A mole in the pocket is worth ....

[jamesedwards]

Social media has become an amphitheatre of political partisanship. Participants scrabbling around for any titbit they can leverage to justify their own personal agenda.

[firlandsfarm]

You never had an issue with Boris the Liar having a secret meeting with Sue Gray, while she was investigating him!

That's because I never saw it as 'secret' ... it was you who dressed it up as much as you could to claim it was secret and tried to make capital from your own exaggeration.

[Derek27]

You never had an issue with Boris the Liar having a secret meeting with Sue Gray, while she was investigating him!

That's because I never saw it as 'secret' ... it was you who dressed it up as much as you could to claim it was secret and tried to make capital from your own exaggeration.

It was a secret meeting in that it should never have taken place behind parliament's back and resulted in her inquiry losing all credibility.

[firlandsfarm]

It was a secret meeting in that it should never have taken place behind parliament's back and resulted in her inquiry losing all credibility.

Well that's your opinion which you are of course entitled to but that doesn't mean you are right despite the LL mantra of always correct! My opinion is that there are many meetings that take place that they are not publicised does not mean they are 'secret' ... do you tell everyone of every meeting you have or are they 'secret'?

Anyway it's good to see that you agree her report has lost all credibility, at least that's something we can agree on!

[Derek27]

It was a secret meeting in that it should never have taken place behind parliament's back and resulted in her inquiry losing all credibility.

Well that's your opinion which you are of course entitled to but that doesn't mean you are right despite the LL mantra of always correct! My opinion is that there are many meetings that take place that they are not publicised does not mean they are 'secret' ... do you tell everyone of every meeting you have or are they 'secret'?

Anyway it's good to see that you agree her report has lost all credibility, at least that's something we can agree on!

A secret meeting is a meeting you don't want people to know about. It's obvious to anyone with a few brain cells they wanted to keep that under wraps. But whether it was secret or not is a moot point - the meeting should never have happened.

[firlandsfarm]

A secret meeting is a meeting you don't want people to know about.

And your reliable source for this is?

It's obvious to anyone with a few brain cells they wanted to keep that under wraps.

Well clearly I don't have the requisite number of brain cells!

But whether it was secret or not is a moot point - the meeting should never have happened.

You mean like Sue Gray's appointment should never have happened?

[Derek27]

A secret meeting is a meeting you don't want people to know about.

And your reliable source for this is?

Derek's Dictionary for Children.

As I've said, it's pointless arguing about the definition of words. It was a meeting that took place in secret/private/without public knowledge, you can call it whatever you want.

It's obvious to anyone with a few brain cells they wanted to keep that under wraps.

Well clearly I don't have the requisite number of brain cells!

Yes, we can agree on that.

But whether it was secret or not is a moot point - the meeting should never have happened.

You mean like Sue Gray's appointment should never have happened?

It's really simple firlandsfarm. When I was on jury service if I bumped into the defendant and had a drink with him and kept quiet about it (secret meeting), if found out, the case would collapse and I would most likely receive a prison sentence for contempt of court. Whether or not the case was discussed would be irrelevant.

But, if I met him now, there's nothing illegal about having a drink with him (not that I'd want to) so long as I don't mention the contents of what was said in the jurors' room. You're oversimplifying by thinking if A can talk to B, why can't B talk to C?

If I were Starmer I would not touch Sue Gray with a barge pole. That said, top civil servants only need to be impartial while in the job. Nothing wrong with resigning and running to be an MP or any other political position.

[firlandsfarm]

Derek's Dictionary for Children.

Well that explains a lot'.

It was a meeting that took place in secret/private/without public knowledge

So you define that any meeting that is not publicised is a secret meeting. That must mean there are millions of "secret meetings" in the UK every day! I suspect every meeting I've ever attended (and there were many in my business life) was a "secret" one ... I cannot remember ever 'publicising' a meeting. Yes?

you can call it whatever you want.

As you have done to suit your stance.

You're oversimplifying by thinking if A can talk to B, why can't B talk to C?

I love it when people claim they know more about what I'm thinking than I do! BTW I would never apply such poor logic and I hope you don't to your trading.

If I were Starmer I would not touch Sue Gray with a barge pole. That said, top civil servants only need to be impartial while in the job. Nothing wrong with resigning and running to be an MP or any other political position.

So what's your problem that I criticised the appointment if you are also critical of it ... seems you just want to stir things up! Anyone with knowledge of 'behind closed doors' dealings in politics should be prevented from taking a position where the knowledge gained would be useful to their new position until sufficient time has passed such that the 'value' of that knowledge has diminished.

[Derek27]

It was a meeting that took place in secret/private/without public knowledge

So you define that any meeting that is not publicised is a secret meeting. That must mean there are millions of "secret meetings" in the UK every day! I suspect every meeting I've ever attended (and there were many in my business life) was a "secret" one ... I cannot remember ever 'publicising' a meeting. Yes?

Can you not read firlandsfarm? That was not a definition. I gave a definition in my previous post, and as I keep saying, what you call the meeting is irrelevant. You're getting really pedantic.

For the record, a secret meeting is one that you DO NOT WANT one or more people to know is taking place, NOT a meeting that others are not aware of.

You're oversimplifying by thinking if A can talk to B, why can't B talk to C?

I love it when people claim they know more about what I'm thinking than I do! BTW I would never apply such poor logic and I hope you don't to your trading.

You have used that logic. You think because you have meetings without others knowing it's okay for the buffoon to meet his investigator without others knowing!

If I were Starmer I would not touch Sue Gray with a barge pole. That said, top civil servants only need to be impartial while in the job. Nothing wrong with resigning and running to be an MP or any other political position.

So what's your problem that I criticised the appointment if you are also critical of it ... seems you just want to stir things up! Anyone with knowledge of 'behind closed doors' dealings in politics should be prevented from taking a position where the knowledge gained would be useful to their new position until sufficient time has passed such that the 'value' of that knowledge has diminished.

I don't have a "problem" with you criticising the appointment and I'm not critical of it, I just said I wouldn't appoint her. I don't criticise people for placing bets that I wouldn't. I was critical of your belief that a birthday cake has any relevance to the situation, with my biscuit analogy.

[firlandsfarm]

You're getting really pedantic.

For the record, a secret meeting is one that you DO NOT WANT one or more people to know is taking place, NOT a meeting that others are not aware of.

Well I'm sorry if being pedantic makes it difficult for you but isn't the question of a 'secret meeting' where we started on this sub-topic ... what proof do you have that the participants "DO NOT WANT" others to know about it?

You have used that logic. You think because you have meetings without others knowing it's okay for the buffoon to meet his investigator without others knowing!

Can't you read Derek27? Maybe that explains why your only way to make a point is to think you know what I'm thinking more than I do! Do try again.

I don't have a "problem" with you criticising the appointment and I'm not critical of it, I just said I wouldn't appoint her. I don't criticise people for placing bets that I wouldn't. I was critical of your belief that a birthday cake has any relevance to the situation, with my biscuit analogy.

The way I compare it is the LL claim a glass of wine and a piece of cake with those you share the work environment is criminal whereas a glass of beer and a curry with 'strangers' you do not share a work environment with is perfectly OK. Where is the logic in that?

Anyway, I have made my point in this thread and can see no personal advantage in continuing to point out the contradictions in your claims so I have no intention of continuing this debate ... It's been fun.

[Derek27]

You're getting really pedantic.

For the record, a secret meeting is one that you DO NOT WANT one or more people to know is taking place, NOT a meeting that others are not aware of.

Well I'm sorry if being pedantic makes it difficult for you but isn't the question of a 'secret meeting' where we started on this sub-topic ... what proof do you have that the participants "DO NOT WANT" others to know about it?

It's blindingly obvious. If you were on trial, would you want people to know that you've been talking to a member of the jury?

You have used that logic. You think because you have meetings without others knowing it's okay for the buffoon to meet his investigator without others knowing!

Can't you read Derek27? Maybe that explains why your only way to make a point is to think you know what I'm thinking more than I do! Do try again.

You're doing what you're accusing me of doing. I just said you've used that logic, you're now telling me what I'm thinking!

I don't have a "problem" with you criticising the appointment and I'm not critical of it, I just said I wouldn't appoint her. I don't criticise people for placing bets that I wouldn't. I was critical of your belief that a birthday cake has any relevance to the situation, with my biscuit analogy.

The way I compare it is the LL claim a glass of wine and a piece of cake with those you share the work environment is criminal whereas a glass of beer and a curry with 'strangers' you do not share a work environment with is perfectly OK. Where is the logic in that?

You need to ask the people you think said that. What they were eating and drinking is irrelevant, it was the nature of the meeting that's important, and the buffoon had about 20 parties so it's not comparable. I notice you're very quiet about the Abba party, in the buffoon's own flat!

[firlandsfarm]

Oh dear Derek, all three comments are questionable for many reasons but I said "no more" and I will not be drawn in. I concede that as an LL you must be correct.

[Derek27]

Oh dear Derek, all three comments are questionable for many reasons but I said "no more" and I will not be drawn in. I concede that as an LL you must be correct.

You said, "no more", you will not be drawn in, but you got drawn into posting a reply!

You're unable to say why my comments are questionable? There is absolutely nothing questionable about a juror talking to the defendant of the trial he's sitting on, but as you've acknowledged, you don't have the requisite amount of brain cells to understand that.

You are a right-wing lunatic that can only respond by calling me a LL, but at least I've given you a comprehensive reply. All you can do is argue about a cake, or the meaning of the word secret.

[firlandsfarm]

You said, "no more", you will not be drawn in, but you got drawn into posting a reply!

You're unable to say why my comments are questionable? There is absolutely nothing questionable about a juror talking to the defendant of the trial he's sitting on, but as you've acknowledged, you don't have the requisite amount of brain cells to understand that.

You are a right-wing lunatic that can only respond by calling me a LL, but at least I've given you a comprehensive reply. All you can do is argue about a cake, or the meaning of the word secret.

I wasn't 'drawn in' to the subject just as this isn't either, I just simply gave a polite reply as this is. And this is becoming difficult when you don't understand the difference between "unable" and "unwilling". But I'm sure you are a happy person.

[Kai]

Whenever these two get into an argument