Move on, move on. It's the Tories' favourite mantra. One hears it all the time. Only for them of course. They still feel free to whine about Gordon Brown selling some of our gold 'too cheaply' umpteen years ago.
There would have been no Nuremberg trials in 1946 with such a philosophy.
You need to know that the Nuremberg trials were for war criminals.
You need to understand analogies and how principles can apply across widely different scenarios.
Move on, move on. It's the Tories' favourite mantra. One hears it all the time. Only for them of course. They still feel free to whine about Gordon Brown selling some of our gold 'too cheaply' umpteen years ago.
There would have been no Nuremberg trials in 1946 with such a philosophy.
You need to know that the Nuremberg trials were for war criminals.
You need to understand analogies and how principles can apply across widely different scenarios.
Move on, move on. It's the Tories' favourite mantra. One hears it all the time. Only for them of course. They still feel free to whine about Gordon Brown selling some of our gold 'too cheaply' umpteen years ago.
There would have been no Nuremberg trials in 1946 with such a philosophy.
You need to know that the Nuremberg trials were for war criminals.
You need to understand analogies and how principles can apply across widely different scenarios.
According to the BBC website, "In the next couple of hours, Rishi Sunak’s [team] will be moving in and getting their feet under the table" and "will want to hit the ground running".
Only one table in the whole building? And how can they run with their feet under it?
And he says he's going to work hard. I thought that was a given in response to paid employment
After Johnson's time in office these things need stating explicitly.
Well, to be fair to Johnson he worked hard, too, in his own way. It couldn't have been easy to wake up every morning and having to decide whether he was going to be a policeman for the cameras that day or a construction worker in a high-vis gilet. Those were difficult choices, people, not everyone suits hard-hats or neon yellow!
More seriously, it is disappointing to say the least to see a hard-line idealogue of Braverman's type re-appointed. In reading through her CV you'd think she'd have learnt how to get along nicely with all the other children by now, but she's as increasingly immoderate in her political leanings as she is in her language.
Sounds like he will be bursting into YMCA at any min
Well, that could help build him an electoral coalition of gay men, along with girls too young to vote.
Move on, move on. It's the Tories' favourite mantra. One hears it all the time. Only for them of course. They still feel free to whine about Gordon Brown selling some of our gold 'too cheaply' umpteen years ago.
There would have been no Nuremberg trials in 1946 with such a philosophy.
You need to know that the Nuremberg trials were for war criminals.
You need to understand analogies and how principles can apply across widely different scenarios.
According to the BBC website, "In the next couple of hours, Rishi Sunak’s [team] will be moving in and getting their feet under the table" and "will want to hit the ground running".
Only one table in the whole building? And how can they run with their feet under it?
And he says he's going to work hard. I thought that was a given in response to paid employment
After Johnson's time in office these things need stating explicitly.
Well, to be fair to Johnson he worked hard, too, in his own way. It couldn't have been easy to wake up every morning and having to decide whether he was going to be a policeman for the cameras that day or a construction worker in a high-vis gilet. Those were difficult choices, people, not everyone suits hard-hats or neon yellow!
More seriously, it is disappointing to say the least to see a hard-line idealogue of Braverman's type re-appointed. In reading through her CV you'd think she'd have learnt how to get along nicely with all the other children by now, but she's as increasingly immoderate in her political leanings as she is in her language.
Sounds like he will be bursting into YMCA at any min
Well, that could help build him an electoral coalition of gay men, along with girls too young to vote.
Not a pleasant image. Pass the brain bleach, please...
Meanwhile, the Braverman saga rumbles on. Who knows? Sunak may have made a misjudgement, or he may even have been misled. It is, perhaps, today's dead cat, but it does rather spoil Sunak's desire for reliability and integrity.
Move on, move on. It's the Tories' favourite mantra. One hears it all the time. Only for them of course. They still feel free to whine about Gordon Brown selling some of our gold 'too cheaply' umpteen years ago.
There would have been no Nuremberg trials in 1946 with such a philosophy.
You need to know that the Nuremberg trials were for war criminals.
You need to understand analogies and how principles can apply across widely different scenarios.
I thought it was a daft analogy.
I'm sure you can explain why.
Only if I wanted to.
Participation on a discussion board would seem to indicate you wanted to, I would think, while not wanting to would seem to indicate no desire to engage in discussion on a discussion board.
Move on, move on. It's the Tories' favourite mantra. One hears it all the time. Only for them of course. They still feel free to whine about Gordon Brown selling some of our gold 'too cheaply' umpteen years ago.
There would have been no Nuremberg trials in 1946 with such a philosophy.
You need to know that the Nuremberg trials were for war criminals.
You need to understand analogies and how principles can apply across widely different scenarios.
I thought it was a daft analogy.
I'm sure you can explain why.
Only if I wanted to.
Participation on a discussion board would seem to indicate you wanted to, I would think, while not wanting to would seem to indicate no desire to engage in discussion on a discussion board.
On this particular occasion I have nothing to add to this specific issue.
Move on, move on.
No one should ever be held accountable for anything!
Just think of the savings on police, courts and prisons. You could probably knock 5p off tax.
Just move on. Move on.
Move on, move on. It's the Tories' favourite mantra. One hears it all the time. Only for them of course. They still feel free to whine about Gordon Brown selling some of our gold 'too cheaply' umpteen years ago.
There would have been no Nuremberg trials in 1946 with such a philosophy.
You need to know that the Nuremberg trials were for war criminals.
You need to understand analogies and how principles can apply across widely different scenarios.
I thought it was a daft analogy.
I'm sure you can explain why.
Only if I wanted to.
Participation on a discussion board would seem to indicate you wanted to, I would think, while not wanting to would seem to indicate no desire to engage in discussion on a discussion board.
On this particular occasion I have nothing to add to this specific issue.
If you don't have anything to add don't post. If you have issues with a specific poster take it to its own thread.
Move on, move on.
No one should ever be held accountable for anything!
Just think of the savings on police, courts and prisons. You could probably knock 5p off tax.
Just move on. Move on.
Come, come - if the police, courts, and prisons are all done away with, the Little People might take advantage...
Clearly, we don't know all the details, but it seems that some people, at least, are concerned about the affair causing *instability* to Sunak's government.
It didn't take long for the honeymoon to go a bit sour...
I see also that King Charles will still not be attending COP-27. Sunak may plead more important urgent engagements, but that's not a reason not to have the King attend.
I see also that King Charles will still not be attending COP-27. Sunak may plead more important urgent engagements, but that's not a reason not to have the King attend.
AIUI His Majesty was warned off going to COP27 by last month's Prime Minister, who presumably no longer has any jurisdiction in this realm of England.
I agree that he should be there, but maybe The Powers That Be are afraid he might open his mouth, and put his foot in it.
I see also that King Charles will still not be attending COP-27. Sunak may plead more important urgent engagements, but that's not a reason not to have the King attend.
AIUI His Majesty was warned off going to COP27 by last month's Prime Minister, who presumably no longer has any jurisdiction in this realm of England.
I agree that he should be there, but maybe The Powers That Be are afraid he might open his mouth, and put his foot in it.
No, I think they're afraid he might open his mouth and speak the truth eloquently and persuasively.
Despite opposing the monarchy, I am inclined to agree - even as a private citizen, Charles is clearly passionate about the environment at a level most of the cabinet simply aren't.
I see also that King Charles will still not be attending COP-27. Sunak may plead more important urgent engagements, but that's not a reason not to have the King attend.
AIUI His Majesty was warned off going to COP27 by last month's Prime Minister, who presumably no longer has any jurisdiction in this realm of England.
I agree that he should be there, but maybe The Powers That Be are afraid he might open his mouth, and put his foot in it.
No, I think they're afraid he might open his mouth and speak the truth eloquently and persuasively.
If people can't attend and speak the truth, what's the point of it ?
I see also that King Charles will still not be attending COP-27. Sunak may plead more important urgent engagements, but that's not a reason not to have the King attend.
AIUI His Majesty was warned off going to COP27 by last month's Prime Minister, who presumably no longer has any jurisdiction in this realm of England.
I agree that he should be there, but maybe The Powers That Be are afraid he might open his mouth, and put his foot in it.
No, I think they're afraid he might open his mouth and speak the truth eloquently and persuasively.
If people can't attend and speak the truth, what's the point of it ?
He should be able to attend. I guess there are security reasons as well as political ones stopping him from going but he should just tell Rishi he is going and that is that
Didn't our late Queen give a speech via video link to the previous climate summit? (and would have attended if her health had allowed) Is our new King having his wings clipped?
Didn't our late Queen give a speech via video link to the previous climate summit? (and would have attended if her health had allowed) Is our new King having his wings clipped?
Possibly. Truss told him not to go. It's unclear to me if Sunak has the same view or whether he might say something different...
I don't recall Elizabeth Windsor addressing COP26, but it wouldn't have been something of particular interest to me. I'd expect she could have given an address welcoming people to the conference in her role as head of state for the host nation.
I don't recall Elizabeth Windsor addressing COP26, but it wouldn't have been something of particular interest to me. I'd expect she could have given an address welcoming people to the conference in her role as head of state for the host nation.
Are you refering to Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ?
AIUI, her full name (as given on her death certificate) was *Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor*.
All else is trifles.
You spelled "pile of bollocks" wrong .
Hehe. As you say...
I think her occupation was given as *Her Majesty The Queen*, which seems to sum it up pretty well.
Anyway, back to the present, and it may well be that it's not entirely appropriate for her successor to attend COP27, given that he would have great difficulty in refraining from what might not be considered impartial speeches.
The Prime Minister, however, should attend, as others have said, but he may be reluctant to leave the country in case Cruella engineers a coup d'etat in his absence, and makes it illegal for him to re-enter...
I don't recall Elizabeth Windsor addressing COP26, but it wouldn't have been something of particular interest to me. I'd expect she could have given an address welcoming people to the conference in her role as head of state for the host nation.
Are you refering to Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ?
Are you genuinely asking for information, or are you playing silly buggers to be disruptive?
I don't recall Elizabeth Windsor addressing COP26, but it wouldn't have been something of particular interest to me. I'd expect she could have given an address welcoming people to the conference in her role as head of state for the host nation.
Are you refering to Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ?
Are you genuinely asking for information, or are you playing silly buggers to be disruptive?
I don't recall Elizabeth Windsor addressing COP26, but it wouldn't have been something of particular interest to me. I'd expect she could have given an address welcoming people to the conference in her role as head of state for the host nation.
Are you refering to Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ?
Are you genuinely asking for information, or are you playing silly buggers to be disruptive?
I was genuinely seeking information.
So are you really the only person in the UK who didn’t know the Queen’s surname?
I don't recall Elizabeth Windsor addressing COP26, but it wouldn't have been something of particular interest to me. I'd expect she could have given an address welcoming people to the conference in her role as head of state for the host nation.
Are you refering to Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ?
Are you genuinely asking for information, or are you playing silly buggers to be disruptive?
I was genuinely seeking information.
So are you really the only person in the UK who didn’t know the Queen’s surname?
Of course I do but Windsor is a popular surname. There was a a family of Windsors in Emmerdale.
Didn't our late Queen give a speech via video link to the previous climate summit? (and would have attended if her health had allowed) Is our new King having his wings clipped?
Did she, and if so, which of her governments wrote/approved the speech? And what would the King do were his NZ and Australian governments to advise his attending?
Indeed. It has been discussed here what would happen if the Australian government (or that of NZ or Canada etc- or ideally all of the realms together) asked King Charles to attend as King of Australia etc. After all, we keep being told the monarchy is the Australian monarchy, but it doesn't quite seem to work out that way.
The same objection is raised if a royal promotes British industry in areas where there are Aust, NZ etc competitors - and no satisfactory answer ever seems to be forthcoming.
Move on, move on. It's the Tories' favourite mantra. One hears it all the time. Only for them of course. They still feel free to whine about Gordon Brown selling some of our gold 'too cheaply' umpteen years ago.
There would have been no Nuremberg trials in 1946 with such a philosophy.
You need to know that the Nuremberg trials were for war criminals.
I don't recall Elizabeth Windsor addressing COP26, but it wouldn't have been something of particular interest to me. I'd expect she could have given an address welcoming people to the conference in her role as head of state for the host nation.
Apparently it was when Liz Truss was PM that King Charles was advised not to attend the next COP. Surely this is 'interesting' from a constitutional point of view?
I think it is poor show for Rishi to decide he can't attend and I think he is going to regret that decision.
Moving on, here's a rather disturbing report regarding refugees - an issue which isn't going to go away, and which Sunak (preferably without Braverman's *help*) is going to have to deal with:
Moving on, here's a rather disturbing report regarding refugees - an issue which isn't going to go away, and which Sunak (preferably without Braverman's *help*) is going to have to deal with:
Now we hear that some people - including the local tory MP (Sir Roger Gale) - are concerned that asylum seekers at Manston are being deliberately kept, by the Home Office, in overcrowded conditions.
IF this is true (and please note the IF), then, coupled with Cruella's admission that she used her own email address for government business, Sunak must surely have no option but to sack her.
On so doing, he should immediately resign himself, and seek a General Election.
Please, let's get rid of these lunatics once and for all.
Comments
You need to understand analogies and how principles can apply across widely different scenarios.
I thought it was a daft analogy.
I can't think of any explanations that don't involve confidential information. Of one sort or another.
I'm sure you can explain why.
Well, that could help build him an electoral coalition of gay men, along with girls too young to vote.
Only if I wanted to.
Not a pleasant image. Pass the brain bleach, please...
Meanwhile, the Braverman saga rumbles on. Who knows? Sunak may have made a misjudgement, or he may even have been misled. It is, perhaps, today's dead cat, but it does rather spoil Sunak's desire for reliability and integrity.
No one should ever be held accountable for anything!
Just think of the savings on police, courts and prisons. You could probably knock 5p off tax.
Just move on. Move on.
If you don't have anything to add don't post. If you have issues with a specific poster take it to its own thread.
-- chrisstiles, HellHost
Come, come - if the police, courts, and prisons are all done away with, the Little People might take advantage...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/28/suella-braverman-stays-silent-as-rapid-cabinet-return-reignites-tory-row
Clearly, we don't know all the details, but it seems that some people, at least, are concerned about the affair causing *instability* to Sunak's government.
It didn't take long for the honeymoon to go a bit sour...
AIUI His Majesty was warned off going to COP27 by last month's Prime Minister, who presumably no longer has any jurisdiction in this realm of England.
I agree that he should be there, but maybe The Powers That Be are afraid he might open his mouth, and put his foot in it.
No, I think they're afraid he might open his mouth and speak the truth eloquently and persuasively.
Exactly.
If people can't attend and speak the truth, what's the point of it ?
He should be able to attend. I guess there are security reasons as well as political ones stopping him from going but he should just tell Rishi he is going and that is that
Possibly. Truss told him not to go. It's unclear to me if Sunak has the same view or whether he might say something different...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/28/king-charles-will-not-attend-cop27-in-egypt-no-10-confirms
Are you refering to Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ?
All else is trifles.
You spelled "pile of bollocks" wrong .
Hehe. As you say...
I think her occupation was given as *Her Majesty The Queen*, which seems to sum it up pretty well.
Anyway, back to the present, and it may well be that it's not entirely appropriate for her successor to attend COP27, given that he would have great difficulty in refraining from what might not be considered impartial speeches.
The Prime Minister, however, should attend, as others have said, but he may be reluctant to leave the country in case Cruella engineers a coup d'etat in his absence, and makes it illegal for him to re-enter...
Are you genuinely asking for information, or are you playing silly buggers to be disruptive?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/29/suella-braverman-secretive-meetings-antiwoke-mp-officials
I don't envy Sunak as he tries to deal with what's been going on, whether he knew all about it, or whether he himself has been misled.
So are you really the only person in the UK who didn’t know the Queen’s surname?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/29/no-10-alarm-as-boris-johnson-plans-to-attend-cop27-climate-summit
Naughty Boris (if the report is true...).
It appears that I missed that bit.
Of course I do but Windsor is a popular surname. There was a a family of Windsors in Emmerdale.
Did she, and if so, which of her governments wrote/approved the speech? And what would the King do were his NZ and Australian governments to advise his attending?
The same objection is raised if a royal promotes British industry in areas where there are Aust, NZ etc competitors - and no satisfactory answer ever seems to be forthcoming.
Driven by victorious politicians. One way.
Here it is for anyone who's interested:
https://www.royal.uk/queen’s-speech-cop26-evening-reception#:~:text=“If the world pollution situation,problems will pale into insignificance.”
Apparently it was when Liz Truss was PM that King Charles was advised not to attend the next COP. Surely this is 'interesting' from a constitutional point of view?
I think it is poor show for Rishi to decide he can't attend and I think he is going to regret that decision.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/30/dover-petrol-bomb-immigration-centre-border-force
It was only a matter of time
I'm sure we all have our suspicions, though.
Come now, it's only terrorism if brown people do it. Or at the very least people with a funny accent.
IF this is true (and please note the IF), then, coupled with Cruella's admission that she used her own email address for government business, Sunak must surely have no option but to sack her.
On so doing, he should immediately resign himself, and seek a General Election.
Please, let's get rid of these lunatics once and for all.