Mailwatch(ed) Forum

From the Bananarama days, when all the girls had "Boris hair"

“I have the moral high ground!” screams man* who ran a racist election campaign and is conveniently running away before anyone peers too closely into his activities after his rebuke from the standards committee…

*specifically, Zac ‘safe seat?’ Goldsmith

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... nvironment

One assumes it's that nice Mr Lord Goldsmith you're referring to above, Crabcakes?

I say "assumes" because it's been all over the virtual papers this morning. Without clicking the link, there's nothing in your post to say who you're talking about. "Ran a racist election campaign" could refer to quite a few people on the right of the political spectrum.

Yug wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 11:05 am One assumes it's that nice Mr Lord Goldsmith you're referring to above, Crabcakes?

I say "assumes" because it's been all over the virtual papers this morning. Without clicking the link, there's nothing in your post to say who you're talking about. "Ran a racist election campaign" could refer to quite a few people on the right of the political spectrum.

Ah, sorry - forgot it was an article link rather than an embedded one which would come up with a thumbnail. Yes it is indeed Mr Goldsmith.

Party of law and order latest.

The "blob" seems to be the preferred new term because "elite" was pretty ridiculous in the context of Boris Johnson getting hundreds of thousands for speeches to rich people.

I don't recall Rwanda being mentioned in the 2019 election campaign.

And as for Brexit, if you vote for shit, don't be surprised if it arrives brown and smelly.

Besides, haven't we left?

Anyway, even if you accept the idea that Johnson had some sort of personal mandate, then isn't it the Tories who by quitting posts in droves led Johnson to decide to resign who are at fault? But because it was his personal decision (and he could have tried to tough it out, fill all those posts with his historic 80 majority), then isn't he to blame?

I think the only comprehensive answer is that Jake Berry is more full of shit than an English river.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 6:34 am

Philip Marlow wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 12:22 am I moved beyond my teenage dickhead new atheist phase some while ago, but for all that I still find it depressing that Richard Dawkins has been retweeting the 'school kid identifies as a kitty cat no honestly this isn't a transparently confected excuse to kick the fuck out of the accepted scapegoat minority hate group of current convenience' story. The sceptic movement - such as it ever was - has seriously gone to shit over the last few years.

Ricky Ger-fucking-vais.

I first encountered young Ricky as a decidedly underwhelming fixture on the already quite underwhelming enough 11 O'Clock Show. I think that was sufficient to immunise me against the idea of him as a sage cultural commentator. I've never even thought that much of his standup specials, although I must be in a relative minority there, given how much Netflix are willing to pay him for them.

Philip Marlow wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 5:14 pm

I first encountered young Ricky as a decidedly underwhelming fixture on the already quite underwhelming enough 11 O'Clock Show. I think that was sufficient to immunise me against the idea of him as a sage cultural commentator. I've never even thought that much of his standup specials, although I must be in a relative minority there, given how much Netflix are willing to pay him for them.

I quite iiked that show at the time. Doubtless if I watch it now, it'll look about as good as the Mary Whitehouse Experience now does.

I like David Brent and Extras, and the fictionalised version of Warwick Davis, and Karl Pilkington. But anything where Ricky is Ricky, I'll swerve on any level.

Philip Marlow wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 5:14 pm I first encountered young Ricky as a decidedly underwhelming fixture on the already quite underwhelming enough 11 O'Clock Show. <snip>

That's when I first seen him too. At that point and every time since then I've found him about as funny as having your scrotum meet a fast running sanding belt.

I've always thought there's no point in debating comedy because what's funny to me might not be funny you and no amount of argument will change your opinion. I also think that anyone who finds Ricky Gervais in the slightest bit amusing needs help.

Johnson, Trump, Berlusconi, Farage, Dorries, Mogg, Goldsmith .... It's been a shit June for the populist right.

Have a read at this unhinged, if attempting to disguise itself as rational, letter to The Yorkshire Post. Proof that Yorkshire contains an un-nerving proportion of Tory cunts.

From: William Snowden, Burley-in-Wharfedale, Ilkley

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/n ... ff2b&ei=18

I hold no brief for Boris Johnson. But justice matters. And, reading Matthew Flinders's supercilious denunciation of Boris Johnson and his "hearing" before the Privileges Committee (The Yorkshire Post, June 24) I did wonder if Professor Flinders had any concept of the principles of English jurisprudence.

Boris Johnson likened the committee to a kangaroo court. It was certainly not a court of law, and its members were not jurists. If it had been, then more members than Sir Chris Bryant would have had to recuse themselves.

Why? Because the behaviour of the English judiciary is regulated by Rules of Natural Justice and Rules Against Bias, which means that anyone who has a predisposition towards the accused or defendant can not preside or sit in judgement.

And, in a court of law, there are strict Rules of Evidence, in which hearsay, for example, is inadmissible.

In the event, the committee failed to present any evidence to substantiate the charge that Boris Johnson's intent was to "knowingly mislead" Parliament (in line with the 1997 Resolution of the House). Instead, they engaged in supposition, speculation and even mind-reading : what he must have known or "thought". A presumption of guilt.


A "kangaroo court"? On a balance of probabilities, it would certainly appear so. And that is a poor reflection on the House and British justice.

Point 1: Although the Commons Privileges Committee is not a court of law in the way that other parts of the English judiciary are, it has a quasi-judicial function. But not an absolute judicial function. It is based, as is the entireity of parliament, on the principle of the assumption of the honourabieness, truthfulness, and good faith of its members. The waffle from this twat is a piss-poor smokescreen, not unlike those deployed routinely by Rees-Mogg and Johnson himself.

Point 2: It is simply not possible, in any trial scenario, to obtain concrete, indisputable evidence of a defendant's intention. The committee based its judgement on the balance of probabilities, supported by a welter of indirect and indicative evidence, that Johnson lied deliberately and intentionally to the House. It was not "supposition, speculation, or mind-reading".

The recusing point is nonsense too. Rees-Mogg thought he was clever by mentioning Hoffmann in the Pinochet case. But politicians aren't judges- they are expected to comment on politics, that's their job. The idea that each issue could only be decided by a minority who hadn't commented on it is absolute nonsense. And indeed, those weren't the rules when the committee was given authorisation to proceed.

Gervais is an odd one - he’ll occasionally hit something great, then seemingly not realise what made it great and overdo it or drag it out until it’s lost all appeal. After Life is a great example - first series was great, ended perfectly and should have been one and done. Every series after that required a needless out of character reset to make it ‘work’, so it consequently didn’t.

Same with his atheism. He says a few good things - the line on science would always come to the same answers if you started over, but religion wouldn’t is good - but then doubles down and is just shitty to people.

I'm one of these people who'll watch any amount of series of something I've liked. I even really like the third series of Between The Lines and the Ray Daley years of Minder. So I liked the David Brent movie, and I'd watch another one, even if the premise was that he became a filling clerk in Ross on Wye. But for some reason I never bothered with the other series of After Life, after liking the first one.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 11:09 am Have a read at this unhinged, if attempting to disguise itself as rational, letter to The Yorkshire Post. Proof that Yorkshire contains an un-nerving proportion of Tory cunts.

From: William Snowden, Burley-in-Wharfedale, Ilkley

Oh, him again. He's been posted on here before.

Have you ever been to Burley-in-Wharfedale? It's quite an expensive place to live; mate of mine lives there in an ex-council house. Average house prices there far exceed where I am; it seems to be a desirable place to live if you work in Bradford.

Represented by Philip Davies?

Poor caliber of minister latest.

I would guess he can't do more than ask them nicely. Otherwise, I'd have expected his not exactly publicity boss, Michael Gove, to be leading the charge.

Here's the Guardian story on it. A minor complaint here, Maugham is a tax silk (apparently very good), not an expert on local authority law. Can they not find someone who is? Say what you like about the Guardian, they ought to know a lot of specialist lawyers.

Jolyon Maugham, the director of the Good Law Project, said: “This is bar-stool lawyering par excellence. If Lee Rowley really wants to improve the quality of work funded by the taxpayer, I’d suggest in the future he gets proper independent legal advice before he opines on the law.”

He added: “If a legal challenge is brought, and succeeds, I’ll eat my wig.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... week-trial

I think Lee Rowley is a very worried guy at the moment. He has done very little in his constituency over the last few years and now he fears that he could get the boot at the next election. The district council in his constituency recent saw a big swing from the Tories to Labour which could see his seat become vulnerable.

Over the last couple of weeks he has been all over social media and the local press trying to make out how that he is a hardworking constituency MP. Judging by many of the comments under his Facebook posts his constituents are not falling for his gimmicks.