c4countdown

I don't think I would have given in to taking a drug test just because someone filmed me partying. Anyone else?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:46 pm I don't think I would have given in to taking a drug test just because someone filmed me partying. Anyone else?

I wouldn't care I've never taken an illegal drug in my life

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:46 pm I don't think I would have given in to taking a drug test just because someone filmed me partying. Anyone else?

No, probably not. Don't buy the excuse of 'she may not be in a fit state to make a momentary decision' thing either. Do no world leaders drink alcohol?

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 3:38 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:46 pm I don't think I would have given in to taking a drug test just because someone filmed me partying. Anyone else?

No, probably not. Don't buy the excuse of 'she may not be in a fit state to make a momentary decision' thing either. Do no world leaders drink alcohol?

Well Boris Johnson is never in a fit state to make a decision, momentary or otherwise. Plus deputies exist and it's quite rare for a politician to suddenly have to act.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:46 pm I don't think I would have given in to taking a drug test just because someone filmed me partying. Anyone else?

I think I might have been swayed by whether or not I had anything to hide. Even if you know it's principally wrong I might be tempted to agree to it if I hadn't taken any drugs just to keep people off my back in the hope that next time someone films me and I have taken three ecstacies and a cocaine that I might get away with it.

Matt Morrison wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 8:07 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:46 pm I don't think I would have given in to taking a drug test just because someone filmed me partying. Anyone else?

I think I might have been swayed by whether or not I had anything to hide. Even if you know it's principally wrong I might be tempted to agree to it if I hadn't taken any drugs just to keep people off my back in the hope that next time someone films me and I have taken three ecstacies and a cocaine that I might get away with it.

I don't know. I mean, it might have the opposite effect. If you're "caught" partying another time, they might expect you to take a test again as it's the norm now. Also, it gives some credence to the view that her actions were in some way unacceptable. If she'd been filmed playing Scrabble, there wouldn't have been any calls for her to take a drugs test so why here?

Irvine Welsh on Labour's 33-point YouGov poll lead:

"The lesson from Johnson to Truss is: if you're going to have a greedy corrupt moron fuck the country into oblivion, make sure it's (a) a man and (b) entertaining rather than dull."

Liz Truss.
So bad I almost miss Boris.
45% tax threshold removed.
Truss defends it on National TV and says it will stay,
Less than 24 hours later Kwasi backs down.
All this predicted by the strangely unelectable Rishi Sunak.

From Lib Dem to BDSM.
The Liz Truss story goes on and on

https://wegotthiscovered.com/celebritie ... onspiracy/

The world's worst journalist at it again.

He's even acknowledged he's wrong, but left the original, fake news, tweet up...

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/15809 ... XX0n1_lMsQ

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:26 pm The world's worst journalist at it again.

He's even acknowledged he's wrong, but left the original, fake news, tweet up...

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/15809 ... XX0n1_lMsQ

Yeah, a journalist who tells lies should be removed from the public eye and never be allowed to gain a position of responsibility.

Embarrassing from Peston.

It is embarrassing because he should know in his job but Number 10 also deserves for people to mock their weird system that defies any usual logic and convention. It would have been less embarrassing for Peston if he'd doubled down.

I don’t know whether I’m joking any more when I post this.

https://twitter.com/rhysbenjamin/status ... AcZjGFR89Q

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 7:40 pm I don’t know whether I’m joking any more when I post this.

https://twitter.com/rhysbenjamin/status ... AcZjGFR89Q

What would we prefer a stable government like the conservatives or chaos like labour David Cameron 2018

OK I'm back on the correct thread ( with thanks to my personal Microsoft paper clip)
Do you think Liz Truss will last until Christmas.
I mean she should last until Halloween
I'm not even sure how the tory party can oust her beyond getting a general election in the bargain
Given that Liz Truss has no confidence in herself .
She should go before Boris decides he should step in
I know he is retiring as an MP but Charles Walker said all that needed to be said

We must retreat to go forward.

Back Boris.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 3:24 pm We must retreat to go forward.

Back Boris.

Why not go further and dig up Thatcher?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 3:38 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 3:24 pm We must retreat to go forward.

Back Boris.

Why not go further and dig up Thatcher?

Or just use a hologram of her. You know, like ABBA.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 3:38 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 3:24 pm We must retreat to go forward.

Back Boris.

Why not go further and dig up Thatcher?

Further still and dig up Churchill

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 3:24 pm We must retreat to go forward.

Back Boris.

Genuine question Rhys - what are the values of the Tory party? Do they reflect your own values? Do you believe Boris shares those values?

I just found out that ex-PMs are allowed to claim up to £115,000 per year indefinitely. The amount of BS expenses and stuff politicians are alowed to claim beggars belief. It's outrageous.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 4:51 pm I just found out that ex-PMs are allowed to claim up to £115,000 per year indefinitely. The amount of BS expenses and stuff politicians are alowed to claim beggars belief. It's outrageous.

So that's 4 ex Tory PMs already since 2016

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 5:19 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 4:51 pm I just found out that ex-PMs are allowed to claim up to £115,000 per year indefinitely. The amount of BS expenses and stuff politicians are alowed to claim beggars belief. It's outrageous.

So that's 4 ex Tory PMs already since 2016

Yep!

By the way, a lot of people have short memories when it comes to politicians, so it's worth reminding people sometimes. I'm not talking about Boris Johnson, as there's no excuse for forgetting what a shambles of a man he is. But Jeremy Hunt is now viewed as some sort of "safe pair of hands" as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, this video might remind you of a few things about him.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 5:26 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 5:19 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 4:51 pm I just found out that ex-PMs are allowed to claim up to £115,000 per year indefinitely. The amount of BS expenses and stuff politicians are alowed to claim beggars belief. It's outrageous.

So that's 4 ex Tory PMs already since 2016

Yep!

By the way, a lot of people have short memories when it comes to politicians, so it's worth reminding people sometimes. I'm not talking about Boris Johnson, as there's no excuse for forgetting what a shambles of a man he is. But Jeremy Hunt is now viewed as some sort of "safe pair of hands" as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, this video might remind you of a few things about him.

He was awful as Health Minister

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 3:24 pm We must retreat to go forward.

Back Boris.

If Boris Johnson is the answer, then you must have misunderstood the question

The BBC aren’t even trying to hide their bias any more. I don’t ever want to hear that Boris was given a fair time of it. https://twitter.com/nj_timothy/status/1 ... eC41NlkJsg

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:38 am The BBC aren’t even trying to hide their bias any more. I don’t ever want to hear that Boris was given a fair time of it. https://twitter.com/nj_timothy/status/1 ... eC41NlkJsg

There's no context there. And this is just one person. Not "The BBC".

Anyway, a fair time of it when? He was PM for quite a while before all his lying and cheating caught up with him. You should not be trying to defend this man. It reflects badly on anyone doing so.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:38 am The BBC aren’t even trying to hide their bias any more. I don’t ever want to hear that Boris was given a fair time of it. https://twitter.com/nj_timothy/status/1 ... eC41NlkJsg

Inasmuch as I'm generally happy to accept that people are going to have different political leanings to my own, I really can't understand how you can blithely defend this charlatan (or indeed the Conservative Party).

How about the public being given a fair chance to have their say on who runs the country, instead of an extremely small number of people? The tories are on their third leader now in less than a year. They've gone through a prime minister who broke rules that he set, a deputy chief whip with a history of sexual misconduct (which was known when, yes, Boris appointed him!), a chancellor who crashed the economy, and their health minister has admitted to sharing prescriptions - and that's really just scratching the surface.

Now, everyone makes mistakes, but make a few too many mistakes of this magnitude and you are quite clearly unsuitable for office.

My grandad was a tory for all of his life - that guy never voted for anyone else in any election - local or general, but in the last election he voted in before he died, he refused to vote Conservative, and made it very clear that the sleaze and incompetence of their leader Boris Johnson was the reason. When you're so bad that you lose the trust of members of over sixty years, you're pretty fucking bad.

I agree that the reporting shown is pretty bad, and I'd expect complaints to be upheld.

But to reiterate my previous questions - what values do you personally believe to be important? What are the values of the conservative party? Does Boris lead by example when considering those values?

Bob, my boss, and 1922 committee member, so therefore neutral, has told the press that Boris got 100.

So maybe all the “journalists” who said he was lying about it should apologise to him?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 12:38 pm Bob, my boss, and 1922 committee member, so therefore neutral, has told the press that Boris got 100.

So maybe all the “journalists” who said he was lying about it should apologise to him?

Perhaps if you could answer the questions above this post, we could then debate this.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 12:38 pm Bob, my boss, and 1922 committee member, so therefore neutral, has told the press that Boris got 100.

So maybe all the “journalists” who said he was lying about it should apologise to him?

That tells me that Boris didn't want to be PM as in a 2 horse race the Tory Party Members would have voted him in

The Tory party in sensible action shock.
Showing unity and picking the right person for the job
From the shortest serving Prime Minister to one of the shortest, serving (male) Prime Minister.
The shortest since Winston Churchill in fact.
I think he can handle the poisoned chalice until the next election

Martine Croxall is being investigated over what happened.

Obviously she didn't say what she was gleeful about, although some might say it was clearly Johnson pulling out. But sure, investigate it, but in the general scheme of things it's a slap on the wrist. Krishnan Guru-Murthy got suspended for calling Steve Baker MP a cunt (off air) the other day. Again, I don't think it's worth getting too exicted about though.

I'm not sure I get the relevance of this bit though:

She was then seen asking her guests: "Can we even show you the front pages just yet, have they arrived? No they haven't arrived. It's all a little bit, you know, lastminute.com isn't it? Because all the front pages were probably out of date by the time we received them."

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:51 pm Martine Croxall is being investigated over what happened.

Obviously she didn't say what she was gleeful about, although some might say it was clearly Johnson pulling out. But sure, investigate it, but in the general scheme of things it's a slap on the wrist. Krishnan Guru-Murthy got suspended for calling Steve Baker MP a cunt (off air) the other day. Again, I don't think it's worth getting too exicted about though.

I'm not sure I get the relevance of this bit though:

She was then seen asking her guests: "Can we even show you the front pages just yet, have they arrived? No they haven't arrived. It's all a little bit, you know, lastminute.com isn't it? Because all the front pages were probably out of date by the time we received them."

Johnson, pulling out, thats a first

Fiona T wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:54 am I agree that the reporting shown is pretty bad, and I'd expect complaints to be upheld.

But to reiterate my previous questions - what values do you personally believe to be important? What are the values of the conservative party? Does Boris lead by example when considering those values?

Boris Johnson remains our biggest electoral asset since Margaret Thatcher. Our values are about strong leadership, economic liberalism, and unionism. Boris is on the left of the party, but I think he embodies all of those.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:47 pm

Fiona T wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:54 am I agree that the reporting shown is pretty bad, and I'd expect complaints to be upheld.

But to reiterate my previous questions - what values do you personally believe to be important? What are the values of the conservative party? Does Boris lead by example when considering those values?

Boris Johnson remains our biggest electoral asset since Margaret Thatcher. Our values are about strong leadership, economic liberalism, and unionism. Boris is on the left of the party, but I think he embodies all of those.

Johnson might have been an electoral asset in the past - not sure about now. But to be clear, if he was an asset it's because people were fooled by his ridiculous bumbling persona, not because he was in any way good.

Plus I'm not sure what it really means to be on the left or right of the party if your "values" are simply what you think will get you elected.

Boris Johnson wrote a compelling article on why we should remain in the EU and a few days later was spearheading the Brexit campaign.
Boris Johnson puts himself first.
The only reason he would have pulled out of the leadership election is because the country will get a lot worse before it gets better and when Rishi loses the next General election he will come out of the wilderness.
He wants to be liked again and even I will admit he is likeable in spite of being both a liar and a liability since the pandemic

this is absolutely fucking disgraceful.

Presented without comment: the currently-trending words in the dictionary.

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:50 pm this is absolutely fucking disgraceful.

He is probably saying it from a safety standpoint rather than a homophobic standpoint.
The Qataris don't fuck about when it comes to punishment

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:50 pm

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 12:50 pm this is absolutely fucking disgraceful.

He is probably saying it from a safety standpoint rather than a homophobic standpoint.
The Qataris don't fuck about when it comes to punishment

Yeah, I was debating with myself how bad it was, which was why I didn't reply earlier because normally I'd be all over any Cleverly chat.

But I do perhaps think he's treating people like they're stupid. Did it need to be said?

Well the problem here is the choice to host it in Qatar.

The Qatar regime - based on some idea of a religious being that seems to me to be a less benevolent adult Father Christmas - have determined that homosexuality is a sin (tbf, was a matter of a few decades ago, it was illegal on our shores). We've moved on. They haven't.

But yep - if you're going to Qatar, you don't wanna mess with it. It's more about fear than "respect".

Yeah to be clear, the first disgrace here (relevant to the Foreign Secretary's comments) is Qatar and its contemptible ethics, including its horrible homophobia.

The second disgrace is FIFA's appalling decision to host a World Cup there. Not just because of their homophobia. The fact that Qatar is not a footballing country and is far too hot to play football in should be enough to discount it from hosting a World Cup. Combine those two things with their work laws that are widely considered to be in breach of human rights and you end up with the terrible (but entirely foreseeable) outcome of 7 brand new football stadia being built for the tournament by effectively indentured servant migrant workers in blistering heat. There is dispute over how many of them died in the process. The International Trade Union Confederation estimates the total at between 6500 and 7000. The majority of the tournament will be played in these 7 stadia. So for most games in this tournament, the very venue the players are playing in will be on average responsible for the deaths of 1000 migrant workers who didn't have a way out of their work.

The third disgrace is Cleverley's framing of the danger that many football fans will face in Qatar. Yes, they will be in danger and in his job he probably has to warn them of that. Yes, given the diplomatic nature of his job he probably can't be too openly critical of Qatar. But the framing is still awful.

So yeah, the main takeaway from this is how awful Qatar is and how much of a disgrace this World Cup is. But Cleverley's comments are still very poor.

Any in depth discussion of the shitshow in Qatar that they're calling a World Cup probably should be in a different thread, or its own one, as it's more a moral issue then a political one. But guys, please please please don't watch the World Cup this year. FIFA have forced it ahead despite all the ethical reasons not to, basically entirely because of money. We (football fans) can vote with our wallets, our TV remotes, and our online clicks to send a message to them that we don't approve. If enough of us do so, they might get the message that holding a World Cup in such an impractical and unethical state isn't as profitable as they had hoped, and might not consider hosting one in such a place again. That decision could save the lives of thousands of migrant workers, and ensure gay fans can attend football tournaments just like everyone else, without fear of being arrested - and possibly worse - for their nature.

It might sound like a cop out but I try not to bring politics in sport so I will be watching
I didnt boycott the Moscow Olympics in 1980 and I shall be watching the world cup.

You get F1 races in dodgy countries, including Qatar, as well.

True Gavin, although they're not going there this season.

Worth noting that the stadium build push that killed thousands of workers is a specific reason not to follow this World Cup that might not apply to other events such as the Qatar GP (so far as I understand that took place last year at the Losail circuit that had been there for years as a motorbike racing track).

Suella’s not a great home sec, but she is right about one thing: there are too many people seemingly uninterested in the channel crossings, pretending it’s not happening because they refuse to believe that it’s illegal or should be stopped.

No one needs to flee from France illegally to come here. They do that because they know we’re too soft a touch at present.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 2:11 pm Suella’s not a great home sec, but she is right about one thing: there are too many people seemingly uninterested in the channel crossings, pretending it’s not happening because they refuse to believe that it’s illegal or should be stopped.

No one needs to flee from France illegally to come here. They do that because they know we’re too soft a touch at present.

I think people are interested in the channel crossings - it's just that people have different ideas on why they happen and who's to blame. I think pretty much everyone agrees that they're a bad thing in principle. There should be no need to make these dangerous crossings from one supposedly safe country to another. And yet people do make these crossings, for whatever reason.

I think the main problem is lack of co-operation and a co-ordinated approach between countries. Some people would say that people should only be able to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. But this would clearly mean that a small number of countries would get the bulk of asylum seekers, purely based on where they are situated in the world. And I don't think it's right to wash your hands of the problem just because you are further away from the places where asylum seekers come from than other countries.

I've said this before, but I think the best solution is for all "safe" countries to have a single set of rules, administered by an independent body. Basically you reach a safe country and make a claim to asylum, saying which country you want to go to and why. Which country you happen to arrive at first would not matter. The independent body places aslyum seekers in a country based on the needs of the asylum seeker and availability in the country. Some asylum seekers would have a higher priority to be allowed in their country of choice than others (e.g. if they already have family there).

It seems pretty obvious to me, but people prefer to play the blame game than co-operate.

I think France should be where all asylum seekers are processed and depending on quotas would go to an allotted EU country.
Seems fair, and would be fairer if we was still in the EU

A former civil servant has done a big interview with Guido to pour cold water on the Raab witch-hunt.

https://order-order.com/2022/11/17/the- ... standards/

The do-nothing Mayor has ignored the wishes of Londoners. 2 in 3 opposed ULEZ expansion in the “genuine consultation” and furthermore some opposition responses were improperly excluded. This is a scandal and Khan should resign.

I might as well bring up the Susan Hussey "Where do you really come from?" thing. What do you reckon?

Here is the full conversation, as recounted by Ms Fulani:

Lady SH: Where are you from?

Me: Sistah Space.

SH: No, where do you come from?

Me: We're based in Hackney.

SH: No, what part of Africa are you from?

Me: I don't know, they didn't leave any records.

SH: Well, you must know where you're from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?

Me: Here, the UK.

SH: No, but what nationality are you?

Me: I am born here and am British.

SH: No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from?

Me: 'My people', lady, what is this?

SH: Oh I can see I am going to have a challenge getting you to say where you're from. When did you first come here?

Me: Lady! I am a British national, my parents came here in the 50s when...

SH: Oh, I knew we'd get there in the end, you're Caribbean!

Me: No lady, I am of African heritage, Caribbean descent and British nationality.

SH: Oh so you're from...

The transcript reads horribly, although I presume it's from memory so could be made to look worse (or even better) than it really was. Susan Hussey comes out of this badly, but I also think it's not productive to to have such a binary view of something either being racist or not racist. I don't think it really adds much. I don't think it's completely unreasonable to wonder where someone's ancestors are from, although it's probably not the first thing you'd ask someone and you wouldn't ask in this way. So I think that the conversation (if it was as the transcript) was completely unreasonable, and I think that's enough.

Years ago, when I used to work for a double glazing company part time, a woman I worked with asked me about my nationality. She got out of me that my dad was born in India and then said something like "So first and foremost you are Asian." And I said no because my mum is white and British anyway (so I would be at most 50% Asian) and I was born in the UK and had never been to Asia. It was an annoying conversation, but I didn't think that she was racist. And if it changes anything, she was from Nigeria. And that does show that this kind of questioning doesn't necessarily come from a position of "I'm white - who are you?" Her line of questioning wasn't as aggressive as Hussey's apparently was, but curiosity about someone's ancestry alone doesn't make for a racist, and neither does aggressive questioning alone, but the two combined do?

If she had asked her what her ancestry was then it wouldn't have merited any censure.
I would say that the language fits unconscious bias and clumsy but not overtly racist in tone.
If i had read the transcript with no prior knowledge I would have guessed that she was probably at least 80 as its the sort of thing my mum may have said in her 80s or 90s

It's more the repeated questioning and implied disbelief that's so egregious: 'no, where are you really from?' after being told Britain several times is just awful. It beggars belief that someone in such a high profile role that likely involved speaking diplomatically with people from all sorts of different backgrounds hadn't been trained out of an inclination to say such ridiculously ignorant things. The above transcript absolutely reads as abuse.

My response would have been “WHEN are you really from?!” (you crazy old bat)

In light of Sunak's new Maths policy, this Sky News presenter, in an effort of accidental self-depreciation, admits she's not as smart as a 10-year-old. https://twitter.com/annabotting/status/ ... DkdHmrOKhw

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 5:38 am In light of Sunak's new Maths policy, this Sky News presenter, in an effort of accidental self-depreciation, admits she's not as smart as a 10-year-old. https://twitter.com/annabotting/status/ ... DkdHmrOKhw

The last thing we need is 16 - 18 year old being forced to continue schooling

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 5:38 am self-depreciation

Maybe we should be teaching English a bit longer as well.