Mayhem

[Judith]

What a fucking shambles this Government is - looks like Priti Patel is on her
way back home and out of the door.

Amazing that the Maybot didn't sack her on Monday.

Strong and Stable - my arse.

[The Todal]

Post by Judith
What a fucking shambles this Government is - looks like Priti Patel is on her
way back home and out of the door.
Amazing that the Maybot didn't sack her on Monday.
Strong and Stable - my arse.

Clearly Priti Patel reasoned that the best way of positioning herself as
a leadership challenger is to suck up to the Israeli government and to
the bigoted right wing jewish community in Britain.

I can't think where she got that idea from. I mean, it's not as if
there's any rabid antisemitism witch-hunt going on, eh?

[Yellow]

Post by The Todal

Post by Judith
What a fucking shambles this Government is - looks like Priti Patel is on her
way back home and out of the door.
Amazing that the Maybot didn't sack her on Monday.
Strong and Stable - my arse.

Clearly Priti Patel reasoned that the best way of positioning herself as
a leadership challenger is to suck up to the Israeli government and to
the bigoted right wing jewish community in Britain.
I can't think where she got that idea from. I mean, it's not as if
there's any rabid antisemitism witch-hunt going on, eh?

I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the government
she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government cause for her to
be sacked?

[Judith]

Post by Yellow

Post by The Todal

Post by Judith
What a fucking shambles this Government is - looks like Priti Patel is on her
way back home and out of the door.
Amazing that the Maybot didn't sack her on Monday.
Strong and Stable - my arse.

Clearly Priti Patel reasoned that the best way of positioning herself as
a leadership challenger is to suck up to the Israeli government and to
the bigoted right wing jewish community in Britain.
I can't think where she got that idea from. I mean, it's not as if
there's any rabid antisemitism witch-hunt going on, eh?

I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the government
she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government cause for her to
be sacked?

She went there for a holiday (or so she said) for 13 days.

Whilst there she held 12 meetings at which official departmental business was
discussed, including with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, the
country’s security minister and the foreign ministry’s chief diplomat.

She had broken ministerial rules, by failing to tell the Foreign Office about
government business conducted overseas.

She then lied and said that Boris knew about the meetings.

Mayhem did not have the back bone to sack her for breaking Governmental rules
and procedures when she reprimanded her; but Patel even "forgot" to tell
Mayhem that she had also had two further meetings after her holiday with
Israel’s security minister and the chief diplomat.

Mayhem told her to come home from Uganda (no doubt to get the sack which Labour
had quite rightly been calling for)

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Judith

Post by Yellow

Post by The Todal

Post by Judith
What a fucking shambles this Government is - looks like Priti Patel is on her
way back home and out of the door.
Amazing that the Maybot didn't sack her on Monday.
Strong and Stable - my arse.

Clearly Priti Patel reasoned that the best way of positioning herself as
a leadership challenger is to suck up to the Israeli government and to
the bigoted right wing jewish community in Britain.
I can't think where she got that idea from. I mean, it's not as if
there's any rabid antisemitism witch-hunt going on, eh?

I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the government
she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government cause for her to
be sacked?

She went there for a holiday (or so she said) for 13 days.
Whilst there she held 12 meetings at which official departmental business was
discussed, including with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, the
country’s security minister and the foreign ministry’s chief diplomat.
She had broken ministerial rules, by failing to tell the Foreign Office about
government business conducted overseas.
She then lied and said that Boris knew about the meetings.
Mayhem did not have the back bone to sack her for breaking Governmental rules
and procedures when she reprimanded her; but Patel even "forgot" to tell
Mayhem that she had also had two further meetings after her holiday with
Israel’s security minister and the chief diplomat.
Mayhem told her to come home from Uganda (no doubt to get the sack which Labour
had quite rightly been calling for)

It now appears she has visited Israeli occupied Syria contrary to
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/syria*
and her actions are likely to undermine whatever slight diplomatic influence the UK might have in the region.


* worth a read in its own right :-(

[Ian Jackson]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
It now appears she has visited Israeli occupied Syria contrary to
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/syria*
and her actions are likely to undermine whatever slight diplomatic
influence the UK might have in the region.

In fairness to her, it appears that she acted with the best of
intentions - ie to discuss how the UK could send aid to Israeli army, to
be used for the benefit of Syrian refugees who had fled to safety in the
Israeli-controlled area of Syria.

Post by R. Mark Clayton
* worth a read in its own right :-(

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Yellow
I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the government
she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government cause for her to
be sacked?

Same question occurred to me. We are being told by the media that it's
"against the rules" for FCO ministers to meet foreign politicians
without telling the PM. But is it really? Who says? Isn't meeting
foreign politicians the everyday job of FCO ministers? Even if it is a
"rule" that they have to inform the PM, how strictly enforced has that
rule customarily been followed? What difference does it make to you and
me if it is occasionally waived? If it makes a difference to the PM,
isn't it the PM's business, and hers alone, to do something about it?
Anyway, aren't there occasions when the PM prefers not to know about the
FCO's contacts with foreign governments so that they can be kept
confidential and deniable if necessary? Isn't this the way governments
have always conducted diplomacy?

The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by the
Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC and the
Guardian. And once the "She Must Resign" bandwagon has got rolling, it
is of course dutifully followed by the rest of the press, who are always
willing to join the baying pack in their hunger for a ministerial
resignation story.

[tim]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Yellow
I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the government
she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government cause for her to
be sacked?

Same question occurred to me. We are being told by the media that it's
"against the rules" for FCO ministers to meet foreign politicians without
telling the PM. But is it really? Who says? Isn't meeting foreign
politicians the everyday job of FCO ministers? Even if it is a "rule" that
they have to inform the PM, how strictly enforced has that rule
customarily been followed?

I think the more important rule that she broke is that she didn't see them
with her ministerial minder in tow taking notes of the meeting

without that she could have made all sots of undesirable promises

tim

[Yellow]

Post by tim

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Yellow
I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the government
she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government cause for her to
be sacked?

Same question occurred to me. We are being told by the media that it's
"against the rules" for FCO ministers to meet foreign politicians without
telling the PM. But is it really? Who says? Isn't meeting foreign
politicians the everyday job of FCO ministers? Even if it is a "rule" that
they have to inform the PM, how strictly enforced has that rule
customarily been followed?

I think the more important rule that she broke is that she didn't see them
with her ministerial minder in tow taking notes of the meeting
without that she could have made all sots of undesirable promises

But if no promises have been recorded, who cares?

[pamela]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Yellow
I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the
government she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government
cause for her to be sacked?

Same question occurred to me. We are being told by the media
that it's "against the rules" for FCO ministers to meet foreign
politicians without telling the PM. But is it really? Who says?
Isn't meeting foreign politicians the everyday job of FCO
ministers? Even if it is a "rule" that they have to inform the
PM, how strictly enforced has that rule customarily been
followed? What difference does it make to you and me if it is
occasionally waived? If it makes a difference to the PM, isn't
it the PM's business, and hers alone, to do something about it?
Anyway, aren't there occasions when the PM prefers not to know
about the FCO's contacts with foreign governments so that they
can be kept confidential and deniable if necessary? Isn't this
the way governments have always conducted diplomacy?
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by
the Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC
and the Guardian. And once the "She Must Resign" bandwagon has
got rolling, it is of course dutifully followed by the rest of
the press, who are always willing to join the baying pack in
their hunger for a ministerial resignation story.

Most countries forbid their officials making private
representations to a foreign country as if it were government
policy.

Good bye Priti. You knew better. You won't be missed.

[Yellow]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Yellow
I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the government
she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government cause for her to
be sacked?

Same question occurred to me. We are being told by the media that it's
"against the rules" for FCO ministers to meet foreign politicians
without telling the PM. But is it really? Who says? Isn't meeting
foreign politicians the everyday job of FCO ministers? Even if it is a
"rule" that they have to inform the PM, how strictly enforced has that
rule customarily been followed? What difference does it make to you and
me if it is occasionally waived? If it makes a difference to the PM,
isn't it the PM's business, and hers alone, to do something about it?
Anyway, aren't there occasions when the PM prefers not to know about the
FCO's contacts with foreign governments so that they can be kept
confidential and deniable if necessary? Isn't this the way governments
have always conducted diplomacy?

Yes - that is the sort of thing that has occurred to me.

Post by Handsome Jack
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by the
Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC and the
Guardian. And once the "She Must Resign" bandwagon has got rolling, it
is of course dutifully followed by the rest of the press, who are always
willing to join the baying pack in their hunger for a ministerial
resignation story.

I see she has resigned rather than be sacked, which that simply means
she will be getting another cabinet job in a few months time I expect.

[JNugent]

Post by Yellow

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Yellow
I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the government
she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government cause for her to
be sacked?

Same question occurred to me. We are being told by the media that it's
"against the rules" for FCO ministers to meet foreign politicians
without telling the PM. But is it really? Who says? Isn't meeting
foreign politicians the everyday job of FCO ministers? Even if it is a
"rule" that they have to inform the PM, how strictly enforced has that
rule customarily been followed? What difference does it make to you and
me if it is occasionally waived? If it makes a difference to the PM,
isn't it the PM's business, and hers alone, to do something about it?
Anyway, aren't there occasions when the PM prefers not to know about the
FCO's contacts with foreign governments so that they can be kept
confidential and deniable if necessary? Isn't this the way governments
have always conducted diplomacy?

Yes - that is the sort of thing that has occurred to me.

And to me.

Post by Yellow

Post by Handsome Jack
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by the
Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC and the
Guardian. And once the "She Must Resign" bandwagon has got rolling, it
is of course dutifully followed by the rest of the press, who are always
willing to join the baying pack in their hunger for a ministerial
resignation story.

I see she has resigned rather than be sacked, which that simply means
she will be getting another cabinet job in a few months time I expect.

Let us hope so.

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by Yellow

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Yellow
I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the government
she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government cause for her to
be sacked?

Same question occurred to me. We are being told by the media that it's
"against the rules" for FCO ministers to meet foreign politicians
without telling the PM. But is it really? Who says? Isn't meeting
foreign politicians the everyday job of FCO ministers? Even if it is a
"rule" that they have to inform the PM, how strictly enforced has that
rule customarily been followed? What difference does it make to you and
me if it is occasionally waived? If it makes a difference to the PM,
isn't it the PM's business, and hers alone, to do something about it?
Anyway, aren't there occasions when the PM prefers not to know about the
FCO's contacts with foreign governments so that they can be kept
confidential and deniable if necessary? Isn't this the way governments
have always conducted diplomacy?

Yes - that is the sort of thing that has occurred to me.

And to me.

Post by Yellow

Post by Handsome Jack
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by the
Labour Party and  amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC and the
Guardian. And once the "She Must Resign" bandwagon has got rolling, it
is of course dutifully followed by the rest of the press, who are always
willing to join the baying pack in their hunger for a ministerial
resignation story.

I see she has resigned rather than be sacked, which that simply means
she will be getting another cabinet job in a few months time I expect.

Let us hope so.

She'll get a cabinet job from whichever leadership contender eventually
replaces Theresa May. So I'm sure she's priti happy at the moment.

[Ophelia]

Post by Yellow

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Yellow
I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the government
she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government cause for her to
be sacked?

Same question occurred to me. We are being told by the media that it's
"against the rules" for FCO ministers to meet foreign politicians
without telling the PM. But is it really? Who says? Isn't meeting
foreign politicians the everyday job of FCO ministers? Even if it is a
"rule" that they have to inform the PM, how strictly enforced has that
rule customarily been followed? What difference does it make to you and
me if it is occasionally waived? If it makes a difference to the PM,
isn't it the PM's business, and hers alone, to do something about it?
Anyway, aren't there occasions when the PM prefers not to know about the
FCO's contacts with foreign governments so that they can be kept
confidential and deniable if necessary? Isn't this the way governments
have always conducted diplomacy?

Yes - that is the sort of thing that has occurred to me.

And to me.

Post by Yellow

Post by Handsome Jack
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by the
Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC and the
Guardian. And once the "She Must Resign" bandwagon has got rolling, it
is of course dutifully followed by the rest of the press, who are always
willing to join the baying pack in their hunger for a ministerial
resignation story.

I see she has resigned rather than be sacked, which that simply means
she will be getting another cabinet job in a few months time I expect.

Let us hope so.

==

+1

[tim...]

Post by Yellow

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Yellow
I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the government
she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government cause for her to
be sacked?

Same question occurred to me. We are being told by the media that it's
"against the rules" for FCO ministers to meet foreign politicians
without telling the PM. But is it really? Who says? Isn't meeting
foreign politicians the everyday job of FCO ministers? Even if it is a
"rule" that they have to inform the PM, how strictly enforced has that
rule customarily been followed? What difference does it make to you and
me if it is occasionally waived? If it makes a difference to the PM,
isn't it the PM's business, and hers alone, to do something about it?
Anyway, aren't there occasions when the PM prefers not to know about the
FCO's contacts with foreign governments so that they can be kept
confidential and deniable if necessary? Isn't this the way governments
have always conducted diplomacy?

Yes - that is the sort of thing that has occurred to me.

Post by Handsome Jack
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by the
Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC and the
Guardian. And once the "She Must Resign" bandwagon has got rolling, it
is of course dutifully followed by the rest of the press, who are always
willing to join the baying pack in their hunger for a ministerial
resignation story.

I see she has resigned rather than be sacked, which that simply means
she will be getting another cabinet job in a few months time I expect.

Like Mandolin

[Yellow]

Post by tim...

Post by Yellow

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Yellow
I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the government
she was meeting the Israeli, or any other, government cause for her to
be sacked?

Same question occurred to me. We are being told by the media that it's
"against the rules" for FCO ministers to meet foreign politicians
without telling the PM. But is it really? Who says? Isn't meeting
foreign politicians the everyday job of FCO ministers? Even if it is a
"rule" that they have to inform the PM, how strictly enforced has that
rule customarily been followed? What difference does it make to you and
me if it is occasionally waived? If it makes a difference to the PM,
isn't it the PM's business, and hers alone, to do something about it?
Anyway, aren't there occasions when the PM prefers not to know about the
FCO's contacts with foreign governments so that they can be kept
confidential and deniable if necessary? Isn't this the way governments
have always conducted diplomacy?

Yes - that is the sort of thing that has occurred to me.

Post by Handsome Jack
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by the
Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC and the
Guardian. And once the "She Must Resign" bandwagon has got rolling, it
is of course dutifully followed by the rest of the press, who are always
willing to join the baying pack in their hunger for a ministerial
resignation story.

I see she has resigned rather than be sacked, which that simply means
she will be getting another cabinet job in a few months time I expect.

Like Mandolin

Exactly.

[pamela]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:28:23 +0000, Handsome Jack

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by Yellow
I haven't really followed this, but why was not telling the
government she was meeting the Israeli, or any other,
government cause for her to be sacked?

Same question occurred to me. We are being told by the media
that it's "against the rules" for FCO ministers to meet foreign
politicians without telling the PM. But is it really? Who says?
Isn't meeting foreign politicians the everyday job of FCO
ministers? Even if it is a "rule" that they have to inform the
PM, how strictly enforced has that rule customarily been
followed? What difference does it make to you and me if it is
occasionally waived? If it makes a difference to the PM, isn't
it the PM's business, and hers alone, to do something about it?
Anyway, aren't there occasions when the PM prefers not to know
about the FCO's contacts with foreign governments so that they
can be kept confidential and deniable if necessary? Isn't this
the way governments have always conducted diplomacy?

Yes - that is the sort of thing that has occurred to me.

Post by Handsome Jack
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up
by the Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the
BBC and the Guardian. And once the "She Must Resign" bandwagon
has got rolling, it is of course dutifully followed by the rest
of the press, who are always willing to join the baying pack in
their hunger for a ministerial resignation story.

I see she has resigned rather than be sacked, which that simply
means she will be getting another cabinet job in a few months
time I expect.

Priti Patel was effectively sacked but given the opportunity to
save face by resigning. A change of name won't diminish the
seriousness of what she did, which means she could be out in the
cold for as long as Theresa May is in charge.

She was a bit of a loon anyway.

[Judith]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 21:17:41 -0000, Yellow <***@none.com.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Yellow
I see she has resigned rather than be sacked

Yes : if you don't resign now - then I will sack you.

The resignation letter was written by No 10 as well.

Strong and stable.

[Judith]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:28:23 +0000, Handsome Jack <***@nowhere.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Handsome Jack
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by the
Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC and the
Guardian.

Well if you were right - it just shows she has no fucking backbone whatsoever

[tim...]

Post by Judith
<snip>

Post by Handsome Jack
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by the
Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC and the
Guardian.

Well if you were right - it just shows she has no fucking backbone whatsoever

resignations have been precipitated by opposition action for as long as I
have been an adult.

The last person who "did the right thing" without being pushed was, well I
don't know, but not since the 60s

tim

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by tim...

Post by Judith
<snip>

Post by Handsome Jack
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by the
Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC and the
Guardian.

Well if you were right - it just shows she has no fucking backbone whatsoever

resignations have been precipitated by opposition action for as long as I
have been an adult.
The last person who "did the right thing" without being pushed was, well I
don't know, but not since the 60s
tim

Lord Carrington 1982 plus two foreign ministers. Might be more recent examples.

[Judith]

Post by tim...

Post by Judith
<snip>

Post by Handsome Jack
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by the
Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC and the
Guardian.

Well if you were right - it just shows she has no fucking backbone whatsoever

resignations have been precipitated by opposition action for as long as I
have been an adult.
The last person who "did the right thing" without being pushed was, well I
don't know, but not since the 60s
tim

You are right of course: the whole matter was the result of the Labour Party
and the BBC.

Could you just look outside and share with us the colour of the sky please.

[Handsome Jack]

Post by Judith

Post by tim...

Post by Judith
<snip>

Post by Handsome Jack
The whole thing is just a load of bollocks. Presumably got up by the
Labour Party and amplified by its apparatchiks at the BBC and the
Guardian.

Well if you were right - it just shows she has no fucking backbone whatsoever

resignations have been precipitated by opposition action for as long as I
have been an adult.
The last person who "did the right thing" without being pushed was, well I
don't know, but not since the 60s

You are right of course: the whole matter was the result of the Labour Party
and the BBC.
Could you just look outside and share with us the colour of the sky please.

The story was "broken" by the BBC reporter James Landale, who was
probably briefed by Labour-sympathising FCO staff. Landale then fell
over himself getting quotes from the Labour Party demanding her
resignation for "breaking the ministerial code of conduct". See

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/03/priti-patel-held-undiscl
osed-meetings-israel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41853561

[Judith]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 14:17:11 +0000, Handsome Jack <***@nowhere.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Handsome Jack
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/03/priti-patel-held-undiscl
osed-meetings-israel
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41853561

So its a load of bollocks is it? Those were the words you used I believe?

So something is a load of bollocks and Mayhem forces a cabinet minister to
resign: strong and stable.

Thanks for the clarification