Out With The Bold..In With The Old
Quote from DavidFullard on November 13, 2023, 4:53 pmSo, Sunak gave in to the baying wolves and sacked Braverman. A huge mistake in my opinion. In doing so he has demonstrated his lack of understanding of the mood of the majority of the nation.
Suella Braverman’s criticism of the Met was not unfounded, witness their brutal OTT handling of the Sarah Everard Pilgrimage versus their softly softly approach towards the BLM protests. The heavy criticism of the Met’s alleged systemic racism undoubtedly playing a huge part in their attitude towards the latter events
The Mets handling, or rather mishandling, of the ‘Just Stop Oil’ protests that saw police arrest frustrated motorists blocked from going about their legal way whilst cosying up ( literally) to the law breaking protesters is another example of Ms Braverman’s rightful indignation concerning The Met.
The Met’s belief that protesters calling for a ‘jihad’ isn’t incitement can surely only be based on their discovery of an islamic Thesaurus that offers other more peaceful definitions of the word, alternative meanings hitherto unknown to the vast majority of us but enough to prevent the arrest of those publicly shouting it.Suella Braverman also knows both legal and illegal migration needs curtailing. As more and more EU countries turn their backs on the Schengen Agreement in a bid to fight terrorism, illegal immigration etc by closing their erstwhile ‘open borders’ the PM sacks THE person most likely to turn the tide of immigration in the UK.
And if that wasn’t enough Sunak makes a a former PM, who resigned after losing the Brexit Referendum, Foreign Secretary. I can only assume Cameron will be elevated to the Lords in order to enter Government. It’s a classic case of double jeopardy. Pander to the Opposition and a few mealy mouthed Tories by sacking Braverman; and then handing qqqeStarmer a further gilt edged knife to stab oneself in the back by saying ‘I don’t have enough capable Tory MPs to support my mini reshuffle ergo I’ll bring back an old ‘has been’.
Sadly I now believe that Labour may well perform a ‘Reverse Boris’ at the next GE by not only beating the Tories but routing them.
So, Sunak gave in to the baying wolves and sacked Braverman. A huge mistake in my opinion. In doing so he has demonstrated his lack of understanding of the mood of the majority of the nation.
Suella Braverman’s criticism of the Met was not unfounded, witness their brutal OTT handling of the Sarah Everard Pilgrimage versus their softly softly approach towards the BLM protests. The heavy criticism of the Met’s alleged systemic racism undoubtedly playing a huge part in their attitude towards the latter events
The Mets handling, or rather mishandling, of the ‘Just Stop Oil’ protests that saw police arrest frustrated motorists blocked from going about their legal way whilst cosying up ( literally) to the law breaking protesters is another example of Ms Braverman’s rightful indignation concerning The Met.
The Met’s belief that protesters calling for a ‘jihad’ isn’t incitement can surely only be based on their discovery of an islamic Thesaurus that offers other more peaceful definitions of the word, alternative meanings hitherto unknown to the vast majority of us but enough to prevent the arrest of those publicly shouting it.
Suella Braverman also knows both legal and illegal migration needs curtailing. As more and more EU countries turn their backs on the Schengen Agreement in a bid to fight terrorism, illegal immigration etc by closing their erstwhile ‘open borders’ the PM sacks THE person most likely to turn the tide of immigration in the UK.
And if that wasn’t enough Sunak makes a a former PM, who resigned after losing the Brexit Referendum, Foreign Secretary. I can only assume Cameron will be elevated to the Lords in order to enter Government. It’s a classic case of double jeopardy. Pander to the Opposition and a few mealy mouthed Tories by sacking Braverman; and then handing qqqeStarmer a further gilt edged knife to stab oneself in the back by saying ‘I don’t have enough capable Tory MPs to support my mini reshuffle ergo I’ll bring back an old ‘has been’.
Sadly I now believe that Labour may well perform a ‘Reverse Boris’ at the next GE by not only beating the Tories but routing them.
Quote from jkwebster06 on November 13, 2023, 9:17 pmI've got to disagree David - Braverman HAD to go, she was becoming too divisive and by rejecting No 10's request to redact some of her letter prior to it being published in The Times she effectively stuck two fingers up to the PM. Yes, some of her ideas were good but none have actually come to fruition - court ruling on Rwanda on Wednesday might succeed, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Cameron, now a peer & therefore eligible to return despite not being an MP, is a shrewd move by Rishi Sunak in my opinion. He has considerable experience & crucially, important contacts he'll need to use as Foreign Secretary - he's nobody's fool when it comes to negotiating. Yes, he had to resign over his Brexit stance but hey, he's a politician, all of whom "bend with the wind"!
The choice to bring Cameron on board will stymy the Right wing of the Party somewhat, moving the focus more Centrally which I believe will attract more voters back providing the in-fighting stops.
Esther McVey as Minister without Portfolio ( in this case, aka Minister for Common Sense) is another good move, her brief to get rid of wokyism (sic), being a true Scouser she will bring forthright views around the Cabinet table.
Yes, a big re shuffle today, much needed IMO, and despite at least one Tory MP submitting her "No Confidence" letter to the 1922 committee, I believe it will worry Starmer & Co much more than than those on the Right of the Party.
I've got to disagree David - Braverman HAD to go, she was becoming too divisive and by rejecting No 10's request to redact some of her letter prior to it being published in The Times she effectively stuck two fingers up to the PM. Yes, some of her ideas were good but none have actually come to fruition - court ruling on Rwanda on Wednesday might succeed, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Cameron, now a peer & therefore eligible to return despite not being an MP, is a shrewd move by Rishi Sunak in my opinion. He has considerable experience & crucially, important contacts he'll need to use as Foreign Secretary - he's nobody's fool when it comes to negotiating. Yes, he had to resign over his Brexit stance but hey, he's a politician, all of whom "bend with the wind"!
The choice to bring Cameron on board will stymy the Right wing of the Party somewhat, moving the focus more Centrally which I believe will attract more voters back providing the in-fighting stops.
Esther McVey as Minister without Portfolio ( in this case, aka Minister for Common Sense) is another good move, her brief to get rid of wokyism (sic), being a true Scouser she will bring forthright views around the Cabinet table.
Yes, a big re shuffle today, much needed IMO, and despite at least one Tory MP submitting her "No Confidence" letter to the 1922 committee, I believe it will worry Starmer & Co much more than than those on the Right of the Party.
Quote from DavidFullard on November 14, 2023, 2:37 pmThe art of debate lives! Well John, I guess if we had to disagree about anything why not let it be about a woman!
Ms Braverman’s undoing was her criticism of The Met. Justified and evidenced criticism it must be said. But decisive quickly becomes divisive in the media. Honesty is often a hostage to fortune and, in this case, the strength of character of the PM. You write, correctly, that she refused to remove parts of her letter to The Times in acquiescence to the PM’s wishes. But politics isn’t like the military where the Colonel’s orders are never challenged by his subordinates. The honour and propriety of the military simply doesn’t exist in the murky arena of politics. Sunak would have shown far greater strength of character by NOT sacking her than by doing so.
I won’t re-rehearse the several instances of bias in the policing of different protests shown by the Met. Suffice it to say Braverman’s motives in speaking out were mainly designed to ensure the Armistice Parade and Sunday Memorial Service were not disrupted by pro Palestinian protest marches. Previous such marches WERE mainly peaceful but were also ridden with hate crimes ( Kill the Jews) placards of a similar disgusting ilk and megaphone amplified chants calling for a Jihad. The few post march arrests were made only AFTER she made her point! During the weekend protests those same hate crimes and amplified chants of ‘Kill the Jews and ‘Jihad’ chants were evidenced and acknowledged by the Met. It was however decided that arresting the perpetrators of those crimes would provoke a reaction. Yet in the recent past the Met thought nothing of dragging a military veteran out of his home, surrounded by 8 officers, handcuffing and arresting him for …’liking’ online a ‘corrupted’ version of the Gay Pride flag.
The Met NEEDS criticising! It IS systemically racist, it has too many misogynists, thugs, wife beaters, corrupt serving officers in its ranks, let’s not even dwell on the rapists and the odd murderer. Apart from the opening 4 words of my last sentence the rest is borne out by the Commissioner himself! The leadership of the Met is ridden with Wokeism, it is overly politicised and a slave to vociferous minority groups. Bravermann asked the Commissioner to view the footage of the previous marches with the anti Semitic/ Jihad chants and posters and request a ban on the marches for that weekend only. Sunak did the same! The Commissioner chose to ignore both. And NOW this Government is discussing legislating a ban on protest marches nationwide on Armistice Day and the Sunday Memorial Service day.Turning to the totally surreal appointment of Cameron. He is a joke figure within the Tory Party membership ranks. This is a former PM who so badly miscalculated the Brexit Referendum…he even made promises to the EU Parliament that the UK wouldn’t vote to leave and we would pay more into the EU coffers than before! And then after the electorate spoke he resigned. So Sunak makes him a Lord and Foreign Secretary. He might as well have proclaimed publicly that he couldn’t find a single Tory MP amongst the 350 in Parliament to fill that post. Labour are wetting themselves with glee. As for it all gaining Tory votes here’s my prediction…you can hold me to it.
There will be a Labour landslide at the next GE of tsunami proportions. We will experience a political ‘Reverse Boris’ moment, Labour will amass over 400 seats. The Lib/Dems will mop up the disillusioned Tory voters that refuse to vote Labour and also win more seats. The Tories will be relegated to their erstwhile ‘Tony Blair’ status in Parliament. Hopelessly outvoted! Their only glimpse of revival will be the almost certain failure of Starmer and co to fare any better once in power.
My prediction is a win/win for me. I will either be proven right OR my worst fears will not manifest themselves and things won’t turn out as bad as I predict. I really hope I am proven wrong!
Stay well, old friend!
The art of debate lives! Well John, I guess if we had to disagree about anything why not let it be about a woman!
Ms Braverman’s undoing was her criticism of The Met. Justified and evidenced criticism it must be said. But decisive quickly becomes divisive in the media. Honesty is often a hostage to fortune and, in this case, the strength of character of the PM. You write, correctly, that she refused to remove parts of her letter to The Times in acquiescence to the PM’s wishes. But politics isn’t like the military where the Colonel’s orders are never challenged by his subordinates. The honour and propriety of the military simply doesn’t exist in the murky arena of politics. Sunak would have shown far greater strength of character by NOT sacking her than by doing so.
I won’t re-rehearse the several instances of bias in the policing of different protests shown by the Met. Suffice it to say Braverman’s motives in speaking out were mainly designed to ensure the Armistice Parade and Sunday Memorial Service were not disrupted by pro Palestinian protest marches. Previous such marches WERE mainly peaceful but were also ridden with hate crimes ( Kill the Jews) placards of a similar disgusting ilk and megaphone amplified chants calling for a Jihad. The few post march arrests were made only AFTER she made her point! During the weekend protests those same hate crimes and amplified chants of ‘Kill the Jews and ‘Jihad’ chants were evidenced and acknowledged by the Met. It was however decided that arresting the perpetrators of those crimes would provoke a reaction. Yet in the recent past the Met thought nothing of dragging a military veteran out of his home, surrounded by 8 officers, handcuffing and arresting him for …’liking’ online a ‘corrupted’ version of the Gay Pride flag.
The Met NEEDS criticising! It IS systemically racist, it has too many misogynists, thugs, wife beaters, corrupt serving officers in its ranks, let’s not even dwell on the rapists and the odd murderer. Apart from the opening 4 words of my last sentence the rest is borne out by the Commissioner himself! The leadership of the Met is ridden with Wokeism, it is overly politicised and a slave to vociferous minority groups. Bravermann asked the Commissioner to view the footage of the previous marches with the anti Semitic/ Jihad chants and posters and request a ban on the marches for that weekend only. Sunak did the same! The Commissioner chose to ignore both. And NOW this Government is discussing legislating a ban on protest marches nationwide on Armistice Day and the Sunday Memorial Service day.
Turning to the totally surreal appointment of Cameron. He is a joke figure within the Tory Party membership ranks. This is a former PM who so badly miscalculated the Brexit Referendum…he even made promises to the EU Parliament that the UK wouldn’t vote to leave and we would pay more into the EU coffers than before! And then after the electorate spoke he resigned. So Sunak makes him a Lord and Foreign Secretary. He might as well have proclaimed publicly that he couldn’t find a single Tory MP amongst the 350 in Parliament to fill that post. Labour are wetting themselves with glee. As for it all gaining Tory votes here’s my prediction…you can hold me to it.
There will be a Labour landslide at the next GE of tsunami proportions. We will experience a political ‘Reverse Boris’ moment, Labour will amass over 400 seats. The Lib/Dems will mop up the disillusioned Tory voters that refuse to vote Labour and also win more seats. The Tories will be relegated to their erstwhile ‘Tony Blair’ status in Parliament. Hopelessly outvoted! Their only glimpse of revival will be the almost certain failure of Starmer and co to fare any better once in power.
My prediction is a win/win for me. I will either be proven right OR my worst fears will not manifest themselves and things won’t turn out as bad as I predict. I really hope I am proven wrong!
Stay well, old friend!
Quote from jkwebster06 on November 19, 2023, 9:53 pmI stand by my assertion that sacking Braverman was the right course of action, although a woman scorned is a dangerous animal & I bet she will publicly try to humiliate Rishi Sunak, even to the extent of ousting him as PM given the opportunity.
What I can say is that should Suella Braverman ever become Leader of the Party, even PM, she would never get my vote - yes, she had some good intentions but failed to realise the impact some of them would have, in other words, she was unable to think things through. Not what should be expected of someone in High Office whose every word is pored over by all & sundry.
Cameron ? I think it was a good move, and a brave one, from the PM. He might need reining in occasionally but I do believe Rishi Sunak has the guts to keep him in line. Cameron has stature in the eyes of many, & his experience can only be for the good.
I still don't believe enough has been done yet to reverse the expected losses at the next GE, although Wednesday's Autumn Statement might garner some of the lost support.
The Met ? Totally agree, it's full of bad 'uns which destroys the credibility the good 'uns deserve, although the current Commissioner comes across as a wet fa*t, lacking decisive authority IMO.
Anyway, that's my views which I'm open to debating ! John (JKW)
I stand by my assertion that sacking Braverman was the right course of action, although a woman scorned is a dangerous animal & I bet she will publicly try to humiliate Rishi Sunak, even to the extent of ousting him as PM given the opportunity.
What I can say is that should Suella Braverman ever become Leader of the Party, even PM, she would never get my vote - yes, she had some good intentions but failed to realise the impact some of them would have, in other words, she was unable to think things through. Not what should be expected of someone in High Office whose every word is pored over by all & sundry.
Cameron ? I think it was a good move, and a brave one, from the PM. He might need reining in occasionally but I do believe Rishi Sunak has the guts to keep him in line. Cameron has stature in the eyes of many, & his experience can only be for the good.
I still don't believe enough has been done yet to reverse the expected losses at the next GE, although Wednesday's Autumn Statement might garner some of the lost support.
The Met ? Totally agree, it's full of bad 'uns which destroys the credibility the good 'uns deserve, although the current Commissioner comes across as a wet fa*t, lacking decisive authority IMO.
Anyway, that's my views which I'm open to debating ! John (JKW)
Quote from DavidFullard on November 23, 2023, 1:38 pmI wonder if Cameron’s close ties and personal friendship with Lex Greensill or the recently started HMRC investigation into whether or not he paid all his taxes arising from that friendship will come back first to haunt him. According to reports Greensill cost UK taxpayers £5 billion and Cameron was lobbying Sunak (when Chancellor) et al to pour money into the company when ( allegedly unbeknown to him) the company was already bankrupt.
I simply cannot understand why in the world Sunak, KNOWING first hand of Cameron’s close personal ties and friendship with Greensill, would ennoble him AND make him Foreign Minister. A veritable gift to Smary Starmer.
In my ( not so humble) opinion that decision will not only come back to bite Sunak but will exacerbate even further his demise at the next GE.The Autumn Statement is better than expected, it is balanced and, despite the usual biased BBC reports on it, welcome. Sadly almost certainly too little too late. IMHO!
I wonder if Cameron’s close ties and personal friendship with Lex Greensill or the recently started HMRC investigation into whether or not he paid all his taxes arising from that friendship will come back first to haunt him. According to reports Greensill cost UK taxpayers £5 billion and Cameron was lobbying Sunak (when Chancellor) et al to pour money into the company when ( allegedly unbeknown to him) the company was already bankrupt.
I simply cannot understand why in the world Sunak, KNOWING first hand of Cameron’s close personal ties and friendship with Greensill, would ennoble him AND make him Foreign Minister. A veritable gift to Smary Starmer.
In my ( not so humble) opinion that decision will not only come back to bite Sunak but will exacerbate even further his demise at the next GE.
The Autumn Statement is better than expected, it is balanced and, despite the usual biased BBC reports on it, welcome. Sadly almost certainly too little too late. IMHO!
Quote from Mick (Stockton) on November 29, 2023, 8:20 amDavid & John it has been six days since your last posts and although I am not a great lover of Politics it's better than no banter at all. But I think Freddy has a valid point when it comes down to there not being enough banter on the site? I - like yourselves I'm sure - think that there are an awful lot of "LOOKERS IN" who have a "quick peek"! do not want to hear us rabbiting on about Politics and therefor do not "join in" and I am talking government politics and not the "day to day stuff"......thoughts .........?
Mickey S.
David & John it has been six days since your last posts and although I am not a great lover of Politics it's better than no banter at all. But I think Freddy has a valid point when it comes down to there not being enough banter on the site? I - like yourselves I'm sure - think that there are an awful lot of "LOOKERS IN" who have a "quick peek"! do not want to hear us rabbiting on about Politics and therefor do not "join in" and I am talking government politics and not the "day to day stuff"......thoughts .........?
Mickey S.
Quote from fpeall on November 29, 2023, 10:19 amMick I was about to ask where the old and bold have got to and you have asked the question. We now have a very user friendly forum thanks to the generosity of some of our esteemed members and this new software indicates currently 99 people have looked at this particular topic so please make use of it. You know what they say 'if you don't use it you lose it". Freddy
Mick I was about to ask where the old and bold have got to and you have asked the question. We now have a very user friendly forum thanks to the generosity of some of our esteemed members and this new software indicates currently 99 people have looked at this particular topic so please make use of it. You know what they say 'if you don't use it you lose it". Freddy
Quote from DavidFullard on November 29, 2023, 5:46 pmMick, you asked for my thoughts and, in the spirit of open, collegial debate, here they are.
1, Banter is fun but so too is intellectual debate…in my book at least. Aged 76 I still have all my marbles and, whilst always enjoying a bit of banter, I also take interest in what is going on in the world. One of the great attractions of this site to me has always been the opportunity to debate topics ( political or otherwise) with like minded chums devoid of the trolling and nastiness prevalent in so many fb sites2. I think your assertion that ‘lookers in’ don’t want to hear us rabbiting on about politics’ is subjective, not to say conjecture. The fact IS none of us know why so many folk seem to read posts without contributing. I accept you aren’t necessarily a political debater but there have been enough other topics …many of which were originated by John or myself …which also failed to elicit responses other than from the small cabal of usual contributors. Since the site began and long before I joined it there have only ever been a few stalwart contributors. Politics or banter, intellectual debate or inanities there has always been a very large surfeit of readers versus contributors.
3.The ‘other’ 3DG fb, which is almost completely ‘sans’ politics, seems to fare absolutely no better than ours. A smattering of occasional reminisces, discussions on meetings and mini ‘obits’ or updates on members who are ill dominate the sparse exchanges on the site.4. I have always tried to help keep the site ‘active’ even when not in the best of health and whilst balancing my contributions on here against my on-line work in the field of Pancreatic Cancer and the mentoring I afford to a few people.
5. Did you perhaps consider starting a ‘banter thread’ yourself or even consider becoming a more frequent poster to ‘liven’ things up and help surmount the reticence of those non contributors you feel are reluctant to join in? Just a thought.Finally, almost 100 have viewed this topic…..or have I misunderstood that?
Freddy,
My ‘absence’ from the site for the past 6 days, a ‘few quick peeks’ notwithstanding, is due to;
1. I noticed how many of the posts on the new site were from John and myself ergo I thought ‘give others a chance’.
2. I have been quite unwell these past few days.
I can’t speak for John, but I know he also has health issues to contend with.
I would just add ‘the old and the bold’ sobriquet encompasses us all, not just JKW and myself albeit I am not suggesting you are intimating otherwise!
3. You asked us recently if we wanted the site to continue. JKW, Mick, Bob, Cliff and myself were united in our support for that to happen. You will recall I qualified my support by asserting for the site to remain active and worthwhile it required ongoing contributions. Now, we have this brilliant new site which is easy to navigate, it is supported by far better technology and after a brief but intense flurry of posts, activity has already waned. Is that because John and I haven’t posted in that period?
4. I will absolutely continue to contribute but the site needs ALL of us to play a part in keeping it active, lively and topical with a diverse mixture of subjects. There is room for politics AND banter…isn’t there?
David.
Mick, you asked for my thoughts and, in the spirit of open, collegial debate, here they are.
1, Banter is fun but so too is intellectual debate…in my book at least. Aged 76 I still have all my marbles and, whilst always enjoying a bit of banter, I also take interest in what is going on in the world. One of the great attractions of this site to me has always been the opportunity to debate topics ( political or otherwise) with like minded chums devoid of the trolling and nastiness prevalent in so many fb sites
2. I think your assertion that ‘lookers in’ don’t want to hear us rabbiting on about politics’ is subjective, not to say conjecture. The fact IS none of us know why so many folk seem to read posts without contributing. I accept you aren’t necessarily a political debater but there have been enough other topics …many of which were originated by John or myself …which also failed to elicit responses other than from the small cabal of usual contributors. Since the site began and long before I joined it there have only ever been a few stalwart contributors. Politics or banter, intellectual debate or inanities there has always been a very large surfeit of readers versus contributors.
3.The ‘other’ 3DG fb, which is almost completely ‘sans’ politics, seems to fare absolutely no better than ours. A smattering of occasional reminisces, discussions on meetings and mini ‘obits’ or updates on members who are ill dominate the sparse exchanges on the site.
4. I have always tried to help keep the site ‘active’ even when not in the best of health and whilst balancing my contributions on here against my on-line work in the field of Pancreatic Cancer and the mentoring I afford to a few people.
5. Did you perhaps consider starting a ‘banter thread’ yourself or even consider becoming a more frequent poster to ‘liven’ things up and help surmount the reticence of those non contributors you feel are reluctant to join in? Just a thought.
Finally, almost 100 have viewed this topic…..or have I misunderstood that?
Freddy,
My ‘absence’ from the site for the past 6 days, a ‘few quick peeks’ notwithstanding, is due to;
1. I noticed how many of the posts on the new site were from John and myself ergo I thought ‘give others a chance’.
2. I have been quite unwell these past few days.
I can’t speak for John, but I know he also has health issues to contend with.
I would just add ‘the old and the bold’ sobriquet encompasses us all, not just JKW and myself albeit I am not suggesting you are intimating otherwise!
3. You asked us recently if we wanted the site to continue. JKW, Mick, Bob, Cliff and myself were united in our support for that to happen. You will recall I qualified my support by asserting for the site to remain active and worthwhile it required ongoing contributions. Now, we have this brilliant new site which is easy to navigate, it is supported by far better technology and after a brief but intense flurry of posts, activity has already waned. Is that because John and I haven’t posted in that period?
4. I will absolutely continue to contribute but the site needs ALL of us to play a part in keeping it active, lively and topical with a diverse mixture of subjects. There is room for politics AND banter…isn’t there?
David.