UKC

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/15/exclusive-boris-johnson-yes-will-take-back-350m-eu-nhs/

The £350m a week for the NHS claim is back. some fibs are just too big to only use once.....

"It is understood that the Foreign Secretary wished to make a speech about Brexit but has not had the opportunity. Whitehall sources suggested that the Prime Minister and Chancellor were unaware of Mr Johnson's article."

A week before May gives her keynote Brexit speech, and a month before the Tory party conference, it looks pretty much like the start of a leadership bid.

And if he wins, we will have 'a "glorious” post-Brexit future as a low-tax, low regulation economy paying nothing to the EU for access to the single market.'

The race to the bottom starts here...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Boris for PM!!!

In reply to Big Ger:

You heard it here first...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Does this man have a shred of anything approaching honesty, integrity or decency?

He's a caricature of everything people despise about politicians.

In reply to Trevers:
He'd also be the first PM to have published obscene poetry about an allied country's head of state, which is something, I suppose...


Edit- but in answer to the question you posed- no.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

"Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson PC MP (born 19 June 1964), known as Boris Johnson, is a British politician, popular historian and journalist. He has served as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs since 2016 and as Member of Parliament (MP) for Uxbridge and South Ruislip since 2015. He had previously been MP for Henley from 2001 to 2008 and Mayor of London from 2008 to 2016. A member of the Conservative Party, Johnson identifies as a one-nation conservative and has been associated with both economically and socially liberal policies."

Top man our BoJo.

In reply to Big Ger:

> "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson PC MP (born 19 June 1964), known as Boris Johnson, is a British politician, popular historian and journalist. He has served as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs since 2016 and as Member of Parliament (MP) for Uxbridge and South Ruislip since 2015. He had previously been MP for Henley from 2001 to 2008 and Mayor of London from 2008 to 2016. A member of the Conservative Party, Johnson identifies as a one-person conservative (that person being, of course, Boris Johnson) and has been associated with whatever policies he reckons give him the best chance of advancing his career at that point in time ."

FTFY



Yes, he's quite a character...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


I think in hindsight, erodagon isn't a leader any one in the West actually wants to be allied with? Despite the eu bribe his true colours are showing through.

In reply to Trevers:


No


Yes

On a specific point, he said Brexit was an ideal opportunity to change our tax laws, and the tampon tax was quoted. Can't we do that anyway?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

At the risk of an early Saturday Godwin, so was Hitler.

Nobody in their right mind ever believed such a comical character could gain power ... until he did.

Not that I believe Boris has plans for concentration camps, ethnic cleansing or anything else, but he COULD gain power and his demagoguery linked to his breath-taking ineffectualness, incompetence and idleness really could give my grandchildren a pretty grim future.

In reply to summo:


Yes, he couldn't have said it about a nicer person, could he? And it was very funny.

But is that the sort of thing it's appropriate for the leader of the government to be getting up to?

Still, I suppose we should be thankful, it could be worse; as far as I'm aware he's never actually been recorded gloating about carrying out sexual assaults.

Small mercies, I guess...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Exactly. Trump.

But show me a perfect leader, mrs EU merkel voted against abortion etc

In reply to summo:

Nobody's perfect, it's true

But there's flawed, and then there's flawed...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: ITs shaping up to be one hell of a battle - a bloke with the looks and brains of a sheepdog versus little Lord Fauntleroy.

In reply to wbo:
Boris is far from stupid- but I agree with the point that the winner of any contest is going to be a reject from the last time around; and while the tories turn on each other like mongooses in a sack, the brexit clock keeps on ticking down...

In reply to wbo:


Neither of whom will win. Tory leadership contests are won by quiet contenders, not front-runners. Think Major and May. The smart money is on Amber Rudd.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


No, just recorded helping to facilitate violent assaults.

I'll never pass up an opportunity to post this: youtube.com/watch?v=p8JMtYlzzoM&

In reply to wbo:


Actually they are both extremely intelligent. Of course that doesn't mean either is fit to be PM.

No disrespect to sheepdogs.

In reply to BnB:

Amber Rudd will never win - her majority is too fragile. The party would never take the risk of the PM being ousted.

In reply to BnB:


Would agree; step back, fence sit, say nothing to rule yourself in or out, then step forward when the gap appears because the other contenders have made each other unviable.

In reply to Grey area:


At the next election she'll be contesting a different seat.

In reply to BnB:


That is a rather long term view, if May survives until the next election, she will contest it, there would only be a leadership election if she loses.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
If he makes it as PM he will solve the aircraft carrier problem by recommisioning the Spitfire and dragging Biggles out of retirement!

In reply to Robert Durran: it's always worth remembering the description of a 'clever person with no brains'.

Both of course are lovely chaps who care deeply about the weak, poor, sick, elderly and the state of the countries finances outside their own wallets.

What about Andrea Deadzone or plucky David Davies?

In reply to wbo:




Which DD is that - the rampant mysogynist or the Brexit wanker who looks constantly drunk?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:



Absolutely; to paraphrase Eddie: 'he's a nasty piece of work'. Certainly not a British Trump for many reasons but, quite apart from issues of policy, I really don't think much more of him as a human being than I do of the Donald (0).

In reply to The New NickB:

May will only survive the full term if the Tories think they are more likely to win with her at the helm. A possibility that feels vanishingly small today although stranger things have happened.

Meanwhile, Rudd can only be unseated in a GE. The only thing that would force her to face a bye-election is her own death!!

And at the next GE she'll be moved to a safe seat. Probably.

In reply to Big Ger:

Yep, lets have a shameless, mendacious, arrogant twunt for pm!

In reply to Bulls Crack:


Can you name the last time we didn't have one of those? John Major perhaps?

In reply to BnB:


Gordon Brown

In reply to Robert Durran:


"I declare the end of boom and bust!!" "Just another bigoted woman"

Yep, no hubris there, nor the slightest contempt for his natural electorate.

In reply to BnB:


I'm not convinced either makes him shameless, mendacious or arrogant. And she was a bigoted woman anyway.

If a man of genuine humanity and conviction (though, of course, like everyone else with his faults) like Gordon Brown is going to be lumped in with the very worst of our politicians, then I despair of ever having really able people of genuine humanity and conviction putting themselves forward for the top jobs in politics.

I am pretty tired of the unthinking blanket "all tories are evil" and "Blair was as bad as Saddam" nonsense too.

In reply to Removed User:

I thought along similar lines that he'd probably appoint Jack Aubrey in an attempt to bask in his esteem within the service

In reply to Big Ger:


He's Australian? Who knew?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Boris is the Barclays Bros man / he-bitch so expect more of that.

D

In reply to BnB:

True enouh - Gordon Brown wasn't too much of these!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Boris Johnson has insisted he is "all behind" Theresa May after setting out his own vision of Britain after Brexit. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, the foreign secretary revived the contested claim Brexit could free up £350m a week for the NHS and also said the UK should not pay for EU single market access. He later tweeted he backed the PM, who is making a major EU speech next week.

There you go, Bojo backs Mrs May.


I wrote that with a straight face too.

In reply to Big Ger:

Lol, he's a funny guy, that BoJo...

In reply to BnB:


Please don't give us more nightmares...

In reply to Bulls Crack:


I'd argue he was exceptionally arrogant compared to almost any PM since Thatcher, but agree that he was certainly more principled than his predecessor.

He was also an extremely poor PM, by far the worst in recent memory with the exception, on current performance, of T May. This was a job for which he was very poorly qualified. Leadership is a talent not measured in intelligence or grasp of policy.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

According to this entertaining deconstruction https://jonworth.eu/fisking-boris-johnsons-brexit-essay/ of Boris's balderdash, this is the nearest thing to truth in the whole speech! Only because he's qualified the original lie by being far more equivocal this time: " It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS". Note the 'if'...

In reply to Bob Kemp:
Yes, he's been careful to word it so that the headlines will shout about Boris and £350m for the NHS, but that when challenged he can deny he said any such thing

As he has today; but the head of the uk statistics authority isn't buying it...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/17/boris-johnson-slapped-down...

Bojo's response has brought this criticism from the Royal Statistical Society:

On the intervention of the statistics authority, Hetan Shah, executive director of the Royal Statistical Society, said: “It is extremely concerning to see a minister seeking to undermine our independent statistical regulator. The UK is envied around the world for the independence of our statistical system and it is important that politicians are not seen to be compromising it.”

Experts, again. What do they know...?

And so the Tories' war on truth enters its next phase...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I'm no supporter of Boris and think he was wrong to refer to the NHS and £350m again, but what he has written is entirely accurate and the RSS is wrong and out of order to attack it.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

They both used a clever play on words, by mentioning both the nhs and 350m in the same sentence. If you read the whole sentence, Boris was correct. But of course many people don't read fully, they see keywords and presume the rest.

The civil servant, should have kept his mouth shut, he is a full time employee and shouldn't really take political sides either in party form or over Brexit. His complaint should have been done internally.

In reply to summo:

Oh the irony.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's accurate in the sense Tony Blair's 15 minutes was accurate. That is, not at all, unless you read it as a literally as a dodgy lawyer. Pointing out such misuse of statistics is, I would say, part of the job of the head of agency, even if it causes brexiters to engage with facts and experts.

In reply to MG:

Nonsense. The rss claims he is "confusing gross and net". He isn't.
He refers to the gross figure which he correctly says ,post brexit, is the figure that the UK will regain "control" of.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, as I said, it's pedantically accurate, however, as we will still be forced to spend much of it on the stuff it is currently spent on, probably more in fact, control means nothing. Yet he implies it all be available for the NHS. You know this, so why pretend otherwise?

In reply to MG:


No he doesn't, he suggests that it would be good if "a lot of it were spent on the NHS".
I agree, that he should shut up about it, but the RSS shouldn't be making inaccurate and politicised criticisms,

In reply to Postmanpat:

The RSS hasn't attacked it; the head of uk statistics has, and the RSS has condemned boris for his retaliation towards the head of uk statistics

It's certainly arguable that norgrove shouldn't have intervened; but as MG points out, while boris constructed his comments very carefully and he is technically correct, we all know what he was doing and it's fair enough to call him out on it.

this is another reason why he's not suitable for high office- allowing yourself to become embroiled in wars of words with your officials is poor politics; you either have to back down, or get into a battle with the people you rely on to do your job. Winning a battle like that can easily be a Pyrrhic victory.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The RSS hasn't in fact, although as a professional body it would be quite reasonable if it did. The head of the UK statistics authority has. Given this stems from made up bull shit painted on a bus, I don't think I have much problem with that either - the whole point of the body is to ensure government uses valid numbers.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It's fair to call him out on it, but it's not the role of the head of UK statistics because it is not about the statistics. It is the role of other politicians and the media.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Which is innacurate.

He says :

"Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week."

That clearly implies that we did not have control of roughly £350 million per week. Which is obviously completely false, we've always had control of it, parliament just made the choice to spend it on EU membership and various other EU programmes.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Are we perhaps understanding the word 'correctly' differently here?

£350M is a straight up lie however you try to dress it up. Even Farage, arch lying toad that he is distanced himself from this particular deception once the dirty work was done. You really should be ashamed to be even halfheartedly defending this mendacity.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

What do you regard as the correct figure?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well in recent history it's been averaging around £250M/week that actually get's 'sent' to the EU. IMO and give or take a couple of 10's of millions £250M/week is a defensible gross figure but implying it can be spent on the NHS isn't.

Including the 'rebate' (essentially a discount) we always get to pump up the headline figure is blatantly dishonest even before deliberately missing the point that this, post brexit, isn't free money. Much of it is already allocated to spending in the UK and it also misses the costs associated with stopping our membership for years to come, costs which will likely outweigh our contribution by an order of magnitude but that is of course speculation for now at least.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:

A quick look at the coverage in the normally sympathetic press suggests boris has completely misjudged this one. The headlines are all of a theme of boris being 'slapped down ', being accused of lying.

That went well, Boris, didn't it?

In reply to jkarran:


The abbot factor? Plus or minus threes 0s?

Labour does the same, it's spent the proposed raising of corporation tax many times, on tuition fees, nhs, benefit, privatisation, schools, nurseries, public sector wages, investment in x or y etc.. If each party only reads what's pertinent to them, they don't know the same money has been promised many orders of magnitude times already to others.

In reply to Postmanpat:

" it's not the role of the head of UK statistics"

I think you're a little unclear as to what's happened. The UK Statistics Authority's head has criticised Boris's statement as being a misuse of statistics. The UK Statistics Authority is not the same as the Government Statistical Service, which is the Civil Service section responsible for the collection, production and communication of official statistics. If the head of the latter was to comment on Boris's remark, you would be correct in saying that it's not their role. But the UK Statistics Authority has, amongst other responsibilities, a role in "regulating quality and publicly challenging the misuse of statistics" (from their website). So Sir David Norgrove is entirely within his remit to challenge what Boris has said.

"it is not about the statistics"
I am surprised that you think an argument over the misuse or otherwise of a piece of statistical data is not about the statistics.

In reply to summo:


Eh, what?

In reply to jkarran:

Think he's monk-eying around...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Yes, and that is the job of the media. Mind you, there was a TV show this morning discussing his "pledge": a totally dishonest misrepresentation of the article.
Frankly, given the almost complete failure of May to articulate a case for any of her policies I dont blame Boris much for having a go, whatever his real motives.

But, yes, it appears to have been an own goal.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


The Mogg supports him.... 'romantic' vision of brexit apparently.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

"'romantic' vision of brexit" - as in, not grounded in reality!

In reply to BnB:


In the space of one sentence he's gone from "by far the worst in living memory" to second worst of the last three and the one who he was supposedly worse than lead us out of the EU (obviously some see this as a good thing). If we take the last four PMs he may not have lead us as well as TB but didn't lead us into an unnecessary war, the negative effects of which we will feel for decades. I'm not saying GB was great or anything, just pointing out that you cannot make a categoric statement like "by far the worst PM in recent memory".

In reply to Postmanpat:



Sounds like Boris' beef is with theTelegraph and their "Britain will spend £350million a week on the NHS" headline (among others). I'm sure he was caught completely off guard by the way it was reported and complained vigorously about being so misrepresented.

In reply to Tyler:


Maybe you should wait until the end of the sentence before assuming you've reached my conclusion.

In reply to Tyler:

I thought it was quite odd as well. Brown was exemplary in his dealing of the financial crisis, he pretty much saved the country from total economic annihilation (let's remind everybody that the biggest banks in the country were on the brink of total bankruptcy). He was the first western leader to recognise that a cataclysmic meltdown of the financial system was unavoidable without a quick recapitalisation of the banks through massive bail outs, and he had the guts to get it done.

Not to say he was perfect, far from it, but compare that to Tony Blair (disastrous Iraq War), Cameron (managed to get us out of the EU through sheer arrogance, cynicism and incompetence) and Theresa May (fanatically obsessed with ruining the life of foreigners and totally useless in her handling of Brexit) and he pretty much stands out as the best we had for a while...

In reply to Tyler:

Or rather, he achieved exactly what he wanted, he knew perfectly well that reusing this toxic figure would get him the media attention he needs to reinforce his populist base.
As the concrete reality of Brexit becomes more obvious every day, what he needed is to bring back the political narrative into the realm of myths and populist, meaningless, simplistic claims.

The head of the RSS is just falling right into the trap (although I suspect he is simply doing what his job requires him to do)

In reply to RomTheBear:

I preferred Ted Heath to any of the above

In reply to RomTheBear:

it hasnt though, judging by the headlines- perhaps the Maybot has the editors in her pocket, but the spin is very much 'boris caught lying', rather the 'boris will save our NHS'....

plus a queue of senior tories lining up to criticise him for undermining the leader.

he has had supportive words from Jacob Rees Mogg though, which must be a comfort to him....

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

WAKE UP BRITAIN

We're taking back control.


[Terms and Conditions apply: "We" means "We the rich, powerful and influential", not to be confused with any idea of "We the British people of all classes". "Control" means control over the lives of plebs and any one else we need to control for the purposes of the "We" as hereinbefore defined]

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

But it doesnt matter. What matters is that instead of taking about the reality and challenges of Brexit, a terrain on which he is totally useless and weak, the press is talking about meaningless and vague claims of little practical relevance designed to exacerbate the passions and move away the debate from a rational discussion on what really matters.

Just look at the thread, and the Brexiteers coming to his rescue, talk about him, and blame the experts. Exactly what he wanted.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Well done for not only missing that my point was about leadership but also for glossing over the fact that it was Brown who both oversaw the massive increase in public spending for which we must thank 10 years of austerity and who, as Chancellor, ushered in the financial crisis with his light touch on regulation (not that the Tories would have done better, but the point is he was in charge, not them).

In fact, as Brown is/was of no small intellect and better able to comprehend the scale and implications of the financial crisis than most politicians, it is a greater condemnation of his leadership that he failed to act to see off the threat, choosing instead to wait and then at last react.

In reply to BnB:


Eh? You were unambiguous in branding GB worst in recent memory with the possible exception of TM but that was very qualified. I was just questioning how you could come to that conclusion given the subjective nature of such things? He may have been in uncharismatic but I'd be interested to know what you think he did in his three years that was worse than the Iraq war or the EU referendum.

In reply to BnB:


Interesting re-writing of history there, poor old GB; single handedly responsible for a worldwide financial crisis.

In reply to BnB:

Did you meant to say worst chancellor in recent memory then? Leaving aside the obvious bollocks that the global financial crisis was somehow his fault. Certainly he could have introduced measures prior the crash to ameliorate the problem but I doubt many would have been cheering him had he done so. As it was he received widespread praise for his handling of the crisis.

In reply to BnB:

No I did not miss it, on the contrary, it seems to me Brown showed extraordinary leadership during the financial crisis. He took decisive and bold action which prevented a cataclysmic outcome, both in the UK and abroad, as essentially other countries followed his approach.

You could say that indeed he ended up quite unpopular, but leadership and popularity are not the same thing. Although popularity can be a component of leadership it is by no mean the only one or the most important.



Anybody that has looked at the numbers properly will find that the rapid increase in spending he oversaw in the two years prior the financial crisis would have made virtually no difference whatsoever, and were a perfectly rational thing to do in the light of what was known at the time.

And ho wait the Tories voted them in as well.

To argue that he ushered in the financial crisis with his light touch on regulation is also a complete lie. Regulations that *could* have prevented the financial crisis simply did not exist until 2010, and anyway, Britain does not have the power to set international banking standards alone.


Did I touch a sensitive nerve ?

To argue that Brown should have seen the subprime crisis coming, when nobody saw it coming apart from a handful of hedge fund managers everybody thought were crazy, is frankly disingenuous.

You're usually a reasonable poster but once in a while when something contradicts deeply held beliefs, you come up with ludicrous stuff.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Well, it looks like Boris is playing us all; he has seen that BREXIT is going to be a monumental mess and he wants to get out before the wheels come off. Unfortunately, if he resigns it will make him look spineless, so he is actually provoking the PM in the hope of getting the sack.

If he is sacked then he gets our of jail. A few years safely on the back benches whilst Tories and Brexit rip UK PLC apart, and then he returns like the prodigal son to lead the party, if not the country.

I though Boris just played parlour game politics, but he is actually quite sophisticated and devious. he'd put Littlefinger to shame.

In reply to Shani:


I think we've passed peak Boris, thankfully. A few years down the track there will be assorted newcomers vying for the leadership, and Boris will be left regretting the fact he managed to piss so many people off. Even the Tory party has moments of lucidity, and once TM goes, the party will realise it's time for a generational change.

I've never understood the appeal of Boris. The ability to toss out a few Latin quotes has never seemed like the best qualification for high office. It's fairly obvious he's a shallow one-trick pony, and more and more people are seeing past his one trick. It's a pretty sorry indication of the state of British politics that reactionaries such as Boris and Rees-Mogg are seen in such high regard and considered potential leadership material.

In reply to Shani:
An angle I hadn't considered before...

Would certainly explain what otherwise looks like a catastrophic misjudgement by someone who surely isn't stupid enough to have thought he could get away with publishing that article ...

In reply to Shani:




Interesting, although I read a rather different take on it in the Guardian. Supposedly, Number 10 was gearing up to sack Boris from his job. By publishing this now, it protects him in his position by making any potential sacking appear as a punishment for boldness, rather than incompetence:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/17/boris-johnson-foreign...

In reply to Shani:


Specially since he is actually a remainder who only joined the leave campaign on the assumption it would fail while he would win the approval of the people who elect the tory leader. In fact by sabotaging the Brexit process by his antics it (hopefully) makes it more likely Brexit will never happen (which I suspect might also be his aim).

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


By doing what he is doing, he is saving his own arse.
He is essentially saying his version of Brexit will give us an unicorn that farts rainbows and shits money.
In the meantime David Davis and Theresa May have to deal with reality and will be completely dead at the end of it.

The more he appeals to the hard bexiteers, without having to deliver Brexit himself, the more untouchable he becomes.

He is a cynical twat the highest order, but you have to admire the political skills.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The Tory leadership election rules have a big part to play. MPs vote for their choice, the lowest scoring candidate is dropped and the election repeated until two are left. Then the party as a whole votes one member one vote for the remaining two. The Tory party members are generally conservative with a small c and also very pro Daily Mail/Express. When Cameron went the party as a whole would have gone for a hard Brexit leader, hence the manoeuvring (Gove/Brutus) of MPs to provide May with a coronation. I don't see the same consensus next time and a Boris /JRM vote could go to the Party, which JRM would win

In reply to kevin stephens:

I wonder what odds you'd have got 3 years ago if you went to the bookies to put a bet on Corbyn for labour leader and JRM for Tory leader?

Add trump for US president, and that would have been quite an accumulator!

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Romantic version of Brexit being bandy legged street urchins huddle silently as gruel is ladled into mugs round the soup kitchen back door.
Fairly indifferent about the whole subject at this point but shouldn't the Tories thought of some pro Brexit memes and got a couple of up for it leaders with a vision thing to get the public behind it?

All we have is, we'll have more ( of your ) monies to not spend on poor sick people and freedom from foreign types speaking funny on the bus. And tweed, plenty of tweed. Sounds fantastic.

D

In reply to kevin stephens:

How can you be conservative with a small c and a daily mail / express reader?

kuntz.

Anyone mopping up that swill over their morning branflakes is a goose-stepping wanna be fascist with lots of unpleasant opinions about blicks, and even our close European neighbours. Repellant journalism. Actually a window licking fluckwit. But a voting one. It's not even about left or right more than reaching the stage of operational thought

I guess we get the leader we, or the Daily Mail voting public deserve, eh? Negotiate! Negotiate! Negotiate!

D

In reply to Dauphin:




Just saving that bile in case anyone misses it.

Godwin, sexism, and disability mocking, all in one short post, how typical of the left leaning.

In reply to Big Ger:
Amazing the bile the gets sprayed out every day all over the breakfast cereal of middle England in 'family' newspapers - but somehow in Big Gers psychedelic reality the 'left' is to blame. You hear this bile repeated countrywide.

No surprise that the right has coopted the identity politics of the left and the moral toneto police language, with the same authoritarian and divisive end. All the while approving the shutting down of mental health beds, cutting benefits for people with learning disabilities and telling foreign workers to f*ck off back to bongo bongo land.

Not even a socialist, but good try. Typical of the black and white, non operational thinking of your scandal rag imbibing comrades.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/formal-operational.html



D

P.S. don't worry, I shan't be deleting it.

In reply to Dauphin:
Your posts reminds me greatly of scene 5 from Macbeth, which takes place in Dunsinane;

"it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing."

In reply to Big Ger:
We can all google Shakespearean insults cocker.

But you are not a fan of vivid language, hyperbole, or simile. As evidenced by the preceding matronly disapproval.

Laters. Some of us work for a living.



D

In reply to Dauphin:
Perhaps as a naturally tolerant person and a believer in free speech you would allow folk to read the likes of the Sun, express etc.. as it gives them a broader view, something of a comparison piece against the articles in say the tax dodging, Cayman islands loving Guardian?

In reply to summo:

I think it would be both good and possible to frame a law that would prevent newspapers - the Mail is the chief culprit - publishing stories that they must KNOW are untrue when they print them.

I would like to see Dacre doing time for repeating lies like the £350 million 'extra' for the NHS or the 'hordes' of immigrants who were going to invade the moment Turkey joined the EU with full rights.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Is it more wrong for a paper to report the problems you quote and scaremongering, than the scare mongering about ww3 and other disasters that would happen with Brexit, which were headlined in the more left orientated press?

I think it's just as bad some articles seem to convince the brain dead that they can have better state services etc... less tax, higher benefits... and they won't need to pay for it some how or other.

You can only hope that people, of any political ideals have enough brains cells to see through the headlines used to sell papers.

In reply to summo:

I'm all for freedom of the press. But equally I enjoy my freedom to arc a torrent of piss all over Dacre's tribe of angry apoplectic Mondeo driving troglodytes whenever the mood takes me. Shakespeare made me do it. Or Chaucer.

Haven't bought the guardian in years. Not a huge fan of their brown owl disapproval and hypocrisy.

D

In reply to Dauphin:

I think you are really Boris, just letting your inner leftist out, before heading off to the tory office.


Exactly. Most papers have an agenda, you are just more tolerant of some than others.

In reply to summo:

Maybe having the countries central political agenda driven by terribly polite, queue abiding jack booted swivel eyed loons has something to do with it?
Mostly they will be dead soon, so I shouldn't be too caught up in my personal antipathy. Always trust the numbers.

Dunno.

D

In reply to Big Ger:

Ah come on, he's right about the mail... Charlie brooker nailed it years ago with 'daily mail island'....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVGoHome

Daily Mail Island, a reality TV show where several normal people are deposited on an island and not allowed access to any media other than the strongly right-wing and conservative Daily Mail newspaper, leading to them becoming progressively more irrational and brutal as the series progresses - for example, tying teenage lovers together with sacks on their heads and beating them,[4] or sealing a teenager caught masturbating into a coffin filled with broken glass and dog faeces and throwing it over a cliff [5] and their language devolving into rhetorical questions and sarcastic snorts.[6]

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Sounds hysterical :-S

In reply to Dauphin:


Don't forget that inside every socialist student, is a Tory waiting to emerge once they get a job and realise things in life need funding. You'll always have a target for your angst.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Would agree, but dauphin is as extreme in their view as the dm, except one of them is supposed to be from the tolerant side of society.

In reply to Shani:




The dead tree press are today reporting that Boris thinks the Brexit talks are going very badly and that TM will be humiliated. Looks like the analysis above is on target...

In reply to Big Ger:

I'm a pretty tolerant person, but I draw the line at tolerating people who don't find Charlie brooker funny....

Hmmmn tolerant of intolerance. That's the fall out from identity politics kind of puzzle the left is tying itself up in knots over currently. No surprise that the right quickly saw an opportunity to silence the opposition by language policing with variations of 'everyone is equal and we all have a equal right to a voice' victim signalling.

Almost as poisonous as Dacre's screed. Not a right or left issue. It's between authoritarians and Liberals. I'm perfectly happy for DM to go on publishing, don't expect me to honour the simians who parrot out its invective with much respect though.

D

In reply to Dauphin:

Park life

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



I'm sure if I watched it I'd find it very funny.

In reply to Dauphin:


Don't forget the blue passports!

In reply to Bob Kemp:

and lots and lots of Control