Westminster Politics

[dumbo]

Our Tories with their grubby, blood soaked hands in the till yet again. Next time we're at the ballot box we should just put the X right on our foreheads instead and save them a step.

 

[SteveJ]

Just astonishing misbehaviour:

'Conservative MP Nicola Richards suggests it’s wrong for the opposition to criticise the actions of Robert Jenrick "during a global pandemic."''

'Downing Street said Boris Johnson now considered the matter "closed."''

(BBC)

 

[Drawfull]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

More evidence for what is largely already suspected: Johnson himself is going be implicated in the deal some way or another. Jenrick will be forced to go to take the flak.

Why do they need permission to publish pictures, which by definition are somewhat already in the public domain? More bollocks from Auntie.

And surely saying that you have pictures that show x, y and z is the same as publishing them?

 

[TheGame]

This Robert Jenrick stuff stinks to high heaven.

Who has the last laugh?
I’d say in 2020, Farage is more influential and more loved than Blair.
Imagine how you’d have to fcuk up from that point in 2005 to reach that point!

It is indeed a sad state we are in.

 

[Compton22]

Just astonishing misbehaviour:

'Conservative MP Nicola Richards suggests it’s wrong for the opposition to criticise the actions of Robert Jenrick "during a global pandemic."''

'Downing Street said Boris Johnson now considered the matter "closed."''

(BBC)

Does Boris Johnson ever consider any matters open?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Does Boris Johnson ever consider any matters open?

The duty that a father has to look after his children? Pretty sure he must've thought his relationship was open as well when he fecked someone else whilst his wife was battling cancer.

I mean, all I'm saying is that these are the actions of a cnut. So....

 

[sun_tzu]

Why do they need permission to publish pictures, which by definition are somewhat already in the public domain? More bollocks from Auntie.

And surely saying that you have pictures that show x, y and z is the same as publishing them?

Probably because the Conservative party either own the copyright on those pictures or the photographer signed something effectively saying any photos taken at what was a private event could only be published with consent of the organisers (presumably the Conservative party)

Such clauses are I think pretty standard at corporate events

So I don't think its bollocks from auntie i think its the law... and in that context I think saying they have seen pictures is not the same as breaching copyright by publishing

 

[FireballXL5]

I think it's more a case of the Tories owning the BBC.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[EwanI Ted]

Probably because the Conservative party either own the copyright on those pictures or the photographer signed something effectively saying any photos taken at what was a private event could only be published with consent of the organisers (presumably the Conservative party)

Such clauses are I think pretty standard at corporate events

So I don't think its bollocks from auntie i think its the law... and in that context I think saying they have seen pictures is not the same as breaching copyright by publishing

Not a topic I know much about, but I was under the impression something could shared sans permission if it was in the public interest?

 

[dumbo]

If the Torygraph BBC had pictures of Corbyn hugging Hitler in Brazil would they wait for permission, and go through the copyright channels.

Today is the first time you've ever heard the phrase publish and be damned.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

If the Torygraph BBC had pictures of Corbyn hugging Hitler in Brazil would they wait for permission, and go through the copyright channels.

Today is the first time you've ever heard the phrase publish and be damned.

I just wish people would stop blaming the media. Corbyn is a Hitler hugger. I consider this matter closed. ;-)

 

[Adisa]

We are in uncharted territory if ministers exposed for corruption don't feel the need to resign.
"Johnson considers the matter closed".
These people insult us time and time again.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

We are in uncharted territory if ministers exposed for corruption don't feel the need to resign.
"Johnson considers the matter closed".
These people insult us time and time again.

We have been for a while. They can do what they want because they've orchestrated a culture war to pull a huge swathe of the voting public to their side. If you point out the blatant corruption at best you're met with whataboutism and at worst dismissed as a sore loser, antifa, leftie snowflake.

 

[TheGame]

We have been for a while. They can do what they want because they've orchestrated a culture war to pull a huge swathe of the voting public to their side. If you point out the blatant corruption at best you're met with whataboutism and at worst dismissed as a sore loser, antifa, leftie snowflake.

Yep. It’s classic Trumpin politics. It’s been embedded in our society now since the Brexit referendum, you can just lie your way out of anything now and there will be a section of the moronic public will go along with it. It’s a sad state of affairs but we are deeply in this shit and it will continue.
Like you say any challenge is met with the comments you mentioned. Like 17.4 was just chucked at anyone if you questioned Brexit.

 

[sun_tzu]

Not a topic I know much about, but I was under the impression something could shared sans permission if it was in the public interest?

There was some case law from Ashdown vs Telegraph many years ago.... I think the conclusion was possibly under some circumstances but rare...
Ashdown won in the case and the telegraph lost under the definition of public interest

Copyright and freedom of expression: Paddy Ashdown v The Sunday Telegraph
Copyright is a property right which by definition comes into conflict with a fundamental human right: the right of freedom of expression. The Court of Appeal decided this week that on rare occasions freedom of expression will “trump” copyright, giving a public interest defence to a copyright infringement claim.
The Sunday Telegraph published extensive extracts from a confidential record which Mr (now Lord) Ashdown had made of an important meeting at 10 Downing Street in 1997. Ashdown sued the Telegraph Group for copyright infringement and breach of confidence. The High Court awarded Ashdown summary judgment, dismissing the Telegraph’s defences including defences based on freedom of expression and fair dealing. The Telegraph’s appeal failed, but the Court of Appeal’s findings on the conflict between copyright and freedom of expression establish an important principle. The Human Rights Act can, in effect if not in legal theory, override the Copyright Act.
The circumstances in which freedom of expression will prevail over copyright are rare. Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. The public interest which newspapers serve in disclosing information such as the matters referred to in Ashdown’s confidential record can normally be protected without the newspaper copying the exact words. Copyright will not be an issue in such cases.
Occasionally, however, it is necessary for a newspaper to publish documents verbatim, for example to ensure credibility. The form of the document, on such occasions, is of equal importance to the content. Even then, a newspaper may still have a fair dealing defence under the Copyright Act itself. But what if there is no fair dealing defence? Can it still be right for a newspaper to publish substantial verbatim extracts from a document?
In the Ashdown case the Court of Appeal decided that the Sunday Telegraph need only have published one or two short extracts to establish authenticity. The Sunday Telegraph had gone further than this: “the minute was deliberately filleted in order to extract colourful passages that were most likely to add flavour to the article.” This was furthering the Telegraph Group’s commercial interests in a manner which was “essentially journalistic”. But in cases where the publication of longer extracts is genuinely necessary in the public interest, newspapers will now be able to rely on their right of freedom of expression.
The court also considered the meaning of “reporting current events”, one of the fair dealing defences under the Copyright Act. It confirmed that a liberal interpretation should be put on the word “current”. A matter could be of current interest to the public even if it concerned events which had taken place some time ago. Current events do not always have to be recent events.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Serious question : How do we remove Boris and his cohorts?

Let’s say we want to do it before Christmas.

How would that be achieved?

 

[EwanI Ted]

Serious question : How do we remove Boris and his cohorts?

Let’s say we want to do it before Christmas.

How would that be achieved?

Revolution, comrade.

 

[T00lsh3d]

Serious question : How do we remove Boris and his cohorts?

Let’s say we want to do it before Christmas.

How would that be achieved?

Other than assassinating him I reckon your best bet is to have credible political opposition that the public will vote for. Might have to wait a bit past Christmas for that though

 

[Kentonio]

Serious question : How do we remove Boris and his cohorts?

Let’s say we want to do it before Christmas.

How would that be achieved?

Huge media coverage of a corruption scandal met with massive public protests and collapsing polling numbers. If the Tories couldn’t distract from it and it looks like genuinely damaging their electoral prospects, then they’d replace him themselves. Which would do nothing about a lot of the other wankers in the party, and you’d probably just end up with PM Gove or similar.

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

God he is a bit rubbish

 

[dumbo]

I reckon the things that you would need to do to get rid of this lot, would probably make it not worth doing. Huge amounts of violence or going Trump to Trump with Boris. We the electorate are not a nice bunch, particularly in these bleak times. If Keir were to discover some alchemic secret that would allow him to bestow happiness to everyone in the land, I still think that a majority would vote against it, on the basis of resentment of other people recieving it too.

 

[BobbyManc]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

God he is a bit rubbish

Starmer at his forensic best. Glad we finally have an opposition back!

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Starmer at his forensic best. Glad we finally have an opposition back!

Boris doesn’t have to answer a single question, but Keir must fully comment on every single issue?

No.

Stay on message. Expose Boris.

 

[Dobba]

Bet Johnson must be petrified after losing Cummings the last time Sir Keir used this tactic.

 

[Buster15]

Just astonishing misbehaviour:

'Conservative MP Nicola Richards suggests it’s wrong for the opposition to criticise the actions of Robert Jenrick "during a global pandemic."''

'Downing Street said Boris Johnson now considered the matter "closed."''

(BBC)

What I find so amusing isn't just that his actions are clearly at odds with Parliamentary standards.
But that he doesn't think he has done anything wrong.

And that is the real message.
He thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to approve a planning application in the clear knowledge that the applicant wants to avoid paying any additional money to a so called Marxist Council for social provision the very next day...

And most likely in the clear knowledge that the applicant will donate to his party.

And of course he will be backed by his party leader just like all the others.

 

[Buster15]

Starmer at his forensic best. Glad we finally have an opposition back!

He is absolutely right to put the focus on Boris.

And Boris better start to take notice of the fact that while he may have a big majority, the public are increasingly loosing trust in him as a leader.

 

[Buster15]

Serious question : How do we remove Boris and his cohorts?

Let’s say we want to do it before Christmas.

How would that be achieved?

Why the rush.
I am perfectly happy to see Boris and his cabinet exposing themselves to the country as without morales and without strategy and progressively looking less and less trustworthy.

As I keep saying, Starmer is intellectually capable of building the pressure in a way that the Tories will continue to dig a bigger and bigger hole for themselves.

 

[EwanI Ted]

Starmer at his forensic best. Glad we finally have an opposition back!

This strategy worked great with Cummings. It stopped it becoming a party political issue and made it easier for Tory backbenchers to start to criticise him. Not a surprise he's doing it again.

 

[Dobba]

This strategy worked great with Cummings. It stopped it becoming a party political issue and made it easier for Tory backbenchers to start to criticise him. Not a surprise he's doing it again.

The bloke still in the job whilst the Tories continue to poll in the 40s?

 

[EwanI Ted]

The bloke still in the job whilst the Tories continue to poll in the 40s?

Are you suggesting he'd be gone and they'd be polling in the 20s if Starmer had called for his head?

 

[sun_tzu]

Are you suggesting he'd be gone and they'd be polling in the 20s if Starmer had called for his head?

Of course not... only if corbyn had

 

[neverdie]

The bloke still in the job whilst the Tories continue to poll in the 40s?

Starmer isn't my preferred leader but I thought it was the right move seeing as Corbyn had to go. If people are dumb enough to need a leader who doesn't scare them then give them one. Starmer is good at what he does too.

Tories are polling 40s but Labour are too now. From a 26% gap to a 2% gap. Love it ot hate it, the fact that he isn't Corbyn is probably worth 15% in itself.

 

[esmufc07]

Are you suggesting he'd be gone and they'd be polling in the 20s if Starmer had called for his head?

It is futile debating with Dobba.

 

[EwanI Ted]

Of course not... only if corbyn had

Ah, of course.

 

[BobbyManc]

This strategy worked great with Cummings. It stopped it becoming a party political issue and made it easier for Tory backbenchers to start to criticise him. Not a surprise he's doing it again.

Completely different scenarios. Cummings is much more powerful and his case was high-profile and had significant cut-through with the general public. Jenrick’s scandal will generate less interest and it’s perfectly plausible he is compelled to resign. Taking a backseat on this is not the best move morally or strategically, I believe. He’s the LOTO and this is an open goal to be scathing and earn some attention, not just about Jenrick but about how the government conducts itself.

And I just recalled Starmer did explicitly say he’d have sacked Cummings. The tweet suggests he did not even give his own judgement this time round. Like Labour’s policy on schools re-opening, it’s weak and fails to resonate at all. You can’t say ‘it’s up to Johnson’ but not say what you would do in his position.

 

[Dobba]

Are you suggesting he'd be gone and they'd be polling in the 20s if Starmer had called for his head?

No, I'm just wondering which bit worked great? Boris is still in the job, his handpicked man he stood behind throughout is still in his job, the polls still have them leading and nobody outside of a Twitter hashtag gives a shit about the story anymore. Actually forget great, which bit of the strategy worked at all?

It is futile debating with Dobba.

And yet you and sun feel obliged to put on the performance rather than just using the ignore function. It's almost flattering.

 

[SteveJ]

Serious question : How do we remove Boris and his cohorts?

Let’s say we want to do it before Christmas.

How would that be achieved?

Just tie a £50 note to a piece of string attached to a bicycle - they'll follow you out of Downing Street.

 

[SteveJ]

1.19pm: No 10 backs Robert Jenrick, saying Prime Minister now 'considers matter closed'
'The Downing Street lobby briefing has finished. Here are the main points.

Downing Street remains determined to try to draw a line under the row about Robert Jenrick’s attempt to try to rush through approval for a housing development owned by the Tory donor Richard Desmond. Despite being asked repeatedly to justify various aspects of Jenrick’s handling of the affair, the prime minister’s spokesman refused to engage with the details of what happened and instead just repeatedly insisted the PM considered the matter closed. He said:
"The PM has spoken with the communities secretary. The communities secretary gave his account in public and to parliament and published the relevant documentation. In light of the account that was given, the PM considers the matter closed."

The spokesman also said Boris Johnson still had full confidence in Jenrick.'

 

[EwanI Ted]

Completely different scenarios. Cummings is much more powerful and his case was high-profile and had significant cut-through with the general public. Jenrick’s scandal will generate less interest and it’s perfectly plausible he is compelled to resign. Taking a backseat on this is not the best move morally or strategically, I believe. He’s the LOTO and this is an open goal to be scathing and earn some attention, not just about Jenrick but about how the government conducts itself.

And I just recalled Starmer did explicitly say he’d have sacked Cummings. The tweet suggests he did not even give his own judgement this time round. Like Labour’s policy on schools re-opening, it’s weak and fails to resonate at all. You can’t say ‘it’s up to Johnson’ but not say what you would do in his position.

Well, he said that he would have sacked Cummings if he were PM, but not til long after the row had erupted.

The point is that people said he was wrong not to shout more loudly on Cummings, the same way they disagreed with him being broadly supportive of the Government at the start of the outbreak of the covid-19. In both cases people felt he should be banging the drum and calling out the Government. On reflection, he handled them both pretty adroitly and Labour's position in the polls, along with his own personal ratings, have improved during that time.

If his failure to raise the temperature lets the Tories off the hook this time, then fine, he deserves criticism. But at some point you have to let him actually make the mistake before criticising him for it.