John Rumm wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

If Johnny wants a shag with a consenting shagger, that is his
business; a non-story.


Why are you defending him?

He figures if fatty two jabs can get laid there might even be hope for
him!


Only in Drivel's dreams.

His only reason to own an SDS is to chisel himself out of bed in the
morning.


Cheers

Tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article . net,
Paul Herber wrote:
2 Jags is dribble's role model. Dribble would love to look and behave
like him?

Maybe dribble fears that he may be a 2 jags' love child

Pity

snip senility

I'm sure he will be listening to his Val Doonigan and Peters and Lee LPs
later. That will be good for him.

On Tue, 9 May 2006 14:34:47 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):



Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business.


OK.. So if he makes any moralistic pronunciations in the future, we can
take it that you'll condemn him, and equally if anybody from the opposition
benches does anything similar, you will not criticise them in any way?

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 May 2006 14:34:47 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):

Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business.

OK..

Matt, that right...Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business.

He himself has admitted that he "acted stupidly". You tell him
he's wrong, 'cos no-one else is about to.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business.

He himself has admitted that he "acted stupidly".

Still nothing to do with us. His business. If Johnny wants a stupid shag
then thats his business, not ours.

On Tue, 9 May 2006 23:40:17 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business.

He himself has admitted that he "acted stupidly".

Still nothing to do with us. His business. If Johnny wants a stupid shag
then thats his business, not ours.


Given that everything he does is stupid, that leaves plenty of scope, of
course. No doubt he won't be commenting about Michael Heseltine in
future....

He also now claims to have only one car. Johnny one note? See how the
mighty are fallen

Tim S wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:

Has "lost his department". Good. Will it affect the making of
any more stupid laws, I wonder.

That leaves John free to eat all the pies and pursue his other "hobbies".

Until they need to wheel him out for the Gateheads campaign come the general
election.

Rumour has it that when Tory is forced to resign, John will be moving
to the beanfest called the EU (aka: eat up.)

He has been in meetings most of the time since his removal from tea
break overseer. HP have decided to close UK production and increase
productionat its site in Holland. There are rumours that a well known
pork pie maker is also thinking of relocation.

Dr Drivel wrote;
Matt, have you looked in this alleged black book? Where is it kept?
What
did it say?


Hmm,
Got sight of black book.
p128, extract
"Got up today and low and behold it seems that having nothing to do and
doing nothing is surprisingly harder than having something to do and
doing nothing. Still trawled internet and it seems I have become the
subject in a diy google group. Cheered me up a bit as I have a loyal
follower. Some Dr fellow, goes by the name drivel. Strange name that
for a Dr. Ah well did a search on him. It turns out a complete and
utter ******, ah well"

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 May 2006 23:40:17 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business.

He himself has admitted that he "acted stupidly".

Still nothing to do with us. His business. If Johnny wants a stupid shag
then thats his business, not ours.

Given

Matt, Johnny shagging is his business not ours.

"legin" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dr Drivel wrote;
Matt, have you looked in this alleged black book? Where is it kept?
What
did it say?

Hmm,

Legin have you been trying have a shag as well?

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote...
Doctor Drivel:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business.

He himself has admitted that he "acted stupidly".

Still nothing to do with us. His business. If Johnny wants a stupid shag
then thats his business, not ours.

Given

Matt, Johnny shagging is his business not ours.

He thinks it's our business. T. Blair thinks it's our business.
Plod is investigating to see whether it's any of their business.

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote...
Doctor Drivel:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business.

He himself has admitted that he "acted stupidly".

Still nothing to do with us. His business. If Johnny wants a stupid
shag
then thats his business, not ours.

Given

Matt, Johnny shagging is his business not ours.

He

Johnny shagging is his business not ours.

On 10 May 2006 12:53:36 +0200, Chris Bacon
wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote...
Doctor Drivel:
"Chris Bacon" wrote...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business.

He himself has admitted that he "acted stupidly".

Still nothing to do with us. His business. If Johnny wants a stupid shag
then thats his business, not ours.

Given

Matt, Johnny shagging is his business not ours.

He thinks it's our business. T. Blair thinks it's our business.
Plod is investigating to see whether it's any of their business.

I understand that the 'police' have decided that an investigation of
the Prescott affair would not be an 'appropriate use' of police
resources. This seems particularly interesting as other instances of
sexual activities by civil servants during 'working' hours have been
investigated, presumably by the police, and successfully prosecuted.
Is this example of one rule for the politicians and another for the
great unwashed?

Perhaps it is more profitable for the police to concentrate on
speeding motorists after all there is no profit for them in the
Prescott affair.

Is it surprising that the credibility and impartiality of the Police
is debatable?

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
I understand that the 'police' have decided that an investigation of
the Prescott affair would not be an 'appropriate use' of police
resources. This seems particularly interesting as other instances of
sexual activities by civil servants during 'working' hours have been
investigated, presumably by the police, and successfully prosecuted.
Is this example of one rule for the politicians and another for the
great unwashed?

Why would the police prosecute consenting sexual activity during working
hours anymore than other types of skiving off work?

FFS, get some perspective on life.

--
*I believe five out of four people have trouble with fractions. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Edward W.
Thompson writes

I understand that the 'police' have decided that an investigation of
the Prescott affair would not be an 'appropriate use' of police
resources.

That's quite true as the police have shown themselves time and time
again to be the political lackey's of the government of the day. They
are only doing what their political masters tell them. Or not doing, in
this instance.

This seems particularly interesting as other instances of
sexual activities by civil servants during 'working' hours have been
investigated, presumably by the police, and successfully prosecuted.
Is this example of one rule for the politicians and another for the
great unwashed?

It is yet another example of the rank hypocrisy of the police.

Perhaps it is more profitable for the police to concentrate on
speeding motorists after all there is no profit for them in the
Prescott affair.

Of course. Why is that in any way a surprise? It's nothing new!

Is it surprising that the credibility and impartiality of the Police
is debatable?

There is nothing *to* debate. The police have no credibility and they
are not impartial. End of story. Again, nothing new there.
--
Mr X

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
I understand that the 'police' have decided that an investigation of
the Prescott affair would not be an 'appropriate use' of police
resources. This seems particularly interesting as other instances of
sexual activities by civil servants during 'working' hours have been
investigated, presumably by the police, and successfully prosecuted.
Is this example of one rule for the politicians and another for the
great unwashed?

Why would the police prosecute consenting sexual activity during working
hours anymore than other types of skiving off work?

Don't remain ignorant all your life - find out what the common-law
criminal offence of "Misconduct in a public office" entails and you will
have your answer.
--
Mr X

In article ,
Mr X wrote:
Why would the police prosecute consenting sexual activity during working
hours anymore than other types of skiving off work?

Don't remain ignorant all your life - find out what the common-law
criminal offence of "Misconduct in a public office" entails and you will
have your answer.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section22/chapter_c.html

Seems they don't agree with you. And rightly so.

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

In article ,
Mr X wrote:
Why would the police prosecute consenting sexual activity during working
hours anymore than other types of skiving off work?

Don't remain ignorant all your life - find out what the common-law
criminal offence of "Misconduct in a public office" entails and you will
have your answer.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section22/chapter_c.html

Seems they don't agree with you. And rightly so.

On the contrary, the last part of section b covers it:

(b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts
himself.
--
Mr X

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 May 2006 21:53:01 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On 2006-05-08 18:48:33 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On 2006-05-08 16:16:01 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
said:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On 2006-05-08 12:59:22 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
said:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

He hasn't. He just had a shag.

On employers time, in their offices,

Not proven. He had a shag and that is his busines and his alone.
How
is Little Middle England today?

I guess that his wife might have a different view...

His personal family view not yours or mine. A non-story.

I know that he and you would

Snip Little Middle England Tripe

If Johnny wants a shag with a consenting shagger, that is his business;
a
non-story.

Why are you defending him?

Because it is none of our business at all. All he has done no wrong
except
have a shag with a consenting shagger. That is nothing to attack. A
non-story. No worth talking about. It is like talking about Johnny tying
up
his shoe laces.

If it weren't

snip Little Middle England poppycock

Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business.

None of our business because, er, I voted for him

"Homer2911" wrote in message
oups.com...

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 May 2006 21:53:01 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote
(in article
ews.net):


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On 2006-05-08 18:48:33 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
said:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On 2006-05-08 16:16:01 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
said:


"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On 2006-05-08 12:59:22 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
said:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

He hasn't. He just had a shag.

On employers time, in their offices,

Not proven. He had a shag and that is his busines and his alone.
How
is Little Middle England today?

I guess that his wife might have a different view...

His personal family view not yours or mine. A non-story.

I know that he and you would

Snip Little Middle England Tripe

If Johnny wants a shag with a consenting shagger, that is his
business;
a
non-story.

Why are you defending him?

Because it is none of our business at all. All he has done no wrong
except
have a shag with a consenting shagger. That is nothing to attack. A
non-story. No worth talking about. It is like talking about Johnny
tying
up
his shoe laces.

If it weren't

snip Little Middle England poppycock

Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business.

None of our business because, er, I voted for him

Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business no matter who you
voted for.

In article ,
Mr X wrote:
On the contrary, the last part of section b covers it:

(b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts
himself.

Err, what proof have you got he neglected his duty? He could have been
shagging in his tea break for all you know.

As for misconduct, it would depend on the interpretation of a court.

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

In article ,
Mr X wrote:
On the contrary, the last part of section b covers it:

(b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts
himself.

Err, what proof have you got he neglected his duty?

There is a prima facie case. A police investigation would then uncover
any proof if there was any. That's how it works, normally.

In this particular case, it seems the police are following the wishes of
their political masters and turning a blind eye to behaviour that would
land other public officers in court.

He could have been
shagging in his tea break for all you know.

As above

As for misconduct, it would depend on the interpretation of a court.

As above.

And there is also ample case history where numerous police officers have
been found guilty of misconduct in a public office for having sex while
on duty.

In addition there is ample case history from employment tribunals to
hold that sex in employer's time and on employer's premises is "gross
misconduct" and that instant dismissal is an appropriate penalty.

The fact that you take the attitude that you do in respect of Prescott's
misbehaviour speaks volumes for your own low standards of personal
behaviour, IMO.
--
Mr X

In article ,
Mr X wrote:
The fact that you take the attitude that you do in respect of Prescott's
misbehaviour speaks volumes for your own low standards of personal
behaviour, IMO.

How comfortable is your pulpit?

--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mr X wrote:
The fact that you take the attitude that you do in respect of Prescott's
misbehaviour speaks volumes for your own low standards of personal
behaviour, IMO.

How comfortable is your pulpit?

The topic of Prescott inevitably came up on Question Time on tv last night.
As Heseltine said (I paraphrase) having an adulterous affair does not in
itself justify being sacked. But making yourself and the office of Deputy
Prime Minister a nationwide laughing stock, should do.

As Private Eye pointed out, the old git has a history of putting his hand up
women's skirts, for decades. He assaulted a journalist Jaci Stephen in this
way on a public occasion. He is the worst sort of predatory oaf and it is
perhaps surprising that there haven't been complaints of sexual harassment
about him.

His position at the moment, with lots of perks but no real job, seems to be
as advisor and trouble-shooter between warring factions in the Labour Party
for which arguably he should be paid by the Labour Party rather than out of
the public purse. How can a working class socialist like him justify his
position? Well, seemingly he has no qualms about it. I still remember a
Parkinson interview in the late 1990s when Prescott just kept telling
Parkinson in a rather childlike way that he was amazed to have reached the
dizzy heights of cabinet after his humble beginnings and felt very proud of
himself. He isn't a statesman. If anything, he's a sort of mascot.

The Todal wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mr X wrote:
The fact that you take the attitude that you do in respect of Prescott's
misbehaviour speaks volumes for your own low standards of personal
behaviour, IMO.
How comfortable is your pulpit?

The topic of Prescott inevitably came up on Question Time on tv last night.
As Heseltine said (I paraphrase) having an adulterous affair does not in
itself justify being sacked. But making yourself and the office of Deputy
Prime Minister a nationwide laughing stock, should do.

As Private Eye pointed out, the old git has a history of putting his hand up
women's skirts, for decades. He assaulted a journalist Jaci Stephen in this
way on a public occasion. He is the worst sort of predatory oaf and it is
perhaps surprising that there haven't been complaints of sexual harassment
about him.

His position at the moment, with lots of perks but no real job, seems to be
as advisor and trouble-shooter between warring factions in the Labour Party
for which arguably he should be paid by the Labour Party rather than out of
the public purse. How can a working class socialist like him justify his
position? Well, seemingly he has no qualms about it. I still remember a
Parkinson interview in the late 1990s when Prescott just kept telling
Parkinson in a rather childlike way that he was amazed to have reached the
dizzy heights of cabinet after his humble beginnings and felt very proud of
himself. He isn't a statesman. If anything, he's a sort of mascot.


Court jester..Oh. No, that's Tony..

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

In article ,
Mr X wrote:

The fact that you take the attitude that you do in respect of Prescott's
misbehaviour speaks volumes for your own low standards of personal
behaviour, IMO.

How comfortable is your pulpit?

Diversion; smokescreen.

*You* are the one who says Prescott has done nothing wrong. People might
then see that as a reflection of your own character. Get over it.
--
Mr X

In article ,
Mr X wrote:
The fact that you take the attitude that you do in respect of
Prescott's misbehaviour speaks volumes for your own low standards of
personal behaviour, IMO.

How comfortable is your pulpit?

Diversion; smokescreen.

*You* are the one who says Prescott has done nothing wrong. People might
then see that as a reflection of your own character. Get over it.

Where have I said he has done nothing wrong?

But to suggest involving the law in a bit of nookie between consenting
adults is going back to the dark ages. And says far more about those who
suggest the law should be involved than the act itself.

It may or may not be a disciplinary matter with his employer, but that's
an entirely different matter.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

In article ,
Mr X wrote:
The fact that you take the attitude that you do in respect of
Prescott's misbehaviour speaks volumes for your own low standards of
personal behaviour, IMO.

How comfortable is your pulpit?

Diversion; smokescreen.

*You* are the one who says Prescott has done nothing wrong. People might
then see that as a reflection of your own character. Get over it.

Where have I said he has done nothing wrong?

But to suggest involving the law in a bit of nookie between consenting
adults is going back to the dark ages. And says far more about those who
suggest the law should be involved than the act itself.

Circularity. It happens to be the law. Misconduct in a Public Office is
a very old common-law criminal offence. I've already commented on all
the points regarding that particular topic.

Goodbye!
--
Mr X

On Sat, 13 May 2006 09:58:15 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
had this to say:

In article ,
Mr X wrote:
The fact that you take the attitude that you do in respect of
Prescott's misbehaviour speaks volumes for your own low standards of
personal behaviour, IMO.

How comfortable is your pulpit?

Diversion; smokescreen.

*You* are the one who says Prescott has done nothing wrong. People might
then see that as a reflection of your own character. Get over it.

Where have I said he has done nothing wrong?

But to suggest involving the law in a bit of nookie between consenting
adults is going back to the dark ages. And says far more about those who
suggest the law should be involved than the act itself.

It may or may not be a disciplinary matter with his employer, but that's
an entirely different matter.

His employer being...?

--
Frank Erskine

In article ,
Mr X wrote:
But to suggest involving the law in a bit of nookie between consenting
adults is going back to the dark ages. And says far more about those who
suggest the law should be involved than the act itself.

Circularity. It happens to be the law. Misconduct in a Public Office is
a very old common-law criminal offence.

Then it's about time it was repealed or forgotten, like dunking witches in
the village pond.

I've already commented on all the points regarding that particular topic.

Good for you.

Goodbye!

And the same to you. Now **** off back to where you came from.

--
*If you ate pasta and anti-pasta, would you still be hungry?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
It may or may not be a disciplinary matter with his employer, but that's
an entirely different matter.

His employer being...?

'Tone' in the first place - he does the hiring and firing.

But Parliament at the end of the day.

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News) says...
In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
It may or may not be a disciplinary matter with his employer, but that's
an entirely different matter.

His employer being...?

'Tone' in the first place - he does the hiring and firing.

technically not, The Queen appoints her Ministers and Secretaries of
State etc...


But Parliament at the end of the day.

Parliament does not employ ministers. They cannot appoint or remove them
as such.

FR

"Flying Rat" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News) says...
In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
It may or may not be a disciplinary matter with his employer, but
that's
an entirely different matter.

His employer being...?

'Tone' in the first place - he does the hiring and firing.

technically not, The Queen appoints her Ministers and Secretaries of
State etc...


But Parliament at the end of the day.

Parliament does not employ ministers. They cannot appoint or remove them
as such.

FR

Concur; all the government ministers (the payroll vote) receive money for
salary off the Paymaster General with the authority of the Crown. Such
ministers as are Members of Parliament elected to the House of Commons forgo
part of their MP's salary. The money that two-Jags is receiving is from the
Paymaster General which he receives from the Treasury, who receives it off
HMCR ... who receives it off .... us!
'Tone' has promised Prescott that he will receive his perks, pay and
pension, so two-Jags will laugh all the way to the bank ... and the Revenue
would like us all to form an orderly queue as we continue to pay for him.

The question remains (unanswered) why?

--

Brian.

In article ,
Brian Sharrock wrote:
'Tone' has promised Prescott that he will receive his perks, pay and
pension, so two-Jags will laugh all the way to the bank ... and the
Revenue would like us all to form an orderly queue as we continue to
pay for him.

The question remains (unanswered) why?

Probably to give Brown the pleasure of sacking him?

--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Sharrock wrote:
'Tone' has promised Prescott that he will receive his perks, pay and
pension, so two-Jags will laugh all the way to the bank ... and the
Revenue would like us all to form an orderly queue as we continue to
pay for him.

The question remains (unanswered) why?

Probably to give Brown the pleasure of sacking him?

You honestly think Gordon will ever get to number ten? For a couple of
weeks maybe..
There is a ****load of economic trouble boiling up: Gordon can't escape
it...by the time he's in the frame, his name will be mud.

On Sat, 13 May 2006 14:45:28 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mr X wrote:
But to suggest involving the law in a bit of nookie between consenting
adults is going back to the dark ages. And says far more about those who
suggest the law should be involved than the act itself.

Circularity. It happens to be the law. Misconduct in a Public Office is
a very old common-law criminal offence.

Then it's about time it was repealed or forgotten, like dunking witches in
the village pond.

I've already commented on all the points regarding that particular topic.

Good for you.

Goodbye!

And the same to you. Now **** off back to where you came from.

You've been made to look like a loud mouthed buffoon (not that was
difficult) so perhaps you will do us all a favour and adopt your own
advice about 'f..ing off'. Please take Drivel with you when you go.

Recent records (prosecutions) indicate it is not lawful for the lower
levels of public servants to misbehave ( engage in sex in this case)
while on duty. However provided you are a member of the 'upper'
echelon in public service similar behavior becomes permissible, at
least to the extent of not being prosecuted. Why this inequality is
so vigorously defended by many contributors in this thread I find
curious. Perhaps an explanation is the UK is such a class ridden
society.

In article wrote...

Diversion; smokescreen.

Circularity

Are you under the delusion that we are all playing 'Just A Minute' here?

marc

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You honestly think Gordon will ever get to number ten? For a couple of
weeks maybe..
There is a ****load of economic trouble boiling up: Gordon can't escape
it...by the time he's in the frame, his name will be mud.

That rumour has been around for what - 10 years?

--
*Do paediatricians play miniature golf on Wednesdays?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
And the same to you. Now **** off back to where you came from.

You've been made to look like a loud mouthed buffoon (not that was
difficult) so perhaps you will do us all a favour and adopt your own
advice about 'f..ing off'.

Glad to have been of service.

Please take Drivel with you when you go.

Who he?

If you don't like anyone on here just killfile them and don't make
yourself look such a self righteous prat.

There are plenty of more suitable groups to wallow in the moral decline of
the country if that's what floats your boat.

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.