"Some people seem to get more upset at living near decent UKIP supporters than living near child molesters. It's a sign of some sort of mental sickness I think."
Talking of mental sickness is there no one who can put a stop to this man's prurient obsession? It's rapidly making this site unreadable.
Whilst none of my concern, I do wonder why people bother with personal defence on an anonymous internet forum. Nobody cares about the personal insults or the defence against them.
Just wondering if it possible to defame someone who posts under a pseudonym? I freely acknowledge you can defame known people, people known despite their usernames and third party non-posters. I am equally sure it is impossible to defame groups e.g. "Catholics"
Depressing. It must be a horrible thought that you share your living space with so many who share the values of UKIP.
Yep. Must be like PB, only in real life. Grubby and nasty. Yuck.
Ugh. People who think differently. Yuck.
Some people seem to get more upset at living near decent UKIP supporters than living near child molesters. It's a sign of some sort of mental sickness I think.
It's similar to Sir Peter Hall hating Margaret Thatcher because she bought clothes from M & S. It's a kind of Pavlovian reaction that bien pensants have for the English lower middle and working classes.
While there's no shortage of hatred for various political parties - I make no secret of my deep dislike of Labour - people normally have a rational reason for this based on that party's actions in government.
But the visceral hatred of UKIP by much of the middle class is different. With UKIP not having been in government, either nationally or locally, there's no reason to hate them for their actions. Or at least not yet.
Instead the hatred is for what they are and who their voters are.
The wwc.
The role of class politics and the hatred of people different to you should not be underestimated.
As this becomes more apparent we're likely to see voting blocks solidify in Britain:
'progressive' & public sector middle class = Labour conservative & private sector middle class = Conservative wwc = UKIP
In Scotland the SNP will, I suspect, increasingly pick up the wwc vote.
The WWC does not equal UKIP or vice versa.
UKIP is a party led by upper middle class public schoolboys, whose last leader was on old Etonian Lord. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing to the WWC (if such labels are meaningful anymore).
I do not hate kippers whether Public School ex Tory MPs or WWC electricians, but I do dislike their views of the world and would consider a tactical vote against them if I were in a seat like Rochester.
Was that outbreak of flatulence necessary? I think we all already know (over and over again) what you think of KIppers....
The claim that the WWC are equal to UKIP was so risable as to require a response.
Well if that was your response I wouldn't bother. As I said it was nothing more than fetid flatulence.....
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
That depends if you want the perfect candidate to reveal the truth or the perfect candidate to produce a 'lessons have been learnt' whitewash.
I mean the former. I speak of John Sentamu specifically, I would never recommend Justin Welby or Rowan Williams.
If it was Sentamu it would hardly be a "WHITE"wash >:D
Nah seriously, I am no christian but he strikes me as an honest and able man, and I think would be a great fit for the job.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
That depends if you want the perfect candidate to reveal the truth or the perfect candidate to produce a 'lessons have been learnt' whitewash.
I mean the former. I speak of John Sentamu specifically, I would never recommend Justin Welby or Rowan Williams.
If it was Sentamu it would hardly be a "WHITE"wash >:D
Nah seriously, I am no christian but he strikes me as an honest and able man, and I think would be a great fit for the job.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
Please can those attacking the Survation wording come up with some of their own.
How about: "Representatives from the European Union and the US government are presently negotiating a new trade agreement called TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), aimed at making it easier to trade between Europe and the USA, which they estimate could bring an extra £4billion a year to the UK economy.
As part of this agreement, protection will be given to any companies from either continent engaged in contracts with the other continent such that no government could unilaterally break contract conditions freely entered into. Such protection is found in other similar agreements.
As it currently stands, this agreement covers the NHS and health sector in the UK, allowing companies to bid for the right to provide services for the Government in this sector amongst others. Some have been concerned that this would prevent the UK Government from unilaterally breaking contracts entered into under this agreement without following due legal process"
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
That depends if you want the perfect candidate to reveal the truth or the perfect candidate to produce a 'lessons have been learnt' whitewash.
I mean the former. I speak of John Sentamu specifically, I would never recommend Justin Welby or Rowan Williams.
If it was Sentamu it would hardly be a "WHITE"wash >:D
Nah seriously, I am no christian but he strikes me as an honest and able man, and I think would be a great fit for the job.
Why on earth would he want to do it?
He might not, but there'd be no harm in asking him.
Depressing. It must be a horrible thought that you share your living space with so many who share the values of UKIP.
Yep. Must be like PB, only in real life. Grubby and nasty. Yuck.
Ugh. People who think differently. Yuck.
Some people seem to get more upset at living near decent UKIP supporters than living near child molesters. It's a sign of some sort of mental sickness I think.
It's similar to Sir Peter Hall hating Margaret Thatcher because she bought clothes from M & S. It's a kind of Pavlovian reaction that bien pensants have for the English lower middle and working classes.
While there's no shortage of hatred for various political parties - I make no secret of my deep dislike of Labour - people normally have a rational reason for this based on that party's actions in government.
But the visceral hatred of UKIP by much of the middle class is different. With UKIP not having been in government, either nationally or locally, there's no reason to hate them for their actions. Or at least not yet.
Instead the hatred is for what they are and who their voters are.
The wwc.
The role of class politics and the hatred of people different to you should not be underestimated.
As this becomes more apparent we're likely to see voting blocks solidify in Britain:
'progressive' & public sector middle class = Labour conservative & private sector middle class = Conservative wwc = UKIP
In Scotland the SNP will, I suspect, increasingly pick up the wwc vote.
The WWC does not equal UKIP or vice versa.
UKIP is a party led by upper middle class public schoolboys, whose last leader was on old Etonian Lord. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing to the WWC (if such labels are meaningful anymore).
I do not hate kippers whether Public School ex Tory MPs or WWC electricians, but I do dislike their views of the world and would consider a tactical vote against them if I were in a seat like Rochester.
Was that outbreak of flatulence necessary? I think we all already know (over and over again) what you think of KIppers....
The claim that the WWC are equal to UKIP was so risable as to require a response.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
That depends if you want the perfect candidate to reveal the truth or the perfect candidate to produce a 'lessons have been learnt' whitewash.
I mean the former. I speak of John Sentamu specifically, I would never recommend Justin Welby or Rowan Williams.
If it was Sentamu it would hardly be a "WHITE"wash >:D
Nah seriously, I am no christian but he strikes me as an honest and able man, and I think would be a great fit for the job.
Why on earth would he want to do it?
I am pretty sure he wouldn't want to. But he might think that God wants him to. Unlike most of our clergy, I'm pretty sure Sentamu is a Christian.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
That depends if you want the perfect candidate to reveal the truth or the perfect candidate to produce a 'lessons have been learnt' whitewash.
I mean the former. I speak of John Sentamu specifically, I would never recommend Justin Welby or Rowan Williams.
If it was Sentamu it would hardly be a "WHITE"wash >:D
Nah seriously, I am no christian but he strikes me as an honest and able man, and I think would be a great fit for the job.
Why on earth would he want to do it?
The campaigners really want Mansfield or Kennedy but that's not going to happen.
Please can those attacking the Survation wording come up with some of their own.
How about: "Representatives from the European Union and the US government are presently negotiating a new trade agreement called TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), aimed at making it easier to trade between Europe and the USA, which they estimate could bring an extra £4billion a year to the UK economy.
As part of this agreement, protection will be given to any companies from either continent engaged in contracts with the other continent such that no government could unilaterally break contract conditions freely entered into. Such protection is found in other similar agreements.
As it currently stands, this agreement covers the NHS and health sector in the UK, allowing companies to bid for the right to provide services for the Government in this sector amongst others. Some have been concerned that this would prevent the UK Government from unilaterally breaking contracts entered into under this agreement without following due legal process"
Good! A little complex, but much more objective that the version which OGH claims is "Fair and Balanced" (TM)
Please can those attacking the Survation wording come up with some of their own.
How about: "Representatives from the European Union and the US government are presently negotiating a new trade agreement called TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), aimed at making it easier to trade between Europe and the USA, which they estimate could bring an extra £4billion a year to the UK economy.
As part of this agreement, protection will be given to any companies from either continent engaged in contracts with the other continent such that no government could unilaterally break contract conditions freely entered into. Such protection is found in other similar agreements.
As it currently stands, this agreement covers the NHS and health sector in the UK, allowing companies to bid for the right to provide services for the Government in this sector amongst others. Some have been concerned that this would prevent the UK Government from unilaterally breaking contracts entered into under this agreement without following due legal process"
Good! A little complex, but much more objective that the version which OGH claims is "Fair and Balanced" (TM)
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
No, they wouldn't. It's not a PB debate, these families want justice, not to score points.
This TTIP far from sounding like a free trade agreement, sounds like a rick for the likes of Baker & McKenzie and Pfizer to completely stitch up the UK Gov't. Our blessed civil servant public sector middle class couldn't even negotiate decent PFI deals for themselves, let alone be able to swim with these sharks.
Its rather amusing to read that UKIP made a huge effort in South Yorkshire.
Can anyone claiming that please provide some evidence ?
From within South Yorkshire the UKIP campaign seemed, bar one leaflet received, pretty invisible. An unimpressive effort with a unimpressive candidate.
On the other hand there's been reports of Labour bringing in activists all week, organising postal votes etc.
I'll take your word for it, as you're the man on the spot.
UKIP are, of course, fighting a rather important by-election in Kent at the moment. I also note that zinger of a poster was on a mobile billboard.
Also, South Yorkshire is a vast constituency. Did the Liberals ever manage to win one of the old Euro constituencies?
UKIP did well in Rotherham itself, which augurs well for future council elections and GE2015.
I think UKIP will lead with the child abuse issue in Rotherham, Rochdale and places still to be revealed, but not nationally, unless the other parties play up and decide to play dirty.
Interesting that Labour had to throw resources into a super safe heartland. That means they can't elsewhere, which is possibly the big takeaway from this by-election. Very similar to Heywood and Middleton (Rochdale), it appears Labour are being pinned back to defending supposedly "safe" seats.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
No, they wouldn't. It's not a PB debate, these families want justice, not to score points.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
As the new South Yorkshire PCC is an Anglican clergyman, you can point out your scathing posts telling of his unsuitability for the position because I can't for the life of me recall them.
Either that or you've pulled that "argument" out of your derriere.
Please can those attacking the Survation wording come up with some of their own.
How about: "Representatives from the European Union and the US government are presently negotiating a new trade agreement called TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), aimed at making it easier to trade between Europe and the USA, which they estimate could bring an extra £4billion a year to the UK economy.
As part of this agreement, protection will be given to any companies from either continent engaged in contracts with the other continent such that no government could unilaterally break contract conditions freely entered into. Such protection is found in other similar agreements.
As it currently stands, this agreement covers the NHS and health sector in the UK, allowing companies to bid for the right to provide services for the Government in this sector amongst others. Some have been concerned that this would prevent the UK Government from unilaterally breaking contracts entered into under this agreement without following due legal process"
Good! A little complex, but much more objective that the version which OGH claims is "Fair and Balanced" (TM)
"A cabal of global businesses fronted by the USA are negotiating a deal to prevent democratically elected governments from restricting their activities. The negotiations are being carried out in secret"
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
No, they wouldn't. It's not a PB debate, these families want justice, not to score points.
Then why did they force out Butler Sloss?
Are you seriously disagreeing with that point? Yuck.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
No, they wouldn't. It's not a PB debate, these families want justice, not to score points.
You can be stunning naive at times.
It's not the families that have been driving the outrage bus that has forced Butler-Sloss and Wolff to step back. Both are honorable women, who are extremely talented and would do a very good job as Chairman of the Inquiry, without fear or favour.
"Some people seem to get more upset at living near decent UKIP supporters than living near child molesters. It's a sign of some sort of mental sickness I think."
Talking of mental sickness is there no one who can put a stop to this man's prurient obsession? It's rapidly making this site unreadable.
Whilst none of my concern, I do wonder why people bother with personal defence on an anonymous internet forum. Nobody cares about the personal insults or the defence against them.
Well, both have been told to lay off the personal stuff, one abides by the rules the other does not.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
As the new South Yorkshire PCC is an Anglican clergyman, you can point out your scathing posts telling of his unsuitability for the position because I can't for the life of me recall them.
Either that or you've pulled that "argument" out of your derriere.
You've missed my point.
++York would, I'm sure, make a fine chairman (I don't know him). But people who want to find reasons to stop the inquiry will find reasons as spurious as the accusations against Butler-Sloss and Wolff.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
As the new South Yorkshire PCC is an Anglican clergyman, you can point out your scathing posts telling of his unsuitability for the position because I can't for the life of me recall them.
Either that or you've pulled that "argument" out of your derriere.
You've missed my point.
++York would, I'm sure, make a fine chairman (I don't know him). But people who want to find reasons to stop the inquiry will find reasons as spurious as the accusations against Butler-Sloss and Wolff.
I think there may be an additional problem in finding the perfect candidate, the potential for abuse if your report didn't fulfil the expectations of a vociferous minority.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
As the new South Yorkshire PCC is an Anglican clergyman, you can point out your scathing posts telling of his unsuitability for the position because I can't for the life of me recall them.
Either that or you've pulled that "argument" out of your derriere.
You don't seem to have developed a theory of mind - something most children manage by the age of 3 to 4. "Charles believes that person A believes that x is the case" does not materially imply "Charles believes that x is the case".
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
The objections against Lady Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were frivolous, and ought to have been rejected.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
No, they wouldn't. It's not a PB debate, these families want justice, not to score points.
You can be stunning naive at times.
It's not the families that have been driving the outrage bus that has forced Butler-Sloss and Wolff to step back. Both are honorable women, who are extremely talented and would do a very good job as Chairman of the Inquiry, without fear or favour.
But that wasn't enough.
We can all be naive at times. Mine appears to extend to the victims of paedophilia, and yours appears to favour the political establishment -an establishment that we now know responded to child abuse within its ranks with a slap on the wrist from the Whips and a note in Ted Heath's useful book.
These allegations are wide ranging and refer to people who are alive, active, and often in positions of power. Even those who are no longer with us are totemic to current political events. It is essential that whomever chairs this enquiry must be utterly incorruptible, fearless, and prepared to acknowledge and expose the rotten core of our politics. That isn't someone whose brother was Attorney General at the time, it isn't someone who dines with the Brittans, and to be honest I don't think it's some Colonial with epaulettes and smattering of medals.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
The objections against Lady Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were frivolous, and ought to have been rejected.
I agree. And both of them have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent report.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
No, they wouldn't. It's not a PB debate, these families want justice, not to score points.
You can be stunning naive at times.
It's not the families that have been driving the outrage bus that has forced Butler-Sloss and Wolff to step back. Both are honorable women, who are extremely talented and would do a very good job as Chairman of the Inquiry, without fear or favour.
But that wasn't enough.
A bit pompous, possibly? How would you know whether they are honorable or not?
I am not sure how far I can take this point here, but just look at the competing drafts of the "how well I know the Brittans" letter. I wouldn't know whom to back out of Woolf and Tony Blair if they went head-to-head in a telling-the-truth contest.
These allegations are wide ranging and refer to people who are alive, active, and often in positions of power. Even those who are no longer with us are totemic to current political events. It is essential that whomever chairs this enquiry must be utterly incorruptible, fearless, and prepared to acknowledge and expose the rotten core of our politics. That isn't someone whose brother was Attorney General at the time, it isn't someone who dines with the Brittans, and to be honest I don't think it's some Colonial with epaulettes and smattering of medals.
It also needs to be someone with the experience and wisdom to be even handed and deliver justice to those accused of these heinous crimes as well as the victims, in a highly politicised environment.
I am doubtful whether anyone who intends to continue to operate in the UK will be perceived to be unbiased enough. Hence the recommendation of a Canadian.
And having dinner with someone who lives on your street 5 times in 10 years doesn't make you close buddies.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
The objections against Lady Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were frivolous, and ought to have been rejected.
I agree. And both of them have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent report.
Fiona Woolf didn't even have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent letter.
She allowed her letter to be edited by the Home Office 7 times, changing 'there were no other guests' at the dinners, to 'there were at least 4 other guests'.
Speaking of global warming, apparently the White House released a report today documenting how almost 40 government agencies would be adversely affected by global warming.
These allegations are wide ranging and refer to people who are alive, active, and often in positions of power. Even those who are no longer with us are totemic to current political events. It is essential that whomever chairs this enquiry must be utterly incorruptible, fearless, and prepared to acknowledge and expose the rotten core of our politics. That isn't someone whose brother was Attorney General at the time, it isn't someone who dines with the Brittans, and to be honest I don't think it's some Colonial with epaulettes and smattering of medals.
It also needs to be someone with the experience and wisdom to be even handed and deliver justice to those accused of these heinous crimes as well as the victims, in a highly politicised environment.
I am doubtful whether anyone who intends to continue to operate in the UK will be perceived to be unbiased enough. Hence the recommendation of a Canadian.
And having dinner with someone who lives on your street 5 times in 10 years doesn't make you close buddies.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
No, they wouldn't. It's not a PB debate, these families want justice, not to score points.
You can be stunning naive at times.
It's not the families that have been driving the outrage bus that has forced Butler-Sloss and Wolff to step back. Both are honorable women, who are extremely talented and would do a very good job as Chairman of the Inquiry, without fear or favour.
But that wasn't enough.
A bit pompous, possibly? How would you know whether they are honorable or not?
I am not sure how far I can take this point here, but just look at the competing drafts of the "how well I know the Brittans" letter. I wouldn't know whom to back out of Woolf and Tony Blair if they went head-to-head in a telling-the-truth contest.
My aunt knows Lady Butler Sloss extremely well (they served in the Family Court together for many years). My cousins have worked closely with Fiona Wolff during her term as Lord Mayor. I respect their judgement on people.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
The objections against Lady Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were frivolous, and ought to have been rejected.
I agree. And both of them have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent report.
Fiona Woolf didn't even have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent letter.
She allowed her letter to be edited by the Home Office 7 times, changing 'there were no other guests' at the dinners, to 'there were at least 4 other guests'.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
The objections against Lady Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were frivolous, and ought to have been rejected.
I agree. And both of them have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent report.
Fiona Woolf didn't even have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent letter.
She allowed her letter to be edited by the Home Office 7 times, changing 'there were no other guests' at the dinners, to 'there were at least 4 other guests'.
Virtually every important letter gets drafted and redrafted.
I doubt that anything that appeared in the final version was factually incorrect, so presumably more evidence was uncovered as she went through her records.
I usually have about 6 guests at my dinners at home but would struggle to remember who attended each specific one.
I'm just back in from dinner out in Shoreditch with a friend. I have to say that it's quite difficult differentiating between those in Halloween fancy dress and those that are just wearing their usual Shoreditch clothes.
My aunt knows Lady Butler Sloss extremely well (they served in the Family Court together for many years). My cousins have worked closely with Fiona Wolff during her term as Lord Mayor. I respect their judgement on people.
Do you have a link to the various drafts?
No, but the edits, and the content, are a matter of public knowledge, and disclosed by Woolf herself to the Select Committee. Whilst I am sure that both are fine women, I feel even you must acknowledge that starting an investigation into Whitehall cover up, with... a Whitehall cover up, is hardly the most propitious of beginnings.
My aunt knows Lady Butler Sloss extremely well (they served in the Family Court together for many years). My cousins have worked closely with Fiona Wolff during her term as Lord Mayor. I respect their judgement on people.
Do you have a link to the various drafts?
No, but the edits, and the content, are a matter of public knowledge, and disclosed by Woolf herself to the Select Committee. Whilst I am sure that both are fine women, I feel even you must acknowledge that starting an investigation into Whitehall cover up, with... a Whitehall cover up, is hardly the most propitious of beginnings.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
No, they wouldn't. It's not a PB debate, these families want justice, not to score points.
You can be stunning naive at times.
It's not the families that have been driving the outrage bus that has forced Butler-Sloss and Wolff to step back. Both are honorable women, who are extremely talented and would do a very good job as Chairman of the Inquiry, without fear or favour.
But that wasn't enough.
A bit pompous, possibly? How would you know whether they are honorable or not?
I am not sure how far I can take this point here, but just look at the competing drafts of the "how well I know the Brittans" letter. I wouldn't know whom to back out of Woolf and Tony Blair if they went head-to-head in a telling-the-truth contest.
My aunt knows Lady Butler Sloss extremely well (they served in the Family Court together for many years). My cousins have worked closely with Fiona Wolff during her term as Lord Mayor. I respect their judgement on people.
Do you have a link to the various drafts?
God, how beautifully and unspoofably that post shoots itself in the foot. The fear is of a cosy establishment stitch-up, and the answer is that you know that these people are solid to the core because your aunt knows one of them and your cousin knows another. Probably someone involved somewhere was your fag at Eton, too.
Link - sorry, heard the excerpts on the radio but see Luckyguy's post.
Virtually every important letter gets drafted and redrafted.
I doubt that anything that appeared in the final version was factually incorrect, so presumably more evidence was uncovered as she went through her records.
I usually have about 6 guests at my dinners at home but would struggle to remember who attended each specific one.
I'm not sure why you're adopting this mealy mouthed tripe with me -I'm not James Naughtie trying to trip you up on the Today programme. One does not confuse an intimate dinner with one other couple with dinner with at least four others. As you, I, and the rest of PB knows, this letter was altered, by the Home Office, to minimise this ladies association with a key figure in this investigation.
Would Citizen Khan be racist if it was exactly the same, except all the Asian parts were played by white actors in make-up?
Man - "How was Pakistan?" Citizen Khan - "Just like Birmingham, only less Pakistanis!"
Isn't that racist? Hello?
It should be fewer...
You could construe "I hate Pakis" as racist.
Merely commenting on their geographic distribution is hardly racist.
I beg to differ.
Most "Pakistanis" in Birmingham re, of course, British nationals, either by duration of stay or birth. Refer to their ethnicity or religion if you must, but they're as British as I am.
Virtually every important letter gets drafted and redrafted.
I doubt that anything that appeared in the final version was factually incorrect, so presumably more evidence was uncovered as she went through her records.
I usually have about 6 guests at my dinners at home but would struggle to remember who attended each specific one.
I'm not sure why you're adopting this mealy mouthed tripe with me -I'm not James Naughtie trying to trip you up on the Today programme. One does not confuse an intimate dinner with one other couple with dinner with at least four others. As you, I, and the rest of PB knows, this letter was altered, by the Home Office, to minimise this ladies association with a key figure in this investigation.
Just looking in after a busy day - had a fun evening canvassing in streets full of trick-or-treaters. Two thirds of the residents answered the door warily, thinking I'd demand sweets, the other third were dressed as skeletons and zombies - indeed one bloke with a demonic mask opened the door and screamed "Waaaah!" I won't make any jokes about how the zombies were voting...
FWIW, among the more sober citizens, we actually seemed to be doing well, even gaining some former Tories. Perhaps relief that I wasn't a skeleton played a part? Brilliant new differentiation strategy.
While I understand what Charles is saying and I have no doubt that either of the two previous proposed chairs are women of impeccable judgement and character, I do feel strongly that on this occasion the chair should be someone who is demonstrably an outsider.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
No, they wouldn't. It's not a PB debate, these families want justice, not to score points.
Then why did they force out Butler Sloss?
Are you seriously disagreeing with that point? Yuck.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
The objections against Lady Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were frivolous, and ought to have been rejected.
I agree. And both of them have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent report.
Fiona Woolf didn't even have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent letter.
She allowed her letter to be edited by the Home Office 7 times, changing 'there were no other guests' at the dinners, to 'there were at least 4 other guests'.
Virtually every important letter gets drafted and redrafted.
I doubt that anything that appeared in the final version was factually incorrect, so presumably more evidence was uncovered as she went through her records.
I usually have about 6 guests at my dinners at home but would struggle to remember who attended each specific one.
Don't wish to disagree Charles but this is a hugely important inquiry into exactly what has gone on for the last 40 years or so. Anyone remotely connected with the Establishment should not be allowed anywhere near this inquiry.
The victims deserve justice for the way they have been abused over the years, from Savile through to Rotherham.
This is far too important for you to get upset about someone your Aunt knows, anyone remotely connected to Brittan should never have been considered.
This country at last has a chance to smash the establishment and their cosy cartel, also from a political point of view that is happening too.
For the ordinary man this moment in time is momentous.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, vi
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
The objections against Lady Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were frivolous, and ought to have been rejected.
I agree. And both of them have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent report.
Fiona Woolf didn't even have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent letter.
She allowed her letter to be edited by the Home Office 7 times, changing 'there were no other guests' at the dinners, to 'there were at least 4 other guests'.
Virtually every important letter gets drafted and redrafted.
I doubt that anything that appeared in the final version was factually incorrect, so presumably more evidence was uncovered as she went through her records.
I usually have about 6 guests at my dinners at home but would struggle to remember who attended each specific one.
Do your homework, Charles. Read the letters, and listen to the Pienaar radio 5 interview.
While I understand what Charles is saying and I have no doubt that either of the two previous proposed chairs are women of impeccable judgement and character, I do feel strongly that on this occasion the chair should be someone who is demonstrably an outsider.
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
The objections against Lady Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were frivolous, and ought to have been rejected.
I agree. And both of them have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent report.
Of that I have no doubt. But one is the brother of a former Law Officer and the other moved in the same circles as a former Home Secretary, both of whom may have their judgment questioned as a result of the enquiry. It's about there being an apparent conflict of interest. We also have the dubious affair of the Home Office apparently having a view about who should conduct the inquiry (the Home Office needs to be investigated, so it should be neutral) and trying to massage the way for her. All very murky.
Personally as this inquiry is, inter alia, into the actions of the UK Government, I think the chair should be appointed by the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.
On the occasional topic of whos's watching what on TV, I think I've said on here before that I'm a big fan of WKRP in Cincinnati. It's based on WQXI in Atlanta - QXI in Dixie.
The show has had a complicated history of music rights restrictions (it's set in a rocknroll radio station) so has never been available complete on dvd until now. The first series was issued with all the original music replaced, but now as of this week all 4 series are available for the first time with the original music in a 13 dvd box set.
Amazon had it at $99 so I put in my cart. Over at Costco today getting Heidi's food and dog biscuits, it was on sale at $57.99. Yay Costco!!!!
But who will the government attempt to put in her place?
The reality, given that there are allegations involving people in the London establishment, virtually any senior lawyer or judge (I am making the assumption that judicial experience would be useful in chairing an inquiry of this nature) will have met people tangentially or directly associated with the subject matter.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
The objections against Lady Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were frivolous, and ought to have been rejected.
I agree. And both of them have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent report.
Fiona Woolf didn't even have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent letter.
She allowed her letter to be edited by the Home Office 7 times, changing 'there were no other guests' at the dinners, to 'there were at least 4 other guests'.
Virtually every important letter gets drafted and redrafted.
I doubt that anything that appeared in the final version was factually incorrect, so presumably more evidence was uncovered as she went through her records.
I usually have about 6 guests at my dinners at home but would struggle to remember who attended each specific one.
I'm not sure why you're adopting this mealy mouthed tripe with me -I'm not James Naughtie trying to trip you up on the Today programme. One does not confuse an intimate dinner with one other couple with dinner with at least four others. As you, I, and the rest of PB knows, this letter was altered, by the Home Office, to minimise this ladies association with a key figure in this investigation.
Tinfoil hat time.
Have you met Tapestry?
The evidence that the letter was altered by the Home Office, is that Woolf said today on national radio that it was altered by the Home Office. I cannot imagine any motive for the alteration, other than the one offered by Luckyguy. What is your point?
Virtually every important letter gets drafted and redrafted.
I doubt that anything that appeared in the final version was factually incorrect, so presumably more evidence was uncovered as she went through her records.
I usually have about 6 guests at my dinners at home but would struggle to remember who attended each specific one.
I'm not sure why you're adopting this mealy mouthed tripe with me -I'm not James Naughtie trying to trip you up on the Today programme. One does not confuse an intimate dinner with one other couple with dinner with at least four others. As you, I, and the rest of PB knows, this letter was altered, by the Home Office, to minimise this ladies association with a key figure in this investigation.
Would Citizen Khan be racist if it was exactly the same, except all the Asian parts were played by white actors in make-up?
Man - "How was Pakistan?" Citizen Khan - "Just like Birmingham, only less Pakistanis!"
Isn't that racist? Hello?
It should be fewer...
You could construe "I hate Pakis" as racist.
Merely commenting on their geographic distribution is hardly racist.
I beg to differ.
Most "Pakistanis" in Birmingham re, of course, British nationals, either by duration of stay or birth. Refer to their ethnicity or religion if you must, but they're as British as I am.
While I understand what Charles is saying and I have no doubt that either of the two previous proposed chairs are women of impeccable judgement and character, I do feel strongly that on this occasion the chair should be someone who is demonstrably an outsider.
Sentamu fits the bill.
Sadly he's from The Church which is also the subject of a wide ranging investigation into child abuse. The headlines write themselves.
If you rule out Butler Sloss and Woolf for 'connections', you'll have to strike Sentamu off the list too. Same arguments for unsuitability.
Didn't see the "man gives money to a homeless person" bombshell on the news anywhere.
Perhaps the dismal PBTories/SamCoates/Guido rabble got a little silly. Again.
Partisans always do. Personally that sort of thing makes me more well disposed toward Ed M, for all he does look awkward as hell in the photos. For similar reasons, although usually its more silliness toward something he supposedly said (or it is implied was implied by what he said, given he generally takes a slightly better photo, if not universally), it's one of the reasons I've been inclined to give Cameron more a benefit of the doubt about some things, until his incompetence overshadowed it. Ed M is almost fortunate in that while many people may suspect he is going to be crap, we don't have definitive proof no matter how man awkward photos and poor ideas are stated, not until he is actually PM.
Would Citizen Khan be racist if it was exactly the same, except all the Asian parts were played by white actors in make-up?
Man - "How was Pakistan?" Citizen Khan - "Just like Birmingham, only less Pakistanis!"
Isn't that racist? Hello?
It should be fewer...
You could construe "I hate Pakis" as racist.
Merely commenting on their geographic distribution is hardly racist.
It's implying, surely, there are too many Pakistanis in Birmingham...
It's a cheap laugh. If that's racist then so is the guy on The Kumars saying "Let's go out for an English."
When I was at school in Yorkshire in the 60s, everyone thought there were too many Pakistanis in Bradford. That's merely an opinion. If you decide you want to do something about it, or encourage others to do so, or discriminate, now you have a case.
Would Citizen Khan be racist if it was exactly the same, except all the Asian parts were played by white actors in make-up?
Man - "How was Pakistan?" Citizen Khan - "Just like Birmingham, only less Pakistanis!"
Isn't that racist? Hello?
It should be fewer...
You could construe "I hate Pakis" as racist.
Merely commenting on their geographic distribution is hardly racist.
I beg to differ.
Most "Pakistanis" in Birmingham re, of course, British nationals, either by duration of stay or birth. Refer to their ethnicity or religion if you must, but they're as British as I am.
Would Citizen Khan be racist if it was exactly the same, except all the Asian parts were played by white actors in make-up?
Man - "How was Pakistan?" Citizen Khan - "Just like Birmingham, only less Pakistanis!"
Isn't that racist? Hello?
It should be fewer...
You could construe "I hate Pakis" as racist.
Merely commenting on their geographic distribution is hardly racist.
It's implying, surely, there are too many Pakistanis in Birmingham...
It's a cheap laugh. If that's racist then so is the guy on The Kumars saying "Let's go out for an English."
When I was at school in Yorkshire in the 60s, everyone thought there were too many Pakistanis in Bradford. That's merely an opinion. If you decide you want to do something about it, or encourage others to do so, or discriminate, now you have a case.
Would Citizen Khan be racist if it was exactly the same, except all the Asian parts were played by white actors in make-up?
Man - "How was Pakistan?" Citizen Khan - "Just like Birmingham, only less Pakistanis!"
Isn't that racist? Hello?
It should be fewer...
You could construe "I hate Pakis" as racist.
Merely commenting on their geographic distribution is hardly racist.
It's implying, surely, there are too many Pakistanis in Birmingham...
It's a cheap laugh. If that's racist then so is the guy on The Kumars saying "Let's go out for an English."
When I was at school in Yorkshire in the 60s, everyone thought there were too many Pakistanis in Bradford. That's merely an opinion. If you decide you want to do something about it, or encourage others to do so, or discriminate, now you have a case.
Con: Michael Fallon Lab: Chris Clark LD: Alan Bullion UKIP: Steve Lindsay Greens: Amelie Boleyn
Wasn't Sevenoaks the place where John Lennon (a member of a 60s group called The Beatles) bought the circus poster which was the inspiration for "Being for the benefit of Mr.Kite"?
While I understand what Charles is saying and I have no doubt that either of the two previous proposed chairs are women of impeccable judgement and character, I do feel strongly that on this occasion the chair should be someone who is demonstrably an outsider.
Sentamu fits the bill.
Sadly he's from The Church which is also the subject of a wide ranging investigation into child abuse. The headlines write themselves.
If you rule out Butler Sloss and Woolf for 'connections', you'll have to strike Sentamu off the list too. Same arguments for unsuitability.
There is absolutely no equivalence. None. We are talking about someone who had 7 shades of the proverbial beaten out of him in a prison cell for criticising Idi Amin. You couldn't get further from the cosy Westminster elite than that, and the victims would recognise that.
Con: Michael Fallon Lab: Chris Clark LD: Alan Bullion UKIP: Steve Lindsay Greens: Amelie Boleyn
Wasn't Sevenoaks the place where John Lennon (a member of a 60s group called The Beatles) bought the circus poster which was the inspiration for "Being for the benefit of Mr.Kite"?
Con: Michael Fallon Lab: Chris Clark LD: Alan Bullion UKIP: Steve Lindsay Greens: Amelie Boleyn
Wasn't Sevenoaks the place where John Lennon (a member of a 60s group called The Beatles) bought the circus poster which was the inspiration for "Being for the benefit of Mr.Kite"?
I don't know. Must be online somewhere.
Well bugger me backwards with a splintered fiddle - it is.
While I understand what Charles is saying and I have no doubt that either of the two previous proposed chairs are women of impeccable judgement and character, I do feel strongly that on this occasion the chair should be someone who is demonstrably an outsider.
Our leaders have no concept of what to do beyond appointing one of us to investigate ourselves. Which has been rumbled. Given the lack of tory hermits, I suggest a foreigner. Possibly Irish, given their expertise in the area.
Con: Michael Fallon Lab: Chris Clark LD: Alan Bullion UKIP: Steve Lindsay Greens: Amelie Boleyn
Wasn't Sevenoaks the place where John Lennon (a member of a 60s group called The Beatles) bought the circus poster which was the inspiration for "Being for the benefit of Mr.Kite"?
I don't know. Must be online somewhere.
Well bugger me backwards with a splintered fiddle - it is.
Comments
Nah seriously, I am no christian but he strikes me as an honest and able man, and I think would be a great fit for the job.
As part of this agreement, protection will be given to any companies from either continent engaged in contracts with the other continent such that no government could unilaterally break contract conditions freely entered into. Such protection is found in other similar agreements.
As it currently stands, this agreement covers the NHS and health sector in the UK, allowing companies to bid for the right to provide services for the Government in this sector amongst others. Some have been concerned that this would prevent the UK Government from unilaterally breaking contracts entered into under this agreement without following due legal process"
But its the way the trends are heading.
It will fall below freezing tonight! Two days ago it was 85
I believe a recently retired Canadian general is the traditional choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Chastelain
No thanks !
UKIP are, of course, fighting a rather important by-election in Kent at the moment. I also note that zinger of a poster was on a mobile billboard.
Also, South Yorkshire is a vast constituency. Did the Liberals ever manage to win one of the old Euro constituencies?
UKIP did well in Rotherham itself, which augurs well for future council elections and GE2015.
I think UKIP will lead with the child abuse issue in Rotherham, Rochdale and places still to be revealed, but not nationally, unless the other parties play up and decide to play dirty.
Interesting that Labour had to throw resources into a super safe heartland. That means they can't elsewhere, which is possibly the big takeaway from this by-election. Very similar to Heywood and Middleton (Rochdale), it appears Labour are being pinned back to defending supposedly "safe" seats.
Last four years = £35bn net payment
Four years before that = £14bn net payment
Four years before that = £11bn net payment
Either that or you've pulled that "argument" out of your derriere.
"A cabal of global businesses fronted by the USA are negotiating a deal to prevent democratically elected governments from restricting their activities. The negotiations are being carried out in secret"
It's not the families that have been driving the outrage bus that has forced Butler-Sloss and Wolff to step back. Both are honorable women, who are extremely talented and would do a very good job as Chairman of the Inquiry, without fear or favour.
But that wasn't enough.
++York would, I'm sure, make a fine chairman (I don't know him). But people who want to find reasons to stop the inquiry will find reasons as spurious as the accusations against Butler-Sloss and Wolff.
These allegations are wide ranging and refer to people who are alive, active, and often in positions of power. Even those who are no longer with us are totemic to current political events. It is essential that whomever chairs this enquiry must be utterly incorruptible, fearless, and prepared to acknowledge and expose the rotten core of our politics. That isn't someone whose brother was Attorney General at the time, it isn't someone who dines with the Brittans, and to be honest I don't think it's some Colonial with epaulettes and smattering of medals.
I am not sure how far I can take this point here, but just look at the competing drafts of the "how well I know the Brittans" letter. I wouldn't know whom to back out of Woolf and Tony Blair if they went head-to-head in a telling-the-truth contest.
Maybe the fact that gasoline prices have dropped by $0.60 a gallon over the last few days is god's way of telling me to drive there :-)
I am doubtful whether anyone who intends to continue to operate in the UK will be perceived to be unbiased enough. Hence the recommendation of a Canadian.
And having dinner with someone who lives on your street 5 times in 10 years doesn't make you close buddies.
Citizen Khan - "Just like Birmingham, only less Pakistanis!"
Isn't that racist? Hello?
She allowed her letter to be edited by the Home Office 7 times, changing 'there were no other guests' at the dinners, to 'there were at least 4 other guests'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11199936/Fiona-Woolf-letter-how-it-changed-over-seven-re-writes.html
I know a fearless enemy of paedophiles.
Someone who is resistant to all personal attack.
Someone who tells the truth to power.
Someone who isn't scared to take on authority.
The person to lead the inquiry is.....
Socrates!
You could construe "I hate Pakis" as racist.
Merely commenting on their geographic distribution is hardly racist.
Do you have a link to the various drafts?
I doubt that anything that appeared in the final version was factually incorrect, so presumably more evidence was uncovered as she went through her records.
I usually have about 6 guests at my dinners at home but would struggle to remember who attended each specific one.
"Disclosed by Woolf herself"
"A Whitehall cover up"
I'm missing a connection here...
Link - sorry, heard the excerpts on the radio but see Luckyguy's post.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849
When read carefully, it is more about shoring up power than distributing it.
Most "Pakistanis" in Birmingham re, of course, British nationals, either by duration of stay or birth. Refer to their ethnicity or religion if you must, but they're as British as I am.
Have you met Tapestry?
FWIW, among the more sober citizens, we actually seemed to be doing well, even gaining some former Tories. Perhaps relief that I wasn't a skeleton played a part? Brilliant new differentiation strategy.
Perhaps the dismal PBTories/SamCoates/Guido rabble got a little silly. Again.
But more to the point,now that two qualified people have been dragged through the mud, who is going to let their name go forward?
This is a victory for those who want everything swept under the carpet, nothing more.
Rubbish.
A friend of Brittan's would not have worked, for many more alleged reasons than the fact that he binned the initial report. It's an uttter farce that this lady was considered, and the editing and re-editing of her letter to distance her from the Brittans is grotesque.
The Archbishop of York is the perfect candidate. Legal background, unimpeachable good name, previous enquiry chairing experience, not from the political class.
I'm sure that someone would complain about (a) the CofE's less than perfect record in this area and (b) the fact that he has probably encountered Brittain and others as a member of the HoL
The objections against Lady Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf were frivolous, and ought to have been rejected.
I agree. And both of them have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent report.
Fiona Woolf didn't even have the character to deliver a fearsomely independent letter.
She allowed her letter to be edited by the Home Office 7 times, changing 'there were no other guests' at the dinners, to 'there were at least 4 other guests'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11199936/Fiona-Woolf-letter-how-it-changed-over-seven-re-writes.html
Virtually every important letter gets drafted and redrafted.
I doubt that anything that appeared in the final version was factually incorrect, so presumably more evidence was uncovered as she went through her records.
I usually have about 6 guests at my dinners at home but would struggle to remember who attended each specific one.
Don't wish to disagree Charles but this is a hugely important inquiry into exactly what has gone on for the last 40 years or so. Anyone remotely connected with the Establishment should not be allowed anywhere near this inquiry.
The victims deserve justice for the way they have been abused over the years, from Savile through to Rotherham.
This is far too important for you to get upset about someone your Aunt knows, anyone remotely connected to Brittan should never have been considered.
This country at last has a chance to smash the establishment and their cosy cartel, also from a political point of view that is happening too.
For the ordinary man this moment in time is momentous.
Personally as this inquiry is, inter alia, into the actions of the UK Government, I think the chair should be appointed by the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.
The show has had a complicated history of music rights restrictions (it's set in a rocknroll radio station) so has never been available complete on dvd until now. The first series was issued with all the original music replaced, but now as of this week all 4 series are available for the first time with the original music in a 13 dvd box set.
Amazon had it at $99 so I put in my cart. Over at Costco today getting Heidi's food and dog biscuits, it was on sale at $57.99. Yay Costco!!!!
Just asking for a friend.
If you rule out Butler Sloss and Woolf for 'connections', you'll have to strike Sentamu off the list too. Same arguments for unsuitability.
When I was at school in Yorkshire in the 60s, everyone thought there were too many Pakistanis in Bradford. That's merely an opinion. If you decide you want to do something about it, or encourage others to do so, or discriminate, now you have a case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwz-neNZd_I
Con: Michael Fallon
Lab: Chris Clark
LD: Alan Bullion
UKIP: Steve Lindsay
Greens: Amelie Boleyn
But it isn't.
http://www.beatlesbible.com/songs/being-for-the-benefit-of-mr-kite/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_for_the_Benefit_of_Mr._Kite!