Well done Gavin Williamson – politicalbetting.com

Malmesbury said:

I am reminded of the similar fishing expedition in the House of Lords. IIRC one DUP Lord said something on the lines of "What you are proposing is either illegal or should be. Go and never come back."

The rest drooled at the the thought of that sweet, sweet money...

Pulpstar said:

Malmesbury said:

I am reminded of the similar fishing expedition in the House of Lords. IIRC one DUP Lord said something on the lines of "What you are proposing is either illegal or should be. Go and never come back."

The rest drooled at the the thought of that sweet, sweet money...

Stephen Byers "cab for hire at £5,000 a day"

Pulpstar said:

I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

actually enforced.

It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

Theuniondivvie said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

Fpt

Of course a government of slave owners would be quite keen on the right to keep and bear arms, what with having to protect/control their living chattels.

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

carnforth said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Gavin Williamson is not very articulate is he?

Slightly interesting that "the public" (according to journalists) doesn't like MPs having second jobs (which of course they have immediately they become a minister), but same said public seems OK with hospital consultants having second jobs.

When will journalists do their jobs properly and start to scrutinise all walks of life that receive public money, including the medical profession?

I tried to hire a French academic once to do some consulting - just a couple of thousand euros worth. He said sorry, but we're not allowed. Apparently they are almost completely banned from outside work - with some exceptions such as collecting book royalties.

Theuniondivvie said:

A few folk left raging doubtless.



Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Gavin Williamson is not very articulate is he?

Nigel_Foremain said:

When will journalists do their jobs properly and start to scrutinise all walks of life that receive public money, including the medical profession?

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

Malmesbury said:

Pulpstar said:

Malmesbury said:

I am reminded of the similar fishing expedition in the House of Lords. IIRC one DUP Lord said something on the lines of "What you are proposing is either illegal or should be. Go and never come back."

The rest drooled at the the thought of that sweet, sweet money...

Stephen Byers "cab for hire at £5,000 a day"

You can't buy politicians.

Bur you can rent them.

Driver said:

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

Oh yeah.

But lots of Americans like their guns, and they've managed to elect politicians who have selected judges who are willing to read the literal meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and nothing else.

Which I regret. But I don't see a point to denying it or wishing it away.

Malmesbury said:

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......

rcs1000 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pulpstar said:

Malmesbury said:

I am reminded of the similar fishing expedition in the House of Lords. IIRC one DUP Lord said something on the lines of "What you are proposing is either illegal or should be. Go and never come back."

The rest drooled at the the thought of that sweet, sweet money...

Stephen Byers "cab for hire at £5,000 a day"

You can't buy politicians.

Bur you can rent them.

An honest politician is one who, once bought, stays bought.

Malmesbury said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

It was bullshit from the start. The Minutemen were not much use against a professional army.

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......

The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.

rcs1000 said:

Nigelb said:

Malmesbury said:

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......

The extent of gun ownership in the early US is widely (and predictably hotly) debated, as is the primary purpose of state militias. Certainly as far as the latter was concerned, owning a musket was more of an obligation for militia members, rather than a right - arguably the amendment was intended to protect states' rights to maintain armed militias (though of course that's not easy separable form the individual right to bear arms).

What's fairly indisputable is that the early US had no problems at all with state laws restricting or regulating gun ownership.

Exactly: which is why the Supreme Court overturning a New York law that was a century old is so concerning.

malcolmg said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

actually enforced.

It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.

They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A few folk left raging doubtless.



Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

Reward for helping Humza get his job?

Robison introduced the GRR bill…..

I knew I could depend on you for the GRR angle.

She is a duffer among duffers as well, one of Sturgeon's besties surprise surprise.

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......

The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.

There is a view that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons that any individual can use to protect their rights, while heavy weapons are otential instruments of tyranny as they can only be operated by State officials. Hence no nukes.

Nigel_Foremain said:

malcolmg said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

actually enforced.

It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.

They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.

You are retired if I remember correctly? Or was it just long term unemployed?

malcolmg said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

actually enforced.

It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.

They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.

Nigelb said:

Pulpstar said:

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

Fpt

Of course a government of slave owners would be quite keen on the right to keep and bear arms, what with having to protect/control their living chattels.

The supporting views behind the 2A varied. A major one was not having a standing army - which was held to be immoral. The myth of the Minuteman was borne out of this hatred of a standing army, which in turn was seen as the feature of tyranny.

A lot of the opposition to slavery was around the idea of slave catching patrols and having a standing paramilitary force checking papers etc.

I had no idea "Minuteman" (I've looked it up now) referred to an early US militia. I've always associated the word with the ICBM.

Similarly the Copperhead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M712_Copperhead

Also, during the Civil War, a citizen in the North who opposed the war and advocated restoration of the Union through negotiated settlement with the South.
And of course a venomous snake.

tlg86 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Doctors hate punters. In evidence to the DCMS select committee:-

The BMA's submission included the eyecatching statement: "Doctors are concerned that the regulation of gambling is inadequate and does not prevent people becoming gamblers or effectively manage those who have developed problems."

Note the BMA is not just saying that regulation should just help prevent people from developing issues with their gambling, which nobody could disagree with, but that in fact regulation is "inadequate" for not preventing people from gambling full stop. It has evidently decided that gambling should be treated in the same way as tobacco.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/opinion/comment/tough-task-for-mps-as-christians-and-doctors-unite-in-calls-to-stamp-out-gambling-aWfN77n2olxr/

And I agree with them. As much as I am interested in betting, I think gambling adverts should be banned in the same way as tobacco adverts are banned.

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

Driver said:

algarkirk said:

malcolmg said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

actually enforced.

It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.

They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.

There's a decent case for treating MPs as trustees of the UK as a whole, and pay them only expenses. Or at best compensate for some of the time lost as if they were on jury service. They should sit part time. Proper salaries should be for their full time (non nepotistic) staff who should be treated as part of the civil service.

There would be no shortage of people willing to stand for election to do it.

The problem with that is that you'd only get MPs who can afford to do it for free.

Nigelb said:

DeSantis heading to Israel ahead of likely 2024 bid
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/28/ron-desantis-israel-trip-00089153
...“At a time of unnecessarily strained relations between Jerusalem and Washington, Florida serves as a bridge between the American and Israeli people,” DeSantis said in a statement.

Wut ?

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......

The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.

There is a view that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons that any individual can use to protect their rights, while heavy weapons are otential instruments of tyranny as they can only be operated by State officials. Hence no nukes.

Hmmmm

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

DeSantis heading to Israel ahead of likely 2024 bid
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/28/ron-desantis-israel-trip-00089153
...“At a time of unnecessarily strained relations between Jerusalem and Washington, Florida serves as a bridge between the American and Israeli people,” DeSantis said in a statement.

Wut ?

Florida DOES have a rather sizable, and politically significant, Jewish population.

PLUS fact that defending/touting Israel is a BIG DEAL for millions of evangelical Christians from sea to shining sea . . . and from South Beach to the Redneck Riviera . . .

Nigel_Foremain said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

Boris Johnson tried to get on top of his brief, but Lord Pannick said he was not that sort of chap. (it is a great name for a lawyer)

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......

The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.

There is a view that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons that any individual can use to protect their rights, while heavy weapons are otential instruments of tyranny as they can only be operated by State officials. Hence no nukes.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Fairliered said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

Boris Johnson tried to get on top of his brief, but Lord Pannick said he was not that sort of chap. (it is a great name for a lawyer)

There used to be a Glasgow law firm called Maclay, Murray and Spens, nicknamed Delay, Worry and Expense. There was a story doing the rounds at one time, that they refused to enter partnership with another well known Glasgow lawyer, Tom Risk, as being called Delay, Worry, Expense and Risk was a step too far.

Wasn't there also (genuinely) one in the midlands called Doolittle and Dally?

Emerald said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

DeSantis heading to Israel ahead of likely 2024 bid
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/28/ron-desantis-israel-trip-00089153
...“At a time of unnecessarily strained relations between Jerusalem and Washington, Florida serves as a bridge between the American and Israeli people,” DeSantis said in a statement.

Wut ?

Florida DOES have a rather sizable, and politically significant, Jewish population.

PLUS fact that defending/touting Israel is a BIG DEAL for millions of evangelical Christians from sea to shining sea . . . and from South Beach to the Redneck Riviera . . .

However there is also a sizeable portion of the MAGA crowd that dont like Jews much so this could work both ways for him.

Nigel_Foremain said:

malcolmg said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

malcolmg said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

actually enforced.

It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.

They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.

You are retired if I remember correctly? Or was it just long term unemployed?

Your little penis syndrome showing again. I am still working , have done for over 50 years arsewipe. I also make big bucks ( clue more than MP's albeit minus the expenses) as well and collect state pension. You really shoudl not assume people are like yourself.

lol. Yea right. I am sure your supervisory role returning the trolleys at Tescos pays better than I thought, but probably not that much. Still it gets you away from the wife I guess.

By the way, Baldrick, you may want to re-engage with the anger management course and stop shagging turnips so often . Over usage of viagra is a bad thing at your advancing age.

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

kamski said:

Driver said:

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

Surprising honesty from Republican congressman.

REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"

BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429

Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.

In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.

Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.

The original (ha ha) intent was -

"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.

This is true. However they wrote it in such a way that it can be split it into justification for a rule (the first half) and the rule itself ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.

It's obvious to anyone except a nut that the meaning of the words is that the state is not a pacifist one, and that it is not contrary to the public conscience for members of the state to be armed when appropriate, generally because they are members of the militia.

Pacifism could never be made compulsory. That's all really, if you read it intelligently.

If it meant what nut jobs say it means then it would be unconstitutional ever to stop anyone bearing arms in any circumstances. (Three year olds with machine guns, prisoners with guns etc).

Nope. They didn't mean it as an absolute right, just that in general people should be allowed to posses guns.

Essentially, they thought that the perfect army was the militia, who were awesome because they were allowed to possess and practise with guns. Disarming the people was seen as a thing that absolutist monarchies did.

Nearly all of that was wrong, but hey......

The people need guns to stop the government taking away their guns ... is how I've seen it expressed.

There is a view that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons that any individual can use to protect their rights, while heavy weapons are otential instruments of tyranny as they can only be operated by State officials. Hence no nukes.

It doesn't say "small arms" or "rifles and pistols". If the founders had meant to limit it to those weapons, then surely they would have said so.

Cassius Marcellus Clay used a cannon for office defence.....

algarkirk said:

malcolmg said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

I note Williamson has a 'job' with RTC education - how on earth is the stipulation (Similar is likely found amongst plenty of ex Gov't minister "jobs")

you should not draw on (disclose or use for the benefit of yourself or the persons or organisations to which this advice refers) any privileged information available to you from your time in ministerial office;

actually enforced.

It seems hopelessly naive from the ACoBO, why else would companies offer ministers offer Gov't and ex Gov't ministers "jobs" ?

MPs should be paid £150k per year, and banned from taking any other income that’s not directly related to maintaining professional qualifications.

They are overpaid as it is with most trousering 200K expenses on top, hiring family and half the year on holiday. The feckers should be forced to do 40 hours a week and that excluding the subsidised bars and restaurants. When on holiday need to prove they are working in constituency. Bunch of lazy good for nothing grifting barstewards.

There's a decent case for treating MPs as trustees of the UK as a whole, and pay them only expenses. Or at best compensate for some of the time lost as if they were on jury service. They should sit part time. Proper salaries should be for their full time (non nepotistic) staff who should be treated as part of the civil service.

There would be no shortage of people willing to stand for election to do it.

MarqueeMark said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Fairliered said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

Boris Johnson tried to get on top of his brief, but Lord Pannick said he was not that sort of chap. (it is a great name for a lawyer)

There used to be a Glasgow law firm called Maclay, Murray and Spens, nicknamed Delay, Worry and Expense. There was a story doing the rounds at one time, that they refused to enter partnership with another well known Glasgow lawyer, Tom Risk, as being called Delay, Worry, Expense and Risk was a step too far.

Wasn't there also (genuinely) one in the midlands called Doolittle and Dally?

There was Wright Hassell....

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Fairliered said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Kudos to Williamson. My wife, who is a great judge of character, met him once and said he was very nice and seemed on top of his brief.

Boris Johnson tried to get on top of his brief, but Lord Pannick said he was not that sort of chap. (it is a great name for a lawyer)

There used to be a Glasgow law firm called Maclay, Murray and Spens, nicknamed Delay, Worry and Expense. There was a story doing the rounds at one time, that they refused to enter partnership with another well known Glasgow lawyer, Tom Risk, as being called Delay, Worry, Expense and Risk was a step too far.

Wasn't there also (genuinely) one in the midlands called Doolittle and Dally?

There was Wright Hassell....

No was, still is a Wright Hassell.

My favourite (disbarred) solicitor, step forward Anal Sheikh.

https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/court-enema-vexatious-litigant-anal-sheikh

Emerald said:

malcolmg said:

Emerald said:

malcolmg said:

Fairliered said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A few folk left raging doubtless.



Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

Reward for helping Humza get his job?

Robison introduced the GRR bill…..

I knew I could depend on you for the GRR angle.

She is a duffer among duffers as well, one of Sturgeon's besties surprise surprise.

If Yousaf wanted to try to unite the SNP, he would have appointed Forbes as his deputy.

No way that arse would appoint her, he is a vindictive nasty git and will give her a crap job hoping she will fail, likely health that he has already wrecked.

do you know him personally?

I have seen the results of his efforts over the years and a 10 year old could have done no worse.

Interesting. We now have a man of south asian descent as scottish first minster, a man of indian descent as PM and a man of south asian descent as mayor of london.

Emerald said:

malcolmg said:

Emerald said:

malcolmg said:

Fairliered said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Theuniondivvie said:

A few folk left raging doubtless.



Istr at least one PBer who had professional contact with Robison found her pleasant and on top of her brief, but what would he know?

Reward for helping Humza get his job?

Robison introduced the GRR bill…..

I knew I could depend on you for the GRR angle.

She is a duffer among duffers as well, one of Sturgeon's besties surprise surprise.

If Yousaf wanted to try to unite the SNP, he would have appointed Forbes as his deputy.

No way that arse would appoint her, he is a vindictive nasty git and will give her a crap job hoping she will fail, likely health that he has already wrecked.

do you know him personally?

I have seen the results of his efforts over the years and a 10 year old could have done no worse.

Interesting. We now have a man of south asian descent as scottish first minster, a man of indian descent as PM and a man of south asian descent as mayor of london.