May has gone - ding dong the utter, utter, total failure of a prime minister is gone
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Unless there's some massive BoJo sh!tshow that they've kept under wraps till now, he's gonna get it.
The question remains of course, what did BoJo do between the last leadership election and this one, to change so many MP's minds?
I think it's more a question of what else has changed. They're now all terrified that Farage will eat their children whereas he was considering retirement in 2016.
Charisma and personal popularity were secondary concerns when the only enemy was Corbyn.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
bianchimoon wrote:
Hmmm... Because that man looked threatening?Rick Chasey wrote:You wonder why he didn't take the same approach when the angry man was protesting at Esther McVey's leadership launch and just let him rant and rave.
Bet there is a lawyer having a chat with him this am @£300+ ph0 -
If he'd been drinking, that won't be a plus for his caseamrushton wrote:bianchimoon wrote:
Hmmm... Because that man looked threatening?Rick Chasey wrote:You wonder why he didn't take the same approach when the angry man was protesting at Esther McVey's leadership launch and just let him rant and rave.
Bet there is a lawyer having a chat with him this am @£300+ phAll lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
-
Extract from a speech given by Mark Field:
The UK remains committed to helping women all over the world to feel safe and protected in the work they do, so they can speak freely and be part of the change we all want. My remarks at the Westminster Hall Debate on Women Human Rights Defenders.
Secret barrister has a legal interpretation over on Twitter. Sir Peter Bottomley not heping by commenting on R4 about women 'making a fuss'0 -
Not a good day for the Tories.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-48720176
- due to being convicted for expenses fraud.MP Chris Davies unseated after petition triggers by-election
Tories will be pleased to know Brexit party romped home in the European elections there not so long ago.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Not a good day for the Tories.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-48720176
- due to being convicted for expenses fraud.MP Chris Davies unseated after petition triggers by-election
Tories will be pleased to know Brexit party romped home in the European elections there not so long ago.
And the Sandbach story about abusive messages from a fellow MP.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Conservative 20,081 48.6 +7.5
Liberal Democrat 12,043 29.1 +0.8
Labour 7,335 17.7 +3.0
Plaid Cymru 1,299 3.1 -1.3
UKIP 576 1.4 -6.9
This is going to be very interesting tactically.
Do the Brexit party stand if the Tories put up an ERG/Hard Brexit candidate?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I did ask first. However I don't get a vote - you're the Tory party member here Looneyorraloon wrote:
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:So Hunt's right hand man Mark Field is a gonner.
No doubt someone will be over here to explain why throwing women against pillars by their neck is all OK, and that the optics of a Tory at a Mansion House black tie dinner doing so against a young female climate change protester are great.
Well tbh she wasn't hurt, and whilst in hindsight it can be seen as an over reaction, at the time he made a split second decision to intervene as security was absent. The question to ask I suppose is if there was a similar incident and the protester pulls out a knife and stabs someone because everyone was sitting on their hands not wanting to do anything I'm pretty sure everyone would be figuratively up in arms that no-one prevented it.
Without turning the UK into a military state, personally I think it's better to act to prevent potential attacks.
Right, I'll don tin hat as bound to be attacked for my views....0 -
SurferCyclist wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:So Hunt's right hand man Mark Field is a gonner.
No doubt someone will be over here to explain why throwing women against pillars by their neck is all OK, and that the optics of a Tory at a Mansion House black tie dinner doing so against a young female climate change protester are great.
Well tbh she wasn't hurt, and whilst in hindsight it can be seen as an over reaction, at the time he made a split second decision to intervene as security was absent. The question to ask I suppose is if there was a similar incident and the protester pulls out a knife and stabs someone because everyone was sitting on their hands not wanting to do anything I'm pretty sure everyone would be figuratively up in arms that no-one prevented it.
Without turning the UK into a military state, personally I think it's better to act to prevent potential attacks.
Right, I'll don tin hat as bound to be attacked for my views....
That argument does rather hinge on there being absolutely no security at the Mansion House. That would be odd given who was attending. That said the security seem to have been a bit lax.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The secret barrister's take is helpful: if Field genuinely thought (even if wrongly) he had to act in self-defence, and the force used was proportionate, then it's legit.
But even if it's legally justifiable, that most modish of political cliches has got him already: the optics really aren't good.
Back in the day when I used to teach bad boys and girls, physical restraint was a necessary part of the job: it happened pretty much every day, but was hedged around with rules, both formal and informal, as to what you could do and when.
One of the biggest formal no-nos was that the use of force was never justified simply to enforce compliance - for example to remove someone from a room they shouldn't be in - however unreasonable the behaviour might be.
One of the major informal factors to consider was who the onlookers were and what effect it might have on them.
Clearly Field isn't trained either in the physical techniques or in exercising situational judgement.
I have seen, more than once, colleagues who overreacted - it's desperately hard not to get wound up when faced with behaviour which is aggressive, dangerous and often quite cleverly staged specifically to get you wound up - and more than one of them lost their job because of it.
I can't judge whether he has any reasonable defence, but Field looked pretty much like those colleagues did.0 -
The whole thing is a set up to goad BJ into a statement about the treatment of women.rjsterry wrote:SurferCyclist wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:So Hunt's right hand man Mark Field is a gonner.
No doubt someone will be over here to explain why throwing women against pillars by their neck is all OK, and that the optics of a Tory at a Mansion House black tie dinner doing so against a young female climate change protester are great.
Well tbh she wasn't hurt, and whilst in hindsight it can be seen as an over reaction, at the time he made a split second decision to intervene as security was absent. The question to ask I suppose is if there was a similar incident and the protester pulls out a knife and stabs someone because everyone was sitting on their hands not wanting to do anything I'm pretty sure everyone would be figuratively up in arms that no-one prevented it.
Without turning the UK into a military state, personally I think it's better to act to prevent potential attacks.
Right, I'll don tin hat as bound to be attacked for my views....
That argument does rather hinge on there being absolutely no security at the Mansion House. That would be odd given who was attending. That said the security seem to have been a bit lax.
BJ apparently features quite heavily in the "dirty dossier" from last summer.0 -
Oh no Dodger. You are a well practised exponent of the deflection / evasion / what about mechanics. I have a vote. Is a secret ballot. For you True Blue however, is an academic exercise so properly discussable on t'internet.Stevo 666 wrote:
I did ask first. However I don't get a vote - you're the Tory party member here Looneyorraloon wrote:
So which of these 2 sterling high quality reliable trustworthy and effective Cons would you prefer to be running the dUK, even if INO?0 -
But he said he had been "genuinely worried" she may have been armed.
his actions are not those of someone who believes they are facing an armed assailant
he simply looked like a self-important git who lost his self-control and violently manhandled a woman he'd decided would be unable to fight backmy bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
SurferCyclist wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:So Hunt's right hand man Mark Field is a gonner.
No doubt someone will be over here to explain why throwing women against pillars by their neck is all OK, and that the optics of a Tory at a Mansion House black tie dinner doing so against a young female climate change protester are great.
Well tbh she wasn't hurt, and whilst in hindsight it can be seen as an over reaction, at the time he made a split second decision to intervene as security was absent. The question to ask I suppose is if there was a similar incident and the protester pulls out a knife and stabs someone because everyone was sitting on their hands not wanting to do anything I'm pretty sure everyone would be figuratively up in arms that no-one prevented it.
Without turning the UK into a military state, personally I think it's better to act to prevent potential attacks.
Right, I'll don tin hat as bound to be attacked for my views....
It's fairly obvious they weren't threatening anyone (in ball gowns and sashes, I mean, come on), and I don't really think it's necessary to grab anyone by the throat. If he's threatened by that, he needs his head examining - and if it was that serious, surely the solution is not go grab them by the throat?
It's not like everyone else around the table had the same idea; nor is it like he does this whenever there are protesters as he was present and nearby when a comedian protested May, nor when a very angry man protested at Ester McVey's leadership opener.
As for "better to prevent potential attacks" , why don't you see this as an attack?0 -
bompington wrote:The secret barrister's take is helpful: if Field genuinely thought (even if wrongly) he had to act in self-defence, and the force used was proportionate, then it's legit.
But even if it's legally justifiable, that most modish of political cliches has got him already: the optics really aren't good.
Back in the day when I used to teach bad boys and girls, physical restraint was a necessary part of the job: it happened pretty much every day, but was hedged around with rules, both formal and informal, as to what you could do and when.
One of the biggest formal no-nos was that the use of force was never justified simply to enforce compliance - for example to remove someone from a room they shouldn't be in - however unreasonable the behaviour might be.
One of the major informal factors to consider was who the onlookers were and what effect it might have on them.
Clearly Field isn't trained either in the physical techniques or in exercising situational judgement.
I have seen, more than once, colleagues who overreacted - it's desperately hard not to get wound up when faced with behaviour which is aggressive, dangerous and often quite cleverly staged specifically to get you wound up - and more than one of them lost their job because of it.
I can't judge whether he has any reasonable defence, but Field looked pretty much like those colleagues did.
I doubt any of your colleagues would have grabbed them by the throat without at least trying to shoo them away first; like the other women were.
I challenge that the protesters were aggressive or dangerous. Winding up maybe but everyone else managed to keep their cool...
FWIW it's quite well known Greenpeace (clue's in the name)they tend to use women for protests to reduce the risk of assault on them. Hence the ball gowns and sashes.
Don't get me wrong, protesters are chuffing annoying, even worse when you really disagree with them, but they're hardly threatening people. Look at the longer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbjGwjRszhs
If he finds that threatening he needs to sort his life out.0 -
Even without the benefit of hindsight, he could have easily blocked her way with arms outstretched and shepherded away from the podium, or even kept her where she was till security came.All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:bompington wrote:The secret barrister's take is helpful: if Field genuinely thought (even if wrongly) he had to act in self-defence, and the force used was proportionate, then it's legit.
But even if it's legally justifiable, that most modish of political cliches has got him already: the optics really aren't good.
Back in the day when I used to teach bad boys and girls, physical restraint was a necessary part of the job: it happened pretty much every day, but was hedged around with rules, both formal and informal, as to what you could do and when.
One of the biggest formal no-nos was that the use of force was never justified simply to enforce compliance - for example to remove someone from a room they shouldn't be in - however unreasonable the behaviour might be.
One of the major informal factors to consider was who the onlookers were and what effect it might have on them.
Clearly Field isn't trained either in the physical techniques or in exercising situational judgement.
I have seen, more than once, colleagues who overreacted - it's desperately hard not to get wound up when faced with behaviour which is aggressive, dangerous and often quite cleverly staged specifically to get you wound up - and more than one of them lost their job because of it.
I can't judge whether he has any reasonable defence, but Field looked pretty much like those colleagues did.
I doubt any of your colleagues would have grabbed them by the throat without at least trying to shoo them away first; like the other women were.
I challenge that the protesters were aggressive or dangerous. Winding up maybe but everyone else managed to keep their cool...
FWIW it's quite well known Greenpeace (clue's in the name)they tend to use women for protests to reduce the risk of assault on them. Hence the ball gowns and sashes.
Don't get me wrong, protesters are chuffing annoying, even worse when you really disagree with them, but they're hardly threatening people. Look at the longer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbjGwjRszhs
If he finds that threatening he needs to sort his life out.
Fair enough, I wasn't trying to imply that the situations are comparable although I can see that it read that way.
I was just trying to say that his actions didn't look like someone who was rationally tackling a legitimate threat, even within the wide bounds the law of self defence allows; and I certainly wasn't defending him.0 -
Yes, it looked like someone losing their rag. As there was no obvious cause for that in the room, it suggests other factors have pushed him to the point where it's just a question of who looks at him the wrong way first. If he's in that kind of state he shouldn't be at work.bompington wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:bompington wrote:The secret barrister's take is helpful: if Field genuinely thought (even if wrongly) he had to act in self-defence, and the force used was proportionate, then it's legit.
But even if it's legally justifiable, that most modish of political cliches has got him already: the optics really aren't good.
Back in the day when I used to teach bad boys and girls, physical restraint was a necessary part of the job: it happened pretty much every day, but was hedged around with rules, both formal and informal, as to what you could do and when.
One of the biggest formal no-nos was that the use of force was never justified simply to enforce compliance - for example to remove someone from a room they shouldn't be in - however unreasonable the behaviour might be.
One of the major informal factors to consider was who the onlookers were and what effect it might have on them.
Clearly Field isn't trained either in the physical techniques or in exercising situational judgement.
I have seen, more than once, colleagues who overreacted - it's desperately hard not to get wound up when faced with behaviour which is aggressive, dangerous and often quite cleverly staged specifically to get you wound up - and more than one of them lost their job because of it.
I can't judge whether he has any reasonable defence, but Field looked pretty much like those colleagues did.
I doubt any of your colleagues would have grabbed them by the throat without at least trying to shoo them away first; like the other women were.
I challenge that the protesters were aggressive or dangerous. Winding up maybe but everyone else managed to keep their cool...
FWIW it's quite well known Greenpeace (clue's in the name)they tend to use women for protests to reduce the risk of assault on them. Hence the ball gowns and sashes.
Don't get me wrong, protesters are chuffing annoying, even worse when you really disagree with them, but they're hardly threatening people. Look at the longer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbjGwjRszhs
If he finds that threatening he needs to sort his life out.
Fair enough, I wasn't trying to imply that the situations are comparable although I can see that it read that way.
I was just trying to say that his actions didn't look like someone who was rationally tackling a legitimate threat, even within the wide bounds the law of self defence allows; and I certainly wasn't defending him.
Of course this is all based on a few seconds of third person video, so who knows?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I asked first as already said, so it's a case of ATFQ or you'll get nothing out of meorraloon wrote:
Oh no Dodger. You are a well practised exponent of the deflection / evasion / what about mechanics. I have a vote. Is a secret ballot. For you True Blue however, is an academic exercise so properly discussable on t'internet.Stevo 666 wrote:
I did ask first. However I don't get a vote - you're the Tory party member here Looneyorraloon wrote:
So which of these 2 sterling high quality reliable trustworthy and effective Cons would you prefer to be running the dUK, even if INO?
Who will you vote for?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Accuses me of dodging the question and then dodges the exact same question that I asked first. Ah, the rich vein of leftie hypocrisy
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
So Trump reckoned he could have shot someone and not lost any voters, what, do we reckon Boris could get away sith before losing voters?
If I was a member I'd guess I'd vote for Hunt, but this seems to be the ultimate Giant Douche v Turd Sandwich vote.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:TailWindHome wrote:
Is the daily mail backing......Hunt?
Quite possibly. I'm amused by the Mail running a Guardian story on the front page.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:TailWindHome wrote:
Is the daily mail backing......Hunt?
Quite possibly. I'm amused by the Mail running a Guardian story on the front page.
It's all fine, they were just role-playing for when Boris MacBorisface does the EU negotiations.0 -
We've arrived at the situation where neither the presumptive PM or leader of the opposition are fit for public office.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Polling has Boris at 61 to Hunt at 39.
This is far from over“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-boris-johnson-jeremy-hunt-tory-leadership-party-election-a8969676.html
Interesting assesment and analysis.
So basically, both parties abandoning the centre ground to please memberships but abandoning a sizeable proportion of the electorate in the process.0
