BS: Brexit & other UK political topics

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 05:03 PM

So Steve, what's your source for that?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 04:56 PM

If that is trueit means she knew about it, and even if she did not go she ought to have informed on it. I¡d have thought this should disqualify he as qualifiedro make an independent report.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 04:18 PM

It seems that Sue Gray was invited to the May 20 garden party...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 03:22 PM

A magnificent performance from johnson on PMQ yesterday, marred continually by the incomprehensible babble from some regional MPs - from whom, it appeared the bitching record had stuck !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 03:00 PM

Prince Andrew is stripped of all titles royal and military except son of the Queen.
E's jus good ol Andy now.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 10:43 AM

I imagine the front bench Tries will be quite pleased were able to wear face masks while Boris was mocking us all with his pseudo-apology.

One bit of luck for Mr Johnson when the Prince Andrew scandal has erupted at this point to give the tabloids something else to get their teeth into.   

It appears the Grey report won't be released to the public. It's for Boris Johnson's eyes, and what we are due to get is a summary of the findings supplied by…Boris Johnson.

The sneaky thing is that Johnson's porky about how he believed this was not a party but a work event, however implausible it is, cannot be disproved, and that is his figleaf when it comes to the accusation that he lied when he said he believed that there had been no parties at number 10. Lie stands on lie. And his colleagues and supporters line up to add more lies, as they pretend that they actually believe what Boris said in his "apology".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 10:25 AM

She's God-awful. Our best hope would be that she turns out to be another Theresa May. Starmer did a half-decent job yesterday. I still think elections are generally lost by the incumbent, not won by the opposition.

It's a long time to the next election and Johnson will have a massive pandemic-whacking success behind him. The trail of damage he's leaving will be forgotten. He's good at making that happen. We could still be doomed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 06:41 AM

She looked frightened to death at PMQs yesterday

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 05:36 AM

Well, apart from the fact that there's the foul smell of a whitewash coming up, I'm with Nick Robinson (rare in my case) regarding his line of questioning to that Boris lackey/looks like a spiv/talks like a spiv/IS a spiv Brandon Lewis this morning. We have the facts. We don't need to wait for any more "facts." Johnson and the stooges who are wheeled out have all been briefed to trot out the "Sue Gray" defence. Poor old Sue is just about as "independent" as my left foot is independent of my left leg. Boris is her boss. During her "investigations" she will be told precisely what Johnson and his advisers want her to be told, and, if perchance she produces an adverse report, Johnson can veto it in any case.

I'm sure that Starmer would love to see Johnson stay exactly where he is, but of course he can't say that. A different leader (Truss would be a dead cert, I reckon) would be far more likely to win the next election than Johnson. And she's keeping her head down. Have you noticed?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Jan 22 - 03:58 AM

It will only take 54 letters, Donuel, but getting them is not that easy. After Johnson's performance yesterday, everything hinges on Sue Gray's report. If she says the March 20th event was not a party, the general public will look at that, look at the text of the email, and conclude the report is a whitewash. That may well get the PM through to at least the May elections, but I would expect many MPs to be very nervous of how their voters would react.

I think what she needs to do, from the government's point of view, is to build a case that the event was a party and Johnson was remiss in attending, but his error in thinking it a working event is plausible. She also needs to demonstrate somehow that the 'we' who thought a party a good idea did not include the Prime Minister. But it must always be remembered that ignorance is no defence against the law, so that is a very shaky platform to stand on.

I read reports that there are some concerns Johnson could veto the report. That would seem very counter-productive to me: it would convince everyone there was something to hide and the MPs could anticipate fury from their constituents. The same would apply if the report was redacted.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 08:50 PM

hey that's parody :^/

All that is needed are 54 letters of no confidence from his MP 'friends'.
"I didn't know it was a party" is a piss poor defense.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 07:44 PM

Well, Bonzo, Mussolini did some amazing things for Italy and was very popular - for a while. My, he even made the trains run on time! I wonder whether his favourite song was "Leaning on a Lamp-post"...

Just wondering whether Boris's favourite song might be one of Simon and Garfunkel's (with apologies to them):

"I am just a rich boy [SORRY!]
Though my story's seldom told
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest...

Lie la lie, lie la lie la lie la lie
Lie la lie, lie la lie la lie la lie, la la lie la lie..."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 05:09 PM

For anyone who hasn't actually read it:


Article 16
Safeguards

1. If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the
functioning of this Protocol.

2. If a safeguard measure taken by the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in accordance with paragraph 1 creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under this Protocol, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may take such proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol.

3. Safeguard and rebalancing measures taken in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be governed by the procedures set out in Annex 7 to this Protocol

Short and to the point. And, as in my last post notice especially:

Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration

and

Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 05:01 PM

That is disputed, as you will know, because the EU has a complex approval procedure. But even if we accept that they did, it matters not a jot. The text of Article 16 talks about actions as small in scope and of limited duration as possible with a view to keeping as much of the protocol in operation as possible. So an invocation lasting a few hours would be not problem at all and fully in keeping with the protocol. In fact the possibility multiple invocations of Artucle 16 over time is clearly part of the safeguards.

Some of the Brexiteer wing seem to think Article 16 is some sort of legal hand grenade that demolishes the protocol once and for all. It is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 04:53 PM

I'd rather have a PM who resists pressure to keep schools shut in March, opens fully in July despite warnings of 300k/day cases & the "Johnson variant", opens schools in Sept, refuses to do Plan B in Oct, & only does masking in Dec, but had wine in his garden. But that's just me.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 04:37 PM

Just to be clear. Article 16 was already triggered by the EU. But then they changed their mind: Here

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 02:40 PM

I don't worry about the Red Button too much, but I think it possible he could trigger Article 16 whatever the effects might be, just to try to get the spotlight somewhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 22 - 02:12 PM

He didn't know if was a party. He didn't know he was breaking the rules. This man has access to the big red button.

Be afraid. Very afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 22 - 08:11 PM

Ditto, pfr!

Oi, I can't keep up with all this partying!

He won't go, will he...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 22 - 02:38 PM

Yay! Glad to see you PFR. I was getting worried. Happy anything I have missed and hoping all is OK in Scrumpyshire.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Jan 22 - 10:45 AM

I'm just checking in to confirm proof of life..

I'm still alive..

.. and you lot are still posting..

so must still be breathing, despite the government's best efforts to cull Social undesirables and deplorables..

Fair enough..


Happy New year !!!...

pfr...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 22 - 08:46 AM

Marvellous piece from Tom Peck in The Independent

It would be even truer were it not so tragic!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jan 22 - 02:55 AM

I realise that to stay on both the right side of the writs and within what can be proven, all the press is reporting that Johnson's Principal Private Secretary sent the email inviting people to drinks in the garden of number 10.

But that he did so without any consultation with Johnson is not an argument I find credible.

Cressida Dick and co have a real problem on their hands now. They can declare again they do not act on infringements of the covid restrictions retrospectively, but there are very grave risks of civil disobedience if they do that. The Tories would be well advised to remember the Poll Tax Riots.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 22 - 02:34 AM

I am unashamedly stealing this from an online friend who posted it to Facebook the other day

Don’t get me wrong; we’ve had some pretty dodgy governments in the past. Lloyd George was no saint, using honours to get things he wanted from the rich and powerful; Harold Wilson had similar tendencies. Lord knows, John Major’s rabble were often caught with their snouts in the trough of public funds, and Blair’s lies over Iraq will always overshadow the good things done with the NHS, minimum wage and SureStart.
The current government is different. I can’t think of another administration where corruption is so commonplace that it has become the standard way of transacting government business. The really staggering part of this is that the Tory party don’t see anything wrong in corruption. Acting solely in the interests of themselves, their friends, family and political donors is simply the way they view the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 06:27 PM

It's more a case of hypocrisy, I'd say. There isn't enough white emulsion at Homebase to paint all those sepulchres white...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 06:16 PM

Steve Shaw:
I'm pretty sure that the judge would have quibbled with the verdict by now had he (she?) been minded to do so.

I think, and you won't agree, Nigel, that we should see this unseemly episode for what it is: a bunch of Tories who feel aggrieved at a verdict that poked the establishment in the eye, rather forgetting all the illegality of the actions of their own leader, of Cummings, and of a motley bunch of their MPs who didn't think that it was so bad to party illegally whilst hundreds of people were dying every day in the middle of a lockdown. In a dark time, the eye begins to see... [Theodore Roethke]

That looks like a classic depiction of 'whataboutism'!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 06:06 PM

I'm pretty sure that the judge would have quibbled with the verdict by now had he (she?) been minded to do so.

I think, and you won't agree, Nigel, that we should see this unseemly episode for what it is: a bunch of Tories who feel aggrieved at a verdict that poked the establishment in the eye, rather forgetting all the illegality of the actions of their own leader, of Cummings, and of a motley bunch of their MPs who didn't think that it was so bad to party illegally whilst hundreds of people were dying every day in the middle of a lockdown. In a dark time, the eye begins to see... [Theodore Roethke]

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 05:49 PM

Dave The Gnome:
It doesn't matter whether I agree or not, Nigel. A retrial in this case is extremely unlikely.

Yes, I agree. It is unlikely, but not impossible, as some have claimed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 05:47 PM

Steve Shaw:
The judge may overrule a jury's verdict, but this hardly ever happens. A not guilty verdict by a jury can't be challenged by the prosecution or by anyone else. A guilty verdict may be challenged by the convicted party and taken to appeal. If it's felt by the judge that there's been a mistrial, well that's different. That has not happened in this case. You or I may "review" a verdict, Nigel, but no-one has the power to intervene to change that verdict.
Surely if as you say "a judge may feel there's been a mistrial" then yes, there may be need for reconsideration.

I am just arguing against all those who claim that, come what may, the decision must stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 05:44 PM

It doesn't matter whether I agree or not, Nigel. A retrial in this case is extremely unlikely.
Basically what I said. "Extremely unlikely" is not the same as "Impossible"

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 04:39 PM

The case can be reviewed. The verdict cannot be amended, as the Attorney General herself said.

Obviously if there is new evidence, a new trial can take place. That is not what is being talked about in the petition on change.org, which is demanding a retrial because the signatories think the verdict is wrong. It is not based on new evidence.

Given that the defendants admitted their action but the jury decided it did not constitute criminal damage, it is hard to see what such evidence could be.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 04:38 PM

It doesn't matter whether I agree or not, Nigel. A retrial in this case is extremely unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 04:35 PM

"You or I may 'review' a not guilty verdict" is what I meant to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 04:32 PM

The judge may overrule a jury's verdict, but this hardly ever happens. A not guilty verdict by a jury can't be challenged by the prosecution or by anyone else. A guilty verdict may be challenged by the convicted party and taken to appeal. If it's felt by the judge that there's been a mistrial, well that's different. That has not happened in this case. You or I may "review" a verdict, Nigel, but no-one has the power to intervene to change that verdict. What we are discussing here is right-wing Tory Party petulance at a verdict they don't like. No doubt the same cabal would have stood up for Colston himself had he been on trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 02:15 PM

Dave,
No matter how likely, or not, a retrial is, anyone claiming that a jury decision cannot be reviewed is wrong. Do you disagree with that statement?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 01:24 PM

Retrials are usually instigated by the defendant. This will not happen in this case. The case for a retrial would have to be brought about by the legislature and for that to happen they would have to have a good reason. How do you think it would be justified? Because someone in the government doesn't like the verdict? Because there was some technical flaw in the procedure? I don't think any of that is likely. Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 12:53 PM

Of course there can be a retrial. Under suitable conditions.

Anyone who claims that this cannot happen, and that the decision of the jury is sacrosanct is obviously unaware of the way the rule of law works.

It may be that there cannot be a retrial without new evidence being brought, but retrials (even where there has been a jury verdict) do happen in this country.

Some people found guilty of murder (by a jury) have even had retrials.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 12:28 PM

It is a good read and very worrying :-(

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/09/observer-view-tories-questioning-colston-verdict

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 11:40 AM

There's a good read in the Observer today (you can google it) which articulates very well the alarming extent of the Tories' threat to the rule of law. The Observer view on Tories’ questioning of Colston verdict

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 11:27 AM

Making this a music thread

I see your true colours :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 09:40 AM

You are right, Rain Dog. I tried to express it in a way that distinguished between the wish for a retrial - and there are plenty of comments about that - and the fact that that is not possible under English Law. It sounds like I did not fully succeed in that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Rain Dog
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 08:36 AM

"As for thinking a retrial is needed, that smacks soooo much of the accusations that Remain voters wanted to keep having referendums until the got the result they wanted ..."

As far as I aware a retrial is not a possibility. They may want to get a clarification of the law in order to avoid similar outcomes at future trials. That might be easier said than done.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 08:10 AM

We'll see!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 08:04 AM

"the case was one of straightforward criminal damage."

And the jury acquitted them of that crime. Which means the jury found was not criminal damage within the law, which is what counts.

As for thinking a retrial is needed, that smacks soooo much of the accusations that Remain voters wanted to keep having referendums until the got the result they wanted ...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 06:44 AM

It was irrelevant who Colston was and the case was one of straightforward criminal damage.

The verdict cannot be overturned, but hopefully the case will be referred to the Court of Appeal for clarification of the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 06:34 AM

Criminal damage is criminal damage all right, but they were acquitted by a jury of that charge. The defence argument was that the continuing presence of the statue, despite years of campaigning to get it taken down, was tantamount to a hate crime. The argument persuaded the jury. Grumbling about jury verdicts is fine and dandy but that's as far as it should go unless a miscarriage of justice (which means that the law has been subverted) is suspected. That has not happened in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 05:27 AM

I guess you didn't read the link I posted, Bonzo. I didn't think you would but, fortunately, the jury in this case disagreed with you. DMcG has also explained it now. Hopefully it will eventually sink in.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 04:58 AM

Yes, criminal damage is criminal damage and groups like the suffragettes made extensive use of it.   Sometimes, it seems, politicians need such things to accept people with limited or no rights are entitled to them. That is true in many countries, not just the UK.

It is a fundamental part of the UK legal system that the juries weigh up all the evidence and then decide. If they acquit, they acquit. There are plenty of examples where juries decided the law was inappropriate to the circumstance, or misapplied or in some other way 'wrong'. It can even be an inherently 'bad' law in the eyes of the public while the lawmakers think it fine. If the lawmakers are out of step, expect lots of acquittals, whatever the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 04:33 AM

CRIMINAL DAMAGE IS CRIMINAL DAMAGE

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 22 - 04:24 AM

I was one of those who had fake accounts set up in my name, John. It was easy enough to get them closed down. We now know who the perpetrator is and he suffered the consequences of his actions. His master, nasty Nick himself, has since fell from grace even among the lowlifes who supported him. There will be another, sadly. The point I was making is that the name you use on here matters not one iota.

Bonzo and Nigel. The philanthropist and human rights abuser were one and the same person. The former does not excuse the latter. Even Afolf (see, I do learn, John:-) ) had some redeeming features.