I honestly think Geidt is such an obvious fraud and perfect example of all that is wrong with the establishment that few will take notice of him. If he’s a truly an honourable person, what on Earth was he ever doing setting himself up with Johnson? The only conceivable answer is that he is not. He has always been there to give the appearance of decency where none exists. Bit late to fall on his sword and expect anyone to listen. Of course this is another egregious attack on democracy by Johnson and should be condemned, but Geidt won’t be delivering any sort of knockout and he knows it.
Completely agree. No doubt he was put in an untenable position by the albino gibbon, but that letter is just attention seeking and grandstanding. If you want to quit just quit. Infact it begs the question why didn't he quit earlier if he was so incensed by the position he was put in? If my job was to ensure someone played by the rules and they didn't play by the rules then I'd sort them out or quit, because I couldn't sort them out. I wonder if it's something to do with getting paid to sit on his farm in the middle of nowhere doing nothing, when suddely he either has do do some work and he doesn't like working, or he wants to get out before people notice he's been slacking. No doubt there will be another costly investigation that will give another **** a payday.
Blimey - no wonder that they were stressing, when news of his resignation finally broke, that his letter was a private letter and would not be released.
But your job doesn't involve scrutinising someone who is supposedly accountable to the public. Plus, these sort of letters are always sent in the event of a resignation.
Seriously doubt he has the credibility amongst other world leaders, especially in Europe, to get any meaningful job on the global stage. But then I never thought he'd be London mayor or PM so what do I know!
Yes . A buffoon is running the country. The opposition cannot lay a glove on this character. It probably says more about the opposition than it does about BoJo . Here's an idea . Stop insulting the target voter if you don't like the Tories . Unless you are a 5th columnist that is . Then carry on with your fash gammon nazi gammon spoons diatribe . Your call . I'm watching .
During the first edition of Sky's press review this evening, Peter Oborne suddenly went "off-piste" with an intervention complaining that an important and prominent story regarding Boris and Carrie Johnson appeared in the first editions of the Times and the Daily Mail on Saturday morning, but disappeared without trace by the time the second editions were published. A quick google search didn't reveal much, except this link to a story on MSN, of which there is no trace when you follow the link:
I think we can all guess what happened and why Johnson and his lawyers don't want us to know about this...
In the style of David Coleman: "Unbelievably believable". I wonder if this is the cause of "Operation Big Dog".
‘His’ lawyers? No doubt we are paying for that too. He is utterly corrupt, without any sense of the correct behaviour in public office.
Who among the opposition has done this recently? I very much doubt anyone of any seniority within the Labour Party has. As for everyone else, they are free to argue. You hear ‘woke’ every day, a constant war on people for even mildly progressive or socialist views. I don’t hear the right shutting each other down over that. Instead, we continue to see the encouragement of contemptible views by the Government, by example through its Rwanda scheme. Those who applaud it find other ordinary people are getting very tired of them. Can’t blame the middle classes for that.
This is unfair and extremely wide of the mark. We have experienced the most Socialist Conservative Government ever, yet the left describe it as the most right wing ever. Woke is a problem for Labour because they ARE more worried about the related ideologies than the public's core concerns. If woke were not a problem, we wouldn't be seeing the childish, squirming, and self evidently knowing cope (that they are talking and following BS), that we get when a person is asked to justify Labour's contradictory positions on trans and women's rights. They cannot consolidate the two because it is madness. How can you stand up for women when your opinion is that any man can be a woman? And how can you be taken seriously when you try to maintain two such completely opposing views, whilst smiling condescendingly to the electorate, telling them they are idiots for being concerned about such trivial matters? It is gas lighting by absolute religious faith in incompatible policy, pure and simple. Labour are demonstrating that they are completely consumed by religious (there is no logic in it) ideology over reality, by sticking to the message despite the incompatibility of its contents, and that is a sign of an unhealthy mind and an absence of any kind of individuality or empathy. Recognising that it is trivial is one thing, as you do here, but making it a hill to die on, as countless Labour representatives have done, including the leader (BLM kneeling, definition of a woman, next James Bond, etc.), is a very dangerous malaise that people should seriously ponder. Boris etc may be incompetent or corrupt, from the point of view of the public, but at least they are not mad. And, right now, there is a mass hysteria in the world about the mundane that is bordering on insane. Anyone who knows your opinions from the forum will understand your reasons for saying it is nothing to worry about.
Oh my god. What a scandal. Woman doesn't get a job for good reasons. If he had insisted, after they said no, and tried to force her on us using his powerful position, then this might be a story. But seeing as they both seem to have said "Oh, OK then", I suspect this one won't have much in the way of legs.
The only interesting thing about this drivel, with its par for the course personal unpleasantness, is that you accept Johnson is corrupt. Well done. It’s only taken you two years to see what everyone else does.
He learnt a long time ago that actions don't have consequences for him. The Jennifer Arcuri stunt worked, so why not get us to pay a subsequent mistress a £100,000 salary, it's a logical progression. I wonder if it was the owners of these 'papers or Johnson himself who tried to erase this story? Whoever it was shows massive naivety - once you have published a story like this in print and online, there is no way you are going to "get it back". The mainstream media is steering clear, so I wonder if there is a "super-injunction" in place.
That's the real story here. I don't think anyone would be shocked or change their voting intentions over another Johnson corruption story. But I think people should be concerned if Johnson is using the courts to block such stories from the public domain.
You should read my post again. And where are the personal unpleasantnesses. I took trouble to be very clear that I was not referring to individuals on here. If you identify yourself as one of thoses people, that is your business, but don't think that because you are personally offended by it, it is a reason for us not to discuss it. I am offended every time you imply that Brexiteers acted out of hatred and racism, but I can deal with it without suggesting it is bad for you to discuss your opinions. Perhaps, instead of getting upset, you could explain how Labour's support for Women and the modern trans lobby can be reconciled, when a man has as much right to be considered a woman as s woman is. Personally I would have to step away from it and recognise the madness of it. It is simpler to do that and more honest, in my opinion. But Labour, at the moment, cannot bring themselves to do it and that must be a serious problem for anyone that values honesty, integrity and above all, sanity. If a person stands up for women against mysoginy, why would they then force the ultimate mysoginy upon all womdn, and then insult women if they don't accept it.
Super-injunctions do not apply to MPs in the HoC due to parliamentary privilege. Hopefully one of our elected representatives will have the courage to stand up and ask a pertinent emergency question tomorrow. Wouldn't want the voters in Wakefield and Honiton/Tiverton, to go to the polls with the mistaken impression that our PM is a man of probity and integrity......
I guess it is down to a matter of whether he was attempting to use influence, or whether she was applying for a job she was qualified to do. I imagine, if it was the latter, that stopping a politically motivated press from talking about private matters relating to a woman applying for a job is exactly what such injunctions are intended for. That's the problem with political forums. People are very unconcerned that there may be another side to a story.
A great chum of my son works in the commons as a parliamentary assistant to a Tory MP nobody has ever heard of. According to him coke snorting is rife - but among junior admin types not MPs
Agreed @Moose amongst the hierarchy. However, IMO, come GE time, the usual vote losers will be out and about pizzing off the voter. Maybe Owen Jones and Ash Wassername will keep their mouths shut next time ?. Let's hope so .
Interesting that the spotlight on Carrie Antoinette has suddenly caused all those nasty and salacious rumours of her getting her fingers caught in the till at CCHQ (and that de Pfeffel was her 2nd choice) to resurface and all those unhelpful photographs and stories of Russian totally legitimate British citizens' money flowing into Tory Party coffers: https://twitter.com/ArtBear1000/status/1538692012077195264
Why should they? Are all the hundreds of right wing talking heads all over the media going to keep quiet? Had he taken this advice, Owen Jones would not have written Chavs (2011) which explores the vilification and demonisation of working class people, people like his own family in Manchester. He literally wrote the book on what you have been telling us about patronising and dismissive attitudes to working class people, saying things you completely agree with, well before Brexit. So the question for me is, why on Earth do you dislike him so much? Find him irritating, for sure, a bit precious and quick to motormouth in a Twitter spat, but fundamentally you agree with him on the basics. So why him and not the Julia Hartley Brewers or Oakeshotts etc?
I don't if your last question is rhetorical or not but it is an interesting question. Those that dislike the likes of JHB and Oakeshott are what they would regard as "woke", "left wing" etc. Not the people they are targeting (other than to wind up!). Whereas Owen Jones often turns off what should be his natural supporters like @Davy Crockett. Personally I find his personality, both online and in person, smug, condescending and generally irritating. Obviously he has his fans but you have to ask "is he doing more harm to his side than good?".
