RayC

Seems like a pretty good reason to ban them.

I don't think that police officers should display support for any cause while on duty, but to suggest that a few officers taking the knee and/or wearing rainbow paint, and that Starmer was found to have no case to answer, means that the UK police force is institutionally bias towards the left is ridiculous. A serving police officer in the West Midlands force was recently found to be a former member of a banned right-wing party. Does that make the West Midlands force institutionally right-wing? What about the fact that left-wing and black groups are disproportionately targeted for undercover police operations? Does that point to an anti-left, anti-black agenda among UK police forces?

Hurrah. Finally, a Brexit benefit????

You appear to have posted the wrong link. Either that or you are very confused: Penny Mordaunt is a Tory.

As I mentioned previously, the definition of a 'new' hospital was changed by the Department of Health to include refurbishments and rebuilds. The end result is that - depending on the original source - between 3 - 5 'new' hospitals are currently being built. Even with the redefinition of the word 'new', it's hardly rapid progress.

If the damage can be limited for the next two years, I hope that Johnson somehow manages to lead the Tories into the next election. It will almost guarantee an opposition win.

Yes it would be helpful if you could provide any links that support your claim that "...progress is under way in building new hospitals". The original link and bar chart which you posted do not.

I looked and it's not immediately apparent (to me at least) where to find that info? It's a relatively straightforward question: Are all the hospital projects (referred to in the bar chart) new hospital builds? It's a 'Yes' or 'No' answer.

Are all these "hospital projects" new hospitals?

Wrt breaking international law, it was a reference to Grant Schapps standing up in parliament and stating that a provision which would be introduced would break international law "in a limited and very specific way". I don't imagine that you see the hypocrisy and irony in deriding some Remainers as anti-democratic for not accepting the result of the Brexit, while in the next breath dismissing the supreme (democratically elected) legislative body (Parliament) as unimportant.

More 'Why always Me'.

So you pick and choose what laws you obey?

And whose fault is it that it isn't? Rhetorical question: Anyone's but this government's. Same old, same old. Avoidance of any accountability and responsibility.

According to the Wikipedia link, it was Joanna Lumley's idea. Ms. Lumley may be very capable, but I doubt that the project would have started if it hadn't had the support of Johnson. As Mayor he would have had to sign off the budget for the project. Almost certainly not but, again, I would have thought a responsible CEO would make sure that the procurement process was watertight, and that there was no potential conflict of interest with the chosen contractors. You agree that the end responsibility is Johnson's, but then try to excuse him by stating that he cannot do everything himself.

Let me guess. The only sources of true, important facts are 'The Daily Mail' or 'Daily Express'?

Lying to his party, lying to parliament, lying to the public. Threatening to break international law. Yep, mere fibs about nothing important if you don't happen to believe in the rule of law.

Most Remainers have accepted the result. When are you Brexiters going to accept it? Start taking accountability and responsibility for your victory and stop blaming the EU and Remainers for the UK's government's failure to make a success of things (not that this seems possible).

More diversion. No attempt to address the actions and lies of Johnson.

Only 23 - or is it 33? - to go.

How on earth can you logically come to that conclusion? Johnson's mayoral administration was responsible for initiating the project, allocating funds to it, for designing the procurement process and letting contracts. How much more responsible could he be?

In case you hadn't noticed, the discussion has been about Boris Johnson and, in particular, his integrity. With that in mind, surely his record as London Mayor is relevant? In any event, the link which I referenced, was posted by one of your fellow Boris supporters. Btw: Dentists advise changing their toothbrushes regularly.

You talk of the hypocrisy of "Liebour" supporters whilst casually dismissing Johnson's lies to parliament amongst others as "piffling porkies". Laughable. Anyway, your preoccupation with the actions of a Labour PM - which I don't condone before you or any other Johnson apologists seek to divert attention to him yet again - proves my point. Actually, I'll correct myself: As you show, the defence of Johnson consists of a combination of 'Blair' and 'Balatelli' (Why always me?). It's always someone else's fault. Like Johnson himself, it appears that his followers cannot take accountability and responsibility for a defence of his actions.

Probably mostly Russian ex-pats????

You're right but so what? How does that negate my implied accusation that Johnson was responsible for wasting a vast amount of money and resources on a badly thought out, badly managed and ultimately failed project?

Thanks for posting the link. You claim that Johnson should bear little responsibility for this failure? All of the following bridge related events happened either whilst Johnson was Mayor of London, as a result of his actions or with his agreement (taken from the article). ------------------------- In December 2014, Boris Johnson approved the scheme to build the bridge, Ongoing annual maintenance costs for the bridge between £2 - £3.5 would be paid by the GLA The failed project cost £53m, including £43m of public money. During the 2016–2017 review conducted by Dame Margaret Hodge for the Mayor of London, it was concluded that the appointments in 2013 (during the procurement process) "were not open, fair or competitive procurements … and [her review had] revealed systematic failures and ineffective control systems at many levels" Hodge also concluded that the only parties to express support for the bridge were Boris Johnson, the Garden Bridge Trust (the prospective owner of the bridge) itself and the Evening Standard while, on the other hand, "hostility" to the bridge was "substantial" In January 2017, the trustees of the Garden Bridge Trust (the limited company behind the project) said they were unable to conclude that the trust was a going concern.