MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Questions Of The Day (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 300, 301, 302  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I feel sorry for JK with whom, for obvious reasons, I tend to identify. She is adored by the whole world but reviled by the people she actually lives among. There's no percentage in being a good person in these times.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I agree, but the difference is that after April 1st she will, if reported now, face an interview with Police Scotland.

My guess is Trans activists will report for hate and JK will be politely given the chance to recant, as Police will desperately want to adopt a softly softly approach.

The problem is, I suspect, JK will not recant and armchair Inquisitors will become outraged by this failiure to enforce.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This evening both the prime minister and Sir Keith Starmer criticised the speculation surrounding her illness. Newsnight

How can you criticise speculation? It's like criticising people for discussing last night's telly at the water cooler. Speculation just is. It exists for a reason and our Big Two could have criticised the Palace for creating more of it than usual, but they cannot castigate speculators for speculating. Unless they were critiquing the speculation, as per last night's telly, but I don't think that was what they were doing.

They were just blaming the messenger. As per usual. It doesn't bode well we've got such mighty minnows to reign over us.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

However the news of the cancer has cut across my recent Medium piece and rendered it in mildly poor taste. I am reluctant to take it down or even edit it with any savagery because it has got (and is still getting) plenty of traction by my standards. Let me know what you think. [Though you can critique it, there's always space for improvement.]

-----------------

New Royal Scandal
Are they ever going to stop?


So Kate Middleton has been caught out photoshopping. I’m not much into family portraiture myself — literally, I’m often asked to stand to one side ‘so there’s more space for the kiddies, Mick’ — but could someone explain to me why anyone would want to photoshop them? I thought the whole idea was to catch everyone in a state of ‘au naturel’. It wasn’t going to appear on a stamp or anything, was it? If Princess Charlotte was doing something unsavoury just take another picture for goodness sakes.

This only deepens the mystery though. We were told the Palace released the photo because of the uncomfortable silence about the Princess of Wales’ ‘abdominal surgery’. The less I know about ladies’ bits the better as far as I’m concerned but I’m given to understand it’s all become something of a national obsession. Which is my point. I appreciate everyone’s a bit strapped for cash these days but surely a footman could have been let go to hire a professional photographer for such a vital task. But no, it was DIY time down on the ranch. Amateur hour at the old corral.

My theory — and I want to emphasise it is only a theory — is the ‘men in tights’ are embarked on one of their serpentine backroom plots. First they make laughing stocks of William, Kate and their three heirs apparent. Then they do to Charles the Third what they did to George the Fifth. Before the coronation they pull the Edward the Eighth stunt on William the Fifth and all of a sudden, before we’ve caught breath, the Lord High Chamberlain is announcing to the sound of trumpets, “King Harry, the ninth of that name, your lawful sovereign in the eyes of God and Parliament.” After a brief illness, Queen Meghan the First takes the reins of power and the ancient prophecy is fulfilled.

I don’t think I’m revealing any trade secrets when I tell you the young Meghan cut her teeth understudying Lady Macbeth at the Summer Am-Dram Festival in Stratford, Ontario. Plenty of time to take notes from the wings.

Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The local elections are coming up and a Ms Stephanie Petit has written to me asking for my support. She tells me all about herself though not, for some reason, what party she belongs to. This is, I see from a reference tucked away at the bottom, the Conservative Party. If they send round an armed squad to escort me across the street to the polling station I may well vote for such a sensible candidate.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Angela Rayner is in big trouble with the women's movement who are accusing her of living with her husband. She denies it bitterly. Yes, she parked the kids with him and popped round from time to time but she brandished a wealth of documents showing she was actually still living at her old gaff. In spirit. Neighbours said they had caught neither hide nor hair of her for six years. Greater Manchester Police have been bought off but the Society of Psychical Research is continuing its investigations.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The government has decided to repeal the Vagrancy Act, a matter on which happily, all seem to agree. It was after all passed in 1824....

Crisis, who have been campaiging for repeal, give a briefing........

The origins of The Vagrancy Act finds roots in the end of the Napoleonic Wars, brought to life to make it easier for police to clear the streets of destitute soldiers who were returning home from battle, homeless and penniless. It meant thousands of men who had served their country - many of whom were injured in the fray and left changed, both mentally and physically - were now considered “rogues” and “vagabonds” and charged with an attempt to “obtain or gather alms” through the “exposure of wounds or deformities”. In other words, the government felt that it should be illegal for those soldiers left without homes to use their injuries to ask for food or money.


I suspect this is wrong. The Battle of Waterloo was 1815 (ortho chronology), the Vagrancy Act was 1824. Almost all social insurance (there wasn't much), at the time was aimed at war veterans. It was a time of social unrest and, whether you took the view that ex soldiers had served their nation well or you simply did not want to piss off this important group as they knew how to fight, and yes, you might need them to re-enlist, not least to put down a revolution or fight another war, Government wanted to look after veterans. I doubt the vagrancy act was really aimed at these folks.

Nope, the Vagrancy Act was aimed at those folks who were idle, and were engaing in what we would these days refer to as anti-social behaviour, and street begging.

The problem is now clearer, liberals, as ever, want to help the beggars, conservatives want clean safer streets to protect small businesses and shoppers.

There will be no consensus.

Should have left alone. It is easy to get agreement to abolish old laws, more difficult to replace.

Try 1. Arrest folks that smell.

Fury......
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I suspect you are speaking from a vantage point that does not include many of our contemporary version of the sturdy beggar, migrants waiting for a decision from the Home Office.

Our homegrown versions are mostly the result of closing down the Victorian asylums in favour of Care in the Community programmes, i.e. let the beggars fend for themselves. Which despite everything is probably better.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It is very British of the Scots to protest by inundating Police Scotland with complaints under the new anti-hate law about an old Humza Yousaf anti-white speech.

JK must be mortified as she was determined to be arrested, but has got fewer complaints than Humza.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think you'll find Scots people are racists and terrorists of their nature and of course both genders wear skirts.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

West Yorkshire Police have referred themselves to the Complaints Authority after yet another person 'known to them' has been murdered. That makes eighteen in all since 2018. Defending themselves they issued a statement

Three thousand two hundred of our officers were trained to deal with cases of domestic abuse last year

which just about sums up the futility of modern policing methods. You can be reasonably certain that all eighteen victims were women and most of their killers were Asian men.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiley has developed a sneaking admiration for the way that Donald has turned his campaign from "sore loser" to "victim".

Of course folks will blame those who rashly went forward with various lawsuits. True enough. Still, DT needed to take advantage of all this.

Credit duly given.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dear Michael
My name is Monica Press and I am honoured to have been selected as your Labour candidate for the Norland council by-election on May 2nd. After fourteen years of Tory failure, it is time to end the chaos, turn the page and start to renew
.

I had no idea that Norland, a square mile of Notting Hill, had been so badly governed for so many years. And what happened fourteen years ago? As far as I know these Georgian acres have been blue-rinsed since at least 1832. That's the trouble with democracy and why I try not to encourage it by voting: how can you get good government if your vote is being solicited on the basis of a quite different government? "Vote Labour, we're doing wonders for New South Wales."

Ms Press's letter has a coupla other points of interest. There is a stylised union jack in the top corner. So noticeable that I had assumed it was from Reform UK (né UKIP). The Labour Party doesn't normally drape itself in national garb, so what's it mean? I suppose they do mean the nation not the spectacularly multi-ethnic streets of Norland. It could be as simple as word has gone down: 'Prepare for government', but it sits ill with my prospective councillor

I previously worked with the UN, the EU and international development NGO's.

Just the job for parish pump politics.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Seems to Wiley that the most significant bit abut the Pete Murrell story was that he resigned from the SNP.

The SNP have been supportive of Murrell and his partner and former leader, so why resign?

These long term members simply do not relinquish their party easily, think Corbyn.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The acid test is whether 'embezzlement' points to him siphoning money for his own personal needs. My money is still on the whole thing being an accounting matter. After all no crime has yet come to light despite Scotland's finest leaving no stone unturned. Especially in the First Couple's garden. "Look under that gnome, PC McTavish. His fishing line may point to the spot."
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 300, 301, 302  Next

Jump to:  
Page 301 of 302

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group