NPR

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:56 pm Fairly willful misinterpretation of what I've been saying but sure fine

I literally asked you to provide clarification as to what "they've done for centuries", suggesting that amending existing laws and creating new ones is actually what they've been doing instead of overturning judicial decisions, but instead you kept arguing - which is a very weird route to take if apparently we're all in agreement. What other conclusion could we draw from that?

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:30 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:56 pm Fairly willful misinterpretation of what I've been saying but sure fine

I literally asked you to provide clarification as to what "they've done for centuries", suggesting that amending existing laws and creating new ones is actually what they've been doing instead of overturning judicial decisions, but instead you kept arguing - which is a very weird route to take if apparently we're all in agreement. What other conclusion could we draw from that?

OK, I've read back and I think I get what you're referring to. It still doesn't say what you have inferred it does but happy to clarify I do not believe Parliament should retrospectively legalise/criminalise something in an individual judgement.

(I wish that emoji was less sarcastic)

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:43 pm

I like neeps wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:34 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:50 pm

There's nothing controversial, disgraceful or new about the government amending laws to reflect the intent they desire. If they were to try and retrospectively alter cases then sure, that would be a different ball game.

They already can do this though. So hard to believe this is the ultimate goal.

As I said towards the start, given the increasing reach of judicial review there is certainly a fair case for formalising the process, as it is needed more than it used to be. Will wait to see what actually emerges.

What do you mean by formalising the process? Judicial review is pretty formal there's 200 years of case law and statutes behind it now. As you can see from the quotes The Times uses from Braverman saying that jurisprudence is being overreached with "political" challenges such as the prorogation and I presume article 50 challenge they are concerned about legal types telling them they can't do a particular course of action. The election manifesto written after those court verdicts iirc.

If they don't like the results of the courts they can pretty easily change or amend laws through debates and a vote. And at every point this government has tried to escape scrutiny. So it's a charitable reading to suggest this is without that motive.

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:04 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:38 am

No one elects judges in this country - in the strictest sense this would ensure the democratically elected element of the state actually gets to make laws and get them implemented in the way it intends.

This is a scary take on these events, the fact that the judiciary isn't elected means it is not subject to whims and populism and should not be intimidated by agenda-driven media.

This is really missing the target by a fucking mile, any outrage right now should be directed at the government's attempts at criminalising protest and dissent.

Not really. This isn't America and judges aren't a constitutional check and balance. They interpret and rule on the laws set down by an elected Parliament.

This is incorrect, the courts (judiciary) in the UK are a constitutional checks and balances mechanism. It's just we have an unwritten constitution.

If the judiciary wasn't a checks and balance mechanism you wouldn't have judicial review for example. Or the Supreme Court able to say proroguing parliament is illegal and the conservative party (executive) trying to convince the legislature (parliament) to change the power of the courts (judiciary).

I like neeps wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:56 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:04 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:38 am


This is a scary take on these events, the fact that the judiciary isn't elected means it is not subject to whims and populism and should not be intimidated by agenda-driven media.

This is really missing the target by a fucking mile, any outrage right now should be directed at the government's attempts at criminalising protest and dissent.

Not really. This isn't America and judges aren't a constitutional check and balance. They interpret and rule on the laws set down by an elected Parliament.

This is incorrect, the courts (judiciary) in the UK are a constitutional checks and balances mechanism. It's just we have an unwritten constitution.

If the judiciary wasn't a checks and balance mechanism you wouldn't have judicial review for example. Or the Supreme Court able to say proroguing parliament is illegal and the conservative party (executive) trying to convince the legislature (parliament) to change the power of the courts (judiciary).

Honestly I am not being an arse here but I don't understand how you think they are changing powers of the courts? Parliament can legislate on anything it wants including explicitly reversing a legal judgement or precedent. That's always being true and is a simple fact of Parliamentary supremacy.

tc27 wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:37 pm

I like neeps wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:56 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:04 pm

Not really. This isn't America and judges aren't a constitutional check and balance. They interpret and rule on the laws set down by an elected Parliament.

This is incorrect, the courts (judiciary) in the UK are a constitutional checks and balances mechanism. It's just we have an unwritten constitution.

If the judiciary wasn't a checks and balance mechanism you wouldn't have judicial review for example. Or the Supreme Court able to say proroguing parliament is illegal and the conservative party (executive) trying to convince the legislature (parliament) to change the power of the courts (judiciary).

Honestly I am not being an arse here but I don't understand how you think they are changing powers of the courts? Parliament can legislate on anything it wants including explicitly reversing a legal judgement or precedent. That's always being true and is a simple fact of Parliamentary supremacy.

We'll have to see the bill to see the changes they want to make won't we?

But any changes to judicial review is likely to be a pretty significant challenge into the functioning of a court to rule on government decisions. Otherwise why bother? I agree re parliamentary supremacy and have said as much when PB mentioned the planned clarification bill. There would be no point in that as the government already has the power to reverse precedent. So it's going to be something more about the "political challenges" such a proroguing as Braverman strongly suggested as reported by the times articles.

Also niche point the article 50 without vote and proroguing were overturned by the court because parliament is sovereign the executive is not. So the Tories needed a vote which they won. I'll guess the bill the Tories are trying to introduce will be something about the executive being able to act without parliament. As that's why they lost in court.

The expose on the Afghan disaster makes for astonishing reading, wow.

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:06 am The expose on the Afghan disaster makes for astonishing reading, wow.

Appalling! It must be reasonably true as Raab made such a horses arse in his responses to Nick Robinson's questioning.
Came over as a thin skinned. control freak with zero empathy. Horrible man!!!

I like neeps wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:57 pm

tc27 wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:37 pm

I like neeps wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:56 pm

This is incorrect, the courts (judiciary) in the UK are a constitutional checks and balances mechanism. It's just we have an unwritten constitution.

If the judiciary wasn't a checks and balance mechanism you wouldn't have judicial review for example. Or the Supreme Court able to say proroguing parliament is illegal and the conservative party (executive) trying to convince the legislature (parliament) to change the power of the courts (judiciary).

Honestly I am not being an arse here but I don't understand how you think they are changing powers of the courts? Parliament can legislate on anything it wants including explicitly reversing a legal judgement or precedent. That's always being true and is a simple fact of Parliamentary supremacy.

We'll have to see the bill to see the changes they want to make won't we?

But any changes to judicial review is likely to be a pretty significant challenge into the functioning of a court to rule on government decisions. Otherwise why bother? I agree re parliamentary supremacy and have said as much when PB mentioned the planned clarification bill. There would be no point in that as the government already has the power to reverse precedent. So it's going to be something more about the "political challenges" such a proroguing as Braverman strongly suggested as reported by the times articles.

Also niche point the article 50 without vote and proroguing were overturned by the court because parliament is sovereign the executive is not. So the Tories needed a vote which they won. I'll guess the bill the Tories are trying to introduce will be something about the executive being able to act without parliament. As that's why they lost in court.

I was thinking about this earlier and I wonder if this was a tester, the proposal as reported is actually quite vague but in the light of the backlash to the sleaze and Johnson trying to circle the wagons around his kind, I wonder if they were testing public opinion before going ahead more formally?

As we've been saying, there is no question that the government can follow due process and rewrite laws by going through both houses, but there is absolutely no reason to give this government any benefit of the doubt, they have not earned that, so as you say, given that there is a process for changing laws, it is reasonable to assume they are trying to bypass that process.

By the way there is an interesting blog post by a constitutional expert on the subject of the balance between parliament and the judiciary
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2013/0 ... n-a-hurry/

Am I reading this right ?

The UK managed to evacuate only 500, "Special Cases", because of the fucked up & totally inadequate crisis management; but because the Bumblecunt (or more likely Princess NutNut), was worried about the stories generated by, Pen Fucking Farthing; that tosser was evacuated on an otherwise empty plane ... 229 empty seats, & thousands outside, begging to be brought out.

How the fuck is Raab your deputy PM ?, he isn't fit to be a tea boy.

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:51 am Am I reading this right ?

The UK managed to evacuate only 500, "Special Cases", because of the fucked up & totally inadequate crisis management; but because the Bumblecunt (or more likely Princess NutNut), was worried about the stories generated by, Pen Fucking Farthing; that tosser was evacuated on an otherwise empty plane ... 229 empty seats, & thousands outside, begging to be brought out.

How the fuck is Raab your deputy PM ?, he isn't fit to be a tea boy.

This is staggering. Something else that should bring down the government

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:48 am

I was thinking about this earlier and I wonder if this was a tester, the proposal as reported is actually quite vague but in the light of the backlash to the sleaze and Johnson trying to circle the wagons around his kind, I wonder if they were testing public opinion before going ahead more formally?

As we've been saying, there is no question that the government can follow due process and rewrite laws by going through both houses, but there is absolutely no reason to give this government any benefit of the doubt, they have not earned that, so as you say, given that there is a process for changing laws, it is reasonable to assume they are trying to bypass that process.

By the way there is an interesting blog post by a constitutional expert on the subject of the balance between parliament and the judiciary
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2013/0 ... n-a-hurry/

It's also very suspicious timing with the recent FDA vs Patel case and many senior ministers either under investigation or potentially so. It might just be cynicism on my part as I doubt if even this Government would interfere with possible prosecutions or certain criminal cases/judgements involving their own, but you do get a feeling more and more often that they consider themselves above ordinary mortals when it come to the law. We have to wait and see if this is maybe a wish to examine what is seen as lenient sentencing on some high profile cases, cases and judgements against the spirit of the law or another attempt to pull a flanker for their own benefit.

One can only wonder at the reaction if a Corbyn led Labour government had proposed it though...

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:51 am Am I reading this right ?

The UK managed to evacuate only 500, "Special Cases", because of the fucked up & totally inadequate crisis management; but because the Bumblecunt (or more likely Princess NutNut), was worried about the stories generated by, Pen Fucking Farthing; that tosser was evacuated on an otherwise empty plane ... 229 empty seats, & thousands outside, begging to be brought out.

How the fuck is Raab your deputy PM ?, he isn't fit to be a tea boy.

Deputy PM is essentially government tea boy to be fair.

Also the people won't care, dogs over afghans was the smart political choice. Voters prefer dogs to people I'd say.

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:51 am Am I reading this right ?

The UK managed to evacuate only 500, "Special Cases", because of the fucked up & totally inadequate crisis management; but because the Bumblecunt (or more likely Princess NutNut), was worried about the stories generated by, Pen Fucking Farthing; that tosser was evacuated on an otherwise empty plane ... 229 empty seats, & thousands outside, begging to be brought out.

How the fuck is Raab your deputy PM ?, he isn't fit to be a tea boy.

Deputy PM is a meaningless honorific really, we don’t always have one. But yes, he is a useless tosser.

The Kabul evacuation will have a long lasting effect on British foreign and defence policy I think. 'The Brits say you're their allies but in the end they'll evacuate dogs before you' is both a pretty powerful reason not to side with us and true. Completely shameful.

tc27 wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:58 am

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:51 am Am I reading this right ?

The UK managed to evacuate only 500, "Special Cases", because of the fucked up & totally inadequate crisis management; but because the Bumblecunt (or more likely Princess NutNut), was worried about the stories generated by, Pen Fucking Farthing; that tosser was evacuated on an otherwise empty plane ... 229 empty seats, & thousands outside, begging to be brought out.

How the fuck is Raab your deputy PM ?, he isn't fit to be a tea boy.

This is staggering. Something else that should bring down the government

Just think of the poor dogs

tc27 wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:58 am

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:51 am Am I reading this right ?

The UK managed to evacuate only 500, "Special Cases", because of the fucked up & totally inadequate crisis management; but because the Bumblecunt (or more likely Princess NutNut), was worried about the stories generated by, Pen Fucking Farthing; that tosser was evacuated on an otherwise empty plane ... 229 empty seats, & thousands outside, begging to be brought out.

How the fuck is Raab your deputy PM ?, he isn't fit to be a tea boy.

This is staggering. Something else that should bring down the government

Fucking hell! Government by social media is here to stay I'm afraid.

I love (most) dogs and looking after my sister's one can be the highlight of my week, but fuck me this country's relationship with them is so wildly out of whack with what it should be.

Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:16 am I love (most) dogs and looking after my sister's one can be the highlight of my week, but fuck me this country's relationship with them is so wildly out of whack with what it should be.

It's the sign of a broken society, I think we all lack such meaningful human connection dogs have filled the gap and we've gone crazy.

Slick wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:10 am

tc27 wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:58 am

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:51 am Am I reading this right ?

The UK managed to evacuate only 500, "Special Cases", because of the fucked up & totally inadequate crisis management; but because the Bumblecunt (or more likely Princess NutNut), was worried about the stories generated by, Pen Fucking Farthing; that tosser was evacuated on an otherwise empty plane ... 229 empty seats, & thousands outside, begging to be brought out.

How the fuck is Raab your deputy PM ?, he isn't fit to be a tea boy.

This is staggering. Something else that should bring down the government

Fucking hell! Government by social media is here to stay I'm afraid.

The blonde slug and his wife were not involved with the decision. Honest!!!

We received an instruction from the prime minister to use considerable capacity to transport Nowzad’s animals.

But Marshall does not elaborate on the PM’s involvement in his memo. Elsewhere he says that Wendy Morton, a Foreign Office minister, intervened and asked for help with the Nowzad evacuation.

Over the summer there were suspicions that Johnson was involved in the decision to help Nowzad (a decison that angered Ben Wallace, the defence secretary) because his wife Carrie is a passionate animal lover. But No 10 said at the time that neither Johnson nor his wife were involved.

SaintK wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:34 am

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:06 am The expose on the Afghan disaster makes for astonishing reading, wow.

Appalling! It must be reasonably true as Raab made such a horses arse in his responses to Nick Robinson's questioning.
Came over as a thin skinned. control freak with zero empathy. Horrible man!!!

I didn't think he did that badly, though I also don't have a sense of how accurate some of the comments he gave were.

The stuff that some queries took hours to get a response from a Secretary of State on don't for instance seem weird to me from the outside, that's the Foreign Secretary reviewing large tranches of data (in agreeable format or otherwise) after some review work by their team in London, then negotiating/discussing with others in the executive such as the Home Secretary, before returning a position. How much quicker is someone expecting to get a decision from a Secretary of State?

SaintK wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:30 am

Slick wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:10 am

tc27 wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:58 am



This is staggering. Something else that should bring down the government

Fucking hell! Government by social media is here to stay I'm afraid.

The blonde slug and his wife were not involved with the decision. Honest!!!

We received an instruction from the prime minister to use considerable capacity to transport Nowzad’s animals.

But Marshall does not elaborate on the PM’s involvement in his memo. Elsewhere he says that Wendy Morton, a Foreign Office minister, intervened and asked for help with the Nowzad evacuation.

Over the summer there were suspicions that Johnson was involved in the decision to help Nowzad (a decison that angered Ben Wallace, the defence secretary) because his wife Carrie is a passionate animal lover. But No 10 said at the time that neither Johnson nor his wife were involved.

Then someone needs to ask Wendy; what exactly caused her to prioritise; cats & dogs; ahead of humans.

And if she made this decision, off her own bat; then she would justifiably be pilloried ... but we know this wasn't her decision

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:37 am

SaintK wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:30 am

Slick wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:10 am

Fucking hell! Government by social media is here to stay I'm afraid.

The blonde slug and his wife were not involved with the decision. Honest!!!

We received an instruction from the prime minister to use considerable capacity to transport Nowzad’s animals.

But Marshall does not elaborate on the PM’s involvement in his memo. Elsewhere he says that Wendy Morton, a Foreign Office minister, intervened and asked for help with the Nowzad evacuation.

Over the summer there were suspicions that Johnson was involved in the decision to help Nowzad (a decison that angered Ben Wallace, the defence secretary) because his wife Carrie is a passionate animal lover. But No 10 said at the time that neither Johnson nor his wife were involved.

Then someone needs to ask Wendy; what exactly caused her to prioritise; cats & dogs; ahead of humans.

And if she made this decision, off her own bat; then she would justifiably be pilloried ... but we know this wasn't her decision

"Wendy Morton is the Minister for Europe and Americas at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO)"

A bit hard to believe that a Junior Minister would have the remit to make the decision completely without referring it "upstairs" - wonder if she's ready to take a bullet to protect someone else?

GogLais wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:06 am

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:51 am Am I reading this right ?

The UK managed to evacuate only 500, "Special Cases", because of the fucked up & totally inadequate crisis management; but because the Bumblecunt (or more likely Princess NutNut), was worried about the stories generated by, Pen Fucking Farthing; that tosser was evacuated on an otherwise empty plane ... 229 empty seats, & thousands outside, begging to be brought out.

How the fuck is Raab your deputy PM ?, he isn't fit to be a tea boy.

Deputy PM is a meaningless honorific really, we don’t always have one. But yes, he is a useless tosser.

Its a made up job, often used as a consolation prize for someone who cant be trusted with a proper position. We haven't had a Deputy PM for 6 years, and before Raab the Deputy PM's were Nick Clegg and John Prescott.

The funny thing is although this evacuation story is far more serious I suspect it may be the Christmas party story that will cause real damage - as in its going to be far easier to prove and prosecute.

tabascoboy wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:46 am

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:37 am

SaintK wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:30 am
The blonde slug and his wife were not involved with the decision. Honest!!!

Then someone needs to ask Wendy; what exactly caused her to prioritise; cats & dogs; ahead of humans.

And if she made this decision, off her own bat; then she would justifiably be pilloried ... but we know this wasn't her decision

"Wendy Morton is the Minister for Europe and Americas at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO)"

A bit hard to believe that a Junior Minister would have the remit to make the decision completely without referring it "upstairs" - wonder if she's ready to take a bullet to protect someone else?

Wendy is a local MP to me, and she's pretty much thought as Wendy don't rock the boat Morton. She's going as a norm to try and straight bat everything and never take a brave decision

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:36 am

SaintK wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:34 am

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:06 am The expose on the Afghan disaster makes for astonishing reading, wow.

Appalling! It must be reasonably true as Raab made such a horses arse in his responses to Nick Robinson's questioning.
Came over as a thin skinned. control freak with zero empathy. Horrible man!!!

I didn't think he did that badly, though I also don't have a sense of how accurate some of the comments he gave were.

The stuff that some queries took hours to get a response from a Secretary of State on don't for instance seem weird to me from the outside, that's the Foreign Secretary reviewing large tranches of data (in agreeable format or otherwise) after some review work by their team in London, then negotiating/discussing with others in the executive such as the Home Secretary, before returning a position. How much quicker is someone expecting to get a decision from a Secretary of State?

This is bang on. As usual, the most hysterical are those that don't understand how things have to work. And of course would be equally hysterical if an SoS was just making decisions without correct procedure.

That's not to say some of this is not incredibly shit.

Like this for instance:

he claims that a system was set up to falsely indicate that emails from people requesting help had been read when they had not, allowing Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab, who was the foreign secretary, to rebut accusations in parliament that urgent emails were being ignored.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:36 am

SaintK wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:34 am

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:06 am The expose on the Afghan disaster makes for astonishing reading, wow.

Appalling! It must be reasonably true as Raab made such a horses arse in his responses to Nick Robinson's questioning.
Came over as a thin skinned. control freak with zero empathy. Horrible man!!!

I didn't think he did that badly, though I also don't have a sense of how accurate some of the comments he gave were.

The stuff that some queries took hours to get a response from a Secretary of State on don't for instance seem weird to me from the outside, that's the Foreign Secretary reviewing large tranches of data (in agreeable format or otherwise) after some review work by their team in London, then negotiating/discussing with others in the executive such as the Home Secretary, before returning a position. How much quicker is someone expecting to get a decision from a Secretary of State?

..........and of course he was doing this from his luxury resort in Greece on holiday, but "the sea was closed" and he was concentrating on the job in hand of course

SaintK wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:54 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:36 am

SaintK wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:34 am
Appalling! It must be reasonably true as Raab made such a horses arse in his responses to Nick Robinson's questioning.
Came over as a thin skinned. control freak with zero empathy. Horrible man!!!

I didn't think he did that badly, though I also don't have a sense of how accurate some of the comments he gave were.

The stuff that some queries took hours to get a response from a Secretary of State on don't for instance seem weird to me from the outside, that's the Foreign Secretary reviewing large tranches of data (in agreeable format or otherwise) after some review work by their team in London, then negotiating/discussing with others in the executive such as the Home Secretary, before returning a position. How much quicker is someone expecting to get a decision from a Secretary of State?

..........and of course he was doing this from his luxury resort in Greece on holiday, but "the sea was closed" and he was concentrating on the job in hand of course

He is part of the Government of no talents, unless one considers lying, delusion and corruption to be talents.

How for instance we sill haven't got the scheme up and running to process people seeking to come to the UK I've no idea. I can only consider Priti Patel in something of a cruel and misguided decision would rather have the number moving to the UK be zero than confer some basic level respect on people and families who worked with Britain in Afghanistan. It's perverse, frankly inhuman, and in the realms of global diplomacy and influence it's not even in our own base interests.

Still, expecting a decision from a Secretary of State faster than within hours is also a little curious

Lobby wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:59 am

GogLais wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:06 am

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:51 am Am I reading this right ?

The UK managed to evacuate only 500, "Special Cases", because of the fucked up & totally inadequate crisis management; but because the Bumblecunt (or more likely Princess NutNut), was worried about the stories generated by, Pen Fucking Farthing; that tosser was evacuated on an otherwise empty plane ... 229 empty seats, & thousands outside, begging to be brought out.

How the fuck is Raab your deputy PM ?, he isn't fit to be a tea boy.

Deputy PM is a meaningless honorific really, we don’t always have one. But yes, he is a useless tosser.

Its a made up job, often used as a consolation prize for someone who cant be trusted with a proper position. We haven't had a Deputy PM for 6 years, and before Raab the Deputy PM's were Nick Clegg and John Prescott.

In fairness to Prescott, his appointment was entirely political, to keep someone from Old Labour in a symbolic position.

Also, he twatted that bloke - can you imagine the social media shitstorm if that happened today?

Hal Jordan wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:46 pm

Lobby wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:59 am

GogLais wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:06 am

Deputy PM is a meaningless honorific really, we don’t always have one. But yes, he is a useless tosser.

Its a made up job, often used as a consolation prize for someone who cant be trusted with a proper position. We haven't had a Deputy PM for 6 years, and before Raab the Deputy PM's were Nick Clegg and John Prescott.

In fairness to Prescott, his appointment was entirely political, to keep someone from Old Labour in a symbolic position.

Also, he twatted that bloke - can you imagine the social media shitstorm if that happened today?

He is very clearly still proud of that moment

Slick wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:32 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:36 am

SaintK wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:34 am
Appalling! It must be reasonably true as Raab made such a horses arse in his responses to Nick Robinson's questioning.
Came over as a thin skinned. control freak with zero empathy. Horrible man!!!

I didn't think he did that badly, though I also don't have a sense of how accurate some of the comments he gave were.

The stuff that some queries took hours to get a response from a Secretary of State on don't for instance seem weird to me from the outside, that's the Foreign Secretary reviewing large tranches of data (in agreeable format or otherwise) after some review work by their team in London, then negotiating/discussing with others in the executive such as the Home Secretary, before returning a position. How much quicker is someone expecting to get a decision from a Secretary of State?

This is bang on. As usual, the most hysterical are those that don't understand how things have to work. And of course would be equally hysterical if an SoS was just making decisions without correct procedure.

That's not to say some of this is not incredibly shit.

It depends though doesn't it. If he's taking a few hours to make a decision because he's thrashing out the implications etc that's good. If it's because he's paddle boarding on his fancy holiday that's less good.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:32 pm

tabascoboy wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:46 am

fishfoodie wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:37 am

Then someone needs to ask Wendy; what exactly caused her to prioritise; cats & dogs; ahead of humans.

And if she made this decision, off her own bat; then she would justifiably be pilloried ... but we know this wasn't her decision

"Wendy Morton is the Minister for Europe and Americas at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO)"

A bit hard to believe that a Junior Minister would have the remit to make the decision completely without referring it "upstairs" - wonder if she's ready to take a bullet to protect someone else?

Wendy is a local MP to me, and she's pretty much thought as Wendy don't rock the boat Morton. She's going as a norm to try and straight bat everything and never take a brave decision

Well it sounds like the Bumblecunt has been caught in yet another lie; in the questions from the MPs to the Civil Servants; as someone leaked to the media, & the MPs; an email from the PMs PPS, telling them to make a slot for evacuation of the animals !

On the delays in Raab answering questions; I hear what posters are saying, about it not being unreasonable; but to me it shows a few things.

It shows they were lying when they said immediately afterward; that they always had a detailed plan in the event they needed to evacuate. The DoD certainly stated they maintained a live list of the people they would need to evacuate; but its pretty clear that the FO never seriously planned for the real implications for what would be necessary to evacuate >70,000 people.

It poses the question as to exactly what decisions still needed to be escalated to Raab. Was he personally going to check off ever one of the 70,000 ?

You could maybe expect questions around corner cases; like where someone has dependents, that aren't direct family; like say children of deceased siblings etc; & maybe the criteria on who; would, or wouldn't be evacuated might need some flexibility; & maybe the CS would need to go back to him, to clarify some things; but the complete lack of resources, & urgency in the FO, shows they completely failed to prepare for an event; that was US policy from the previous President; & was always going to happen.

There was no structure, no plan & no resources; & fact they all fucked off on holidays at the same time, & didn't have people with the authority to manage the crisis, shows this.

LMAO. Walls are closing in on this one.

Margin__Walker wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:32 pm LMAO. Walls are closing in on this one.

I don't care if they did have an office Christmas party when everyone else was locked down. I will be honest and suggest I didn't consign myself to one household bubble over Xmas.

However, it is funny the PR crises they've made of it.

See I do care that they held one. Combating COVID pre vaccine relied heavily on the government holding themselves to the same standard that they were asking the public to abide by (and actively prosecuted breaches).

The odd breach here and there by politicians is one thing. A Christmas party at No. 10 last December attended by dozens is pretty problematic.

And Rees Mogg was joking about it to people who were present. Breaking the rules is just a joke to him.

Margin__Walker wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:43 pm See I do care that they held one. Combating COVID pre vaccine relied heavily on the government holding themselves to the same standard that they were asking the public to abide by (and actively prosecuted breaches).

The odd breach here and there by politicians is one thing. A Christmas party at No. 10 last December attended by dozens is pretty problematic.

Why though? It's been clear since Cummings' eye testing trip they've taken up for mugs throughout this. And that caused like a week of anger and was got over pretty quickly.

The video of Allegra Stratton laughing about it shows how they view all of us. They know it won't damage them. I'd be embarrassed if I was a Tory voter. However I'm not and didn't fully follow the rules myself so it's hard to be too angry.