Jump to content

Barbe bleu

Members
  • Content Count

    2,347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Barbe bleu last won the day on October 26 2020

Barbe bleu had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

565 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You two are talking at cross purposes again. LYB is making the very valid point that parliament (ie all the members) is supreme, it can legislate as it pleases. If there is a rule, or law, or principle that gets in the way if that legislation they can choose to revoke it. If any party has a majority they can in effect do anything they want. You are making the different point that executive power comes with limitations in law. That's true, but if the executive finds a blockage and commands a majority in parliament then they have a means of removing that blockage. And if that isn't the point you are making then you are wrong. Personally I think the HoL in its current form is a bit silly but given its very limited powers I'm not that fussed either way about its impending doom. YFs idea is probably closest to what I would want to see as a replacement. Not ideal, but ideal doesn't exist.
  2. Yellow Fever's bath is too small, so he keeps his dollars in the swimming pool. He promised his brokers they can come to a pool party when it gets to parity, but it's not happened yet.
  3. I thought Boy George was fully supportive of the lockdown policy. Didn't he run a pre pandemic lockdown trial himself?
  4. The boring answer is that there was no hint that anyone in downing street committed an imprisonable offence. The longer answer is that the guy got locked up for perverting the course of justice not for opening his business in breach of coronavirus regulations. It probably didn't help that he pleaded not guilty and ran a ludicrous defence that even people that think Mrs Brown's Boys is funny would have struggled to believe. Come to think of it he probably could have run a successful insanity defence if there was evidence he likes MBB.
  5. An excellent opportunity to remember that the ground is too small and needs expansion!
  6. We've all agreed that anyone that can keep a straight face while claiming MBB is remotely funny needs to be removed from the forum
  7. Hang on. Are you suggesting that MBB is actually funny if you have a highly tuned sense of humour? If this is your position you need to resign from posting here as you will never be taken seriously again. There is a awful lot of nonsense posted on the non football pages but this might be the most ludicrous ever.
  8. The windfall tax rising to 78% of profits would add precisely nothing to the taxpayer if the companies involved don't declare a profit. But a windfall profits tax is what we all called for, so we can't moan too much. Unless you wanted there to be a levy on group profits wherever in the world they were generated? And the shell chief executive saying they should pay more is the equivalent of putting a wind turbine on the front of the shareholders prospectus and then putting 99% of funding into fossil fuels. Looks or sounds great but is it anything other than presentational?
  9. My reading is slightly different. Rather than take advantage of loopholes in the windfall tax tlregime they managed to avoid declaring any UK profit at all. No windfall profits tax will be levied on a company that declares no profit. Perhaps the calls for windfall taxes (however devised) were misplaced and perhaps we should have debated some form of 'extraction tax' instead , although taxes the thing you want to encourage is always going to be tricky. Be interesting what happens in future years.
  10. No need to ban protests outside Carrow Road. Assuming it's not during his 10% break the sporting director is always on hand to sort the protestors out in an appropriate fashion.
  11. Unlawfully sharing secret documents is straight up criminal. If that's what she did then its clearly massive. If she shared official (ie not 'secret') documents beyond the intended distribution list then its bad form and presumably against procedural rules. Both are bad. The former though is clearly far more serious. I haven't the foggiest idea of what cyber security rules there are in the home office or indeed how the document was distributed so whilst CM rightly raises the issue its a conversation that doesn't really go anywhere worthwhile until more becomes known.
  12. You may well be right about the IT rules they have, I wouldn't know. I was wondering more about the sharing bit than the IT side. The report said it was 'confidential' which had me wondering if she was carelessly sharing secrets. That would be massive.
×
×
  • Create New...