In the news

For anyone who isn't obsessive about promoting paywalls:

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/abusive-arrogant-and-aggressive-bridgen-lied-about-family-feud-319679/

Weird hill to die on

The truth is that I don’t really give a damn about the offence - but I do care deeply that he has been caught out lying again, and this time a direct and provable lie to the house.

If he doesn’t resign over this (possibly the least important, in real terms, lie of his career) then we are in the realms of Trumpian politics and I really hope that the Mother of Democracies is better than that.

Piss off Boris. Do it gracefully and piss off.

Having heard Andrew Bridgen’s overbearing efforts on the radio over the last few years this is quality stuff, not least the “in actuality I won the case”.

What sanctions will he face as a result?

What sanctions will he face as a result?

He's a Tory MP - repercussions are for lesser liars.

It's hardly obsessive is it, I posted the article that broke the story and which your article then quotes as it is reporting it second hand. The time it took you to go and find a worse article you could of just copied and pasted the link in to site that removes the paywall.

It's hardly obsessive is it

Will you settle for lazy, arrogant and shilling for Murdoch?

I was figuring with these skills he would be nailed on to join the cabinet in a post local election reshuffle

Will you settle for lazy, arrogant and shilling for Murdoch?

You are the only person who has ever raised it as an issue, weird to call it shilling for Murdoch when they are the ones that broke the story you wanted to share and you are the one too lazy to copy and paste a link to the odd FT, NYT or WSJ article

Feel free to stick me on ignore, no one is forcing you to read the articles I share and you stick to your narrow list of approved media outlets

I'm pretty sure we are only a couple of weeks away from bringing down the entire Murdoch empire if we can just resist posting any more links.
More to the point, what about those shillings who post links to Instagram where you have to have an Instagram account to read them? Do they never think of the hurt and disappointment and frustration they cause?

Feel free to stick me on ignore, no one is forcing you to read the articles I share and you stick to your narrow list of approved media outlets

Haha, been there, that account is here for the wind ups, it'll keep going until you ignore them

Good to know!

Could not happen to a more deserving piece of trash.

https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-bankruptcy-filing-1a3b51946cb06c5f90c341d3118947cf

I hope this fuck dies penniless and completely forgotten. Fucking fuck.

Unfortunately that reads like a strategy to try and evade making payments to the sandy hook victims families to me. I hope I am wrong.

Could not happen to a more deserving piece of trash

That's made me genuinely happy. Megacunt.

You love to see it

"Theresa May comes out against the Rwanda deportation plan. Questions its "legality, practicality & efficacy". Translated - that's the longest-serving Home Sec in modern British politics telling her own party its flagship immigration policy may not work or be legal. Ouch."

I thought it was a dead cat to get the PM and Rishi off the front pages? The massive legal problems and logistics/cost have been pointed out from the start?

But yes, you still love to see it!

It seems to be a variant of a deal Israel did with Rwanda in 2013. It did not go well.

Bloody hell

Even David Davis points out the lunacy of dumping extremely vulnerable people in the recruiting grounds for various militias and Islamic State in his article in the Times today.

If the goal is to stop the human traficking and to stop people from risking their lives crossing the channel, can anybody think of a worse policy than the Rwanda plan?

Serious question. Is it actually possible to devise a plan that is worse value for money and less likely to work?

That sounds like they were tricked into leaving voluntarily, is that part of the British plan or do they just get deported there without being asked?

FFS, Starmer just asked by the Speaker to withdraw his description of Johnson as dishonest

Is it actually possible to devise a plan that is worse value for money and less likely to work?

Depends on what your view of its purpose is - if it's to give out an image of brutally inhumane hatred of refugees while proposing something clearly illegal and unworkable, which will also give opportunities to attack the judicial and democratic procedures that will stop it, it's likely to work.

Serious question. Is it actually possible to devise a plan that is worse value for money and less likely to work?

To be fair I think they may have already had one with warships pushing dinghies back across the channel.