Politics in General

[Gavin Chipper]

I read the book quite recently and from what I remember I think it was reasonable in the context.

Plus I don't think we should expect perfection from a book / TV programme. We can criticise what we read. I don't think it's necessary to remove something from the syllabus even if you think usage of a word is unnecessary. There's still a long way from that to a racist propaganda manual.

[Callum Todd]

I did Of Mice and Men in my English GCSE and thought it was really good. We read it aloud in class when we first went through it and I remember it was a friend of mine who came to the first use of the N-word and hesitated, looked to the teacher for approval, and was given it, so went ahead. I have remembered that moment previously and thought that it likely wouldn't be said nowadays, but not sure how it is handled in schools more recently.

It's quite a clear theme in the book though that Crooks is racially discriminated against, and even as a 14 year-old it was quite clear to me that the N-word was used in the text in order to demonstrate that discrimination. So while I understand it might not be a good idea for students to be saying the word aloud in class, or maybe even reading it uncensored, to remove the word altogher or even to ban the teaching of the book (!) I think is a big mistake. Not just because it's a good book for an English course, but it positively teaches about discrimination if taught well and understood.

[Mark James]

I think this is a bit insane really.

What's insane is not understanding that the actual objective of the story is to make people read the headline and think the looney left, political correctness brigade have gone too far again when in reality it's one fucking student that could have been easily ignored. It's irresponsible "journalism" and sharing the story is just adding to the nonsense culture war bullshit discourse.

Where is the article about me wanting to ban chemistry being taught because I sucked at it?

[Gavin Chipper]

I think this is a bit insane really.

What's insane is not understanding that the actual objective of the story is to make people read the headline and think the looney left, political correctness brigade have gone too far again when in reality it's one fucking student that could have been easily ignored. It's irresponsible "journalism" and sharing the story is just adding to the nonsense culture war bullshit discourse.

Where is the article about me wanting to ban chemistry being taught because I sucked at it?

You think? I tend to think the BBC are more "left leaning" on social issues and "right leaning" on economic ones, but individual journalists may vary. I was considering pointing out that this was just one student and wondered how it got as far as making it to the BBC. Like, what is the mechanism for that?

But maybe you're right in a wider sense. Perhaps this would be better ignored.

[Mark James]

https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg

Here's the BBC being "left on social issues".

There might be liberal elements in the BBC but let's not pretend they are in any way on the left. I do think they try to adhere to balance better than some other media outlets but the best I could say is the BBC's overarching ideology is centre right.

Did you completely forget the number they did on Corbyn?

[Paul Worsley]

Whereas the Major using the word in Fawlty Towers didn't add anything (it wasn't funny and didn't develop the character or plot; it was just a bit egregious) and could.probably be done without.

The point of the exchange between Basil and the Major in Fawlty Towers is that it shows that the Major is such an idiot and bigot that he can't understand how someone could mix up their racial derogatory slurs. We are invited to laugh at him. The character is always portrayed as an out of touch buffoon.

[Mark Deeks]

Your last sentence is exactly MY point - this is why the N-word adds nothing, because we already know the major is an out-of-touch buffoon. At that point, it's just using the word for the sake of it.

[Gavin Chipper]

https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg

Here's the BBC being "left on social issues".

There might be liberal elements in the BBC but let's not pretend they are in any way on the left. I do think they try to adhere to balance better than some other media outlets but the best I could say is the BBC's overarching ideology is centre right.

Did you completely forget the number they did on Corbyn?

Fair enough. I think they are a bit all over the place with their output. I put "left leaning" in quotes because I'm not sure it makes sense to really use the same left/right terminology for economic and social issues by the way. But sometimes I get that impression, though often it's just what you happen to notice.

On Corbyn, I think the main thing was his economic leftness so the media (including the BBC) destroyed him in case the trains got nationalised or something. I'm not sure he's seen as a woke icon or anything.

[Gavin Chipper]

Your last sentence is exactly MY point - this is why the N-word adds nothing, because we already know the major is an out-of-touch buffoon. At that point, it's just using the word for the sake of it.

I think using the word (outside of being a direct insult) wasn't quite as taboo back then so I don't think someone putting it in a comedy would go through the same inevitable thought process that they would now about whether they should really be doing it.

[Paul Worsley]

Your last sentence is exactly MY point - this is why the N-word adds nothing, because we already know the major is an out-of-touch buffoon. At that point, it's just using the word for the sake of it.

I think using the word (outside of being a direct insult) wasn't quite as taboo back then so I don't think someone putting it in a comedy would go through the same inevitable thought process that they would now about whether they should really be doing it.

This absolutely correct. The word did not carry the same impact back then.

Same with the dog in The Dam Busters, though this has been changed for terrestrial showings of the 1955 film, which is the correct thing to do.

[Mark Deeks]

Of course. Trust me, I know the freedom with which my grandparents used it. But a rebroadcast wouldn't be in that time, and thus the word wouldn't need to be there.

[Mark James]

I'm so woke I'm actually allowed to use the N-word in any context but I choose not to.

[Marc Meakin]

I recently rewatched Reservoir Dogs and I winced at the use of the N word but didn't bat an eyelid in 1993 when I watched it.
I think literary work should not be censored in the same way you wouldn't clothe a naked woman in a painting.
But it is not acceptable nowadays for light entertainment

[Fiona T]

Part of the study of literature is the historical context in which it was produced. Same with things like art history, which is why it's fine to go openly stare at voyeuristic pictures of naked ladies in an art gallery. I don't remember the detail of Mice and Men, although I do remember it being a good book. I guess the N word particularly has become so taboo that for a black child to hear it in the classroom could be distressing, and one can imagine a situation where unpleasant classmates relish saying it for that reason. Probably schools need to use judgement on how to handle it.

But it is interesting how our attitudes change - I remember a few years back an upset when an old Only Fools episode being re-aired where Del boy refers to the corner shop using a racially offensive term - in the 80s most people referred to the corner shop like that without intending offence. (I do remember my mother stopping us calling that saying that the proprietor of our local shop was a Sikh and probably Indian and may not want to be referred to as that)

When I was in Sydney I watched Rocky Horror which was excellent, but I did feel extremely uncomfortable about the whole non-consensual sex thing and wondered how it could be done differently without changing the premise too much - I don't remember it even registering as a problem when I last saw it 25 or so years ago! I mentioned it to my sister and she'd had the same concerns.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Here's the BBC being "left on social issues".

You must have missed this then. https://order-order.com/2023/05/19/bbc- ... -coverage/

[Mark James]

Here's the BBC being "left on social issues".

You must have missed this then. https://order-order.com/2023/05/19/bbc- ... -coverage/

What's that got to do with anything?

[Gavin Chipper]

Do you remember the expenses scandal? Six MPs and peers were given prison sentences. If you do remember, it seems you are in the minority. Four MPs have claimed their driving fines on expenses and just been asked to pay the money back. Where's the outcry? Where's the call for them to at least resign?

[Rhys Benjamin]

Do you remember the expenses scandal? Six MPs and peers were given prison sentences. If you do remember, it seems you are in the minority. Four MPs have claimed their driving fines on expenses and just been asked to pay the money back. Where's the outcry? Where's the call for them to at least resign?

Because, truth be told, I don't really blame them for trying it on.

The legacy of the expenses scandal was the introduction of IPSA - a rather useless organisation which is now meant to oversee all expenses claims and pay (including my own). It means MPs can't pay their staff obscenely, nor do we get decent pay rises, because the %ages are the same for MPs too, and if MPs are given a 10%+ pay rise I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it.

It's not the MPs' fault for asking the question, it's IPSA's fault for not saying no.

[Fiona T]

Do you remember the expenses scandal? Six MPs and peers were given prison sentences. If you do remember, it seems you are in the minority. Four MPs have claimed their driving fines on expenses and just been asked to pay the money back. Where's the outcry? Where's the call for them to at least resign?

Because, truth be told, I don't really blame them for trying it on.

The legacy of the expenses scandal was the introduction of IPSA - a rather useless organisation which is now meant to oversee all expenses claims and pay (including my own). It means MPs can't pay their staff obscenely, nor do we get decent pay rises, because the %ages are the same for MPs too, and if MPs are given a 10%+ pay rise I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it.

It's not the MPs' fault for asking the question, it's IPSA's fault for not saying no.

Nah that's bollocks. It's not (or shouldn't be) about what you can get away with. The guidelines are very clear that traffic offences are not valid expenses.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Do you remember the expenses scandal? Six MPs and peers were given prison sentences. If you do remember, it seems you are in the minority. Four MPs have claimed their driving fines on expenses and just been asked to pay the money back. Where's the outcry? Where's the call for them to at least resign?

Because, truth be told, I don't really blame them for trying it on.

The legacy of the expenses scandal was the introduction of IPSA - a rather useless organisation which is now meant to oversee all expenses claims and pay (including my own). It means MPs can't pay their staff obscenely, nor do we get decent pay rises, because the %ages are the same for MPs too, and if MPs are given a 10%+ pay rise I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it.

It's not the MPs' fault for asking the question, it's IPSA's fault for not saying no.

Nah that's bollocks. It's not (or shouldn't be) about what you can get away with. The guidelines are very clear that traffic offences are not valid expenses.

In that case IPSA are even more at fault than I realised! Why didn’t they reject the claims then??

This is the problem with pseudo-independent organisations like IPSA, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, or the Civil Service - when they’re to blame they are, for some reason, never blamed.

[David Williams]

I've had jobs where I've claimed expenses, and authorised other people's expenses.

I once had someone come to me with a parking ticket. He was in a strange town, couldn't find anywhere to park, and rather than be late for a meeting he took a chance on a yellow line. I allowed it. If it had been, say, a speeding ticket I probably wouldn't have. But the point is that he knew it was questionable so he didn't just claim it and hope I didn't notice. He came and asked.

Then again, no-one expects politicians and their acolytes to be as honest as the rest of the population.

[Fiona T]

Because, truth be told, I don't really blame them for trying it on.

The legacy of the expenses scandal was the introduction of IPSA - a rather useless organisation which is now meant to oversee all expenses claims and pay (including my own). It means MPs can't pay their staff obscenely, nor do we get decent pay rises, because the %ages are the same for MPs too, and if MPs are given a 10%+ pay rise I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it.

It's not the MPs' fault for asking the question, it's IPSA's fault for not saying no.

Nah that's bollocks. It's not (or shouldn't be) about what you can get away with. The guidelines are very clear that traffic offences are not valid expenses.

In that case IPSA are even more at fault than I realised! Why didn’t they reject the claims then??

This is the problem with pseudo-independent organisations like IPSA, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, or the Civil Service - when they’re to blame they are, for some reason, never blamed.

There are 1000s of expense claims. The starting position is that each one is genuine and honest. The checks and controls are presumable spot checks or occasional scrutiny of individual claims. The responsibility for the honesty of the claim is with the claimant, not IPSA.

[Gavin Chipper]

There are 1000s of expense claims. The starting position is that each one is genuine and honest. The checks and controls are presumable spot checks or occasional scrutiny of individual claims. The responsibility for the honesty of the claim is with the claimant, not IPSA.

This was my thought. I doubt they individually check each one, and I doubt very much that the understanding is that you can submit whatever the hell you want on the basis that if it's not allowed then it will be rejected anyway with no harm done.

[Elliott Mellor]

Because, truth be told, I don't really blame them for trying it on.

The legacy of the expenses scandal was the introduction of IPSA - a rather useless organisation which is now meant to oversee all expenses claims and pay (including my own). It means MPs can't pay their staff obscenely, nor do we get decent pay rises, because the %ages are the same for MPs too, and if MPs are given a 10%+ pay rise I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it.

It's not the MPs' fault for asking the question, it's IPSA's fault for not saying no.

Nah that's bollocks. It's not (or shouldn't be) about what you can get away with. The guidelines are very clear that traffic offences are not valid expenses.

In that case IPSA are even more at fault than I realised! Why didn’t they reject the claims then??

This is the problem with pseudo-independent organisations like IPSA, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, or the Civil Service - when they’re to blame they are, for some reason, never blamed.

It never ceases to amaze me the level of mental gymnastics you'll go through to shift blame from tory MPs.

The fact is, they submitted expense claims that weren't legitimate. The fact that they originally evaded spot checks doesn't negate the fact that they should never have even been there. I get to submit expenses as part of my job - it's very clear what can be claimed and I have the integrity to only claim things that are legitimate, but clearly these MPs didn't.

Would you say it was a shopkeeper's fault for not noticing a shoplifter? Is it alright if I shoplift, on the basis that if I'm caught then I'll pay up, but if not then the shop should have been more careful?

[Rhys Benjamin]

Well, no, it’s more like this (admittedly unfunny) sketch. https://youtu.be/AcNLHfaHb1M

If you underpay for your goods and the shopkeeper goes “fine” that’s not on you, surely?

[Josh Hurst]

Well, no, it’s more like this (admittedly unfunny) sketch. https://youtu.be/AcNLHfaHb1M

If you underpay for your goods and the shopkeeper goes “fine” that’s not on you, surely?

The fact that Rhys has probably never set foot in a charity shop aside, I can envisage him acting similarly to Barlow in that sketch if he did... and now I'll leave it to him to figure out what the joke in that sketch was and why it's funnier than he seems to realize, and therefore why Barlow was in fact in the wrong there.

[Marc Meakin]

Honesty and integrity are words redacted in the average Tory MPs dictionary

[Paul Worsley]

The fact that Rhys has probably never set foot in a charity shop aside, I can envisage him acting similarly to Barlow in that sketch if he did...

Is that comment really necessary?

[Mark James]

The fact that Rhys has probably never set foot in a charity shop aside, I can envisage him acting similarly to Barlow in that sketch if he did...

Is that comment really necessary?

Yes.

What's this obsession with civility politics? Have you seen what's going on in the world? The right have gone nuts. Admittedly the UK is better than the states but that's the direction they're heading in.

https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A

[Josh Hurst]

The fact that Rhys has probably never set foot in a charity shop aside, I can envisage him acting similarly to Barlow in that sketch if he did...

Is that comment really necessary?

I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this point, Paul, I really would.

[Fiona T]

The fact that Rhys has probably never set foot in a charity shop aside, I can envisage him acting similarly to Barlow in that sketch if he did...

Is that comment really necessary?

Yes.

What's this obsession with civility politics? Have you seen what's going on in the world? The right have gone nuts. Admittedly the UK is better than the states but that's the direction they're heading in.

https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A

Because behind forum posts are real people, in this case a young man who's had a pretty tough time over the last few years. I disagree with much of Rhys's political views, but I can't recollect an occasion where he's ever made a personal attack on another forum user/member of the community. Be kind- this isn't the house of commons, it's a community forum.

[Mark James]

Of course it sucks that people go through tough times but I guess it's like the paradox of tolerating the intolerant. I have a hard time having empathy for people that lack empathy. I consider advocating for policies that will cause harm to be a personal attack. At this moment in time I think Conservative ideology is almost definitionally unkind. It is one of the most harmful and destructive ideologies and is heading in an even worse direction. And I'm having a hard time worrying about the hurt feelings of anyone who advocates for it. My bad I guess.

[Gavin Chipper]

And he's gone. (Johnson standing down as MP.)

[Gavin Chipper]

Just looking at his resignation statement. He's so full of his self-importance. Does he not realise he's just an irrelevant nobody now?

[Gavin Chipper]

Oh, and while we're here, the honours system is still as ridiculous as ever. Jacob Rees-Mogg knighted and Priti Patel made a dame on Boris Johnson's say-so. It's a complete joke.

[Marc Meakin]

And he's gone. (Johnson standing down as MP.)

About 2 years too late but still

[Gavin Chipper]

And he's gone. (Johnson standing down as MP.)

About 2 years too late but still

He became MP in 2001. I make that 22.

[Gavin Chipper]

So is Boris Johnson finished then? Rhys, are you still on team Boris?

[Fiona T]

Oh, and while we're here, the honours system is still as ridiculous as ever. Jacob Rees-Mogg knighted and Priti Patel made a dame on Boris Johnson's say-so. It's a complete joke.

Doubt it will make a blind bit of difference, but there is a petition...

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/ ... nours-list

[Rhys Benjamin]

And here we all are at last. The 30,000-word diatribe which will make for a shredder's field day in Westminster next week has finally been published. If nothing else it will make for a lovely supply of toilet paper for some others.

I will try to keep this brief.

The intention of my piece is not to convince you whether Boris Johnson lied or not. I suspect many people made up their mind on that 18 months ago when these allegations first emerged. The intention of this piece is to highlight some of the more extreme excrescences from the report, some of the incredibly bizarre conclusions and suggestions, and - most importantly - why I believe MPs should reject the recommendations when it comes to a vote on Monday.

The first thing to note is that "illegal" does not appear in the report once. "Unlawful" appears four times - twice in direct quotes from Boris Johnson. This report, clearly, was written by a lawyer. This looks like it was a deliberate attempt to avoid being transparently in conflict with the Met Police's investigation; the rest of the report does do so, but since it does not outwardly use those terms it suggests the editors got their digital red pens in order before publishing. (Notably, they didn't do this with an earlier evidence bundle and accidentally leaked a bunch of confidential email addresses by mistake. I can corroborate this because I happened to notice that myself before it was taken down.)

It is important to note the only thing Boris Johnson was ever penalised for by the Metropolitan Police (and Rishi Sunak, for that matter) was a surprise birthday celebration, which, in the eyes of many, is the least egregious "event" that occurred, so for this to be the one event where Johnson's attendance was unlawful - in his words - "boggled my mind".

In any case, as I have said before, this is not about trying to convince you about him lying to the House or otherwise. But it is an important pretext.

Where I have concerns are as follows:

1. Criticism of criticism

The Owen Paterson affair, whereby MPs voted against the Standards Committee's recommendation to suspend Owen Paterson for lobbying offences, should have led to reform of the Standards and Privileges Committees. It didn't. Once a matter is referred by the House to the Committee(s) they are given a blank cheque to do as they see fit, it seems. MPs have no way to express concerns about how the Committee conducts itself, the manner in which they are operating, the line of questioning taken in oral evidence - anything. They get a motion to accept the report or otherwise.

"from the outset of this inquiry there has been a sustained attempt, seemingly co-ordinated, to undermine the Committee’s credibility and, more worryingly, that of those Members serving on it. The Committee is concerned that if these behaviours go unchallenged, it will be impossible for the House to establish such a Committee to conduct sensitive and important inquiries in the future. [...] We will be making a Special Report separately to the House dealing with these matters."

This suggests that criticism of how the Committee has operated is to be censured, and I think that is fundamentally wrong. A Select Committee cannot be prosecutor, judge, and jury with a blank cheque as they currently are. MPs who have expressed concerns about the committee throughout the process - on all sides - must be allowed to be heard.

2. Does the Punishment fit the Crime?

The committee recommend (essentially) that Boris Johnson be banned from Westminster and he ought to have been suspended for 90 days. That's three times as long as Margaret Ferrier deliberately breaking Covid rules to board a train. That's nearly twice as long as Rob Roberts's sexual offences. I'm not sure lying - however serious - can be considered worse than sex offences, but yet the two SNP MPs on the committee wanted Boris Johnson expelled - EXPELLED! - from Parliament for life. If that is not a witch-hunt, I simply don't know what is.

So let us consider the "crime". The crime is, allegedly, that he lied to the House, in the view of the committee. That's all. He didn't murder anyone. He didn't deliberately infect anyone with Covid. He didn't rape anyone. He didn't make unwanted sexual advances on junior staffers. No, he said some words which (the Committee believes) were deliberately untrue.

If you believe that merits permanent expulsion from the House and sexual offences don't, then I simply think you should give your head a wobble.

3. The suggestion that we shouldn't have "waited for Sue Gray"

One of the weirdest conclusions in the report is the suggestion that Boris Johnson should not have told MPs to wait for the Gray Report, and should have prejudiced it:

"Mr Johnson [...] misled the House [...] when he gave the impression that there needed to be an investigation by Sue Gray before he could answer questions."

Frankly, I am baffled by this conclusion. To preclude the result of a Cabinet Office inquiry, much of which was subject to Police investigations, would have been sub judice. A little bit of insider trading here, but the Speaker of the House, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, has been extremely careful on the matter of sub judice topics. Indeed, even today I received an email (as a listed member of staff) from the Table Office looking to query about a question my boss has tabled, cautioning him not to refer to ongoing Police investigations and matters. (I am not the Parliamentary Assistant, so I have no idea what said question is.)

I am sure of it Boris Johnson was advised not to comment on an ongoing investigation, not just by his lawyers, but likely by the Police and Sue Gray herself. The Committee's suggestion that therefore saying "wait for Sue Gray" was misleading the House is truly, truly bizarre.

4. The suggestion that Boris Johnson lied to the Committee

This is an incredibly serious allegation. To lie under oath is a criminal offence in a court of law. However, no evidence is presented in the report to this extent. The entire extent of the suggestion he lied to the Committee is that when he said he was "repeatedly" assured, they wanted, er, a more accurate and specific definition of what "repeatedly" meant, and thus they have selectively chosen to define it in a way not consistent with the dictionary.

If I were an MP I would not accept this report for these specific reasons.

[Marc Meakin]

Did it mention he lied to the Queen?

I know I'm a boomer but I yearn for the days when batsmen walked when they have edged the ball and not wait for the finger to go up. (metaphor 101)
Profumo walked when he was found out Boris was found out long ago and he didn't walk.
He only walked before being pushed because no doubt he'd seen a draft copy of the report.

As for unlawful not illegal, smh.
Do we have to wait for a law to be passed before someone is wrong.
When you rely on loopholes and semantics to win your argument I think you have lost the argument if the argument is if Boris Johnson has lied.

This ' Kangaroo court' included several Tory members.

[Fiona T]

This all sounds very trump-like tbh. The committee is part of the democratic process that this country is governed by. You may not always agree with their decisions or conclusions, just as you may not always agree with a magistrate, or a jury of your peers, or even a football referee, but this is the system we have, and until someone comes up with something better, it's what we abide by. Trying to undermine democracy by discrediting the process and shouting "charade", "rubbish", "a lie", "deranged", "absurd" and "a load of complete tripe" is exactly what our tangerine friend over the pond would do.

Fortunately Johnson's brainwashed fanbase is somewhat smaller than that which Trump enjoys, so it's more likely to damage him than democracy, but it really does seem like another step down a slippery slope. (Go watch the video that Mark posted)

As for "punishment", yep, I agree that if someone is found guilty of a sexual assault then they should be booted out forever, but that is whataboutism - let's focus on Johnson and what sanctions are appropriate for him. The man has a well documented history of lying and thinking he's above the rules. In the extremely unlikely event that he did not deliberately mislead parliament then perhaps he should consider why it is so hard to believe anything he says.

[Gavin Chipper]

This suggests that criticism of how the Committee has operated is to be censured, and I think that is fundamentally wrong. A Select Committee cannot be prosecutor, judge, and jury with a blank cheque as they currently are. MPs who have expressed concerns about the committee throughout the process - on all sides - must be allowed to be heard.

Criticism is fine, and I don't think anyone has suggested it isn't. But ranting and raving about it being a kangaroo court is an entirely different matter. And the whole nonsense about it being chaired by Harriet Harman, when it is a majority Conservative committee anyway. He's just trying to deflect from his own failings, and he was fine about it to start with, and only had a problem when he decided he might be in a bit of trouble.

But as Marc has alluded to, it's about the wider picture. I've not read the report so I'm not going to get into the minutiae of it. But it's well known that Boris Johnson is a serial liar, so crying wolf here is not going to win him any sympathy. He should never have been allowed anywhere near public office in the first place (by voters - I'm not suggesting he should have been banned previously), so regardless of whether you agree with the fine print of the report, the end result is what should have been the case anyway.

Here's a video - The Life and Lies of Boris Johnson. It's basically a biography of his life up to when he became prime minister. Here is a longer one that includes his time as PM, so you can just watch that one if you want.

And for balance here is the latest Jonathan Pie video.

[Marc Meakin]

I see BoJo has a column for the Daily Mail, without permission
I hate to see that whoever wrote it, it's quite interesting.
I presume he has type 2 diabetes.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rk-me.html

[Rhys Benjamin]

This suggests that criticism of how the Committee has operated is to be censured, and I think that is fundamentally wrong. A Select Committee cannot be prosecutor, judge, and jury with a blank cheque as they currently are. MPs who have expressed concerns about the committee throughout the process - on all sides - must be allowed to be heard.

Criticism is fine, and I don't think anyone has suggested it isn't. But ranting and raving about it being a kangaroo court is an entirely different matter. And the whole nonsense about it being chaired by Harriet Harman, when it is a majority Conservative committee anyway. He's just trying to deflect from his own failings, and he was fine about it to start with, and only had a problem when he decided he might be in a bit of trouble.

I wasn't talking about Boris's riposte here, and nor was the committee.

[Fiona T]

This suggests that criticism of how the Committee has operated is to be censured, and I think that is fundamentally wrong. A Select Committee cannot be prosecutor, judge, and jury with a blank cheque as they currently are. MPs who have expressed concerns about the committee throughout the process - on all sides - must be allowed to be heard.

Criticism is fine, and I don't think anyone has suggested it isn't. But ranting and raving about it being a kangaroo court is an entirely different matter. And the whole nonsense about it being chaired by Harriet Harman, when it is a majority Conservative committee anyway. He's just trying to deflect from his own failings, and he was fine about it to start with, and only had a problem when he decided he might be in a bit of trouble.

I wasn't talking about Boris's riposte here, and nor was the committee.

riposte
Pronunciation: /rɪˈpɒst/
NOUN
1 A quick, clever reply to an insult or criticism.


You think Johnson's reply was clever? I think it was hugely damaging to the party and public trust in the government. He seems set out to destroy his party - his ego > public good.

[Gavin Chipper]

I wasn't talking about Boris's riposte here, and nor was the committee.

What were you talking about?

[Marc Meakin]

Judging by the list of abstentions and the 7 who voted against the 'Partygate' report, do you think Boris has the balls and the ego to form a breakaway Conservative type party much in the vein of the way the SDP started.

I know it's a leap but I wouldn't be surprised.
He could easily have another crack at London Mayor as an independent to test the waters and Mr Khan is easily beatable

[Rhys Benjamin]

I wasn't talking about Boris's riposte here, and nor was the committee.

What were you talking about?

They (and I) were referring to the MPs who had criticised the committee throughout.

[Gavin Chipper]

I wasn't talking about Boris's riposte here, and nor was the committee.

What were you talking about?

They (and I) were referring to the MPs who had criticised the committee throughout.

But still by calling it a kangaroo court and the likes, right? That wasn't a new thing when Johnson threw his toys out of the pram I think.

[Fiona T]

Yet another political hopeful who (allegedly) has no respect for women/boundaries/normal decency

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66026515

[Fiona T]

What are people's experiences about waiting for a GP appointment? I was reading this article on the BBC, and it was talking about people waiting more than two weeks. But I thought it was standard these days for appointments all to be on the same day that you make them. Basically you and everyone else ring up at 8:00am when the lines open in a race to get one of the available appointments. And you either get one that day or you have to try again tomorrow. Is this not standard then?

Those days are long gone. since computerisation of GP surgeries came about the on-line system puts up available spaces for you to book, if you want a choice of GP then the chances are you'll wait two weeks, if you're less choosy then you may get an appointment earlier. sometimes you can be lucky and get an obvious cancellation (thankfully people do cancel!). I think if you phone and go through the third degree process you may well stand a better chance of getting an earlier appointment.

Last year, I made a few GP appointments and always got a phone appointment on the same day after ringing at 8am. On one occasion the GP decided he wanted to see me in person and book me in for the next day.

Thinking about it, this discussion might have been better in its own thread, or perhaps stuck in with this NHS one, if a moderator wants to move it?

So back to the access to GP debacle.

My daughter found a painless lump on her ribcage. I've had a poke at it and it is a definite lump. She left it a few days in case it disappeared on its own but it hasn't. She went through the online screening thing and was asked to upload a photo, which she did. The lump is just about visible but you really need to feel it to realise it is a lump.

The GP replied by text and said it was dermatitis. (she does have a little rough skin round her ribcage, but she had clearly described her concerns.)

She called the surgery and said she was worried about it, and that she thought the GP has got the wrong end of the stick with her dermatitis diagnosis. The receptionist promised to get it looked at again.

She has just been given an appointment for a month's time.

Now I'm sure there's a 99% chance that the lump is harmless, but the reason they tell you to get lumps checked is that for the 1% that aren't, expediency is key. I am pretty livid tbh.

She is going for a blood test tomorrow, so I've told her to get the blood nurse to look at it and see if she thinks it needs looking at sooner than a month. We'll see what happens...

[Gavin Chipper]

That sounds pretty bad. Since my last post I have actually had an in-person appointment and I think it was about two weeks.

[Marc Meakin]

Hope it goes well for you daughter Fiona
I recently had my first face to face with my GP since 2020 it is only probably arthritis in my heel D I only got an appointment when I pointed out my pain in my heel cannot be photographed.

[Elliott Mellor]

So back to the access to GP debacle.

My daughter found a painless lump on her ribcage. I've had a poke at it and it is a definite lump. She left it a few days in case it disappeared on its own but it hasn't. She went through the online screening thing and was asked to upload a photo, which she did. The lump is just about visible but you really need to feel it to realise it is a lump.

The GP replied by text and said it was dermatitis. (she does have a little rough skin round her ribcage, but she had clearly described her concerns.)

She called the surgery and said she was worried about it, and that she thought the GP has got the wrong end of the stick with her dermatitis diagnosis. The receptionist promised to get it looked at again.

She has just been given an appointment for a month's time.

Now I'm sure there's a 99% chance that the lump is harmless, but the reason they tell you to get lumps checked is that for the 1% that aren't, expediency is key. I am pretty livid tbh.

She is going for a blood test tomorrow, so I've told her to get the blood nurse to look at it and see if she thinks it needs looking at sooner than a month. We'll see what happens...

That's horrific. The worrying thing is, these aren't just isolated occurrences - I've had a bad experience myself this year (as outlined), my mum has, and I reckon I could probably get similar stories from other people I know.

The issue with phone and email consultations is that they really don't capture the problem in the same way that a doctor examining it in person will, and I'd be seriously skeptical of any diagnosis made this way. The biggest worry is that the more of these experiences that get told around, the more people might be willing to ignore these things as "there's no point trying to get an appointment".

[Gavin Chipper]

Here is a video with some perspective on George Osborne's wedding being "ruined" by someone throwing confetti on him. And you can have a Matt Green video free.

[Marc Meakin]

The barge in Portland that will house 500 migrants is causing a stir locally.
Is it just Nimbies or is it because it's 500 men, lock up your daughters and all that

My take on it is that why can't barges be built for the thousands of homeless people in this country?

[Sam Cappleman-Lynes]

My take on it is that why can't barges be built for the thousands of homeless people in this country?

A classic - frame the issue as "our" needy people vs "their" needy people. In reality the problem is a government that cares about neither.

[Rhys Benjamin]

If you commit a crime, you get arrested.

Unless it’s illegal immigration, in which case you are waited on hand and foot by taxpayers’ money.

Lock them up. Stop the boats.

[Gavin Chipper]

That's it. Problem solved.