JohnfromUK
-
Posts
10,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
PW Shop
Posts posted by JohnfromUK
-
-
-
14 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
There is no proof whatsoever of him lying to the queen
No one apart from the Queen and Johnson know what was said.
We have a very bizarre situation at the moment:
- A referendum was held - the result was clear - the government (and main opposition party) had promised to carry through the result.
- Parliament has acted to prevent that - strongly encouraged by the speaker and aided by the opposition
- To sort it out - the prime minister has asked for a general election
- The ludricous terms of the fixed parliaments act effectively leave the calling of an election timing now to the leader of the opposition!!!
- The Leader of the Opposition despite repeatedly calling for an election (as recently as yesterday) is actually actively preventing one happening
- The business put before Parliament (which is normally set by the Leader of the House and put in the daily business by the speaker) seems to now be selected by the speaker not the leader of the house by using irregular emergency procedures.
So we have a government who cannot set the business of the house (because the way the Speaker is behaving), and cannot call an election - which is blocked by the leader of the opposition.
-
-
1 hour ago, Mice! said:
It wasn't illegal before but now it is??
I am not a lawyer, so this is simply a summary of what I have read
Much of law is set in 'case law'. The actual written law tries to cover off most aspects, but often the things that get challenged and not clear in 'black and white'.
In this case as I understand it - there was no written time limit on what was the maximum leagl length of time for which Parliament could be suspended by prorogation. The Attorney General took the view that it was legal - and though longer than usual, was really no different to usual. (In addition much of the time was 'party conference season' when they normally don't sit anyway). The actual additional time above the usual party conference break of 3 weeks was only a week or possibly two I believe.
However - the prorogation was challenged (3 times in fact, once again by Gina Miller in the Supreme Court). One challenge was in a lower court in London, one (in Scotland). These produced a split result. Therefore an appeal was made to the Supreme Court (by Miller and others) and the Supreme court has decided that 5 weeks prorogation was too long and had 'political motives' preventing proper parliamentary scruting.
This has now set 5 weeks as 'illegal' in 'case law' which now can be used as a law itself in any future cases - however shorter prorogations may not be illegal.
So - in summary prorogation itself is legal and normal practice.
- before the Supreme Court ruling - it was open to interpretation on what length might be 'excessive' and therefore illegal.
- after the Supreme Court ruling it is now illegal at 5 weeks in length where this is for 'political' reasons of stopping parliamentary scrutiny.
Bear in mind that both Major and Blair prorogued parliament to stop scrutiny (though for less time).
-
13 minutes ago, WestonSalop said:
Please don't think for one minute that a Corbyn government would in any way resemble the Blair government. Blair wasn't in the least bit socialist compared with the Labour governments of the seventies and eighties. Corbyn wants to go back to those dark days and worse. I voted remain and have since changed my mind purely because of the democratic principle at stake. We need to get out, ASAP and then hope to god that the Tories can prevent a Corbyn GE victory.
My situation exactly as well.
-
11 hours ago, figgy said:
Bet the makers never thought at the time their guns would still be loved and used well over a hundred years later.
I often have the same thought as you.
Nice gun; I have a similar bar in wood Powell from 1871, but sadly no case. I do however have the correct label (original and unused) given to me by Peter Powell when I bought the gun from William Powell about 32 years ago now.
-
-
4 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:
Herr Flick!
The way Momentum 'police' their party is a bit like the Gestapo - and actually - it isn't a laughing matter.
-
6 minutes ago, Retsdon said:
I would not agree with that. I have seen what Labour governments can do. I do not believe even a no deal Brexit will be that bad.
-
13 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:
Perhaps you should become a Labour MP!
I would be senile enough to be in the Lords. I'm told the benches are more comfortable - and it's easier to doze off.
13 minutes ago, GingerCat said:Doubtful as you'll be the top 5% of tax payers
By then I will have as much idea what 5% means as Diane Abbott has now.
13 minutes ago, GingerCat said:Unless of course your a "friend of the party".
I cannot see myself ever being a 'friend of the party'. I might be able to go in disguise as Momentum with a long leather coat, steel rimmed glasses, Homberg hat and a limp.
-
40 minutes ago, Retsdon said:
There were two stages that were missed out before Article 50 was triggered.
I think they were missed earlier than that. Despite my current siding I voted Remain - for the very simple reason that I couldn't see how leave would actually be 'put into practice'.
Cameron went to the EU pre referendum and 'negotiated' some 'relaxations' - mainly if I remember right on benefits claimants rights to claim immediately and a waiver for 'ever closer union'.
Frankly these were nowhere near enough, but the smug people thought they had the result in the bag for remain, so we got virtually nothing. When it became clear that the vote wasn't to be a walkover for remain, Project Fear was launched - drawing in even Obama (who would leave office shortly anyway). That simply put peoples backs up - and was (in my view) the final push that got leave over the line.
Since then, many like myself simply believe the outcome MUST be carried out - for democracy. IF there is another referendum - I will vote leave (as will countless other former marginal remainers).
The exception might be IF we had a Corbyn government - in which case remaining in the EU would come in handy to bail us out when he (inevitably) bankrupts the country. We wpuld then go from a major net contributor to being like Greece - living on German handouts.
-
1 minute ago, GingerCat said:
blame the Tories 50 odd years later
In 50 years I will be 112 (and undoubtedly very senile) - surely I can be retired by then!
-
1 minute ago, GingerCat said:
So trillions of giveaways, I'm presuming abbott did the math.
I believe (but can't find my source) that McDonnell has said they will borrow much of it - but with no immediate prospect of paying it back (or plan to pay it back) ........ ever. Unlike Venezuela - we don't have vast reserves of oil against which to mortgage our children's future. We struggle to pay back our existing debt (the rate of increase has come down, but the debt is already MASSIVE), so we will loose our credit rating - and be charged a great deal more in interest to borrow.
-
2 minutes ago, B725 said:
did DT totally blank
I believe so.
-
4 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:
his newly negotiated deal
And following Starmers guidelines - the new 'deal' would maintain 'exactly the trading conditions we have now' which by implication is staying in the single market and customs union - so in effect not leaving. So his 'democratic vote would offer staying ........ or staying without any say in future proceedings.
The man is a complete idiot.
-
14 minutes ago, Retsdon said:
but not the inference that the EU was somehow underhand here.
That post was a while back!
I didn't mean to say that they had been underhand. The 'red flag' to me is simply this;
- A transition (deal) is the change from one set of circumstances to another.
- We know the present (in the EU) set
- We don't know what the 'post EU' set will be
- Therefore - one cannot properly negotiate a 'transition'
The post EU set of circumstances should be agreed (in outline anyway) BEFORE a transition can be finalised - otherwise you don't know what you will be transitioning to - and that would be my 'red flag'.
-
12 minutes ago, grrclark said:
The rebel alliance could keep the Conservative government in situ, with no majority and no ability to conduct business whilst they effectively run a government of national unity, without it actually being so.
If Bercow continues to permit the use of standing orders and humble addresses they could call the shots and mandate the executive to do what they wish.
And this is the result of the fixed term parliament act - (which was rushed in without being properly thought through to stop Clegg throwing his toys out of the cot) - , combined with a crooked biased speaker.
As far as I can see, with the connivance of the speaker, any 'group' that can get a majority can run the country.
2 minutes ago, welsh1 said:Labour are looking down the barrel and their future as the main opposition is tetering on the edge, what they do in the next few week will decide their fate
Many Labour MPs are incapable of looking beyond the next soundbite. Look who they elected as leader - look how they have run their recent conference, - look how they are now prettyb much completely controlled by the Unions and Momentum. MPs now have very little say in Labour policy forming or decision making.
-
47 minutes ago, Hammo said:
I would love to know what it cost new, and what you could buy at the time for that money. I would imagine it was way beyond the means of the average shooter?
If anyone can help I'm all ears.
I have a William Powell hammer gun made in 1871 on Damascus. That cost £34 new if I remember right (figure from Powell's records). It is pictured in the 18th post on page 5 of the Side by Side Club thread in this topic. It cost 34 guineas in 1871 to the original owner complete with best case, tools, cartridges used at fitting etc. Sadly I don't have the case or tools.
My guess is that yours would have been a similar(ish) price. I'm not sure who (if anyone) has Boswell's records.
-
3 minutes ago, oowee said:
particularly if it could be linked directly to a carbon use tax.
Tax is a universal 'solution' to everything. Actually, it does little useful because the worst carbon users tend to be the wealthy - who simply moan a bit, pay the tax, and carry on as normal.
IF there was to be a 'tax' - it needs to be carefully targeted at areas where savings are possible without hardship - and areas where it will be effective.
For example - taxing energy used in heating for the elderly simply frightens and penalises those who are already struggling to cope. Taxing fuel (road type fuels) penalises those who live in the country - who have no real alternative to private transport.
Those who should be targeted to reduce are probably those with private planes, who do lots of air travel, have heated pools, saunas etc,. all of whom can afford to pay the tax.
If there was to be a tax I would like to see a system where there was a 'personal allowance' tax free and then you may more tax the further above this you go - a bit like income tax. However - I don't see how this can be achieved.
We can start by banning one of my 'pet hates' - gas patio heaters!
-
Just now, Gordon R said:
My own view is that these halfwit climate control protesters add to the problem rather than doing anything whatsoever of a practical nature. Blocking up traffic, jetting around the World to impose their "message" - just self indulgent idiots.
100% agree
-
3 minutes ago, figgy said:
I sleep at night regardless of my personal carbon footprint. This is just the latest claptrap being spouted.
If any want to help buy local walk more plant trees.
I'm more concerned with oxygen theives.
In a way, I don't disagree - but I was interested to see what sort of figures were involved, so spent part of a rainy afternoon on Google etc. I suppose I should own up to being a little smuggly pleased with the answer, though that was not the original aim!
Agree totally on buy more local produce, walk more and plant more trees.
-
Rather than go 'off topic' on one of the other Climate/Greta/environmental threads, I have started a new one - about estimating personal 'carbon balance sheet'. This came about because I was under the impression that I was quite 'good' on carbon - and at the time the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were being taken to task for using private planes and 'purchasing' (or it seems Elton John purchasing on their behalf) carbon offset. So I decided to look at my own 'carbon signature'.
On the balance sheet - there are two sides; carbon release (to CO2) from usage of fuels, etc. and carbon capture from plants 'fixing' carbon back in solid carbon.
Release I based my figures as follows with energy usage releasing carbon (based on UK) as below;
Petrol, per gallon = 3 Kg carbon
Diesel, per gallon = 3 Kg carbon
Gas, per KWh = 0.2 Kg CO2 = 0.06 Kg carbon
Electricity, per KWh = 0.04 Kg carbon (low because in the UK only a small portion of electricity generation is from burning carbon).For me personally I 'release' about 1750 Kg per year based on mileage and travel. If I was to fly (which I don't) I would use say about 1000 Kg for a return flight to New York from the UK.
I was not able to estimate carbon usage from new goods (cars, white goods, shotguns(!), etc.), but a loose guess for me is that it might be around 500 - 1000 Kg annually.
Therefore my own annual total 'release' is probably around 2500 Kg. I read that the UK average is about 3000 Kg per person per year.
Capture I am fortunate to own a little woodland and grazing. This (other than my garden) is my only carbon capture and the figures are as follows.
Per acre wood = 2500 Kg carbon
Per acre grass = 1000 Kg carbonOn this basis I capture about 70,000 Kg per year, so feel I can sleep at night!
Based on the UK average per person, it isn't a great leap to conclude that very roughly every person in the UK needs about 2 acres to capture their carbon. On this basis, the UK at about 60 million acres could support a population (carbon neutrally) of sy 30 million people - about half the current population.
-
5 hours ago, Sako7mm said:
How a naive schoolgirl with a learning disability can be allowed to be exploited in this way is just beyond me.
Exactly; from what I have read she is a puppet of her parents who are lefty 'anti capitalist' types.
On climate change, my own view is that we do need to reduce the pressures on nature;
- Population control - long term aim to reduce
- Deforestation - control and try to increase forest (which is currently our best method of carbon 'capture').
- Carbon release - work to reduce carbon burning for energy (reduced flying, better insulation, etc.)
N.B., whilst the UK can set a reasonable example - the issue is a world scale issue - and the BIG problems are not here in the UK.
Some things never get mentioned - but are BIG carbon wastes. An example is the entirely artificial exercise of "Bitcoin mining" which uses vast quantities of electricity and produces nothing!
-
Just now, Scully said:
I agree. My OH feels very sorry for her and is concerned for her wellbeing.
She should be in school living a 'normal childhood' out of the media and enjoying the usual school life with friends of the same age. This will not end well for her, and whilst not agreeing at all with what she is doing, I don't wish her the harm that seems a likely outcome.
BREXIT
in Off Topic
Posted
The Parliamentary incarnation of Rumpole of the Bailey (with a touch of Brian Blessed).