-
The government has launched a new website with its 'plan for Britain'
-
The true meaning of voting leave was never really determined. That's why Nigel Farage and others can freely claim it means whatever they want it to mean to suit their particular argument. And that's why many people who voted leave with perfectly reasonable expectations may find themselves disappointed.
-
Would you not just do something 'clever' so that you channel your business through Ireland?
-
It will be hugely depressing if our MPs don't vote in favour of the 'final say' amendment later today, but the mood music suggests that the amendment will get voted down.
I have no doubt that historians will look back with total disbelief at this period of our politics, with partisan party interests being put ahead of the country's long-term national interest.
-
Was does it say about the state of our politics when you find yourself agreeing with Heseltine (interviewed on Peston just now). There's something to be said for the straight-talking of an experienced politician who is at an age where they have no concerns over their career. And I suppose having just been sacked helps with honesty!
His back-handed compliment on Boris Johnson was quite funny: "Boris has turned the art of political question into a science; waffle, charm, delay - anything to avoid giving an answer"
-
Yeah, that was the fella from whom I got the £300k I posted above.
https://twitter.com/Law_and_policy/status/840227323907567616
-
As is noted in paragraph 83 of the judgment Hopkins could have settled for £5k
This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against
this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But I cannot leave it without
making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at
an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer.
There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. Such an
offer attracts a substantial discount: up to half if the offer is prompt and unqualified.
Such an offer would have meant the compensation would have been modest. The
costs would have been a fraction of those which I am sure these parties have incurred
in the event. Those costs have largely been incurred in contesting the issue of whether
a statement which on its face had a defamatory tendency had actually caused serious
harm. -
The defendant gets £24k from Hopkins, but Hopkins will also have to pay the associated costs that those in the know are saying will be in excess of £300k.
-
This is interesting.
Two actors playing the roles of Clinton and Trump in their pre-election debates but with the gender roles reversed (i.e. a woman playing Trump and vice versa). It's quite surprising.
-
The Cyclist Podcast fellas talk quite a lot about Sky in their latest podcast.
http://thecyclingpodcast.com/latest-episode
It sounds like they recorded most of it around the weekend, and then added some more following the mass tweeting of support for DB.
In that latter part they mention how Froome didn't tweet, and expand on the potential power play between Froome and DB.
Then there is a very brief comment at the end which refers to the letter Sky published.
It's worth a listen. The Sky stuff starts around 25 minutes in.
-
Have a read of amendment 3. This is what the Lords voted to support last night.
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2016-2017/0108/17108-I.pdf
-
Yes, Lord Pannick (along with others) made the point that the amendment simply takes May's verbal commitment to consultation (inculding a vote), and writes it into law. That will make sure it happens.
-
It may also be worth writing to your MP to ask that they support the amendment to the bill when it comes back to the Commons. Not sure when that will be but presumably soon.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/
-
So, given that the Lords backed an amendment to the Article 50 bill last night, May is throwing her weight around. She has sacked Heseltine (in effect) for supporting the amendment. Clearly she is trying to send a signal to her MPs ahead of the resulting vote in the Commons on the proposed amendment. Not a good indicator of her views on democracy.
If you're interested you can watch segments of the debate, and it's worth a look, if not just for the (general) quality of the discussions. It makes the Commons look like a toddlers' group.
I'd recommend:
- Pannick's speech on amendment 3 (professional, measured, informative)
- Hesletine's follow-up speech (heartfelt, and balanced)
- Forsyth's response (emotive, divisive, personal, and a depressing example of Commons style)
- Pannick's speech on amendment 3 (professional, measured, informative)
-
The 3rd suggested amendment (raised by Pannick and others) makes good sense, although it would obviously massively piss off May, and of course the right-wing press would go mental.
-
Will be interesting to see how the debate/vote on amendments goes
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2016-2017/0108/17108-I.pdf
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/10b26caa-43e2-4e01-84ad-b13169f7351c
-
The names of the 2 Blue Peter tortoises
-
What has she done/said?
-
If Sky apply their own ethical standards (i.e. Murdoch) to this issue it's difficult to see them turfing out Brailsford. There would need to be broader consequences for them to act.
-
Possibly Brailsford, Sutton, and (sadly) Millar too crusing around in a soft-top Maserati all 'sorted' and heading off to meet up with Ullrich for a night down the disco
LFGSS
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of fixed gear and single-speed cyclists.
Yeah, I think so. Apparently other errors messages were showing earlier. It looks like they have just given up.