Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Why not?
If I'd kept him on, having known that he must have been over the limit while driving for us, and he'd hit a child months later and it came out that I had kept him on after knowing he was over the limit - that would have been devastating both economically, but also morally I couldn't live with that.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
You really don't need to call yourself a stupid racist pleb, though it is said that confession is good for the soul.🤣
Tottenham Court Road to Paddington in FIVE minutes
Farringdon to Canary Wharf: ten minutes
Heathrow to anywhere in central London: thirty minutes, 44 minutes to Canary Wharf
Game-changer for a lot of places along the line
More money spunked on London and the South East while the rest of the nation gets nothing.
Au contraire. We get massive bus cuts.
Rest of the country needs to stop voting Tory if they don't want that kind of thing to happen to them.
Well New Labour gave us sweet FA too in terms of transport investment. Both HS2 and Crossrail started under their watch as well. Money lavished on the south east and London.
Government net support for bus travel in England outside London in real terms (2020/21 prices) rose from £1.02bn in 1996/97 to £1.89bn in 2009/10. By 2019/20 it had fallen back to £1.35bn. So Tory governments = "massive bus cuts" outside of London. Yet these areas keep voting Tory. Data from www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus05-subsidies-and-concessions; BUS0502, tab BUS0502b.
That's because most people outside London (and perhaps a few other big cities) never use buses.
Because there aren't any busses.
Nah. There are plenty of buses where I live. There's also a direct train from 5 minutes walk from my front door to 5 minutes walk from my wife's workplace - and it's still better to drive.
Serious question, why is it better to drive.
What's the train journey time and frequency of service?
I suspect I know the answer but it's best to have it confirmed.
Former Senator David Perdue ended his campaign for governor of Georgia with a racist appeal to Republican primary voters on Monday, accusing Stacey Abrams, the presumptive Democratic nominee, of “demeaning her own race.” https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1528873446255599617
The truly disgraceful thing is the number of voters who are prepared to support him.
Yep I sat with two people yesterday one of whom has completely turned against Johnson but the other is still in love with him. Two of us were trying to persuade her of a thousand reasons why Boris Johnson is unfit for the office of PM but she still continues to "like Boris".
She's not a graduate and I throw that into the mix with caution because, despite occasionally suggesting otherwise, I don't really like that supercilious 'we know best' attitude. But I think it's pertinent because there's no doubt that Boris is continuing to draw support from non-graduates and those who have failed as yet to see through the magician's sleight of hand. Oh dear, I've just been supercilious. It's hard so don't get angry BR & Co.
It genuinely baffles me how anyone can still support him. And I'd have a lot more respect for the Conservatives if they had not just the bottle but the integrity to remove him.
I often wonder the same about serial philanderers who still manage to convince the next woman that this time they will be faithful. I think some people just really want to believe in Boris because he is, in some way that the rest of us just don't see, charming to a large portion of the population.
I also think there is another sizeable chunk who have no love for the man but see him as a vehicle for their partisan agenda so are happy to overlook the character flaws so long as he is [delivering Brexit; insulting the French; keeping out the migrants]. Unfortunately for him that pragmatic group doesn't now include: cutting taxes; keeping out Corbyn; levelling up; or for that matter "delivering Brexit".
Well indeed I think Boris should be forced out and have said so for about 7 months now but that for me is because he raised taxes and that was a deal-breaker. Had he not done that, I'd be happy for him to stay on, but he did and that's a breach of trust I can't accept.
I think the brouhaha over your guy was drinking alcohol because he's a party animal, my guy was drinking alcohol because he's hard at work campaigning is stupid, hypocritical asinine bullshit that has dominated the public conversation far too much but that doesn't change the fact that Boris should go because he raised taxes.
Everyone has their own red lines and that was my one.
Your red line? Yes. The legal red line? No. Anyone else's red line? Don't be silly.
Yet this is this week's straw man that you have decided will batter all other arguments and posters into submission. Erm, no.
PS I'm not the only poster aggrieved about the taxes issue. I could name at least half a dozen other right-wing economically former Conservative voters who think the same on that, so its hardly unique even if it isn't sufficient on its own.
No you're not, it's true.
However, conflating that with the partying is rather disingenuous. Putting up taxes may piss you off but it doesn't break the law.
It's slightly disturbing that you don't seem to understand the difference.
The Metropolitan Police seem to think that him raising a glass of alcohol at work didn't break the law either, and I expect that Durham Police will find the same thing about his opposite number, so its you that doesn't understand the difference it seems.
Some people are saying its outrageous that the Metropolitan Police didn't fine him for this (and no doubt will find it outrageous if Durham Police do fine their guy) and are saying the Met got it wrong. The Met getting it wrong is certainly possible, they're far from infallible, but if that's the card you want to play then I will say they got it wrong issuing a fine for having cake at work at 1pm. Again, what's sauce for the goose . . . 🤷♂️
I said before the start of this that Boris should go and at the start of this if Boris broke the law its another reason he should go. Since the only fine is for cake, and I think the fine for cake was unreasonable, I don't think "partygate" is a reason for Boris to go. He should still go over taxes though.
The Met issued fines to people at this event. So the event was not legal. So why are you repeating the Peter Bone line that it was legal? You aren't dumb like Peter Bone...
If someone breaks the law at an event, that does not make the event illegal, it means the Police judged the actions of whoever got fined were illegal.
If you and thousands of others go to a concert, but one person who goes to the concert is caught taking or supply drugs by the Police and that individual is fined, then does that make the concert itself an illegal event? No, don't be ridiculous.
Unless we get told why the person who got fined was fined, we don't know what they were fined for, so all we know for certain is the Police believe that they broke the law in some way, not that the event itself was unlawful.
Could yoy upload an mp3 of the sound of one hand clapping? That would clarify things.
Here you go, from when right-on comedians didn't care about "cultural appropriation" it seems, which it seems was only nine years ago.
That's an entirely different scene. In an entirely different show.
Its not that different.
And SNL and HIMYM are/were both comedies that take the piss out of things.
Why is comedy in one cultural appropriation, while comedy in the other is not whatsoever? Where's the line?
The real difference seems to be that generally Buddhists have a pretty good sense of humour and don't vocally complain when jokes are made at their expense. Andy Samberg and SNL would never dream of doing the same sketch, but with Mohammed instead of Buddha. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
BUT. It isn't at Buddhists expense. Slapping is a long standing Buddhist tradition. I didn't say one was and the other wasn't. (Although one is all the better for Alyson Hannigan).
Did you watch the whole sketch? It certainly was - it was also funny, and as I said Buddhists seem by and large able to take a joke as ideally should everyone, but such a joke wouldn't be done about other communities and the whole 'cultural appropriation' complaining means that SNL and Samberg would probably not make that joke today. Which is a shame I feel, as it was funny, and being able to make jokes is a healthy thing for society.
You to be fair didn't call Slapsgiving 3: Slappointment in Slapmarra cultural appropriation but many other people did at the time.
Buddhism is full of jokes. At the expense of Buddhists. Otherwise you end up like Myanmar. Or Sri Lanka. Or 30's Japan. It is to be positively encouraged.
I agree it should be.
Those who whinge about "cultural appropriation" at perfectly funny and respectful jokes like Slapsgiving 3: Slappointment in Slapmarra do not though.
Quite a few koans end with a Buddhist getting slapped. It's an integral part of (some) Buddhist traditions.
Indeed but that wasn't the point.
Andy Samberg dressing as the Buddha would be called by some to be "cultural appropriation" now just as Alyson Hannigan dressing in Asian outfits for a Kung-Fu style sketch in their show was.
Racism is disgraceful, but much of what people now call "cultural appropriation" used to be called "multiculturalism" and was welcomed as a positive from having a melting pot of many cultures. I believe in multiculturalism more than "appropriation" or "cultural purity" which are awful concepts.
Indeed. I think that is farcical. The logical endpoint would be that if I ever wrote a novel, it could only be about the relatively dull travails of a recently separated 55 year old white bloke in the NE of England. The point is, surely, does it denigrate or demean? Does it show a completely stereotyped ignorance, deliberate or otherwise, of the subject it is parodying? I would argue not. The latter point is why I feel the role of slapping is integral in these instances.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Why not?
If I'd kept him on, having known that he must have been over the limit while driving for us, and he'd hit a child months later and it came out that I had kept him on after knowing he was over the limit - that would have been devastating both economically, but also morally I couldn't live with that.
I agree with you totally about sacking him, but I don't agree with this form of argument: "what if he'd gone on to do X?" You can hypothesis about anything happening in the future, but you need to deal with the here and now. The guy was obviously either drunk earlier or had been drinking on the job. You took him at his word that he'd not been drinking for at least four hours, and he shouldn't have any complaints about being given the elbow. I hope he learned from his mistake.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
There are two plausible explanations - he turned up drunk, not in a state appropriate to work or he was drinking on the job.
presented with that a tribunal will apply common sense because that is actually what they do...
Ex the morning Staggers email from Freddie Hayward:
"The more damning revelation could be in The Times this morning, which says that the Prime Minister suggested to Sue Gray, the civil servant investigating the Downing Street parties, that she should not publish her report. This would constitute an interference in the investigation and could prove more problematic for the Prime Minister than the photos. It is worth remembering that Johnson’s position as Gray’s boss and her role as a civil servant means the investigation was never going to be fully independent. The fact that Johnson can initiate a meeting with the person deciding his political fate, allegedly ask her to drop her report and then have his cabinet colleagues argue that it was merely a meeting about timings only illustrates that."
Sue Gray woukd need to confirm some pressure was applied for it to be a gotcha, or its just another 'allegedly' thing
At the moment it is "allegedly", by tomorrow Johnson will have denied it and by Friday he will be proved to be lying again.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Why not?
If I'd kept him on, having known that he must have been over the limit while driving for us, and he'd hit a child months later and it came out that I had kept him on after knowing he was over the limit - that would have been devastating both economically, but also morally I couldn't live with that.
You didnt know he was over the limit. You suspected he was. Thats not enough to fire someone. Morally, yes. In line with employment law, no i dont think so. Id have gone for 'manage him out of his job'
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Why not?
If I'd kept him on, having known that he must have been over the limit while driving for us, and he'd hit a child months later and it came out that I had kept him on after knowing he was over the limit - that would have been devastating both economically, but also morally I couldn't live with that.
You didnt know he was over the limit. You suspected he was. Thats not enough to fire someone. Morally, yes. In line with employment law, no i dont think so. Id have gone for 'manage him out of his job'
I wouldn't worry, I don't think this actually happened.
Tottenham Court Road to Paddington in FIVE minutes
Farringdon to Canary Wharf: ten minutes
Heathrow to anywhere in central London: thirty minutes, 44 minutes to Canary Wharf
Game-changer for a lot of places along the line
More money spunked on London and the South East while the rest of the nation gets nothing.
Au contraire. We get massive bus cuts.
Rest of the country needs to stop voting Tory if they don't want that kind of thing to happen to them.
Well New Labour gave us sweet FA too in terms of transport investment. Both HS2 and Crossrail started under their watch as well. Money lavished on the south east and London.
Government net support for bus travel in England outside London in real terms (2020/21 prices) rose from £1.02bn in 1996/97 to £1.89bn in 2009/10. By 2019/20 it had fallen back to £1.35bn. So Tory governments = "massive bus cuts" outside of London. Yet these areas keep voting Tory. Data from www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus05-subsidies-and-concessions; BUS0502, tab BUS0502b.
That's because most people outside London (and perhaps a few other big cities) never use buses.
Well, quite. There is a reason why London gets a disproportionate amount of spending on public transport infrastructure: because people in London will use it in sufficient volumes to make it worthwhile. In turn, because high population densities and associated congestion make driving an unattractive option here. Of course you can do a lot more to encourage public transport use outside London, especially in other cities, through investment, coordination of services and subsidies and I would like the government to do a lot more in this regard. Driving is convenient but wasteful and is very unhealthy - it's a big reason for why people outside London are such fat knackers.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
This is precisely the problem (and why Cameron was such an unmitigated catastrophe of a politician).
He was so confident of a substantial Remain victory that would put the headbangers and Faragistes back in their box. So the terms of the referendum, and all the language he used, was of the form "this will be the settled will of the people, to which we will all cleave". Regardless of the actual legal status.
And (as subsequent events showed) no amount of technical argument could wind back from that position.
And then he resigned. And left the 2015 parliament and the new PM to it. She had a go, then decided we needed to elect a new parliament. They also had a go, got yet another new PM who also decided we needed to elect a new parliament.
Bonzo is doing us a favour. He is demonstrating that parliamentary sovereignty is absolute. It isn't just free to overturn any legal commitment of previous parliaments. He is about to overturn laws he passed two years ago. Which was very directly the manifesto pledge which saw them secure a big majority.
Whilst I think its funny that the government is overthrowing its own manifesto which so many voted for, its perfectly valid. Parliament can do what it likes.
That's a very important principle.
However, the politics of it don't usually let us perform an abrupt about-turn - which is why after all those shenanigans, we ended up with Johnsons' mob.
Don't blame me I voted Labour and have a badge from 1980 that is back out in public.
Not that I would consider voting Labour under SKS of course.
Did you vote Labour during the Blair years? Genuinely interested to know
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Why not?
If I'd kept him on, having known that he must have been over the limit while driving for us, and he'd hit a child months later and it came out that I had kept him on after knowing he was over the limit - that would have been devastating both economically, but also morally I couldn't live with that.
Which is why most workplaces have bans. Where do you draw the line? If one pint at lunchtime is OK, how about 3, 4, 5 or 6?
Tottenham Court Road to Paddington in FIVE minutes
Farringdon to Canary Wharf: ten minutes
Heathrow to anywhere in central London: thirty minutes, 44 minutes to Canary Wharf
Game-changer for a lot of places along the line
More money spunked on London and the South East while the rest of the nation gets nothing.
Au contraire. We get massive bus cuts.
Rest of the country needs to stop voting Tory if they don't want that kind of thing to happen to them.
Well New Labour gave us sweet FA too in terms of transport investment. Both HS2 and Crossrail started under their watch as well. Money lavished on the south east and London.
Government net support for bus travel in England outside London in real terms (2020/21 prices) rose from £1.02bn in 1996/97 to £1.89bn in 2009/10. By 2019/20 it had fallen back to £1.35bn. So Tory governments = "massive bus cuts" outside of London. Yet these areas keep voting Tory. Data from www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus05-subsidies-and-concessions; BUS0502, tab BUS0502b.
That's because most people outside London (and perhaps a few other big cities) never use buses.
Because there aren't any busses.
Nah. There are plenty of buses where I live. There's also a direct train from 5 minutes walk from my front door to 5 minutes walk from my wife's workplace - and it's still better to drive.
Serious question, why is it better to drive.
What's the train journey time and frequency of service?
I suspect I know the answer but it's best to have it confirmed.
2 tph in the peak but not every 30 minutes, 1 tph off-peak. Takes about 20 minutes.
Buses are about every 5 minutes but obviously much slower, journey time up to an hour in the peak.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
When Farage thought Remain had won, he was literally on tv saying that this is far from over.
I await your argument that Farage wasn't the type of person to "get traction".
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Tribunals aren't allowed to draw inferences?
Not on a matter of fact. If he is sacked for being over the limit during working hours you need evidence - drunken behaviour or a conviction for being over the limit. He wouldn't need to give details of his negative sample, it was negative.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Disagree. Courts and Tribunals are very familiar with the concept of countback to work out whether a limit has been breached, typically in post accident drinking cases. If the reasonable employer on the information available was entitled to conclude that he had been driving a company vehicle whilst over the limit that is gross misconduct and I think @BartholomewRoberts would have won. Just under 4 hours into a shift is a very sound basis to draw the conclusion that he had been over the limit for some considerable time.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
Interesting. You fired him for him proving he was in a legal state to drive.
Edit: the rest is supposition and, I'm guessing (IANAL) that not provable and arguably he had grounds for appeal.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Disagree. Courts and Tribunals are very familiar with the concept of countback to work out whether a limit has been breached, typically in post accident drinking cases. If the reasonable employer on the information available was entitled to conclude that he had been driving a company vehicle whilst over the limit that is gross misconduct and I think @BartholomewRoberts would have won. Just under 4 hours into a shift is a very sound basis to draw the conclusion that he had been over the limit for some considerable time.
But is the negative sample admissable? I dont see where he is getting the figure from to work it out? A copper saying 'it was close' doesnt add anything. If no crime committed, how can the evidence be used?
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Disagree. Courts and Tribunals are very familiar with the concept of countback to work out whether a limit has been breached, typically in post accident drinking cases. If the reasonable employer on the information available was entitled to conclude that he had been driving a company vehicle whilst over the limit that is gross misconduct and I think @BartholomewRoberts would have won. Just under 4 hours into a shift is a very sound basis to draw the conclusion that he had been over the limit for some considerable time.
Thanks David, that makes sense.
For the record I just searched my archives and found the dismissal letter I sent that the lawyers wrote for us. Not only was the case not taken to tribunal, but its worth noting that the lawyers inserted a paragraph giving a right to appeal and details on how to raise an appeal (which they always did pro forma in all dismissal letters I ever handled). Since there was no appeal, I expect that would have also aided if it had gone to Tribunal.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
OK, not every leaver. A mere 99% of them would not have respected the result perhaps? You can see the bogus arguments that would have been presented, that it was unfair for this reason or that. Most of you are still fighting the battle even though you have won ffs. This is mainly because you all realise, with the exception of a few real zealots that it was a completely pointless waste of time
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
How could it be otherwise? Remain was the status quo so there was nothing to implement. Just like the Scottish Independence referendum. Also why is it untrue?
It’s just a media conspiracy to try and put a bit of pressure back on the PM - but at least just the one newspaper stands on the side of truth and reason and beside the British People
Really? Which newspaper?
Edit: also saddened that the Mail isn't heaping opprobrium on HM for riding in a foreign left hand drive buggy. What's wrong with good old British mobility buggies?
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Disagree. Courts and Tribunals are very familiar with the concept of countback to work out whether a limit has been breached, typically in post accident drinking cases. If the reasonable employer on the information available was entitled to conclude that he had been driving a company vehicle whilst over the limit that is gross misconduct and I think @BartholomewRoberts would have won. Just under 4 hours into a shift is a very sound basis to draw the conclusion that he had been over the limit for some considerable time.
Thanks David, that makes sense.
For the record I just searched my archives and found the dismissal letter I sent that the lawyers wrote for us. Not only was the case not taken to tribunal, but its worth noting that the lawyers inserted a paragraph giving a right to appeal and details on how to raise an appeal (which they always did pro forma in all dismissal letters I ever handled). Since there was no appeal, I expect that would have also aided if it had gone to Tribunal.
The stuff about appeal etc is a legal requirement. If the exact correct process isnt followed, it can lead to wrongful dismissal on a technicality.
P.s. check your data protection, how long ago was this?
Tottenham Court Road to Paddington in FIVE minutes
Farringdon to Canary Wharf: ten minutes
Heathrow to anywhere in central London: thirty minutes, 44 minutes to Canary Wharf
Game-changer for a lot of places along the line
More money spunked on London and the South East while the rest of the nation gets nothing.
Au contraire. We get massive bus cuts.
Rest of the country needs to stop voting Tory if they don't want that kind of thing to happen to them.
Well New Labour gave us sweet FA too in terms of transport investment. Both HS2 and Crossrail started under their watch as well. Money lavished on the south east and London.
Government net support for bus travel in England outside London in real terms (2020/21 prices) rose from £1.02bn in 1996/97 to £1.89bn in 2009/10. By 2019/20 it had fallen back to £1.35bn. So Tory governments = "massive bus cuts" outside of London. Yet these areas keep voting Tory. Data from www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus05-subsidies-and-concessions; BUS0502, tab BUS0502b.
That's because most people outside London (and perhaps a few other big cities) never use buses.
Because there aren't any busses.
Nah. There are plenty of buses where I live. There's also a direct train from 5 minutes walk from my front door to 5 minutes walk from my wife's workplace - and it's still better to drive.
Serious question, why is it better to drive.
What's the train journey time and frequency of service?
I suspect I know the answer but it's best to have it confirmed.
The nearest bus stop to me would require a 30 minute walk, along narrow lanes and then a very busy main road with no pavement. Walking in that road - as you would have to do - is a deeply dangerous thing to attempt. And then you face the same journey back, but with your shopping. Your day would revolve around filling hours waiting for that next bus back.
It's hardly a surprise that our neighbour still drove everywhere when he was 91. Giving up driving entailed selling his home of 43 years. Which, sadly for all, he had to do.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
How could it be otherwise? Remain was the status quo so there was nothing to implement. Just like the Scottish Independence referendum. Also why is it untrue?
It's untrue that all Leavers would have been agitating immediately for a referendum. Quite a few of us were only marginal Leavers in the first place.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Disagree. Courts and Tribunals are very familiar with the concept of countback to work out whether a limit has been breached, typically in post accident drinking cases. If the reasonable employer on the information available was entitled to conclude that he had been driving a company vehicle whilst over the limit that is gross misconduct and I think @BartholomewRoberts would have won. Just under 4 hours into a shift is a very sound basis to draw the conclusion that he had been over the limit for some considerable time.
But is the negative sample admissable? I dont see where he is getting the figure from to work it out? A copper saying 'it was close' doesnt add anything. If no crime committed, how can the evidence be used?
He gave me the paperwork, as part of recording it for the insurance purposes since he'd been pulled over and paperwork had been exchanged. It wasn't just a verbal "it was close" I had the actual number blown and while I don't remember from memory what it was, I do remember being shocked at how very, very close it was.
Going from memory it was something like 67 parts against a limit of 70 or something along those lines, seriously close. That combined with the 4 hours combined with his testimony that all alcohol was consumed before the shift was sufficient in my eyes, and the lawyers too.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Disagree. Courts and Tribunals are very familiar with the concept of countback to work out whether a limit has been breached, typically in post accident drinking cases. If the reasonable employer on the information available was entitled to conclude that he had been driving a company vehicle whilst over the limit that is gross misconduct and I think @BartholomewRoberts would have won. Just under 4 hours into a shift is a very sound basis to draw the conclusion that he had been over the limit for some considerable time.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
How could it be otherwise? Remain was the status quo so there was nothing to implement. Just like the Scottish Independence referendum. Also why is it untrue?
It's untrue that all Leavers would have been agitating immediately for a referendum. Quite a few of us were only marginal Leavers in the first place.
@leon was only a marginal leaver but he is steaming mad and that is after you won. Image how mad he would have been if you had lost.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
How could it be otherwise? Remain was the status quo so there was nothing to implement. Just like the Scottish Independence referendum. Also why is it untrue?
It's untrue that all Leavers would have been agitating immediately for a referendum. Quite a few of us were only marginal Leavers in the first place.
@leon was only a marginal leaver but he is steaming mad.
Tottenham Court Road to Paddington in FIVE minutes
Farringdon to Canary Wharf: ten minutes
Heathrow to anywhere in central London: thirty minutes, 44 minutes to Canary Wharf
Game-changer for a lot of places along the line
More money spunked on London and the South East while the rest of the nation gets nothing.
It was pointed out this morning that the finished line will be approximately the same distance as Leeds/Liverpool. Such a line connecting the Lancashire/Yorkshire metropolitan centres would have been of massive economic benefit. And might have indicated government gave a damn about anything outside of London.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
How could it be otherwise? Remain was the status quo so there was nothing to implement. Just like the Scottish Independence referendum. Also why is it untrue?
It's untrue that all Leavers would have been agitating immediately for a referendum. Quite a few of us were only marginal Leavers in the first place.
Nobody said that all leavers would have immediately agitated for another referendum, just as not all remainers did. It is simply the case that many both in Parliament and out would have continued to try and bring about Brexit despite a remain victory in the referendum.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
How could it be otherwise? Remain was the status quo so there was nothing to implement. Just like the Scottish Independence referendum. Also why is it untrue?
It's untrue that all Leavers would have been agitating immediately for a referendum. Quite a few of us were only marginal Leavers in the first place.
@leon was only a marginal leaver but he is steaming mad and that is after you won. Image how mad he would have been if you had lost.
Years of bad losers trying to overturn the biggest democratic vote in British history certainly radicalised many people.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Disagree. Courts and Tribunals are very familiar with the concept of countback to work out whether a limit has been breached, typically in post accident drinking cases. If the reasonable employer on the information available was entitled to conclude that he had been driving a company vehicle whilst over the limit that is gross misconduct and I think @BartholomewRoberts would have won. Just under 4 hours into a shift is a very sound basis to draw the conclusion that he had been over the limit for some considerable time.
But is the negative sample admissable? I dont see where he is getting the figure from to work it out? A copper saying 'it was close' doesnt add anything. If no crime committed, how can the evidence be used?
He gave me the paperwork, as part of recording it for the insurance purposes since he'd been pulled over and paperwork had been exchanged. It wasn't just a verbal "it was close" I had the actual number blown and while I don't remember from memory what it was, I do remember being shocked at how very, very close it was.
Going from memory it was something like 67 parts against a limit of 70 or something along those lines, seriously close. That combined with the 4 hours combined with his testimony that all alcohol was consumed before the shift was sufficient in my eyes, and the lawyers too.
Ok, but why isnt this on the dismissal letter you just pulled? Its the entire reason for dismissal! The letter should have set out why you believed gross misconduct occured so he can prepare an appeal if he wants.....
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
How could it be otherwise? Remain was the status quo so there was nothing to implement. Just like the Scottish Independence referendum. Also why is it untrue?
It's untrue that all Leavers would have been agitating immediately for a referendum. Quite a few of us were only marginal Leavers in the first place.
Nobody said that all leavers would have immediately agitated for another referendum
Um, read the quoted text: Nigel_Foremain said exactly that.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
Something which didn’t really sink in with the MPs of the 2017 Parliament. The people noticed though.
You hate Starmer more for something that never happened than BoZo for all the shit that did.
That is warped.
The attempt to overthrow the Leave vote, by ignoring it, not enacting it, and getting a new vote to overturn it without ever Brexiting, was the most immoral, grotesque and dangerous political endeavour in the history of the modern United Kingdom. It is the exact equivalent - to me - of the Trumpite coup of Jan 6, we just skimped on the guns and flares
I understand that you don’t agree, but I’m not lying about my own opinion to get an argument going
it was also (tho less importantly) utterly counter-productive. By trying to thwart and reverse Brexit completely, Remainers missed multiple chances to get a much softer Brexit, one where we might have retained FoM, or the Single Market, who knows
But instead, driven crazy by the Leave vote, they went for the most extreme position: cancel Brexit, which meant we ended up with the hardest Brexit of all. It is an irony which will - eventually - be enjoyed by connoisseurs of political irony
And now I really AM having my tea. Later
You get what you vote for. And in 2017 we elected a parliament divided who could agree nothing. You're right that in voting down all soft versions of Brexit we ended up with our clown car Brexit. But that is literally parliamentary sovereignty in action. Unchecked by external powers free to vote how it wants.
If you didn't vote for parliament to be absolutely sovereign, what did you vote for? Sovereign doesn't mean it always doing what you think.
@Leon is clearly not satisfied that he got what he voted for. He wants to refight old battles until everyone who voted the other way grovels in front of him and tells him that the mess which he got is a splendid thing.
Best leave him alone when he’s in this mood. It’s not addressable by reasoned argument.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Disagree. Courts and Tribunals are very familiar with the concept of countback to work out whether a limit has been breached, typically in post accident drinking cases. If the reasonable employer on the information available was entitled to conclude that he had been driving a company vehicle whilst over the limit that is gross misconduct and I think @BartholomewRoberts would have won. Just under 4 hours into a shift is a very sound basis to draw the conclusion that he had been over the limit for some considerable time.
But is the negative sample admissable? I dont see where he is getting the figure from to work it out? A copper saying 'it was close' doesnt add anything. If no crime committed, how can the evidence be used?
He gave me the paperwork, as part of recording it for the insurance purposes since he'd been pulled over and paperwork had been exchanged. It wasn't just a verbal "it was close" I had the actual number blown and while I don't remember from memory what it was, I do remember being shocked at how very, very close it was.
Going from memory it was something like 67 parts against a limit of 70 or something along those lines, seriously close. That combined with the 4 hours combined with his testimony that all alcohol was consumed before the shift was sufficient in my eyes, and the lawyers too.
Ok, but why isnt this on the dismissal letter you just pulled? Its the entire reason for dismissal! The letter should have set out why you believed gross misconduct occured so he can prepare an appeal if he wants.....
I'm wary of putting too much information in the public domain, but the reason stated in the letter is The reason for the dismissal is driving whilst under the influence of alcohol whilst on shift. As I said, I didn't write that, that's what they wrote after being given all relevant information including all minutes etc.
There's more mainly pro forma words on the letter of course, but again I'm wary of putting anything identifiable on a public forum. This is probably getting as close to the line as I feel comfortable discussing now, so any further specific communication I'd prefer on private messages if you have any more specific questions than that.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
When Farage thought Remain had won, he was literally on tv saying that this is far from over.
I await your argument that Farage wasn't the type of person to "get traction".
We don't need to guess how Vote Leave would have acted after the referendum. We have a case study in the SNP post 2014. If your political raison d'etre is to exit a particular union then you don't just pack up after the first setback. There would always be a trigger for thinking again: the next time an EU army was mentioned by France, or new accession discussions for example.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Disagree. Courts and Tribunals are very familiar with the concept of countback to work out whether a limit has been breached, typically in post accident drinking cases. If the reasonable employer on the information available was entitled to conclude that he had been driving a company vehicle whilst over the limit that is gross misconduct and I think @BartholomewRoberts would have won. Just under 4 hours into a shift is a very sound basis to draw the conclusion that he had been over the limit for some considerable time.
But is the negative sample admissable? I dont see where he is getting the figure from to work it out? A copper saying 'it was close' doesnt add anything. If no crime committed, how can the evidence be used?
Of course it is admissible. This is not a criminal trial, it is an inquiry by the employer as to possible gross misconduct. They are entitled to take any evidence that comes to hand which is reasonably credible.
So, hypothetically, if a police officer reported that they had got a breath reading of 30, when the legal limit in England is 35, they are entitled to operate on that basis. Generally speaking a person of roughly average weight and with a fairly normal liver will lose 15mcgms an hour, roughly 1 unit of alcohol. So when he started his shift it would be reasonable to conclude his reading was 90, more than twice the legal limit. Even if you took a more conservative view of the numbers he was clearly well over.
The police cannot get a conviction on this basis because they have to go on what they found but an employer is entitled to reach a conclusion on the balance of probabilities and it is only unfair if it is a conclusion they could not reasonably have reached. Most unfair dismissal decisions are procedural but if he is given notice of the evidence and a chance to explain it or challenge it (I wasn't even on shift that day, it must have been someone else using my name, for example) together with a right of appeal the dismissal is very likely to have been found to have been fair, in my view.
I did do a case like this for an employer many years ago but it never went to a hearing because the employee abandoned the case before it got there.
Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.
That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.
Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.
As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
How could it be otherwise? Remain was the status quo so there was nothing to implement. Just like the Scottish Independence referendum. Also why is it untrue?
It's untrue that all Leavers would have been agitating immediately for a referendum. Quite a few of us were only marginal Leavers in the first place.
Which is why a referendum was a bloody stupid idea in the first place. How many people are happy with the outcome? I assume there are some people out there who literally had no clue what kind of Brexit we would get and don't care as long as their team won. But I have to anticipate that if people voted Tory in 2019 to implement the oven-ready deal they will now be cross that they are about to scrap significant chunks of it?
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Disagree. Courts and Tribunals are very familiar with the concept of countback to work out whether a limit has been breached, typically in post accident drinking cases. If the reasonable employer on the information available was entitled to conclude that he had been driving a company vehicle whilst over the limit that is gross misconduct and I think @BartholomewRoberts would have won. Just under 4 hours into a shift is a very sound basis to draw the conclusion that he had been over the limit for some considerable time.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.
Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.
The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
I just looked at my phone Photos for November 2020 ... at no stage do any of them look like this. Try it with your photos... if you can find a party with raised glasses you probably were a Tory politician or SPAD .. that's how bad it is https://mobile.twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1528835927279288322
I looked, and found pictures of only two people I don’t live with, for the entire month. FWIW.
Its the whole drinking at work culture which surprises me.
I've not seen any alcohol drunk at my workplace for over 20 years or any work sponsored pub lunches for over 10 years.
I thought this was also the general trend throughout the country.
But not it seems in Downing Street.
Downing Street is a totally different scenario to 99% of workplaces. It is virtually 24/7 and work blends into play which blends into the family life, of the occupants: they all intertwine. This is not some hideous innovation by BoJo and Carrie, if you read Bad Al Campbell’s excellent diaries of the Blair years, the same thing happened then
You get scenes where at 7am Al bursts in on Blair who is naked from the shower but they carry on talking about political issues anyway, and making decisions, then in the evening on busy days (and Covid in 2020 must have made them incredibly busy) the booze comes out at 8pm even as they carry on toiling, gossiping, eating takeaway
Judging by those diaries Number 10 and 11 are fun places to work IF you can tolerate long and intense hours and sometimes do all nighters, the upside of the hard yakka is that its all extremely interesting, and you can get drunk at your desk from time to time
Now it is highly arguable this culture should have stopped for Covid, but I can see why it didn’t, and why Partygate (and Kormagate) occurred
I get the impression that the booze has been coming out a lot earlier than 8pm.
In fact I get the impression that the booze is always out.
This might be deemed acceptable in Downing Street but it seems they don't even have the sense to not send emails encouraging it or not get their mobiles out to provide evidence of it.
Churchill STARTED the day at Number 10 with a neat whisky. He called it his “mouthwash”
It is remarkable to think that we won WW2 with a PM who was half cut virtually all the time
Perhaps we'd have won sooner if he'd drank less. Interesting counterfactual. Sober on-the-ball Churchill, Nazis beaten by late 43. So many lives saved. And buildings.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
How could it be otherwise? Remain was the status quo so there was nothing to implement. Just like the Scottish Independence referendum. Also why is it untrue?
It's untrue that all Leavers would have been agitating immediately for a referendum. Quite a few of us were only marginal Leavers in the first place.
Which is why a referendum was a bloody stupid idea in the first place. How many people are happy with the outcome? I assume there are some people out there who literally had no clue what kind of Brexit we would get and don't care as long as their team won. But I have to anticipate that if people voted Tory in 2019 to implement the oven-ready deal they will now be cross that they are about to scrap significant chunks of it?
*A referendum* wasn't a stupid idea - that argument had run out of road having been deployed regularly since Maastricht.
But this referendum, the way Cameron designed it? I find it difficult to argue. But then, Cameron didn't care about settling the issue fairly and decisively either way - he wanted to win a referendum for Remain by whatever narrow margin possible and then deem the matter settled. "Once in a generation", he said.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Disagree. Courts and Tribunals are very familiar with the concept of countback to work out whether a limit has been breached, typically in post accident drinking cases. If the reasonable employer on the information available was entitled to conclude that he had been driving a company vehicle whilst over the limit that is gross misconduct and I think @BartholomewRoberts would have won. Just under 4 hours into a shift is a very sound basis to draw the conclusion that he had been over the limit for some considerable time.
I thought provision existed in DD laws for countback ("retrograde extrapolation"). So just under the limit after 4 hours driving would be damning.
Am I wrong in that?
In practice, in my experience in Scotland, it only tends to be used when there has been a hit and run, for example. You sometimes get what is known as the hipflask defence which will be used when the driver claims to have had a drink when he got home. A forensic scientist will then take the measure of what he claimed to have drunk post accident and calculate whether that is consistent with the driver having been over the limit at the time of the accident. In theory the police could use this a lot more but they have more important things to do like issuing FPNs to our political masters.
Tottenham Court Road to Paddington in FIVE minutes
Farringdon to Canary Wharf: ten minutes
Heathrow to anywhere in central London: thirty minutes, 44 minutes to Canary Wharf
Game-changer for a lot of places along the line
More money spunked on London and the South East while the rest of the nation gets nothing.
Au contraire. We get massive bus cuts.
Rest of the country needs to stop voting Tory if they don't want that kind of thing to happen to them.
Well New Labour gave us sweet FA too in terms of transport investment. Both HS2 and Crossrail started under their watch as well. Money lavished on the south east and London.
Government net support for bus travel in England outside London in real terms (2020/21 prices) rose from £1.02bn in 1996/97 to £1.89bn in 2009/10. By 2019/20 it had fallen back to £1.35bn. So Tory governments = "massive bus cuts" outside of London. Yet these areas keep voting Tory. Data from www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus05-subsidies-and-concessions; BUS0502, tab BUS0502b.
That's because most people outside London (and perhaps a few other big cities) never use buses.
Because there aren't any busses.
Nah. There are plenty of buses where I live. There's also a direct train from 5 minutes walk from my front door to 5 minutes walk from my wife's workplace - and it's still better to drive.
Serious question, why is it better to drive.
What's the train journey time and frequency of service?
I suspect I know the answer but it's best to have it confirmed.
2 tph in the peak but not every 30 minutes, 1 tph off-peak. Takes about 20 minutes.
Buses are about every 5 minutes but obviously much slower, journey time up to an hour in the peak.
Thought it would be - that's the typical story of too slow compared to driving (bus) and a too infrequent train service...
SSE shares down 10% this morning on rumours of a windfall tax. That's over 2bn loss of value. Just this one company alone. I think that is more than a windfall tax is going to raise?
And I'm not clear where the windfall is. If SSE, and other companies, are passing on the extra cost of the raw material to customers then SSE is getting no windfall on which to be taxed.
For them it is literally a windfall, since they have the largest share of wind assets of any of the generators. At current market rates they’re suddenly immensely profitable.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.
Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.
The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
A multi-party multi-isuue general election can't overturn a binary single-issue referendum - certainly not one which returned the biggest democratic vote in British history. And definitely not when both main parties were committed at the election to implementing the referendum result (even if SKS and Corbyn u-turned on their pledge PDQ).
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.
Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.
The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
I simultaneously both agree and disagree with Leon here.
Yes anyone elected on a pledge to reverse the referendum is legitimate. That is right.
The problem with Starmer, Grieve etc is they weren't. They were elected on a pledge of honouring the referendum in 2017, so they were not just going against the referendum, they were also going against their own election materials and manifesto in 2017.
In 2019 Grieve and Starmer etc stood on a manifesto of seeking to reverse the referendum unlike two years earlier, had they won that election then fair enough, but they didn't and indeed they quite emphatically didn't so the rest is history.
Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.
That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.
Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.
As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.
Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.
So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
Technically advisory but in reality mandatory, in a political sense, may well be a fair description. The public certainly showed they found 2 years of Brexit delays distasteful.
Thats why ignoring the technical reality and crying about people attempting to overturn it is so weird. They did have the right, there is zero question about that, but the public slapped them down for doing so. So there's no need to get a rage boner about the legal permissability of the attempt. Just point to the GE.
Tottenham Court Road to Paddington in FIVE minutes
Farringdon to Canary Wharf: ten minutes
Heathrow to anywhere in central London: thirty minutes, 44 minutes to Canary Wharf
Game-changer for a lot of places along the line
More money spunked on London and the South East while the rest of the nation gets nothing.
Au contraire. We get massive bus cuts.
Rest of the country needs to stop voting Tory if they don't want that kind of thing to happen to them.
Well New Labour gave us sweet FA too in terms of transport investment. Both HS2 and Crossrail started under their watch as well. Money lavished on the south east and London.
Government net support for bus travel in England outside London in real terms (2020/21 prices) rose from £1.02bn in 1996/97 to £1.89bn in 2009/10. By 2019/20 it had fallen back to £1.35bn. So Tory governments = "massive bus cuts" outside of London. Yet these areas keep voting Tory. Data from www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus05-subsidies-and-concessions; BUS0502, tab BUS0502b.
That's because most people outside London (and perhaps a few other big cities) never use buses.
Because there aren't any busses.
Nah. There are plenty of buses where I live. There's also a direct train from 5 minutes walk from my front door to 5 minutes walk from my wife's workplace - and it's still better to drive.
Serious question, why is it better to drive.
What's the train journey time and frequency of service?
I suspect I know the answer but it's best to have it confirmed.
2 tph in the peak but not every 30 minutes, 1 tph off-peak. Takes about 20 minutes.
Buses are about every 5 minutes but obviously much slower, journey time up to an hour in the peak.
Thought it would be - that's the typical story of too slow compared to driving (bus) and a too infrequent train service...
Even if there was a train every 15 minutes it would still be better to drive. Cheaper, for one thing.
Real life scenario where legal and employment decisions mix. What would you do as the employer here?
Previous job many years ago I was contacted to say one of my employees had been pulled over by the Police and had blown just under the limit. The Police were taking no further action since it was [only just] under the limit and therefore legal, but the employee was driving using my corporate insurance and so I was informed about what had happened. What do you do?
What I did was suspend the employee on full pay immediately pending an investigation. Invited him in to a meeting he claimed he'd had drinks with his family before work and denied drinking while working.
My concern was that since he claimed the alcohol was in his blood from before work, he'd been on the road for us for four hours by the time he'd been pulled over, so if he was only just under the limit four hours into his shift then he must have been over the limit when he began it, which is breaking the law, which is Gross Misconduct, so I fired him.
If he'd blown under the limit on his way into work, I don't see how I could or should have taken any action against him, even with the [legal] presence of alcohol in the bloodstream. If he wasn't working on the road, I'd have had no issue.
If you didnt have evidence of him being over the limit during work hours youre lucky he didnt clean up at tribunal
That's why I asked the question, I was curious what others would think.
It never went to tribunal but I had the details on just how close to the limit he was [very, very close] and my lawyer agreed that if he was four hours into his shift that he was that close to the limit then that was sufficient evidence [combined with his own testimony that the only alcohol consumed was before his shift] that he must have been over the limit at some point earlier in the shift.
So if it had gone to tribunal, then the lawyers indemnified us from that. Supposedly at least, got taken to tribunal two times but won both cases so that never got tested.
Get better lawyers. No tribunal is going with 'he must have been'
Disagree. Courts and Tribunals are very familiar with the concept of countback to work out whether a limit has been breached, typically in post accident drinking cases. If the reasonable employer on the information available was entitled to conclude that he had been driving a company vehicle whilst over the limit that is gross misconduct and I think @BartholomewRoberts would have won. Just under 4 hours into a shift is a very sound basis to draw the conclusion that he had been over the limit for some considerable time.
But is the negative sample admissable? I dont see where he is getting the figure from to work it out? A copper saying 'it was close' doesnt add anything. If no crime committed, how can the evidence be used?
Of course it is admissible. This is not a criminal trial, it is an inquiry by the employer as to possible gross misconduct. They are entitled to take any evidence that comes to hand which is reasonably credible.
So, hypothetically, if a police officer reported that they had got a breath reading of 30, when the legal limit in England is 35, they are entitled to operate on that basis. Generally speaking a person of roughly average weight and with a fairly normal liver will lose 15mcgms an hour, roughly 1 unit of alcohol. So when he started his shift it would be reasonable to conclude his reading was 90, more than twice the legal limit. Even if you took a more conservative view of the numbers he was clearly well over.
The police cannot get a conviction on this basis because they have to go on what they found but an employer is entitled to reach a conclusion on the balance of probabilities and it is only unfair if it is a conclusion they could not reasonably have reached. Most unfair dismissal decisions are procedural but if he is given notice of the evidence and a chance to explain it or challenge it (I wasn't even on shift that day, it must have been someone else using my name, for example) together with a right of appeal the dismissal is very likely to have been found to have been fair, in my view.
I did do a case like this for an employer many years ago but it never went to a hearing because the employee abandoned the case before it got there.
Tottenham Court Road to Paddington in FIVE minutes
Farringdon to Canary Wharf: ten minutes
Heathrow to anywhere in central London: thirty minutes, 44 minutes to Canary Wharf
Game-changer for a lot of places along the line
More money spunked on London and the South East while the rest of the nation gets nothing.
Au contraire. We get massive bus cuts.
Rest of the country needs to stop voting Tory if they don't want that kind of thing to happen to them.
Well New Labour gave us sweet FA too in terms of transport investment. Both HS2 and Crossrail started under their watch as well. Money lavished on the south east and London.
Government net support for bus travel in England outside London in real terms (2020/21 prices) rose from £1.02bn in 1996/97 to £1.89bn in 2009/10. By 2019/20 it had fallen back to £1.35bn. So Tory governments = "massive bus cuts" outside of London. Yet these areas keep voting Tory. Data from www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus05-subsidies-and-concessions; BUS0502, tab BUS0502b.
That's because most people outside London (and perhaps a few other big cities) never use buses.
Because there aren't any busses.
Yes, there are buses. Whether there need to be more, and how many more, and of what type, is up for debate - and we will not be sure on the second point until we are out of Covid-land.
There are also the more interesting metropolitan area transport systems, and light rail beyond that. Trams - light rail etc. The one in Nottingham now does around 50-60 journeys per member of the population per year pre-Covid. And it only covers part of the city so far.
Once more of the City is covered, that may be working towards the frequency of use of public transport in London. The London Underground equivalent is something like 100-120 journeys per pop per year (1.2 billion / 8-12 million), but obvs with a far higher proportion of tourists etc.
Very estimated figures, but in the same ballpark. So an interesting few years ahead.
BJ should be using MA networks as part of levelling up. Connecting local depressed spots to the local centre has much value. Not sure that he is.
You hate Starmer more for something that never happened than BoZo for all the shit that did.
That is warped.
The attempt to overthrow the Leave vote, by ignoring it, not enacting it, and getting a new vote to overturn it without ever Brexiting, was the most immoral, grotesque and dangerous political endeavour in the history of the modern United Kingdom. It is the exact equivalent - to me - of the Trumpite coup of Jan 6, we just skimped on the guns and flares
I understand that you don’t agree, but I’m not lying about my own opinion to get an argument going
it was also (tho less importantly) utterly counter-productive. By trying to thwart and reverse Brexit completely, Remainers missed multiple chances to get a much softer Brexit, one where we might have retained FoM, or the Single Market, who knows
But instead, driven crazy by the Leave vote, they went for the most extreme position: cancel Brexit, which meant we ended up with the hardest Brexit of all. It is an irony which will - eventually - be enjoyed by connoisseurs of political irony
And now I really AM having my tea. Later
You get what you vote for. And in 2017 we elected a parliament divided who could agree nothing. You're right that in voting down all soft versions of Brexit we ended up with our clown car Brexit. But that is literally parliamentary sovereignty in action. Unchecked by external powers free to vote how it wants.
If you didn't vote for parliament to be absolutely sovereign, what did you vote for? Sovereign doesn't mean it always doing what you think.
@Leon is clearly not satisfied that he got what he voted for. He wants to refight old battles until everyone who voted the other way grovels in front of him and tells him that the mess which he got is a splendid thing.
Best leave him alone when he’s in this mood. It’s not addressable by reasoned argument.
Well it seems in order for a face to face confrontation, one would have to fly out to his post Brexit EU bolt hole. Brexit was great, just rub some more factor ten on my back. It is remarkable how many Brexiteers have decided sovereign post Brexit Britain is not for them and the sunny EU is preferable.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
Well obviously. In any debate between the status quo and a change, the status quo is by definition achievable faster. You're seeing conspiracy when all there is is the nature of change implementation.
Technically advisory but in reality mandatory, in a political sense, may well be a fair description. The public certainly showed they found 2 years of Brexit delays distasteful.
Thats why ignoring the technical reality and crying about people attempting to overturn it is so weird. They did have the right, there is zero question about that, but the public slapped them down for doing so. So there's no need to get a rage boner about the legal permissability of the attempt. Just point to the GE.
What really ticked me off was the fact that almost everyone in the remainer Parliament had been elected on the basis that they would respect the vote. And yet, even when they were given a range of options, the majority would not vote for any of them. That was taking the piss and they paid the price in 2019.
If Sue Gray went public and announced that Boris had asked her to ditch her report, that could indeed be the end for him. Not likely to happen, but she is in her mid-60s and may not care too much about the consequences.
That would be a right laugh.
A select committee could ask her the question unambiguously. "Did the Prime Minister ask whether it was still necessary for you to publish your report?" and the follow up "Did you understand him to be suggesting that it was not necessary?"
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Are you seriously trying to say that Brexit obsessives such as Bill Cash on the back benches would have considered the matter settled if remain had won the referendum?
A few extremists, sure. But they wouldn't have got any traction at all.
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
Oh, come off it. Every Leaver would have been agitating immediately for another referendum if they had lost. It is one of their biggest hypocrisies. Imagine Farage saying "oh well it is the will-o-the-people, we must respect it and pack up. We accept that we will remain part of the EU for ever". The idea is laughable. It is a fact that nationalists only ever respect democracy if it gives them the result they want.
That is simply untrue. But in any case, it also misses the asymmetry of the referendum process as Cameron designed it - a Remain vote would have been automatically implemented immediately.
Well obviously. In any debate between the status quo and a change, the status quo is by definition achievable faster. You're seeing conspiracy when all there is is the nature of change implementation.
The nature of change implementation is not - or should not be - once there is an instruction from the boss to make a change, spending the next several years arguing with them over whether the change is actually needed.
Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.
That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.
Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.
As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.
Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.
So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.
Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.
Technically advisory but in reality mandatory, in a political sense, may well be a fair description. The public certainly showed they found 2 years of Brexit delays distasteful.
Thats why ignoring the technical reality and crying about people attempting to overturn it is so weird. They did have the right, there is zero question about that, but the public slapped them down for doing so. So there's no need to get a rage boner about the legal permissability of the attempt. Just point to the GE.
What really ticked me off was the fact that almost everyone in the remainer Parliament had been elected on the basis that they would respect the vote. And yet, even when they were given a range of options, the majority would not vote for any of them. That was taking the piss and they paid the price in 2019.
Which, while messy, is how democracy works, is it not ?
Technically advisory but in reality mandatory, in a political sense, may well be a fair description. The public certainly showed they found 2 years of Brexit delays distasteful.
Thats why ignoring the technical reality and crying about people attempting to overturn it is so weird. They did have the right, there is zero question about that, but the public slapped them down for doing so. So there's no need to get a rage boner about the legal permissability of the attempt. Just point to the GE.
Right. The Remainers had a democratic opportunity to convince the voters Brexit was a terrible mistake, and the voters elected Johnson as PM to get on with it instead. The question was asked and answered.
If the voters had agreed that Brexit was an enormous mess best forgotten about they could have elected Swinson as PM, and they would have been perfectly entitled to make that choice.
Obviously I'd rather a different outcome, but it seems to be the democratic system working as intended. And Starmer has moved on now, so you'd think the side that won should be able to do the same.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.
Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.
The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
A multi-party multi-isuue general election can't overturn a binary single-issue referendum - certainly not one which returned the biggest democratic vote in British history. And definitely not when both main parties were committed at the election to implementing the referendum result (even if SKS and Corbyn u-turned on their pledge PDQ).
Yes it can. This government is now overturning its own mega election winning big policy passed into law 2 years ago. Parliament is sovereign and can do anything it likes. Thats the entire point of the sovereignty point - make the UK parliament unimpeded by outsiders to do as it wishes.
If you want to argue that such a thing is bloody stupid I would be in full agreement with you. It is *politically* silly for Johnson to be overthrowing his own manifesto pledge to implement the will of the people. The same for the 2017 parliament managing to agree to literally no option at all and stalemate itself. But that is what people voted for in electing a hung parliament.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.
Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.
The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
A multi-party multi-isuue general election can't overturn a binary single-issue referendum - certainly not one which returned the biggest democratic vote in British history. And definitely not when both main parties were committed at the election to implementing the referendum result (even if SKS and Corbyn u-turned on their pledge PDQ).
Yes it can. This government is now overturning its own mega election winning
Election winning. Not referendum winning. So this doesn't disprove my point.
Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.
That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.
Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.
As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.
Therein lies much of the problem that haunted post-Referendum politics at Westminster. Many MPs just would not accept that a Referendum, often with a higher turnout than they achieved to get elected, was in any way an equivalent - let alone dominant on a single issue - form of democracy.
So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
The problem was the conflict between the GE and the referendum. An elected MP would legitimately say - but my constituents want X so I am not going to vote against their wishes because that's why I'm here. You say one outranked the other but that is open to debate and certainly AFAIA not written down anywhere.
Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.
But there was no conflict between the referendum and any GE.
2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum. 2016 referendum: Majority for leave. 2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit. 2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.
Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.
The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
Parliament is sovereign and can do anything it likes. Thats the entire point of the sovereignty point - make the UK parliament unimpeded by outsiders to do as it wishes.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.
Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.
The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
You're misremembering - Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.
No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU. Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
I just looked at my phone Photos for November 2020 ... at no stage do any of them look like this. Try it with your photos... if you can find a party with raised glasses you probably were a Tory politician or SPAD .. that's how bad it is https://mobile.twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1528835927279288322
I looked, and found pictures of only two people I don’t live with, for the entire month. FWIW.
Its the whole drinking at work culture which surprises me.
I've not seen any alcohol drunk at my workplace for over 20 years or any work sponsored pub lunches for over 10 years.
I thought this was also the general trend throughout the country.
But not it seems in Downing Street.
Downing Street is a totally different scenario to 99% of workplaces. It is virtually 24/7 and work blends into play which blends into the family life, of the occupants: they all intertwine. This is not some hideous innovation by BoJo and Carrie, if you read Bad Al Campbell’s excellent diaries of the Blair years, the same thing happened then
You get scenes where at 7am Al bursts in on Blair who is naked from the shower but they carry on talking about political issues anyway, and making decisions, then in the evening on busy days (and Covid in 2020 must have made them incredibly busy) the booze comes out at 8pm even as they carry on toiling, gossiping, eating takeaway
Judging by those diaries Number 10 and 11 are fun places to work IF you can tolerate long and intense hours and sometimes do all nighters, the upside of the hard yakka is that its all extremely interesting, and you can get drunk at your desk from time to time
Now it is highly arguable this culture should have stopped for Covid, but I can see why it didn’t, and why Partygate (and Kormagate) occurred
I get the impression that the booze has been coming out a lot earlier than 8pm.
In fact I get the impression that the booze is always out.
This might be deemed acceptable in Downing Street but it seems they don't even have the sense to not send emails encouraging it or not get their mobiles out to provide evidence of it.
Churchill STARTED the day at Number 10 with a neat whisky. He called it his “mouthwash”
It is remarkable to think that we won WW2 with a PM who was half cut virtually all the time
Perhaps we'd have won sooner if he'd drank less. Interesting counterfactual. Sober on-the-ball Churchill, Nazis beaten by late 43. So many lives saved. And buildings.
Churchill, I believe, said that he took more out of drink than the other way round. And the whisky was well-watered down. I guess he had to live a regime which allowed him to function optimally and it suited him to have a drink presumably as stimulant or relaxant as circumstances required.
Been reading the Chips Channon diaries recently which cover the war years. He was no fan of Churchill (Chamberlainite) but certainly gave WSC credit for his bravura performances in the Commons and his enormous energy. If he had a perceptible alcohol problem it would certainly have been mentioned.
Surely not arguing about the EU referendum again. It only needs 4 words. Leave won, we left.
The sad thing is that the way Leave apologists bang on you would think they had lost. Maybe it is because they realise that what they "won" was a pile of pointless horseshit that has made us all worse off economically and politically.
Technically advisory but in reality mandatory, in a political sense, may well be a fair description. The public certainly showed they found 2 years of Brexit delays distasteful.
Thats why ignoring the technical reality and crying about people attempting to overturn it is so weird. They did have the right, there is zero question about that, but the public slapped them down for doing so. So there's no need to get a rage boner about the legal permissability of the attempt. Just point to the GE.
What really ticked me off was the fact that almost everyone in the remainer Parliament had been elected on the basis that they would respect the vote. And yet, even when they were given a range of options, the majority would not vote for any of them. That was taking the piss and they paid the price in 2019.
And I think many people took that view. Some, like Clarke, really did seek to support what they considered the least harmful Brexit, but others were just going for reversal, like Grieve, even if they pretended otherwise.
None of which alters legal facts, but the legal fact was not the most significant part of the debate. Remainers didn't help their case by emphasising it was advisory, since though true it didnt change that people expected action.
I've always felt in this country the official position is more that power flows down from crown to parliament to the people. But of course that sounds bad and in practice it goes the other way, from people up. (Note, this is not proper legal analysis).
That's one reason parliament can technically do pretty much anything it likes, but in reality cannot. People wouldnt stand for it.
Technically advisory but in reality mandatory, in a political sense, may well be a fair description. The public certainly showed they found 2 years of Brexit delays distasteful.
Thats why ignoring the technical reality and crying about people attempting to overturn it is so weird. They did have the right, there is zero question about that, but the public slapped them down for doing so. So there's no need to get a rage boner about the legal permissability of the attempt. Just point to the GE.
What really ticked me off was the fact that almost everyone in the remainer Parliament had been elected on the basis that they would respect the vote. And yet, even when they were given a range of options, the majority would not vote for any of them. That was taking the piss and they paid the price in 2019.
Which, while messy, is how democracy works, is it not ?
Yes. But the conduct of Grieve et al was still pretty shoddy.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.
Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.
The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
I simultaneously both agree and disagree with Leon here.
Yes anyone elected on a pledge to reverse the referendum is legitimate. That is right.
The problem with Starmer, Grieve etc is they weren't. They were elected on a pledge of honouring the referendum in 2017, so they were not just going against the referendum, they were also going against their own election materials and manifesto in 2017.
In 2019 Grieve and Starmer etc stood on a manifesto of seeking to reverse the referendum unlike two years earlier, had they won that election then fair enough, but they didn't and indeed they quite emphatically didn't so the rest is history.
Yeah, but unlike Tories such as Gauke and Grieve who were in the party who won the 2017 election, Labour lost that election and thus were no more bound by their manifesto than they are now by Corbyn's plans to plans to part-nationalise BT and give everyone free broadband.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.
Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.
The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
I simultaneously both agree and disagree with Leon here.
Yes anyone elected on a pledge to reverse the referendum is legitimate. That is right.
The problem with Starmer, Grieve etc is they weren't. They were elected on a pledge of honouring the referendum in 2017, so they were not just going against the referendum, they were also going against their own election materials and manifesto in 2017.
In 2019 Grieve and Starmer etc stood on a manifesto of seeking to reverse the referendum unlike two years earlier, had they won that election then fair enough, but they didn't and indeed they quite emphatically didn't so the rest is history.
Indeed. Now lets take that same theme and rationale and look at this parliament. The 2019 election was won on a Tory manifesto to implement the deal. In the introduction Boris Johnson said this:
"With a new Parliament and a sensible majority Government, we can get that deal through in days. It is oven-ready and every single Conservative MP elected at this election, all 365 of them, have pledged to vote for this deal immediately." https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/introduction-from-boris-johnson
They did vote for it, and it became law. Now we are about to get legislation to overturn the heart of this deal. Set aside for a minute your personal support for said overturning and go back to the theme you raised, where MPs are elected on a pledge to deliver their programme.
Parliament is so sovereign that it doesn't even have to wait until the next one to overturn bad laws, even if those were manifesto pledges that secured a whopping majority to secure it into law.
Overturning the oven-ready deal directly contradicts what these MPs pledged to do. Which as you say is a problem politically. And yet the same people who attack Grieve et al for their actions in the 2017 parliament are very likely to cheer on Matt Vickers et al for overturning the main thing they ran on.
So, your principled theme raised I accept - if it is evenly applied at all times. As it is not, I have to point this out. People's outrage at MPs doing the opposite of what they voted for is only a problem if they don't like those actions, but is fine if they do. Which means it isn't a principle at all.
Technically advisory but in reality mandatory, in a political sense, may well be a fair description. The public certainly showed they found 2 years of Brexit delays distasteful.
Thats why ignoring the technical reality and crying about people attempting to overturn it is so weird. They did have the right, there is zero question about that, but the public slapped them down for doing so. So there's no need to get a rage boner about the legal permissability of the attempt. Just point to the GE.
What really ticked me off was the fact that almost everyone in the remainer Parliament had been elected on the basis that they would respect the vote. And yet, even when they were given a range of options, the majority would not vote for any of them. That was taking the piss and they paid the price in 2019.
That is a misleading definition of majority imo. The vast, vast majority of MPs did vote for one of the Brexit options, just not together on the same options.
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
God, you and Brexit. Just let it go. Boris should go for numerous reasons that are post Brexit. Nobody mentions it anymore except you in the context of getting rid of Boris. Literally nobody at all.
It is absurd to pretend that Boris-hatred isn’t driven, largely (but not always) by Brexit
And Boris-hatred is sustaining this tedious half-arsed scandal about booze-ups during lockdown, which made me angry for a bit in early 2022, but about which I now just can’t be arsed, as they say, especially as Labour have been just as devious and hypocritical
The PM is a lying chancer possibly undermining democracy, Starmer is a boring liar who wanted to cancel democracy with a 2nd referendum
In 2024 we will have to choose between these two unsavoury characters. Hey ho
Nonsense. Just to name a few leavers that immediately come to mind that want to see Boris gone: MarqueeMark, BartholomewRoberts, Casino_Royale, etc, etc. Look at the MPs like Steve Baker. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.
And the comments about Starmer are just tosh. I am no Starmer fan. I have never ever voted Labour, but there are no grounds to call him a liar (so far )
You are just driven mad by Brexit. God knows why. I am a passionate Remainer, but I accepted it. What is wrong with you; you won. Why can't you accept it.
Starmer is a lying c*** who wanted to overturn the biggest vote in British history, by ignoring it. He literally wanted to demolish democracy by telling all the thick racist Leavers “No, your vote didn’t count, so we’re having another one, until you get it right”
There’s no getting around it. This is what he did. And he was Shadow Secretary for Brexit. I can see why Starmer is desperate for everyone to forget this and “move on”. But some of us will not. He needs to grovel and apologise and ask for our forgiveness
Well for someone who writes for a living I think you are struggling to understand the meaning of lying. Now there is a debate on the ethics of a 2nd referendum which I can see you are slightly on one side of, but that is not lying. That is proposing something you bitterly don't like. Lying is when you say something that is untrue. No wonder you are confused about Boris.
I also note you actually ignored the principle point of my post showing your principle statement was false and attacked the minor (actually quite irrelevant) point I made about Starmer not lying (yet).
Just to reiterate the main point, this forum is full of leavers who want Boris to go (and bizarrely Remainers who want him to stay) as is Parliament, which proves you point is utter nonsense.
Starmer in 2016 said the vote MUST be respected. By 2019 he was saying the vote MUST be disrespected - ie, ignored and set aside and we have a new vote to supersede it
He didn’t just lie, he was the embodiment of a disgusting Trumpite coup that nearly won the day, and which would have shattered our democracy forever, by telling people there literally is no point in voting, as “they” can just ignore it
And now, I’m having some tea. Kalimera
You do know there was a general election in 2017? In the 2015 parliament which held the (advisory) referendum there was no real debate that they just take it under advisement. It would be enacted.
And then we had an election. And that parliament can do whatever the hell it likes. This parliament isn't just free to overturn anything it likes from any other previous parliament including 2017 and 2015, they are overturning manifesto pledge laws passed a couple of years ago in this parliament.
Is Johnson putting laws to parliament to overturn chunks of the core of the manifesto "oven-ready deal" also a "disgusting Trumpite coup"?
In no sense was the vote “advisory”. Anyone trying to use the word “advisory” as a way of justifying their anti-democratic 2nd vote c*ntishness should be thrown in the sewer
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking to the British people, from Chatham House, in 2015
'Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum... You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.'
Cameron goes on to say this:
'So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.'
That’s it. Starmer is a vile piece of work
In a very legal reality the vote was advisory. I can post you the statute law proving this if you like. And in a very direct sense the word of Cameron had validity only whilst he was PM - and he quit.
Anyway, back to the points I raised. The 2015 parliament committed to progressing with the result. Then we had an election. Which is not bound by anything by any previous parliament. So its perfectly valid for that parliament to seek to act as it sees fit on this and any issue.
To demonstrate this simply, this government in this parliament is to bring forward laws to overturn laws passed by itself just 2 years ago. Laws which were a manifesto promise at the heart of the Tories successful election campaign. It is demonstrably against what people voted for, yet it is also perfectly valid because parliament is sovereign.
I've never understood, even when I was a leaver, wht the advisory point caused such consternation. It is legal fact as the authorising act did not make it binding. Ministerial statements otherwise are not law.
Now, that does not make the public expectation irrelevant, and one could and many did make the argument that morally it was binding. And the public when asked, in proxy fashion, for their view again made it clear (whilst people can quibble over percentages, they could have voted in a way to get a second referendum government instead) that they wanted it done.
It doesnt mean people cannot be outraged at the attempts to overturn the referendum, or think it a stupid idea. Or thinking that it being legally advisory was secondary to the political and moral imperative to do it. But advisory it most definitely was.
So why lose one's shit over that fact? It being advisory didnt mean the arguments for Brexit were meaningless, and the attempts to override it failed because the public also didnt care legally it was advisory.
It's because it was only used by those showing contempt for the stupid racist plebs who voted the wrong way. Nobody would have dismissed the biggest democratic vote in British history as "advisory" (translation: "we can ignore this") had it been the other way.
Why? Advisory is advisory. Cameron's government didn't even need to hold the referendum if a majority of MPs were willing to vote for a bill to withdraw from the EU. Parliament already had the power.
Technically advisory, but in reality mandatory: the people are the boss of Parliament, not the other way round.
Yep. So politically mandatory on the 2015 parliament.
Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.
The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
You're misremembering - Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.
No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU. Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
"Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal".
In one sentence you have absolved Team Johnson/ Team ERG of the fiasco that is Brexit.
To work with Boris Johnson is to encounter something dark, sinister and totally without soul. It is a destructive experience that makes you doubt your very sanity. Sympathy therefore for the good people of Whitehall. I found that the only salvation is to tell what you've seen.
I think I am less offended by Johnson's behaviour than the Met. Police intervening and then taking virtually no action against Johnson and no action against Case. Either by cock-up or conspiracy their action saved Johnson.
Those who cooperated with Gray were banged to rights, those who didn't got off scott free. On what did the Met. spend their £460,000?
You are still posting this defamatory crap about the police, but I am not aware you answered my question. Do you have evidence the police saw todays photos? Downing Street merely say the police had access to them, whilst the police silent.
Secondly, I am not calling you out as a liar when you posted this “ I believe Starmer did technically breach the rules from the evidence I have read and will get a fixed penalty notice. The evidence is they had their meal, with a beer after work, they were not socially distanced and there were too many people at the event.” but I am asking you to share with us your evidence they had booze together after work, by how many people they were over what was clearly stated in the rules, and there was no social distancing at all as required.
"Defamatory Crap" my arse. The establishment looks after itself, always has done.
Where’s you’re evidence the police have Seen these photo’s before today?
Paul Brant on ITV, who broke the story believes similar photos of the event are integral to Gray's evidence and the old bill were given everything she had.
It's a judgement call from the detectives, they may have deduced that despite half a dozen empty bottles of wine, sparkling wine and spirits alongside spent glasses, Johnson's ministerial box jauntily flung to the floor meant he was still at work.
You’ve made your point very clear - but what you just typed there, do you actually believe it? Alternately you can believe what the investigation lead said last week, the key determinant to each FPN issued was to be sure it was correct to issue (and not challenged and overturned) everybody in the media seemed to believe this meant was FPN by being in photograph. The point you are making in this mini discussion with me you yourself are admitting “similar photos to these” in other words “you are stonkingly right again MoonRabbit, until today the police have not seen these particular photos”.
I don’t want to come over all Sherlock, but what alerted me to it was the haste Downing Street hit the microphones this evening to claim “the police had access to all photos”
Moonrabbit, I am amongst other things a sad, low level masonic conspiracy theorist having been "tucked up" by a couple of Freemasons at work over two decades ago. So when I see egregious incompetence like Kenny Noye's acquittal for killing a police officer surveilling his premises because evidence was corrupted, and Noye was a Mason, or incompetent South Wales Police officers "losing" evidence to collapse the trial of the detectives who allegedly "fitted up" the men convicted in the Lynette White case, I ask the question "is Boris Johnson a Freemason"?
Cock up or conspiracy, who knows? But even this far from Scotland Yard the investigation from beginning to end smells rank.
Not every whitewash in this world is due to Freemasons Pete. You need to be able to separate truth from conspiracys and not use broad brushes to tar good people. You also need to acknowledge all the good work Masons do in the world - do you have less positive thoughts about George Washington on basis he was a Mason?
I’m more confident the police when they speak will say they never saw this photo, and it’s as honest as that from their point of view.
Of course the referendum wasn't advisory. No government could have not implemented it. Cameron thought he would win so paid lip service to the details.
That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.
Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritatng, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.
As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.
Agitating to overturn a referendum because you don't like the answer, without even enacting the first vote - the biggest vote in British political history - is so far from democracy it disappears up the backside of Jolyon Maugham and THEN weirdly disappears up the colon of Keir Starmer, whence it appears out of his tiny mouth, in the mealy mouthed words "a people's vote!"
The German parliament passed the Enabling Act. "Democratically". The supporters of Trump marched on the Capitol, as is their "democratic" right
Neither of these was democratic, in essence
We need a truth and reconciliation committee in which Remainers confess their sins before being publicly horse-whipped for 6 solid weeks, 18 hours a day, in Fitzroy Square W1, while Leavers will have to admit that the whole bus thing was *kinda stretching it*, and they aren't allowed proper coffee for 3 days
I’m not belittling the “crime”, though as scandals go we’ve all seen far worse. And I am sure SW1 bubble-types can still get excited by this, but for the public the flogged horse is not just dead it is entombed
And the fact there is a very similar photo of Starmer, bottle raised, clearly breaking the rules (as Boris broke the rules) makes it all a wash
Boris AND Starmer will survive. Either could be PM in 24
Bones of four hundred councillors lie strewn about its lair. Yes. People care.
Anyone who was going to get all hot and bothered by this is already super-hot and extremely bothered, this won’t suddenly tip over into ultra-galactic white-hot hotness and mega-cosmic botheredness from the constellation Bothered, You Bet. Anyone who was going to switch votes or opinions on the basis of this, has already done so
The ones left frothing, as @DavidL suggests, are Boris-haters, and they are generally embittered Remoaners. They want their revenge; I doubt this will provide it
They are desperate to get rid of Johnson as the left were desperate to get rid of Thatcher in 1990 and the right desperately wanted to get rid of Blair in 2007. However the reason was not what was really suggested, the reason they really wanted to get rid of them was because they were winners and indeed landslide general election winners.
Once rid of Thatcher Labour was able to win 3 out of 4 of the following general elections. Once rid of Blair the Conservatives were able to win all 4 of the following general elections too.
Tories should be wary of advice from OGH and non Tories to get rid of Boris, their most successful general election winner since Thatcher. They do not have the longterm interests of the Conservative party in mind
I can see why they stick with Johnson at this point TBH. I think if Johnson fights the next election against Starmer he's still likely to get at least 260 seats like Brown got in 2010 and possibly still be level pegging in the popular vote with Labour even if the Tories are ultimately sunk by tactical voting.
He still has a lot of core support in places like the West Midlands which is Labour's achilles heel.
Technically advisory but in reality mandatory, in a political sense, may well be a fair description. The public certainly showed they found 2 years of Brexit delays distasteful.
Thats why ignoring the technical reality and crying about people attempting to overturn it is so weird. They did have the right, there is zero question about that, but the public slapped them down for doing so. So there's no need to get a rage boner about the legal permissability of the attempt. Just point to the GE.
What really ticked me off was the fact that almost everyone in the remainer Parliament had been elected on the basis that they would respect the vote. And yet, even when they were given a range of options, the majority would not vote for any of them. That was taking the piss and they paid the price in 2019.
Which is our parliamentary system in perfect action. We elect representatives, and if we dislike their actions we can elect someone different. As so many good MPs found out when the electorate removed them and replaced them with spanners as so many 2019 Tory intake MPs are.
Technically advisory but in reality mandatory, in a political sense, may well be a fair description. The public certainly showed they found 2 years of Brexit delays distasteful.
Thats why ignoring the technical reality and crying about people attempting to overturn it is so weird. They did have the right, there is zero question about that, but the public slapped them down for doing so. So there's no need to get a rage boner about the legal permissability of the attempt. Just point to the GE.
What really ticked me off was the fact that almost everyone in the remainer Parliament had been elected on the basis that they would respect the vote. And yet, even when they were given a range of options, the majority would not vote for any of them. That was taking the piss and they paid the price in 2019.
And I think many people took that view. Some, like Clarke, really did seek to support what they considered the least harmful Brexit, but others were just going for reversal, like Grieve, even if they pretended otherwise.
The problem was, by 2017-8 there was essentially only one Brexit possible as May had ruled out most possibilities before the 2017 election and negotiated on that basis. So calls in the 2017-19 parliament for any other form of Brexit were, in essence, a call for the negotiations to restart from square one, which was never going to happen and they knew it was never going to happen.
“COVID-19 was the leading cause of death in England and Wales in 2020 and provisionally in 2021, ahead of Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Flu and pneumonia were the seventh leading cause in both years.
“Around one in eight deaths from all causes had COVID-19 as the underlying cause in 2020 and 2021 (13.5% and 12.9% respectively).”
And: “Deaths due to COVID-19 have occurred more evenly across age groups than deaths due to flu and pneumonia. However, in both cases, the majority of deaths have been among the oldest.”
“Between March 2020 and March 2022, almost three-quarters (73.7%) of deaths due to flu and pneumonia in England and Wales occurred among those aged 80 years and over, compared with 58.3% of deaths due to COVID-19.”
“roughly 1 in 12 (7.9%) deaths due to COVID-19 were among those aged below 60 years, compared with 1 in 20 (5.0%) deaths due to flu and pneumonia.”
And: “COVID-19 was the underlying cause of 73,766 deaths in 2020 and 67,258 deaths in 2021. The last time that deaths due to flu and pneumonia reached similar levels was 1929 (73,212 deaths).
“The most severe outbreak occurred in 1918, the year of the “Spanish flu” pandemic, when there were more than 170,000 deaths.
“An average of around 43,000 people died due to flu and pneumonia each year during the 20th century. With widespread vaccination introduced in 2000, the average number of deaths due to flu and pneumonia each year has since dropped below 30,000.
“The number of deaths due to flu and pneumonia fell below 20,000 in 2020 for the first time since 1948, before reaching a record low of 16,237 in 2021. This decrease during the coronavirus pandemic could be linked to restrictions that limited social contact.”
Comments
And even then, they wouldn't have been demanding the government ignore the result and just leave the EU anyway.
If I'd kept him on, having known that he must have been over the limit while driving for us, and he'd hit a child months later and it came out that I had kept him on after knowing he was over the limit - that would have been devastating both economically, but also morally I couldn't live with that.
How coronavirus (COVID-19) compares with flu as a cause of death
The number of deaths with coronavirus (COVID-19) as the underlying cause has fallen from previous peaks, but it remains higher than the number caused by flu and pneumonia. Is it time to view COVID-19 as we do the flu?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/howcoronaviruscovid19compareswithfluasacauseofdeath/2022-05-23
What's the train journey time and frequency of service?
I suspect I know the answer but it's best to have it confirmed.
The logical endpoint would be that if I ever wrote a novel, it could only be about the relatively dull travails of a recently separated 55 year old white bloke in the NE of England.
The point is, surely, does it denigrate or demean? Does it show a completely stereotyped ignorance, deliberate or otherwise, of the subject it is parodying?
I would argue not.
The latter point is why I feel the role of slapping is integral in these instances.
presented with that a tribunal will apply common sense because that is actually what they do...
At the moment it is "allegedly", by tomorrow Johnson will have denied it and by Friday he will be proved to be lying again.
Morally, yes. In line with employment law, no i dont think so.
Id have gone for 'manage him out of his job'
https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/ishybridworkingheretostay
Of course you can do a lot more to encourage public transport use outside London, especially in other cities, through investment, coordination of services and subsidies and I would like the government to do a lot more in this regard. Driving is convenient but wasteful and is very unhealthy - it's a big reason for why people outside London are such fat knackers.
Buses are about every 5 minutes but obviously much slower, journey time up to an hour in the peak.
I await your argument that Farage wasn't the type of person to "get traction".
Edit: the rest is supposition and, I'm guessing (IANAL) that not provable and arguably he had grounds for appeal.
If no crime committed, how can the evidence be used?
For the record I just searched my archives and found the dismissal letter I sent that the lawyers wrote for us. Not only was the case not taken to tribunal, but its worth noting that the lawyers inserted a paragraph giving a right to appeal and details on how to raise an appeal (which they always did pro forma in all dismissal letters I ever handled). Since there was no appeal, I expect that would have also aided if it had gone to Tribunal.
Edit: also saddened that the Mail isn't heaping opprobrium on HM for riding in a foreign left hand drive buggy. What's wrong with good old British mobility buggies?
P.s. check your data protection, how long ago was this?
It's hardly a surprise that our neighbour still drove everywhere when he was 91. Giving up driving entailed selling his home of 43 years. Which, sadly for all, he had to do.
Going from memory it was something like 67 parts against a limit of 70 or something along those lines, seriously close. That combined with the 4 hours combined with his testimony that all alcohol was consumed before the shift was sufficient in my eyes, and the lawyers too.
I thought provision existed in DD laws for countback ("retrograde extrapolation"). So just under the limit after 4 hours driving would be damning.
Am I wrong in that?
Such a line connecting the Lancashire/Yorkshire metropolitan centres would have been of massive economic benefit. And might have indicated government gave a damn about anything outside of London.
He wants to refight old battles until everyone who voted the other way grovels in front of him and tells him that the mess which he got is a splendid thing.
Best leave him alone when he’s in this mood. It’s not addressable by reasoned argument.
There's more mainly pro forma words on the letter of course, but again I'm wary of putting anything identifiable on a public forum. This is probably getting as close to the line as I feel comfortable discussing now, so any further specific communication I'd prefer on private messages if you have any more specific questions than that.
So, hypothetically, if a police officer reported that they had got a breath reading of 30, when the legal limit in England is 35, they are entitled to operate on that basis. Generally speaking a person of roughly average weight and with a fairly normal liver will lose 15mcgms an hour, roughly 1 unit of alcohol. So when he started his shift it would be reasonable to conclude his reading was 90, more than twice the legal limit. Even if you took a more conservative view of the numbers he was clearly well over.
The police cannot get a conviction on this basis because they have to go on what they found but an employer is entitled to reach a conclusion on the balance of probabilities and it is only unfair if it is a conclusion they could not reasonably have reached. Most unfair dismissal decisions are procedural but if he is given notice of the evidence and a chance to explain it or challenge it (I wasn't even on shift that day, it must have been someone else using my name, for example) together with a right of appeal the dismissal is very likely to have been found to have been fair, in my view.
I did do a case like this for an employer many years ago but it never went to a hearing because the employee abandoned the case before it got there.
That said, any flavour of "leaving the EU" would have also been legitimate eg EEA (although I have my doubts, expressed at the time, about that). Anti-immigrationers would have hated it but would that have put us in a worse place, divided nation-wise, than we are now? Probably, possibly not.
Also, for the nth time, a second referendum would not have been undemocratic. Hugely administratively awkward, irritating, unwieldy and probably unworkable if there was one every week, but not undemocratic. No vote asking "the people" (the same people who had voted previously) to opine on something could be undemocratic.
As for parliament "trying to frustrate democracy", parliament is democracy. They are voted there by the people to make decisions so by definition everything they did was democratic.
will now be cross that they are about to scrap significant chunks of it?
Then we had an election. Where the 2017 parliament is not bound by anything from any previous parliament. As demonstrated by this parliament now torching its own 2 year old manifesto pledge laws.
The concept of "politically mandatory" ceased to have any meaning once the government announced it would pass laws to abolish its own laws implemented to enact the central manifesto pledge of the oven-ready deal.
But this referendum, the way Cameron designed it? I find it difficult to argue. But then, Cameron didn't care about settling the issue fairly and decisively either way - he wanted to win a referendum for Remain by whatever narrow margin possible and then deem the matter settled. "Once in a generation", he said.
At current market rates they’re suddenly immensely profitable.
Yes anyone elected on a pledge to reverse the referendum is legitimate. That is right.
The problem with Starmer, Grieve etc is they weren't. They were elected on a pledge of honouring the referendum in 2017, so they were not just going against the referendum, they were also going against their own election materials and manifesto in 2017.
In 2019 Grieve and Starmer etc stood on a manifesto of seeking to reverse the referendum unlike two years earlier, had they won that election then fair enough, but they didn't and indeed they quite emphatically didn't so the rest is history.
So they dicked around for four years, with their own General Election mandates giving them an authority to do so.
Thats why ignoring the technical reality and crying about people attempting to overturn it is so weird. They did have the right, there is zero question about that, but the public slapped them down for doing so. So there's no need to get a rage boner about the legal permissability of the attempt. Just point to the GE.
There are also the more interesting metropolitan area transport systems, and light rail beyond that. Trams - light rail etc. The one in Nottingham now does around 50-60 journeys per member of the population per year pre-Covid. And it only covers part of the city so far.
Once more of the City is covered, that may be working towards the frequency of use of public transport in London. The London Underground equivalent is something like 100-120 journeys per pop per year (1.2 billion / 8-12 million), but obvs with a far higher proportion of tourists etc.
Very estimated figures, but in the same ballpark. So an interesting few years ahead.
BJ should be using MA networks as part of levelling up. Connecting local depressed spots to the local centre has much value. Not sure that he is.
Brexit was for the little people.
The how? Sure. But not the what.
Having referendums in (our in particular) parliamentary system is problematic to say the least.
Good article: https://consoc.org.uk/publications/tension-parliamentary-democracy-referendums/
If the voters had agreed that Brexit was an enormous mess best forgotten about they could have elected Swinson as PM, and they would have been perfectly entitled to make that choice.
Obviously I'd rather a different outcome, but it seems to be the democratic system working as intended. And Starmer has moved on now, so you'd think the side that won should be able to do the same.
If you want to argue that such a thing is bloody stupid I would be in full agreement with you. It is *politically* silly for Johnson to be overthrowing his own manifesto pledge to implement the will of the people. The same for the 2017 parliament managing to agree to literally no option at all and stalemate itself. But that is what people voted for in electing a hung parliament.
Interesting
To me implies the brand is not tarnished to the point of irrecoverable. Many still expect a win, its not unthinkably daft like 97
2015 election: Majority elected on pledge to hold and respect the referendum.
2016 referendum: Majority for leave.
2017 election: Nearly 600 out of 650 MPs elected on pledge to respect the referendum result and implement Brexit.
2019 election: 80 seat majority to Get Brexit Done.
Leavers essentially had to win 4 elections or referendum and they won all 4 of them. Had any of the 4 elections or referendum turned out differently, we'd have never left.
The conflict in 2017 was the hundreds of MPs elected promising to respect the results, but who didn't. They paid the price electorally for their deceit two years later.
Labour never ran the 2017 election on any sort of remain platform. Elected Labour MPs did a bait & switch which is why they got absolubtely walloped in places like Bassetlaw in 2019.
No good has come of Brexit so far as I can tell, but it was voted for - it would have been unconscionable to remain in the EU.
Remain MPs should have accepted May's deal. It was the best (From a remain perspective) they were ever going to achieve.
Been reading the Chips Channon diaries recently which cover the war years. He was no fan of Churchill (Chamberlainite) but certainly gave WSC credit for his bravura performances in the Commons and his enormous energy. If he had a perceptible alcohol problem it would certainly have been mentioned.
None of which alters legal facts, but the legal fact was not the most significant part of the debate. Remainers didn't help their case by emphasising it was advisory, since though true it didnt change that people expected action.
I've always felt in this country the official position is more that power flows down from crown to parliament to the people. But of course that sounds bad and in practice it goes the other way, from people up. (Note, this is not proper legal analysis).
That's one reason parliament can technically do pretty much anything it likes, but in reality cannot. People wouldnt stand for it.
"With a new Parliament and a sensible majority Government, we can get that deal through in days. It is oven-ready and every single Conservative MP elected at this election, all 365 of them, have pledged to vote for this deal immediately." https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/introduction-from-boris-johnson
They did vote for it, and it became law. Now we are about to get legislation to overturn the heart of this deal. Set aside for a minute your personal support for said overturning and go back to the theme you raised, where MPs are elected on a pledge to deliver their programme.
Parliament is so sovereign that it doesn't even have to wait until the next one to overturn bad laws, even if those were manifesto pledges that secured a whopping majority to secure it into law.
Overturning the oven-ready deal directly contradicts what these MPs pledged to do. Which as you say is a problem politically. And yet the same people who attack Grieve et al for their actions in the 2017 parliament are very likely to cheer on Matt Vickers et al for overturning the main thing they ran on.
So, your principled theme raised I accept - if it is evenly applied at all times. As it is not, I have to point this out. People's outrage at MPs doing the opposite of what they voted for is only a problem if they don't like those actions, but is fine if they do. Which means it isn't a principle at all.
In one sentence you have absolved Team Johnson/ Team ERG of the fiasco that is Brexit.
I’m more confident the police when they speak will say they never saw this photo, and it’s as honest as that from their point of view.
The German parliament passed the Enabling Act. "Democratically". The supporters of Trump marched on the Capitol, as is their "democratic" right
Neither of these was democratic, in essence
We need a truth and reconciliation committee in which Remainers confess their sins before being publicly horse-whipped for 6 solid weeks, 18 hours a day, in Fitzroy Square W1, while Leavers will have to admit that the whole bus thing was *kinda stretching it*, and they aren't allowed proper coffee for 3 days
Never say I am not balanced and fair
He still has a lot of core support in places like the West Midlands which is Labour's achilles heel.
“COVID-19 was the leading cause of death in England and Wales in 2020 and provisionally in 2021, ahead of Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Flu and pneumonia were the seventh leading cause in both years.
“Around one in eight deaths from all causes had COVID-19 as the underlying cause in 2020 and 2021 (13.5% and 12.9% respectively).”
And: “Deaths due to COVID-19 have occurred more evenly across age groups than deaths due to flu and pneumonia. However, in both cases, the majority of deaths have been among the oldest.”
“Between March 2020 and March 2022, almost three-quarters (73.7%) of deaths due to flu and pneumonia in England and Wales occurred among those aged 80 years and over, compared with 58.3% of deaths due to COVID-19.”
“roughly 1 in 12 (7.9%) deaths due to COVID-19 were among those aged below 60 years, compared with 1 in 20 (5.0%) deaths due to flu and pneumonia.”
And: “COVID-19 was the underlying cause of 73,766 deaths in 2020 and 67,258 deaths in 2021. The last time that deaths due to flu and pneumonia reached similar levels was 1929 (73,212 deaths).
“The most severe outbreak occurred in 1918, the year of the “Spanish flu” pandemic, when there were more than 170,000 deaths.
“An average of around 43,000 people died due to flu and pneumonia each year during the 20th century. With widespread vaccination introduced in 2000, the average number of deaths due to flu and pneumonia each year has since dropped below 30,000.
“The number of deaths due to flu and pneumonia fell below 20,000 in 2020 for the first time since 1948, before reaching a record low of 16,237 in 2021. This decrease during the coronavirus pandemic could be linked to restrictions that limited social contact.”