news & politics:discussion

[philipsteak]

19 minutes ago, Neil said:

,LOVE THE WORDING FOR THAT. lol

 i wanna know who runs the hoc network and why porn sites arent blocked, would be in any other public authority workspace.

{ was blocked just trying to read the story at work

[squirrelarmy]

2 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

Looks like Boozy Kier might be in trouble...

 

That’s a false headline being dragged up to take away attention from the ongoing issues faced by the current government. 
 

I thought you knew better than to be just another sheep taken in by the media. 

[Neil]

1 minute ago, squirrelarmy said:

That’s a false headline being dragged up to take away attention from the ongoing issues faced by the current government. 
 

I thought you knew better than to be just another sheep taken in by the media. 

it wasnt illegal to have a beer.

[squirrelarmy]

Just now, Neil said:

it wasnt illegal to have a beer.

I know. I’m pretty sure someone with Starmers legal background also knew that.
 

The story will be getting retracted with a tiny correction being placed somewhere in a few days. 

[steviewevie]

11 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

I know. I’m pretty sure someone with Starmers legal background also knew that.
 

The story will be getting retracted with a tiny correction being placed somewhere in a few days. 

ok...I mean...it is the mail doing their damndest to help their mate boris out...but at same time having a beer after or as part of a work meeting is kind of the same as someone bringing cake into a room and people singing happy birthday before a work meeting, isn't it? The main difference I see it is the culture in downing st under Johnson's leadership...which was a bit party party when telling the country no parties allowed...and the fact Johnson denied any of this was happening.

Anyway, for some Johnson defenders it will play into the whole they're all as bad as each other thing and so they'll continue to vote tory.

Edited April 28, 2022 by steviewevie

[Ozanne]

24 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

That’s a false headline being dragged up to take away attention from the ongoing issues faced by the current government. 
 

I thought you knew better than to be just another sheep taken in by the media. 

Of course he knows, he’s a bad faith actor that’s just posting it for a bite. 

[Ozanne]

 

[clarkete]

49 minutes ago, Neil said:

it wasnt illegal to have a beer.

Mail and the Sun scraping the barrel innit.

Durham had previously cleared him.  Now the papers have found some space on the front page, but not for a senior tory watching porn next to a colleague, but for a tory MP asking Durham to look again at the previous allegation.

https://news.sky.com/story/saturdays-national-newspaper-front-pages-12427754

Interesting that there's no issue reporting this - yet the Met have gone into radio silence in the run up to elections regarding the other number 10 charges. 

https://www.indy100.com/politics/ian-hislop-ludicrous-decision-partygate-fines

[Neil]

15 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Mail and the Sun scraping the barrel innit.

Durham had previously cleared him.  Now the papers have found some space on the front page, but not for a senior tory watching porn next to a colleague, but for a tory MP asking Durham to look again at the previous allegation.

https://news.sky.com/story/saturdays-national-newspaper-front-pages-12427754

Interesting that there's no issue reporting this - yet the Met have gone into radio silence in the run up to elections regarding the other number 10 charges. 

https://www.indy100.com/politics/ian-hislop-ludicrous-decision-partygate-fines

tories are worried theyre going to get slaughtered in the locals.if they lose over 1,000 seats spaffer will be in party trouble.

[Justiceforcedave]

Boris was at Abba party but was conducting a job interview.

[Copperface]

31 minutes ago, clarkete said:

https://news.sky.com/story/saturdays-national-newspaper-front-pages-12427754

Interesting that there's no issue reporting this - yet the Met have gone into radio silence in the run up to elections regarding the other number 10 charges. 

https://www.indy100.com/politics/ian-hislop-ludicrous-decision-partygate-fines

'...no issue reporting this' - press are not subject to pre-election restrictions aka purdah so they can report what they want.

i like Hislop but he is talking bollox and has totally the wrong end of the stick there. Investigations and fines are continuing unchanged - the only difference is that the Met are not putting out press releases during the pre-election period. 

[steviewevie]

53 minutes ago, Copperface said:

the Met are not putting out press releases during the pre-election period

why? is there any legal reason why they can't?

[clarkete]

16 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

why? is there any legal reason why they can't?

Here's the details...
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05262/

[clarkete]

It's the NPCC rules that apply to the police.

"3.2 Police business does not cease in a pre-election period and normal functions of policing must be performed. But particular care must be taken in this period to avoid activity or publicity that could, or reasonably be seen to, affect or influence the outcome of the election.

3.3 The force and individual officers must retain impartiality and avoid any action which is, or might reasonably be perceived as being, supportive of or oppositional to any party, candidate or political opinion.

3.4 Police officers and staff should be aware of the political restrictions and associated responsibilities that are present for them (in sections seven and eight of this guidance).

3.5 The principles in this guidance can be useful outside a defined pre-election period – especially in a highly political period."



https://www.npcc.police.uk/documents/Election/NPCC Pre election Period Guidance latest.pdf

 

[Neil]

37 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

why? is there any legal reason why they can't?

because they're tory arselicks.

[steviewevie]

19 minutes ago, clarkete said:

It's the NPCC rules that apply to the police.

"3.2 Police business does not cease in a pre-election period and normal functions of policing must be performed. But particular care must be taken in this period to avoid activity or publicity that could, or reasonably be seen to, affect or influence the outcome of the election.

3.3 The force and individual officers must retain impartiality and avoid any action which is, or might reasonably be perceived as being, supportive of or oppositional to any party, candidate or political opinion.

3.4 Police officers and staff should be aware of the political restrictions and associated responsibilities that are present for them (in sections seven and eight of this guidance).

3.5 The principles in this guidance can be useful outside a defined pre-election period – especially in a highly political period."



https://www.npcc.police.uk/documents/Election/NPCC Pre election Period Guidance latest.pdf

 

ok...but there must be a limit to that, right? say Johnson was arrested something more serious e.g. murder, would police have to keep quiet then?

[clarkete]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

ok...but there must be a limit to that, right? say Johnson was arrested something more serious e.g. murder, would police have to keep quiet then?

Yes - surely if they have currently stopped doing their business that would be in breach of 3.2 and could be deemed to be not following 3.3, as it's advantageous to one particular party - this will be particularly clear if there is more publicity of Durham operating in a different way before the election.

[Ozanne]

24 minutes ago, clarkete said:

It's the NPCC rules that apply to the police.

"3.2 Police business does not cease in a pre-election period and normal functions of policing must be performed. But particular care must be taken in this period to avoid activity or publicity that could, or reasonably be seen to, affect or influence the outcome of the election.

3.3 The force and individual officers must retain impartiality and avoid any action which is, or might reasonably be perceived as being, supportive of or oppositional to any party, candidate or political opinion.

3.4 Police officers and staff should be aware of the political restrictions and associated responsibilities that are present for them (in sections seven and eight of this guidance).

3.5 The principles in this guidance can be useful outside a defined pre-election period – especially in a highly political period."



https://www.npcc.police.uk/documents/Election/NPCC Pre election Period Guidance latest.pdf

 

You could argue that not publishing the names of people getting fines is also interfering in the election 😉

[Copperface]

17 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You could argue that not publishing the names of people getting fines is also interfering in the election 😉

They never published them before either so not a valid argument.

 

The Durham thing has also (unsurprisingly) been misrepresented. Durham have simply acknowledged receipt of the letter and a FOI request (as they are bound to do) and the twat MP has tweeted it and twisted it. 

[zahidf]

No 10 have said theyd say as soon as it happens if Johnson has been fined though. 

[Copperface]

5 hours ago, Neil said:

,LOVE THE WORDING FOR THAT. lol

 i wanna know who runs the hoc network and why porn sites arent blocked, would be in any other public authority workspace.

Lots of porn on Twitter as Grant Shapps will testify. 

The porn sites might be blocked but Twitter clearly isn't.

[clarkete]

1 hour ago, Copperface said:

The Durham thing has also (unsurprisingly) been misrepresented. Durham have simply acknowledged receipt of the letter and a FOI request (as they are bound to do) and the twat MP has tweeted it and twisted it. 

Yes - deliberately misrepresented by two of the papers with the highest readership (in one case covering almost their entire front page) the week before an election.

 

10 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Lots of porn on Twitter as Grant Shapps will testify. 

The porn sites might be blocked but Twitter clearly isn't.

Are you saying you've read something to indicate that's the site that was being viewed, or you're speculating?

As keeps being reported, most of us would be instantly fired for viewing porn in the workplace.  Mind you many of us would also be fired for sending work emails or messages via public addresses, yet under this government we read time and again that it's apparently not against the rules for ministers to do so.

[steviewevie]

Truss obviously feels outdone by Wallace so is trying to look super tough to get back into pole position for the race to No.10 ...meanwhile pushing us ever closer to all out war with Russia.

[Ozanne]

What a shocker. 

[steviewevie]