Boris Johnson......the next PM?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/10415817/Boris-Johnson-The-first-London-Mayor-of-Muslim-extraction.htm

I think he is very clever, trying to drum up Exports on his visit to China, playing cricket with youngsters in India and in the process getting a contract for two films to be made in Britain. Now he is addressing a Muslim convention .

 Boris done anything for London today or is he still farting around in China ?


Here's a nice picture of the Royal cousins ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1269378/David-Cameron-Boris-Johnson-scions-royal-blood.html


Proof that both Boris and Cameron are Bastards of William1V and his Irish lover !

Lioned wrote: Boris done anything for London today or is he still farting around in China ?

Odd, I just tried to click on the Article and it says "web page cannot be found, is that what happened to you Lioned?

This Article was about him speaking at a Muslim Concention the page is working now

This is it without the Video:, he looks like he could be descended from a Muslim with that blond hair. 


Addressing the 9th World Islamic Economic Forum, the London Mayor told the story of his great-great-grandfather Ahmed Hamdi, a Muslim entrepreneur.


"I am very proud to be here this morning because I am sure that I am the first Mayor of London of partly Muslim extraction, and indeed the descendant of a Muslim entrepreneur by the name of Ahmed Hamdi.


"My father’s father’s father’s father - a pious man of Anatolia who made the Haj and who more or less cornered the beeswax market in Istanbul, which was a very good idea because you needed beeswax candles to light the mosques.


"So he was in the same commercially agreeable position as the big six energy companies in Britain today, though his prices were obviously more reasonable.


"He flourished mightily minding his own beeswax, as we say in England."

I've been trying to tell you for the last two years that Boris is a bastard and now i give you the proof.

When he eventually finishes his globe trotting perhaps he'll do something about all them Roma people sleeping in the Queens gardens in London !

Lioned wrote:I've been trying to tell you for the last two years that Boris is a bastard and now i give you the proof.

When he eventually finishes his globe trotting perhaps he'll do something about all them Roma people sleeping in the Queens gardens in London !

 
There are illegals sleeping rough where I live but what is the Conservative Party doing about it? Driving a Van around warning them. What happens when they get caught? Appeal to hiuman rights. . Until Britain acts more rigidly and has Boats patrolling the shoreline of Britain, a new Border Agency and a notice to the rest of the World that unfortunately a small Country like Britain cannot accept any more immigrants unless they have a job to come to. Also, issue visas, fine heavily any employer who employs illegals , the situation is desperate.

Education in Britain is poor and many leave school without any basic skills , teenage girls get pregnant so they will go on benefits, have a house, and never have to work.!!!

China built its HS2 in two years. Don’t let Labour derail ours

Balls and Co thought it was a great idea. Until they spotted a chance to woo the sceptic vote





Undated file handout image issued by HS2 of the Birmingham and Fazeley viaduct

Artist's impression of the HS2 Photo: PA







Boris Johnson
By Boris Johnson

9:04PM GMT 03 Nov 2013



Comments616 Comments





There were quite a few amazing things about the high-speed train I took the other day in China. It went faster than the fastest Maserati ever made, and it shot through fields dotted with stooping straw-hatted peasants and it zoomed past high mountains and sprouting new cities and it emitted no more noise or vibration than a purring cat – but that wasn’t the truly extraordinary thing about the route.


It wasn’t the speed or the silence or the comfort or the supply of hot towels. It was the fact that our Chinese friends had built the whole darned thing since I had been there last, in 2006. They made the entire 813-mile track from Beijing to Shanghai, rifle-barrel straight, with umpteen gorgeous new marbled stations, with concourses so clean you could use them to gobble your dim sum – and how long did it take them? It took two years! Two years, amigos. That is how long we have already been gassing away about HS2, a period in which we have spent literally hundreds of millions of pounds on drawings and consultants and planning and what have you – and not laid so much as a rail.


Two years!


That is the kind of period we set aside, in our big infrastructure projects, for the first consultation on the environmental impact assessment. And then there will be the equalities impact assessments and the judicial reviews and the appeals and the planning inquiries and the whole spine-cracking yawnathon that will comfortably soak up a decade or more in which we fail to achieve what the Chinese have done in two years.


If we are to have any hope of meeting the infrastructure needs of this country we need first to recognise the severity of the problem – that with a population set to grow to about 80 million by the middle of the century, we need to plan now for the most effective and environmentally sensitive way of housing this population, of providing them with sanitation and power, and above all of enabling them to move speedily between the great wealth-creating zones of this country.


Related Articles
Sketch: HS2? The grandchildren will love it
04 Nov 2013
George Osborne should halt the train journey no one wants to take
31 Oct 2013
Patrick McLoughlin: HS2 will come to 'nothing' without Tory and Labour backing
31 Oct 2013
Sketch: HS2 – the debate trundles on
31 Oct 2013
Upgrading rail network better value than HS2, government finds
03 Nov 2013


One way or the other, we are going to need HS2, and it is a total disgrace that the Labour Party is now playing politics with the scheme. They are shamelessly courting the sceptic vote – feigning support but unofficially signalling that a Labour government would pull the plug. Ed Balls has said that the case has yet to be made out – even though he went into the last election with HS2 in his manifesto.

Alistair Darling has said it is a “disaster”. Peter Mandelson now claims the whole thing was nothing but an electoral gimmick and should be junked. And you can see why Labour is so tempted, and why they have played this card. They have an economic credibility problem. They are going to have to persuade the electorate that they have some big and unexpected source of funding that will enable them to fulfil all their promises – to cut your fuel bills and plump your pension and subsidise the minimum wage – and the answer is always going to be HS2.

They can also see that the Tories are facing a revolt from those on the route, and from those who aren’t convinced that the scheme represents a good use of public money. Their objective is to make the project politically toxic with a drip, drip, drip of cold water, in a kind of chemical reaction: HS2 + H2O = H2SO4. They hope that continuing anxieties about noise and property prices will cost the Tories votes in key marginals. They are fomenting general hostility to the scheme, and, in particular, they are supporting those who say that investment in HS2 means diverting crucial spending from other parts of the railway network – and there I believe they are talking more nonsense than ever.

This was exactly the case that was made to me, more than five years ago, when the economic crash first happened and we were about to commit to spending £16 billion on Crossrail. It was mad, people said, to build a whole new railway under London when the rest of the Tube network was in urgent need of repair, when we were still using bakelite signalling on the District line and when funds were so desperately short. I remember a passionate denunciation of the scheme from one distinguished transport executive. “Why would you buy a shiny new car and park in front of the house, when the house is falling down?” he asked me.

Well, I think he was wrong then, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he agreed that he looks even more wrong now. We have not only got on with delivering Crossrail – absolutely vital to increase capacity on the London rail network. We have upgraded the Tube as well. We have cut delays by 40 per cent over the last five years, to pick a period entirely at random, and we are going on with a programme of improvements – with new signalling and automation – that will cut delays by a further 30 per cent.

It is now absolutely clear that this decision was right, because the population of London has risen by about half a million in the same period, and is likely to keep rising for the next couple of decades. Without these investments, our public transport system would have rapidly exploded with the strain. Britain has the potential to be the biggest economy in Europe, both in population and output, in our lifetimes; but we simply will not be able to cope, or to give business the platform it needs, if we fail to invest in infrastructure. We need a new supersewer under London, we need a new hub airport, and we need to increase our rail capacity.

There was a time when people like Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair would have recognised this. It is deeply regrettable that the current Labour Party leadership should be so opportunistic and short-sighted as to pussyfoot around about HS2. They are putting short-term tactics before the long-term needs of Britain, and they will not succeed. In 2015 the choice is going to be clear: between fool’s gold, and a Conservative programme for investment and long-term growth.

Hi panda.Has Boris done anything for London today ?  

He has been doing a 'photo shoot' encouraging people to use his ridiculously dangerous cycle lanes..............

Hi Lioned, actually , the cycle lanes have proved very popular and Boris even got Barclays to pay for most of the cost, see what I mean, he is not the buffoon that everyone thinks. 

To be serious for one minute. If Cameron wins the next Election it will be a miracle , the Conservative backbenchers know it. There is not one existing Conservative MP capable of Governing Britain well, enter Boris, who is very popular, not just with the British, but every Country he visits proves popular. The main asset he has is a razor sharp mind and if he were elected he would choose the right Personnel for the Job and hopefully end the sleaze and corruption in Parliament at present.

But Boris is not a stranger to sleaze is he ?

And whats wrong with Cameron (apart from being a Tory),there is no reason to think He is not a jolly nice chap even if we are paying his heating bills.  

And i nearly forgot he does have a tendency of leaving his kids in pubs.

Lioned wrote:But Boris is not a stranger to sleaze is he ?

And whats wrong with Cameron (apart from being a Tory),there is no reason to think He is not a jolly nice chap even if we are paying his heating bills.  

And i nearly forgot he does have a tendency of leaving his kids in pubs.

Cameron jumps on any bandwagon Lioned and it all backfires on him, gay marriage will have all the Catholics voting against him, he is not listening to his Party regarding the EU fiasco, his endorsement by Murdoch, his Friends Mr and Mrs Brooks, he appointed Coulson for a short time until he was told that Coulson was involved in the phone hacking scandal , his "soft touch" shown by giving the go-ahead for the Review and Investigation which is already over £5.5 million .....poor judgement in everything he does. The latest poll suggests Labour will have a clear majority,

Dont forget He's sold out to the 'Jocks' by agreeing to finish off Pompey and let the Clyde build the frigates.

Lioned wrote:Dont forget He's sold out to the 'Jocks' by agreeing to finish off Pompey and let the Clyde build the frigates.

Wasn't it a decision made by Cameron (Mr nice Guy) to try to scupper the Referendum, thereby keeping Scotland in the UK.?? The Tory rebels are asking Cameron for an EU referendum BEFORE the next Election , but coward that he is, he doesn't want to upset Big Business nor the Europeans Partners. However, I do think the EU will break up anyway. Italy is in dire straits and France has just had it's status reduced to AA.

By Boris Johnson

8:43PM GMT 10 Nov 2013



Comments703 Comments





You can see why so many people have raised eyebrows at the verdict against the soldier known as “Marine A”. This is the man convicted of murder for taking the life of a Taliban fighter while on patrol in Helmand in September 2011 – the first serviceman to be convicted of murder in both the Iraq and the Afghan conflicts.


“Murder?” people say. This didn’t take place in some suburban living room. This was on a field of battle, and the man who died was an enemy combatant, a jihadi who would almost certainly have rejoiced to blow the whole British patrol to smithereens. Some people will be indignant that lawyers in some courtroom in Wiltshire can hope to adjudicate on the swirling emotions of the men on that mission.


We don’t know what it is like to be walking chest high through a field of maize, and knowing the enemy could be anywhere. We haven’t felt our flesh cringe at the thought of what an Improvised Explosive Device can do to a human being; we can’t imagine the heart-thudding apprehension, and then the savage exhilaration at suddenly finding the enemy at your feet.


Of course we piously hope that at that critical moment, we would find the natural virtue in our souls. But it is hard for any of us to know how he would behave; and indeed, it may be that in the course of sentencing Marine A – and in performing the psychological assessment – there will be found to have been extenuating circumstances, which may well be taken into account in deciding how long he must remain in prison.


I don’t claim to know exactly what sentence he should serve. What I do know is that I have talked to some senior figures in the Armed Services, and they are emphatic that the verdict of the court martial was right, and that the punishment should be severe.


Related Articles
Royal Marine faces life in jail for execution of Afghan captive
08 Nov 2013
Calls for 'clemency' for Marine found guilty of Afghan murder
09 Nov 2013
Royal Marine committed 'heinous' crime, head of Armed Forces says
10 Nov 2013


I am afraid you only have to listen to the segment of tape – recorded by body-cameras – to understand why they feel as they do. The nature of the crime is clear from that chilling six-minute conversation between the three men. They know they have a wounded man; they discuss alternative ways of despatching him; they pretend to be giving him medical assistance, for the benefit of the cameras fixed to observation balloons; and then he is executed with a shot to the chest.

It is pretty clear, also, that Marine A is aware of the gravity of what he has done, because he explicitly urges his fellow soldiers to keep quiet about it, and accepts that he has broken the Geneva Convention. This treaty goes back to 1864, when nations agreed in the wake of the Battle of Solferino five years earlier that they would collectively spare all those who were hors de combat.

Indeed, the notion that it is a crime to kill the wounded is far more ancient than that, and can be found in the laws of war that were observed by the Greek city states. It is a principle that was founded then, as now, on a mixture of ideas: the universal human idea of mercy, and a sensible hope of reciprocity – that if we spare your wounded, you will spare ours. It is a very old and immutable code that Marine broke, and one that happens to be enshrined in modern British law. It is right that the courts should uphold that law, say the generals, and so do I.

The trouble is that not every aspect of military law is as immutable. Indeed, the law of all types of military behaviour is undergoing something of a revolution – as Charles Moore recently pointed out on these pages, following an excellent Policy Exchange pamphlet – and the cause of that revolution is the application of human rights.

There is now an intensifying rhythm of cases in which the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces are ticked off by the courts for their failure correctly to observe this or that article of the European Convention on Human Rights – and especially Article 2, the “right to life”.

You will appreciate the basic tension here. It will be increasingly hard to ask our military to achieve a series of objectives involving extreme violence and the risking of collateral damage, if those victims also turn out to have a “right to life” that can be vindicated in our courts. It will be very hard to get British officers to take the slightest risk with the lives of our own troops if they can be criticised for taking the wrong decisions. If something goes wrong in a firefight, it is now possible to imagine that a coroner could record a “narrative verdict” in which the officer is blamed for ordering, say, a left-flanking rather than a right-flanking manoeuvre. The whole concept of Crown Immunity – by which military decisions have traditionally been protected from this kind of legal redress – is now thought to be under threat.

No one is going to dispute the importance of the right to life, or indeed the importance of treating all combatants with respect. But it is worth pointing out that this country is now pretty much out on a limb, of all the major war-capable nations, in the way it has allowed “legal creep” into what was an exclusively military domain. The Americans would not dream of exposing their soldiers to this kind of judicial second-guessing. They whacked bin Laden without a second thought; they execute whole families in drone strikes. The French have a derogation that somehow means they don’t have to apply the ECHR to their military in the way that we do. The risk for Britain is clearly that it will be harder and harder for the Armed Forces to conduct operations without legal paranoia, paralysis and expense.

I stood by the Cenotaph yesterday and remembered those brave troops who died in Britain’s wars. Every one of them would have understood why the actions of Marine A were wrong, and why they constituted a crime. It was murder, no doubt. But if every act of war is subject to legal challenge, then we will not only lose our ability to fight a war. We will lose our instinctive understanding of what a war crime really is.


  

Boris is full of crap.

That case has bugger all to do with running London.

Why doesnt Boris get of his Royal (through bastard blood) butt and go tidy up the streets around Hyde Park corner and make the City a little more pleasant.

 

Lioned wrote:Boris is full of crap.

That case has bugger all to do with running London.

Why doesnt Boris get of his Royal (through bastard blood) butt and go tidy up the streets around Hyde Park corner and make the City a little more pleasant.

 

Don't tell me.....tell HIM lioned. I lived in London for 6 years many moons ago and can't remember it being very tidy then.

I will tell him tomorrow when i pop into town for luncheon.

Lioned wrote:I will tell him tomorrow when i pop into town for luncheon.

Give him my regards and tell him iv'e bet a tenner on him at 12/1  

Keep your money,there's more chance his 'cousin' will get a second term .

Lioned wrote:Keep your money,there's more chance his 'cousin' will get a second term .

You gotta be joking Lioned, it'll be a replay of the way Margaret Thatcher was ousted. The Public and half the Conservative MP's don't like the way he fudged the EU issue and he is off to China soon to try to mend the rift between himself and the President.

Marine A must face justice, but the law has its limits in warfare

Unlike other countries, Britain is allowing its soldiers to be hobbled by the 'right to life’







If every act of war is subject to legal challenge we will lose our understanding of what a war crime really is Photo: GETTY







Boris Johnson
By Boris Johnson

8:43PM GMT 10 Nov 2013



Comments3138 Comments





You can see why so many people have raised eyebrows at the verdict against the soldier known as “Marine A”. This is the man convicted of murder for taking the life of a Taliban fighter while on patrol in Helmand in September 2011 – the first serviceman to be convicted of murder in both the Iraq and the Afghan conflicts.


“Murder?” people say. This didn’t take place in some suburban living room. This was on a field of battle, and the man who died was an enemy combatant, a jihadi who would almost certainly have rejoiced to blow the whole British patrol to smithereens. Some people will be indignant that lawyers in some courtroom in Wiltshire can hope to adjudicate on the swirling emotions of the men on that mission.


Leniency for Marine A - sign the Telegraph.co.uk petition


We don’t know what it is like to be walking chest high through a field of maize, and knowing the enemy could be anywhere. We haven’t felt our flesh cringe at the thought of what an Improvised Explosive Device can do to a human being; we can’t imagine the heart-thudding apprehension, and then the savage exhilaration at suddenly finding the enemy at your feet.


Of course we piously hope that at that critical moment, we would find the natural virtue in our souls. But it is hard for any of us to know how he would behave; and indeed, it may be that in the course of sentencing Marine A – and in performing the psychological assessment – there will be found to have been extenuating circumstances, which may well be taken into account in deciding how long he must remain in prison.


Related Articles
Royal Marine faces life in jail for execution of Afghan captive
08 Nov 2013
Calls for 'clemency' for Marine found guilty of Afghan murder
09 Nov 2013
Royal Marine committed 'heinous' crime, head of Armed Forces says
10 Nov 2013


I don’t claim to know exactly what sentence he should serve. What I do know is that I have talked to some senior figures in the Armed Services, and they are emphatic that the verdict of the court martial was right, and that the punishment should be severe.

I am afraid you only have to listen to the segment of tape – recorded by body-cameras – to understand why they feel as they do. The nature of the crime is clear from that chilling six-minute conversation between the three men. They know they have a wounded man; they discuss alternative ways of despatching him; they pretend to be giving him medical assistance, for the benefit of the cameras fixed to observation balloons; and then he is executed with a shot to the chest.

It is pretty clear, also, that Marine A is aware of the gravity of what he has done, because he explicitly urges his fellow soldiers to keep quiet about it, and accepts that he has broken the Geneva Convention. This treaty goes back to 1864, when nations agreed in the wake of the Battle of Solferino five years earlier that they would collectively spare all those who were hors de combat.

Indeed, the notion that it is a crime to kill the wounded is far more ancient than that, and can be found in the laws of war that were observed by the Greek city states. It is a principle that was founded then, as now, on a mixture of ideas: the universal human idea of mercy, and a sensible hope of reciprocity – that if we spare your wounded, you will spare ours. It is a very old and immutable code that Marine broke, and one that happens to be enshrined in modern British law. It is right that the courts should uphold that law, say the generals, and so do I.

The trouble is that not every aspect of military law is as immutable. Indeed, the law of all types of military behaviour is undergoing something of a revolution – as Charles Moore recently pointed out on these pages, following an excellent Policy Exchange pamphlet – and the cause of that revolution is the application of human rights.

There is now an intensifying rhythm of cases in which the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces are ticked off by the courts for their failure correctly to observe this or that article of the European Convention on Human Rights – and especially Article 2, the “right to life”.

You will appreciate the basic tension here. It will be increasingly hard to ask our military to achieve a series of objectives involving extreme violence and the risking of collateral damage, if those victims also turn out to have a “right to life” that can be vindicated in our courts. It will be very hard to get British officers to take the slightest risk with the lives of our own troops if they can be criticised for taking the wrong decisions. If something goes wrong in a firefight, it is now possible to imagine that a coroner could record a “narrative verdict” in which the officer is blamed for ordering, say, a left-flanking rather than a right-flanking manoeuvre. The whole concept of Crown Immunity – by which military decisions have traditionally been protected from this kind of legal redress – is now thought to be under threat.

No one is going to dispute the importance of the right to life, or indeed the importance of treating all combatants with respect. But it is worth pointing out that this country is now pretty much out on a limb, of all the major war-capable nations, in the way it has allowed “legal creep” into what was an exclusively military domain. The Americans would not dream of exposing their soldiers to this kind of judicial second-guessing. They whacked bin Laden without a second thought; they execute whole families in drone strikes. The French have a derogation that somehow means they don’t have to apply the ECHR to their military in the way that we do. The risk for Britain is clearly that it will be harder and harder for the Armed Forces to conduct operations without legal paranoia, paralysis and expense.

I stood by the Cenotaph yesterday and remembered those brave troops who died in Britain’s wars. Every one of them would have understood why the actions of Marine A were wrong, and why they constituted a crime. It was murder, no doubt. But if every act of war is subject to legal challenge, then we will not only lose our ability to fight a war. We will lose our instinctive understanding of what a war crime really is

I think boris misses the point that it is very tenuous to consider this 'conflict' a war.In any event Marine A was well aware that he was committing a crime.
Decent Human beings will always hold the 'high ground' and that was certainly not the case here.

Boris would do well to keep away from controversy if he wants to enhance his doubtful career prospects.

He shouldnt be trying to make intellectual statements when his popularity is based on being a buffoon.

Lioned wrote:I think boris misses the point that it is very tenuous to consider this 'conflict' a war.In any event Marine A was well aware that he was committing a crime.
Decent Human beings will always hold the 'high ground' and that was certainly not the case here.

Boris would do well to keep away from controversy if he wants to enhance his doubtful career prospects.

He shouldnt be trying to make intellectual statements when his popularity is based on being a buffoon.

Spot on Lioned.
While Marine A's actions may just be understandable, what he and his comrade's did makes their actions just as bad, if not worse than those of the terrorists they are fighting.

Johnson should stand well back from passing any comments on our soldiers, serving or otherwise as his total service to this country extends to being a cyclist and making political capital and a vast fortune out of promoting cycling in London.

Indeed malena and sadly recent events have shown how short sighted and challenged boris's vision is.

He's I think Boris has his sights firmly set on taking Cameron's job, although he has denied all interest. He'll not last long if he goes for it and gets it, if we plebs can see and rate him as being little more than a bumptious clown, what would the Tory hierarchy see him as? But the interests of the country and people plays no part in politics nowadays, certainly not with the bunch we have in power at the present...