Boris

Bill Bog said:
This thread is called 'Boris'.

Do you think it is ok for Boris to lie and be devious to get what he wants?
Click to expand...
Bill, I don't like liars generally but it's naïve to think politicians are not liars, it's in their blood.
If lying is not telling the truth then the "halfway house", namely spin, is lying too and that goes on all the time.
In answer to your question, It's not OK, particularly to the Queen bless her cotton socks, who is shrewd enough to know when someone's lying. We don't know what conversation took place, but you can bet your life she wouldn't have agreed prorogation unless it was for the good of the country.
Harry
 
Tony Goddard said:
Corbyn hasn't killed uncountable numbers of people but hes the nasty and powered crazed one and didn't even start of good he was always bad?

My point is that Lenin & Mao started out trying to overcome an unfair and unjust feudal system by applying the ideals of Marx, they started with good intent, both were corrupted by power, and it all went to the bad can't deny that. They didn't have the benefit of hindsight when they started out, communism was a new, radical ideal - it has been proven again and again to be seriously flawed and unworkable and yet Corbyn seems to hang on to it's ideals, I'm not sure why, I have always been a labour voter and a socialist, but not a communist, you have to retain free enterprise and choice - the Chinese, although a communist state have embraced many capitalist concepts in trade and manufacturing which is why they are now so successful.

Public schools would be better off without their charitable status so they could claim back the VAT? and if you went to public school you are at a disadvatage afterwards becuase you can't call in favours like your state school mates?

I'm not saying I'm disadvantaged, but I don't feel I have any particular advantage over anyone else because I went to a public school - most of the people I know didn't go to public school yet still have good jobs, nice homes etc. and are well educated. I work as an electrician with about 80% of my work in schools, many of the state funded schools I regularly visit are incredibly impressive, with excellent facilities.
Click to expand...

I think I know what piint you were trying to make was. And Boris is a law-abiding, constitution-supporting democrat.
 
Last edited:
I have seen advantage given to same school people in what could be called normal work areas that employ larger numbers of people. I have also seen Mason's take over entire areas of companies in the more senior positions and to lesser extent elsewhere. It goes on.I feel that the major difference with public schools is the learning environment and probably a degree of so called cramming which can have a dramatic effect on a persons final educational achievements. However a lot of teachers now feel that they are teaching people to pass exams rather than educating them. The fact that some feel like that indicates that there is a problem. What are teachers there for? People who pay for education expect to get their monies worth and appear to. It doesn't mean that their off springs are super intelligent. Far from it. I've come across a lot of them in various areas but they clearly do have an advantage.

The other point on state schools is cost cutting - why, simple if costs are not kept down taxes would have to be increased. It's a problem in many areas concerning the state. Also if a country can actually afford it. ;) Old saying but usually relates to people - pay peanuts and get monkeys.

John
-
 
Harry Stottle said:
Bill, I don't like liars generally but it's naïve to think politicians are not liars, it's in their blood.
If lying is not telling the truth then the "halfway house", namely spin, is lying too and that goes on all the time.
In answer to your question, It's not OK, particularly to the Queen bless her cotton socks, who is shrewd enough to know when someone's lying. We don't know what conversation took place, but you can bet your life she wouldn't have agreed prorogation unless it was for the good of the country.
Harry
Click to expand...

Someone else said something like that earlier on, that it's in their job description or something. I think that is a ridiculous thing to say about a whole group of people. They are all the same?!

What are you saying about the queen? That she knew what Boris was up to and didn't say anything? Perhaps she even winked at him? Perhaps he showed her his crossed fingers as well as his forked tongue? What are you saying?!
 
KIAB said:
Total BS with legal judgment,Boris will resign,god help the country if labour get in.
Click to expand...

Surely it was the correct decision whether you wanted it or not? Or are you saying that Boris only cancelled parlament becuase he wanted to get the next session going?! :-)
 
All 11 justices ruled this was illegal; this judgement was unanimous and has gone beyond what anyone speculated. As Lady Hale has said, and others during the hearing, this was not about Brexit, this was about the illegal prorogation (suspension) of Parliament. This shows the impressive independence of the judiciary in the UK and is something we should all be proud of. It is nothing directly about Brexit, but is about the rule of law and how no-one is above the law.
 
Lenin etc. Kill off the opposition. French revolution and many others. The basic reason is simple. It prevents them from gaining power again. It may then be used to keep who ever did it in power or to just to do the same thing again. These people are trying to end some sort of ideology. In real terms that can only be done with future generations as they grow up. Keep it up long enough and changes can be permanent. Given human nature some form of corruption is likely even in our system.

;) Actually the French seem to be going backwards. At one point if they didn't like a new law they ignored it. Now they can protest as much as they like and it doesn't achieve anything.

John
-
 
Muzungu said:
All 11 justices ruled this was illegal; this judgement was unanimous and has gone beyond what anyone speculated. As Lady Hale has said, and others during the hearing, this was not about Brexit, this was about the illegal prorogation (suspension) of Parliament. This shows the impressive independence of the judiciary in the UK and is something we should all be proud of. It is nothing directly about Brexit, but is about the rule of law and how no-one is above the law.
Click to expand...

That is very impressive, Muzungu.

Do you think it also means that British law and British courts are sovereign after all?
 
You are right Muzungu, it is nothing to do with Brexit directly, Boris overstepped the line and has been called on it - I don't think that mens he has to resign (he may choose to, up to him, although I'm not a big fan, I hope he doesn't, we are mid negatioations with the clock running after all, not the time for personnell changes) as it took them over a week to reach the conclusion after another court found the other way. The important thing now is that all MPs should look with serious eyes at whatever deal Boris negotiates with the EU and see if it is workable.
 
Tony Goddard said:
You are right Muzungu, it is nothing to do with Brexit directly, Boris overstepped the line and has been called on it - I don't think that mens he has to resign (he may choose to, up to him, although I'm not a big fan, I hope he doesn't, we are mid negatioations with the clock running after all, not the time for personnell changes) as it took them over a week to reach the conclusion after another court found the other way. The important thing now is that all MPs should look with serious eyes at whatever deal Boris negotiates with the EU and see if it is workable.
Click to expand...

Sadly no chance.
 
Tony Goddard said:
You are right Muzungu, it is nothing to do with Brexit directly, Boris overstepped the line and has been called on it - I don't think that mens he has to resign (he may choose to, up to him, although I'm not a big fan, I hope he doesn't, we are mid negatioations with the clock running after all, not the time for personnell changes) as it took them over a week to reach the conclusion after another court found the other way. The important thing now is that all MPs should look with serious eyes at whatever deal Boris negotiates with the EU and see if it is workable.
Click to expand...

I think this had everything to do with brexit. Everything. It was part of his plan to scupper any discussion so that he could run down the clock and leave only a few days for parliament to chose between a no deal or his own deal. He wanted to force the issue and not give us a proper choice. If brexit hadn't been an issue he wouldn;t have done it.
 
KIAB said:
Sadly no chance.
Click to expand...
Sadly KIAB you are right, I'm daydreaming!!, they will go back to bickering - my prediction (which will probably be wrong) is that some of the EU members will refuse to extend, our lot won't have it sorted and we will be out without a deal on the 31st, but who can tell - if nothing else it's a very interesting time to be viewing politics.
 
KIAB said:
Sadly no chance.
Click to expand...

There is no deal that brois could get that would be in any way 'better' than May's deal. That 'deal' doesn;t exist. His only choice is to try a Norway system or something like that. Boris knew that he couldn;t get a deal that would make parliament go 'wow - nice job' so his plan was to get us right to the cliff edge and and then say 'my deal or jump - no other choice'. And he was prepared to lie deviously to do this and he still has support on here.
 
Tony Goddard said:
Sadly KIAB you are right, I'm daydreaming!!, they will go back to bickering - my prediction (which will probably be wrong) is that some of the EU members will refuse to extend, our lot won't have it sorted and we will be out without a deal on the 31st, but who can tell - if nothing else it's a very interesting time to be viewing politics.
Click to expand...

I think you are daydreaming about the last bit. If you really think we are now crashing out on the 31st you must be more than daydreaming. Fantasising perhaps? :-)
 
How many people on here would be happy with leaving without a deal at all? How many actually prefer this?
 
Personally I hope we don't, but the EU hold all the cards on that one, and some like Macron are mighty pee'd off with us - only one has to refuse an extension and it's game over - but no one can call it, too many variables.
 
I did hear Boris's own reply to no deal and out. Roughly it went don't know probably spend the next couple of years trying to make a deal with them.

This is where it all gets difficult. He might be doing exactly what he says - forcing a deal. Problem is the other people involved where the reasoning is very mixed. There isn't any doubt that the money behind brexit has other motives. Boris has also said then lets see if we can bring the cost of living down so even he may expect us to be poorer.

Afraid I listen to C4 news. More comes out but there is still a need to ignore stupid questions. They seem to think that gives better viewing figures as they all do these days. It best to wonder why they don't answer them or are evasive. They had Boris's dad on the other day and a longish interview with the man himself recently.

To be honest I also often think that TV media give Labour a hard time. The people doing it are high wage earners and some aims will probably need taxation changes. What we often get is changes in the opposite direction. The services don't run on thin air so this has to be detrimental at some point. The question really is what is the correct balance. A lot of it comes from standard rate payers anyway so trying to shove the lot onto high earners isn't as simple as it might sound - especially these days.

John
-
 
Bill Bog said:
I think this had everything to do with brexit. Everything. It was part of his plan to scupper any discussion so that he could run down the clock and leave only a few days for parliament to chose between a no deal or his own deal. He wanted to force the issue and not give us a proper choice. If brexit hadn't been an issue he wouldn;t have done it.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, the judgement had nothing to do with Brexit; Johnson's decision to prorogue clearly was though (despite him lying that it wasn't). The judgement was about whether Johnson had the right to, in effect, cancel parliamentary oversight of the executive's actions. A much broader question than simply Brexit, which in this case it just happened to be his, Johnson's, undeclared reasons for prorogation.
 
Last edited:
Muzungu said:
The judgement was about whether Johnson had the right to, in effect, cancel parliamentary oversight of the executive's actions
Click to expand...

Not quite - it was the length of time of prorogation, as the reason for prorogation was to prepare for a queens speach which only needs a few days. I fear Boris may recall parliament but then prorogue again quite soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top