c4countdown

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 6:45 am

Fiona T wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 9:50 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 7:03 pm

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.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 8:04 am
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.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 6:45 am

Fiona T wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 9:50 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 7:03 pm

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?

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?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 10:15 pm 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.

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

Josh Hurst wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:25 am 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?

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:59 pm

Josh Hurst wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:25 am 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

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:59 pm

Josh Hurst wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:25 am 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.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 11:23 am

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:59 pm

Josh Hurst wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 5:25 am 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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:31 pm And he's gone. (Johnson standing down as MP.)

About 2 years too late but still

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:20 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:31 pm 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.

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

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:41 pm 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

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.

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.

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.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:10 pm 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.

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

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 12:30 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:10 pm 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.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:09 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 12:30 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:10 pm 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.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:09 pm I wasn't talking about Boris's riposte here, and nor was the committee.

What were you talking about?

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

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 7:00 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:09 pm 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.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 8:20 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2023 7:00 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:09 pm 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.

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

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

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 6:28 pm

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 10:27 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 21, 2023 11:48 am 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...

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

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.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 12:50 pm
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".

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.

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?

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:39 am 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.

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.

That's it. Problem solved.

Oh but I've just thought - what about genuine asylum seekers that can't find legal routes?

What's the difference between refugees from war-torn Ukraine, and refugees from war-torn Syria?

(sounds like a joke needing a punchline, but am genuinely confused why one set is welcomed and the other are shunned)

edit to add, I'm not genuinely confused - it's bleedin' obvious, but a terrible reflection on us.

Now that womb transplants are a thing I can't wait until a trans woman has an abortion. Just to see the reaction from the right.

Mark James wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 1:18 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 11:45 am 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?

I thought of this post when I saw this article about a shopkeeper restraining someone and the subsequent protests.

Quelle Surprise
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66857551

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 12:02 am Quelle Surprise
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66857551

He's confirmed he's kicking the petrol/diesel car ban down the road from 2030 to 2035. He's acting like the ban would be quite an extreme thing, but it's only for new cars, so petrol and diesel cars would still exist for several years after 2030 anyway, and could still be sold second hand. He's trying to get the car driver vote at the next general election, but not everyone who drives a car is like Jeremy Clarkson.

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2023 11:50 am Now that womb transplants are a thing I can't wait until a trans woman has an abortion. Just to see the reaction from the right.

It’ll cancel out and they’ll idolise her

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 11:57 am

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 12:02 am Quelle Surprise
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66857551

He's confirmed he's kicking the petrol/diesel car ban down the road from 2030 to 2035. He's acting like the ban would be quite an extreme thing, but it's only for new cars, so petrol and diesel cars would still exist for several years after 2030 anyway, and could still be sold second hand. He's trying to get the car driver vote at the next general election, but not everyone who drives a car is like Jeremy Clarkson.

Still after the Clarkson vote, going after 20 mph zones.

I'm looking forward to the day when 80-year-olds get IDed for buying cigarettes.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Oct 05, 2023 2:36 pm I'm looking forward to the day when 80-year-olds get IDed for buying cigarettes.

They will have to , to by for their 50 year old kids

I think the optics for the just stop oil campaign is a little off, picking on Les Miserables
Mind you at least they came on during the protest song.
Watch out Royal Opera House

https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/04/people-w ... -19600987/

Minister says people who see shoplifting should perform citizens arrests. Now, while this absolutely will not decrease shoplifting, it will increase people getting the shit kicked out of them, so swings and roundabouts really. Another Tory policy win.

Speaking of citizen's arrests, if you believe that a policeman is falsely arresting you or otherwise acting illegally, presumably you could place them under citizen's arrest.

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 2:10 pm https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/04/people-w ... -19600987/

Minister says people who see shoplifting should perform citizens arrests. Now, while this absolutely will not decrease shoplifting, it will increase people getting the shit kicked out of them, so swings and roundabouts really. Another Tory policy win.

I work in retail and we have been told not to apprehend Shoplifters but send cctv to the police.
The big differences between USA and the UK.
The cops there say "stop or I'll shoot" in the UK it's " stop or I will say stop again"

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 2:35 pm Speaking of citizen's arrests, if you believe that a policeman is falsely arresting you or otherwise acting illegally, presumably you could place them under citizen's arrest.

I once got stopped by a plain clothes policeman but he was in uniform, It was his day off

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 5:56 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 2:10 pm https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/04/people-w ... -19600987/

Minister says people who see shoplifting should perform citizens arrests. Now, while this absolutely will not decrease shoplifting, it will increase people getting the shit kicked out of them, so swings and roundabouts really. Another Tory policy win.

I work in retail and we have been told not to apprehend Shoplifters but send cctv to the police.
The big differences between USA and the UK.
The cops there say "stop or I'll shoot" in the UK it's " stop or I will say stop again"

Unless you are black. Then they just shoot.

When you have two terrorist organisations going at each other full guns blazing, it's never going to end well.

OK, you can forget that last facetious comment. Watch this Owen Jones video on the Israel/Palestine situation. I think it's very good.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 9:13 am When you have two terrorist organisations going at each other full guns blazing, it's never going to end well.

Hamas beheading babies.
Even ISIS had standards

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2023 11:22 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 9:13 am When you have two terrorist organisations going at each other full guns blazing, it's never going to end well.

Hamas beheading babies.
Even ISIS had standards

Isis have used 4 year olds to detonate explosives. Let's not pretend they have values

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9186359/

https://twitter.com/Beltrew/status/1712023042560291083

There's no evidence of the "40 babies beheaded" according to the journalist who first reported on decapitations.

When Israel bombs buildings with babies in it, what do you think happens to their heads?

Of course, it was mission accomplished from the irresponsible media, using the 40 babies headlines to generate the kind of response from idiots that Marc has displayed here. Cop on.

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2023 4:44 pm

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2023 11:22 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 9:13 am When you have two terrorist organisations going at each other full guns blazing, it's never going to end well.

Hamas beheading babies.
Even ISIS had standards

Isis have used 4 year olds to detonate explosives. Let's not pretend they have values

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9186359/

https://twitter.com/Beltrew/status/1712023042560291083

There's no evidence of the "40 babies beheaded" according to the journalist who first reported on decapitations.

When Israel bombs buildings with babies in it, what do you think happens to their heads?

Of course, it was mission accomplished from the irresponsible media, using the 40 babies headlines to generate the kind of response from idiots that Marc has displayed here. Cop on.

If we are talking about semantics 4 year olds are older than babies.
Im Jewish but I know that Israel have not always covered themselves in glory but the West created the state of Israel with no regard to the displaced Palestinians.

Btw the timing of Hamas attacks are coincidentally just before peace talks with the Saudis and Israel

https://www.ibanet.org/article/D2659617 ... 71485EC3D6