Stop voting for fucking Tories

[C69]

How out of touch are Tory candidates?

She still has a 2 point lead according to a poll earlier in the week.
Hopefully it won't be big enough on the day!

It depends upon whether the Labour voters can stomach voting for the Lib Dems tbh.
Hopefully in this election and the GE the anti Tory vote will
Unify and decimate the Cult of Boris et al and the sleazy corrupt bastards

[Hal Jordan]

How out of touch are Tory candidates?

She still has a 2 point lead according to a poll earlier in the week.
Hopefully it won't be big enough on the day!

It depends upon whether the Labour voters can stomach voting for the Lib Dems tbh.
Hopefully in this election and the GE the anti Tory vote will
Unify and decimate the Cult of Boris et al and the sleazy corrupt bastards

Labour supporters are too busy fighting the Magic Grandpa Fans vs Sir "Keith" war to organise themselves.

[tabascoboy]

Mystery surrounds Times exclusive claiming Boris Johnson wanted to give Carrie Symonds a £100,000 role
Why did one of the scoops of the year suddenly disappear from newspapers friendly to the prime minister?

You might have thought it one of the scoops of the year – the allegation that when he was foreign secretary, Boris Johnson wanted to install his then-lover Carrie Symonds as his chief of staff on a salary of at least £100,000 a year, before senior colleagues made it clear that such a “flagrant abuse of ethics” would have been unacceptable.

Yet the story was turned down by one leading newspaper, then picked up and printed by another before disappearing altogether.

The Daily Mail was offered it, but turned it down, with the tipster being told it didn’t accord with the newspaper’s “general point of view”. Rupert Murdoch’s Times was next on the tipster’s list. Their journalist, Simon Walters, was put on the story and he promptly identified four allies of Johnson who confirmed it to him.

The story got juicier still: Johnson was still married at the time to Marina Wheeler, but his staff became aware of his affair with when he was caught with Symonds in his Commons office.
...
Johnson was in Kyiv when he heard that the story was about to break and quickly forgot all about his friend Volodymyr Zelensky’s problems. He got his staff on the case and the story was dropped from later editions of today’s Times and the story promptly disappeared, too, from MailOnline.

[fishfoodie]

Surely Big dog didn't think he was actually saved ?

Boy will he be in for a shock when Farmer Rupert takes him behind the shed & there isn't a big T-Bone steak, & a blond bitch in heat waiting for him ......

[Hal Jordan]

Another superinjunction (I wonder how many that makes), but it's pointless because the socials have it all over the place.

[fishfoodie]

Another superinjunction (I wonder how many that makes), but it's pointless because the socials have it all over the place.

As you say it only had to be out there for 5 minutes, & that's enough.

And now the Tory wimps have a new complaint for the standards committee, so when the By-Election results come out, they can pretend that that's why he has to go.

[Chilli]

Am I understanding this correctly?

The Rwandan flight that was cancelled , was to send Rwandan illegal immigrants / refugee's back to Rwanda? Not assorted illegal immigrants / refugee's to Rwanda for processing before sending them back to their own countries?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Mystery surrounds Times exclusive claiming Boris Johnson wanted to give Carrie Symonds a £100,000 role
Why did one of the scoops of the year suddenly disappear from newspapers friendly to the prime minister?

You might have thought it one of the scoops of the year – the allegation that when he was foreign secretary, Boris Johnson wanted to install his then-lover Carrie Symonds as his chief of staff on a salary of at least £100,000 a year, before senior colleagues made it clear that such a “flagrant abuse of ethics” would have been unacceptable.

Yet the story was turned down by one leading newspaper, then picked up and printed by another before disappearing altogether.

The Daily Mail was offered it, but turned it down, with the tipster being told it didn’t accord with the newspaper’s “general point of view”. Rupert Murdoch’s Times was next on the tipster’s list. Their journalist, Simon Walters, was put on the story and he promptly identified four allies of Johnson who confirmed it to him.

The story got juicier still: Johnson was still married at the time to Marina Wheeler, but his staff became aware of his affair with when he was caught with Symonds in his Commons office.
...
Johnson was in Kyiv when he heard that the story was about to break and quickly forgot all about his friend Volodymyr Zelensky’s problems. He got his staff on the case and the story was dropped from later editions of today’s Times and the story promptly disappeared, too, from MailOnline.

Just one point of order, Boris has confirmed he was not in fact married to Marina Wheeler, nor actually to anyone prior to his nuptials with Princess NutNut

[Biffer]

Am I understanding this correctly?

The Rwandan flight that was cancelled , was to send Rwandan illegal immigrants / refugee's back to Rwanda? Not assorted illegal immigrants / refugee's to Rwanda for processing before sending them back to their own countries?

Neither

It was to send asylum claimants to Rwanda, without a particular regard for where they were from. They were to be sent their permanently to claim asylum in Rwanda as it’s a ‘safe’ country. They won’t be processed or returned to the UK.

[Chilli]

Am I understanding this correctly?

The Rwandan flight that was cancelled , was to send Rwandan illegal immigrants / refugee's back to Rwanda? Not assorted illegal immigrants / refugee's to Rwanda for processing before sending them back to their own countries?

Neither

It was to send asylum claimants to Rwanda, without a particular regard for where they were from. They were to be sent their permanently to claim asylum in Rwanda as it’s a ‘safe’ country. They won’t be processed or returned to the UK.

Wow! Ok, that certainly is a interesting idea.

Trump would be proud.

[_Os_]

Am I understanding this correctly?

The Rwandan flight that was cancelled , was to send Rwandan illegal immigrants / refugee's back to Rwanda? Not assorted illegal immigrants / refugee's to Rwanda for processing before sending them back to their own countries?

Quite a lot to unpick with this post, Chilli.

There's a difference between an immigrant, illegal immigrant, refugee, asylum seeker, seasonal worker. Those things are all so different, tourist could be added to the list. It's normal in the UK to make no distinction between any of these categories (from the PM down) on purpose, purely to keep the debate stupid and stoke hatred. One example is Johnson recently saying Ukrainians can pick fruit (seasonal workers aren't the same as refugee with settlement) or Hong Kongers can apply for a visa (a legal immigrant) and this shows that the UK treats asylum seekers well (when seasonal workers and legal immigrants, aren't asylum seekers). Always this will be said in interviews without any push back from the interviewer. Other even more meaningless phrases like "economic migrant" are thrown into the mix, when no one moves to a place they're less able to make a living.

Of the two categories you mention. An asylum seeker is someone looking for refuge in another country because they fear they'll have their human rights violated, a refugee is an asylum seeker who has been given that protection/refuge status in another country. An illegal immigrant is someone who has no asylum seeker or refugee status, who hasn't followed the visa requirements to settle in another country (or in the UK's case, because the UK's immigration is a massive mess, the system was changed and turned legal immigrants resident in the UK for years into illegal immigrants).

The first problem is that most of the reporting of the Rwanda scheme, which starts at government level, is that it conflates different categories of immigrant. The vast majority of those crossing the channel on small boats have their asylum applications accepted. Most illegal immigrants are probably entering legally and overstaying on their visas.

The Rwanda flight randomly selected different asylum seekers (I don't think there were illegal immigrants, as they can be sent to their home countries, the whole point of the Rwanda plan is the UK can't send people to places like Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya and pretend to be doing something morally right), regardless of their cases or background. There were people the UK recognises have been tortured or were slaves, on that flight to Rwanda. In other words the UK tried to send people they knew were legitimate asylum seekers to Rwanda and deny them the status of a refugee in the UK.

Once in Rwanda they're in the hands of the Rwandan state and the Rwandan asylum system. They don't get flown anywhere else after that. Which really means they will be on the road again, maybe to Kenya or SA, maybe back to Europe. The Rwandan motivation is to make money transporting desperate people against their will across the world to their country, knowing also that those people will not stay in their country. Rwanda is a dictatorship, so Rwanda also has the added benefit of the UK cleaning its image and saying it's a really great place.

On the UK side it's about wanting to ruin the lives of some people (100s? 1000s?), so the UK government can claim to their supporters that they're tough on immigration. It's the exact same calculation as the Windrush Scandal, when legal migrants were turned into illegal migrants. There's never been anything approaching a sensible debate on migration in the UK, and probably never will be because there's too much that can be gained politically from keeping it stupid. Migration into the UK is at record breaking highs from non-EU nations, because the UK has put up barriers to EU migrants which means less competition for non-EU migrants. There's still a lot of Tories who really believe "immigrants are/were Labour's fault", in other words something bad that could be controlled, even after they've failed at controlling it or even understanding it.

[tabascoboy]

Mystery surrounds Times exclusive claiming Boris Johnson wanted to give Carrie Symonds a £100,000 role
Why did one of the scoops of the year suddenly disappear from newspapers friendly to the prime minister?

You might have thought it one of the scoops of the year – the allegation that when he was foreign secretary, Boris Johnson wanted to install his then-lover Carrie Symonds as his chief of staff on a salary of at least £100,000 a year, before senior colleagues made it clear that such a “flagrant abuse of ethics” would have been unacceptable.

Yet the story was turned down by one leading newspaper, then picked up and printed by another before disappearing altogether.

The Daily Mail was offered it, but turned it down, with the tipster being told it didn’t accord with the newspaper’s “general point of view”. Rupert Murdoch’s Times was next on the tipster’s list. Their journalist, Simon Walters, was put on the story and he promptly identified four allies of Johnson who confirmed it to him.

The story got juicier still: Johnson was still married at the time to Marina Wheeler, but his staff became aware of his affair with when he was caught with Symonds in his Commons office.
...
Johnson was in Kyiv when he heard that the story was about to break and quickly forgot all about his friend Volodymyr Zelensky’s problems. He got his staff on the case and the story was dropped from later editions of today’s Times and the story promptly disappeared, too, from MailOnline.

Just one point of order, Boris has confirmed he was not in fact married to Marina Wheeler, nor actually to anyone prior to his nuptials with Princess NutNut

What, one of the very, very few times when his philandering actually WASN'T while he was married???

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Just one point of order, Boris has confirmed he was not in fact married to Marina Wheeler, nor actually to anyone prior to his nuptials with Princess NutNut

What, one of the very, very few times when his philandering actually WASN'T while he was married???

More the only time he's ever been married is now, to his third wife. His first two marriages never existed in the first place, that or the Catholic Church is full of shit, and it could be the Catholic Church is full of shit in fairness

[fishfoodie]

Just one point of order, Boris has confirmed he was not in fact married to Marina Wheeler, nor actually to anyone prior to his nuptials with Princess NutNut

What, one of the very, very few times when his philandering actually WASN'T while he was married???

More the only time he's ever been married is now, to his third wife. His first two marriages never existed in the first place, that or the Catholic Church is full of shit, and it could be the Catholic Church is full of shit in fairness

He wouldn't be the first guy to find a dodgy Priest to certify that he wasn't married, when he was.

[Chilli]

Am I understanding this correctly?

The Rwandan flight that was cancelled , was to send Rwandan illegal immigrants / refugee's back to Rwanda? Not assorted illegal immigrants / refugee's to Rwanda for processing before sending them back to their own countries?

Quite a lot to unpick with this post, Chilli.

There's a difference between an immigrant, illegal immigrant, refugee, asylum seeker, seasonal worker. Those things are all so different, tourist could be added to the list. It's normal in the UK to make no distinction between any of these categories (from the PM down) on purpose, purely to keep the debate stupid and stoke hatred. One example is Johnson recently saying Ukrainians can pick fruit (seasonal workers aren't the same as refugee with settlement) or Hong Kongers can apply for a visa (a legal immigrant) and this shows that the UK treats asylum seekers well (when seasonal workers and legal immigrants, aren't asylum seekers). Always this will be said in interviews without any push back from the interviewer. Other even more meaningless phrases like "economic migrant" are thrown into the mix, when no one moves to a place they're less able to make a living.

Of the two categories you mention. An asylum seeker is someone looking for refuge in another country because they fear they'll have their human rights violated, a refugee is an asylum seeker who has been given that protection/refuge status in another country. An illegal immigrant is someone who has no asylum seeker or refugee status, who hasn't followed the visa requirements to settle in another country (or in the UK's case, because the UK's immigration is a massive mess, the system was changed and turned legal immigrants resident in the UK for years into illegal immigrants).

The first problem is that most of the reporting of the Rwanda scheme, which starts at government level, is that it conflates different categories of immigrant. The vast majority of those crossing the channel on small boats have their asylum applications accepted. Most illegal immigrants are probably entering legally and overstaying on their visas.

The Rwanda flight randomly selected different asylum seekers (I don't think there were illegal immigrants, as they can be sent to their home countries, the whole point of the Rwanda plan is the UK can't send people to places like Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya and pretend to be doing something morally right), regardless of their cases or background. There were people the UK recognises have been tortured or were slaves, on that flight to Rwanda. In other words the UK tried to send people they knew were legitimate asylum seekers to Rwanda and deny them the status of a refugee in the UK.

Once in Rwanda they're in the hands of the Rwandan state and the Rwandan asylum system. They don't get flown anywhere else after that. Which really means they will be on the road again, maybe to Kenya or SA, maybe back to Europe. The Rwandan motivation is to make money transporting desperate people against their will across the world to their country, knowing also that those people will not stay in their country. Rwanda is a dictatorship, so Rwanda also has the added benefit of the UK cleaning its image and saying it's a really great place.

On the UK side it's about wanting to ruin the lives of some people (100s? 1000s?), so the UK government can claim to their supporters that they're tough on immigration. It's the exact same calculation as the Windrush Scandal, when legal migrants were turned into illegal migrants. There's never been anything approaching a sensible debate on migration in the UK, and probably never will be because there's too much that can be gained politically from keeping it stupid. Migration into the UK is at record breaking highs from non-EU nations, because the UK has put up barriers to EU migrants which means less competition for non-EU migrants. There's still a lot of Tories who really believe "immigrants are/were Labour's fault", in other words something bad that could be controlled, even after they've failed at controlling it or even understanding it.

So basically if the UK can make use of you, you're in.
If not, you're on flight 375 to Rwanda?

[fishfoodie]

So basically if the UK can make use of you, you're in.
If not, you're on flight 375 to Rwanda?

No.

That implies they actually have a plan, & right now what they have is as coherent as fever rantings, enforced by a clown troop of SS members.

EU immigrants contributed £1.10, for every £1 they cost the UK economy !

Why on earth would you drive these people out of your Country, for anything other than xenophobic & racist reasons ?

[C69]

So basically if the UK can make use of you, you're in.
If not, you're on flight 375 to Rwanda?

No.

That implies they actually have a plan, & right now what they have is as coherent as fever rantings, enforced by a clown troop of SS members.

EU immigrants contributed £1.10, for every £1 they cost the UK economy !

Why on earth would you drive these people out of your Country, for anything other than xenophobic & racist reasons ?

The irony is that the PM and a load of the Cabinet have a lineage being immigrants.
Starne lot these right wing racist reactionaries.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

What, one of the very, very few times when his philandering actually WASN'T while he was married???

More the only time he's ever been married is now, to his third wife. His first two marriages never existed in the first place, that or the Catholic Church is full of shit, and it could be the Catholic Church is full of shit in fairness

He wouldn't be the first guy to find a dodgy Priest to certify that he wasn't married, when he was.

No, but one might feel it speaks to character that he declares so happily to his previous wives and his children from those marriages that he was never part of any previous marriage. Or one might feel he's done no such thing and he's merely lied to the Catholic Church and his new wife, which would also be fairly contemptible

[Rhubarb & Custard]

So basically if the UK can make use of you, you're in.
If not, you're on flight 375 to Rwanda?

No.

That implies they actually have a plan, & right now what they have is as coherent as fever rantings, enforced by a clown troop of SS members.

EU immigrants contributed £1.10, for every £1 they cost the UK economy !

Why on earth would you drive these people out of your Country, for anything other than xenophobic & racist reasons ?

The irony is that the PM and a load of the Cabinet have a lineage being immigrants.
Starne lot these right wing racist reactionaries.

It's hardly unusual thinking in immigrant populations that once they've arrived at safety it's time to pull up the drawbridge as they shift from wanting access to wanting to protect what they have. At times those feelings would even be stronger than in the domestic population as they know what they've left behind

[_Os_]

So basically if the UK can make use of you, you're in.
If not, you're on flight 375 to Rwanda?

It's a completely broken system, they have no means of determining who is useful and who isn't (even if that were possible). They're simply incompetent.

It seems like those on the flight were randomly selected asylum seekers. But the UK has a bit of a blind spot regarding potential, the bias of those that are pro-Rwanda policy seems to be "foreign poor desperate people, therefore useless people who will take tax payers money", this maybe undersells human potential. The other anti-immigrant bias is "they're taking all the jobs". So there's a Schrodinger's immigrant situation, where simultaneously "the immigrants" are taking all the tax payer money and taking all the jobs.

My experience of being in the UK immigration sausage factory (as you know, not by choice, my parents decided to move here), is that it's irrational and stupid and chaotic. To give you an idea, of just part of my adventure: I spent the end of 2020 and most of 2021 trying to convince minor UK Home Office officials I shouldn't be on the EU Settlement Scheme (which is for EU nationals), including a face to face meeting where I said "I'm not European I'm African, here is my passport", all to no avail. If the same stupid people had met a black guy with a heavy Zulu accent speaking broken English, I doubt this error would've happened. How any of this even got activated fuck knows. In the end I just couldn't fight it and had no choice but to progress the process, until at some point it must of reached someone who knew what they were doing or someone who couldn't input African data into forms for Europeans, and I was sent a threatening letter stating the Home Office was ending the process and I was fraudulently abusing the immigration system and could face criminal prosecution.

The SA Department of Home Affairs are light years ahead of the UK Home Office. The pommies have constructed something below developing world standards, an insane maze where nothing makes any sense. A UK High Court judge has even said it's so fucked two people can enter the system with the same set of documents and potentially be deported or given citizenship and both outcomes would be legal. They've failed to make a system that passes the "2+2=4" test.

A definite push factor to leave, is I don't fancy getting fucked by this mess when I'm old and vulnerable.

[Biffer]

Am I understanding this correctly?

The Rwandan flight that was cancelled , was to send Rwandan illegal immigrants / refugee's back to Rwanda? Not assorted illegal immigrants / refugee's to Rwanda for processing before sending them back to their own countries?

Quite a lot to unpick with this post, Chilli.

There's a difference between an immigrant, illegal immigrant, refugee, asylum seeker, seasonal worker. Those things are all so different, tourist could be added to the list. It's normal in the UK to make no distinction between any of these categories (from the PM down) on purpose, purely to keep the debate stupid and stoke hatred. One example is Johnson recently saying Ukrainians can pick fruit (seasonal workers aren't the same as refugee with settlement) or Hong Kongers can apply for a visa (a legal immigrant) and this shows that the UK treats asylum seekers well (when seasonal workers and legal immigrants, aren't asylum seekers). Always this will be said in interviews without any push back from the interviewer. Other even more meaningless phrases like "economic migrant" are thrown into the mix, when no one moves to a place they're less able to make a living.

Of the two categories you mention. An asylum seeker is someone looking for refuge in another country because they fear they'll have their human rights violated, a refugee is an asylum seeker who has been given that protection/refuge status in another country. An illegal immigrant is someone who has no asylum seeker or refugee status, who hasn't followed the visa requirements to settle in another country (or in the UK's case, because the UK's immigration is a massive mess, the system was changed and turned legal immigrants resident in the UK for years into illegal immigrants).

The first problem is that most of the reporting of the Rwanda scheme, which starts at government level, is that it conflates different categories of immigrant. The vast majority of those crossing the channel on small boats have their asylum applications accepted. Most illegal immigrants are probably entering legally and overstaying on their visas.

The Rwanda flight randomly selected different asylum seekers (I don't think there were illegal immigrants, as they can be sent to their home countries, the whole point of the Rwanda plan is the UK can't send people to places like Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya and pretend to be doing something morally right), regardless of their cases or background. There were people the UK recognises have been tortured or were slaves, on that flight to Rwanda. In other words the UK tried to send people they knew were legitimate asylum seekers to Rwanda and deny them the status of a refugee in the UK.

Once in Rwanda they're in the hands of the Rwandan state and the Rwandan asylum system. They don't get flown anywhere else after that. Which really means they will be on the road again, maybe to Kenya or SA, maybe back to Europe. The Rwandan motivation is to make money transporting desperate people against their will across the world to their country, knowing also that those people will not stay in their country. Rwanda is a dictatorship, so Rwanda also has the added benefit of the UK cleaning its image and saying it's a really great place.

On the UK side it's about wanting to ruin the lives of some people (100s? 1000s?), so the UK government can claim to their supporters that they're tough on immigration. It's the exact same calculation as the Windrush Scandal, when legal migrants were turned into illegal migrants. There's never been anything approaching a sensible debate on migration in the UK, and probably never will be because there's too much that can be gained politically from keeping it stupid. Migration into the UK is at record breaking highs from non-EU nations, because the UK has put up barriers to EU migrants which means less competition for non-EU migrants. There's still a lot of Tories who really believe "immigrants are/were Labour's fault", in other words something bad that could be controlled, even after they've failed at controlling it or even understanding it.

So basically if the UK can make use of you, you're in.
If not, you're on flight 375 to Rwanda?

No. No evaluation done in the UK.

[Lobby]

I see the press are reporting that Johnson had a "minor routine operation related to his sinuses" this morning.

I think we all know the truth; after spending the last year lying even more furiously than usual, he’s had to have his nose shortened.

[fishfoodie]

I see the press are reporting that Johnson had a "minor routine operation related to his sinuses" this morning.

I think we all know the truth; after spending the last year lying even more furiously than usual, he’s had to have his nose shortened.

I was think more like having his Septum repaired after too much of Bolivias finest ?

[tabascoboy]

Downing Street continuing its transformation into The Kremlin

this is in a few sources, many are paywalled though...

Downing Street has confirmed that members of Boris Johnson’s team intervened following the publication of a story about his wife Carrie in The Times, but denied that the prime minister himself contacted the paper to complain.

Dominic Cummings, a former adviser to Johnson who has become an arch critic of the prime minister, backed up the original story and went further, suggesting Johnson also attempted to appoint his wife to a government job in late 2020.

The prime minister’s spokesperson said they were unable to comment on Johnson’s activities before he became prime minister but said “others have made clear this story is untrue”.

The spokesperson denied Cummings’s claim that Johnson tried to get his wife a Downing Street job while prime minister.

Former Number 10 adviser Dominic Cummings claims the story is accurate & "the truth is worse"

And the idiot Dorries excelling herself again

[SaintK]

Downing Street continuing its transformation into The Kremlin

this is in a few sources, many are paywalled though...

Downing Street has confirmed that members of Boris Johnson’s team intervened following the publication of a story about his wife Carrie in The Times, but denied that the prime minister himself contacted the paper to complain.

Dominic Cummings, a former adviser to Johnson who has become an arch critic of the prime minister, backed up the original story and went further, suggesting Johnson also attempted to appoint his wife to a government job in late 2020.

The prime minister’s spokesperson said they were unable to comment on Johnson’s activities before he became prime minister but said “others have made clear this story is untrue”.

The spokesperson denied Cummings’s claim that Johnson tried to get his wife a Downing Street job while prime minister.

Former Number 10 adviser Dominic Cummings claims the story is accurate & "the truth is worse"

Rumours circulating that the Johnsons threatened a super-injunction if The Times didn't pull the story?
Not sure how true that is, as the whole thing fits with what this pair get up to.
I'd certainly believe Cummings now before anything that comes of Downing St

[Lobby]

Downing Street continuing its transformation into The Kremlin

this is in a few sources, many are paywalled though...

Downing Street has confirmed that members of Boris Johnson’s team intervened following the publication of a story about his wife Carrie in The Times, but denied that the prime minister himself contacted the paper to complain.

Dominic Cummings, a former adviser to Johnson who has become an arch critic of the prime minister, backed up the original story and went further, suggesting Johnson also attempted to appoint his wife to a government job in late 2020.

The prime minister’s spokesperson said they were unable to comment on Johnson’s activities before he became prime minister but said “others have made clear this story is untrue”.

The spokesperson denied Cummings’s claim that Johnson tried to get his wife a Downing Street job while prime minister.

Former Number 10 adviser Dominic Cummings claims the story is accurate & "the truth is worse"

Rumours circulating that the Johnsons threatened a super-injunction if The Times didn't pull the story?
Not sure how true that is, as the whole thing fits with what this pair get up to.
I'd certainly believe Cummings now before anything that comes of Downing St

The story about Johnson trying to ease Princess Nut Nut into a well-paid job at the foreign office first appeared in Lord Ashcroft’s book about her that was published earlier this year. He claimed that Johnson had tried to appoint her to a £100,000-a-year government job when he was foreign secretary in 2018, and that the appointment was only stopped when her relationship with Johnson was discovered by an MP who found them in a “compromising situation” in Johnson’s parliamentary office.

The Sunday Times story (at least before it was pulled) appeared to confirm Ashcroft’s claims, and added some further details, which makes it all the more odd that No 10 have leant on the Sunday Times and the Mail (which initially repeated the Sunday Times story, and then also removed it) to delete the stories.

Given Johnson’s and No. 10’s previous relationship with the truth, their categorical denials would seem to prove the story beyond doubt.

[fishfoodie]

What are the odds he uses his, operation, as a justification for sending someone else to PMQs this week ?

[SaintK]

Downing Street continuing its transformation into The Kremlin

this is in a few sources, many are paywalled though...

Rumours circulating that the Johnsons threatened a super-injunction if The Times didn't pull the story?
Not sure how true that is, as the whole thing fits with what this pair get up to.
I'd certainly believe Cummings now before anything that comes of Downing St

The story about Johnson trying to ease Princess Nut Nut into a well-paid job at the foreign office first appeared in Lord Ashcroft’s book about her that was published earlier this year. He claimed that Johnson had tried to appoint her to a £100,000-a-year government job when he was foreign secretary in 2018, and that the appointment was only stopped when her relationship with Johnson was discovered by an MP who found them in a “compromising situation” in Johnson’s parliamentary office.

The Sunday Times story (at least before it was pulled) appeared to confirm Ashcroft’s claims, and added some further details, which makes it all the more odd that No 10 have leant on the Sunday Times and the Mail (which initially repeated the Sunday Times story, and then also removed it) to delete the stories.

Given Johnson’s and No. 10’s previous relationship with the truth, their categorical denials would seem to prove the story beyond doubt.

No super-injunction but a handy Downing St link to News UK!

A News UK spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on suggestions the company’s chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, was also involved in the discussions.
Guto Harri, the current Downing Street director of communications, was an adviser at News UK, the owner of the Times, between 2012 and 2015.
Contrary to online speculation, there is no superinjunction or specific legal issue preventing reporting of the story.

[I like neeps]

Sir Beer is banning labour front benchers from picketing during the strikes.

If we ignore the hypocrisy - he used to call himself a proud trade unionist - it's maybe not sensible as the unions give labour the monies and labour are going bust. I predict a very difficult few months as more and more strikes happen. As a former DPP it's going to be fascinating to see where he stands on the barrister strike.

[fishfoodie]

Sir Beer is banning labour front benchers from picketing during the strikes.

If we ignore the hypocrisy - he used to call himself a proud trade unionist - it's maybe not sensible as the unions give labour the monies and labour are going bust. I predict a very difficult few months as more and more strikes happen. As a former DPP it's going to be fascinating to see where he stands on the barrister strike.

He knows that they are only helping the Tories,if they just unilaterally support every strike.

All they need to do is say that the strikes wouldn't be happening if the Tories hadn't fucked the economy, trashed benefits, & increased taxes to the highest level since rationing was still in effect.

Another few days & the by-election results will be in, & the Tory MPs will have more to worry about than train strikes.

[Raggs]

I miss these things sometimes, someone tell me that this guy is a parody please, and not actually real:

https://twitter.com/markjenkinsonmp

Lots of repeating how terrible Labour are for the strikes, and how strikes are a vision of Britain under Labour... Finds it interesting how strikes are happening in Tory run England, but not Labour run Wales (well, far fewer).

[I like neeps]

Sir Beer is banning labour front benchers from picketing during the strikes.

If we ignore the hypocrisy - he used to call himself a proud trade unionist - it's maybe not sensible as the unions give labour the monies and labour are going bust. I predict a very difficult few months as more and more strikes happen. As a former DPP it's going to be fascinating to see where he stands on the barrister strike.

He knows that they are only helping the Tories,if they just unilaterally support every strike.

All they need to do is say that the strikes wouldn't be happening if the Tories hadn't fucked the economy, trashed benefits, & increased taxes to the highest level since rationing was still in effect.

Another few days & the by-election results will be in, & the Tory MPs will have more to worry about than train strikes.

Okay but if you don't support workers getting a payrise during huge inflation (and remember rent and housing costs aren't including in the figure) what do you support?

The RMT are potentially too militant I appreciate that. But at some point Sir Beers is going to have to support people who are being screwed by years of stagnant pay and now huge real term pay decreases.

[tabascoboy]

I live in a commuter town, RMT have a "picket" outside the station ( all very good natured), lots of cars tooting in support as they went past. Perhaps more public support as a result of this government's clear self-interest than the actual strike despite the inevitable slew of newspapers denouncing the strikers as evil and the strike as economic sabotage. Would be good to believe that more people are thinking for themselves and turning against this increasingly autocratic, selfish and hypocritical Tory government; and wonder if Labour are making the right call here in being so passive.

[fishfoodie]

Sir Beer is banning labour front benchers from picketing during the strikes.

If we ignore the hypocrisy - he used to call himself a proud trade unionist - it's maybe not sensible as the unions give labour the monies and labour are going bust. I predict a very difficult few months as more and more strikes happen. As a former DPP it's going to be fascinating to see where he stands on the barrister strike.

He knows that they are only helping the Tories,if they just unilaterally support every strike.

All they need to do is say that the strikes wouldn't be happening if the Tories hadn't fucked the economy, trashed benefits, & increased taxes to the highest level since rationing was still in effect.

Another few days & the by-election results will be in, & the Tory MPs will have more to worry about than train strikes.

Okay but if you don't support workers getting a payrise during huge inflation (and remember rent and housing costs aren't including in the figure) what do you support?

The RMT are potentially too militant I appreciate that. But at some point Sir Beers is going to have to support people who are being screwed by years of stagnant pay and now huge real term pay decreases.

He has to be a pragmatist. If he's honest about what his Government will do, then he'll join all the other failure leaders that Labour has had.

The UK voters are still stupid enough to vote for the same lying douch bags who've widened the gap between between rich & poor, & think thousands of food banks is, "Uplifting"

[I like neeps]

He knows that they are only helping the Tories,if they just unilaterally support every strike.

All they need to do is say that the strikes wouldn't be happening if the Tories hadn't fucked the economy, trashed benefits, & increased taxes to the highest level since rationing was still in effect.

Another few days & the by-election results will be in, & the Tory MPs will have more to worry about than train strikes.

Okay but if you don't support workers getting a payrise during huge inflation (and remember rent and housing costs aren't including in the figure) what do you support?

The RMT are potentially too militant I appreciate that. But at some point Sir Beers is going to have to support people who are being screwed by years of stagnant pay and now huge real term pay decreases.

He has to be a pragmatist. If he's honest about what his Government will do, then he'll join all the other failure leaders that Labour has had.

The UK voters are still stupid enough to vote for the same lying douch bags who've widened the gap between between rich & poor, & think thousands of food banks is, "Uplifting"

Lying douchbags you say:

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Okay but if you don't support workers getting a payrise during huge inflation (and remember rent and housing costs aren't including in the figure) what do you support?

Avoiding the still more damaging consequences of stagflation. It's shit, but there aren't any great options available

[I like neeps]

Okay but if you don't support workers getting a payrise during huge inflation (and remember rent and housing costs aren't including in the figure) what do you support?

Avoiding the still more damaging consequences of stagflation. It's shit, but there aren't any great options available

Sure but Labour aren't in charge they don't need to enact on the policies. They just need to look like they have a plan/aren't a bunch of Johnson's who will say whatever is needed to get into power. There will be a lot of strikes this year - labour need a response.

He needs a coherent vision for the country. He doesn't have one. This is an example of that.

[sockwithaticket]

Sir Beer is banning labour front benchers from picketing during the strikes.

If we ignore the hypocrisy - he used to call himself a proud trade unionist - it's maybe not sensible as the unions give labour the monies and labour are going bust. I predict a very difficult few months as more and more strikes happen. As a former DPP it's going to be fascinating to see where he stands on the barrister strike.

He knows that they are only helping the Tories,if they just unilaterally support every strike.

All they need to do is say that the strikes wouldn't be happening if the Tories hadn't fucked the economy, trashed benefits, & increased taxes to the highest level since rationing was still in effect.

Another few days & the by-election results will be in, & the Tory MPs will have more to worry about than train strikes.

My parents have come round to being staunchly anti-Tory over the last decade, but they're also vehemently anti-strike/anti-union and it reveals that I've a lot of work still to do with them.

I'm missing a gig because of all the disruption which isn't ideal, but I get why the strikes are happening and I support them. My mum in trying to commiserate with me about not being able to go started off on a rant about how the RMT are all overpaid given what they do compared to nurses, care workers etc. Which is a bogus argument for so many reasons, but I think it is indicative of how quite a lot of people view the issue. There's a mixture of wage envy, somewhat classist takes on how much certain types of work should bring in ("£30k for checking tickets!"), not actually understanding what's behind the strike and decades of ant-union propaganda.

Labour don't have the time to address all that ahead of this strike even if the population were willing to let them try. So they're stuck in this place of trying to balance not pissing off core support, but also not trying to alienate people whose votes they'll need at the next election who are very much not in favour of workers exercising their rights if doing so causes personal inconvenience.

[Line6 HXFX]

Most of the country are retarded by resentment. "Resent'tards" if you will.

We are completely lost as a society.

There are streets where people resent nurses and unpaid carers working for pennies, , just becuase they reside in Social housing. If the right wing press can do that to us, it can do anything.
They have us by the balls.

Unless we try to return to an era of peace and love, just as a brazen act of defiance, society is fucked.

Grow your hair, wear sandals, learn the guitar, go enjoy flowers, pot and fun.

[I like neeps]

Pensioners don't have to show pension restraint I see.