To be fair that's more or less what he did to win the Labour leadership was it not? Said one thing and once in the job abandoned what he'd 'promised'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
Printable View
To be fair that's more or less what he did to win the Labour leadership was it not? Said one thing and once in the job abandoned what he'd 'promised'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
They need us more than we need them (part 198) ...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjLO_ZBW...jpg&name=large
Careful, that’s getting close to Indy talk. You’ll get this thread closed as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I hope not, that is not my intention. But are you saying that as well as not being allowed a referendum by the Tories, we're also not even allowed to talk about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I’m not even sure we are allowed to talk about not being allowed to talk about it. Best play it safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Could you share the source for this please?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/docu...64441/downloadQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
Thanks for sending the link. What do you think this shows?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
What is the rational for the increase between the dates?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Grunt will come in I'm sure, but it looks to me to be a paper on the need to strengthen the GB network to deal with projected growth in renewables capacity and projected demand. It's part of a set of slides on a whole system approach to the distribution network as part of strategies to get to net zero. My assumption is that the growth in demand is driven by the move to air source and ground source heat pumps rather than gas boilers. But I have only skimmed it.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...6549d3b76e.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
The paper is prepared by the National Grid ESO (Electricity System Operator) whose role isQuote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Quote:
Our control room moves electricity around the country second by second to ensure that the right amount of electricity is where it’s needed, when it’s needed – always keeping supply and demand in perfect balance.
The graphic is from their Future Energy Scenarios 2022 report where they considerQuote:
We also have to plan for the future.We must think about things like where our energy will come from and how we will operate a greener and cleaner system in the future.
We want to be able to run a zero carbon electricity system by 2025, which will be crucial in helping the UK meet its wider zero carbon target.
Website here: https://www.nationalgrideso.com/elec...-transmission/Quote:
Future Energy Scenarios (FES) represent a range of different, credible ways to decarbonise our energy system as we strive towards the 2050 target.
I thought Michelle Mone said that Medpro was nothing to do with her?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjMqK68X...jpg&name=large
identifingy [emoji16]Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Gordon Brown tells Andrew Marr the Conservative government since 2019 has been the most corrupt for "at least a century."
That is the current Tory Party logic. Nurses should take a hit because Putin (their ally for years) is waging war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Have the torys ever mentioned they're returning the £4m or so they received from the Russians?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
£1.9m since Boris became leader, probably £8m since 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
I will never understand how this has been normalised.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Mone to take ‘leave of absence ‘ from HoL to ,clear her name’ according to ‘her spokesman’ :sick:
She’s only actually attended sessions 5 times in seven years so not really as newsworthy as it sounds…
She sounds bat**** crazy, and a thief.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
I really hope she does some jail time.
Have a read of this times article on Reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd...e_makes_every/
Zero chance that she goes to jail. She’s well protected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jeffrey Archer went to jail, so if she's guilty, there's hope!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
she doesn't have to declare her financial interests now
£29m for her
£36m for him
£200m+ for Medpro for useless ppe
one of the biggest robberies
from 2015 i think
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjS1FRQa...png&name=small
try stay classy Baroness Fraud
That surely isn't real?Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
Rioters do time for steeling a bottle of water, protesters for sitting in the roads but I agree no chance she does time for stealing at least £29 Million at a time of National Crisis and what could have caused death to health workers. She is exactly the type of person the jails should be stuffed full off along with many that served in this and the last couple of governments. We are essentially being ran by the Eton Mafia and they control teh cops and courtsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The ludicrous thing is, you are probably right, even at this level of thievery she is miles off being the worst in a den of thieves facilitated by lord Deighton's fast track.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
She might actually have been so pissed off because she wasn't quick enough getting there?
Interesting to see Hancock putting the boot in. I am really looking forward to reading his diary entries relating to his pub landlords successful PPE bid.
Prosecutions? Not a hope in hell, even by an incoming labour government.
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
It's realQuote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...ron-mp-1432783
She's a complete fruit loop with a history of bizarre and horrible behaviour. She vandalised her ex husband's motor, was outed for promoting fake diet pills, got caught bugging an employees office with listening device and not so long ago she was in the papers again for telling an Indian guy he was "a waste of a white man's skin"Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
She did once say that people who steal don't deserve human rights, so she has that going for her I guess :hilarious
The fact that we have someone in our House of "Lords" that thinks it's acceptable to speak to an elected politician like that is horrendous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Grieves
If ever there was an argument for scrapping the HOL then Mone is it, nasty piece of work.
She was put there as reward for her work for Better Together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://twitter.com/WritesBright/sta...A09s5b0JA&s=19
Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk
Private Eye having a pop at the BBC over the Mone story. Also reminding us and investigators that Mone was not alone, there's worse, so more to come hopefully.
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1587/media-news
In some ways I fear for her safety and it might be in her best interests that the law catches up with her and deals out justice in the most appropriate way.
If folk are going to be cold and hungry over the next few years, it might not be the smartest thing for her to be walking free amongst the public having stolen significant sums of money from them and then evaded any form of formal justice.
We had a quite interesting sidetrack a few pages ago when we discussed the fantasy of committing acts of violence on politicians, which some people found quite appalling. Whilst most of us can have a fleeting thought about such things before getting on with our days, there are some who don't have such robust self-restraint mechanisms. And the current Raheem Stirling situation shows that whilst society has deemed it acceptable for some people to acquire fairly obscene levels of wealth, that now appears to paint a rather unwelcome target on the backs of them and their families.
These are some of the dangers of having a government as corrupt as ours, and having an elite class whose wealth can generally allow them to evade normal justice, law and order.
Pretty sure she lives in Isle of Man for obvious reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tories in hiding as Commons scrutinises Michelle Mone’s Covid fortunes | John Crace | The Guardian
John Crace very good, and pointing out that the parliamentary systems function is not to make sure Mone is brought to book, or ensure appropriate behaviour is maintained, but actually serves to protect her (Rayner repeatedly reminded not to mention Mones name in questions, or to suggest she had done anything wrong. Even though she evidently has).
If Gordon Brown wants to do something with the Constitutional Review, it has to be proper independent oversight of the whole parliamentary institution, and a non partisan approach to politics in the upper house. Otherwise croneyism is never going to stop.
Your making the mistake in thinking Brown and Starmer want real change.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know they want votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
https://twitter.com/bestforbritain/s...da2k2BsH-4CfAw
The Scottish Tory talent pool.[emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can't watch politicians now, spin, bull£#!t, lie, repeatQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Wouldn't last a minute in a real job. Pipsqueek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
The blunt reality for many due to the Tories destroying the economy
https://www.ft.com/content/a5839336-...d-a4a4c7b65ef8
The women turning to sex work to make ends meet
As the cost of living crisis spreads, more women are starting to sell sex and many are taking greater risks
BREAKING : Levelling-Up Secretary Michael Gove has granted planning permission for a new coal mine in Cumbria
More in-depth here, without a paywall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
https://decrimnow.org.uk/hookers-against-hardship/
Isn't that a local authority function? If he is bypassing that down south how long before he starts overturns planning application rejections for fracking in Scotland?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Ah sorry paywallessQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
https://archive.ph/8bwVg
It could be quite a while as he doesn't have the power to grant licences, Scottish ministers do.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
He also doesn't have the power to decide what roads to improve but in Scotland but it hasn't stopped them saying that they will improve the A1 and A75 north of the borderQuote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
https://www.itv.com/news/border/2022-11-21/mp-welcomes-5-million-funding-for-a75-improvement-study
They do have the power to change that if they so wish as evidenced recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm surprised you are referencing that. Trunk roads are pretty much devolved but there is a place for central government investment where it links to the UK strategic road network and connectivity. The A75 links Cairnryan and therefore NIron to the M74. Understandably business is keen on that route being effective and efficient. I have family in D+G and the A75 has its fair share of accident blackspots and fatalities. You would think that £5m to carry out a feasibilty study around improvement was welcome news to one and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Yet it appears that Scottish ministers have dragged their feet on this and there is a lot of talk of Transporrt Scotland being ordered not to engage with HMG officials on this. It's hard not to see that as political, isn't it? I mean, are you really going tribal about independent work to try and improve the safety of the road network? Is that the level we sink to?
Anyway my original post was refuting the suggestion that Michael Gove could impose ftracking in Scotland. I said he can't. I assume you are agreeing with me.
I've not seen any fracking in Scotland :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Have transport Scotland been told to drag their feet on this? Any evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn't say Transport Scotland were dragging their feet. They are an executive agency of government, run day-to-day by managers and directed by and accountable to ministers. I said those ministers appeared to be dragging their feet and there was lots of talk of them directing Transport Scotland not to properly engage with their HMG counterparts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
For what it's worth, I believe it to be true and I also know that ministers and spads of all plitical hues make political decisions where objectivity would steer them elsewhere.
As for hard evidence, you surprise me once I get beyond the irony. Do you think I have recordings and photos of Jenny Gilruth and John Sweeney cackling away as they talk about how they're showing that Mark Harper "Wha's in charge"?
Anyway, I've showed you mine, how about you show yours? Where's your photos of Michael Gove in a high vis tabard and a hard hat, taking a jackhammer to some shale rock in Addiewell? :greengrin
Shouldn’t you ask another poster that? I only pointed out that the UK govt have the power to over rule the Scottish govt. I think we both agree that is true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
On fracking? Because that was what we were talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
On anything. The Uk govt has ultimate power to change any law they want within the UK. If they want to frack in Scotland they can and there is nothing we could do about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Politically, I doubt it’s even a good idea to be fracking in England but that wasn’t my point. The point is, the power resides with Westminster to change any law that suits them.
If Michelle Mone rings up her pal Gove next week and says her new fracking company she will set up in a couple of days is looking for some license, then who knows what Gove’s response would be? He certainly seems like a man willing to do business?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are stretching a point beyond credibility here. Essentially anything devolved could become reserved if the devolution legislation was repealed or overturned. In the case of fracking this would also mean making amendments to existing amendments to a whole range of other pieces of legislation, some of which preceded devolution!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
All of which would have to go through several stages of scrutiny and votes in both Houses of Parliament, which means facing further amendments to the previous amendments to the original amendments to the primary legislation! And that's before you get into legal challenge and judicial review. and that's assuming you can carry a majority at every stage when the current government has aready flip-flopped on fracking because its MPs and the public wouldn't stand it.
Do you really think that is likely?
So what you are saying is they won’t exercise the power, not that they don’t have it. I think I can agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not sure who this 'they' is? I watched PMQs today and the Speaker invited a gaunt, emaciated man with no hair to ask two questions. It turns out his name is Stephen Flynn and he is in charge of fifty-odd other MPs who call themselves the SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
So, by your logic that lot are 'they'? I think someone should tell 'them' :greengrin
The Council had already approved it. The Government called it in for review, Gove just rubber stamped their decision yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
It's actually scary how bad things are. BBC (even them) have their main article focusing on shocking situations in hospitals:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63890726
The cause of course isn't named (its the BBC after all) but the graph showing waiting times rising exponentially since 2010, and not just since covid.
What big political change could happened in 2010 I wonder? BBC gives no hint so I guess we'll never know.
Well this is a somewhat pathetic post. Union supporting people got all upset on the Labour thread when someone called Gordon Brown a degenerate auld goat. You've really lowered the tone since your return to these discussions. IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Blackford is being called ‘Fatty Blackford’ on the main board, but it seems if they are NOT fat they are now ‘emaciated’, which my dictionary describes as ‘painfully or dangerously thin, especially after disease’.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I’m sure SNP supporters can also give as good as they get at times but it’s all a bit disappointing and puerile.
Interference by Westminster in devolved issues such as transport is the thin edge of the wedge. If they are willing to do this then they are likely to be willing to do it in other areas as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
The internal market bill drives a coach and horses through the devolved settlement, but it's ok, nothing to see here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
No irony there then!Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I made around half a dozen posts since yestersay evening, initially refuting a post that any objective person would have dismissed as errant nonsense.
Those posts were a mixture of the rational and factual, two of them quite detailed, and a couple that questioned the post I was replying to.
All in all I must thave asked ten or so questions, pretty much all serious, apart from a few light-hearted ones in one post replying to Ozyhibby. But I wasn't overwhelmed with serious answers to serious questions, which is a bit dispiriting given this place is meant to be about genuine discussion and debate. Maybe you would care to comment on those?
I don't know enough about the Scotland Act and related legislation to answer your questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
None.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...wel-convention
It might be politically difficult for the UK gov to override Holyrood on devolved matters very often, but, de jure, they absolutely can on anything at any time. 100% of UK sovereignty ultimately rests with the "crown in parliament". The devolved legislatures have licence to exercise some of it but only on Westminster's behalf.Quote:
How does the Sewel convention work in practice?
When the UK government plans to introduce a bill with provisions that fall within the scope of the Sewel convention, it is expected to consult with the devolved administrations early in the process, to ensure that devolved views are taken into account.
After a bill of this type is introduced in parliament, the devolved administrations publish a legislative consent memorandum, as required by the standing orders of the devolved legislatures in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast.
The legislative consent memorandum sets out the bill’s objectives, the reasons why consent is required, and usually indicates whether and why the devolved government believes consent should be given.
Before a bill reaches its final amending stage in the UK parliament, the devolved legislatures then vote on a legislative consent motion to either grant or withhold consent for the bill, in part or in full. If consent is not granted, the UK parliament can decide whether to amend the bill to meet the devolved concerns, or to pass the legislation as it stands.
If Westminster (which includes a lot of SNP MPs) - although I suspect it is more Whitehall than WM - decides it wants to spend £5m on something that Scottish people and Scottish businesses would benefit from then it is surely taking political zealotry to the limit to find fault in that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
"Damn those colonialists with their funding to reduce accident blackspots, damn them I say!" :greengrin
Well that explains you "playing the man, not the ball". Can't fault you for honesty on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
How about the behaviour of people calling Westminster 'them', when it has fifty-odd SNP MPs attending and participating. Are Mr Flynn and his colleagues 'them' then?
But by definition that has to be the case, because Holyrood exists as an entity because of legislation passed in Westminster! And Holytrood, referenda and appeals to the Supreme Court are all consequences of a pre-existing system of legislature and judiciary.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
It's not as if some Spanish bloke came along and said '"I want to build this thing that looks like overturned boats" and then another bunch of folk came along and said "We are going to call this a parliament and make some rules, but not all the rules, for everyone north of Carter Bar"
It's not a political issue, it's a process one. We don't exist in a vacuum.
As you well know, I was comparing your description of Flynn with the previous description of Brown, which received some condemnation on here. It appears to be ok for "those who support the union" to use "name calling" and "gratuitous, below the belt comments", but when separatists do it, people complain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
As far as I'm concerned, if I ever use the term "them", I would be using it to describe the Tories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
It has to the case in a devolved setup, yes. But if we had a federal setup then it would be the other way round. Westminster would exercise powers pooled by the federated states on their behalf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Perhaps it would be better in some instances to refer to HM Government rather than Westminster although I'm sure nearly everyone knew what you meant 😉Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I see Keir Starmer using ‘them, they’ all the time? Is it ok for him to do it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I hope you don't mean me. I've posted at length, when asked, what I felt was the best form of administration for people, say in the south-east of Scotland. And I was crystal clear that it was neither Holyrood or Westminster.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I didn't say anything about any comments you or anyone else made re Gotdon Brown. As far as Flynn goes, yesterday was genuinely the first time I had seen him and let's face it, if John Swinney was compelled to take a paternity test then I'm sure we would be having a different discussion :greengrin
But yes, calling people 'old goats' and the like probably isn't the standard we should aspire to. I've called out some of the really crass language that I've seen on here directed by what are mostly middle-aged men (and that is true) at women politicians like Jo Swinson. That's why I don't resort to the Wee Nicky Krankie stuff, or suggesting that she goes to Legoland to get her hair done, stuff like that, which I know some folk disappointingly do.
I don’t think anyone got upset about Brown being called anything. What was being questioned was a particular individuals constant name calling in the vast majority of his posts. I’ve no doubt we’ve all name called at times, he takes it to a pathetic new level.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Nice but not very accomplished try :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It's a fair and serious point I'm making, I believe trying to deflect it merely reinforces the lack of a credible counter to it.
I have read 'Westminster' being referred to as 'them', and usually in a negative way, by people who want independence/support the SNP/all of the above countless times on here. Countless in individual posts almost! :greengrin
But Westminster is Stephen Flynn and Mhairi Black and four dozen of their colleagues, and rather prominently at times. So, are they 'them' or 'us'? And before you even offer up an answer, what gives you or anyone else the right to state as objectove fact who we should consider as 'them' or 'us'?
I don’t think I do? Can’t remember ever calling any politician a name on here? I don’t repeat names others use either. Just as bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunchie
I’ve desisted from certain terms for ‘No’ voters but I never thought of any of them as derogatory anyway. We’ll see how long that ceasefire lasts but it won’t be me that breaks it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I very much think of the UK govt as them or they. I’m very comfortable with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Last I looked, the SNP were not part of the UK govt.
You can consider who you like as them or they, knock yourself out. I’m not trying to influence you either way.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Anyway, trying to get back onto the subject of the Tories (and bashing them seems to be fair enough and I'm not complaining :greengrin), I've seen a lot of comment on the various individual and concerted things they have done to generally make our existence as bleak and desolate as possible, but within all that there is some real fascinating tectonic stuff going on for them.
They have allways been riven by Europe, needless to say, but there are so many other fault lines coming to the surface it's almost impossible to keep track. These have been evident in the never-ending stream of policy u-turns, paying and playing off one faction against another. The homebuilding targets fiasco is the latest great example. For many Tories strengthening access to home ownership is a cornerstone of the Thatcherite, self-improvement philosophical agenda. For others, especially in the leafy shires, the targets are deeply un-conservative (deliberate small 'c'). And there will be an uber neo-liberal element who see any government targets as unnecessary meddling by an already-bloated state!
The Tories like the image of always reinventing themselves to secure electoral success but the sheer scale of cognitive dissonance going on within their party and government is surely unsustainable? Although I worry that maybe people have said this throughout their history.......
My off-the-cuff definition of UK government would probably be the MPs and peers who hold ministerial office and the civil servants who execute policy, but that's not important here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
But that wasn't the question was it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crunchie
so be a big adult and finally put me on ignore, i ignore you for many reasons even though you constantly try to get a reaction, plenty on here are intelligent enough and chose to ignore posters they have no desire to converse with, i have absolutely no desire whatsoever to converse with you, none whatsoever, anyone with half a brain would realise that but not you, that's perfectly obvious, so instead of trying to get a bite try using the ignore function :aok: pathetic? right back at ya
How is the OP above managing to read and respond to all posters they state they ignore? :confused:
Presumably they "ignore" them in a more traditional way than using forum software's "ignore"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Aah, understood. Thanks for pointing this obvious mistake I made out :greengrin and apologies to the OP who I didn't reply to directly as I wrongly assumed I was on ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
If you have been following the news, then you will know that the A9 is the killer road, but the studies have already been done so maybe give the £5m to the Scottish Government to speed up the dualling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I was on 25 miles of it today, passed some surveyors looking at the most difficult section at pass of Birnam, that's one of the blacks pots.
The Tories are corrupt (chapter 436)
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/12/08/m...-health-firms/Quote:
A lobbying group led by Conservative MPs and peers has released a report recommending the further privatisation of the NHS while being funded by private health companies, Byline Times can reveal.
You are being obtuse, I think. Just because the SNP MPs are IN Westminster, it doesn't make the "Westminster".Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
If anyone says e.g. that a decision was made in Westminster, we're not usually implying that the SNP MPs made that decision, rather that it was made by "the Westminster parliament", which of course contains a big majority of Tory MPs. So in these cases, I expect that people are using Westminster as a shorthand for the Westminster Government.
But I guess that's too obvious for your debating style.
Oh I didn't see this part until now! Who the hell says I'm stating ANYTHING as objective fact? It's my opinion, and I think I can call an opposition party "them" if I want to! Am I telling you to call the Tories "them"? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Where on Earth did you get this particular crazy idea from?
If I can answer this from my perspective, because I sometimes use (and I am currently using) the ignore function. This means I don't see their posts - unless I want to. Sometimes, if for example I've said something that's got a bit of a reaction, I'll view posts from people I have on ignore to see if they have a different issue with my post, or if they're just saying what everyone else is saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Soo it's kind of a sometimes ignore function for me.
And if you had been following the thread you would know we were talking about the A75 - after all, it was you who originally got us started on it!! :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
But seriously, as for Birnam, there was talk of just shifting it to Dunsinane but that seems like centuries ago now.
Certainly not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I was talking to Ozyhibby.
https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.am...-b2241362.html
Commons suspended because Gove did not provide his statement on the coal mine to the opposition
Tories no longer lying, just not playing by the rules!!
Guarsian reporting that Gove did provide statement but it bore no resemblance to what he then went on to say in the House. Hoyle "furious".Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
So, somewhere between lying and not playing by the rules, methinks. Dishonest at some point at least.
Underrated, if tragic, post. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye