc. Their cases are starting to skyrocket. Could it be a case of the UK opening up at the right time (summer)? Having said that, Northern Ireland is not experiencing the same skyrocketing growth and they opened up nightclubs about the same time as the Republic of Ireland... all very confusing
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...
Reminds me of the comment that when Yeltsin was leader of Russia the world was so much safer. He was too drunk to launch the missiles 90% of the time....
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?
Me and the Mrs regularly make all sorts of jokes about our marriage. We have one that starts, "Dear Mariella..." based on the idea that we're about to write a letter to the Guardian's erstwhile agony aunt. We don't tend to make these sorts of jokes in public, they're a private in-joke between us, but Johnson is a much more extroverted figure than either of us. A joke about buyer's remorse is entirely in character for him, and about as meaningless as a joke I've made about whether the Roomba is replacing me.
I just don't understand why you think this is at all significant. Given everything else that is going on I'd doubt it would even make for a hook for a joke on the News Quiz.
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
The slow motion death of newspapers and magazines is fascinating - they keep going long after they are commercially dead. The stories of how they get banks to advance them more money, even as their readerships fall away..
I've read some accounts of this process... they really give a sense of ending of eras. People who life and friendships were constructed around a publication, grimly hanging on as the smart run away....
Every day I wander round to the corner shop to pick up my subscription edition of the Times. The number of other papers seem to dwindle on a daily basis.
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.
What is the alternative to "being allowed to get away with it"?
The New European is a failed, bankrupt business with no assets. Suing them would achieve what exactly? Even if a dragged out court case led to a finding against the New European, they'd just declare bankruptcy and not pay anything out. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if they'd love to be sued by Downing Street, as then they could have a long dragged out drama in court and would no doubt find plenty of willing mugs to donate to their costs while it is ongoing.
Its long been said that the monarchy and politicians are very well advised to steer clear of the courts. That surely applies in this instance.
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.
My local shop used to sell the New European and I used to buy it occasionally to get a different point of view. They stopped selling it a couple of months ago, I assume because I was the only person buying it.
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
Really? That's news to me. I couldn't really give a toss about SKS. You clearly do. Seem a bit obsessed. If he is so crap I am surprised you wouldn't like to keep him in place, so that Johnsonian populism can have it's version of the 1000 year Reich.
Wow, Starmer certainly does have long-term ambitions.
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
The slow motion death of newspapers and magazines is fascinating - they keep going long after they are commercially dead. The stories of how they get banks to advance them more money, even as their readerships fall away..
I've read some accounts of this process... they really give a sense of ending of eras. People who life and friendships were constructed around a publication, grimly hanging on as the smart run away....
Apparently it has a circulation of ~20k. Seems reasonableish to me.
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.
Thanks - makes sense. That would certainly explain why their hospital systems are being overloaded.
It doesn't explain the massive growth in cases surely? I would have thought that'd be driven by overall immunity which would correlate with overall vaccination?
Another thing I wondered - the Republic of Ireland has just recently opened up nightclubs, etc. Their cases are starting to skyrocket. Could it be a case of the UK opening up at the right time (summer)? Having said that, Northern Ireland is not experiencing the same skyrocketing growth and they opened up nightclubs about the same time as the Republic of Ireland... all very confusing
Cases in other countries need to factor in the testing levels. We test at a fairly high rate in the UK. Austria is practically the world champion on testing.
Unfortunately you can't just multiply/divided to compare the testing numbers. Even positivity (ratio of tests to cases found) only gets you so far.
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?
Me and the Mrs regularly make all sorts of jokes about our marriage. We have one that starts, "Dear Mariella..." based on the idea that we're about to write a letter to the Guardian's erstwhile agony aunt. We don't tend to make these sorts of jokes in public, they're a private in-joke between us, but Johnson is a much more extroverted figure than either of us. A joke about buyer's remorse is entirely in character for him, and about as meaningless as a joke I've made about whether the Roomba is replacing me.
I just don't understand why you think this is at all significant. Given everything else that is going on I'd doubt it would even make for a hook for a joke on the News Quiz.
I don't. It tells us nothing new about Johnson. I do think it is very funny, though, and I think the efforts to save the PM on here are the funniest part of it. Fabricating whole new rules of law to save the phenomena is like Ptolemaists piling on the epicycles to make geocentricity work.
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.
What is the alternative to "being allowed to get away with it"?
The New European is a failed, bankrupt business with no assets. Suing them would achieve what exactly? Even if a dragged out court case led to a finding against the New European, they'd just declare bankruptcy and not pay anything out. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if they'd love to be sued by Downing Street, as then they could have a long dragged out drama in court and would no doubt find plenty of willing mugs to donate to their costs while it is ongoing.
Its long been said that the monarchy and politicians are very well advised to steer clear of the courts. That surely applies in this instance.
Nonsense, you don't just sue to get recompense you sue to correct the record. As other posters have mentioned, other PMs have done it. Besides, you and all the other Johnson apologists would love it if they had to close down. He can't sue them because he knows he said it. He thought it funny, though I doubt Carrie agrees. Perhaps she is worried about the vacancy she created.
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
The slow motion death of newspapers and magazines is fascinating - they keep going long after they are commercially dead. The stories of how they get banks to advance them more money, even as their readerships fall away..
I've read some accounts of this process... they really give a sense of ending of eras. People who life and friendships were constructed around a publication, grimly hanging on as the smart run away....
Every day I wander round to the corner shop to pick up my subscription edition of the Times. The number of other papers seem to dwindle on a daily basis.
Good man - the Times is the best paper if you ask me but I can't really afford it.
I only buy a paper on a Saturday to get the TV listings.
I'd prefer to buy the Daily Express but the local shop has either ran out by the time I get there or are trolling me because they know that's the paper I want and order less on a Saturday.
So I buy the Daily Star.
Not the worst paper - They had a free 5 quid Paddy Power bet 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.
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.
What is the alternative to "being allowed to get away with it"?
The New European is a failed, bankrupt business with no assets. Suing them would achieve what exactly? Even if a dragged out court case led to a finding against the New European, they'd just declare bankruptcy and not pay anything out. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if they'd love to be sued by Downing Street, as then they could have a long dragged out drama in court and would no doubt find plenty of willing mugs to donate to their costs while it is ongoing.
Its long been said that the monarchy and politicians are very well advised to steer clear of the courts. That surely applies in this instance.
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.
What is the alternative to "being allowed to get away with it"?
The New European is a failed, bankrupt business with no assets. Suing them would achieve what exactly? Even if a dragged out court case led to a finding against the New European, they'd just declare bankruptcy and not pay anything out. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if they'd love to be sued by Downing Street, as then they could have a long dragged out drama in court and would no doubt find plenty of willing mugs to donate to their costs while it is ongoing.
Its long been said that the monarchy and politicians are very well advised to steer clear of the courts. That surely applies in this instance.
Clearing one's name. Carrie is likely to think, with reason, that this is about as close to bantz as "Paki" is.
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.
Must have been a sad git, unless it was an error and they meant to tick "like"
I think the only way the Tories could lose Bexley is if they lose a big chunk of support to Richard Tice, with Labour coming through the middle on a relatively low share of the vote.
On the upside, some staggeringly high proportion of Labour’s membership is in London, and they will be flooding the constituency with help; in a pre-Christmas by-election in cold weather, that could make a significant difference. On the downside, they have a mountain to climb, and it is hard to see what about current day Labour they can use to create a sense if excitement or enthusiasm in the seat. However they are helped by the Tories having chosen a complete ****er of a candidate.
For what it's worth - far less than 2¢ - my take on the "buyer's remorse" story is this -
Like all great comedians, the PM has natural talent BUT also needs good writing - by himself AND with help of others - to ensure his act is as funny and fresh as possible.
Seems to me that Boris Johnson on the occasion in question MAY have been trying to channel the late, great Henny Youngman ("Take my wife - please!") but was ad-libbing; something that HY did NOT do as a rule IIRC.
In other words, the PM was working without a net . . . similar to what he's been having his ministers and backbenchers do for some time . . .
Is it a big deal? Outside of No 10, almost certainly not. However, it could be indication that Boris Johnson is NOT performing anywhere near his best. AND that he is at least quasi-aware that he might be endanger of having a giant hook come out of the wings to yank him abruptly off the stage . . .
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
The slow motion death of newspapers and magazines is fascinating - they keep going long after they are commercially dead. The stories of how they get banks to advance them more money, even as their readerships fall away..
I've read some accounts of this process... they really give a sense of ending of eras. People who life and friendships were constructed around a publication, grimly hanging on as the smart run away....
Apparently it has a circulation of ~20k. Seems reasonableish to me.
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
The slow motion death of newspapers and magazines is fascinating - they keep going long after they are commercially dead. The stories of how they get banks to advance them more money, even as their readerships fall away..
I've read some accounts of this process... they really give a sense of ending of eras. People who life and friendships were constructed around a publication, grimly hanging on as the smart run away....
Apparently it has a circulation of ~20k. Seems reasonableish to me.
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
The slow motion death of newspapers and magazines is fascinating - they keep going long after they are commercially dead. The stories of how they get banks to advance them more money, even as their readerships fall away..
I've read some accounts of this process... they really give a sense of ending of eras. People who life and friendships were constructed around a publication, grimly hanging on as the smart run away....
Apparently it has a circulation of ~20k. Seems reasonableish to me.
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.
Thanks - makes sense. That would certainly explain why their hospital systems are being overloaded.
It doesn't explain the massive growth in cases surely? I would have thought that'd be driven by overall immunity which would correlate with overall vaccination?
Another thing I wondered - the Republic of Ireland has just recently opened up nightclubs, etc. Their cases are starting to skyrocket. Could it be a case of the UK opening up at the right time (summer)? Having said that, Northern Ireland is not experiencing the same skyrocketing growth and they opened up nightclubs about the same time as the Republic of Ireland... all very confusing
Gemany has reported fewer cases per head of population than other countries - than us and the French, for example. They may not have been testing so much, but they also may have less natural immunity
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.
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.
What is the alternative to "being allowed to get away with it"?
The New European is a failed, bankrupt business with no assets. Suing them would achieve what exactly? Even if a dragged out court case led to a finding against the New European, they'd just declare bankruptcy and not pay anything out. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if they'd love to be sued by Downing Street, as then they could have a long dragged out drama in court and would no doubt find plenty of willing mugs to donate to their costs while it is ongoing.
Its long been said that the monarchy and politicians are very well advised to steer clear of the courts. That surely applies in this instance.
Apart from all the other PMs who taken legal action and the current monarch who is engaged in legal action to hide for example the Duke of Edinburgh's will.
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.
Must have been a sad git, unless it was an error and they meant to tick "like"
Reckon maybe 95% plus of all "off topic" hits on PB are done in error; know I've done it - blame my fat fingers!
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
The slow motion death of newspapers and magazines is fascinating - they keep going long after they are commercially dead. The stories of how they get banks to advance them more money, even as their readerships fall away..
I've read some accounts of this process... they really give a sense of ending of eras. People who life and friendships were constructed around a publication, grimly hanging on as the smart run away....
Apparently it has a circulation of ~20k. Seems reasonableish to me.
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
The slow motion death of newspapers and magazines is fascinating - they keep going long after they are commercially dead. The stories of how they get banks to advance them more money, even as their readerships fall away..
I've read some accounts of this process... they really give a sense of ending of eras. People who life and friendships were constructed around a publication, grimly hanging on as the smart run away....
Apparently it has a circulation of ~20k. Seems reasonableish to me.
Claiming a new production budget of £13k a weekly issue.
Small, but not absurdly so.
For comparison, the Romford Recorder shifts about 10k a week, the Church Times about 30k, the New Statesman about 40k.
Much easier to see how the numbers work than for GB News, say.
anyway you'd also sue Kelly personally. An established London based professional with a house should be good for upwards of 1m.
Not properly checked the updated Covid-19 rules on wrongful trading but surely the directors might be personally liable for wrongful trading for publishing a story they knew was defamatory, so it would be irrelevant if the company was bankrupt/had no assets.
As we know, (London) remainers are considerably richer than Leavers.
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.
What is the alternative to "being allowed to get away with it"?
The New European is a failed, bankrupt business with no assets. Suing them would achieve what exactly? Even if a dragged out court case led to a finding against the New European, they'd just declare bankruptcy and not pay anything out. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if they'd love to be sued by Downing Street, as then they could have a long dragged out drama in court and would no doubt find plenty of willing mugs to donate to their costs while it is ongoing.
Its long been said that the monarchy and politicians are very well advised to steer clear of the courts. That surely applies in this instance.
Point of a politico suing for alleged libel is NOT generally to obtain money (though it's not a disincentive) or to bankrupt the alleged libeler (though that would be gratifying).
The point is to demonstrate that the alleged libel is indeed false. Plenty of famous cases in where judgement of a quid (or even less?) was MORE than satisfactory to the victors.
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.
What is the alternative to "being allowed to get away with it"?
The New European is a failed, bankrupt business with no assets. Suing them would achieve what exactly? Even if a dragged out court case led to a finding against the New European, they'd just declare bankruptcy and not pay anything out. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if they'd love to be sued by Downing Street, as then they could have a long dragged out drama in court and would no doubt find plenty of willing mugs to donate to their costs while it is ongoing.
Its long been said that the monarchy and politicians are very well advised to steer clear of the courts. That surely applies in this instance.
Point of a politico suing for alleged libel is NOT generally to obtain money (though it's not a disincentive) or to bankrupt the alleged libeler (though that would be gratifying).
The point is to demonstrate that the alleged libel is indeed false. Plenty of famous cases in where judgement of a quid (or even less?) was MORE than satisfactory to the victors.
The Andrew Mitchell case was pretty clear cut - yet it went against him
A lesson for anyone watching the case - Don't get involved in a fight with someone who buy's ink by the gallon.
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.
Thanks - makes sense. That would certainly explain why their hospital systems are being overloaded.
It doesn't explain the massive growth in cases surely? I would have thought that'd be driven by overall immunity which would correlate with overall vaccination?
Another thing I wondered - the Republic of Ireland has just recently opened up nightclubs, etc. Their cases are starting to skyrocket. Could it be a case of the UK opening up at the right time (summer)? Having said that, Northern Ireland is not experiencing the same skyrocketing growth and they opened up nightclubs about the same time as the Republic of Ireland... all very confusing
Gemany has reported fewer cases per head of population than other countries - than us and the French, for example. They may not have been testing so much, but they also may have less natural immunity
Without an antibody study, you can't say that - the testing numbers make it nearly impossible.
The express death numbers suggest that, though.
The real concern is the over 40s and especially over 50s who are completely unvaccinated. There are quite a few in the UK, but the situation is worse in some places...
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
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).
Shades of Gordon Brown taking two days to tell mumsnet which was his favourite biscuit. Like Brown, Starmer has seen, or thinks he has seen, a trap but cannot quite work out where.
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
We need to put them in contact with Big G so he can set them straight.
Still waiting for that on average 83 minute journey from York to Manchester.
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
We need to put them in contact with Big G so he can set them straight.
Still waiting for that on average 83 minute journey from York to Manchester.
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.
What is the alternative to "being allowed to get away with it"?
The New European is a failed, bankrupt business with no assets. Suing them would achieve what exactly? Even if a dragged out court case led to a finding against the New European, they'd just declare bankruptcy and not pay anything out. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if they'd love to be sued by Downing Street, as then they could have a long dragged out drama in court and would no doubt find plenty of willing mugs to donate to their costs while it is ongoing.
Its long been said that the monarchy and politicians are very well advised to steer clear of the courts. That surely applies in this instance.
Point of a politico suing for alleged libel is NOT generally to obtain money (though it's not a disincentive) or to bankrupt the alleged libeler (though that would be gratifying).
The point is to demonstrate that the alleged libel is indeed false. Plenty of famous cases in where judgement of a quid (or even less?) was MORE than satisfactory to the victors.
The Andrew Mitchell case was pretty clear cut - yet it went against him
A lesson for anyone watching the case - Don't get involved in a fight with someone who buy's ink by the gallon.
That is generally good advice, for sure (though not sure New European proprietors really rank as press lords?)
And where courts are concerned, you can never bet on a sure thing. Even if you bribe the judge or get 'em drunk!
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
It's really weird. Politically, it's own goal. OK, I can see that a responsible government, looking at the eye-watering costs of the previous scheme, might well decide that it wasn't a good use of public money given all the other commitments mounting up, but this new plan seems to have been cobbled together on the back of an envelope and really doesn't make either political sense or practical sense.
The only explanation I can think of is that Boris is desperate for a quick win on 'levelling up' - indeed, he's virtually said so - and this has been put together, without any real thought, in response.
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.
Thanks - makes sense. That would certainly explain why their hospital systems are being overloaded.
It doesn't explain the massive growth in cases surely? I would have thought that'd be driven by overall immunity which would correlate with overall vaccination?
Another thing I wondered - the Republic of Ireland has just recently opened up nightclubs, etc. Their cases are starting to skyrocket. Could it be a case of the UK opening up at the right time (summer)? Having said that, Northern Ireland is not experiencing the same skyrocketing growth and they opened up nightclubs about the same time as the Republic of Ireland... all very confusing
Gemany has reported fewer cases per head of population than other countries - than us and the French, for example. They may not have been testing so much, but they also may have less natural immunity
Without an antibody study, you can't say that - the testing numbers make it nearly impossible.
The express death numbers suggest that, though.
The real concern is the over 40s and especially over 50s who are completely unvaccinated. There are quite a few in the UK, but the situation is worse in some places...
Is it that much of a concern? They have made their own decision as to the balance of risk. The wrong one, as it happens, but they had the same information I had.
Having said that, they will still clog up hospital beds.
Seems like the government has managed to piss off the Mancs for building their leg of HS2 almost as much as the Yorkies for not building theirs. That takes a special kind of political genius.
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
It's really weird. Politically, it's own goal. OK, I can see that a responsible government, looking at the eye-watering costs of the previous scheme, might well decide that it wasn't a good use of public money given all the other commitments mounting up, but this new plan seems to have been cobbled together on the back of an envelope and really doesn't make either political sense or practical sense.
The only explanation I can think of is that Boris is desperate for a quick win on 'levelling up' - indeed, he's virtually said so - and this has been put together, without any real thought, in response.
Exactly. Since whenever was the clown worried about wasting public money, anyway?
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
Building a new railway from B'ham to Nottingham would take absolutely ages, because a lot of the current track goes over lakes, marshes, etc. You'd have to build new viaducts. It would probably take at least 10 years.
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
It's really weird. Politically, it's own goal. OK, I can see that a responsible government, looking at the eye-watering costs of the previous scheme, might well decide that it wasn't a good use of public money given all the other commitments mounting up, but this new plan seems to have been cobbled together on the back of an envelope and really doesn't make either political sense or practical sense.
The only explanation I can think of is that Boris is desperate for a quick win on 'levelling up' - indeed, he's virtually said so - and this has been put together, without any real thought, in response.
There's a certain gullibility with current Tory voters and MPs, that they believe any old bollocks.
Like Owen Paterson not having any appellate process, the truly dense and gullible fell for that.
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
We need to put them in contact with Big G so he can set them straight.
Still waiting for that on average 83 minute journey from York to Manchester.
Don't forget that the purported 83 minute journey time would be upon completion of the new short bit of high speed line under the Pennines.
Seems like the government has managed to piss off the Mancs for building their leg of HS2 almost as much as the Yorkies for not building theirs. That takes a special kind of political genius.
I was going to post that.
Anyone who knows Piccadilly station and area very well knows that plan is never going to happen.
The delays on the traffic alone for several years makes it a non starter.
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
It's really weird. Politically, it's own goal. OK, I can see that a responsible government, looking at the eye-watering costs of the previous scheme, might well decide that it wasn't a good use of public money given all the other commitments mounting up, but this new plan seems to have been cobbled together on the back of an envelope and really doesn't make either political sense or practical sense.
The only explanation I can think of is that Boris is desperate for a quick win on 'levelling up' - indeed, he's virtually said so - and this has been put together, without any real thought, in response.
Exactly. Since whenever was the clown worried about wasting public money, anyway?
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
We need to put them in contact with Big G so he can set them straight.
Still waiting for that on average 83 minute journey from York to Manchester.
Don't forget that the purported 83 minute journey time would be upon completion of the new short bit of high speed line under the Pennines.
In 2043...
In the Year 2525 If man is still alive If woman can survive They may take a rocket ship to go From Manchester to York In under a week or so Oh no!
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
It's really weird. Politically, it's own goal. OK, I can see that a responsible government, looking at the eye-watering costs of the previous scheme, might well decide that it wasn't a good use of public money given all the other commitments mounting up, but this new plan seems to have been cobbled together on the back of an envelope and really doesn't make either political sense or practical sense.
The only explanation I can think of is that Boris is desperate for a quick win on 'levelling up' - indeed, he's virtually said so - and this has been put together, without any real thought, in response.
Yes. With the emphasis on "quick win". Hence them banging very loudly on the "this is quicker to deliver" drum.
Except that it isn't. The report makes clear that this is just as slow as delivering the big wins as the previous scheme was. So in making such a Big Point that it is quicker, they only leave themselves open to more opprobrium.
I would say "I don't get it". But it's clear that Shapps and Johnson don't get it - their statements demonstrate they haven't a clue about even basic things like where northern towns and cities are.
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
Building a new railway from B'ham to Nottingham would take absolutely ages, because a lot of the current track goes over lakes, marshes, etc. You'd have to build new viaducts. It would probably take at least 10 years.
No the journey times on HS2 - which has been properly modelled and planned - are well known. Their points are what happens on everything that's non-HS2 where absurd claims have been made that haven't stood up to about half an hour of expert scrutiny.
BREAK: Paul Dacre is OUT of the race to become Ofcom chair. In a blistering letter to The Times, he takes a swipe at just about everyone after his "infelicitous dalliance with the Blob".
Is it pure coincidence that Lewis Hamilton criticises Qatar as being amongst the worst in the region for human rights and wears a one-off rainbow design helmet and the FIA make the most ridiculous decision Re Mercedes appeal?
I know that F1 is totally moral and upstanding and we never see in any sport the governing authorities bowing to pressure and dollar signs - see FIFA and the upcoming World Cup being decided clearly on purely sporting merits - but maybe just maybe there might have been a slight nudge by someone….?
On 19 November 2021, Doyle was identified as the man who called Matt Kelly, founder and editor of The New European, to tell Kelly that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was going to sue for defamation, pertaining to an article quoting Johnson as saying he had "buyer's remorse" regarding his relationship with Carrie Symonds. Downing Street denied that Johnson had said this but also denied that he said he would sue over the article. [7][8]
The government backs private member's bill to raise the legal age of marriage to 18, what's the betting that Chope objects to it using some tortured logic.
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
It's really weird. Politically, it's own goal. OK, I can see that a responsible government, looking at the eye-watering costs of the previous scheme, might well decide that it wasn't a good use of public money given all the other commitments mounting up, but this new plan seems to have been cobbled together on the back of an envelope and really doesn't make either political sense or practical sense.
The only explanation I can think of is that Boris is desperate for a quick win on 'levelling up' - indeed, he's virtually said so - and this has been put together, without any real thought, in response.
Yes. With the emphasis on "quick win". Hence them banging very loudly on the "this is quicker to deliver" drum.
Except that it isn't. The report makes clear that this is just as slow as delivering the big wins as the previous scheme was. So in making such a Big Point that it is quicker, they only leave themselves open to more opprobrium.
I would say "I don't get it". But it's clear that Shapps and Johnson don't get it - their statements demonstrate they haven't a clue about even basic things like where northern towns and cities are.
Isn't the general principle that building a fresh new road or train line across relatively open country is way easier, quicker and cheaper than upgrading an existing route? The engineers can just get on with it, rather than working round the traffic.
Apart from pretending to appease some East Midlands nimbies, who benefits?
The government backs private member's bill to raise the legal age of marriage to 18, what's the betting that Chope objects to it using some tortured logic.
Problem is a lot of politicians are in favour of dropping the voting to 16 at the same time. I don't understand their logic.
Good evening all. Rather controversial announcement in Austria regarding compulsory covid jabs. The EU reaction will be interesting. Recently the EU has made much of its values, especially in the context of Poland and Hungary, so their view on how Austria compelling its citizens to have a medical intervention sits with EU values should be noteworthy.
On 19 November 2021, Doyle was identified as the man who called Matt Kelly, founder and editor of The New European, to tell Kelly that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was going to sue for defamation, pertaining to an article quoting Johnson as saying he had "buyer's remorse" regarding his relationship with Carrie Symonds. Downing Street denied that Johnson had said this but also denied that he said he would sue over the article. [7][8]
As if Shagger is going to sue over remarks he made to a room full of people that absolutely fits with his public demeanor. What is the accusation, that the article brings his reputation into disrepute?
His reputation is as reputable as the 13th Duke of Wynbourne.
On 19 November 2021, Doyle was identified as the man who called Matt Kelly, founder and editor of The New European, to tell Kelly that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was going to sue for defamation, pertaining to an article quoting Johnson as saying he had "buyer's remorse" regarding his relationship with Carrie Symonds. Downing Street denied that Johnson had said this but also denied that he said he would sue over the article. [7][8]
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.
Taking part in 'I'm a Celebrity' is obviously what passes for Culture in a Johnson government.
BREAK: Paul Dacre is OUT of the race to become Ofcom chair. In a blistering letter to The Times, he takes a swipe at just about everyone after his "infelicitous dalliance with the Blob".
On 19 November 2021, Doyle was identified as the man who called Matt Kelly, founder and editor of The New European, to tell Kelly that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was going to sue for defamation, pertaining to an article quoting Johnson as saying he had "buyer's remorse" regarding his relationship with Carrie Symonds. Downing Street denied that Johnson had said this but also denied that he said he would sue over the article. [7][8]
On 19 November 2021, Doyle was identified as the man who called Matt Kelly, founder and editor of The New European, to tell Kelly that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was going to sue for defamation, pertaining to an article quoting Johnson as saying he had "buyer's remorse" regarding his relationship with Carrie Symonds. Downing Street denied that Johnson had said this but also denied that he said he would sue over the article. [7][8]
Good evening all. Rather controversial announcement in Austria regarding compulsory covid jabs. The EU reaction will be interesting. Recently the EU has made much of its values, especially in the context of Poland and Hungary, so their view on how Austria compelling its citizens to have a medical intervention sits with EU values should be noteworthy.
Why should the EU be any more concerned about that than it currently is for the multiple cases where vaccinations for common diseases have long been mandatory in EU countries?
Good evening all. Rather controversial announcement in Austria regarding compulsory covid jabs. The EU reaction will be interesting. Recently the EU has made much of its values, especially in the context of Poland and Hungary, so their view on how Austria compelling its citizens to have a medical intervention sits with EU values should be noteworthy.
Why should the EU be any more concerned about that than it currently is for the multiple cases where vaccinations for common diseases have long been mandatory in EU countries?
Incidentally, the railway experts (journalists like Roger Ford, a fully qualified engineer with 50 years experience) have been examining both the journey times and assorted claims in the Integrated Rail Plan. The summary of their findings is "it's bollocks".
It's really weird. Politically, it's own goal. OK, I can see that a responsible government, looking at the eye-watering costs of the previous scheme, might well decide that it wasn't a good use of public money given all the other commitments mounting up, but this new plan seems to have been cobbled together on the back of an envelope and really doesn't make either political sense or practical sense.
The only explanation I can think of is that Boris is desperate for a quick win on 'levelling up' - indeed, he's virtually said so - and this has been put together, without any real thought, in response.
Yes. With the emphasis on "quick win". Hence them banging very loudly on the "this is quicker to deliver" drum.
Except that it isn't. The report makes clear that this is just as slow as delivering the big wins as the previous scheme was. So in making such a Big Point that it is quicker, they only leave themselves open to more opprobrium.
I would say "I don't get it". But it's clear that Shapps and Johnson don't get it - their statements demonstrate they haven't a clue about even basic things like where northern towns and cities are.
Isn't the general principle that building a fresh new road or train line across relatively open country is way easier, quicker and cheaper than upgrading an existing route? The engineers can just get on with it, rather than working round the traffic.
Apart from pretending to appease some East Midlands nimbies, who benefits?
Well even that pretending phase should have passed by now, the HS2 route is still listed as a right of way which means their planning blight continues.
BREAK: Paul Dacre is OUT of the race to become Ofcom chair. In a blistering letter to The Times, he takes a swipe at just about everyone after his "infelicitous dalliance with the Blob".
Is "the Blob" a reference to what in US is called "the Swamp"? OR can he maybe mean the Prime Minister?
Which way is Dacre kicking?
Blob = civil service/public sector establishment AIUI. Much hated by one D. Cummings.
'The former editor of the Daily Mail described his experience as an “infelicitous dalliance with the Blob” and claimed that senior Whitehall figures were determined to exclude anyone with right-of-centre “convictions” from being appointed to senior public sector roles.'
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
TFL is basically bankrupt. As it already has absurdly high fares compared to most other transit systems we can look forward to that cost gal being further extended
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
TFL is basically bankrupt. As it already has absurdly high fares compared to most other transit systems we can look forward to that cost gal being further extended
Some of the Bakerloo trains will be 50 next year. They weren't so flash when they were built.
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
TFL is basically bankrupt. As it already has absurdly high fares compared to most other transit systems we can look forward to that cost gal being further extended
They need to tackle the tube drivers wages, which could be just about justified pre-pandemic but aren't now
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
Good evening all. Rather controversial announcement in Austria regarding compulsory covid jabs. The EU reaction will be interesting. Recently the EU has made much of its values, especially in the context of Poland and Hungary, so their view on how Austria compelling its citizens to have a medical intervention sits with EU values should be noteworthy.
Why should the EU be any more concerned about that than it currently is for the multiple cases where vaccinations for common diseases have long been mandatory in EU countries?
There are an awful lot of mandatory vaccinations in Los Angeles County too.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
Any jury. Or indeed court. Motes and Beams and all that
Comments
Hospitalisations are still falling in the most vulnerable groups (England only data)
Deaths are trending down
Cases are rising - mostly among unvaccinated children. Again.
https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1461748607288168455?s=21
I've read some accounts of this process... they really give a sense of ending of eras. People who life and friendships were constructed around a publication, grimly hanging on as the smart run away....
Currently though, mid term, Boris is letting himself down. The mid term bit is just that I wouldn't say such a thing close to an election.
It doesn't explain the massive growth in cases surely? I would have thought that'd be driven by overall immunity which would correlate with overall vaccination?
Another thing I wondered - the Republic of Ireland has just recently opened up nightclubs, etc. Their cases are starting to skyrocket. Could it be a case of the UK opening up at the right time (summer)? Having said that, Northern Ireland is not experiencing the same skyrocketing growth and they opened up nightclubs about the same time as the Republic of Ireland... all very confusing
I just don't understand why you think this is at all significant. Given everything else that is going on I'd doubt it would even make for a hook for a joke on the News Quiz.
The New European is a failed, bankrupt business with no assets. Suing them would achieve what exactly? Even if a dragged out court case led to a finding against the New European, they'd just declare bankruptcy and not pay anything out. Indeed it wouldn't surprise me if they'd love to be sued by Downing Street, as then they could have a long dragged out drama in court and would no doubt find plenty of willing mugs to donate to their costs while it is ongoing.
Its long been said that the monarchy and politicians are very well advised to steer clear of the courts. That surely applies in this instance.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/the-new-european-bought-consortium-including-ex-bbc-boss
Claiming a new production budget of £13k a weekly issue.
Unfortunately you can't just multiply/divided to compare the testing numbers. Even positivity (ratio of tests to cases found) only gets you so far.
Sadly, very few countries are doing ONS style surveys - think like an opinion poll, but testing for COVID. So you get an accurate view of cases across the population - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/19november2021
I only buy a paper on a Saturday to get the TV listings.
I'd prefer to buy the Daily Express but the local shop has either ran out by the time I get there or are trolling me because they know that's the paper I want and order less on a Saturday.
So I buy the Daily Star.
Not the worst paper - They had a free 5 quid Paddy Power bet last week...
Like all great comedians, the PM has natural talent BUT also needs good writing - by himself AND with help of others - to ensure his act is as funny and fresh as possible.
Seems to me that Boris Johnson on the occasion in question MAY have been trying to channel the late, great Henny Youngman ("Take my wife - please!") but was ad-libbing; something that HY did NOT do as a rule IIRC.
In other words, the PM was working without a net . . . similar to what he's been having his ministers and backbenchers do for some time . . .
Is it a big deal? Outside of No 10, almost certainly not. However, it could be indication that Boris Johnson is NOT performing anywhere near his best. AND that he is at least quasi-aware that he might be endanger of having a giant hook come out of the wings to yank him abruptly off the stage . . .
For comparison, the Romford Recorder shifts about 10k a week, the Church Times about 30k, the New Statesman about 40k.
Much easier to see how the numbers work than for GB News, say.
OR fat head!
As we know, (London) remainers are considerably richer than Leavers.
The point is to demonstrate that the alleged libel is indeed false. Plenty of famous cases in where judgement of a quid (or even less?) was MORE than satisfactory to the victors.
A lesson for anyone watching the case - Don't get involved in a fight with someone who buy's ink by the gallon.
The express death numbers suggest that, though.
The real concern is the over 40s and especially over 50s who are completely unvaccinated. There are quite a few in the UK, but the situation is worse in some places...
Still waiting for that on average 83 minute journey from York to Manchester.
And where courts are concerned, you can never bet on a sure thing. Even if you bribe the judge or get 'em drunk!
The only explanation I can think of is that Boris is desperate for a quick win on 'levelling up' - indeed, he's virtually said so - and this has been put together, without any real thought, in response.
Having said that, they will still clog up hospital beds.
Seems like the government has managed to piss off the Mancs for building their leg of HS2 almost as much as the Yorkies for not building theirs. That takes a special kind of political genius.
Like Owen Paterson not having any appellate process, the truly dense and gullible fell for that.
In 2043...
Anyone who knows Piccadilly station and area very well knows that plan is never going to happen.
The delays on the traffic alone for several years makes it a non starter.
The racist motive didn't make any sense since he shot at white people.
Still, interesting to find out.
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may take a rocket ship to go
From Manchester to York
In under a week or so
Oh no!
Except that it isn't. The report makes clear that this is just as slow as delivering the big wins as the previous scheme was. So in making such a Big Point that it is quicker, they only leave themselves open to more opprobrium.
I would say "I don't get it". But it's clear that Shapps and Johnson don't get it - their statements demonstrate they haven't a clue about even basic things like where northern towns and cities are.
BREAK: Paul Dacre is OUT of the race to become Ofcom chair. In a blistering letter to The Times, he takes a swipe at just about everyone after his "infelicitous dalliance with the Blob".
https://twitter.com/Jake_Kanter/status/1461759199000551426
Is it pure coincidence that Lewis Hamilton criticises Qatar as being amongst the worst in the region for human rights and wears a one-off rainbow design helmet and the FIA make the most ridiculous decision Re Mercedes appeal?
I know that F1 is totally moral and upstanding and we never see in any sport the governing authorities bowing to pressure and dollar signs - see FIFA and the upcoming World Cup being decided clearly on purely sporting merits - but maybe just maybe there might have been a slight nudge by someone….?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Doyle_(journalist)
On 19 November 2021, Doyle was identified as the man who called Matt Kelly, founder and editor of The New European, to tell Kelly that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was going to sue for defamation, pertaining to an article quoting Johnson as saying he had "buyer's remorse" regarding his relationship with Carrie Symonds. Downing Street denied that Johnson had said this but also denied that he said he would sue over the article. [7][8]
Apart from pretending to appease some East Midlands nimbies, who benefits?
His reputation is as reputable as the 13th Duke of Wynbourne.
https://twitter.com/RadicalAdem/status/1461756900861628421
“An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today.” - Laurence J. Peter
Which way is Dacre kicking?
Don't you know anything?
‘We’re like a herd of elephants smelling danger,’ a senior backbencher says. ‘There’s been a distinct stirring, we’re anxious and distressed’
Includes this peach of a quote from a former minister:
“What’s the mood? I’ll tell you: there’s been a big increase in the number of people who think Boris is a c**t.”
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/boris-johnson-tory-sleaze-backlash-mps-imagining-life-after-pm-1310824
Sounds a bit Orwellian if true. (Just because it's on GB News doesn't automatically make it untrue).
'The former editor of the Daily Mail described his experience as an “infelicitous dalliance with the Blob” and claimed that senior Whitehall figures were determined to exclude anyone with right-of-centre “convictions” from being appointed to senior public sector roles.'
https://www.onlondon.co.uk/adam-tyndall-governments-rail-betrayal-of-midlands-and-north-bodes-ill-for-london-too/
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
16 Nov - graph = 120, per Gov = 125
15 Nov - graph = 140, per Gov = 145
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.