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

The Tory hierarchy will never elect boris their leader,their not that daft.

Thank God for that... but there are no MPs that stand out as National leaders in either of the two 'main' parties. UKIP could be what the country needs, fresh ideas and policies which are made and acted on for the nation rather than our MP's pockets... I'm not so sure of Farage being the leader of choice though..

If you read the Article again you will see that Boris is concerned about this being a Judicial Trial when it should have been a Military.

I think since Bush and Blair , may God forgive them, started the "phoney war" both have been responsible for the deaths of so many young soldiers who tactically have acheived NOTHING. Just think about it, they are sent to a foreign Country, have to endure a very hot climate they are not used to , cope with traitors amongst the Afghans who are supposed to be helping them , seen so many of their comrades maimed and killed by buried Bombs and show discipline at all times. This man was injured, were they supposed to carry him to the nearest hospital? If the situation was reversed do you think the Afghan would have helped a wounded British soldier???

The Soldier didn't deserve Prison, a dishonourable discharge would have been sufficient, I feel sorry for him.

Panda wrote:If you read the Article again you will see that Boris is concerned about this being a Judicial Trial when it should have been a Military.

I think since Bush and Blair , may God forgive them, started the "phoney war" both have been responsible for the deaths of so many young soldiers who tactically have acheived NOTHING. Just think about it, they are sent to a foreign Country, have to endure a very hot climate they are not used to , cope with traitors amongst the Afghans who are supposed to be helping them , seen so many of their comrades maimed and killed by buried Bombs and show discipline at all times. This man was injured, were they supposed to carry him to the nearest hospital? If the situation was reversed do you think the Afghan would have helped a wounded British soldier???

The Soldier didn't deserve Prison, a dishonourable discharge would have been sufficient, I feel sorry for him.

Panda. The Trial was in a Military Court.

Lioned wrote:

Panda wrote:If you read the Article again you will see that Boris is concerned about this being a Judicial Trial when it should have been a Military.

I think since Bush and Blair , may God forgive them, started the "phoney war" both have been responsible for the deaths of so many young soldiers who tactically have acheived NOTHING. Just think about it, they are sent to a foreign Country, have to endure a very hot climate they are not used to , cope with traitors amongst the Afghans who are supposed to be helping them , seen so many of their comrades maimed and killed by buried Bombs and show discipline at all times. This man was injured, were they supposed to carry him to the nearest hospital? If the situation was reversed do you think the Afghan would have helped a wounded British soldier???

The Soldier didn't deserve Prison, a dishonourable discharge would have been sufficient, I feel sorry for him.

Panda. The Trial was in a Military Court.

Yes, but this is what Boris was getting at "Human Rights tried in Court." There has to be a split otherwise where do you draw the line.???


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. "

Panda wrote:

Lioned wrote:

Panda wrote:If you read the Article again you will see that Boris is concerned about this being a Judicial Trial when it should have been a Military.

I think since Bush and Blair , may God forgive them, started the "phoney war" both have been responsible for the deaths of so many young soldiers who tactically have acheived NOTHING. Just think about it, they are sent to a foreign Country, have to endure a very hot climate they are not used to , cope with traitors amongst the Afghans who are supposed to be helping them , seen so many of their comrades maimed and killed by buried Bombs and show discipline at all times. This man was injured, were they supposed to carry him to the nearest hospital? If the situation was reversed do you think the Afghan would have helped a wounded British soldier???

The Soldier didn't deserve Prison, a dishonourable discharge would have been sufficient, I feel sorry for him.

Panda. The Trial was in a Military Court.

Yes, but this is what Boris was getting at "Human Rights tried in Court."  There has to be a split otherwise where do you draw the line.???


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. "

I think we can blame Cherie Blair for any Human Rights interference in military courts martial cases, although as I posted previously, without condoning their actions the mistake made was by the squaddies in recording of the event...

I was surprised malena that apparently they had equipment on them that the Army Bosses could overhear what was said.

Cherie Blair earns £300,000 a year and beefed up the Human rights bill, but now it applies to the EU not just Britain. Of course the Lawyers are making a fortune so they are not bothered.....but somewhere along the line common sense MUST prevail, as Boris says, how can you have the right to lfe when you are in a War.

An old friend of mine used to say that the only thing terrorists fear is terrorism, so do unto them as they would do unto you, but do it first.
It sounds good to me.

malena stool wrote:An old friend of mine used to say that the only thing terrorists fear is terrorism, so do unto them as they would do unto you, but do it first.
It sounds good to me.

Yeah malena , that makes sense. The trouble with the wars now is there is much more sophisticated weaponry, and you knew your enemy. Now , with the cauldron in the Middle east "Arab Spring" sounds very inappropriate. Cameron is in Sri Lanka now and trying to get a better deal for the Tamil Tigers, but name me one Country where we have exerted any influence. Stay out of it all I say.

Panda wrote:

malena stool wrote:An old friend of mine used to say that the only thing terrorists fear is terrorism, so do unto them as they would do unto you, but do it first.
It sounds good to me.

Yeah malena , that makes sense. The trouble with the wars now is there is much more sophisticated weaponry, and you knew your enemy. Now , with the cauldron in the Middle east "Arab Spring" sounds very inappropriate. Cameron is in Sri Lanka now and trying to get a better deal for the Tamil Tigers, but name me one Country where we have exerted any influence. Stay out of it all I say.

We have no influence in our own country, Panda... Successive governments have sold our rights to Europe, America and the Middle East. The tragedy is, if we ordinary folk were to commit similar criminal and treasonable acts as do our 'leaders' we'd be jailed.

malena stool wrote:

Panda wrote:

malena stool wrote:An old friend of mine used to say that the only thing terrorists fear is terrorism, so do unto them as they would do unto you, but do it first.
It sounds good to me.

Yeah malena , that makes sense. The trouble with the wars now is there is much more sophisticated weaponry, and you knew your enemy. Now , with the cauldron in the Middle east "Arab Spring" sounds very inappropriate. Cameron is in Sri Lanka now and trying to get a better deal for the Tamil Tigers, but name me one Country where we have exerted any influence. Stay out of it all I say.

We have no influence in our own country, Panda... Successive governments have sold our rights to Europe, America and the Middle East. The tragedy is, if we ordinary folk were to commit similar criminal and treasonable acts as do our 'leaders' we'd be jailed.

Cameron is a weakling who commands no respect at all among World Leaders , I know Lioned thinks I am nuts , but I think oris would be O.K., everyone likes him (except Lioned ) and he really is quite clued up , there was a documentary about him a few weeks ago and his Sister says he has a razor sharp intellect . Trouble is , he doesn't think the Conservatives will win the next Election so he is quite happy to wait until 2019

Panda wrote:

malena stool wrote:

Panda wrote:

malena stool wrote:An old friend of mine used to say that the only thing terrorists fear is terrorism, so do unto them as they would do unto you, but do it first.
It sounds good to me.

Yeah malena , that makes sense. The trouble with the wars now is there is much more sophisticated weaponry, and you knew your enemy. Now , with the cauldron in the Middle east "Arab Spring" sounds very inappropriate. Cameron is in Sri Lanka now and trying to get a better deal for the Tamil Tigers, but name me one Country where we have exerted any influence. Stay out of it all I say.

We have no influence in our own country, Panda... Successive governments have sold our rights to Europe, America and the Middle East. The tragedy is, if we ordinary folk were to commit similar criminal and treasonable acts as do our 'leaders' we'd be jailed.

Cameron is a weakling who commands no respect at all among World Leaders , I know Lioned thinks I am nuts , but I think oris would be O.K., everyone likes him (except Lioned ) and he really is quite clued up , there was a documentary about him a few weeks ago and his Sister says he has a razor sharp intellect . Trouble is , he doesn't think the Conservatives will win the next Election so he is quite happy to wait until 2019

Well, if my sister ever had said anything about me mentioning the word razor... well, it wouldn't have 'sharp intellect' next to it! Throat yes, but intellect... definitely no.
 
Boris has been painted as a clown for so long, both by himself, his colleagues in hell parliament and the press that he will always be associated with being a bumbling oaf. Much the same as Brown with his bucket list of social and personal impediments is.
Cameron was a 'new hope' for the Tories but he failed the electorate by breaking mandated promises, continuing to asset strip the nation and bleeding the voters to pay off the banker's debts.
It's no longer a matter of who will lead the Tories but who will get the country out of the vast pit which consecutive administrations of New Labour and Conservative self gratification, corruption and incompetence have dug us into.

Malena, I hate to say it, but I think it is too late for Britain, too much ineptitude by the Government, warring factions in the Unions instead of pulling together, you need strong leadership based on ability and Cameron is woefully inadequate , born with a silver spoon in his mouth .Quite ineffectual as a leader and a nobody in the EU.

Panda wrote:Malena, I hate to say it, but I think it is too late for Britain, too much ineptitude by the Government, warring factions in the Unions instead of pulling together, you need strong leadership based on ability and Cameron is woefully inadequate , born with a silver spoon in his mouth .Quite ineffectual as a leader and a nobody in the EU.

Spot on description of a typical modern day Tory or even New Labour 'Honourable Member.' Back in the day, when politicians were real men who had principles and morals and in the main were 'Honourable Members' in most aspects of their lives, there were very few who had not seen service for their country and all knew the privations endured by the population.
Few of those who sit in our parliament have any conception of the aspirations of the British electorate, many are second or in some cases first generation immigrants who sit in Westminster purely on the strength of their bank balance. None of them give the slightest thought to what they and their respective parties promised prior to an election, unless by some mischance a promise made coincides with their own needs.
The same inept crooked deviants who asset stripped this once great country remain in in Westminster today, and until they are replaced by real politicians we're stuck with a 4 or 5 year cycle of replacing corrupted rammel with corrupted rammel.

By Boris Johnson

9:19PM GMT 17 Nov 2013



Comments618 Comments





The great thing about being Mayor of London is you get to meet all sorts. It is my duty to stick up for every put-upon minority in the city – from the homeless to Irish travellers to ex-gang members to disgraced former MPs. After five years of slog, I have a fair idea where everyone is coming from.


But there is one minority that I still behold with a benign bewilderment, and that is the very, very rich. I mean people who have so much money they can fly by private jet, and who have gin palaces moored in Puerto Banus, and who give their kids McLaren supercars for their 18th birthdays and scour the pages of the FT’s “How to Spend It” magazine for jewel-encrusted Cartier collars for their dogs.


I am thinking of the type of people who never wear the same shirt twice, even though they shop in Jermyn Street, and who have other people almost everywhere to do their bidding: people to drive their cars and people to pick up their socks and people to rub their temples with eau de cologne and people to bid for the Munch etching at Christie’s.


Please don’t get me wrong. I neither resent nor disapprove of such zillionaires; quite the reverse. I just wonder, a bit, what it is like to be so stonkingly rich, and I wonder – as the rest of us have wondered down the ages – whether you can really expect to be any happier for having so much dosh.


I suspect that the answer, as Solon pointed out to Croesus, is not really, frankly; or no happier than the man with just enough to live on. If that is the case, and it really is true that having stupendous sums of money is very far from the same as being happy, then surely we should stop bashing the rich.


Related Articles
High tax is a burden on all of us
17 Nov 2013
Sykes and Ukip could put Labour into No 10
17 Nov 2013
London is city 'with most multimillionaires in the world'
08 May 2013


On the contrary, the latest data suggest that we should be offering them humble and hearty thanks. It is through their restless concupiscent energy and sheer wealth-creating dynamism that we pay for an ever-growing proportion of public services. The top one per cent of earners now pay 29.8 per cent of all the income tax and National Insurance received by the Treasury. In 1979 – when Labour had a top marginal rate of 83 per cent tax after Denis Healey had earlier vowed to squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked – the top one per cent paid only 11 per cent of income tax. Now, the top 0.1 per cent – about 29,000 people – pay an amazing 14.1 per cent of all taxes.

Nor, of course, is that the end of their contribution to the wider good. These types of people are always the first target of the charity fund-raisers, whether they are looking for a new church roof or a children’s cancer ward. These are the people who put bread on the tables of families who – if the rich didn’t invest in supercars and employ eau de cologne-dabbers – might otherwise find themselves without a breadwinner. And yet they are brow-beaten and bullied and threatened with new taxes, by everyone from the Archbishop of Canterbury to Nick Clegg.

The rich are resented, not so much for being rich, but for getting ever richer than the middle classes – and the trouble is that the gap is growing the whole time, and especially has done over the past 20 years. It is hard to say exactly why this is, but I will hazard a guess. Of all the self-made super-rich tycoons I have met, most belong to the following three fairly exclusive categories of human being:

(1) They tend to be well above average, if not outstanding, in their powers of mathematical, scientific or at least logical reasoning. (2) They have a great deal of energy, confidence, risk-taking instinct and a desire to make money. (3) They have had the good fortune – by luck or birth – to be able to exploit these talents.

So we are talking about the intersecting set in what are already three small-ish sets of people. It is easy to see how, in an ever more efficient and globalised economy, they are able to amass ever greater fortunes.

The answer is surely not to try to stop them or curb them or punish them – but to widen those intersecting circles that they inhabit. There are kids everywhere who have a natural, if undiscovered, flair for mathematics and the mental arithmetic that business needs. They just don’t have the education to bring out that talent – which is why Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, is so right to be conducting his revolution in schools.

There are loads of kids with the chutzpah to be kings of the deal, and there are plenty of businesses that could be the billion-pound companies of the future but are currently being held back – either by the weediness of the venture capital industry in this country, or else by something as simple as excessive business rates – the single biggest issue that is raised with me by London businesses.

There is no point in wasting any more moral or mental energy in being jealous of the very rich. They are no happier than anyone else; they just have more money. We shouldn’t bother ourselves about why they want all this money, or why it is nicer to have a bath with gold taps. How does it hurt me, with my 20-year-old Toyota, if somebody else has a swish Mercedes? We both get stuck in the same traffic.

We should be helping all those who can to join the ranks of the super-rich, and we should stop any bashing or moaning or preaching or bitching and simply give thanks for the prodigious sums of money that they are contributing to the tax revenues of this country, and that enable us to look after our sick and our elderly and to build roads, railways and schools.

Indeed, it is possible, as the American economist Art Laffer pointed out, that they might contribute even more if we cut their rates of tax; but it is time we recognised the heroic contribution they already make. In fact, we should stop publishing rich lists in favour of an annual list of the top 100 Tax Heroes, with automatic knighthoods for the top 10.

I wonder who writes this oaf's script???

I may be a tad ungenerous here, but the multi-billioniare altruists who apparently throw millions at the destitute and needy of the world, in the main do so as a means of reducing their tax levels.. This has been commented on IIRC by charitable organisations when governments had the temerity to increase taxation on the super rich..

Our Boris's time would be better served by encouraging his mate Cameron to stop sending £millions to India and Pakistan and diverting the cash to help our own needy get jobs and start paying taxes themselves, rather than relying on charity from those avoiding tax.

As for dishing out knighthoods... Well, the 2008 banking crisis showed 'Honours System' to be wide open to abuse by fraudulent, corrupt and greedy narcissists like, "Fred the shred" Goodwin whose knighthood was removed by the cabinet office, who commented that the knighthood had been removed on the advice of the forfeiture committee because Goodwin had brought the honours system "into disrepute". Goodwin was known as "Fred the shred" for his bean counting and let's cut staff numbers reputation, received his knighthood for "services to banking."  

These 'services' took Royal Bank of Scotland to the brink of collapse, costing thousands of jobs and billions of pounds. As we are all aware we 'pleb-like'  taxpayers bailed out the bank while he sailed off into the sunset with a vast accumulated fortune, a Golden Parachute and a broad Cheshire Cat smile....

So Boris should be very wary of using recommendations for knighthoods as a substitute for the super rich paying their fair share of taxes.. Because I still pay tax on my pension, .. A pension which has not increased in 3 years and has actually been devalued by rises in all forms of taxes to pay off the very debts incurred by cheats and frauds... the very people Boris it seems is praising as Gods and Sainted Martyrs.

I think I have another Lioned in you malena  ......Boris is actually applauding these mega rich for investing in the U.K.and so creating jobs.

A divorce from Scotland would be stupid, wretched and painful

Like a bickering couple, our countries need a counsellor to step in and make us see sense





Scotland is to hold a referendum on independence from the UK

Scotland is to hold a referendum on independence from the UK Photo: PA







Boris Johnson
By Boris Johnson

8:02PM GMT 24 Nov 2013



Comments551 Comments





I have a faded sticker on the back of my car that reads: I (heart) Scotland. I have a feeling it was stuck there by some fellows from Strathclyde police when they came down to help with the Notting Hill carnival, and I keep it there because it reflects my general feelings. I (heart) Scotland in the way that so many of us Sassenachs do: you know, fabulous place, lovely people, gorgeous purple moors, great white beaches and an incomparable contribution to Western thought and civilisation, from Adam Smith to Andrew Neil.


I (heart) Scotland so much that I once made a doomed attempt to become rector of a Scottish university, in which I destroyed a massive poll lead by announcing that I was not only English but in favour of top-up fees, and ended up coming third and having beer poured over my head. But still I (heart) Scotland. I (heart) the bagpipes and the porridge and the view from Arthur’s Seat and swimming with seals and the funny prehistoric cows with ginger fringes and the see-you-Jimmy tam-o’-shanter that I keep as a memento of one holiday; and so I find it positively (heart) breaking to find that serious people are now worried that the union between England and Scotland – a gigantic political fact for 306 years – is under threat.


Never mind the sentiment, the fuzzy warm feelings I have about the place. Whatever happens, tourism will continue, after all. We are on the verge of losing something even more precious – to both Scotland and England – and I don’t think people have woken up to the full lunacy of what is afoot. In its desultory complacency, the conversation reminds me of some middle-aged couple deciding to get divorced. All they can think about is the liberation – the new beginnings, the excitement. So more and more English people are thinking, what the hell: if the Scots want to walk out, why don’t we just let them?


We won’t have to subsidise them any more via the Barnett formula, people think; and there are plenty of Tories who secretly agree with John Major, and reckon that getting rid of all those Scottish Labour MPs would be a fine thing for England and the Conservative Party. As for the Scots — well, I can see the attraction: your own nation, your own government, and the chance to join the ranks of those small and dynamic countries that seem to be happiest and most prosperous.


What both sides are forgetting – and they have this in common with divorcing couples – is that it may look OK on day one, but on day two the lawyers come in. There is the division of property to work out, the rights of access to be determined. The longer the marriage has lasted, the more there is to unpick, and the more hellish and self-flayingly painful the whole process becomes.


Related Articles
'Real danger' of Scottish independence, says Cabinet minister
24 Nov 2013
Would Scottish independence end Labour’s hopes?
24 Nov 2013
'Cameron's posh boy image hinders Scottish independence fight'
19 Nov 2013


After three centuries of union, England and Scotland are not just woven together by sentiment, but by a cat’s cradle of intricate legal and political ties. Fibre by fibre that would have to be sliced apart, and the result will be agony and endless recrimination.

Tomorrow, the Scottish government will publish a vast White Paper explaining how on earth it is supposed to work. So here are some of the questions I hope that document will be able to settle. We are told that the proposal is that Scotland would keep the Queen as head of state and the pound as the national currency – though presumably both of these commitments could be varied by a future Scottish parliament.

But on what basis does Scotland get to keep the pound? Will they use sterling informally, just as some Latin American countries rely on the dollar? And why should the Bank of England take any notice of Scotland in setting monetary policy? Why should the governor travel to Edinburgh and be interrogated by Scottish MPs? After independence, after all, he will owe his appointment entirely to an English-Welsh-Northern Irish government. Or will Alec Salmond come south, and sit in an ante-room in Threadneedle Street, hoping for an audience?

Then there is the basic question of what this independent state of Scotland is supposed to be, and how it is meant to relate to the rest of the world. We are talking about a secession from the Union of the United Kingdom, and many EU diplomats have now made it clear to Salmond that this is exactly the same as seceding from the EU. If the Scots wanted to remain in the EU (and they seem, for some reason, to think this is necessary) Scotland would have to seek an immediate accession – and the question is: who would conduct the negotiations?

Why should this be done by UKrep, the UK office in Brussels, when Scotland has voted to leave the UK? The Scots would have to equip themselves instantly with a new cadre of diplomats. There would have to be a Scottish foreign office around the world – wouldn’t there? And if not, why not? What about Britain’s nuclear missiles, and the need to use submarine bases in Scotland? What about Scottish regiments in the British Army?

There are endless opportunities for confusion and bickering. Then there is one final point that no one seems to have grasped: that this is not just the end of the United Kingdom. It is the end of Britain. Yes, of course, there will still be an island called Great Britain, the largest in the British Isles. But Britain as a political entity will be annihilated. This very name of our nation only gained currency after the Act of Union, and makes no sense with the top section lopped off and “independent”.

And then what? What happens to British sporting teams? What happens, for goodness’ sake, to the “British” Broadcasting Corporation? Nobody has the faintest idea. I am appalled that the pro-independence vote is up at 38 per cent. We need someone — the Americans? — to step in as a kind of marriage guidance counsellor and tell us to stop being so damn stupid. Divorce will diminish us both. It will be unutterably wretched and painful, and it will eliminate the most successful political union in history.

Who on God's earth can blame the Scots for wanting to put being governed by the likes of Camereon, Blair, Thatcher and Brown behind them?

Their problems would only be just starting with the piece of dead fish called Salmond, but that would be their problem...

The benefits to the rest of the UK is, we wouldn't have the likes of Brown, Darling, Galloway and Home coming here taking our jobs and treading on our grass. This leaves so much more for the riff raff and detritus of the EU and the Indian Sub Continent to buy into.

malena stool wrote:Who on God's earth can blame the Scots for wanting to put being governed by the likes of Camereon, Blair, Thatcher and Brown behind them?

Their problems would only be just starting with the piece of dead fish called Salmond, but that would be their problem...

The benefits to the rest of the UK is, we wouldn't have the likes of Brown, Darling, Galloway and Home coming here taking our jobs and treading on our grass. This leaves so much more for the riff raff and detritus of the EU and the Indian Sub Continent to buy into.

Morning malena, harsh words indeed,  Could it be because Scotland has Oil potential that they want independence?

Britain is finished, both as a World Power and the sorry state of it's Governance. We are over-run with immigrants which we have no control over, our Education system is producing youngsters unable to get jobs because many don't want to look . Apprenticeships are non existant and the Border Agency is not fit for purpose.

Panda wrote:

malena stool wrote:Who on God's earth can blame the Scots for wanting to put being governed by the likes of Camereon, Blair, Thatcher and Brown behind them?

Their problems would only be just starting with the piece of dead fish called Salmond, but that would be their problem...

The benefits to the rest of the UK is, we wouldn't have the likes of Brown, Darling, Galloway and Home coming here taking our jobs and treading on our grass. This leaves so much more for the riff raff and detritus of the EU and the Indian Sub Continent to buy into.

Morning malena, harsh words indeed,  Could it be because Scotland has Oil potential that they want independence?

Britain is finished, both as a World Power and the sorry state of it's Governance. We are over-run with immigrants which we have no control over, our Education system is producing youngsters unable to get jobs because many don't want to look . Apprenticeships are non existant and the Border Agency is not fit for purpose.

Morning Panda.
The oil Scotland claims as its own is a contentious item. Firstly the fields and equipment for delivery, storage and distribution are and were developed and paid for by UK government and private finance. The profits and or losses are shared by multinational consortiums. Salmond is walking a bit of a political and legal tightrope if he thinks an independent Scotland is going to cash in on oil. Secondly, the oil reserves in these fields are now on a downward trend and new field discovery and development is far more expensive and precarious financially than it ever was back in the 1970s.

Boris should take his mates fracking machines up to the highlands and shake em up a bit.With his Royal bloodline he has a right to go charging up there on his pedal cycle with his golden locks flowing.
If he creates a cycle super highway alongside the fast lane of the M1 then filter through the special cycle preference lights to the A1/A1M he should get there safe and well i am sure.
While he's up there he could check out suitable sites for the new London airport and Chinease/Franco power stations.
Has he done anything for London today ? still got them rough looking Romanys messing up Hyde Park corner.  

Lioned wrote:Boris should take his mates fracking machines up to the highlands and shake em up a bit.With his Royal bloodline he has a right to go charging up there on his pedal cycle with his golden locks flowing.
If he creates a cycle super highway alongside the fast lane of the M1 then filter through the special cycle preference lights to the  A1/A1M he should get there safe and well i am sure.
While he's up there he could check out suitable sites for the new London airport and Chinease/Franco power stations.
Has he done anything for London today ? still got them rough looking Romanys messing up Hyde Park corner.  

No Lioned, he is probably holed up with whatsisname from ASLEF who is organising a strike and trying to make him see common sense. 

I doubt very much he's holed up with anyone from ASLEF.
More like he's having tiffin at the Baroque with Chumney Warner.  

He really ought to be having a session with a barber before to long. Either that or learn to play the violin..... Scruffy sod, he's as bad as our Lord Mare Mayor, Peter, (I've not got a blade in my razor) Soulsby.