TheCat

As I said....let the pettiness return it seems....

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sephiroth Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As we approach the final death throes of this > > absolute snake oil gobshite, it?s odd to see > this > > thread go quiet > > > > I?m going to assume it?s guilt for many > > > I?m going to be kind and say, many people seem to > have run out of things to say, through some kind > of ?fatigue? in the case of Johnson. A bit like > shell shock where people go mute. > > I?m perversely fascinated in not actually seeing > him go, more of the the tension created by the > collision between the energies and efforts in > those around him trying to come up with ways to > keep him there, along with his own hideous and > grotesque manoeuvres to hang on to power. Much > like convergent boundaries, the subduction zone > where the collision occurs, is the most volcanic > in times like this. > > Often in life an individual will have a level > beyond which they stoop before they do the decent > thing. However, there are a few that have no > boundaries, no bottom to their barrel, Johnson > being one of them (and my Ex). I?m looking forward > to his scraping, how many people he?s preparing to > toss under the bus, or in his case, one of those > long long freight trains that?s seem to go on > forever, before he?s eliminated or against all > odds succeeds. Boris Johnson is your ex?!!!! Maybe I' ve read that wrong;)...

j.a. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Sometimes it?s best to let go tbh. Exactly.

The world was such a better place while this thread was on hiatus for the past 2 weeks.... Let the pettiness return it seems....

Im really not....love him or hate him....while he's fighting reputational fires related to relevelations from stuff that happened 18 months ago....hes not focussed on actually running the country (one could argue if he ever was to be fair)... So the national just drifts, and drifts with nothing but hot air underpinning it.....

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > He's going to do it slowly and excruciatingly > > painfully. > > Yep, pretty clear now that he's directly behind > some of the leaks, and maybe even pulling the > strings on the others i.e. using intermediaries > for leaks to the Mirror. > > Lots of chatter about whether he's deliberately > waiting for the Sue Gray report and will then > release a leak that exposes Johnson and a.n. > others as liars. Stay tuned!... Not that I particualrly give a toss about cummings....but you'd have to wonder who in their right-mind would hire him in the future (whether thats within politics, or in fact anywhere) given this very public display of torching a former employer..... I suspect he might be limited to a 'consultant' who gets canvassed for views, and never actually gets into the inner circle of anything again...

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I?m going to assume it?s guilt for many Really? Strikes me as a very strange thing to assume, given the overwhelming lions-share of people who comment on here clearly can't stand Johnson and/or Tories in general.... Who are the 'many' posters who are staying silent out of guilt of voting for BJ?

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jazzer Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The Press who are publishing these "stories" > > surely must know who the "leak" in No. 10 is, > they > > just need to let the cat out of the bag. > > > Are you accusing the EDF celebrity "the cat" of > leaking these stories. > > Oh my Dammit....foiled at last. I amn the number 10 downing street cat. I was chewing on a pigeon just outside Allegra's window while the garden party was taking place, saw the whole damn thing....

Another leak from Downing Street....

SO BJ thought he was at a work event, and didnt realise he was at a party? Its a tough sell...but he could have easily slipped this past most of his critics, if only he'd starting his PMQ's address with "My truth...."

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You mean...build the Garden Bridge and demolish > the Mound in one go??!? Brilliant suggestion. I think your corporate title should be 'Head of Vanity Project Repurposing'.....

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Leighton Giles?2 days ago > This is a wonderful example of not what to do and > must serve as a remembrance to things so bad > they?re good. Long live the Mound" > > I agree with this and suggest the Mound should be > renamed the "Vison Board Dumbshit Spending Other > People's Money Memorial". The Council could have > paid for dozens of social workers or teachers or > environmental health offices or anything else... or...if you want even more headlines to raise awareness of the folly of the mound (and save money on dissaembly)...just get four of your mates to go round with some ropes and throw it into the Thames....

Fascinating that this has become a left v right argument. It shouldn't have been.....

It's awful....Mrs cats Xmas present hasn't arrived, amongst other things.... Here's a good example of the fact that this govt is soo shit.....it's not just brexit (yep, every thread:))......

Thanks for that link too. Very measured and informative. Fascinating how this played out in left versus right. On face value, one might think that you could agree with the intention, but not the method. Perhaps if they'd have been charged with a civil offence, where they had to pay the people of Bristol for the cost of recovery...it would have been different

From a super brexit website.... https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/brexiteers-beware-david-frosts-departure-is-disastrous/

Pretty sure I read a story a while ago that said the person responsible got fired/had to resign....

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cat - would you like to have seen them convicted > of something? Dunno...I would just like to understand better what happened, what the thinking/arguements were. It's fair to say that if they had been found guilty, I don't think it would have made much of a splash...'people would have said, "well, they pulled it down...So that seems to make sense"...but the fact it went the other way does raise questions, and at surface level seems intriguing.... Why do you ask?

Pure speculation, having read the discussion above.... The defendents admitted to damaging the statue...so they basically 'plead guilty' to damaging it. BUT, what they were charged with was was 'criminal damage', so the question the jury may have been asked to consider is the extent to which the damage was 'criminal'...? maybe some form of lesser/civil charge related to the damage might have gone a different way? As I say, thats just me thinking out loud

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think what happened in Brisbane, Adelaide and > Melbourne recently should be expunged completely > from living memory and history. the way things are going, looks like you might have to add Sydney to that list:)

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But that is eradicating history, whether it is > good or bad. Think about it - you are helping to > erase actual facts when you get rid of street > names and the like. That could mean that the > future generations, and probably only one or two > down the line, could have fewer daily reference > points from which to learn about the bad and the > good. Talk about defeating the point! Life is not > that black and white so leave things alone, on the > whole, and provide context and use it as a pointer > to a wider discussion so that the supposed > righting of wrongs doesn't end up erasing the > history that the righters are so concerned about > being exposed. have another read Nigello. I wassnt advocating at all for these changes to be made. I was highlighting that if this is the direction that society goes...then we would have to start changing a lot more than just the odd statue or landmark name here ot there....

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Anyway Cat, lets move onto the crimes that Britain > made against Australia, both the indigenous > population and the poor souls that got transported > there (and some of the forced migrations that > happened in the 20th century too). Be interested > in your take. Thats a pretty borad topic there mal!...aything you care to discuss specifically... What I would say though is in the same ball park as things like statue removal, there have been quite a few examples of various landmarks recently returning to their aboriignal names, as opposed to the ones given when the British settled (or invaded...but lets not get into that right now)...obvioulsy the highest profile that most of the people on here would know is what was formerly known as Ayers Rock...now Uluru. That said, if the various colonial commanders from the early days of British settelment are regarfded as persona non gratia...then the entire landscape of the eastern seaboard in Australia probably needs to be renamed...go to the centre of sydney, and you cant move for streets , parks or buildings called...Cook ('discovered' australia), Phillip (commanded the 'first fleet' of settlers', and Macquarie (early Governer of the colony)......and all three of those guys have some pretty shocking examples of massacaring aborigines on their resumes....

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The difficulty here is we don?t actually know what > the jury decided beyond the verdict. > > They may have decided that the prosecution didn?t > prove the statue was actually damaged (it?s now > displayed in a museum in Bristol). Or they may > have decided the prosecution didn?t prove that the > defendants didn?t have an honest belief that the > people of Bristol and Bristol council wouldn?t > have objected - there had been votes in favour of > removing the statue. Or perhaps they decided that > the prosecution didn?t prove the defendants didn?t > have an honest belief that the display of the > statue wasn?t itself a public order offence. Or > perhaps they didn?t agree that the prosecution had > proved that a conviction would have been > proportionate in light of the defendants rights > under the Human Rights Act /ECHR. > > This is my problem with the criticism of the > verdict: the jury actually heard the evidence and > the law, had multiple routes to acquittal and it > was for the prosecution to make the case which > they failed to do. I don?t think I or any other > commentator has sufficient insight in what > actually happened to determine whether the outcome > was perverse or not. > > I feel similarly about the acquittals of various > Sun journalists for phone hacking, I think they > ought to have been convicted but don?t have enough > information to know why they weren?t. Thats a very good post Alex...and I agree. And my OP is guilty of what you're suggesting. So hands up! I feel the same when I hear people talk about various cases in the public eye. Take the prince andrew/ghislane maxwell thing ("They simply must be guilty!")...before I get jumped on, im not saying at all they're innocent...im saying, sure it doesnt look good for them based on the news stories we all see, but Im not in a court room hearing all the evidence about what happened, so while its fun to pile on rich and powerful people who've probably done something wrong.....they really should be afforded the same innocent until proven guilty as the rest of us. and in that spirit, let me celebrate the innocence of the Colston 4:)

> Seems to me this is more about not agreeing with > the jury's verdict than how our judicial system > works... Yep..I think it's all about that. To clarify, I didn't intend to use the word 'precedent' in the formal 'case law' sense, so perhaps a poor choice of words of my behalf in this context...So you can point Prof Peers and his Twitter account elsewhere;) So, yes, you're right.... I'm not sure about the decision....as it seems to me that many 'left wing type's are justifying the decision on the basis that it was the statue itself that was on trial, as opposed to the actions of defendents...

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No-one attacked a living human being though, No they didnt.....but here's he thing...where's the 'line'? what crime is sufficiently excusable....Toppling a statue that represents a guy who profitted from salvery....thats seemingly okay...but killing someone...probably a step too far. Sure they are both examples at extreme ends of the spectrum...but there is a spectrum.... Lets go a little less extreme.....What about smashing someone's windows becuase they dont beleivee in climate change?.....im sure everyone on here will have a different answer as to how approrioate that is or not...and this is the thing...where's the line that evareyone expects/knows must abide by...yes everyone canm 'think' what they like, but the 'actions' they take need a line that needs to be policed. Isnt the reason we have laws becuase they are meant to be that line which controls 'actions'?