Rees-Mogg’s belittling the Scottish CON leader was dumb – politicalbetting.com

IanB2 said:

“I was trying to come up with a comparison to Boris’s ‘I thought it was a work event’ and all I can think of are those people who go into hospital with a bottle stuck up their bum and claim they slipped and fell onto it.”

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

NEW The Duke of York has been stripped of his military titles and royal patronages by the Queen and will not return to official duties. #PrinceAndrew will no longer use his HRH styling in any capacity. Royal sources say the decisions were discussed among the royal family https://twitter.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1481674822497316875/photo/1

Also no longer HRH. I guess removing the Dukedom will be the final step, if convicted.

He is no longer a working royal or with a royal title and only 9th in the line of succession.

Removing his non royal title however does not follow precedent, even some convicted criminals have kept their titles eg the current Duke of Marlborough or Lord Brocket, who both did their time and are now back in society with their titles still

I think I am right in saying that the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Brocket couldn't have their honours forfeited as their honours were inherited rather than awarded (i.e. hereditary rather than life honours).

I believe the remit of the Honours Forfeiture Committee only extends to whether information has come to light since award which means the honour shouldn't have been awarded and forfeiture is needed to secure the integrity of the honours system. But nothing the present Duke of Marlborough has done calls into question the decision by Queen Anne or whoever it was in respect of the 1st Duke (I mean, you can argue hereditary titles are completely unjustifiable but that's a general point, creates a bit of a problem for the monarchy, and would require legislation to change).

The position of Duke of York is also arguably hereditary, every holder of the title has been one of Andrew's distant ancestors.

The Duke of York was created as a hereditary title for a non firstborn son of the monarch eg the 1st Duke of York, Edmund Langley, was son of King Edward IIIrd

Andy is descended from both one of the Princes in the Tower and Prince Fredrick? Pretty radical reinterpretation of English and British history you’ve foisted on us there HYUFD.

Yes, the Princes in the Tower's sister was Henry VII's wife, Henry VIIth's wife was of course related to Andrew via her daughter, Queen Margaret of Scotland.

Prince Frederick was Queen Victoria's uncle, thus also related to Andrew

You said "ancestor" which means in the direct line of descent.

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

NEW The Duke of York has been stripped of his military titles and royal patronages by the Queen and will not return to official duties. #PrinceAndrew will no longer use his HRH styling in any capacity. Royal sources say the decisions were discussed among the royal family https://twitter.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1481674822497316875/photo/1

Also no longer HRH. I guess removing the Dukedom will be the final step, if convicted.

He is no longer a working royal or with a royal title and only 9th in the line of succession.

Removing his non royal title however does not follow precedent, even some convicted criminals have kept their titles eg the current Duke of Marlborough or Lord Brocket, who both did their time and are now back in society with their titles still

I think I am right in saying that the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Brocket couldn't have their honours forfeited as their honours were inherited rather than awarded (i.e. hereditary rather than life honours).

I believe the remit of the Honours Forfeiture Committee only extends to whether information has come to light since award which means the honour shouldn't have been awarded and forfeiture is needed to secure the integrity of the honours system. But nothing the present Duke of Marlborough has done calls into question the decision by Queen Anne or whoever it was in respect of the 1st Duke (I mean, you can argue hereditary titles are completely unjustifiable but that's a general point, creates a bit of a problem for the monarchy, and would require legislation to change).

The position of Duke of York is also arguably hereditary, every holder of the title has been one of Andrew's distant ancestors.

The Duke of York was created as a hereditary title for a non firstborn son of the monarch eg the 1st Duke of York, Edmund Langley, was son of King Edward IIIrd

Andy is descended from both one of the Princes in the Tower and Prince Fredrick? Pretty radical reinterpretation of English and British history you’ve foisted on us there HYUFD.

The Princes in the Tower's sister was Henry VII's wife, Henry VIIth's wife was of course related to Andrew via her daughter, Queen Margaret of Scotland.

Prince Frederick was Queen Victoria's uncle, thus also related to Andrew

IanB2 said:

“I was trying to come up with a comparison to Boris’s ‘I thought it was a work event’ and all I can think of are those people who go into hospital with a bottle stuck up their bum and claim they slipped and fell onto it.”

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

TimS said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Big fall in cases, even allowing for Scottish LFTs.

Hospital admissions + number flat.

Deaths remain a concern but should follow suit.

Case rate amongst 90+ in England peaked on Jan 4th, so I'd expect deaths by specimen to peak around 18th. There's the eternal backfilling too so reported deaths could stay high for a while.

The recent rise in deaths does look too rapid and lacking in medical logic. A number of people have pointed out that prevalence rates in the community mean that the incidental "with Covid" rates would be expected to be high. On a population wide basis if 5-10% of people had it at any one time then 5-10% of total deaths (of a few thousand) would be around 50-100 per day I think.

But that still doesn't explain 300+. Either it's true Omicron mortality, but the ICU stats give the lie to that, or it's:

- Christmas backfilling (but that would imply Delta deaths in December were higher than we thought, which in hindsight is bad news), or
- Prevalence in hospitals and care homes significantly higher than the UK average. Possible, especially in hospitals - though no hard evidence of that

Where does this alleged 300+ number come from?

I have yet to see it on the Coronavirus Dashboard.

Someone is using reporting day numbers.. Someone is being naughty {kicks the cage of flying lawyers with baseball bats}

Actual numbers...

Do you happen to have a link to an example of such a report?

All the reports I generate are from the Dashboard data via their open api -

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/developers-guide/main-api

The actual query for this data is

https://api.coronavirus.data.gov.uk/v1/data?page=1&filters=areaType=overview&structure={"date":"date","areaName":"areaName","areaType":"areaType","areaCode":"areaCode","cases":"newCasesBySpecimenDate","deaths":"newDeaths28DaysByDeathDate","hospitalCases":"hospitalCases","newAdmissions":"newAdmissions","covidOccupiedMVBeds":"covidOccupiedMVBeds","newPillarOne":"newPillarOneTestsByPublishDate","newPillarTwo":"newPillarTwoTestsByPublishDate","cumAdmissionsByAge":"cumAdmissionsByAge","femaleCases":"femaleCases","maleCases":"maleCases","cumFirstDose":"cumPeopleVaccinatedFirstDoseByPublishDate","cumSecondDose":"cumPeopleVaccinatedSecondDoseByPublishDate"}

It gets other UK level data, but the "deaths" field in the returned JSON is the one you want....

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Remember however the Tories had 0 Scottish seats in 1997 and only 1 seat even in 2015 when they won an overall UK majority.

The Scottish party is no more important to the Tory party than any other regional branch of it, it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union. The whole UK determines the UK government, not just Scots, Scots have their own parliament for much domestic policy post devolution but Westminster still remains the UK parliament

You carry on reaching out to those swing voters!

I notice his assertion the whole point of the Union of the Kingdoms is to support the Conservative Party. Just to avoid the need for any quic edits, he said" it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union."

Here is a deal: you stop kicking HYUFD and I'll stop kicking Malcolm? How long can we keep it up?

junius said:

I was at the Luton Town v Wolverhampton Wanderers FA Cup match on 20th February, 1960. At half-time it was announced that the Queen had given birth to another son, Andrew. The crowd (most of whom were already standing) burst into rapturous applause.
Strange to look back on that now.
And for those of you keener on football than royalty, Wolves beat Luton 4-1 - and went on to win the FA Cup in May.

Theuniondivvie said:

StuartDickson said:

Taz said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

BREAKING: The Queen removes military titles from Prince Andrew. https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1481674113752215552/photo/1

A tough personal decision for the Queen no doubt but as usual she has done the best thing for the royal family.

Note he is no longer referred to as HRH either, just the Duke of York and confirmed Andrew will do no further public duties as now

Tories do the best thing for the Tory party.
HMQ does the best thing for her family.

Who's left to the best thing for the country?

Certainly not the SNP

Nicola Sturgeon is rated higher among the English than Boris Johnson.

Sturgeon has a -20% approval now, even if she has not yet plumbed to Salmond depths
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Nicola_Sturgeon

Johnson is -30, so my point stands.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Boris_Johnson

When you’re benchmarking her against Johnson, effectively saying ‘at least she’s better than Johnson, thats pretty desperate stuff.

But we’re talking about her popularity in England. Her party doesn’t even put up candidates in England.

It’s pretty unusual for any foreign leader to be more popular than that country’s own head of government. Maybe Obama was more popular than Brown? Probably other, better examples. But still bloody unusual.

4th most popular in the UK on that list of 285 UK pols.

Yoons: proof were it needed that Sturgeon is an abject failure. WHY ISN’T SHE FIRST?!

malcolmg said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Remember however the Tories had 0 Scottish seats in 1997 and only 1 seat even in 2015 when they won an overall UK majority.

The Scottish party is no more important to the Tory party than any other regional branch of it, it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union. The whole UK determines the UK government, not just Scots, Scots have their own parliament for much domestic policy post devolution but Westminster still remains the UK parliament

You carry on reaching out to those swing voters!

I notice his assertion the whole point of the Union of the Kingdoms is to support the Conservative Party. Just to avoid the need for any quic edits, he said" it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union."

Here is a deal: you stop kicking HYUFD and I'll stop kicking Malcolm? How long can we keep it up?

You flatter yourself you scumbag of scumbags. Why have you stopped F***ing off foreskin. The day you are able to kick me will be the day I become Pope. @Nigel_Foremain @Carnyx

malcolmg said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Remember however the Tories had 0 Scottish seats in 1997 and only 1 seat even in 2015 when they won an overall UK majority.

The Scottish party is no more important to the Tory party than any other regional branch of it, it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union. The whole UK determines the UK government, not just Scots, Scots have their own parliament for much domestic policy post devolution but Westminster still remains the UK parliament

You carry on reaching out to those swing voters!

I notice his assertion the whole point of the Union of the Kingdoms is to support the Conservative Party. Just to avoid the need for any quic edits, he said" it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union."

Here is a deal: you stop kicking HYUFD and I'll stop kicking Malcolm? How long can we keep it up?

You flatter yourself you scumbag of scumbags. Why have you stopped F***ing off foreskin. The day you are able to kick me will be the day I become Pope. @Nigel_Foremain @Carnyx

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Farooq said:

IanB2 said:

“I was trying to come up with a comparison to Boris’s ‘I thought it was a work event’ and all I can think of are those people who go into hospital with a bottle stuck up their bum and claim they slipped and fell onto it.”

That's the last time I take a doctor into my confidence.

It’s fine on PB as long as the bottle didn’t contain ghastly plebby supermarket wine.

Only if it isn't *interesting* wine. It's not unusual for supermarkets to get hold of some really good stuff.

Bit like the "own brand" single malts - sometimes hides a gem...

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

NEW The Duke of York has been stripped of his military titles and royal patronages by the Queen and will not return to official duties. #PrinceAndrew will no longer use his HRH styling in any capacity. Royal sources say the decisions were discussed among the royal family https://twitter.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1481674822497316875/photo/1

Also no longer HRH. I guess removing the Dukedom will be the final step, if convicted.

He is no longer a working royal or with a royal title and only 9th in the line of succession.

Removing his non royal title however does not follow precedent, even some convicted criminals have kept their titles eg the current Duke of Marlborough or Lord Brocket, who both did their time and are now back in society with their titles still

I think I am right in saying that the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Brocket couldn't have their honours forfeited as their honours were inherited rather than awarded (i.e. hereditary rather than life honours).

I believe the remit of the Honours Forfeiture Committee only extends to whether information has come to light since award which means the honour shouldn't have been awarded and forfeiture is needed to secure the integrity of the honours system. But nothing the present Duke of Marlborough has done calls into question the decision by Queen Anne or whoever it was in respect of the 1st Duke (I mean, you can argue hereditary titles are completely unjustifiable but that's a general point, creates a bit of a problem for the monarchy, and would require legislation to change).

The position of Duke of York is also arguably hereditary, every holder of the title has been one of Andrew's distant ancestors.

The Duke of York was created as a hereditary title for a non firstborn son of the monarch eg the 1st Duke of York, Edmund Langley, was son of King Edward IIIrd

Andy is descended from both one of the Princes in the Tower and Prince Fredrick? Pretty radical reinterpretation of English and British history you’ve foisted on us there HYUFD.

The Princes in the Tower's sister was Henry VII's wife, Henry VIIth's wife was of course related to Andrew via her daughter, Queen Margaret of Scotland.

Prince Frederick was Queen Victoria's uncle, thus also related to Andrew

Ah. You were using the word ancestor to mean - well - not an ancestor at all.

They are all related to him and the Dukedom was created for the son of the monarch.

Legally Andrew would likely win a legal case if the Honours Committee tried to remove his title of Duke of York (he no longer having the royal title HRH anyway), given Lord Brocket and the Duke of Marlborough have kept their titles having both been jailed and if Andrew only lost a civil case not even a criminal case like they did

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

NEW The Duke of York has been stripped of his military titles and royal patronages by the Queen and will not return to official duties. #PrinceAndrew will no longer use his HRH styling in any capacity. Royal sources say the decisions were discussed among the royal family https://twitter.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1481674822497316875/photo/1

Also no longer HRH. I guess removing the Dukedom will be the final step, if convicted.

He is no longer a working royal or with a royal title and only 9th in the line of succession.

Removing his non royal title however does not follow precedent, even some convicted criminals have kept their titles eg the current Duke of Marlborough or Lord Brocket, who both did their time and are now back in society with their titles still

I think I am right in saying that the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Brocket couldn't have their honours forfeited as their honours were inherited rather than awarded (i.e. hereditary rather than life honours).

I believe the remit of the Honours Forfeiture Committee only extends to whether information has come to light since award which means the honour shouldn't have been awarded and forfeiture is needed to secure the integrity of the honours system. But nothing the present Duke of Marlborough has done calls into question the decision by Queen Anne or whoever it was in respect of the 1st Duke (I mean, you can argue hereditary titles are completely unjustifiable but that's a general point, creates a bit of a problem for the monarchy, and would require legislation to change).

The position of Duke of York is also arguably hereditary, every holder of the title has been one of Andrew's distant ancestors.

The Duke of York was created as a hereditary title for a non firstborn son of the monarch eg the 1st Duke of York, Edmund Langley, was son of King Edward IIIrd

Andy is descended from both one of the Princes in the Tower and Prince Fredrick? Pretty radical reinterpretation of English and British history you’ve foisted on us there HYUFD.

The Princes in the Tower's sister was Henry VII's wife, Henry VIIth's wife was of course related to Andrew via her daughter, Queen Margaret of Scotland.

Prince Frederick was Queen Victoria's uncle, thus also related to Andrew

Ah. You were using the word ancestor to mean - well - not an ancestor at all.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

NEW The Duke of York has been stripped of his military titles and royal patronages by the Queen and will not return to official duties. #PrinceAndrew will no longer use his HRH styling in any capacity. Royal sources say the decisions were discussed among the royal family https://twitter.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1481674822497316875/photo/1

Also no longer HRH. I guess removing the Dukedom will be the final step, if convicted.

He is no longer a working royal or with a royal title and only 9th in the line of succession.

Removing his non royal title however does not follow precedent, even some convicted criminals have kept their titles eg the current Duke of Marlborough or Lord Brocket, who both did their time and are now back in society with their titles still

I think I am right in saying that the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Brocket couldn't have their honours forfeited as their honours were inherited rather than awarded (i.e. hereditary rather than life honours).

I believe the remit of the Honours Forfeiture Committee only extends to whether information has come to light since award which means the honour shouldn't have been awarded and forfeiture is needed to secure the integrity of the honours system. But nothing the present Duke of Marlborough has done calls into question the decision by Queen Anne or whoever it was in respect of the 1st Duke (I mean, you can argue hereditary titles are completely unjustifiable but that's a general point, creates a bit of a problem for the monarchy, and would require legislation to change).

The position of Duke of York is also arguably hereditary, every holder of the title has been one of Andrew's distant ancestors.

The Duke of York was created as a hereditary title for a non firstborn son of the monarch eg the 1st Duke of York, Edmund Langley, was son of King Edward IIIrd

Andy is descended from both one of the Princes in the Tower and Prince Fredrick? Pretty radical reinterpretation of English and British history you’ve foisted on us there HYUFD.

The Princes in the Tower's sister was Henry VII's wife, Henry VIIth's wife was of course related to Andrew via her daughter, Queen Margaret of Scotland.

Prince Frederick was Queen Victoria's uncle, thus also related to Andrew

Ah. You were using the word ancestor to mean - well - not an ancestor at all.

They are all related to him and the Dukedom was created for the son of the monarch.

Legally Andrew would likely win a legal case if the Honours Committee tried to remove his title of Duke of York (he no longer having the royal title HRH anyway), given Lord Brocket and the Duke of Marlborough have kept their titles having both been jailed and if Andrew only lost a civil case not even a criminal case like they did

BBC just interviewed officers and officials from the Grantham Conservatives, all of whom said it is time for Boris to go

I expect this is being repeated across the nation as to be fair they are the ground troops who have to defend the indefensible

IanB2 said:

kinabalu said:

IshmaelZ said:

rottenborough said:

Jonathan Powell
@jnpowell1
·
3h
5. Lastly I was in No 10 for ten years and we didn’t have as many staff parties in a decade as they appear to have had in a few months. When on earth did they find time to do any work?

Link from a comment on that thread, in depth description of Sue Gray from 2015

She sounds like a less user friendly Rosa Klebb, and the last person I'd want investigating me. Effectively did for Fox and Mitchell apparently

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33431580

The big thing about Sue Gray, if I've heard this once this last few days I've heard it a thousand times, is that she goes about her job "without fear or favour". Which sounds terrific. This Report of hers needs to be pretty devastating to live up to the expectations I've (perhaps foolishly) allowed myself to develop. How it might not be is if it sticks too much to de-blooded mundane facts. We want the facts, yes, but we also want some editorial so long as it flows with irrefutable logic from those facts. I think it might shy away from that. But we'll see. I certainly haven't looked forward to a report from the civil service so much for ages.

We’re not going to get any of that.

We’re just going to get a recantation of the facts, most of which we already know.

There may be some extra events in the list, which so far haven’t been revealed.

The only smoking gun is whether Reynolds - who is surely toast whatever happens - is prepared to say that the PM suggested or authorised the event and approved the email sending out the hundred invitations.

If Reynolds is willing to go quietly, then all we’ll have is the same argument resumed that began yesterday. The key, for the PM, will be what view his MPs have settled upon in the light of their postbag, their time in their constituencies this weekend, and the next batch of opinion polls.

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

TimS said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Big fall in cases, even allowing for Scottish LFTs.

Hospital admissions + number flat.

Deaths remain a concern but should follow suit.

Case rate amongst 90+ in England peaked on Jan 4th, so I'd expect deaths by specimen to peak around 18th. There's the eternal backfilling too so reported deaths could stay high for a while.

The recent rise in deaths does look too rapid and lacking in medical logic. A number of people have pointed out that prevalence rates in the community mean that the incidental "with Covid" rates would be expected to be high. On a population wide basis if 5-10% of people had it at any one time then 5-10% of total deaths (of a few thousand) would be around 50-100 per day I think.

But that still doesn't explain 300+. Either it's true Omicron mortality, but the ICU stats give the lie to that, or it's:

- Christmas backfilling (but that would imply Delta deaths in December were higher than we thought, which in hindsight is bad news), or
- Prevalence in hospitals and care homes significantly higher than the UK average. Possible, especially in hospitals - though no hard evidence of that

Where does this alleged 300+ number come from?

I have yet to see it on the Coronavirus Dashboard.

Someone is using reporting day numbers.. Someone is being naughty {kicks the cage of flying lawyers with baseball bats}

Actual numbers...

Do you happen to have a link to an example of such a report?

All the reports I generate are from the Dashboard data via their open api -

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/developers-guide/main-api

The actual query for this data is

https://api.coronavirus.data.gov.uk/v1/data?page=1&filters=areaType=overview&structure={"date":"date","areaName":"areaName","areaType":"areaType","areaCode":"areaCode","cases":"newCasesBySpecimenDate","deaths":"newDeaths28DaysByDeathDate","hospitalCases":"hospitalCases","newAdmissions":"newAdmissions","covidOccupiedMVBeds":"covidOccupiedMVBeds","newPillarOne":"newPillarOneTestsByPublishDate","newPillarTwo":"newPillarTwoTestsByPublishDate","cumAdmissionsByAge":"cumAdmissionsByAge","femaleCases":"femaleCases","maleCases":"maleCases","cumFirstDose":"cumPeopleVaccinatedFirstDoseByPublishDate","cumSecondDose":"cumPeopleVaccinatedSecondDoseByPublishDate"}

It gets other UK level data, but the "deaths" field in the returned JSON is the one you want....

I actually meant to an example of the 300+ claim . Sorry !

I presume the.... person... is referring to

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths#:~:text=Daily-,335,Value,-: 335 — Abstract information

{typing GPS coordinates into iDeathFromAbove App}

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Farooq said:

IanB2 said:

“I was trying to come up with a comparison to Boris’s ‘I thought it was a work event’ and all I can think of are those people who go into hospital with a bottle stuck up their bum and claim they slipped and fell onto it.”

That's the last time I take a doctor into my confidence.

It’s fine on PB as long as the bottle didn’t contain ghastly plebby supermarket wine.

Only if it isn't *interesting* wine. It's not unusual for supermarkets to get hold of some really good stuff.

Bit like the "own brand" single malts - sometimes hides a gem...

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

NEW The Duke of York has been stripped of his military titles and royal patronages by the Queen and will not return to official duties. #PrinceAndrew will no longer use his HRH styling in any capacity. Royal sources say the decisions were discussed among the royal family https://twitter.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1481674822497316875/photo/1

Also no longer HRH. I guess removing the Dukedom will be the final step, if convicted.

He is no longer a working royal or with a royal title and only 9th in the line of succession.

Removing his non royal title however does not follow precedent, even some convicted criminals have kept their titles eg the current Duke of Marlborough or Lord Brocket, who both did their time and are now back in society with their titles still

I think I am right in saying that the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Brocket couldn't have their honours forfeited as their honours were inherited rather than awarded (i.e. hereditary rather than life honours).

I believe the remit of the Honours Forfeiture Committee only extends to whether information has come to light since award which means the honour shouldn't have been awarded and forfeiture is needed to secure the integrity of the honours system. But nothing the present Duke of Marlborough has done calls into question the decision by Queen Anne or whoever it was in respect of the 1st Duke (I mean, you can argue hereditary titles are completely unjustifiable but that's a general point, creates a bit of a problem for the monarchy, and would require legislation to change).

The position of Duke of York is also arguably hereditary, every holder of the title has been one of Andrew's distant ancestors.

The Duke of York was created as a hereditary title for a non firstborn son of the monarch eg the 1st Duke of York, Edmund Langley, was son of King Edward IIIrd

Andy is descended from both one of the Princes in the Tower and Prince Fredrick? Pretty radical reinterpretation of English and British history you’ve foisted on us there HYUFD.

The Princes in the Tower's sister was Henry VII's wife, Henry VIIth's wife was of course related to Andrew via her daughter, Queen Margaret of Scotland.

Prince Frederick was Queen Victoria's uncle, thus also related to Andrew

Ah. You were using the word ancestor to mean - well - not an ancestor at all.

They are all related to him and the Dukedom was created for the son of the monarch.

Legally Andrew would likely win a legal case if the Honours Committee tried to remove his title of Duke of York (he no longer having the royal title HRH anyway), given Lord Brocket and the Duke of Marlborough have kept their titles having both been jailed and if Andrew only lost a civil case not even a criminal case like they did

BBC just interviewed officers and officials from the Grantham Conservatives, all of whom said it is time for Boris to go

I expect this is being repeated across the nation as to be fair they are the ground troops who have to defend the indefensible

Please don't use the expression "ground troops". It will get our friend from Essex over-excited about the looming civil war in your party.

Theuniondivvie said:

IanB2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

StuartDickson said:

Taz said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

BREAKING: The Queen removes military titles from Prince Andrew. https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1481674113752215552/photo/1

A tough personal decision for the Queen no doubt but as usual she has done the best thing for the royal family.

Note he is no longer referred to as HRH either, just the Duke of York and confirmed Andrew will do no further public duties as now

Tories do the best thing for the Tory party.
HMQ does the best thing for her family.

Who's left to the best thing for the country?

Certainly not the SNP

Nicola Sturgeon is rated higher among the English than Boris Johnson.

Sturgeon has a -20% approval now, even if she has not yet plumbed to Salmond depths
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Nicola_Sturgeon

Johnson is -30, so my point stands.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Boris_Johnson

When you’re benchmarking her against Johnson, effectively saying ‘at least she’s better than Johnson, thats pretty desperate stuff.

But we’re talking about her popularity in England. Her party doesn’t even put up candidates in England.

It’s pretty unusual for any foreign leader to be more popular than that country’s own head of government. Maybe Obama was more popular than Brown? Probably other, better examples. But still bloody unusual.

4th most popular in the UK on that list of 285 UK pols.

Yoons: proof were it needed that Sturgeon is an abject failure. WHY ISN’T SHE FIRST?!

If there were any way in which Nicola could take (and be persuaded to take) the job of UK PM, and be willing to bat for the entire country, I’d take her like a shot.

I believe in that case Leon may challenge you to a duel as his favoured option would be Salmond, the best pm that the UK never had.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

NEW The Duke of York has been stripped of his military titles and royal patronages by the Queen and will not return to official duties. #PrinceAndrew will no longer use his HRH styling in any capacity. Royal sources say the decisions were discussed among the royal family https://twitter.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1481674822497316875/photo/1

Also no longer HRH. I guess removing the Dukedom will be the final step, if convicted.

He is no longer a working royal or with a royal title and only 9th in the line of succession.

Removing his non royal title however does not follow precedent, even some convicted criminals have kept their titles eg the current Duke of Marlborough or Lord Brocket, who both did their time and are now back in society with their titles still

I think I am right in saying that the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Brocket couldn't have their honours forfeited as their honours were inherited rather than awarded (i.e. hereditary rather than life honours).

I believe the remit of the Honours Forfeiture Committee only extends to whether information has come to light since award which means the honour shouldn't have been awarded and forfeiture is needed to secure the integrity of the honours system. But nothing the present Duke of Marlborough has done calls into question the decision by Queen Anne or whoever it was in respect of the 1st Duke (I mean, you can argue hereditary titles are completely unjustifiable but that's a general point, creates a bit of a problem for the monarchy, and would require legislation to change).

The position of Duke of York is also arguably hereditary, every holder of the title has been one of Andrew's distant ancestors.

The Duke of York was created as a hereditary title for a non firstborn son of the monarch eg the 1st Duke of York, Edmund Langley, was son of King Edward IIIrd

Andy is descended from both one of the Princes in the Tower and Prince Fredrick? Pretty radical reinterpretation of English and British history you’ve foisted on us there HYUFD.

The Princes in the Tower's sister was Henry VII's wife, Henry VIIth's wife was of course related to Andrew via her daughter, Queen Margaret of Scotland.

Prince Frederick was Queen Victoria's uncle, thus also related to Andrew

Ah. You were using the word ancestor to mean - well - not an ancestor at all.

They are all related to him and the Dukedom was created for the son of the monarch.

Legally Andrew would likely win a legal case if the Honours Committee tried to remove his title of Duke of York (he no longer having the royal title HRH anyway), given Lord Brocket and the Duke of Marlborough have kept their titles having both been jailed and if Andrew only lost a civil case not even a criminal case like they did

BBC just interviewed officers and officials from the Grantham Conservatives, all of whom said it is time for Boris to go

I expect this is being repeated across the nation as to be fair they are the ground troops who have to defend the indefensible

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Farooq said:

IanB2 said:

“I was trying to come up with a comparison to Boris’s ‘I thought it was a work event’ and all I can think of are those people who go into hospital with a bottle stuck up their bum and claim they slipped and fell onto it.”

That's the last time I take a doctor into my confidence.

It’s fine on PB as long as the bottle didn’t contain ghastly plebby supermarket wine.

Only if it isn't *interesting* wine. It's not unusual for supermarkets to get hold of some really good stuff.

Bit like the "own brand" single malts - sometimes hides a gem...

MattW said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Farooq said:

IanB2 said:

“I was trying to come up with a comparison to Boris’s ‘I thought it was a work event’ and all I can think of are those people who go into hospital with a bottle stuck up their bum and claim they slipped and fell onto it.”

That's the last time I take a doctor into my confidence.

It’s fine on PB as long as the bottle didn’t contain ghastly plebby supermarket wine.

Only if it isn't *interesting* wine. It's not unusual for supermarkets to get hold of some really good stuff.

Bit like the "own brand" single malts - sometimes hides a gem...

Does anyone have any recommendations from the current Laithwaite's sale catalogue?

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Remember however the Tories had 0 Scottish seats in 1997 and only 1 seat even in 2015 when they won an overall UK majority.

The Scottish party is no more important to the Tory party than any other regional branch of it, it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union. The whole UK determines the UK government, not just Scots, Scots have their own parliament for much domestic policy post devolution but Westminster still remains the UK parliament

You carry on reaching out to those swing voters!

I notice his assertion the whole point of the Union of the Kingdoms is to support the Conservative Party. Just to avoid the need for any quic edits, he said" it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union."

Here is a deal: you stop kicking HYUFD and I'll stop kicking Malcolm? How long can we keep it up?

You flatter yourself you scumbag of scumbags. Why have you stopped F***ing off foreskin. The day you are able to kick me will be the day I become Pope. @Nigel_Foremain @Carnyx

Antacids are quite useful when one is suffering from severe indigestion! Can really upset the mood.

Theuniondivvie said:

IanB2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

StuartDickson said:

Taz said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

BREAKING: The Queen removes military titles from Prince Andrew. https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1481674113752215552/photo/1

A tough personal decision for the Queen no doubt but as usual she has done the best thing for the royal family.

Note he is no longer referred to as HRH either, just the Duke of York and confirmed Andrew will do no further public duties as now

Tories do the best thing for the Tory party.
HMQ does the best thing for her family.

Who's left to the best thing for the country?

Certainly not the SNP

Nicola Sturgeon is rated higher among the English than Boris Johnson.

Sturgeon has a -20% approval now, even if she has not yet plumbed to Salmond depths
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Nicola_Sturgeon

Johnson is -30, so my point stands.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Boris_Johnson

When you’re benchmarking her against Johnson, effectively saying ‘at least she’s better than Johnson, thats pretty desperate stuff.

But we’re talking about her popularity in England. Her party doesn’t even put up candidates in England.

It’s pretty unusual for any foreign leader to be more popular than that country’s own head of government. Maybe Obama was more popular than Brown? Probably other, better examples. But still bloody unusual.

4th most popular in the UK on that list of 285 UK pols.

Yoons: proof were it needed that Sturgeon is an abject failure. WHY ISN’T SHE FIRST?!

If there were any way in which Nicola could take (and be persuaded to take) the job of UK PM, and be willing to bat for the entire country, I’d take her like a shot.

I believe in that case Leon may challenge you to a duel as his favoured option would be Salmond, the best pm that the UK never had.

Malmesbury said:

malcolmg said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Remember however the Tories had 0 Scottish seats in 1997 and only 1 seat even in 2015 when they won an overall UK majority.

The Scottish party is no more important to the Tory party than any other regional branch of it, it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union. The whole UK determines the UK government, not just Scots, Scots have their own parliament for much domestic policy post devolution but Westminster still remains the UK parliament

You carry on reaching out to those swing voters!

I notice his assertion the whole point of the Union of the Kingdoms is to support the Conservative Party. Just to avoid the need for any quic edits, he said" it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union."

Here is a deal: you stop kicking HYUFD and I'll stop kicking Malcolm? How long can we keep it up?

You flatter yourself you scumbag of scumbags. Why have you stopped F***ing off foreskin. The day you are able to kick me will be the day I become Pope. @Nigel_Foremain @Carnyx

You are Father Jack and I claim my bottle of John Daniels.....

IshmaelZ said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Re: "The Apprentice" note that You Know Who was the star of the American knock-off.

So he made himself famous - "You're fired" - before becoming POTUS.

IS it possible, or even probable, that Boris Johnson will be the star of a new UK-edition of "The Apprentice" after he departs No. 10?

Practical Putinism for fun & profit.

My dream is that he has shat his own bed so badly his future is second-string entertainer on out of season Saga cruise ships

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've joined, so should you all.

https://www.republic.org.uk/join_republic

Malmesbury said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

NEW The Duke of York has been stripped of his military titles and royal patronages by the Queen and will not return to official duties. #PrinceAndrew will no longer use his HRH styling in any capacity. Royal sources say the decisions were discussed among the royal family https://twitter.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1481674822497316875/photo/1

Also no longer HRH. I guess removing the Dukedom will be the final step, if convicted.

He is no longer a working royal or with a royal title and only 9th in the line of succession.

Removing his non royal title however does not follow precedent, even some convicted criminals have kept their titles eg the current Duke of Marlborough or Lord Brocket, who both did their time and are now back in society with their titles still

I think I am right in saying that the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Brocket couldn't have their honours forfeited as their honours were inherited rather than awarded (i.e. hereditary rather than life honours).

I believe the remit of the Honours Forfeiture Committee only extends to whether information has come to light since award which means the honour shouldn't have been awarded and forfeiture is needed to secure the integrity of the honours system. But nothing the present Duke of Marlborough has done calls into question the decision by Queen Anne or whoever it was in respect of the 1st Duke (I mean, you can argue hereditary titles are completely unjustifiable but that's a general point, creates a bit of a problem for the monarchy, and would require legislation to change).

The position of Duke of York is also arguably hereditary, every holder of the title has been one of Andrew's distant ancestors.

The Duke of York was created as a hereditary title for a non firstborn son of the monarch eg the 1st Duke of York, Edmund Langley, was son of King Edward IIIrd

Andy is descended from both one of the Princes in the Tower and Prince Fredrick? Pretty radical reinterpretation of English and British history you’ve foisted on us there HYUFD.

The Princes in the Tower's sister was Henry VII's wife, Henry VIIth's wife was of course related to Andrew via her daughter, Queen Margaret of Scotland.

Prince Frederick was Queen Victoria's uncle, thus also related to Andrew

Ah. You were using the word ancestor to mean - well - not an ancestor at all.

They are all related to him and the Dukedom was created for the son of the monarch.

Legally Andrew would likely win a legal case if the Honours Committee tried to remove his title of Duke of York (he no longer having the royal title HRH anyway), given Lord Brocket and the Duke of Marlborough have kept their titles having both been jailed and if Andrew only lost a civil case not even a criminal case like they did

BBC just interviewed officers and officials from the Grantham Conservatives, all of whom said it is time for Boris to go

I expect this is being repeated across the nation as to be fair they are the ground troops who have to defend the indefensible

Please don't use the expression "ground troops". It will get our friend from Essex over-excited about the looming civil war in your party.

Hark? Is that the dulcet tones of a Meadows V-12 I hear in the middle distance?

HYUFD said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

NEW The Duke of York has been stripped of his military titles and royal patronages by the Queen and will not return to official duties. #PrinceAndrew will no longer use his HRH styling in any capacity. Royal sources say the decisions were discussed among the royal family https://twitter.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1481674822497316875/photo/1

Also no longer HRH. I guess removing the Dukedom will be the final step, if convicted.

He is no longer a working royal or with a royal title and only 9th in the line of succession.

Removing his non royal title however does not follow precedent, even some convicted criminals have kept their titles eg the current Duke of Marlborough or Lord Brocket, who both did their time and are now back in society with their titles still

I think I am right in saying that the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Brocket couldn't have their honours forfeited as their honours were inherited rather than awarded (i.e. hereditary rather than life honours).

I believe the remit of the Honours Forfeiture Committee only extends to whether information has come to light since award which means the honour shouldn't have been awarded and forfeiture is needed to secure the integrity of the honours system. But nothing the present Duke of Marlborough has done calls into question the decision by Queen Anne or whoever it was in respect of the 1st Duke (I mean, you can argue hereditary titles are completely unjustifiable but that's a general point, creates a bit of a problem for the monarchy, and would require legislation to change).

The position of Duke of York is also arguably hereditary, every holder of the title has been one of Andrew's distant ancestors.

The Duke of York was created as a hereditary title for a non firstborn son of the monarch eg the 1st Duke of York, Edmund Langley, was son of King Edward IIIrd

Andy is descended from both one of the Princes in the Tower and Prince Fredrick? Pretty radical reinterpretation of English and British history you’ve foisted on us there HYUFD.

The Princes in the Tower's sister was Henry VII's wife, Henry VIIth's wife was of course related to Andrew via her daughter, Queen Margaret of Scotland.

Prince Frederick was Queen Victoria's uncle, thus also related to Andrew

Ah. You were using the word ancestor to mean - well - not an ancestor at all.

They are all related to him and the Dukedom was created for the son of the monarch.

Legally Andrew would likely win a legal case if the Honours Committee tried to remove his title of Duke of York (he no longer having the royal title HRH anyway), given Lord Brocket and the Duke of Marlborough have kept their titles having both been jailed and if Andrew only lost a civil case not even a criminal case like they did

Were the two examples you cite - Brocket and Marlborough - ever tested in the courts?

Plus note the examples of Dukes of Albany and Cumberland, stripped of their dukedoms via Titles Deprivation Act 1917

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_Deprivation_Act_1917

In this case, removal of titles was achieved by Act of Parliament. Which precedent could be applied to Rancid Andy?

Both were officers in the German army at the time, fighting Britain, ie active traitors. A totally different case to Andrew merely losing a civil case, whatever else he has done he also fought for his country in the Falklands

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've joined, so should you all.

https://www.republic.org.uk/join_republic

Absolutely not, though personally that would be grounds for expulsion from Tory Party membership for me given you already voted LD at the last general election and still wish to actively push a non Tory republican agenda.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've joined, so should you all.

https://www.republic.org.uk/join_republic

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Scott_xP said:

BREAKING: The Metropolitan Police will NOT investigate any of the Downing Street parties unless and until the Sue Gray inquiry finds evidence of criminality.

ie the Met are relying on an internal inquiry to decide for them whether a crime was committed.

Full statement 👇 https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1481678636096892929/photo/1

Sounds wrong. But Sue would have to stop and wait for them, delaying from end of next week till who knows when?

I am very relieved the Met will not act before Sue Gray's report which is due in 10 days, but would have been kicked into the long grass and this political crisis seeing no ending

I agree. I feared the same. But technically it wrong. So technically wrong but we are still happy?

Maybe they made the statement because of all the calls from number 10 saying “please investigate me” 😆

The thing is you said Boris will be gone in weeks due to wallpapergate, and I said he will be gone because of partygate and in our own way we could both be right, gone due to partygate and in weeks

Okay. 🙂. You are the big winner from a change what looks inevitable now as you 99% sure to get Rishi as leader and whole new properly functioning government. As I’m lidbdem we would definitely do better from Boris staying till general election, but I just feel so sorry for bereaved families upset by Boris still there, so soon as possible go to Rishi now please.

So what is that timeline?

Political journo’s say Gray hoping to be ready end of next week. Police cannot now stop that, but could further revelations to investigate slow it down a bit?
If next Thursday or Friday published as government promise, many letters are waiting on hearing that, it could be Vonc as early as following week?
If Boris loses, leadership contest part one, MP hustings and votes has been about two weeks in the last few?
What happens to Boris, does in stay in the building? Or if he chooses to flounce off and there’s a temp, do all next PM next Tory leader gets die with a Temp?
And the member hustings and ballot is what, at least 8 weeks? So that’s April at earliest? If it goes to member ballot.

So Rishi bounce just in time for May polls?

Malmesbury said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Scott_xP said:

BREAKING: The Metropolitan Police will NOT investigate any of the Downing Street parties unless and until the Sue Gray inquiry finds evidence of criminality.

ie the Met are relying on an internal inquiry to decide for them whether a crime was committed.

Full statement 👇 https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1481678636096892929/photo/1

Sounds wrong. But Sue would have to stop and wait for them, delaying from end of next week till who knows when?

I am very relieved the Met will not act before Sue Gray's report which is due in 10 days, but would have been kicked into the long grass and this political crisis seeing no ending

My guess is that the police saw no upside. Get involved and effectively stretch out/blur the issue, and potentially start yet another political fight of police vs politicians.

Everyone who went to Oxford between the late 80s and the early 2000s thinks that the police are completely corrupt and useless already... Why *really* make enemies of the next cabinet. Half of whom....

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've joined, so should you all.

https://www.republic.org.uk/join_republic

Absolutely not, though personally that would be grounds for expulsion from Tory Party membership for me given you already voted LD at the last general election and still wish to actively push a non Tory republican agenda.

I know several Tory Brexiteers who said I was absolutely right to vote Lib Dem in 2017 and 2019 because it was a Lib Dem/Labour marginal given who the Labour candidate and Labour leader were.

Anyhoo, I'm up for fizz with Liz, she knows.

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've joined, so should you all.

https://www.republic.org.uk/join_republic

We’re on to you. All part of your plan to become democratically elected dictator of the UK?

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've joined, so should you all.

https://www.republic.org.uk/join_republic

We’re on to you. All part of your plan to become democratically elected dictator of the UK?

My first priority, to ensure France honours the Treaty of Troyes.

Malmesbury said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

RobD said:

Scott_xP said:

NEW The Duke of York has been stripped of his military titles and royal patronages by the Queen and will not return to official duties. #PrinceAndrew will no longer use his HRH styling in any capacity. Royal sources say the decisions were discussed among the royal family https://twitter.com/RoyaNikkhah/status/1481674822497316875/photo/1

Also no longer HRH. I guess removing the Dukedom will be the final step, if convicted.

He is no longer a working royal or with a royal title and only 9th in the line of succession.

Removing his non royal title however does not follow precedent, even some convicted criminals have kept their titles eg the current Duke of Marlborough or Lord Brocket, who both did their time and are now back in society with their titles still

I think I am right in saying that the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Brocket couldn't have their honours forfeited as their honours were inherited rather than awarded (i.e. hereditary rather than life honours).

I believe the remit of the Honours Forfeiture Committee only extends to whether information has come to light since award which means the honour shouldn't have been awarded and forfeiture is needed to secure the integrity of the honours system. But nothing the present Duke of Marlborough has done calls into question the decision by Queen Anne or whoever it was in respect of the 1st Duke (I mean, you can argue hereditary titles are completely unjustifiable but that's a general point, creates a bit of a problem for the monarchy, and would require legislation to change).

The position of Duke of York is also arguably hereditary, every holder of the title has been one of Andrew's distant ancestors.

The Duke of York was created as a hereditary title for a non firstborn son of the monarch eg the 1st Duke of York, Edmund Langley, was son of King Edward IIIrd

Andy is descended from both one of the Princes in the Tower and Prince Fredrick? Pretty radical reinterpretation of English and British history you’ve foisted on us there HYUFD.

The Princes in the Tower's sister was Henry VII's wife, Henry VIIth's wife was of course related to Andrew via her daughter, Queen Margaret of Scotland.

Prince Frederick was Queen Victoria's uncle, thus also related to Andrew

Ah. You were using the word ancestor to mean - well - not an ancestor at all.

They are all related to him and the Dukedom was created for the son of the monarch.

Legally Andrew would likely win a legal case if the Honours Committee tried to remove his title of Duke of York (he no longer having the royal title HRH anyway), given Lord Brocket and the Duke of Marlborough have kept their titles having both been jailed and if Andrew only lost a civil case not even a criminal case like they did

BBC just interviewed officers and officials from the Grantham Conservatives, all of whom said it is time for Boris to go

I expect this is being repeated across the nation as to be fair they are the ground troops who have to defend the indefensible

Please don't use the expression "ground troops". It will get our friend from Essex over-excited about the looming civil war in your party.

Hark? Is that the dulcet tones of a Meadows V-12 I hear in the middle distance?

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

malcolmg said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Remember however the Tories had 0 Scottish seats in 1997 and only 1 seat even in 2015 when they won an overall UK majority.

The Scottish party is no more important to the Tory party than any other regional branch of it, it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union. The whole UK determines the UK government, not just Scots, Scots have their own parliament for much domestic policy post devolution but Westminster still remains the UK parliament

You carry on reaching out to those swing voters!

I notice his assertion the whole point of the Union of the Kingdoms is to support the Conservative Party. Just to avoid the need for any quic edits, he said" it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union."

Here is a deal: you stop kicking HYUFD and I'll stop kicking Malcolm? How long can we keep it up?

You flatter yourself you scumbag of scumbags. Why have you stopped F***ing off foreskin. The day you are able to kick me will be the day I become Pope. @Nigel_Foremain @Carnyx

You are Father Jack and I claim my bottle of John Daniels.....

John Daniels? Not Jack Daniels?

"He may be Jack to you son, but when you've known him as long as I have..."

A bottle of John Daniels saved me from a horrible fate, once, long ago.

What was her name?

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Malmesbury said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Scott_xP said:

BREAKING: The Metropolitan Police will NOT investigate any of the Downing Street parties unless and until the Sue Gray inquiry finds evidence of criminality.

ie the Met are relying on an internal inquiry to decide for them whether a crime was committed.

Full statement 👇 https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1481678636096892929/photo/1

Sounds wrong. But Sue would have to stop and wait for them, delaying from end of next week till who knows when?

I am very relieved the Met will not act before Sue Gray's report which is due in 10 days, but would have been kicked into the long grass and this political crisis seeing no ending

My guess is that the police saw no upside. Get involved and effectively stretch out/blur the issue, and potentially start yet another political fight of police vs politicians.

Everyone who went to Oxford between the late 80s and the early 2000s thinks that the police are completely corrupt and useless already... Why *really* make enemies of the next cabinet. Half of whom....

Are the police in Oxford especially bad? That Morse chap was pretty good wasn't he?

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've joined, so should you all.

https://www.republic.org.uk/join_republic

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've joined, so should you all.

https://www.republic.org.uk/join_republic

Absolutely not, though personally that would be grounds for expulsion from Tory Party membership for me given you already voted LD at the last general election and still wish to actively push a non Tory republican agenda.

I know several Tory Brexiteers who said I was absolutely right to vote Lib Dem in 2017 and 2019 because it was a Lib Dem/Labour marginal given who the Labour candidate and Labour leader were.

Anyhoo, I'm up for fizz with Liz, she knows.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

malcolmg said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Carnyx said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

Remember however the Tories had 0 Scottish seats in 1997 and only 1 seat even in 2015 when they won an overall UK majority.

The Scottish party is no more important to the Tory party than any other regional branch of it, it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union. The whole UK determines the UK government, not just Scots, Scots have their own parliament for much domestic policy post devolution but Westminster still remains the UK parliament

You carry on reaching out to those swing voters!

I notice his assertion the whole point of the Union of the Kingdoms is to support the Conservative Party. Just to avoid the need for any quic edits, he said" it is the UK Tory party as a whole who will decide who its leader is, after all that is the whole point of the Union."

Here is a deal: you stop kicking HYUFD and I'll stop kicking Malcolm? How long can we keep it up?

You flatter yourself you scumbag of scumbags. Why have you stopped F***ing off foreskin. The day you are able to kick me will be the day I become Pope. @Nigel_Foremain @Carnyx

You are Father Jack and I claim my bottle of John Daniels.....

John Daniels? Not Jack Daniels?

It is the more formal version

Ah bit like my school, it was horrendously formal, our gym was known as James.

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've joined, so should you all.

https://www.republic.org.uk/join_republic

Absolutely not, though personally that would be grounds for expulsion from Tory Party membership for me given you already voted LD at the last general election and still wish to actively push a non Tory republican agenda.

I know several Tory Brexiteers who said I was absolutely right to vote Lib Dem in 2017 and 2019 because it was a Lib Dem/Labour marginal given who the Labour candidate and Labour leader were.

Anyhoo, I'm up for fizz with Liz, she knows.

Carnyx said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Malmesbury said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

Scott_xP said:

BREAKING: The Metropolitan Police will NOT investigate any of the Downing Street parties unless and until the Sue Gray inquiry finds evidence of criminality.

ie the Met are relying on an internal inquiry to decide for them whether a crime was committed.

Full statement 👇 https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1481678636096892929/photo/1

Sounds wrong. But Sue would have to stop and wait for them, delaying from end of next week till who knows when?

I am very relieved the Met will not act before Sue Gray's report which is due in 10 days, but would have been kicked into the long grass and this political crisis seeing no ending

My guess is that the police saw no upside. Get involved and effectively stretch out/blur the issue, and potentially start yet another political fight of police vs politicians.

Everyone who went to Oxford between the late 80s and the early 2000s thinks that the police are completely corrupt and useless already... Why *really* make enemies of the next cabinet. Half of whom....

Are the police in Oxford especially bad? That Morse chap was pretty good wasn't he?

Maybe not Oxford specifically, but the same force was not well thought of even before that: I remember Thames Valley Police's idea of good PR was to invite Roger Graef to do a fly on the wall TV doc in the early 1980s. The result was catastrophic for their reputation, abvoe all their handling of a rape complainant.

http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/464502/index.html

IshmaelZ said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've joined, so should you all.

https://www.republic.org.uk/join_republic

We’re on to you. All part of your plan to become democratically elected dictator of the UK?

My first priority, to ensure France honours the Treaty of Troyes.

That would spoil the most perfect insult in history. 1066 they invade our country and steal it. 1945 we invade theirs and give it back to them because we have no use for it.

Revenge, best served cold.