British Banter

Oh my!

Change of subject my roof is leaking!!!!

 

Well get a roofer and watch out for the

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

or

WEllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

LOL

 

Oh sssssssssugarr !!!

You'll need towels and bowls or other containers to catch the rain water - couldn't happen at a worst time could it !!! - we have lots of rain and gale force winds too, so I presume you have the same too.

 

Of course we do!

 

I thought it was called "bash the bishop " !!!

 

Yes matey, the word begins with 'B' but it ain't Bishop

 

Now that made me laugh.

 

Apparently Liz Truss, 'our' FOREIGN (???) Secretary doesn't know the difference and can't identify the Baltic Sea from the Black Sea - good 'ere innit ???

 

So the 'Met' have enough Police Officers to investigate alleged threats against Keir Starmer, but, despite Officers actually on the scene and witnessing breaches of the law, they didn't have enough Officers to investigate Bastard Boris and his staff - I wonder why ???


Police probe death threats against Starmer after Johnson’s Savile slur

Helen William, PA
14 February 2022, 0:00 am


Police have launched an investigation into online death threats against Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer after Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s false claim that he failed to prosecute paedophile Jimmy Savile.

Documents, including a batch of messages from users of the Telegram app who appear to be identifiable, were sent to Scotland Yard by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) on Friday.

The Observer reports they include calls for Sir Keir, who along with shadow foreign secretary David Lammy were confronted by a mob in Whitehall last week shouting “paedophile protector”, to be executed.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: “On Friday 11 February, police received a third party report relating to allegations of malicious communications made against a serving Member of Parliament.
“An investigation is ongoing.”

No arrests have yet been made.

A Labour source said: “Of course extremists of all stripes don’t like Keir – he spent years helping to put them and their ilk in prison and keep Britain’s streets safe from them.”

The material from the CCDH, shown to The Observer, includes responses to footage of last week’s incident posted by English Defence League founder Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – better known under his pseudonym Tommy Robinson – and conspiracy theory group Resistance GB.

Last week, in a slur which caused widespread criticism and calls for him to apologise, Mr Johnson accused his rival of failing to prosecute Savile while he was director of public prosecutions.

On Monday, Sir Keir and Mr Lammy, who were walking back from the Ministry of Defence after a briefing on the situation in Ukraine, had to be escorted away from the demonstrators by police.


(PA Graphics)
Although Sir Keir was head of the Crown Prosecution Service in 2009 when a decision was taken not to prosecute Savile, he had no personal involvement in the deliberations.

In an interview with The Times this week, Sir Keir said he had never been called a “paedophile protector” before.

He added: “If others want to argue that this is unconnected with precisely what the Prime Minister said one week before then let them make that case. But they’ll never persuade me that there is no link.”

Mr Johnson tweeted on Monday evening that the “behaviour directed” at the Labour leader was “absolutely disgraceful”.

Critics have said the PM’s jibe is completely unfounded and have blamed the remark for anti-Covid restriction demonstrators targeting Sir Keir outside Parliament.

Health Secretary Sajid Javid, speaking on a visit to east London on Tuesday, said the images of the opposition leader being bundled into a police car to be escorted away from protesters were “completely disgraceful”.

But the Cabinet minister, who has previously distanced himself from the PM’s Savile comments, said “the people that are to blame are the protesters themselves” rather than Mr Johnson.

 

Another day, another court decision, another win for the Good Law Project !!!





In a landmark verdict, the High Court has today found that the process leading to the appointments of both Dido Harding and Mike Coupe was unlawful. It held that Matt Hancock broke the law in appointing Dido Harding as Chair of the National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP) and in appointing Mike Coupe as Director of Testing at Test and Trace (NHSTT). The High Court was also clear that the Prime Minister broke the law in appointing Dido Harding as Chair of Test and Trace.

The Court declared: “The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care did not comply with the public sector equality duty in relation to the decisions how to appoint Baroness Harding as Interim Executive Chair of the NIHP in August 2020 and Mr Coupe as Director of Testing for NHSTT in September 2020.” (paragraph 138 of the judgment)

While the formal declaration reflects only the appointments made by Matt Hancock, the High Court is clear that the process adopted by the Prime Minister was also unlawful (paragraph 116 of the judgment). All three appointments breached the public sector equality duty.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court accepted the argument made by race equality think tank the Runnymede Trust and Good Law Project that the recruitment process adopted by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State ignored the need to eliminate discrimination against the country’s disabled and ethnic minority communities, and to ensure they have equality of opportunity.

In appointing the wife of Boris Johnson’s Anti-Corruption Tsar John Penrose MP to Chair the National Institute for Health Protection, the Government failed to consider the effects on those who, the data shows, are too often shut out of public life. The Government also ignored its own internal guidance, which requires Ministers to consider how discrimination law will be complied with.

The Runnymede Trust and Good Law Project brought the case to highlight what it means to disadvantaged groups for the Government to push its associates and donors into key jobs. The Court’s declaration will have a real impact on how public appointments are made in the future.

The Government must now take seriously its legal and moral obligations to narrow the disadvantages faced by people with disabilities and those of colour. Public appointments must not be made without taking steps to eliminate discrimination and to advance equality of opportunity, even when normal processes don’t apply, for instance during a public health emergency. The Government will now have to be much more careful to make sure its recruitment processes are fair, equitable and open to all.

We want to thank you for your continued support of this case. Without you, we simply couldn’t have done this. We are the arrow, but you are the bow.

Thank you,

Jo Maugham - Good Law Project

 

Who cares, no one,

 

You are ever so wrong !!! - and besides you SHOULD care, since its YOUR money these profligate bastards are playing with !!!

 

We’re taking the government to court over 2 of its woefully inadequate climate strategies. And your help will make a crucial difference to our campaign.

The government’s Net Zero Strategy fails to include any credible explanation of how the UK will meet its legally binding targets to cut carbon emissions.

We think that makes it unlawful because it doesn’t comply with the Climate Change Act – a law that Friends of the Earth helped create in the first place, thanks to the backing of brilliant people like you.

But we can’t go ahead without your support. With your help our lawyers and campaigners can challenge these plans in court. And shine a spotlight on the case that gets the world to sit up and take notice.

 

We are Maasai Elders from Northern Tanzania. Any day now, tens of thousands of our community could be evicted from our ancestral lands to make way for tourism and trophy hunting. Last time Avaaz raised the alarm, the President shelved the plan. So we urgently need you to stand with us again! Our new President is attending an Europe-Africa Summit in Brussels in hours – and global public pressure can change her mind, but time is running out. Sign now to help us protect our lands!
Sign Now!
Dear friends,
We are Maasai elders from Northern Tanzania. Any day now tens of thousands of our community could be forced off our ancestral lands to make way for elite tourism and trophy hunting.

We urgently need your support.

The last time we faced these threats, more than 2 million Avaaz members rallied behind our call! Together, we created such a storm that the President promised never to evict us from our lands.

But now, there’s a new head of state and plans are being revived! President Samia Suluhu may not listen to us, but we know she’ll respond to media and public pressure – to all of you! She is in Europe right now ahead of a major Africa-Europe Summit, so we only have hours to deliver our global call. Join us now – and show her the world is standing with the Maasai!
Sign now to stand with us
Our Indigenous Maasai communities have looked after East Africa's land, and wildlife, for centuries, co-existing peacefully. But successive governments have tried to kick us out of our homes under the guise of tourism and conservation.

We’ve tried everything, even taking the government to court for violating our rights. But now, public attention has waned and an eviction could happen any moment – destroying our culture, leaving us homeless, and putting our wildlife at risk. Politicians are promising to find a “solution”, but losing our land could mean the extinction of our community.

So we’re looking to you for hope. We know our new President wants to engage in dialogue with the international community – that’s why she’s travelled to France to meet President Macron. It’s the perfect moment to show her that evicting us Maasai would be a global PR nightmare. We can change her mind with your support, but time’s running out – sign now!

Sign now to stand with us

Many in our community have said they’d rather die than leave their homes. But this is a choice no-one should have to make. We know that together we’re stronger - after all, we’ve changed the course of history before. Let’s do it again and reimagine a world where humans and nature can co-exist together.

With hope and determination

The Maasai elders of Ngorongoro District, with the whole Avaaz team

 

In a functioning democracy, people must be able to hold the powerful to account – but the Government is attempting to rewrite the rules to make itself untouchable.

At the top of its agenda is scrapping our Human Rights Act. This is an unashamed power grab that will hide it and all future governments from accountability for their actions.

Join Liberty today and we can defend the Human Rights Act.

JOIN LIBERTY →
Liberty has used the Human Rights Act to support LGBT military veterans to get their medals back after they were stripped away from them because of their sexuality. We’ve helped unmarried women rightfully receive their widow’s pension after the death of their partners where the existing law stopped them. The Human Rights Act has changed many lives for the better.

But the Government wants to scrap it for a so-called British Bill of Rights that strips away vital protections.

Under the Human Rights Act, public authorities must respect everyone’s rights. If they don’t, people can enforce their rights in British courts.

The Government’s plans will remove this obligation on public authorities, make human rights conditional on citizenship, and make it near-impossible for anyone to get to court and see justice.

Let’s get this straight: the only people who benefit from weakening human rights are those in power. And that is a government that is systematically attempting to shut down all avenues of accountability.

Its Policing Bill will criminalise protesters who dare stand up to power.

Its plans for voter ID will stop people getting to the polling booth.

And its Judicial Review Bill will make it harder for people to challenge the Government’s unlawful actions in court – and make it so that even winning your case won’t be worthwhile.

The only thing that’s clearer than the Government’s agenda is that it buckles under public pressure and u-turns.

So the stronger our voice, the more likely it is that we can stop these reforms in their tracks.

You can become a Liberty member today from as little as £1 per month. Together we can end this democratic crisis and save the Human Rights Act.
Thank you for your support.

Martha Spurrier

Director

 

Are we. at long last, about to get rid of the monarchy once and for all and become a republic ???


The charts that make grim reading for the Royal Family

Matilda Long
19 February 2022, 11:45 am
On 2-5 June 2022, Britain will enjoy a four-day bank holiday in honour of Queen Elizabeth's Platinum Jubilee.

Among the bumper calendar of festivities will be a televised pop concert at Buckingham Palace, a Platinum Jubilee Pageant procession, and a neighbourhood Big Jubilee Lunch where members of the public are invited to celebrate together in a country-wide street party.

However for younger Brits, the long weekend is more likely to be an opportunity for two extra lie-ins than a chance to honour the monarchy.

Amid a series of royal shocks and scandals, young adults' support on the Royal Family have tumbled.

In July 2019, nearly half of 18-24 year-olds said thought having the monarchy was a good thing for Britain, according to polling by YouGov. In November 2021, that figure had dropped to one in five.

Over the same period, the proportion of this age group who said the monarchy was a bad thing for Britain almost doubled from 9 to 17%.


Young people's opinion of the monarchy is getting worse (Yahoo News UK/Flourish/YouGov)
In a further worrying sign for the future of the royals, more young people now think Britain should have an elected head of state rather than a monarchy for the first time.

Opinions on the issue have shifted significantly among 18-24s in recent years, with younger people preferring a monarch as recently as three years ago.


Young people would prefer an elected head of state to a monarch (Yahoo News UK/Flourish/YouGov)
In 2019, a quarter of this age group said they would prefer an elected head of state. By 2021, the figure was 41%, compared to 31% who would prefer a monarch.

The stark change in attitudes has coincided with a tumultuous time for The Firm.

In late 2019, Prince Andrew gave his disastrous interview to Newsnight's Emily Maitlis.

The Duke of York's apparent attempt to distance himself from his friendship with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein backfired spectacularly.
His claim that he maintained a relationship with a known sex offender because of his “tendency to be too honourable” was savaged by the press, as was his apparent lack of empathy for Epstein's victims.

His defence against accusations that he had sex with Virginia Giuffre, who says she was trafficked and coerced into doing so, because he was at Pizza Express in Woking, was widely ridiculed.

Just days later, it was confirmed the Queen had stripped Andrew of his royal duties.

In 2021, Giuffre started legal action against Andrew, for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager, a claim the Duke denies.

This week it emerged that the case had been settled out of court, with Andrew paying a sum understood to amount to millions of dollars. He has consistently denied the allegations levelled at him and the settlement does include any admission of guilt.

The Harry and Meghan effect
In 2020, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced their decision to step down as senior royals and to "work to become financially independent".

The split turned toxic for the family, with months of hostile briefings in the press and rumours of an unfixable rift between Harry and his brother, William, and father, Charles.
The couple's explosive interview with Oprah in 2021 engulfed the royals in further controversy, after Meghan claimed there were "several conversations" within the monarchy about how dark her baby's skin might be.

The Duchess of Sussex further alleged that she was refused help after her mental health deteriorated to the point she "didn't want to be alive any more".

Opinion on the Sussexes is sharply divided by age.

For the senior royals – The Queen, Prince Charles, Camilla, William and Kate – people are more likely to have a high opinion of them the older they get.


Older people have the most positive opinion about all the senior royals (Yahoo News UK/Flourish/YouGov)
For Harry and Meghan, the opposite is true.

The Sussexes are popular among 18-24s, with more than half having a positive opinion of both Meghan and Harry.


Harry and Meghan are more popular among younger people (Yahoo News UK/Flourish/YouGov)
Among over 65s, 21% have a positive opinion of Prince Harry, and just 13% have a positive opinion of Meghan.

The figures suggest that the schism between the Sussexes and the rest of the Royal Family are part of the reason young people to turn their back on the monarchy.

The future of the monarchy
When it comes to Charles as King, the public as a whole are not convinced, with young people once again least likely to be supportive.


A third of people think Charles will be a good King, dropping to 17% among 18-24s. (Yahoo News UK/Flourish/YouGov)
Overall, 34% of people think Charles will be a good King, compared to 17% of 18-24s. People in this age group are also most likely to think he will be a bad King, at 48%.

As to whether Camilla should become Queen, young people are apathetic.

Asked whether she should become Queen, have the title of Princess Consort, or have no title at all, 40% of 18-24s said they didn't know.

The decline in support for the royals is by no means terminal, but staying relevant to future generations is something that needs to be addressed urgently.

This will become particularly important when the line of succession passes to Charles.

The Queen is without doubt the most stabilising force of the House of Windsor, and the Royal Family needs to be prepared to deal with a future without her.

 

VLAD - Do you think you can make you point - and Post the links'?
Copy, Pasting stuff - especially when to go 'Full size' with the Images make it difficult to read through and then comment upon
- The quoted post can be read just as intended but too diversifed when it comes to commenting on, (e.g. Harry and Megan, The Randy Andy case, the Queen Consort position, the larger state 'of the firm' - Post QE2 passing)
It detracts from the point you are trying to make by adopting too much of a 'Splatter-gun' approach

 

Well since you and others have been ignoring my posts for a couple of years now, why raise the issue now ??? - if you don't like it, continue to ignore what I post !!!