Davkaus Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 A press conference in the rose garden ought to sort this out? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xann Posted August 2, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 2, 2020 Quote New homes to get 'automatic' permission in England planning shake-up New homes and hospitals will be granted "automatic" permission to be built as part of sweeping planning reforms in England, the housing secretary says. Robert Jenrick announced a "permission in principle" will be given to developments on land designated "for renewal" to speed-up building. It comes after the PM pledged £5bn to "build, build, build" to help soften the economic impact of coronavirus. Shelter has warned against any reforms that lead to "bad-quality" housing. The homeless charity has said 280,000 homes received permission in England between 2011 and 2016 but were never built. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Jenrick said that, under the new rules, land will be designated in one of three categories: for growth, for renewal and for protection. And he insisted: "We are cutting red tape, but not standards." However, James Jamieson, the chair of the Local Government Association, said the idea that planning was a barrier to house building was "a myth". "Nine in 10 planning applications are approved by councils, while more than a million homes given planning permission in the last decade have not yet been built," he said. "Only last week the government's own independent report warned of the worse quality of homes not delivered through the planning system. We urge the government to heed these warnings and not further sideline the planning process." BBC Amazing news for construction companies owned by shell companies in tax havens, and friends of Dominic Cummings, obviously. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted August 2, 2020 Moderator Share Posted August 2, 2020 56 minutes ago, Davkaus said: A press conference in the rose garden ought to sort this out? "I just wanted to check it still worked" 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 9 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: "I just wanted to check it still worked" Well to be honest, at the time I just didn't think of stroking one out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted August 2, 2020 Moderator Share Posted August 2, 2020 Apropos of nothing, Mark Francois has deleted his Twitter and Facebook accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 2, 2020 Moderator Share Posted August 2, 2020 9 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Apropos of nothing, Mark Francois has deleted his Twitter and Facebook accounts. Its strange you should mention that, I was going down the wiki llst of MPs before and gave up looking for what I was searching for when I reached his name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 I was about to scoff at the idea of Mark Francois ever having been a minister, but apparently he was Minister for the Armed Forces between 2013 and 2015, and then Minister for Portsmouth from 2015 to 2016. I am somewhat baffled by this later position, and can't help chuckling at Matt Hancock's title when in the role, which was apparently Minister of State for Energy, Business and Portsmouth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 2, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2, 2020 Of course nothing will come off all this because nothing ever does, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted August 2, 2020 Moderator Share Posted August 2, 2020 13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: I was about to scoff at the idea of Mark Francois ever having been a minister, but apparently he was Minister for the Armed Forces between 2013 and 2015, and then Minister for Portsmouth from 2015 to 2016. I am somewhat baffled by this later position, and can't help chuckling at Matt Hancock's title when in the role, which was apparently Minister of State for Energy, Business and Portsmouth. Presumably it's in honour of the Pompey Chimes that they always seem to appoint bell ends. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 20 minutes ago, Chindie said: Of course nothing will come off all this because nothing ever does, sadly. Presumably this is apart from the former Tory MP convicted of multiple sexual assaults last week? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 2, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted August 2, 2020 12 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Presumably this is apart from the former Tory MP convicted of multiple sexual assaults last week? Admittedly I did discount that one, but it is the case that vanishingly low levels of these stories come to much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted August 2, 2020 Share Posted August 2, 2020 Can’t help but feel that the standards of decency and honesty, already pretty low in Govt. are about to drop off a cliff with this current bunch of shysters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 3, 2020 Share Posted August 3, 2020 Presumably , despite it being the correct thing to do , wouldn't removing the whip essentially be the same as naming him under the circumstances ? Generally speaking though ., for an alleged ( though I accept VT has already found him guilty) sex crime, should the accused be named ? I think we've had this discussion before and the general view was yes , but would be interesting to see the view on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted August 3, 2020 Share Posted August 3, 2020 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: Presumably , despite it being the correct thing to do , wouldn't removing the whip essentially be the same as naming him under the circumstances ? Generally speaking though ., for an alleged ( though I accept VT has already found him guilty) sex crime, should the accused be named ? I think we've had this discussion before and the general view was yes , but would be interesting to see the view on this I believe we should have helicopters circling his home as the police arrive, this should all be broadcast live on BBC news. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 3, 2020 Share Posted August 3, 2020 You'll be both surprised and also not at all surprised to learn who to thank for not knowing who it is yet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 3, 2020 Share Posted August 3, 2020 12 hours ago, NurembergVillan said: Apropos of nothing, Mark Francois has deleted his Twitter and Facebook accounts. At the risk of a defending accusation , Can you delete a Twitter account that you've never had ? I went onto Facebook and searched him and his Facebook page appears to be live (albeit no posts since July) .. they do appear to have removed the link to it from his official homepage though ( off to disinfect my keyboard now) now it could well be him , but just because someone is a cockwomble , nudge nudge wink wink type stuff trying to suggest he is an alleged rapist without taking the trouble to fact-check is poor form Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 3, 2020 Share Posted August 3, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Presumably , despite it being the correct thing to do , wouldn't removing the whip essentially be the same as naming him under the circumstances ? It would be, which is an unfortunate consequence of working in a high-profile role. But in another job, would you expect someone to remain working as usual if a former colleague had reported them for rape? 8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: You'll be both surprised and also not at all surprised to learn who to thank for not knowing who it is yet: It's worth noting it's not a law change, just a change in parliamentary procedure. The police can still name the arrestee if they deem it to be in the public interest. It's typical to only name once charged unless there are exceptional circumstances though. Edited August 3, 2020 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted August 3, 2020 Moderator Share Posted August 3, 2020 13 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Presumably , despite it being the correct thing to do , wouldn't removing the whip essentially be the same as naming him under the circumstances ? Generally speaking though ., for an alleged ( though I accept VT has already found him guilty) sex crime, should the accused be named ? I think we've had this discussion before and the general view was yes , but would be interesting to see the view on this As much as I'd love to know who it is, out of nosiness, I don't agree with naming suspects of this sort of crime until AT LEAST they've been charged (if that then means they're suspended from a public role like MP or footballer it becomes obvious, as you say) but probably until convicted. I have a family member who was tried in court and during the trial the accuser admitted she'd made it all up. By then his name had been in the papers and he'd lost his job in the RAF. 7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: You'll be both surprised and also not at all surprised to learn who to thank for not knowing who it is yet: The only thing he's ever had success with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 3, 2020 Share Posted August 3, 2020 I think it's vital that people continue to be named when charged, in so many cases the first naming brings additional victims out and helps ensure convictions. I think there ought to be legal protections to prevent the situation @NurembergVillan describes though, I think it ought to be illegal to dismiss someone from a role due to anything short of a conviction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 3, 2020 Share Posted August 3, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: As much as I'd love to know who it is, out of nosiness, I don't agree with naming suspects of this sort of crime until AT LEAST they've been charged (if that then means they're suspended from a public role like MP or footballer it becomes obvious, as you say) but probably until convicted. I have a family member who was tried in court and during the trial the accuser admitted she'd made it all up. By then his name had been in the papers and he'd lost his job in the RAF. yeah same , seems to be some dodgy results on google taking you off to clickbait sites , so presumably we aren't the only two people curious to know your family member scenario is precisely the concern ,, where the situation is ambiguous is it seems to be the law protects MP's from being named , but not Jo public (I think?) ... perhaps it needs a review to protect people but without detriment to victims of such a crime Edited August 3, 2020 by tonyh29 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts