Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Dohnut wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:57 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 5:29 pm

Dohnut wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:46 pm

Exactly how I see it. And I dare say many Tories, including those at risk of losing their seats in 2 years agree. Cut him loose, bring in a new leader. Clean slate stuff. If Boris goes an awful lot of crap goes with him and with it Starmers Ace card.

Personally he should resign and just piss off.

Starmer has an Ace card? Wow.

Boris got a big majority, not because he was hot stuff but because his opponent was a non-starter. The same would apply to Starmer, not doing well just because he as good but because Boris was bad.

Two men in a jungle when a wild animal approached the first stated to run, the second sat down to put on his trainers. The first guy said “ wasting your time there, wont make you outrun the beast”. The second guy said “ I don’t need to outrun the beast, I just need to outrun you “

Done need to be good, just better than the other person. Boris got a good majority because Corbyn was rubbish. Starmer could do the same with Boris.

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:29 pm

Dohnut wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:57 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 5:29 pm

Starmer has an Ace card? Wow.

Boris got a big majority, not because he was hot stuff but because his opponent was a non-starter. The same would apply to Starmer, not doing well just because he as good but because Boris was bad.

Two men in a jungle when a wild animal approached the first stated to run, the second sat down to put on his trainers. The first guy said “ wasting your time there, wont make you outrun the beast”. The second guy said “ I don’t need to outrun the beast, I just need to outrun you “

Done need to be good, just better than the other person. Boris got a good majority because Corbyn was rubbish. Starmer could do the same with Boris.

Lies . Bodge got in because the red wall split over brex sh*t .

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 9:40 pm

Dohnut wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:57 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 5:29 pm

Starmer has an Ace card? Wow.

Boris got a big majority, not because he was hot stuff but because his opponent was a non-starter. The same would apply to Starmer, not doing well just because he as good but because Boris was bad.

Two men in a jungle when a wild animal approached the first stated to run, the second sat down to put on his trainers. The first guy said “ wasting your time there, wont make you outrun the beast”. The second guy said “ I don’t need to outrun the beast, I just need to outrun you “

Done need to be good, just better than the other person. Boris got a good majority because Corbyn was rubbish. Starmer could do the same with Boris.

So what you are saying is that the outcomes of British General Elections are decided on the basis of who has the least worst personality. Good to know.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:44 pm I would never have voted for Boris had Labour got a decent leader. And judging by much of the feedback at the time from Labour supporters, plenty more felt the same way.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:38 pm

tuffers#1 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:29 pm

Dohnut wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:57 pm

Boris got a big majority, not because he was hot stuff but because his opponent was a non-starter. The same would apply to Starmer, not doing well just because he as good but because Boris was bad.

Two men in a jungle when a wild animal approached the first stated to run, the second sat down to put on his trainers. The first guy said “ wasting your time there, wont make you outrun the beast”. The second guy said “ I don’t need to outrun the beast, I just need to outrun you “

Done need to be good, just better than the other person. Boris got a good majority because Corbyn was rubbish. Starmer could do the same with Boris.

Lies . Bodge got in because the red wall split over brex sh*t .

I take it you read the Labour review after the GE loss? Fair enough.

E10EU wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:24 am Getting back to Tory watch:
Interesting to see Johnson's performance in parliament today. He presented as 'apologising' for events on 20th April but in reality his response was carefully calculated. He wanted to take the heat out of the immediate situation and then direct any suggestion of blame away from himself. As in 'he was there for 25 minutes but did not know it was a party'. He disregarded all the other dates and allegations of breaching lock down rules that have been reported in the media. Seems to me that he is taking a major gamble. All it needs is for people to provide more evidence on his complicity on those dates! Of course that would not be needed if Johnson accepted full responsibility.
But for now he is still in the job and still able to fool us with prime ministerial posturing.

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 7:11 am

Dohnut wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:01 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 7:11 am

Why it’s in Labours interests for Boris to stay. A new Tory leader, a clean slate. Those numbers can change very quickly.

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:12 pm Something about party-gate that is bothering me. If I was invited to a party at No.10, I'd certainly go along in the full expectation of being plied with free booze. It's what any self-respecting Champagne Socialist would do.

However, in this instance, they were all told to BYOB. And many of the stupid f*ckers clearly did. What's that all about? Is that a normal work-place thing and I'm just living in my privileged bubble, or is it yet more evidence of their incompetence?

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:12 pm Something about party-gate that is bothering me. If I was invited to a party at No.10, I'd certainly go along in the full expectation of being plied with free booze. It's what any self-respecting Champagne Socialist would do.

However, in this instance, they were all told to BYOB. And many of the stupid f*ckers clearly did. What's that all about? Is that a normal work-place thing and I'm just living in my privileged bubble, or is it yet more evidence of their incompetence?

Ronnie Hotdogs wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 7:01 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:12 pm Something about party-gate that is bothering me. If I was invited to a party at No.10, I'd certainly go along in the full expectation of being plied with free booze. It's what any self-respecting Champagne Socialist would do.

However, in this instance, they were all told to BYOB. And many of the stupid f*ckers clearly did. What's that all about? Is that a normal work-place thing and I'm just living in my privileged bubble, or is it yet more evidence of their incompetence?

Guarantee if they check back over the expense claims of the 40 attendees from May/June 2020, everyone of them had put in a claim for the bottle(s) they took along.

I’m sure this Sue Gray will discover it as part of her investigation.

HARVEY T DENTON wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:33 am Having also suffered a loss in lockdown, this piece pretty much sums up my feelings.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ied-sister

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:25 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:12 pm Something about party-gate that is bothering me. If I was invited to a party at No.10, I'd certainly go along in the full expectation of being plied with free booze. It's what any self-respecting Champagne Socialist would do.

However, in this instance, they were all told to BYOB. And many of the stupid f*ckers clearly did. What's that all about? Is that a normal work-place thing and I'm just living in my privileged bubble, or is it yet more evidence of their incompetence?

I'm guessing it was BYOB so as to try to keep it "unofficial" - not dipping in to the wine cellars (which presumably would leave a paper trail) - If food was the only thing provided, then maybe they thought they'd be able to pass the consumption off as business-related. Rather defeats the object by sending out the invites on email, mind

Might be nonsense, of course.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:13 pm

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:25 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:12 pm Something about party-gate that is bothering me. If I was invited to a party at No.10, I'd certainly go along in the full expectation of being plied with free booze. It's what any self-respecting Champagne Socialist would do.

However, in this instance, they were all told to BYOB. And many of the stupid f*ckers clearly did. What's that all about? Is that a normal work-place thing and I'm just living in my privileged bubble, or is it yet more evidence of their incompetence?

I'm guessing it was BYOB so as to try to keep it "unofficial" - not dipping in to the wine cellars (which presumably would leave a paper trail) - If food was the only thing provided, then maybe they thought they'd be able to pass the consumption off as business-related. Rather defeats the object by sending out the invites on email, mind

Might be nonsense, of course.

Bring you own avoids cross contamination from bottles. Not unusual for wine at business working events. Pretty common in fact. Not unusual for organisations to have offsite meetings, in their case they have a secure garden. Our company used a local hotel.

Possible to have a working event that includes wine and nibbles, in a social setting. Not unusual. The issues is not that, it’s if it broke Covid regulations.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:13 pm

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:25 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:12 pm Something about party-gate that is bothering me. If I was invited to a party at No.10, I'd certainly go along in the full expectation of being plied with free booze. It's what any self-respecting Champagne Socialist would do.

However, in this instance, they were all told to BYOB. And many of the stupid f*ckers clearly did. What's that all about? Is that a normal work-place thing and I'm just living in my privileged bubble, or is it yet more evidence of their incompetence?

I'm guessing it was BYOB so as to try to keep it "unofficial" - not dipping in to the wine cellars (which presumably would leave a paper trail) - If food was the only thing provided, then maybe they thought they'd be able to pass the consumption off as business-related. Rather defeats the object by sending out the invites on email, mind

Might be nonsense, of course.

Bring you own avoids cross contamination from bottles. Not unusual for wine at business working events. Pretty common in fact. Not unusual for organisations to have offsite meetings, in their case they have a secure garden. Our company used a local hotel.

Possible to have a working event that includes wine and nibbles, in a social setting. Not unusual. The issues is not that, it’s if it broke Covid regulations.

Dohnut wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:13 pm

StillSpike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:25 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:12 pm Something about party-gate that is bothering me. If I was invited to a party at No.10, I'd certainly go along in the full expectation of being plied with free booze. It's what any self-respecting Champagne Socialist would do.

However, in this instance, they were all told to BYOB. And many of the stupid f*ckers clearly did. What's that all about? Is that a normal work-place thing and I'm just living in my privileged bubble, or is it yet more evidence of their incompetence?

I'm guessing it was BYOB so as to try to keep it "unofficial" - not dipping in to the wine cellars (which presumably would leave a paper trail) - If food was the only thing provided, then maybe they thought they'd be able to pass the consumption off as business-related. Rather defeats the object by sending out the invites on email, mind

Might be nonsense, of course.

Bring you own avoids cross contamination from bottles. Not unusual for wine at business working events. Pretty common in fact. Not unusual for organisations to have offsite meetings, in their case they have a secure garden. Our company used a local hotel.

Possible to have a working event that includes wine and nibbles, in a social setting. Not unusual. The issues is not that, it’s if it broke Covid regulations.