M
M
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Conservative Party
- Thread starter dave_blue12
- Start date
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Interesting thread about this.
So, apart from a clear statement that some newspapers can't publish (not sure why the Observer can't print about Banks - is there an agreement not too based on past matters or maybe current matters in court?), what does that suggest?
That Williamson has been given a knighthood as payment to not say anything?
M
M
mat
Guest
Is there some legal protections being a knight of the realm?So, apart from a clear statement that some newspapers can't publish (not sure why the Observer can't print about Banks - is there an agreement not too based on past matters or maybe current matters in court?), what does that suggest?
That Williamson has been given a knighthood as payment to not say anything?
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Is there some legal protections being a knight of the realm?
Yes - you get to wear armour in a built up area and can build a moated castle without planning permission........I mean if you can't whats the point?
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
None that I know of.Is there some legal protections being a knight of the realm?
Doing it as a stand-alone event is rare, and there seems no cause for it. Politicians do get them, but not at 45.
Interesting thread about this.
Arise Sir Fuckwit
Indaparkside
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2015
- Messages
- 14,863
What’s happening with the police enquiry about party gate quietly slipped away now never to be heard of again I suppose
Exactly. The fact he has gotten it so soon, even if he never deserved it, is what is so suspicious about it. Clearly no other government would give it to him. To put it in perspective, John Major was a former PM, who played a huge role in setting the stage for the GFA and peace in NI, received his Knighthood in his 60's.None that I know of.
Doing it as a stand-alone event is rare, and there seems no cause for it. Politicians do get them, but not at 45.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Exactly. The fact he has gotten it so soon, even if he never deserved it, is what is so suspicious about it. Clearly no other government would give it to him. To put it in perspective, John Major was a former PM, who played a huge role in setting the stage for the GFA and peace in NI, received his Knighthood in his 60's.
Major isn't a very good comparison as his knighthood was a KG - Order of the Garter - which is traditionally given to ex-Prime Ministers and isn't given by the prime minister - it's given by the monarch. It was 8 years after he was PM.
Basically WIlliamson is too young for a service honour (even if his service deserved one) and it's not given in the two main batches that honours are announced. So there's a reason it's suddenly happened.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,340
There’s an interesting feature of the government’s response to questions about the current war. From time to time, an issue arises where there is an apparent need to do one thing, but actually there is a good reason to do the opposite.
When this happens, whichever minister has been wheeled out for the day tends to explain the government’s thinking. So when asked why we haven’t banned Russia Today, the answer was that they would ban the BBC in retaliation and that would mean Russian civilians aren’t able to get accurate information about what’s happening. When asked why we haven’t expelled Russian diplomats, the answer was we are using that channel for various reasons, for example pointing out Geneva Convention violations that Russia will be required to answer for, so it is useful to keep that back channel open. And of course, why can’t we sent planes in? Because that risks all out war with a nuclear armed state.
What is interesting about this is when the the media round minister starts to bullshit. Dominic Raab was asked today why we had given VTB 30 days’ grace for people to sort their shit out before sanctions bite. His answer was back to the party gate/Covid standard response of bullshit and bluster, using up the time they can be asked anything while completely avoiding the actual question.
Needless to say, there was no follow up of the ‘you haven’t answered my question’ variety.
So what is the real reason for that 30 day period? So far as I am aware, no other country imposing sanctions on Russia has acted similarly. There is no benefit I can see to either this country or Ukraine in doing so. The only benefit is that it gives wealthy Russian individuals/Conservative party donors plenty of time to get their money out of VTB before the sanctions bite.
When you look at it that way, it’s easy to see why Raab wouldn’t answer the question. But if there is some legitimate reason, why on Earth wouldn’t he provide it?
But the wider lesson I think is this. When they have got an actual answer to the question, they provide it. When the answer is inconvenient, or politically embarrassing, that’s when they bullshit.
Which is sort of obvious, but sometimes it’s helpful to see the obvious laid out with complete clarity.
When this happens, whichever minister has been wheeled out for the day tends to explain the government’s thinking. So when asked why we haven’t banned Russia Today, the answer was that they would ban the BBC in retaliation and that would mean Russian civilians aren’t able to get accurate information about what’s happening. When asked why we haven’t expelled Russian diplomats, the answer was we are using that channel for various reasons, for example pointing out Geneva Convention violations that Russia will be required to answer for, so it is useful to keep that back channel open. And of course, why can’t we sent planes in? Because that risks all out war with a nuclear armed state.
What is interesting about this is when the the media round minister starts to bullshit. Dominic Raab was asked today why we had given VTB 30 days’ grace for people to sort their shit out before sanctions bite. His answer was back to the party gate/Covid standard response of bullshit and bluster, using up the time they can be asked anything while completely avoiding the actual question.
Needless to say, there was no follow up of the ‘you haven’t answered my question’ variety.
So what is the real reason for that 30 day period? So far as I am aware, no other country imposing sanctions on Russia has acted similarly. There is no benefit I can see to either this country or Ukraine in doing so. The only benefit is that it gives wealthy Russian individuals/Conservative party donors plenty of time to get their money out of VTB before the sanctions bite.
When you look at it that way, it’s easy to see why Raab wouldn’t answer the question. But if there is some legitimate reason, why on Earth wouldn’t he provide it?
But the wider lesson I think is this. When they have got an actual answer to the question, they provide it. When the answer is inconvenient, or politically embarrassing, that’s when they bullshit.
Which is sort of obvious, but sometimes it’s helpful to see the obvious laid out with complete clarity.