On 04/02/2022 14:27, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <stjcmo$44v$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:08 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <stg6qc$48a$4@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:16 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>> On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is
>>>>> probably  guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution
>>>>> (if they had  the time and energy to abstract from more important
>>>>> matters) is to put  up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless
>>>>> the person who erected  them removes them in 7 days the council will
>>>>> do so, and the sign owner  will then have 14 days to claim it back
>>>>> from wherever the council stored  it.
>>>>
>>>> Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, that's also criminal damage; and doesn't reduce the
>>> clutter because the passing motorist still has to parse it, and see it's
>>> blank.
>>
>> I doubt it’s criminal damage if it’s a sticker.
>>
>> https://seatons.co.uk/legal-services/criminal-law/criminal-damage-offences/
>>
>>
>> The Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies criminal damage as:
>>
>> ‘A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property
>> belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such
>> property, or
>> being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
>> damaged.’
>>
>> This offence is wide ranging and applies to any tangible property.  For
>> damage to be inflicted on a property however, it must be more than
>> minimal
>> and create a situation where the property’s value or usefulness has been
>> affected in some way.
>
> There's plenty of caselaw for people being prosecuted for affixing
> stickers (such as "stop parking here and blocking my gate") on people's
> windscreens, and even doing things which will wash off like
> chalk-paintings on pavements.
>
> And why do you think that a sign with a plain sticker obscuring it is
> "as useful" as the original sign, to either the people who erected it or
> the people trying to find the new housing estate?

I didn't say it was a plain sign. A sticker giving 14 days notice.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On 04/02/2022 15:34, Tweed wrote:
>>> I know of two local authorities that defaced unauthorised signs with grey
>>> paint.
>>
>> Round here the council spray their own signs grey when they've been put
>> up in advance or are temporarily inappropriate ("no entry" suspended if
>> the other end of a road is blocked, etc.) I assume it wipes off.
>>
>>> Oh, and another that dealt with unauthorised event sign, eg car boot sales,
>>> by attaching a cancelled notice.
>>
>> Tee hee. Was that really the authorities, or cunning vigilantes?
>>
>
> It was the local council
>
>

A common tactic for illegal posters for eg club nights, concerts etc. in
Manchester around 30 years ago.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <steutp$m2v$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:00:25 on Wed, 2 Feb 2022,
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 02/02/2022 16:38, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ste9fm$spq$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:54:30 on Wed, 2 Feb
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>> Double decker bus drivers have specific instructions on what
>>>>>height their vehicle is.
>>
>>>>  The problem there is that they forget they're driving a
>>>>double-decker.
>>>
>>> In their case they have the height posted in the cab as a reminder.
>>>Still doesn't help.
>>>
>>> One possible answer is a camera system, similar to the speed limit
>>>recognition system now fitted in many cars, that recognises height
>>>limit signs and flashes a warning when it detects one. Make it
>>>mandatory on all vehicles over 2 metres.[1]
>>>
>>> [1] Or capable of being over 2 metres high in the case of flat beds.

>> I don't think that a 2m limit would get past a Regulatory
>>Impact(sic) Assessment, especially in an era that's trying (at least
>>nominally) to reduce red tape. That's why I think the current in-cab
>>rule is 3m, because it excludes the vast majority of vans from its remit.

>> All of which makes it even more of a tragedy (in the original Greek
>>sense) that the Ely underpass is just a shade under 3m.

>Typo, I meant 3m

Fair enough. But the problem at Ely is almost exclusively vans between
2.85 and perhaps 2.9m tall. (The ones which are between 2.7m and 2.84m,
but ignore the statutory prohibition, are merely breaking traffic law,
not bashing the bridge).

It would help the double-decker bus problem elsewhere, perhaps. Maybe as
long as it only recognised signs that were strictly *on* the road the
bus was driving, not signs warning of such a prohibition ahead, but not
on a road the bus is currently heading or anticipating diverging from).

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/A142-signage.jpg

Which might condition drivers to always press "ignore".

It's also the case that many low bridges are not very far down sideroads
off the main drag, so limited time for the vehicle to be pointing
directly at the bridge, read the sign, and the driver react.
--
Roland Perry

In message <stjh6c$4n3$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:36:43 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 04/02/2022 14:50, Roland Perry wrote:

>> But at least we put in the effort to go and ask him, at the time, rather
>> than sitting on our hands and waiting 10yrs to launch a regrettable
>> soundbite in the House of Commons.
>
>It has been mentioned on numerous occasions over those ten years and he
>has sat on his hands and not apologised.

Keir has been accused of not prosecuting Savile many times over the
intervening ten years? Or did you mean something else.

The scandal broke in 2012, and by then Savile was dead.

What evidence is there Keir ignored accusations in 2008-2011, and if
that evidence of failings in the CPS exist, why did the Tories[1] sit on
their hands and not raise it before Savile died?

[1] In particular his boss Baroness Scotland, the one who hired illegal
immigrants without doing the checks the law she had sponsored required.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <stjh6c$4n3$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:36:43 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>> On 04/02/2022 14:50, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> But at least we put in the effort to go and ask him, at the time, rather
>>> than sitting on our hands and waiting 10yrs to launch a regrettable
>>> soundbite in the House of Commons.
>>
>> It has been mentioned on numerous occasions over those ten years and he
>> has sat on his hands and not apologised.
>
> Keir has been accused of not prosecuting Savile many times over the
> intervening ten years? Or did you mean something else.
>
> The scandal broke in 2012, and by then Savile was dead.
>
> What evidence is there Keir ignored accusations in 2008-2011, and if
> that evidence of failings in the CPS exist, why did the Tories[1] sit on
> their hands and not raise it before Savile died?

Indeed, this has been fact checked multiple times, and the allegation is
baseless. Johnson was just trying to divert attention away from denied his
lockdown parties, in a classic dead cat strategy that probably came
straight from Lynton Crosby, the man who invented the term. But it's
backfired spectacularly, and may turn out to be the specific Johnson error
that leads to his downfall.

<https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-britain-savile-idUSL1N2RP200>

<https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/>

>
> [1] In particular his boss Baroness Scotland, the one who hired illegal
> immigrants without doing the checks the law she had sponsored required.

… setting the precedent for Johnson's lockdown parties

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 07:50:11 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 03/02/2022 23:20, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 09:21:16 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is probably
>>>> guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution (if they had
>>>> the time and energy to abstract from more important matters) is to put
>>>> up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless the person who erected
>>>> them removes them in 7 days the council will do so, and the sign owner
>>>> will then have 14 days to claim it back from wherever the council stored
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>>>
>> If it isn't fixed in position or secured to something, other councils
>> would have no difficulty in treating it as a highway obstruction and
>> taking it away.
>
>Isn't he complaining about the housing developer signs that are fixed to
>convenient poles in the landscape?
>
I was addressing the A-frame sign but looking at the Stuntney Causeway
image the same rules IMU apply if they are deemed to be advertisements
(see e.g. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/advertisements) and have been
installed without permission. The main troubles with the latter type
of sign are failure to eventually remove them and the frequent
eye-injury hazard to pedestrians where they are attached to street
furniture on pavements and the cable ties are not trimmed.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 13:56:27 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <stg6qc$48a$4@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:16 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is
>>>probably guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution
>>>(if they had the time and energy to abstract from more important
>>>matters) is to put up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless
>>>the person who erected them removes them in 7 days the council will
>>>do so, and the sign owner will then have 14 days to claim it back
>>>from wherever the council stored it.
>>
>>Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>
>Unfortunately, that's also criminal damage; and doesn't reduce the
>clutter because the passing motorist still has to parse it, and see it's
>blank.
>
It would not be criminal damage if done by the planning authority :-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/225
s.225 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Power to remove or obliterate placards and posters.
"(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the local planning authority
may remove or obliterate any placard or poster—........."

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:27:41 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <stjcmo$44v$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:08 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <stg6qc$48a$4@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:16 on Thu, 3 Feb 2022,
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>> On 03/02/2022 09:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, the way the law is at the moment the council is
>>>>> probably guilty of criminal damage/theft if it does so. The solution
>>>>> (if they had the time and energy to abstract from more important
>>>>> matters) is to put up a YET ANOTHER sign giving notice that unless
>>>>> the person who erected them removes them in 7 days the council will
>>>>> do so, and the sign owner will then have 14 days to claim it back
>>>>> from wherever the council stored it.
>>>>
>>>> Sticker on the offending sign, big enough to obliterate its message.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, that's also criminal damage; and doesn't reduce the
>>> clutter because the passing motorist still has to parse it, and see it's
>>> blank.
>>
>>I doubt it’s criminal damage if it’s a sticker.
>>
>>https://seatons.co.uk/legal-services/criminal-law/criminal-damage-offences/
>>
>>The Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies criminal damage as:
>>
>>‘A person who, without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property
>>belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or
>>being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
>>damaged.’
>>
>>This offence is wide ranging and applies to any tangible property. For
>>damage to be inflicted on a property however, it must be more than minimal
>>and create a situation where the property’s value or usefulness has been
>>affected in some way.
>
>There's plenty of caselaw for people being prosecuted for affixing
>stickers (such as "stop parking here and blocking my gate") on people's
>windscreens,
>
Correct but not generally applicable to something which is not
"attached".

>and even doing things which will wash off like
>chalk-paintings on pavements.
>
There is also case law concerning no offence being caused where there
is lawful excuse or authority, recently WRT to marking queuing
positions outside shops to maintain social distancing.

>And why do you think that a sign with a plain sticker obscuring it is
>"as useful" as the original sign, to either the people who erected it or
>the people trying to find the new housing estate?
>
>To be lawful for the local authority to deal with these signs, the
>bureaucratic process is too top heavy to be helpful, or deployed in
>more than extreme cases.
>
A planning authority has the option of defacing/removing unlawful
advertisements with or without judicial process, the latter provision
covering such as e.g. a continuing hazard (where multiple legal
breaches will often be involved) or the inability to identify a person
to serve notice upon.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:53:34 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <3vrivgliap7qlv9plpbaa26n02vcttrspo@4ax.com>, at 17:46:14 on
>Tue, 1 Feb 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, but an ambulance driver isn't a police officer, and cannot
>>>> therefore give permission for another vehicle to go through a red light.
>>>
>>>It only requires a change in the law to allow ambulance drivers to act as a
>>>police officer in this context. There is presumably a reason why this
>>>hasn’t happened.
>>
>>Even the police don't expect other vehicles to go through red lights in
>>order to get out of their way, even though they are, technically, able
>>to instruct them to do so. The ability of a police officer to tell a
>>driver to disregard the lights (or other road traffic law) is intended
>>for circumstances when that's necessary to clear the road for everybody
>>- for example, when the lights have failed on red, or when a one-way
>>street is blocked and people need to be authorised to leave in the
>>"wrong" direction. And when an officer exercises that right, he is
>>expected to have properly assessed the situation and is sure that giving
>>such an instruction will not generate significant danger to anyone. None
>>of which is applicable to a police car running on blues and twos.
>
>And yet they do it. I remember following a police car gingerly (urban
>30mph dual carriageway, he was doing maybe 20mph in the lefthand lane, I
>would otherwise have been doing slightly more in the righthand lane) as
>we both approached a crossroads with red lights. So we slowed down in
>our side-by-side convoy until he was about a car length from the red
>lights, at which point he floored the accelerator and screeched across
>my front and through the red lights, into the road on the right.
>
>It was all so sudden it seems unlikely to have been fully assessed.
>Afterwards I did wonder if the slowish-speed he'd been going earlier
>was because he was preoccupied taking instructions on his radio.
>
>Another incident on the same bit of dual carriageway, an ambulance on
>blues and twos overtakes me and a little way ahead turns right down what
>I know to be a fairly short cul-de-sac. "Wonder what's going on there" I
>think.
>
>Twenty seconds later the ambulance emerges, even faster, still on blues
>and twos turning right, in front of me, almost on only two wheels and
>carries on down the dual carriageway. I suppose he was cross at having
>taken a wrong turning, but could not possibly have assessed the traffic
>coming in the opposite direction.
>
I see such "lost" ambulances fairly often around London. They can
sometimes be well away from their usual patch and even with a satnav
they can be at the mercy of vague description of their destination.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 13:54:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <stjadl$7sb$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:41:09 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> That's normally the case here, which is why I was surprised, recently,
>>>> to see one get stuck behind a car which hadn't pulled far enough across
>>>> the pavement (pulling across at all being advised against in the Highway
>>>> Code) on the exit of a traffic light junction. Normally they'd just
>>>> whizz the Ambulance down the wrong side of the road.
>>>
>>> The thing to be very wary of is letting an emergency vehicle past at a
>>> red traffic light if there is a camera. There is a well known case of
>>> someone doing that for an unmarked police car on blues.
>>
>>Or moving to a bus lane to let them past…
>
>Shouldn't be necessary, because the Ambulance would use the bus lane.
>
Not if you have what exists along the Old Kent Road or elsewhere
around Greater London where there are 24/7 bus lanes (hours altered
with COVID) which are still interrupted by parking spaces. There is a
similar problem associated with cycle lanes (often devoid of cyclists)
now barriered off with posts.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:34:14 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <stj158$7nd$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:03:04 on Fri, 4 Feb 2022,
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've seen Ambulances turn off sirens at red level crossings, but they
>>>> rarely get stuck at red traffic lights.
>>>
>>> I've frequently seen them stuck 3-4 vehicles back from the red traffic
>>> lights; as you say, they turn off the sirens while there's no opportunity
>>> for them to proceed.
>>
>>Only last week I saw something almost opposite to that. An ambulance was
>>approaching a junction with traffic lights and a pedestrian island. It was
>>on blues and twos on the wrong side of the road passing a queue of stopped
>>traffic at the red light. When it reached the head of the queue, instead of
>>passing the wrong side of the island it nosed into the queue and switched
>>to a different siren noise to get the leading offside car to pass the
>>lights to let it through. It seemed odd at the time.
>
>Perhaps they should adopt the policy of the Fire Brigade in cities like
>New York and Amsterdam, where no-one is under any illusion that if they
>don't clear a path for the bull-horn-blaring vehicle, they'll just get
>shunted aside.
>
An idea nicked from Dutch tram-drivers?

On 04/02/2022 20:06, Recliner wrote:
>
> Indeed, this has been fact checked multiple times, and the allegation is
> baseless. Johnson was just trying to divert attention away

A lot of the PMQ questions are foreseeable, and the answers are
scripted. Do you think this was written for Boris, or he ad-libbed?

GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
> On 04/02/2022 20:06, Recliner wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, this has been fact checked multiple times, and the allegation is
>> baseless. Johnson was just trying to divert attention away
>
> A lot of the PMQ questions are foreseeable, and the answers are
> scripted. Do you think this was written for Boris, or he ad-libbed?
>

It was pre-planned. He was advised not to use it, but stupidly went ahead
anyway. It's just the latest in a long string of unforced errors, but the
first where two cabinet ministers have clearly shown their lack of support.
It indicates that his power is draining rapidly.

This, from his former main employer, which he's probably expecting to
provide a good income after his imminent departure from politics:

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/04/cloud-chaos-around-boris-johnson-has-killed-premiership-whether/>

It’s over, whether the Prime Minister realises it or not. With the
departure of Munira Mirza, his head of policy, the guts were finally torn
out of the cadaver that is now his premiership. He may try to hang on, but
these are the actions of a man driven by sheer will to power and adrenalin,
before he notices the fatal wound and drops. How did it come to this?

Just two years ago, Boris Johnson was the golden boy. He had defied his
most vicious critics, won a huge majority and delivered a definitive, if
flawed, Brexit. Behind the scenes, his operation had drawn together old
enemies and friends to work with singular discipline. The hardcore
Remainers had been purged and Dominic Cummings had been lured back into
government by a massive charm offensive.

Everyone knew that Mr Johnson had flaws, but the election result seemed to
prove that they could be overcome. As mayor of London, he had covered for
his disorganisation by installing a team of highly capable deputies (of
which Ms Mirza was one) and his fans suggested he would do the same again.
He might be chaotic, they said, but he knew how to hire. Perhaps, but back
in 2008, it had taken him more than two years to get the right team in
place. The pressures of real government and Covid would never cut him such
slack.

The cracks weren’t immediately apparent, but it didn’t take long. The
moment it all began to fall apart was early March 2020, when the Government
took fright at the reaction to its “herd immunity” strategy and the
devastating footage of overwhelmed hospitals coming out of northern Italy.
The problem wasn’t just the change in policy, but the sheepish denial that
anything had changed.

Still, at that point, Mr Johnson was in denial about the whole pandemic. He
thought it would be over in six months. His top team knuckled down, chasing
data, ventilators, testing supplies, tracing apps and PPE for doctors. When
the Prime Minister announced a national lockdown, no one was more shocked
by the turn of events than Mr Johnson himself.

Then Covid swept through Westminster. Alone with his heavily pregnant and
Covid-stricken fiancée, Mr Johnson reached death’s door before help came.
He survived, spring came and the office, emptied by Covid, filled back up.
Perhaps delirious with relief and feeling themselves to be special and
above reproach, several teams of advisers and officials lost touch with
wider reality, in which most people were still locked at home in fear of
Covid. The sociable No 10 media team, at the centre of this failure, began
selectively to ignore the more arduous and contradictory rules they had
imposed on the country.

Perhaps they were given confidence by the seeming insouciance of many
others in Westminster who were themselves inhabiting the grey area between
work and play. Mr Johnson appears to have passively accepted this state of
affairs.

Meanwhile, Mr Cummings, exhausted by his own bout of Covid, threw himself
back into work, especially the project of establishing an Asian-style
test-and-trace system, which was unfortunately to become the biggest
boondoggle of the whole pandemic. His own personal “Partygate”, the
ludicrous Barnard Castle escapade, came and went, wearing him down further.

Then, that summer, the wheels began to come off. Insiders complained of
chaos in No 10, with the Prime Minister showing up unprepared to meetings
without even a note-taker to hand. A series of U-turns, foreseeable fiascos
like the exam results mess and a bungled press conference where Mr Johnson
forgot his own Covid rules, furthered the impression that all was not well.
Fingers were pointed at Mr Cummings, who was only interested in his own
special projects and would neither perform the role of Mr Johnson’s
consigliere, nor allow anyone else to do so.

In turn, Mr Cummings and his loyalists began to wage a well-documented war
against the Prime Minister’s then-fiancée, openly mocking her. There is no
workplace where this sort of thing could possibly be tolerated and it was
only ever going to end one way. He was ousted because he had begun to
generate more chaos than even his chaotic boss.

This gave Mr Johnson an opportunity to reset. Plans took shape for a
sleeker operation that would stop sleepwalking into political booby-traps,
with a reshuffle of top advisers, Allegra Stratton fronting the press team
and the former civil servant Dan Rosenfield recruited from a smart City job
to get a grip on the disorder that followed Mr Johnson around like a cloud.
But despite some initial optimism, the jigsaw was still hopelessly
incomplete.

Political advisers across Government immediately became aware of an
organisational vacuum even larger than when Mr Cummings was in charge. No
one knew what the mission was. Meetings inside No 10 continued to be
chaotic. There was often no agenda and no structure, the Prime Minister
would make throwaway comments that were carefully minuted, leaving every
attendee with a different idea of what or whether anything had been
decided. Even these “decisions” could be unwound if he was taken aside by
someone later.

Responses to politically explosive issues like the suspension of Owen
Paterson, free school meals or nurses’ pay were not systematically
discussed in a forum where sceptics could play out the scenarios and work
out when they were courting disaster. Instead of putting a stop to bad
policy, the Prime Minister too often avoided confrontation with ministers
and let the public backlash do the job.

At some point, ambitious officials just began to look out for themselves
and those who might have given Mr Johnson difficult messages to head off
problems weren’t even given a chance to voice their opinions. With so much
of No 10’s time spent on damage control, no coherent programme for
government was ever going to emerge and “net zero” alone expanded to fill
the space.

Then came Mr Johnson’s catastrophic mishandling of Partygate, providing the
most damaging example of his mismanagement. Issuing denials that were bound
to be found out and then retreating behind a new, equally flimsy fig leaf
each time one disintegrated, he has been a man on the run for weeks, rather
than a leader capable of leading anyone anywhere. This isn’t going to
change.

Back in 2016 after the Brexit vote, when Mr Johnson’s leadership bid was
torpedoed by Michael Gove, it was because he had proved incapable of
seizing the moment and appeared terrified by his own victory, hiding
instead in trivialities and offering no leadership. But Theresa May’s
incompetence gave him another chance. This time, the right pieces seemed to
be there – his own charm and creativity, Mr Cummings’ fierce intellect and
focus, and the loyalty and huge talents of advisers like Ms Mirza. But it
has all come to nothing. What a terrible, terrible waste.

I get the impression that some (or all) the ones resiging this week
could be the Remoaners who have been leaking things to the media and
working against him.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> I get the impression that some (or all) the ones resiging this week
> could be the Remoaners who have been leaking things to the media and
> working against him.

Utter balderdash

Are you really suggesting that the clown hand-picked 'Remoaners' to be his
closest aides, to run the show for him? Do you really think he's quite
that stupid? We know he's utterly dishonest and disorganised, but few
think him quite as stupid as you are alleging. You must have an even lower
opinion of him than I do.

I hope the Telegraph isn't too much of a left-wing rag by your exalted
standards?
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/04/boris-johnson-aides-resign-downing-street-parties-quit/>

Over the past 14 years, Munira Mirza has been one of the few ever-present
people in Boris Johnson's life.

Ministers and advisers may have come and gone but, from City Hall to
Downing Street, Ms Mirza has been an indispensable part of his team.

The 43-year-old co-wrote the Conservative Party manifesto that delivered Mr
Johnson's 80-seat majority in 2019, and insiders say it is hard to imagine
Number 10 without her.

She has been praised by Mr Johnson as "a powerful nonsense detector", and
was hired as head of the Number 10 policy unit as soon as he became Prime
Minister, having served as one of his deputies when he was Mayor of London.

She said she loved working for him because he was "always fizzing with good
ideas".

When Mr Johnson was asked to name the five women who had most inspired him,
he named Ms Mirza along with Boudica, Malala Yousafz, Kate Bush and his
grandmother. None of his wives, or even his mother, made the list.

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/03/munira-mirzas-resignation-has-cost-boris-johnson-long-term-ally/>

On 04/02/2022 21:39, GB wrote:
> On 04/02/2022 20:06, Recliner wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, this has been fact checked multiple times, and the allegation is
>> baseless. Johnson was just trying to divert attention away
>
> A lot of the PMQ questions are foreseeable, and the answers are
> scripted. Do you think this was written for Boris, or he ad-libbed?
>
>
>

Ad libbed, if you notice he tried to keep rolling out his dodgy
statistics rather than answer the question and when called out on it,
lost his temper.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 04/02/2022 22:36, Recliner wrote:
> This, from his former main employer, which he's probably expecting to
> provide a good income after his imminent departure from politics:
>
> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/04/cloud-chaos-around-boris-johnson-has-killed-premiership-whether/>
>
> It’s over, whether the Prime Minister realises it or not. With the
> departure of Munira Mirza, his head of policy, the guts were finally torn
> out of the cadaver that is now his premiership. He may try to hang on, but
> these are the actions of a man driven by sheer will to power and adrenalin,
> before he notices the fatal wound and drops. How did it come to this?
>

Et Tu, Bruté.

Mind you I note they managed to sneak in a moan about the torygraph's
latest bête noire, net zero.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 04/02/2022 22:55, MB wrote:
> I get the impression that some (or all) the ones resiging this week
> could be the Remoaners who have been leaking things to the media and
> working against him.
>
>
>

Of course you do. When are you going to accept you've won,(fsvo) you've
got Brexit and you have to live with the consequences.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 04/02/2022 23:07, Recliner wrote:
> She has been praised by Mr Johnson as "a powerful nonsense detector", and

Obviously not that good.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <stjcrm$10d7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:22:46 on Fri, 4 Feb
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>
>>>The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,
>>
>>Now you're just taking the piss.
>
>It's just a historical anecdote based on the work I was doing at the

Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
transparent.

>>Its in the Retro section.
>
>Yes, that's most likely. Can you confirm the issue number? What's a

Feb edition with Intel on the front.

>one-sentence summary of the subject matter.

I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04/02/2022 21:39, GB wrote:
>> On 04/02/2022 20:06, Recliner wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed, this has been fact checked multiple times, and the allegation is
>>> baseless. Johnson was just trying to divert attention away
>>
>> A lot of the PMQ questions are foreseeable, and the answers are
>> scripted. Do you think this was written for Boris, or he ad-libbed?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Ad libbed, if you notice he tried to keep rolling out his dodgy
> statistics rather than answer the question and when called out on it,
> lost his temper.
>

No, that attack on Starmer was pre-prepared and discussed with his
advisers, at least one of whom argued strongly against using it. I think it
came from Lynton Crosby, who is now apparently advising the Trolley more
frequently.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04/02/2022 22:36, Recliner wrote:
>> This, from his former main employer, which he's probably expecting to
>> provide a good income after his imminent departure from politics:
>>
>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/04/cloud-chaos-around-boris-johnson-has-killed-premiership-whether/>
>>
>> It’s over, whether the Prime Minister realises it or not. With the
>> departure of Munira Mirza, his head of policy, the guts were finally torn
>> out of the cadaver that is now his premiership. He may try to hang on, but
>> these are the actions of a man driven by sheer will to power and adrenalin,
>> before he notices the fatal wound and drops. How did it come to this?
>>
>
> Et Tu, Bruté.
>
> Mind you I note they managed to sneak in a moan about the torygraph's
> latest bête noire, net zero.

Actually, that's the leader's policy that's most disliked by a lot of
right-wingers, and will probably be the real reason she gets ejected from
her expensively redecorated flat, together with her big and small dogs.
I'm sure a lot of party donors will insist on it.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04/02/2022 21:39, GB wrote:
>> On 04/02/2022 20:06, Recliner wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed, this has been fact checked multiple times, and the allegation is
>>> baseless. Johnson was just trying to divert attention away
>>
>> A lot of the PMQ questions are foreseeable, and the answers are
>> scripted. Do you think this was written for Boris, or he ad-libbed?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Ad libbed, if you notice he tried to keep rolling out his dodgy
> statistics rather than answer the question and when called out on it,
> lost his temper.
>

Lieing to or deliberately misleading the Commons is supposed to lead to an
automatic resignation by ministers, including the PM. He does it
regularly, but refuses to admit he's done it, and there seems to be no
'Hansard Fact Checker' to determine when ministers have lied.

In message <stlndt$1j15$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:35:25 on Sat, 5 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:50:20 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <stjcrm$10d7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:22:46 on Fri, 4 Feb
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>
>>>>The first time I got a meeting with Keir Starmer was when he was DPP,
>>>
>>>Now you're just taking the piss.
>>
>>It's just a historical anecdote based on the work I was doing at the
>
>Yeah yeah, name dropping had nothing to do with it. Sure. You're so
>transparent.

If I was into name-dropping, you'd see it much more often.

>>>Its in the Retro section.
>>
>>Yes, that's most likely. Can you confirm the issue number? What's a
>
>Feb edition with Intel on the front.
>
>>one-sentence summary of the subject matter.
>
>I'm not your secretary. Go buy a copy.

Oh look, you could have typed that one sentence in just as little time
as your unhelpful reply.
--
Roland Perry