The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[blandy]

50 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

do you think it's possible that our Foreign Secretary has been briefed on what she actually was doing out there and let it slip (equally catastrophic )  ?

Amnesty international fwiw believe her to be locked up in relation to her work with  BBC Action media  , which is linked to a BBC training course offered to Iranian journalists... which appears to be somewhat similar to what Boris said ?

No. It's not that at all.

And, no, it's not similar to what Johnson said, which was "When I look at what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was doing, she was simply teaching people journalism, as I understand it."

Amnesty say claim is being held because of her work at the Thomson Reuters Foundation (TRF), a charity organisation promoting socio-economic progress, independent journalism and the rule of law, and her past work at BBC’s Media Action [ the purpose of which is to use media and communication to reduce poverty, improve health and support people in understanding their rights].

So Johnson was just talking rubbish. It's not the same, it's not close, it's not "what she was really doing". He's just an absolue self serving bell end.

Oh and further, last month her husband said this

Quote

Her husband, Richard Ratcliffe, said that at a court hearing on Sunday inside Tehran’s Evin prison, Zaghari-Ratcliffe was told her case had been reopened and she was facing charges including demonstrating outside the Iranian embassy in London, based on a photo found from accessing her private email account. He said she was also facing charges relating to her work at the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of the news agency of the same name, and her previous work at the BBC. The judge purportedly claimed both organisations were “specifically working to overthrow the regime”. 

So paranoid Iranian judge thinks charities are working to overthrow Iran and also that she "protested" against Iran when in the UK. It's not about her doing any journalism at all from the UK perspective. 

[snowychap]

NewsThump:

Quote

In the Advice For Travellers section, the Foreign Office website now urges Britons to be aware of local laws, register with the embassy and never, under any circumstances, allow Boris Johnson to know about your problems.

Simon Williams, head of Consular Affairs explained that there were an increasing number of situations made much worse because panicked relatives contacted the Foreign Secretary.

“We see it time and again. Worried parents, who mean well, use contacts to get him involved and, before you know it, their child is facing a firing squad in China because Boris told their Justice minister not to be such a ‘rickshaw-pulling sourpuss’.

“We’re not an Empire anymore. We are a second rate power held in contempt by most countries and hated by the rest. And our asinine Foreign Secretary has to be stopped reading Kipling’s Fuzzy Wuzzy at African Union dinners.

“Just recently, a woman was detained while visiting family in Iran. It should have been a simple matter of a fine and deportation. But now she is looking at five years for training journalists because the Eton Mess wanted to have his say.”

Mr Williams also confirmed Priti Patel was standing in for Mr Johnson when she attended high-level meetings with Israeli politicians.

“There is no way we are letting that mop-headed **** anywhere near a powder keg like the Middle East.

“Ms Patel is not ideal, but at least she won’t try to bond with Netanyahu by saying she once played Shylock in a school play.”

 

[snowychap]

And also:

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, ml1dch said:

From my understanding, it's to do with who controls what in Iran.

The Judiciary is independent of the Government and still reports to the Revolutionary Guard, under the control of the Supreme Leader.

So their reasonable, modernising, comparitively liberal Foreign Affairs Minister can be completely well-meaning, but the whole thing is being dealt with by the mental, theocratic side of the political structure.

This is my understanding of the Iranian politics too, though not based on any real familiarity, just what I've read in a couple of places. 

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

do you think it's possible that our Foreign Secretary has been briefed on what she actually was doing out there and let it slip (equally catastrophic )  ?

Amnesty international fwiw believe her to be locked up in relation to her work with  BBC Action media  , which is linked to a BBC training course offered to Iranian journalists... which appears to be somewhat similar to what Boris said ?

It's a fair question. It can't be ruled out I suppose. EDIT: I see others are disputing this. I should really say I don't know the ins and outs of the case well enough to comment. 

Edited November 7, 2017 by HanoiVillan

[StefanAVFC]

Maybe posted already and could go in either thread but apparently the 58 impact studies the government were refusing to release actually don't exist now.

 

 

right then.

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Maybe posted already and could go in either thread but apparently the 58 impact studies the government were refusing to release actually don't exist now.

 

 

right then.

Well, they do but they also don't.

And Mr Baker has read them and the PM has read the summaries but they don't actually exist in one place and they're all spread around and they're not really documents as such and there's no quantitative forecasts in them and they're out of date so need to be 'updated' and stuff needs redacting but that was Keir Starmer's suggestion anyway and, "Who's side are you on, anyway?!?"

[bickster]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

Well, they do but they also don't.

And Mr Baker has read them and the PM has read the summaries but they don't actually exist in one place and they're all spread around and they're not really documents as such and there's no quantitative forecasts in them and they're out of date so need to be 'updated' and stuff needs redacting but that was Keir Starmer's suggestion anyway and, "Who's side are you on, anyway?!?"

So here we have a government admission that they've actually been bullshitting the whole time

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

So here we have a government admission that they've actually been bullshitting the whole time

And the dog ate them; Mr Baker's aunt's been really ill; Robin Walker had a funeral; they're in the wrong format...erm...erm.

[Xela]

5 hours ago, lapal_fan said:

The whole tax problem stems from one attitude "well if they do it, why shouldn't I?" and that attitude isn't exclusive to the rich.  

I'm an average paid bloke, in a average house, with an average car blah blah, I've been paid cash before and not declared it (when I was a student) - I'm responsible for poorer people than I suffering to some degree. 

The rich/super rich do it, just on a bigger scale.

Builders do it, small shop owners do it. 

Almost every does, or has done it.  

What's the solution?  

I'd wager the vast majority of self employed people don't declare everything. I've paid for things cash (car repairs, jobs round the house, cleaners etc) knowing full well it probably just goes in their pocket. I don't decry them that, but I don't have that option - i'm taxed heavily on my earnings. If it was easy to open an offshore account now I'd probably do it and put my savings there but its a ballache to do nowadays 

[darrenm]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

It's like with anti-semitism, Tony. When asked if he condemned anti-semitism, he said "I condemn all racism" - which (so we're told) clearly is a condemnation of anti-semitism, despite not mentioning it. So in the same way (except for being the complete polar opposite) when asked if he condemns the Queen [for tax dodging] and he said "anyone avoiding tax in an immoral way should apologise" (using Darren's quote of him) - and that's Corbyn stopping short of telling her to apologise...whereas he wasn't stopping short of condemning anti-semitism, despite using the same wording technique. Don't you see? But that's kind of off topic for this thread , which is supposed to be about the ever more clueless effwits in the tory party. But frankly they're almost beyond words, now, they're that bad.

Fair point. Like I said, I'm sure he was happy to be ambiguous enough to get a jab in with deniability.

[bobzy]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

It's like with anti-semitism, Tony. When asked if he condemned anti-semitism, he said "I condemn all racism" - which (so we're told) clearly is a condemnation of anti-semitism, despite not mentioning it. So in the same way (except for being the complete polar opposite) when asked if he condemns the Queen [for tax dodging] and he said "anyone avoiding tax in an immoral way should apologise" (using Darren's quote of him) - and that's Corbyn stopping short of telling her to apologise...whereas he wasn't stopping short of condemning anti-semitism, despite using the same wording technique. Don't you see? But that's kind of off topic for this thread , which is supposed to be about the ever more clueless effwits in the tory party. But frankly they're almost beyond words, now, they're that bad.

Well, no.

He’s just done the same thing on both occasions and covered the wider issue.

On anti-semitism - yes, it’s wrong as is any form of racism. On the Queen - it’s wrong if the tax has been avoided immorally. 

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, bobzy said:

He’s just done the same thing on both occasions and covered the wider issue.

He has done the same thing. The first time it was claimed it specifically included the subject of the question [anti semitism] and the second time it was claimed it specifically did not include the subject of the question [Queenie]. That's the point. I don't think he can have it both ways, I concur with Darren, that the ambiguity and deniability is the purpose of his use of the words . It's just a shame that he couldn't say "Yes (or no, if he doesn't) I condemn anti-semitism" and "Yes (or no, if he doesn't) I condemn what the Queen has done " - i.e. be unambiguous and clear.

(but if others hold a different view on it, that's fine - I can see that he wouldn't want to outright condemn either, for losing supporters. He's no different to other politicians in that regard).

[darrenm]

Anyway, Tories

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/07/theresa-may-brexit-boris-johnson-priti-patel

"The election did not just rob May of a mandate. It shook her confidence, fractured her will and clouded her horizon. She battles on from a profound sense of public duty, but the impression across Whitehall and in Brussels is that she can manoeuvre only in tactical pigeon-steps. She has reached that morbid state of rolling crisis where success is defined as making it through the day."

For heaven's sake woman, go.

[bobzy]

40 minutes ago, blandy said:

He has done the same thing. The first time it was claimed it specifically included the subject of the question [anti semitism] and the second time it was claimed it specifically did not include the subject of the question [Queenie]. That's the point. I don't think he can have it both ways, I concur with Darren, that the ambiguity and deniability is the purpose of his use of the words . It's just a shame that he couldn't say "Yes (or no, if he doesn't) I condemn anti-semitism" and "Yes (or no, if he doesn't) I condemn what the Queen has done " - i.e. be unambiguous and clear.

(but if others hold a different view on it, that's fine - I can see that he wouldn't want to outright condemn either, for losing supporters. He's no different to other politicians in that regard).

I think we agree - but that people view his responses differently (i.e: the specific/non-specific mentioning). I think the indirect is implied but the responses, both times, are wide-sweeping. 

[bobzy]

14 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Anyway, Tories

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/07/theresa-may-brexit-boris-johnson-priti-patel

"The election did not just rob May of a mandate. It shook her confidence, fractured her will and clouded her horizon. She battles on from a profound sense of public duty, but the impression across Whitehall and in Brussels is that she can manoeuvre only in tactical pigeon-steps. She has reached that morbid state of rolling crisis where success is defined as making it through the day."

For heaven's sake woman, go.

I think the party want to destroy her to give the impression of a completely “clean slate” afterwards?

[chrisp65]

Schrodinger's Impact Statement

[chrisp65]

Prince Charles feels compelled to speak out on a subject he feels passionate about... just after investing in some shares.

Trebled his money. Cashed in.

Nothing to see here. Man cannot live by owning Cornwall alone.

[darrenm]

Priti Patel gone apparently

[chrisp65]

'sacked in the morning! You're getting sacked in the morning!'

sing along if you know it

[markavfc40]

48 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Priti Patel gone apparently

What she has done amounts to gross misconduct and you'd be sacked in most professions not simply demoted. It is farcical and taking the piss out of the public.