Discussion of article from the Mail's columnists and RightMinds contributors
:sunglasses: 50 % :cry: 50 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#541236
But I believe the parents' desire for their son to be flown to Rome should have been respected by the doctors and Mr Justice Hayden, even if there is very little chance of Alfie living much longer.

Well, that's just the Daily Mail mindset in a nutshell, isn't it? If you believe it strongly enough, feel passionate enough about it and fight hard enough then that trumps all facts and experts.



They appear to be loving people. (Their intention, reported yesterday, to pursue private prosecutions against three doctors for 'conspiracy to murder' sounds excessive, but is perhaps understandable in the circumstances.)

No. It is not the slightest bit understandable that they want to try and get the doctors done for murder.
 
By Catkins
Membership Days Posts
#541255
No. It is not the slightest bit understandable that they want to try and get the doctors done for murder.
I think Christian Concern and Christian Legal Centre may be using the parents and whipping them up in their grief. Not only giving them false hope, but issuing dodgy legal advice which if followed would have left the parents in contempt of court.

Edit: Yes they definitely are. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/953.html
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#541288
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I imagine I'm an intellect on Mr Glover's level, but if he could explain how doctors here meet the condition of malice aforethought that would make any murder-related charge "understandable", I'd be most grateful.

It's horrible for the parents and all concerned, and I'm sure the doctors involved aren't exactly skipping down the corridor either. The facts do remain that this wee cub isn't going to get better, and the longer he's held in this limbo, the worse for everyone when he eventually slips on.
youngian, Cyclist liked this
 
By Catkins
Membership Days Posts
#541295
And it turns out that Pavel Stroilov, the CLC 'lawyer' who actually isn't, and who provided the family with terrible legal advice, is a former UKIP employee, mates with Farage and worked for Gerard Batten. Not a party with any love for the NHS.
 
By Big Arnold
Membership Days Posts
#541417
But I believe the parents' desire for their son to be flown to Rome should have been respected by the doctors and Mr Justice Hayden, even if there is very little chance of Alfie living much longer.
Not "living" in any meaningful sense.
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#541921
In the very very long running attempt to get rid of Bercow they can smell blood:



STEPHEN GLOVER: The Speaker is a national embarrassment and if he isn't kicked out soon, the Commons will be damaged
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... -soon.html

Sometimes I make a mental list of aspects of Britain that make me feel ashamed, and which I would, if at all possible, conceal from a refined foreign friend.

Our trains (most of the time). England football fans who boo during the national anthem of a visiting team.

Our city centres on a Saturday night, when inebriated young men and women make spectacles of themselves. Patients waiting for hours on trolleys to be seen by a doctor.

And John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons. Fortunately, I am seldom obliged to observe this pompous little man in person.

But whenever I see him on television, or read about his latest absurdity in a newspaper, I marvel that a nation which prides itself on its sense of irony could have installed him in such an elevated position.

How can our venerable Mother of Parliaments — which even now people abroad still admire — be presided over by this self-important and often partisan popinjay?

The trouble is that, supported as he is by compliant MPs, many of them Labour, our chief national embarrassment has acquired a kind of permanence.

When elected Speaker in June 2009, he undertook to serve no more than nine years.

By my calculations, he should be on his way next month. But after last year's General Election he indicated he would remain until the end of this Parliament, which could be as far away as 2022.

Will we ever be rid of him? Possibly. There is a sliver of hope, thanks largely to investigations by BBC2's Newsnight into allegations of bullying in the Commons. Speaker Bercow has been fingered.

A few months ago, Newsnight accused him and two other MPs — Tory Mark Pritchard and Labour's Paul Farrelly — of intimidating Commons staff. All three deny the charges.

The allegation against the Speaker was that he had bullied Kate Emms, his private secretary from 2010 until 2011.

She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after less than a year working for him, during which time she was subjected to sustained bullying. Mr Bercow emphatically denies the charge.

Now a new allegation against him has erupted which may be even more serious since it involves public money.

Angus Sinclair, who preceded Kate Emms as Mr Bercow's secretary between 2009 and 2010, claims he shouted and swore at him, and attempted to intimidate him physically.

Mr Sinclair describes a Speaker not always in control of his temper, who was prone to thumping tables, and once flung a mobile phone with such force at Mr Sinclair's desk that it broke into pieces. Mr Bercow denies these allegations, too.

What should we make of them? Mr Sinclair has an impeccable record. He worked for the previous Speaker, Michael Martin (who died last Sunday), from 2005 until 2009 apparently without mishap.

Before doing so, he had served 30 years in the Royal Navy, latterly as the captain of a submarine.

This suggests to me that he is trustworthy and reliable, as well as no shrinking violet easily ruffled by an overbearing panjandrum.

One shouldn't judge by appearances. But I can't be alone in trusting the word of a long-serving Royal Navy officer over that of a career politician who was a member of the racist far-Right Monday Club before morphing into a sometimes unctuous, sometimes rude, politically correct Speaker.

The most damaging of Mr Sinclair's allegations is that when sacked by Mr Bercow in 2010, he was paid £86,250 from public funds as a part of a deal which also required him to sign a gagging order preventing him from talking to the media.

During a well-orchestrated defence yesterday in the Commons — with Tory MP Julian Lewis sycophantically suggesting that most of the Speaker's staff had worked for him without complaint — Mr Bercow asserted that former Commons staff were not prohibited from speaking out.

Yet the fact remains that Mr Sinclair believes he was precluded from talking. Was the large sum of money paid to him designed to keep him quiet, or was it his legal right as a Commons employee of five years' standing?

If the pay-off was even partly intended to stop him revealing Mr Bercow's alleged extreme temper tantrums, it would have amounted to a scandalous misuse of public funds.

In any event, it is surely obvious that these serious charges against the Speaker should be independently investigated. One former private secretary alleging serious bullying might conceivably be ignored by the authorities. Two private secretaries can't be.

Moreover, in 2014 Mr Bercow was accused of driving Sir Robert Rogers, a much respected Clerk of the House, to resign earlier than expected by treating him badly and swearing at him.

It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to discern a pattern here. The charge against the Speaker is not that he is testy and bad-tempered, as people in authority can be, but that he is capable of humiliating those beneath him.

Imagine if similar allegations had been made against a Cabinet minister. It is doubtful whether such a person would survive. At the very least he or she would be required to give a detailed account of what had happened.

Then why is Mr Bercow immune? It is constitutionally difficult to get rid of a Speaker.

This puffed-up satrap has absorbed controversies that would have floored ordinary politicians — once claiming £367 for a trip to Luton to talk about MPs' expenses, another time submitting a £172 bill for a 0.7-mile chauffeur-driven journey that would have taken 15 minutes on foot.

Despite supposedly being impartial by virtue of his position, he thought nothing of having a sticker on his car declaring 'Bo*****s to Brexit', or inveighing against Donald Trump after the Queen had extended an official invitation to the leader of the free world.

But there are signs that this preposterous man may be in difficulty. Some hitherto sympathetic women Labour MPs have been upset by allegations that he bullied Kate Emms. Some are reportedly plotting to put the veteran Harriet Harman in his place.

Bercow's desire to suck up to the sisterhood probably explains his recent lecture to Boris Johnson.

He described the Foreign Secretary as 'sexist' after he had called his Commons opposite number, Emily Thornberry, 'Baroness Whatever' and by her formal title, Lady Nugee.

Yet when Theresa May had referred to the shadow Foreign Secretary in this way, the Speaker said nothing.

Perhaps more serious for Mr Bercow is No. 10's reaction to Mr Sinclair's allegations, which it described as 'concerning'.

The Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom, yesterday suggested that an existing Commons inquiry might look into the latest charges against the Speaker.

Believe it or not, this inquiry, chaired by Dame Laura Cox QC, is not examining claims made about individuals, but only the atmosphere of bullying in the Commons.

I doubt it can be relied upon to hold the Speaker to account.

But something must be done. The Speaker often invokes members of the public during Prime Minister's Questions, claiming they will be shocked by MPs' unseemly bellowing.

I suggest that people will be far more shocked — and much greater damage will be done to the reputation of Parliament — if this bumptious, self-serving pipsqueak is allowed to continue much longer in office.
 
By Big Arnold
Membership Days Posts
#544543
STEPHEN GLOVER: Theresa May should make a rousing Brexit speech saying it's not us who are fantasists, it's Brussels

Arnold's law. If you mention the war, you've lost the argument.
I wonder whether it ever occurs to Mr Barnier, and his jovial boss Jean-Claude Juncker, that they would not be standing where they are, haranguing the British people, if this country had not fought on alone after France capitulated to Hitler 78 years ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... sists.html
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#544545
I wonder whether it ever occurs to Mr Barnier, and his jovial boss Jean-Claude Juncker, that they would not be standing where they are, haranguing the British people, if this country had not fought on alone after France capitulated to Hitler 78 years ago?


Junker would he knew fuck all about the history of Europe. But he does so he's likely to thank the Americans for liberating his country before the victorious Soviets who defeated Nazi Germany got there first.
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#544552
youngian wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:44 am
I wonder whether it ever occurs to Mr Barnier, and his jovial boss Jean-Claude Juncker, that they would not be standing where they are, haranguing the British people, if this country had not fought on alone after France capitulated to Hitler 78 years ago?


Junker would he knew fuck all about the history of Europe. But he does so he's likely to thank the Americans for liberating his country before the victorious Soviets who defeated Nazi Germany got there first.
Fuck me. Would Glover and his boss Dacre be making hay out of someone else's bravery if natural geological processes hadn't carved out the English channel hundreds of thousands of years ago?

Gobshite
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#549724
This has been coming for a while now. They're feeling brave enough to seriously float the idea:


This might rattle the teacups, but must we rule out executing terrorists? STEPHEN GLOVER wonders if Britain should be discussing the return of capital punishment for high treason
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... rists.html
 
By davidjay
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#549725
Safe_Timber_Man wrote:
Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:33 pm
This has been coming for a while now. They're feeling brave enough to seriously float the idea:


This might rattle the teacups, but must we rule out executing terrorists? STEPHEN GLOVER wonders if Britain should be discussing the return of capital punishment for high treason
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... rists.html
I don't want to think about the level of excitement typing some of those comments caused.
  • 1
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
The Trump Presidency

Not just satirists Nancy Pelosi has said the same […]

Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Can anyone spot the flaws in this plan? https:/[…]

The Group of Seven

Does anyone, anyone at all, see any strategic po[…]

The Sun

We reckon climbing trees is a lot more character-[…]