Messageboard
The BullÌý permalink
He said he wouldn't
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by smee (U2226513) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
but David Blunkett has resigned. What do others make of it all? 'Farce' is the word that springs to mind, to be honest.
-
Message 2
Posted by Once-a-Ginge (U1486077) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
A great sense of Deja Vu is what springs to my mind. Where are you now John Major?
T -
Message 3
Posted by Wanda_Ofwandas (U2258758) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
I find myself torn between exasperation with the media for so gleefully rushing for and manipulating the crowbar, and exasperation with a minister who, after the shenanigans of last year, SURELY should have realised that he HAD to be whiter-than-white in the future.
Thassorl. Now, where are the chocolate hobnobs? -
Message 4
Posted by irene (U2220663) ** on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
well quite wanda, its mandy all over again and again. what is with these people, do they think themselves above the law , so to speak, 'oh those rules don't apply to me' or similar.
-
Message 5
Posted by Slightly-Foxed of that Elk (rational or irrational) Laird of Phelps (one foot over) and Keeper of the Privy Seal (U995234) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
The media take no prisoners, unfortunately. They are of course totally hypocritical and their own private lives would never stand up to the sort of scrutiny that they disked out to the likes of Blunkers. (Dodgy share dealings *coughcough* Piers Morgan *coughcough)
Having said that, we do expect people in public life to have some standards of moral and ethical behaviour (and of course, we are frequently, bitterly disappointed)
In Blunkett's case I admire him for his achievements, despite his blindness, as the owner of a less-than-perfect body myself I can relate to that, but his blindness doesn't disguise the fact that he seems to be an unpleasant, arrogant man who thinks rules are for other people.
At least Blinkers going has potentially damaged the government's cynical attempt to manipulate the news agenda by getting Ian Blair to write an articule in the Sun about the supposed bomb threats we've supposedly foiled coincidentally on the day Fungus Clarke is trying to persuade us that the way for democracy to triumph over terrorism is to allow the plod and MI5 to lock people up for 90 days without trial. -
Message 6
Posted by Little Brown Bird (U2337627) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Message from irene.
Yes
N.B.I followed the instructions posted earlier but still can't get this box thing right. -
Message 7
Posted by William White (U2249584) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
I find myself torn between exasperation with the media for so gleefully rushing for and manipulating the crowbar?Ìý
Quite agree - much as I can not abide New Labour (and Old Labour come to that) I'd far sooner the opposition and the media concentrate on their policies not procedural things like this.
But what really staggers me is that having resigned last December Blunkett was back in the cabinet within months. He's not the first to make a swift return - why don't the guardians of ethics in the Commons rule that this can't happen?
And above all given the very large number of MPs Labour has it surely says something that Blair was so desperately short of competent people he felt he had to bring DB back.
WW542 -
Message 8
Posted by irene (U2220663) ** on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
good, pilly as i cant bear the boxes. irene
sorry tripped into a bit of a whinge there, didnt i? wont do it again (well unless asked and then i might. or not . depending on how i'm feeling) -
Message 9
Posted by Veronica Speedwell (U2233349) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
good, pilly as i cant bear the boxes. irene
sorry tripped into a bit of a whinge there, didnt i? wont do it again (well unless asked and then i might. or not . depending on how i'm feeling)Ìý
What do you think of the boxes then, Irene? -
Message 10
Posted by Paddy Redmond (U2270228) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
but David Blunkett has resigned. What do others make of it all? 'Farce' is the word that springs to mind, to be honest. Ìý Do you not realise that this gives Blunkett the chance to concentrate on promoting DNA testing - a subject which some families here in Ambridge need his expertise.
-
Message 11
Posted by Isabel Necessary (U2267962) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
but David Blunkett has resigned. What do others make of it all? 'Farce' is the word that springs to mind, to be honest. Ìý
The worrying thing for those of us of a mildly liberal persuasion is that, for all his arrogance and demagogy, Blunkett was apparently promoting constructive reform of invalidity benefit aimed at enabling people to work while Blair, who now seems to swung to a point so far to the right even the Tories can't keep up, wanted headline grabbing immediate cuts.
With Blunkett gone, Blair will be able to put in a placeman/woman who will do his bidding. -
Message 12
Posted by Jane (U1484860) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Can anyone explain why
WH is interrupted to announce DB's resignation
The news is extended to discuss DB's resignation
WatO is extended to discuss DB'd resignation
Overkill me thinks -
Message 13
Posted by William White (U2249584) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
<quote user='Isabel Necessary' userid='2267962' </quote>
With Blunkett gone, Blair will be able to put in a placeman/woman who will do his bidding.</quote>
He could have done that after the Gen Elec though, so why did he ever bring DB back? -
Message 14
Posted by Isabel Necessary (U2267962) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
<quote user='William White' userid='2249584'><quote user='Isabel Necessary' userid='2267962' </quote>
With Blunkett gone, Blair will be able to put in a placeman/woman who will do his bidding.</quote>
He could have done that after the Gen Elec though, so why did he ever bring DB back?</quote>
I think this is a recent development William. Blunkett and Blair have been close political allies but Blair seems recently to have entered some swivel eyed territory peculiar to himself and a few rag tag followers. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy but that, from my perspective and little as I liked Blunkett, things may be even worse now he has gone. -
Message 15
Posted by locky (U2252713) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Bit like Emma! Ooops! Couldn't resist. Scurries back! well quite wanda, its mandy all over again and again. what is with these people, do they think themselves above the law , so to speak, 'oh those rules don't apply to me' or similar.Ìý
-
Message 16
Posted by Veronica Speedwell (U2233349) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
<quote user='Isabel Necessary' userid='2267962'><quote user='William White' userid='2249584'><quote user='Isabel Necessary' userid='2267962' </quote>
With Blunkett gone, Blair will be able to put in a placeman/woman who will do his bidding.</quote>
He could have done that after the Gen Elec though, so why did he ever bring DB back?</quote>
I think this is a recent development William. Blunkett and Blair have been close political allies but Blair seems recently to have entered some swivel eyed territory peculiar to himself and a few rag tag followers. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy but that, from my perspective and little as I liked Blunkett, things may be even worse now he has gone.</quote>
If this is right then perhaps the prominance given to Blunket's latest disgrace is something to do with Brown-ites readying themselves for power? Better than the old-fashioned ice-pick method, of course. Irish household always reacts with : "well, if that is what they are admitting to, what are they NOT telling us?" ie. probably the whole cabinet is in it up to their necks, anyway, and Blunket is walking the plank because, er, no one likes him? -
Message 17
Posted by Isabel Necessary (U2267962) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
<quote user='veronica speedwell'
If this is right then perhaps the prominance given to Blunket's latest disgrace is something to do with Brown-ites readying themselves for power? Better than the old-fashioned ice-pick method, of course. Irish household always reacts with : "well, if that is what they are admitting to, what are they NOT telling us?" ie. probably the whole cabinet is in it up to their necks, anyway, and Blunket is walking the plank because, er, no one likes him?</quote>
I think you are right Veronica. The extensive coverage is I think because the ramifications are so complex and potentially enormous. His departure will presumably weaken Blair even though Blunkett was resisting Blair's nuttier ideas. -
Message 18
Posted by William White (U2249584) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Blunket is walking the plank?Ìý
Hope his dog can swim then! -
Message 19
Posted by Veronica Speedwell (U2233349) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Hmmm. Does anyone here remember a vice President under Nixon being caught in a similar hand-in-biscuit-barrel scenario? He was, I think, supposed to be a scapegoat to ease the whole rising watergate thing. [ I was about seven,for the actual events, but had this at school later- memory affected by great indifference at the time and tendency to confuse all American politicians one with the other]
-
Message 20
Posted by Slightly-Foxed of that Elk (rational or irrational) Laird of Phelps (one foot over) and Keeper of the Privy Seal (U995234) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
No, but it sounds eerily prescient of the current Scootergate scenario.
My question to anyone who thinks that Scooter Libby thought up the idea of outing Valerie Plame all off his own bat without Karl Rove, Dick Cheney or Dubya knowing and approving it is:
If you think that, how do you feel about the tooth-fairy? -
Message 21
Posted by Alex Hebden (U1474957) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
The operative word in the above is 'apparently'. It was/is all the usual smoke 'n' mirrors, with more than a hint of deception behind it.
Personally I can't stand the man, he is and always has been a bully (I know people who worked in the Poeple's Republic of South Yorkshire) to which has been added the overweening arrogance that seems to be a speciality of the professional politician of whatever viewpoint.
Professionally though his resignation is a disaster - that'll be four Secretaries of State at the DWP in just over three years then Tone - well done! At least everything can stay in limbo, we're all used to that - aren't we? After all, it's only the biggest spending Department in the country... -
Message 22
Posted by NotsoTinyTim (U2256329) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Blunkett will be back in six months. Different rules apply to Tony's chums from those that normal mortals have to follow.
-
Message 23
Posted by Veronica Speedwell (U2233349) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
No, but it sounds eerily prescient of the current Scootergate scenario.
My question to anyone who thinks that Scooter Libby thought up the idea of outing Valerie Plame all off his own bat without Karl Rove, Dick Cheney or Dubya knowing and approving it is:
If you think that, how do you feel about the tooth-fairy? Ìý
Slightly Foxed: see last line of my relevent post. -
Message 24
Posted by Schez (U2212013) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
" but his blindness doesn't disguise the fact that he seems to be an unpleasant, arrogant man who thinks rules are for other people. "
Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. He deserves to go. But I hope that he isn't brought back again in 5 minutes - this government has a habit of bringing back the crooks over and over again. Never thought I'd be criticising a labour government. (Sorry, so-called Labour government!) Oops, am I allowed to express opinions like that? -
Message 25
Posted by Schez (U2212013) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Agree, too, that it was quite unnecessary to announce an "extended" news bulletin and all that. This could have been announced in one or two sentences, and the detail kept for lunchtime - which it now is.
-
Message 26
Posted by Vanity Fair (U2267018) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
"At least Blinkers going has potentially damaged the government's cynical attempt to manipulate the news agenda by getting Ian Blair to write an articule in the Sun about the supposed bomb threats we've supposedly foiled coincidentally on the day Fungus Clarke is trying to persuade us that the way for democracy to triumph over terrorism is to allow the plod and MI5 to lock people up for 90 days without trial. "
If they've been so successful in foiling bomb threats (which frankly I don't believe are anything like the threat "they" say they are) why do we need all these draconian new terror laws? And don't even get me started on ID cards!
vf -
Message 27
Posted by William White (U2249584) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
" I hope that he isn't brought back again in 5 minutes - this government has a habit of bringing back the crooks over and over again. Ìý
It seems to me the whole system stinks. If you cause a car crash the court may decide to ban you from driving. If you foul up in local governement you can be banned from standing again. Bankrupt your company and you can be disqualified from being a Director.
But Ministerial appointments are apparently "a matter between the individual and the Prime Minister". Not sure exactly who it is (Privilege's Committee or somethng like that?) but they should have had the power a) to judge whether or not Blunkett had done wrong, and b) ban him from holding a position in the Government at any level for a specified length of time. -
Message 28
Posted by Rural Dean (U2252859) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:11:21 GMT, In reply to: Slightly-Foxed [
Scooter Libby has *not* been indicted with outing Valerie Palme, but with perjury and other obstruction of justice charges. He told the Grand Jury that he first heard of Ms Palme's occupation from newspaper reports when he is alleged to have been told by an unamed Under Secretary of State.
So, perhaps Patrick Fizgerald, the Special Counsel believes in the tooth fairy, or at least has not found sufficient evidence to disprove her existence?
RD -
Message 29
Posted by Paddy Redmond (U2270228) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Hmmm. Does anyone here remember a vice President under Nixon being caught in a similar hand-in-biscuit-barrel scenario? He was, I think, supposed to be a scapegoat to ease the whole rising watergate thing. [ I was about seven,for the actual events, but had this at school later- memory affected by great indifference at the time and tendency to confuse all American politicians one with the other]Ìý You probably mean Spiro Agnew (Anagram: Grow a penis). He was a crook in the business field but being VP he would become Pres. if Nixon did the honourable (honorable in US?) thing. They had to get rid of SA and replace him with Gerald Ford. When Nixon was finally forced out Ford became president. The most memorable thing about Ford was that LBJ had said that he 'could not chew gum and fart at the same time'. Such was the nature of the press in those days that 'fart' was replaced by 'walk'.
-
Message 30
Posted by Veronica Speedwell (U2233349) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Yes.
-
Message 31
Posted by Go away historians of the future (U1484964) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Mildly diverting fact about Gerald Ford #2.
He's the only American President not to have been elected. -
Message 32
Posted by Isabel Necessary (U2267962) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Mildly diverting fact about Gerald Ford #2.
He's the only American President not to have been elected.Ìý
Was he also the only American President to have a car company named after him? -
Message 33
Posted by Paddy Redmond (U2270228) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
I used to drive a 2.4 litre Gerald with OHC and twin carbs. Great little runner.
-
Message 34
Posted by Laura in Lothian (U1942146) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
If they've been so successful in foiling bomb threats (which frankly I don't believe are anything like the threat "they" say they are)
±¹´ÚÌý
I do.
laura -
Message 35
Posted by Laura in Lothian (U1942146) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Mildly diverting fact about Gerald Ford #2.
He's the only American President not to have been elected.Ìý
now, loot, there are those who mgiht argue that the 2001 US elections didn't necessarily elect Bush jnr...!!!!
laura
[_Chads_] [_PregnantChads_] [_HangingChads_] -
Message 36
Posted by Bleak_Midwinter_Squirrel_Nutcase (U2248205) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
#29 Paddy
<>
Paddy dere, you're a jolly nice chap and I don't want to be too heavy about this, but your parenthesis could be unintentionally hurtful to some here. There are many things I don't like politically about America, so I have to check myself about throwaway remarks which might seem to generalise that dislike into anti-Americanism. Forgive me for pointing this out. I think we're probably just as .. er.. economical with the verity here!
I'm not the thought police, but I do have good American friends both here and in professional life who would probably agree entirely with the actual point you are highlighting. $qxx
PS do drop in and say hello at the MFC some Tuesday or other. -
Message 37
Posted by Veronica Speedwell (U2233349) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
That has been erased by the last election in which chads,along with alot of the electoral register, were eliminated by electrinic voting. Wipe out this memory of dodgy elections and you may go free.
-
Message 38
Posted by Go away historians of the future (U1484964) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
> [_Chads_] [_PregnantChads_] [_HangingChads_] <
Dimpled Chads* were involved as well weren't they?
*Dimpled Chads - be a good name for a band. -
Message 39
Posted by Isabel Necessary (U2267962) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
> [_Chads_] [_PregnantChads_] [_HangingChads_] <
Dimpled Chads* were involved as well weren't they?
*Dimpled Chads - be a good name for a band.Ìý
Or "The Dimpled Chaps" -
Message 40
Posted by Laura in Lothian (U1942146) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
#29 Paddy
<>
Paddy dere, you're a jolly nice chap and I don't want to be too heavy about this, but your parenthesis could be unintentionally hurtful to some here. ...I think we're probably just as .. er.. economical with the verity here!
Ìý
i thought is was onlt about the spelling!
'honourable' in the UK but might be spelt 'honorable' in the US?
laura -
Message 41
Posted by NotsoTinyTim (U2256329) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Ford's wife was Betty Ford, of Clinic fame
Peter Cook did a sketch in which he said he had spent some time in the Henry Ford Clinic. When asked whether he meant the Betty Ford Clinic, he said that he DID mean the Henry Ford Clinic and that in order to get out of that Clinic you had to build a car. -
Message 42
Posted by Slightly-Foxed of that Elk (rational or irrational) Laird of Phelps (one foot over) and Keeper of the Privy Seal (U995234) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Vanity Fair:
They want us to live in a perpetual state of anxiety because people will be less questioning of their hidden agenda to push through anti-libertarian legislation.
Remember "1984" and the contant state of war between Eastasia and Eurasia, or remember the Cold War when we were constantly being told the Russians wanted to invade/bomb places like Birmingham (why they would want to do either escapes me now as it did then)
If this clause of "glorifying terrorism" goes through, then truly, "thoughtcrime" has finally arrived on the statute book!
Please don't waste your time, anyone who is thinking of typing a reply to this along the lines of "well, if you think that, you are giving the oxygen of publicity to these people etc etc etc" Just let me make one thing plain: when it comes to people who incite others to bomb innocent people, or who set the boms off themselves, I wouldn't even give them the oxygen of oxygen. If they have broken the law, charge them, put them on trial, convict them if they are guilty, and lock them up. But we already have lots of EXISTING laws with things like CHARGES and JURIES and EVIDENCE (is this ringing any bells, Charles Clarke?) to do this without creating completely new ones that would criminalise me for saying that (eg) the French Resistance were a good thing, really, and without creating new ones that take away our hard won freedoms and liberties, which is Blair's true hidden agenda, nasty little control-freak that he is. -
Message 43
Posted by Ina McAllan (U1723501) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
>If they've been so successful in foiling bomb threats (which frankly I don't believe are anything like the threat "they" say they are) why do we need all these draconian new terror laws?<
They probably have been successful in foiling those terrorists who directly threaten the PM and MPs and others in positions (that the terrorists perceive as) in power.
My suspicion is that Tony is so scared by the security services reports of direct threats to him (and Downing St/London) that national policy on the whole issue has been skewed (his cars and planes are checked for potential bombs every time he leaves his home - this is apt to give anyone an exagerated view of the threat).
And re Blunkett - to lose one Cabinet Minister might be regarded as carelessness - to lose the same one twice smacks of stupidity.
[Sorry, Oscar]. -
Message 44
Posted by irene (U2220663) ** on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
say what you like about ole lbj he did come up with some corkers at times. most of them unprintable. was he also famous for picking up his basset hound by its ears? not much of a legacy is it really!
-
Message 45
Posted by Morty Vicar (U2258253) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
He did much more than that, i.
Got a mass of civil rights laws through Congress that had been stalled under Kennedy. Perhaps even more important in the long term, he convinced the South that the game was up for legal race discrimination. He carried his office with proper dignity and proper humility.
He did fail to control the generals re Vietnam, though, and bitterly regretted it. -
Message 46
Posted by irene (U2220663) ** on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
well yes morty old bean, i was being a little flippant i confess!
-
Message 47
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
well quite wanda, its mandy all over again and again. Ìý
To have one minister resign twice may be regarded as a misfortune,... -
Message 48
Posted by nesta vipers (U2256451) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
couldn`t give a fuchsia -
Message 49
Posted by E Yore (U1479700) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:46:17 GMT, In reply to: irene [
Him & Her - he had two basset hounds and was filmed/photographed once picking them up by the ears and that possibly did for him among the American public. He was a far more liberal president than Kennedy was in reality (John I mean, not Bobbie who really was liberal.) Name drop of the evening: LBJ held me in his arms when I was three. Which got me onto the front page of all the newspapers at the time. -
Message 50
Posted by petal jam (U1466691) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:30:31 GMT, In reply to: E. Yore (Ms.) [
..and some have greatness thrust upon them.
Umm ..well of course I'm not suggesting that you wouldn't be as great as you are for any other reason. Found people in the backwoods where we lived had less criticism of LBJ than most others from 60s and 70s but I hesitate to say that this was a generally representative view.
About this Board
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
´óÏó´«Ã½ iD
´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation
´óÏó´«Ã½ links
´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.