This is Nigel Farage's mum. Yes, really.
Can see where he gets his oddball 'end of the pier' persona from.
![Image](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/31/1414790940820_wps_31_EXCLUSIVE_PRINT_BEFORE_WE.jpg)
More pics of her déshabillé over at the Mail if anyone cares to look.
To be fair she was doing it for charity.
So it seems to have been left to Royal Mail to enforce the law? Don't the Electoral Commission and / or police have any responsibility here?Britain First Rochester election mail leaflet dubbed illegal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-29858335
Royal Mail has said it will not deliver a leaflet for the right wing party Britain First in the Rochester and Strood by-election because it believes it to be illegal.
The company said it could refuse to carry election mail if it considered the contents threatening or abusive.
The leaflet features a woman wearing a veil with the word "warning" and refers to a campaign against a planned mosque...
She has a fantastic piece of hardware.yahyah wrote:Morning.
This is Nigel Farage's mum. Yes, really.
Can see where he gets his oddball 'end of the pier' persona from.
More pics of her déshabillé over at the Mail if anyone cares to look.
To be fair she was doing it for charity.
Yes, it's certainly that. But not sure it's the area I see as most immediately in need of some radical change ... or that will resonate with public. We could do with some of that radical thinking and action in other policy areas.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Morning all.
Radical enough for everybody?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Usually very senior establishment figures with vague connections to royalty. Or more innocently the file contains information which if published would embarrass or upset some innocent third party. 87 years sounds suspiciously like they are waiting until all those involved are dead.yahyah wrote:Picked these links up from BTL under the Guardian's editorial on Woolf's resignation.
'Arrest of Alastair Laing and Colin Peters, members of HM Diplomatic Service, in Naples'
Date:
1967 Jan 01-1968 Dec 31
This record is closed Closed For 87 years
Opening date: 01 January 2056
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.u ... r/C6100084" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Paedophile ring leader, Colin Peters, linked to Barnes scandal
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 18078.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Maybe LoneWolfie or someone else knows whether it is unusual for public records to be sealed for so long [in this case not to be opened until 2056].
The cases involve a Foreign Office barrister arrested in the late 1960s - that's the sealed record,
who later jailed in 1989 for 'being part of a sophisticated network of people who molested hundreds of children, some as young as 10.''
The Indie reported last year ''Peters' conviction followed a year-long investigation, named Operation Hedgerow, which recorded 650 offences against 150 boys. Reports at the time said the ring "was used by highly placed civil servants and well-known public figures", but police didn't have "the evidence or manpower to pursue them in court".
As Wolfie often says...drip drip.
On the other hand it doesn't cost much. Rightly or wrongly Labour will only have policy proposals that do not require significant new funding, except for the NHS.rebeccariots2 wrote:Yes, it's certainly that. But not sure it's the area I see as most immediately in need of some radical change ... or that will resonate with public. We could do with some of that radical thinking and action in other policy areas.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Morning all.
Radical enough for everybody?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And trouble with reform / abolition of HoL as Lib Dems and coalition have found is that it has a tendency to suck a load of time and energy out for very little shift and return - so far. They are real limpets.
The leader of Nigeria's Islamic extremist group denies agreeing to a ceasefire and says more than 200 kidnapped schoolgirls have all converted to Islam and been married off.
Morning all.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:On the other hand it doesn't cost much. Rightly or wrongly Labour will only have policy proposals that do not require significant new funding, except for the NHS.rebeccariots2 wrote:Yes, it's certainly that. But not sure it's the area I see as most immediately in need of some radical change ... or that will resonate with public. We could do with some of that radical thinking and action in other policy areas.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Morning all.
Radical enough for everybody?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And trouble with reform / abolition of HoL as Lib Dems and coalition have found is that it has a tendency to suck a load of time and energy out for very little shift and return - so far. They are real limpets.
Part of me could get quite upset about this acceptance of austerity. On the other hand it seems to be forcing some interesting, creative thinking in Labour that may lead to some surprisingly good outcomes. I agree that Lords reform isn't an urgent priority for me. BUT a Senate representing the regions has to be an excellent idea in the longer term.
A lot of the legwork was done under the New Labour government and, to a certain extent, by the Coalition in 2011 so it need not take as much time & energy as previously. And as all talk is of PR elections it would be an easy sell to the unwashed masses who say they aren't properly represented.rebeccariots2 wrote:Yes, it's certainly that. But not sure it's the area I see as most immediately in need of some radical change ... or that will resonate with public. We could do with some of that radical thinking and action in other policy areas.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Morning all.
Radical enough for everybody?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And trouble with reform / abolition of HoL as Lib Dems and coalition have found is that it has a tendency to suck a load of time and energy out for very little shift and return - so far. They are real limpets.
This is a really odd one for me - having watched the Commons ride roughshod over common sense and the true 'will of the people' through it's perverse structure (vote for your local representative...or national party...you decide!/a few thousand voters from a handful of seats deciding a national election/once in power, as long as the PM can control (bribe/blackmail) enough of their MPs they can do anything they want), I quite like the idea of a second chamber that is not elected but selected (regional panels to select from across the spectrum of society or a jury style system, where anyone can be called to serve for a period of time) - they wouldn't automatically follow party lines and could (in theory) stop the elected politicians from following different masters than those who elected them (see the past 35+ years).TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Morning all.
Radical enough for everybody?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Indeed, maybe he's not a Blairite patsy for privatisation after all?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I was very worried about the appointment of Simon Stevens to run the NHS, but doesn't seem to be scared of taking on the Government. Good for him.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ge ... ms-4543554" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Very unusual...even Thatcher (where's the spit emoticon) only put 30 years on her illegal and inhuman destruction of the coal industry - these are some of the links I have relating to a specific 100 year 'D' notice - just before Tory Blurs' Iraq War (convenient - around the same time as all the rhetoric became bellicose and started accusing Sadam of supporting Al Qaeda (when in actual fact (AFIK) he viewed them as extremely dangerous and persecuted them in his own way) and concerning Operation Ore/Avalanche -yahyah wrote:Picked these links up from BTL under the Guardian's editorial on Woolf's resignation.
'Arrest of Alastair Laing and Colin Peters, members of HM Diplomatic Service, in Naples'
Date:
1967 Jan 01-1968 Dec 31
This record is closed Closed For 87 years
Opening date: 01 January 2056
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.u ... r/C6100084" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Paedophile ring leader, Colin Peters, linked to Barnes scandal
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 18078.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Maybe LoneWolfie or someone else knows whether it is unusual for public records to be sealed for so long [in this case not to be opened until 2056].
The cases involve a Foreign Office barrister arrested in the late 1960s - that's the sealed record,
who later jailed in 1989 for 'being part of a sophisticated network of people who molested hundreds of children, some as young as 10.''
The Indie reported last year ''Peters' conviction followed a year-long investigation, named Operation Hedgerow, which recorded 650 offences against 150 boys. Reports at the time said the ring "was used by highly placed civil servants and well-known public figures", but police didn't have "the evidence or manpower to pursue them in court".
As Wolfie often says...drip drip.
The Indie also said Peters has been alleged by several sources to be connected to Elm Guest House.
yahyah wrote:Morning.
This is Nigel Farage's mum. Yes, really.
Can see where he gets his oddball 'end of the pier' persona from.
More pics of her déshabillé over at the Mail if anyone cares to look.
To be fair she was doing it for charity.
I am of the the exact opposite opinion. House of Lords reform is one of the highest priority issues for me and I would have been extremely disappointed if Labour didn't have some serious proposals on this in their manifesto. The biggest mistake New Labour made was lack of ambition. They had the mandate, they were in a position to make changes that had permanence, yet in a few short years the Coalition government has reversed everything they did. That's because destruction is so much quicker and easier to achieve than construction. The endless swing from one to the other is an extremely costly way to run a country and has to end. Electoral reform is of utmost importance because otherwise anything Labour achieves if it does achieve power may once again only be fleeting. Not to mention the fact that the Tory cronies David Cameron has stuffed the Lords with will make life difficult for any left-wing government. To add further to the unelected chamber to reflect the latest popular vote (Cameron's madhatter Lord's policy) will swell the HofL to ridiculous proportions. Something has to be done and if that something can generate headlines along the lines of "Labour to scrap the House of Lords" then it's along the right tracks. People want change and abolishing the House of Lords is a simple and powerful way of communicating a readiness to implement real and lasting change.rebeccariots2 wrote:Yes, it's certainly that. But not sure it's the area I see as most immediately in need of some radical change ... or that will resonate with public. We could do with some of that radical thinking and action in other policy areas.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Morning all.
Radical enough for everybody?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And trouble with reform / abolition of HoL as Lib Dems and coalition have found is that it has a tendency to suck a load of time and energy out for very little shift and return - so far. They are real limpets.
I hadn't thought of it that way and I like it! Sounds like the clever sort of thing a grown up party with serious aspirations of (to?) power might doDonutHingeParty wrote:Morning, peeps,
Sad to see that Roger Helmet is divorcing his second wife after getting caught visiting massage parlours. And he says gay marriage undermines the sanctity of the institution, right?
Also, with reference to Rochester and Strood, what do people think of the idea that Labour are running a Rope a Dope sch me, using the process to introduce their candidate and then letting UKIP and the Tories waste their war chests scoring political points off each other for the winner to sit in post for three months, including Christmas break, before the whole shooting match has to be run again when the general election campaign starts in February?
Re. Rochester, makes sense to me. Naushabah Khan is a very strong candidate, it was an honour to help out with her doorstep campaign a couple of weeks back; the noises we were getting is that she is respected in the area by many, and this campaign will raise her profile (she has had a lot of support from HQ, including visits from Ed and other senior figures), but that people may well vote UKIP this time to give the Tories a bloody nose - Reckless wasn't much liked by many I spoke to, and I think they will be glad to see the back of him next year.DonutHingeParty wrote:Morning, peeps,
Sad to see that Roger Helmet is divorcing his second wife after getting caught visiting massage parlours. And he says gay marriage undermines the sanctity of the institution, right?
Also, with reference to Rochester and Strood, what do people think of the idea that Labour are running a Rope a Dope sch me, using the process to introduce their candidate and then letting UKIP and the Tories waste their war chests scoring political points off each other for the winner to sit in post for three months, including Christmas break, before the whole shooting match has to be run again when the general election campaign starts in February?
Of course she doesn't. Everybody knows it is a pint for the man, white wine or fruit based drink for the ladies .......Spacedone wrote:That's not his Mum. She doesn't have a pint in her hand or anything.
I don't actually know but the only change that happened in 2010 that could explain it that I can think of was a rise in VAT to 20%. I believe there is a connection between VAT receipts and the EU bill but I'm no expert. Worth looking into, I suspect.Lonewolfie wrote:Oh dear...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tributions
..oh dear, oh dear![]()
...and I'm still in the dark as to why Britains' contribution has risen so much since 2010 -
Does anyone know?
It's all Labour's fault?Lonewolfie wrote:Oh dear...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tributions
..oh dear, oh dear![]()
...and I'm still in the dark as to why Britains' contribution has risen so much since 2010 -
Does anyone know?
Thanks Willow904....uurmmm...wouldn't that have been a fully foreseeable effect then?Willow904 wrote:I don't actually know but the only change that happened in 2010 that could explain it that I can think of was a rise in VAT to 20%. I believe there is a connection between VAT receipts and the EU bill but I'm no expert. Worth looking into, I suspect.Lonewolfie wrote:Oh dear...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tributions
..oh dear, oh dear![]()
...and I'm still in the dark as to why Britains' contribution has risen so much since 2010 -
Does anyone know?
frightful_oik wrote:It's all Labour's fault?Lonewolfie wrote:Oh dear...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tributions
..oh dear, oh dear![]()
...and I'm still in the dark as to why Britains' contribution has risen so much since 2010 -
Does anyone know?
What has he been doing now??TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Giselle, re. your Tom Watson request, can you ask him why he thinks it clever to be undermining the Labour Party in the run up to the General Election?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stmEach country's payment is divided into three parts: a fixed percentage of gross national income (GNI), customs duties collected on behalf of the EU (known as "traditional own resources") and a percentage of VAT income.
Independent has the story in their printed edition but not online.PorFavor wrote:Good afternoon.
I asked this as I departed last night - but has anyone heard from ohsocynical who has been conspicuous by her absence?
I caught, last night and through the haze of sleep, a bit of BBC News24's newspaper review. There was a photo' in one of the papers of Ed Miliband giving money to someone begging on the street. Some sort of terrible gaffe, apparently. It was A Bad Thing. I switched off in exasperation so don't know the details - or the newspaper concerned. Does anyone know any more, please? I've had a bit of a look but haven't yet come across the article which is probably headed something along the lines of "Ed Miliband in Show of Compassion Scandal".
Nothing specific, but give him time ...... I've kinda lost patience with him.AnatolyKasparov wrote:What has he been doing now??TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Giselle, re. your Tom Watson request, can you ask him why he thinks it clever to be undermining the Labour Party in the run up to the General Election?![]()
I like him on the whole, but he can be infuriating......
AnatolyKasparov wrote:That Miliband photo has been quite a big thing on social media - the allegation is that the Huff Post had several pics of him doing this and deliberately picked the most unflattering one (hard to believe that, I know)
Re ohso - IIRC she is on Twitter, has she been posting lately?
I'm fairly sure her twitter ID is @dimayray & if it is, she hasn't posted anything since Oct 30th.PorFavor wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote:That Miliband photo has been quite a big thing on social media - the allegation is that the Huff Post had several pics of him doing this and deliberately picked the most unflattering one (hard to believe that, I know)
Re ohso - IIRC she is on Twitter, has she been posting lately?
Hello.
Thanks for the response.
Re ohsocynical - I haven't been aware of her around these parts for a couple of days now. But if she's Twittering (isn't she now one of our designated "Twitterers"?) then she's still around and firing on all four cylinders, I presume.
Edited to add
I've just checked Twitter (I think - not my area of expertise!) and she hasn't posted anything, so says the site (assuming she's going under her FTN name which I've inferred she is).
afternoon allLonewolfie wrote:Thanks Willow904....uurmmm...wouldn't that have been a fully foreseeable effect then?Willow904 wrote:I don't actually know but the only change that happened in 2010 that could explain it that I can think of was a rise in VAT to 20%. I believe there is a connection between VAT receipts and the EU bill but I'm no expert. Worth looking into, I suspect.Lonewolfie wrote:Oh dear...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tributions
..oh dear, oh dear![]()
...and I'm still in the dark as to why Britains' contribution has risen so much since 2010 -
Does anyone know?
Sorry....BUT WHO THE F*****G F*******Y F**K put these F*****G CHILDREN IN CHARGE?
Oh...that's right - this c***...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Clegg
(Sincere apologies for the sweariness...red mist got the better of me and don't have time to rewrite)
The potential for burst photography to capture such awkward moments has been used on ED more than a few times. It represents exactly that a moment in a continuum of action. Trying to imply motivation, mindset or anything else from such carefully chosen 'moments' still fools the public, who love this knee jerk stuff. It seems likely he acted spontaneously as passing, judging from the picture itself, and was actually almost past the action itself. In this way the camera can be made to lie over and again. Especially to prove this particular man is a soulless weirdo.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Nothing specific, but give him time ...... I've kinda lost patience with him.AnatolyKasparov wrote:What has he been doing now??TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Giselle, re. your Tom Watson request, can you ask him why he thinks it clever to be undermining the Labour Party in the run up to the General Election?![]()
I like him on the whole, but he can be infuriating......
PorFavor, he made the mistake of giving money to a street beggar when there were lots of photographers around; needless to say this was a Bad Thing because:
a) he looked awkward doing it. Don't we all? I know I do, a mixture of guilt, anger & embarrassment that such a thing is necessary.
b) He only gave a coin (some are sayin
g 2p) not paper money. Of course if he had stopped, pulled out his wallet and given a note he would have been accused of doing it for a photo op. And I don't know what coinage it was, but I rather suspect that may have been all he had in his pocket.
Now, the cynic in me thinks that part of the reason the usual damage control team has leaped into action is because Ed giving that money (however much it was) is in marked contrast to Sir George Young's alleged "the homeless are what you step over when you come out of the opera" and BoJo's no tolerance campaign against rough sleepers in London; he has, once again, shown his basic humanity and highlighted their own callousness.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10 ... 82608.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The BBC has written it up:seeingclearly wrote:Did anyone catch a Beeb report on police cautions this morning? Something to do with a Grayling announcement.....
Me like. Me also like FibDem faux outrage. Those pricks brought their HoL disaster on themselves. They deserved what they got, and whilst I voted for AV in the referendum, I wasn't at all surprised that those two faced shystersgot an absolute shoeing from the electorate. The only surprise was that they were surprised. The sooner that party is destroyed for good, the better.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Morning all.
Radical enough for everybody?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29857849" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;